OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 4 ...

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 December 2014

3077

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 4 December 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. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG 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 WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H. PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N. THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 December 2014 3078

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C. THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P. 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 WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S. THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING


3079

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.


THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P. IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S. MEMBERS ABSENT: DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE 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 FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING


3081

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY PROF SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH MR STEPHEN SUI WAI-KEUNG, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: 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 MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


MEMBERS' MOTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Members. The meeting now resumes to continue with the debate on the motion of adjournment moved under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Mr Charles Peter MOK, please speak. MOTION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE COUNCIL UNDER RULE 16(2) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 3 December 2014 MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, yesterday, from the afternoon to the evening, I listened to the debate on the motion of adjournment concerning the Police's handling of public assemblies from November to the enforcement of the injunction in Mong Kok. I feel that although Hong Kong faces such a great challenge now, most of the Members in the legislature and the officials representing the Government here are still not facing up to the problem and addressing it squarely. We only continue to speak according to our respective political stances. The people who oppose the Occupy Central movement will always give the Police their full support, no matter what the Police have done, whereas those people campaigning for universal suffrage will definitely lend their full support to struggles, whatever the extent. However, is this matter really as simple as that? If Members care to look at the situation objectively, they will find that in the last fortnight, and even in the video footages in recent news reports ― President, allow me to cite the clashes that happened in places not within the area covered by today's question, that is, Mong Kok, as the examples. Some examples may be related to the clashes that happened during the last weekend in Admiralty ― obviously, the Police's handling and the conduct of some police officers are consistent. They have similarly forgotten about their professional ethics, shown a loss of emotional control and used excessive force. Even though such instances occurred under provocation, they are still inappropriate.


3083

From news reports and videos, we could see that it was most likely that some of the violence had occurred without any provocation. President, of course, I do not mean all police officers were like this. As Ms Claudia MO said yesterday, there were also many good cops among them but such instances have indeed happened. In the last couple of days, we could hear many Members cite various examples, which also brought to mind the scenes we had seen on the television and computer screens: Someone said he would arrest and take a female protestor back to the police station to be raped. No matter what the circumstances were at that time, is such a remark acceptable? It is not acceptable even just to say so and think so, so can we treat this as though nothing had happened? Moreover, a police superintendent also arbitrarily used a baton to hit a member of the public who had lowered his head and was about to leave. The person holding the baton was even a senior police officer. He only lapsed into a momentary loss of control, but is this acceptable? Obviously, it was an active attack on someone who was unable to hit back, so hitting out like that can by no means be allowed. It would not do even to think about this, so can this be regarded as having never happened? However, the subsequent turn of events was that the Police suddenly arranged for the early retirement of this senior officer. Does it mean that people on their side could never do anything wrong, otherwise, morale would be affected, so they must be given backing no matter what? The video footage yesterday also reported the treatment given to a number of arrested people. The weather is cold now but the Police still switched on electric fans and had the fans blow at them. These arrested people also said that they had no blankets to cover themselves, such that they could only cover themselves with garbage bags to keep off the cold. A friend asked me if the police officers nowadays were perverted. I do not wish to criticize them in this manner but indeed, have they watched too many Hong Kong films produced in the 1980s that depict the police officers of the 1960s? They said that the treatment given to protestors nowadays was already quite good as it could be even worse. In that case, is this the way they actually treat suspects all along? Does our society find such barbaric behaviour acceptable? This should not even cross our minds but it turned out that in Hong Kong, a world city in the 21st century, this could still happen. In addition, I really found the comments made by the Secretary yesterday quite interesting. Now, he has become so consummate with his role that he is


now an "environmentally-friendly audio recorder" as what he says is always the same things. Moreover, his comments on this occasion are entirely the same as those made on the last. Only in this way can the principle of recycling and reuse be fulfilled. Audio recorders can be used repeatedly and as regards the audio tape, there is no need to record anything anew and it can be fully reused, so this is really environmentally-friendly. What we are debating now is whether or not the Police used excessive violence in handling the incident but this "environmentally-friendly audio recorder" called the Secretary only kept saying Occupy Central had affected the life of the public for more than 60 days. He only kept spinning this story and talking about the injunction orders, saying that the Police had the power to assist in the execution of the injunctions and that the scope specified in the injunctions did not affect the power of the Police to enforce the law. Does it mean that for this reason, excessive violence can be used? We are not discussing the injunction orders and whether or not the life of the public have been affected in the past 60 days or so. Even if the life of the public has been affected, does it mean that excessive violence can be used? Does it mean that it is legal to beat up people? Certainly, not all police officers did so but even if just a small number of police officers did so, do we find this acceptable? Can we turn a blind eye to it? However, the Secretary kept saying that those people had been involved in unlawful assembly and spelling out their wrongs, that for this reason, how right the Police were, that they had only lawfully exercised the power conferred on them by the law and that they had demonstrated the greatest tolerance possible. Therefore, the conclusion was that protestors had made Hong Kong pay a most costly price. Secretary, I reiterate once again that we are now debating the handling by the Police, including whether they used excessive violence or not, not the rights and wrongs of the Occupy movement. Even if the Occupy movement were wrong and those people were criminals, there is no reason for beating them up like that. Does one mean that since Mr HUI (a police spokesman) has been telling us every day not to go to Mong Kok, saying that it is a high risk area, if we still go there, we only get what we deserve and if we are beaten to death, we have ourselves to blame? Or does the Secretary actually mean that if people still want to go to that district, they have to pay the highest price with their bodies and that this is the sternest warning against them? Is this what he means? However, President, Mong Kok is after all part of urban Hong Kong, so many people really need to go there and even have to go back to their homes there. However, what did the Police do? When they saw passers-by in the streets, they carried out body searches on them and checked their bags wantonly.


3085

Even though people were just standing in the streets waiting for friends, they would be dispersed just for looking on. I once watched a video footage in a news report: In a street corner in Mong Kok, a member of the public asked a police officer what was happening ahead and whether or not it was safe. Of course, the police officer should tell him that it was not safe over there and not to go there, or ask him who he was and whether or not he needed to go home, so on, and so forth. However, at that time, the police officer did not answer directly in any way and only kept saying to him, "Go away, go away.". It turned out that police officers are also audio recorders. In the end, feeling resigned, that member of the public uttered one remark ― he was already very lucky as nobody struck him with a baton, and that police officer can also be considered to have applied restraint ― so this member of the public said, "I actually live here, sir.". In that case, who were the people who really caused obstruction and nuisances to the public? The Secretary is unwilling to address squarely the existing problems but at least, in his speech, he did not say that the behaviour caught on cameras and mentioned by a number of Members just now had never occurred or that those were isolated incidents and were acceptable. In that case, does it mean you admitted tacitly that those things had actually happened or that you have already done your utmost, so it amounts to an apology? However, we think your comments are only an attempt to divert attention and amount only to an irrelevant answer. In fact, they are completely the same as the comments made by you in the Legislative Council in relation to a similar question on the last occasion, that is, on the clashes that occurred previously. I think the Police still have this kind of the enemy-and-us mentality mentioned by me last time, that is, they are always right and people who cause them trouble are the enemies and using any tactics to deal with them is permissible and right because they will always have support. Therefore, once again, I call on the Security Bureau and the Police to face the existence and spread of this kind of highly dangerous culture of "the enemy and us". I am also very much afraid that this is precisely the malignant tumour that would turn Hong Kong into a truly unstable society. I do not deny that some protestors have used what I also consider to be excessive violence and I also do not approve of this kind of clashes. However, even so, does it mean that they can be struck violently on the back or be beaten on the most vulnerable parts of their body? Moreover, some of the people beaten up were not protestors at all. It is true that recently, police officers have been subjected to a great deal of pressure, so they vented their spleen on protestors


who were leaving and even passers-by. Is there no problem with that? We could see that even a university professor who was helping find a friend's son was also beaten up. He was obviously not a protestor, so can we tolerate this? Can society tolerate this? President, nowadays, even in respect of criminals, we cannot treat them in this way. Even people opposing the Occupy movement should not accept such behaviour. I know many people who oppose the Occupy Central movement and they told me we should leave the sites as soon as possible, but even these friends told me that on seeing such behaviour, they felt very unhappy and disapproved of it very much. President, given such a mentality of the Police, the Secretary and the Commissioner of Police ― of course, I should not criticize the Commissioner of Police because he has said nothing whatsoever but Secretary, you have spoken ― I am afraid that the Government, and even many Members of the pro-establishment camp, are still disregarding justice and creating rifts among social groups, but for what reason? They are going after political advantages. Of course, it is possible that the approach adopted in respect of this problem is intended to deal with those Members and political parties of the pan-democratic camp. However, does it serve to resolve the conflicts, the issues related to the occupation, the political issues and the issues related to genuine universal suffrage? Some Members of the pro-establishment camp even said, "If you say they beat you, just lodge a complaint.". Can Legislative Council Members turn a blind eye to it simply because of their political stances, merely say "just go and lodge a complaint" and think "that is it"? More importantly, it is the duty of the Legislative Council to monitor the Government, monitor the exercise of public powers by officials and government departments, including the Police. Obviously, the public powers and gear for applying force at the police's disposal cannot be matched by those at the public's disposal. As representatives of the public in the legislature, certainly, we should first protect the rights of ordinary members of the public and monitor any abuse of power. Certainly, it is not acceptable for anyone to make any false allegations against the Police either. However, if we can see something clearly on the television or computer screens, we must not cite the excuse that it has been edited. In sum, as a matter of policy, we must deal with and monitor any power


3087

abuse that may arise fairly, be it by the Police, other government departments or law-enforcement agencies, so as to bring about a fairer and more balanced state of affairs in society. I believe and hope that the Police can continue to make justice truly prevail in Hong Kong and I also hope that we in society will not blindly support the Police or those police officers who may have broken the rules just because we support or hope to see what we perceive to be the rule of law. Rather, we should make Hong Kong society truly more stable. I also wish to remind the public that we must look at this matter fairly. Otherwise, we will only see even greater injustice in society and as a result, society will be torn further apart. The 34th President of the United States, EISENHOWER, once said, "Though force can protect in emergency, …" ― what he meant was in times of war ―"… only justice, fairness, consideration and co-operation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.". Secretary, do you have such breadth of mind, or are you just like those police officers who cannot even control themselves, not daring face your own shortcomings and only maintaining obdurately that you are absolutely correct and that even the Police are absolutely correct and completely the embodiment of justice? Can the problem be solved in this way? Is this adequate? "Do not repay anyone evil for evil … If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all … for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads … Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." This comes from Romans 12. The Government cannot resolve the chaotic situation by calling for retreat on the one hand and using batons to beat and pepper based solution to drive away protestors on the other because the Government itself is actually the cause of the chaotic situation. Therefore, it is up to the Government to resolve this incident. The Police are only caught between a rock and a hard place. Therefore, the Government cannot condone the violation of rules by those police officers anymore or use the police to suppress the public. If the situation drags on like this, you may think you can get a single day of peace but you cannot get permanent peace. You will only stir up greater and greater conflicts. President, I so submit. Thank you.


MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, regarding the adjournment motion proposed by Dr Kenneth CHAN, who is not present in the Chamber now, in fact, similar topics have been discussed in the Council for many times in recent months. Though Honourable colleagues may not share the same views on the Police's handling of the illegal Occupy action and relevant incidents, there is one thing we cannot refute, that is, anyone doing anything must be compliant with the rule of law. The Police have to act in accordance with the law in law enforcement. No one can nor should transcend the rule of law. If someone accuses the Police of improper enforcement of the law, or even not abiding by the law in the course of law enforcement, we must respect the law and request for follow-up and handling through existing legal procedures. We should not on the one hand accuse police officers of not enforcing the law in accordance with it but on the other disregard the law ourselves and charge the Police violently and do other illegal acts. It is no different from a thief crying to catch a thief, which will absolutely not win any recognition and support. President, I would like to reiterate that I am opposed to Occupy Central. Even if someone tries to use seemingly lofty ideals and goals such as "love and peace" and "civil disobedience" to adorn the Occupy Central action with a halo of moral high ground, in an attempt to make people believe they are doing this for justice and for the good of Hong Kong, and no matter what flowery language they use to dress it up, it cannot cover up nor change the fact that Occupy Central is undoubtedly an illegal action. For more than two months in the past, the Police Force have been under tremendous physical and psychological pressure, which is not perceivable by many people. But overall speaking, the Police Force have been dedicated to their duties and displayed professionalism in striving to maintain order and safety in the Hong Kong community. I have noticed that the great majority of front-line police officers, despite unreasonable criticisms, abuses, provocation and even attacks from the unlawful Occupy Central participants, could still remain restrained and tolerant and maintain a high level of professional spirit and attitude in holding fast to their posts. On the contrary, I have also seen in many charging incidents, including the Police assisting the bailiffs in the execution of the injunction orders issued by the Court, the protestors completely ignored the police's warnings, violently charged the Police again and again, and even encouraged an escalation of the action and produced weapons themselves on the pretext of self-protection. In reality, I


3089

believe it was to facilitate them in attacking the Police Force and causing injuries to police officers. Unlawful acts like these should be condemned rather than upheld. President, as a Member we should never incite citizens to engage in illegal acts. But some Members have actually participated in these unlawful occupation actions, in defiance of the injunctions issued by the Court. They not only paid no heed to the rule of law, but at the same time encouraged and supported other occupiers to disobey the law and openly violate the injunctions issued by the Court. I believe this is not the attitude a Member should have ― they are legislators but do not know how to respect the law but knowingly break it. I believe no one would want our next generation to be lawbreakers. Therefore, I feel deeply regretful about some Members advocating such erroneous statements or even setting such incorrect examples of not observing law and order. President, the many clashes that occurred in Mong Kok recently were due to protesters defying law and order and attempting to obstruct normal traffic on the pretext of various pointless excuses. They also used shopping as an excuse to interfere with the business of shops, many of which had to close early to keep peace and suffered unnecessary losses. May I ask if this is supposed to happen in a civilized society upholding the rule of law? Do we want to see Hong Kong turn into a community where everyone disobeys the law? We should not let these lawbreakers completely damage our rule of law and destroy the core values on which we have built our success. We have to support the Police Force in effecting enforcement in accordance with the law. With these remarks, President, I oppose the motion. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, a debate on motion for adjournment was held in this Council on a similar question on 17 October. This time around, Dr Kenneth CHAN employed his old trick again by changing just a couple of words, casting doubts again on the law-enforcement actions taken by the Police in accordance with the law, including their assistance in executing the injunction orders in Mong Kok and handling of public assemblies. I wonder if the pan-democrat Members in this Council will continue to hype the same question again and again should the illegal Occupy action not come to an end. As a result, debates on motion for adjournment will become a norm and in this way Members of the opposition will be able to initiate the non-cooperation movement and delay the scrutiny of other important bills and the handling of


economic and livelihood issues. It is even more frustrating that some pan-democrat Members have not only talked drivel and distorted truths, but also turned a blind eye to the provocation of the Police and challenging of the rule of law by the unlawful occupiers. On the contrary, they accused the Police of provoking the protesters and clearing the sites by force, as well as condemning police officers as "black cops" and "police dogs". President, all these scenes remind me of a verse written by the master of Yuan Qu, MA Zhiyuan, "The crickets' chirping stops, I wake comfortable and snug; but when the rooster crows come cares in thousands never ceasing. When will it be through? I view ants parade in packed manoeuvres, chaotic swarms of bees that brew honey, and the furious din of horseflies seeking blood."1 Secretary LAI Tung-kwok, I believe that you and I, as well as many people who love Hong Kong, will lament with sighs that only when the crickets' chirping and chaotic sound stop can we sleep well. However, we still have to face never-ending disputes when we are woken up by the rooster's crowing. When will it be through? On Sunday evening, I witnessed the use of all sorts of gear by protesters on Lung Wo Road, including shields with nails embedded, to charge at the police officers like "ants parading in packed manoeuvres". It is even more outrageous that we can tell from the speeches made by some Members of the opposition that they were "seeking blood like the furious din of horseflies". On the one hand, they condemn the Police for launching the clearance operations, claiming they hated to see violence and, on the other, they are eager to see bloodshed, with a view to dealing a blow to the governance of the SAR Government and the credibility of the Police and challenging the rule of law. President, it has been more than 60 days since the outbreak of the unlawful Occupy action. In the beginning, roads were occupied by the protesters. Later, there were scenes of irrational and even physical clashes, and then the blatant defiance of the injunction orders issued by the Court by impeding the clearance of barricades by bailiffs. What is more, hard objects such as mills barriers were used to storm the Legislative Council. Not only did the siege initiated last Sunday of the Central Government Offices (CGO) run counter to the struggles which were initially claimed by the initiators to emphasize love, peace and non-violence, the violence involved was also escalating. 1 Anthology of Chinese Literature <courses.washington.edu/chin463/OwenSanqu.pdf>


3091

I believe Members could also see on the television screen that quite a number of protesters armed with helmets, goggles, umbrellas, surgical masks and even spiked shields were prepared to charge the Police cordon willfully. They even splashed ground pepper as well as sand on the ground to conceal nylon cords in a bid to trip police officers. In the end, 10-odd police officers were injured in the riot. It is even more abominable that an off-duty police officer passing by Admiralty was assaulted by a group of people in broad daylight. The consequences would have been catastrophic had he not been rescued by his colleagues and other police officers in a timely manner. Unfortunately, quite a number of pan-democrat Members have turned a blind eye in their speeches to the unlawful Occupy action which has changed in nature and tended to become increasingly violent. They have also failed to criticize the protesters for betraying such shared values as peace, rationality and non-violence. On the contrary, they cast doubts on and attacked the enforcement actions taken by the Police. These Members have not only treated the Police unfairly, but also demonstrated connivance and indulgence of evildoers in an attempt to play up the unlawful Occupy action. It must be borne in mind that the Occupy action is inherently illegal. Members of the public should simply not occupy roads and block traffic. The issue of injunctions by the Court in response to the applications made by non-government organizations over the occupied zones off the entrance of the CITIC Tower in Admiralty and in Mong Kok originally gave the occupiers a good opportunity to leave in a peaceful and orderly manner in the name of upholding the Court's authority. However, the reality did not turn out to be what we had wished, as the injunction orders issued by the Court were even defied by the protesters. It is even more regrettable and lamentable that some people who have received legal training, including some Members of the opposition in this Council, have even blatantly called on people not to abide by the civil injunctions, advocating that the rule of law is more than enacting and obeying the law. They think that even the court orders can be defied so long as the purpose of civil disobedience can be served. Moreover, according to them, the rule of law will not be undermined provided that the offenders turn themselves in afterwards. The words of these people are really nonsense. Undoubtedly, these acts of indulging in sophistry have harmed the spirit of the rule of law, even if we do not speculate the political motives of the speakers. Ordinary people can hardly imagine that these words could have been spoken by legal professionals and even Members of this Council. Even if they have


different political beliefs, the rule of law is, after all, the core value upheld by all Hong Kong people. We have regarded injunction orders issued by the Court as solemn since childhood, which must be respected and observed. If a person disagrees with the court judgment, the only feasible solution is to resolve the problem by legal means, rather than abiding by the law selectively under the pretext of the so-called civil disobedience. If the occupiers are allowed to encourage the public to defy court orders in support of the Occupy action this time around, it is absolutely possible for them to find another excuse to violate the law on the next occasion. Obviously, the dam of rule of law in Hong Kong has already been breached with an opening. The Legislative Council ought to seriously consider how best to make remedies expeditiously to reinforce the spirit of the rule of law afresh. President, the Police are an important force in maintaining the rule of law and social order in Hong Kong as they are responsible for law enforcement and the maintenance of law and order in a professional manner. However, it is worrying that they are attacked willfully or even demonized in the speeches delivered by some Members of the opposition in this Council. Moreover, they have been put in a position in confrontation with the public, be it intentionally or unintentionally. Certainly, Members of the opposition camp may have their own political aspirations and are free to express their dissatisfaction of all sorts. However, they should not pour oil on the flames by dealing blows wantonly to the ability of the SAR Government to govern and the power of the Police to take enforcement actions in accordance with law, thus intensifying the conflicts between the Police and the public. Members of the Legislative Council must distinguish right from wrong. I hereby call on the pan-democrat Members to change their course and cool down the incident. It is definitely not the wish of every sensible member of the public to see the incident slip towards the dangerous verge of sparking off an incident inadvertently, thereby resulting in a tragedy that no one would like to see. Members of the opposition camp in this Council and the unlawful occupiers on the streets are fond of carrying democracy and public opinion on their lips. However, what is the majority opinion now? With the Occupy action dragging on for two months, the impacts have become more and more negative, with the daily life and even livelihood of many people being affected. Many sectors, including the transport, logistics, tourism, retail, catering and even construction industries, have been affected to various extents. As a result, there are a lot of grievances in society. According to the opinion polls conducted by


3093

various universities in mid-November, more than 70% of members of the public considered that the occupiers should retreat immediately. An opinion poll administered by the Public Opinion Programme of The University of Hong Kong has even revealed that 68% of the respondents consider that the Government should clear the sites. I believe the opinion against occupation will only rise further after the clashes between the Police and the public caused by the siege of the CGO initiated by the student leaders last week. Is such a clear public opinion not enough to make Members of the opposition and the unlawful occupiers reflect seriously and make a right choice? The protesters have become so "ridiculous" that they have gone so far as to cause nuisances to shops and provoke shop assistants. What does all this have to do with the fight for universal suffrage? I believe only a small number of Members of the opposition with ulterior motives will support such despicable acts. President, as emphasized in my speech on the last occasion, Hong Kong belongs to all of us and in all matters, we should cherish harmony, so I sincerely hope that all parties, including the students and masses taking part in the protests, the SAR Government, people from all walks of life and Members of this Council, can all calm down and consider how the Occupy action can be concluded peacefully to enable society to restore its normal order as soon as possible. Can people who are truly concerned about and love Hong Kong bear to let society be riven for a long period of time? Can all of us seek common ground while preserving differences and strive for a proposal acceptable to the general public where circumstances are reasonable and possible, so as to elect the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017? Once again, I call for communication but not confrontation. President, as thousands of junks will sail past the sunk boat, springtime shall always lie ahead the dead wood bridge. Hong Kong people used to think that this was a true depiction of Hong Kong. However, after two months of occupation, quite a number of Hong Kong people and those who truly care about Hong Kong have become worried, saddened, angry and downhearted, fearing that Hong Kong will only become a sunk boat or a dead wood bridge. I would like to encourage these people and tell them that Hong Kong is still full of hope and we should not let a handful of lawbreakers shake our confidence. During the past two months, I was greatly inspired by some of the activities organized by young people. Some of these young people passed the torch by organizing leadership classes or operatic song activities, with a view to passing


on the tradition. Some of them also organized forums on industrial projects to enable experienced people to exchange experiences with university students. All of them are conscientious people opposed to the occupation activities and Occupy Central. I hope that they can pass on the torch, inherit Hong Kong's excellent traditions, abide by the law, help people on the same boat and work together to construct Hong Kong. President, I believe the storm under the Lion Rock would dissipate eventually and that a rainbow could be seen over Hong Kong again. President, I so submit. MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, the Occupy Central movement is initiated by the so-called Occupy Central Trio. Discussions on the movement started as early as more than a year ago. I think that while scholars have their beliefs and ideals and they are very idealistic. However, and in reality, the Liberal Party already said one year ago in the placards we placed on the streets that if Occupy Central happened, our international image and economy would be affected, the rice bowls of people would be broken, our society would be divided and the children would be taught wrong ideas. At times when I chatted with people from the pan-democratic camp, I would ask them if they could control the situation. Now my prophecy has come true. President, we already said these things one year ago. Today we discuss whether the Police have used excessive violence and whether or not excessive violence was used in the clearance operations. During these some 60 days, there have been clashes of various magnitudes. Recently, we can see that on two occasions, that is, 25 and 30 November, especially on the 30th, Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students were talking about how action could be escalated and there were plans to enlist more public participation. We can see that some of those participants were very organized. We could see on the TV that they were handing out helmets. If someone happened not to have a helmet, they would give that person one. And when a group of people were standing at the front, we could see that those behind were passing up shields to those at the front. When those in the first row all had the outfits, they would be prepared for charging. In those circumstances, what could the Police do? Bet if the Police sit down and do nothing and not enforce the law? What will Hong Kong become if that happens? The protesters have their demands to make but the Police also have to protect those of us who do not support or oppose what they are doing.


3095

President, it would be best to make comparisons. We all strive for democracy. The United States is a country which we all agree is advanced and democratic. However, in the recent case of a black youth in Missouri, how did the police officers in a democratic country like the United States deal with the protesters? They used not just batons, but also tear gas and flash grenades and fully armed National Guards. This is how a fully democratic country deals with the protesters. In comparison, what we see in Hong Kong is much milder. President, as early as two months ago in a meeting of the Panel on Security, the Secretary played us a video clip and it was something we had not seen before. The protesters were chasing after police officers and shouting in foul language. The Secretary did not delete those offensive words, that is, they were not silenced. It can be seen clearly how protesters were going after police officers and insulting them. Frankly speaking, police officers are also humans and they are also citizens of Hong Kong. What they were doing was just to protect Hong Kong and enforce the law so that this place would not be plunged into confusion. In these some 60 days, I am sure the Police, especially officers at the front line, faced all sorts of pressure. So various groups have used all sorts of ways to encourage the Police or show their support. An example is the Liberal Party joining hands with Friends of the Liberal Party from the catering sector to send soups to front-line police officers. This shows our regards. I hope this can send some warm feelings to those front-line police officers. President, some Honourable colleagues have said earlier that various opinion polls show that more than 80% ― as opposed to some 60% mentioned by certain Honourable colleagues ― of the interviewees think that the Occupy movement should come to an end. More than 70% of the people agree that the protest zones should be cleared. In the face of this majority demand from the public, I think the Police should be swift in clearing the protest zones and in a proper manner, in order to restore order in Hong Kong. From the viewpoint of some small shopkeepers, the recent clashes have given rise to individual incidents of bloodshed. And during these some 60 days, certain small shopkeepers in Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok have been bleeding every day as their business was seriously affected. They are bleeding and the situation has not yet stopped. I am sure most Members sitting here have patronized that Japanese restaurant in the CITIC Tower opposite this Complex. If you chat with the owner there, he will say that he has incurred losses amounting to some $3 million during the period. You can also go to that restaurant in Admiralty Centre and


chat with the boss. He will say that up to this moment, his restaurant has seen bookings of more than 1 000 tables cancelled. President, just think how much their business is bleeding? And we have not yet counted those small shop owners in Mong Kok. Many reporters have been interviewing these small shop owners who say that business has fallen by at least 30%, some even say by 90%. They think that things will improve after the clearance. But there are protesters making wildcat protests. When people say something that does not please them, they will disturb their shops. President, the small shop owners feel aggrieved when they face this kind of acts. There is a small group of people who wish to make their demands known. This is fine. But they should not affect other people. They want other people to pay the price and suffer losses in their business. Now the losses incurred have not yet stopped. What will the overall economy of Hong Kong become? Of course, I have no idea. So I hope people will not try to affect others by resorting to this kind of behaviour just to make their views known. It is because not only those people who oppose you will be affected, those who are neutral will also be affected as well. President, the Occupy Central Trio turned themselves in yesterday at last and some pan-democrat Members are calling upon the occupiers to leave. I hope this can make those protesters who have yet decided to leave to rethink whether or not it is time to go. Honestly, President, although many protesters are saying that they have not achieved anything as a result of their fight ― and it is a fact that they have not, I am sure the political ecology of Hong Kong has completely changed. Into the year 2015 when there will be elections for the District Councils and in 2016 when there are elections for the Legislative Council, though I do not think anyone can predict the results, the results may be beyond anyone's prediction and no one can tell what will happen. But there is one certainty, that is, the political ecology of Hong Kong has completely changed. President, I have just said that I hope as the Occupy Central Trio have turned themselves in, there will be more and more people doing the same and turning themselves in. The pan-democrats have urged protesters to withdraw and it is hoped that this Occupy movement can come to a conclusion soon. However, in reality although the Occupy movement is resolved, I am sure it will


3097

not help much as far as the problems in governance of the SAR Government are concerned. This is because people are not convinced and when added to the so-called non-cooperation campaign initiated by the pan-democratic Members of this Council, I believe the road ahead for the Legislative Council and the Government will be very tough, and so will the Government encounter difficulties in operation. I therefore urge the Government and the Chief Executive here to not just think about the word "executive-led". They should begin to mend the broken relationship with different political parties. That applies especially to parties on the pan-democratic side. There should be more dialogue so that this non-cooperation movement can come to an end soon and that the storms in this Council can subside. Only in this way will stability be restored in Hong Kong and the administration by Government be placed back on a smooth course. Thank you, President. I so submit. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, Mr Charles Peter MOK, the colleague who was the first to speak this morning, has on the one hand made certain remarks acknowledging the strenuous effort of the Police, while on the other, alleging in a hypocritical manner that the Police are psychos turning themselves from good to evil. When they spoke earlier on, they certainly criticized us, the pro-establishment camp, for knowing nothing but acknowledging the Police. But we nonetheless think that they have turned a blind eye to some undesirable behaviour or violent acts of individual protesters. Let us think about why we need to spend so much time on this discussion for no good reason. It all comes down to Dr Kenneth CHAN of the Civic Party magnifying certain acts of the Police in enforcing the law with a magnifier or microscope. If we truly wish to bring harmony to the prevailing social atmosphere and situation in Hong Kong so that everyone may have room to do things conducive to the social development of Hong Kong, at this stage, should we again discuss these situations and magnify certain acts for no good reason? Certainly, there are platforms in place. People may have a discussion at meetings of the Panel on Security, lodge a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Council, put forward their views to different community groups and make use of the platform provided by the Legislative Council.


On this platform provided by the Legislative Council, members of the public can witness various situations with their own eyes. Those speeches and examples given by all Members are actually broadcast on the television daily, including what Mr WONG Kwok-hing said yesterday, that he had even lost his appetite. Why is Hong Kong degraded to such a pitiful state? Among the members of the public who are no stranger to us, why did swarms of hundreds of them storm various areas or even confront police officers in a valiant manner,? We cannot help wondering if the pan-democrats have turned a blind eye to these acts. For this reason, I have risen to speak, on the one hand, to cheer the Police up, while on the other, to respond to Ms Claudia MO of the Civic Party, who claimed yesterday that Mr WONG Kwok-hing lacked evidence to support his allegation that the Civic Party was involved in the planning and promotion of Occupy Central, and that even though she was a founding member, she knew nothing about it. Nevertheless, at the beginning of this year, the Civic Party produced some leaflets with attractive design titled "no resignation in civil disobedience" and "legal support upon arrest", which on the one hand encouraged members of the public to participate in Occupy Central, while on the other, appealed to people to join the Civic Party. These leaflets also listed ten tactics for self-protection given the possibility of being arrested for participating in Occupy Central. In producing such well-illustrated leaflets with quite an attractive design, how can they possibly claim that they are not involved in the promotion and planning work? Their motive is evident to all. You people have turned the incident into a mess, wasting substantial time in magnifying the acts of individual police officers in the Legislative Council. Clearly, "the villain's design is obvious to all". Moreover, according to these leaflets, if an unlawful act serves to change the existing unjust system, then it will not run counter the spirit of the rule of law. There is no excuse for breaking the law. No matter how you package your motive to make it sound pleasant and noble, its illegal nature will not be altered. You people indicate that compliance with the law is the primary form of the rule of law. But in my opinion, it is also the most fundamental act and principle of the rule of law. If a person cannot even abide by the law, how can he go further to advocate the spirit of the rule of law?


3099

The incessant smears of the Police coming from you people do not escape the eyes of the public. Especially for what just happened on Sunday night, many people sweat in anxiety for the Police, wondering if they could cope with the situation. Individual protesters were highly professional and extremely valiant with superb organization ability. They even acted in a manner that caused people to tremble. I really do not know if the pan-democrats can repeat their smears of the Police to the kind-hearted general public. I just wonder if they dare do so without feeling guilty. What is the purpose of smearing the Police? One reason is certainly related to your political stance. But on the other hand, are you up to something? According to some, this is a colour revolution attempting to overthrow the regime. By smearing the Police, conflicts will arise between members of the public and law enforcers. Consequently, members of the public will become hostile towards law enforcers and defy the law, resulting in an eventual paralysis of the regime, which is the intended outcome of a colour revolution. Surely, no one will admit this, but the steps taken in the process are indeed similar to the ongoing colour revolutions in other countries. The Occupy Central promoted by the Civic Party or the so-called "peaceful, rational, non-violent and foul-language free approach" proposed by the pan-democratic camp is nothing but an illusion. A peaceful person will not act valiantly. If rationality does exist, court orders will not be disobeyed, and there will not be frequent use of foul language and widespread clashes. All these cannot escape the eyes of the public. As for Mong Kok, a clearance operation has commenced. I think the most fundamental point is that affected members of the public and bodies have petitioned the Court for an injunction. Let us see how various Judges comment on this so-called civil disobedience movement. High Court Judge Hon Mr Justice Thomas AU stresses in his judgment continuing the interim injunction that every resident and the government alike should obey and comply with the law. Worryingly, there have been open suggestions by some legally trained public figures to others that the rule of law is not undermined if they disobey the law first and then accept the consequences. These suggestions are simply wrong and incorrect. He stresses that if anyone is not happy with the Court's ruling, instead of disobeying it, they should seek to challenge it in court in accordance with the law.


The Judge makes the directions in his judgment that the bailiff be authorized to request the assistance of the Police, and the Police be authorized to arrest any person in breach of the injunction and bring them before the Court for further directions. However, Hon Mr Justice AU makes it clear that the Police have actually been empowered under the Police Force Ordinance to arrest a person suspected of being guilty of offences punishable by imprisonment. Therefore, the relevant direction is only to restate what the law has empowered the Police to do rather than an additional authorization. Another Judge, Hon Mr Justice Jeremy POON, on the other hand indicates that the Occupy action is avowedly a form of civil disobedience. The demonstration in question based on civil disobedience has taken place for so long, in such a scale which has affected so many people and which has the real risk of turning into civil disorder. He does not think the fact that the demonstration is civil disobedience, no matter how noble the underlying cause is, can constitute a factor which militates against the granting of an injunction. Even though the defendants may wish to raise the defence that they are exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of speech, assembly and demonstration, the Occupy action has caused an obstruction which is far exceeding the bounds of what is reasonable in light of the length of the demonstration, the extent of the demonstration and the increasingly violent confrontations between the protesters and the Police. Judges Hon Mr Justice Andrew CHEUNG and Hon Mr Justice Johnson LAM identify with the above observations of both Judges, and affirm that the relevant direction does not confer additional power on the Police. They also reiterate that even if the protesters consider that they have a noble cause, they are not entitled to trampling upon the rights of others. This is the essence of the rule of law which Judges must uphold. I will recap the statements and judgments of the above Judges as follows:

(1) There is no excuse for breaking the law. All are equal before the law. You will not be spared the obligation of complying with the law for reason of your personal view on justice or capacity as a protester;


3101

(2) The Police have been empowered to maintain law and order and arrest persons who may have violated the law under the Police Force Ordinance; and

(3) This movement has the risk of turning into civil disorder.

For all of these reasons, what is wrong with the Police in enforcing the law? If individual police officers have committed misconduct, the pan-democrats or affected parties are advised to address the issue under the existing complaint procedures rather than smearing the Police Force as a whole or questioning the rationale behind the law-enforcement actions of the Police. I call on Hong Kong people to browse the website of the Hong Kong Police Force on which there are two buttons for "like" and "dislike". We hope that Hong Kong people, including the pan-democrats, will treasure our long-standing professional Police Force and regulatory regime, and address various problems or people's divergent impressions of the Police under the existing system. Of course, I must hereby acknowledge the work of the Police. Besides, there is one thing that may have drawn less attention. The Police Force just convened a press conference in July or August, pointing out that the overall law and order situation in the first half of 2014 saw sustainable improvement. A total of 33 916 cases of crime were recorded, representing a decrease of 6% when compared with last year. On the basis of figures for the first half year, the crime rate has reached a record low since 1980, representing the lowest crime rate in 34 years. With the local population reaching some 7 million, a large influx of tourists as well as frequent social and commercial activities, the Police Force should indeed be commended for keeping such a low crime rate in Hong Kong. Let me further talk about the international standard. But I will discuss the international standard on crime rates instead of enforcement. Singapore is really outstanding. Their overall crime rate per 100 000 population is 584 cases in 2012, while ours is 1 061 cases, which seems to be 40% or 50% more than their figure. Let us look at New York. Their overall crime rate per 100 000 population is 2 361 cases. Members may think that Canada is a peaceful country, but the figure of Toronto stands at 5 271 cases. What about London of


the United Kingdom, which has just attempted to interfere with Hong Kong affairs? They have recorded 9 500 cases. What about Paris, a romantic metropolis embedded with French revolutionary compassion? They have recorded 10 455 cases. Given the fact that the figure of Hong Kong as a metropolis just stands at 1 061 cases, the Police must indeed be commended. Surely, the Police also deserve credits for their performance on certain occasions. Yesterday, I attended a function held by staff unions of the disciplined forces. They mocked themselves as "ZHONG Wuyan" (鍾無艷)2, meaning that they were not particularly welcome by the community, and especially in recent days, some people did not like them much. But when trouble strikes, they would be asked to help. As seen in the footage circulating online, Joshua WONG ― no, it should be Alex CHOW ― was cursed at a bus stop by some members of the public, accusing him of turning Hong Kong into a mess. Eventually, he had to seek police assistance to escort him in leaving the bus stop. This goes with the saying "In difficult times one turns to people who are helpful but not pleasing". I think we can certainly use a better metaphor. In my opinion, the disciplined forces can be compared to oxygen. Their existence is unnoticed on usual days, but Hong Kong society as a whole will be unable to function without them. Finally, I hereby read out the oath of office of Hong Kong police officers, hoping that Hong Kong Police and all police officers can pull their weight in keeping with the oath. The oath goes like this: "I will well and faithfully serve the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region according to law as a police officer, that I will obey, uphold and maintain the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that I will execute the powers and duties of my office honestly, faithfully and diligently without fear of or favour to any person and with malice or ill-will toward none, and that I will obey without question all lawful orders of those set in authority over me." They will remain steadfast in their post on the strength of lawful orders, and behave honestly, faithfully and diligently without fear of or favour to any person and with malice or ill-will toward none (The buzzer sounded). I so submit. I wish to share the above with all Members, and together we shall go forward. Thanks.

2 A female leading character in Chinese opera whose service was summoned wherever the king was in

trouble


3103

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, both yesterday and today, I heard a number of Members from the pro-establishment camp make much condemnation and criticism of the incidents that took place since Scholarism's return to the Civic Square. They particularly accused the protesters of unlawfully blocking the roads and coming to a standoff with the Police during which they assaulted police officers, and the situation seemed to have gone out of control. They also criticized us for our one-sided condemnation of the Police's excessive use of force and breach of guidelines, and our call for a thorough inquiry into the incident, thinking that we have given people a feeling of "a thief accusing others of theft". Besides, they also accused the pan-democrats of being biased in favour of the protesters and adopting a one-sided approach to dismiss the Police's law enforcement as unjustifiable. According to them, even if some protesters caused trouble at a chain fashion store in Mong Kok a few days ago, the pan-democrats have made no criticism of it, seemingly conniving at and encouraging such acts. President, I hereby make my stance clear. President, I believe you must be well aware of the idea and commitment which have long been upheld by the Occupy Central Trio from the beginning to the moment they turned themselves in yesterday. They call for love and peace in this fight. The concept of "love and peace" has honestly won widespread support and recognition from the public, including me. Hence, many people have participated in the action this time around, and for this reason, I believe every one of them strongly disapproves of the use of violence in launching this movement. President, I hereby strongly condemn all acts involving the use of violence. And as regards the ones alleged to have caused trouble at a chain fashion store as criticized by a number of Members earlier on, I also state my strong condemnation, and call on them not to commit similar acts again. The employee is just doing his job and there is nothing wrong about it. In my opinion, even if he has something to say about processions and demonstrations, he should not be subjected to unreasonable treatment for holding divergent views. President, today we are fighting for democracy, and democracy is something more than the concept of ensuring a fair, impartial and equal electoral system. What is most essential is that we must respect the freedom enjoyed by all members of the community in expressing their views and stances about a


certain issue or political incident instead of coercing them by violent means into supporting or opposing certain political advocacy and stances. Only by so doing can we live up to the goal of fighting for democracy. We do not want our society to become a place where some people have "all the say", nor is it our intention to suffocate the freedom of expressing certain ideas. Hence, I think I am obliged to condemn those acts, and make a strong call against the recurrence of similar incidents. Otherwise it will only leave people a feeling that we, on the one hand, openly declare that we are fighting for democracy, while on the other, we suppress supporters of the other side with autocratic and hegemonist beliefs. I think this is unjustifiable, unfair and improper. President, although I have put forward my views, it does not mean that I will tolerate the series of violent acts of the Police against the protesters. The series of violent acts of the Police do not just target the protesters. Some reporters and innocent members of the public have also suffered. I think both the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary for Security should be held responsible for such irrational violent acts. The primary reason is that they often keep saying that the Police may deal with the protesters with minimum force. Such words actually imply that they allow the Police to exercise the relevant power, so that the police officers may apply violence on the protesters with the approval of their supervisors. President, we understand that the Police are paid out of the public purse, and they have also received professional training including emotional management. Therefore, they should not have lost control and beaten the masses. Many people have repeatedly said that the Police can arrest them if they break the law, but they should not beat them. But today, we can see that in many scenarios, the Police have not only arrested protesters, but also beaten them. President, I believe you are well aware of the assault on a member of the public by seven police officers in a dark corner. If this incident had not been captured by camera, would it have come to our knowledge? If the member of the public had filed a complaint, would it have been addressed squarely? I believe all of you will know the answer. But I believe this is not an isolated case, nor will it be the only one. Many of them are just not captured by camera.


3105

A lot of members of the public keep complaining that they are beaten during arrest, or wildly assaulted by police officers non-stop. And as seen on the television screen, many people suffered head injuries and were bleeding. President, it is certainly not my intention to "get them tarred by the same brush". Not every officer of the Police behaves like that. But as a matter of fact, some police officers have indeed committed such acts. Hence, I hereby solemnly demand the Secretary for Security and the Commissioner of Police to give an open instruction that all police officers must no longer use violence against the protesters. If the Police truly think that the protesters have broken the law, they may arrest them, but never assault them. In fact, President, when a government or regime is unable to convince its people by reasoning, it will usually resort to violence to make its people submit in fear. I think today's Hong Kong is a typical example. When the public have made their aspirations clear and that objectively, there is a genuine need to save Hong Kong with democracy, our rulers nonetheless resort to violence for fear that they will lose what they have got in hand, attempting to keep all existing things intact. President, at this moment, doubtless the Government can become the winner because the power is in its hand. However, I consider it merely a transient victory, and the eventual victory will always be on the people's side. I think that if we wish to resolve the problems amid the situation today, an expression with which everyone is familiar will come in handy, and that is "whoever started the trouble should end it". The major reason for the people to come forward today is that our "high degree of autonomy" is not only left unprotected, but also subject to continual erosion. The Basic Law has set out clearly that we will be given a democratic system, but this promise has been delayed time and again and left unfulfilled, thus rendering the assurance of "a high degree of autonomy" a lie. President, if Members refresh their memory, they should recall that every time when people talked about the reunification back then, they would surely mention "one country, two systems, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy". Only by such words can they gain people's heart and acceptance. However, this promise is now subject to continual damage and erosion. The underlying problems have indeed led to incessant intensification of


social conflicts. Hence, these situations must be eliminated, so that we will be given a genuine democratic system, and that the people will truly enjoy "a high degree of autonomy" in governing Hong Kong society. Otherwise these problems will only remain. Certainly, it is by no means easy to resolve the deep-rooted social conflicts. These problems will only remain if we lack the sincerity and determination to solve them. In view of all this, I earnestly advise the rulers to, through the experience of this incident, seriously reflect on ways to genuine implement the "one country, two systems, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy" proposed by them, so as to gain public acceptance. President, I so submit. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, in their speeches earlier on many colleagues talked about the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is a topic that has been continuously brought up for discussion particularly over the last couple of months. Certainly, when it comes to the rule of law, compliance with the law is an important element, but if Members consider that a breach of law alone is tantamount to damaging the rule of law in Hong Kong, I think Members know deep down in their hearts that this saying is absolutely biased. It reflects an incomplete perception of the rule of law in Hong Kong which also underrates the basis of the rule of law in Hong Kong. If it is said that a breach of law alone will damage the rule of law in Hong Kong, as the Court deals with various types of criminal cases of varying scales every year, does it mean that all of them have damaged the rule of law? Where should the line be drawn for the rule of law and what is the test for the rule of law? Is a breach of law tantamount to damaging the rule of law? I think nobody can say so if the whole issue is examined from the perspective of fairness. The test for the rule of law is: When a criminal case or a case happened and is subsequently heard in court, can the Court handle each case in a fair, just and impartial manner without any political consideration? That is the true test for the rule of law. On this point, I believe many Hong Kong people and I myself consider that the Court can handle each case with impartiality, fairness and


3107

justice, and there is no question of political consideration. Since the start of the Occupy Central incident, the Court has been playing a role in it. Whether in times of the arrest of student leaders and our team of volunteer lawyers applying to the Court for a writ of habeas corpus or with regard to the injunction issued recently, the Court does have a certain role to play. Certainly, some people have different views on the court order, and even a Court of Final Appeal Judge has come forth, much as a rarity, to question the procedures and need of the injunction order, but this is also an indication of maturity because in a society where the rule of law prevails, different people (especially members of the legal profession) can have different views on the court procedures or court judgments, and this is normal and reflects that the legal profession of Hong Kong is mature. It is absolutely not the case that a breach of law is tantamount to damaging the rule of law, or what these people are doing amounts to disrespect for the spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong, as suggested by certain Members. All these remarks and views are biased and unfounded. Many people have mentioned the issue of injunctions. I also wish to raise some points on this issue which, I think, have been neglected by Members or have not been given due emphasis by the Police or the Secretary for Security when they talked about the injunction order. First, the question of procedural justice. Members have always talked about procedural justice, stressing that it is a most important element of the rule of law in Hong Kong. But the point is, insofar as the question of injunctions is concerned, have Members paid attention to whether procedural justice has been respected in the actual enforcement of the injunction? Has there been a case where disrespect for procedural justice has damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong? Have Members considered these issues carefully? Procedural justice is a most important element of the rule of law. Some people said that clearance is clearance, so who cares about whether it is done by way of execution of the injunction or the Police exercising their own powers to clear the site or whatsoever? They hold that these people are breaching the law anyway and so, they must leave and go home, and it is unnecessary to care about what the Police or the bailiffs are doing, and even if there are these people wearing red caps whom no one knows if they are officially authorized by the Court or the plaintiff to remove the mills barriers, it is just the same as the ultimate purpose is to clear the site. However, these views do not respect the


terms of the Court's injunction at all. Nor do they respect some of the procedures and details as set out clearly in the court judgment that we should all respect. They absolutely cannot say that it would do so long as the objective is to clear the site to the neglect of all the underlying procedures and details of the order granted by the Court. Is this rule of law? Is this showing respect for procedural justice? Let us take a look at the details of the order given by the High Court on 10 November. The fourth paragraph reads, "Any police officer be authorized to arrest and remove any person who the police officer reasonably believes or suspects to be obstructing or interfering any bailiff in carrying out his or her duties in enforcing the terms of the Injunction Order and/or this Order, provided that the person to be arrested has been informed of the gist of the terms of the Injunction Order and this Order and that his action is likely to constitute a breach of the Injunction Order and/or this Order and obstruction of the administration of justice, and that he may be arrested if he does not desist." Subsequently, in paragraph 20 of its Judgment made on 21 November the Court of Appeal provided a further and detailed analysis of the enforcement procedures of the injunction order and came to the same views because according to the Judgment, why is it necessary to impose restrictions and set out the procedures? The required procedures are firstly, informing the person concerned as to the gist of the injunction; secondly, warning him that his action is likely to constitute a breach of the injunction; and thirdly, warning him the possibility of his being arrested if he does not desist. These three requirements are the prerequisites for compliance by the bailiffs before enforcing the injunction order. But from what we saw during the clearance operations, did they complete all the three steps as required by the Court? Was it the case that when the bailiffs enforced the injunction order, those people still stayed there in breach of the injunction order or even after they had learnt about the terms of the injunction order, they still did not comply with the order and it was only under such circumstances that the Police took actions to clear the site? Were these the facts we saw? Or was it that after the bailiffs had arrived at the occupied area and read out the terms of the injunction order, the Police, using the prestige of the Court and using the court order as an excuse, started clearance from the beginning of Nathan Road all the way to the end of Nathan Road and from places within the occupied area to places beyond the occupied area, which actually means that their actions had gone beyond the areas covered by the court order though they still claimed that they were enforcing the injunction order? How about the role of the bailiffs?


3109

Did the Police take over the role of the bailiffs? Or were there uniformed people in red caps who were not authorized by the Court or the plaintiff taking actions to clear the site but were said to be enforcing the injunction order? Is this in any way showing respect for the court procedures? Did the pro-establishment Members see all this? Did it mean respect for the Court? They emphatically told other people to respect the court order and categorically stressed the need to respect the court judgment but they simply turned a blind eye to all this, neglecting the procedures and procedural justice. As we can see, when the procedures are not respected, the enforcement of the injunction order will become immensely difficult, and the situation was unlike the remarks openly made by the Secretary for Security or the Secretary for Justice a few days ago, that the Police did not have any role to play except for providing assistance in the enforcement of the injunction order. But in reality, the Police had been clearing the site by making use of the court order while showing disrespect for the procedures laid down by the Court. Where is the integrity of this Government and the Secretary for Justice? If you said that clearance is necessary and you think that our police should make use of their public powers to clear the site today, I can understand and respect it, but do not emphatically say on the one hand that the injunction order must be respected and that it is necessary to assist the bailiffs in enforcing the injunction order while using this as an excuse to take clearance actions on the other. This is what a government without integrity, a weak government and a government that deceives its people will say and do. Members can look at a recent example. On 18 November during the enforcement of the injunction order at the CITIC Tower in Admiralty, although the occupiers and the bailiffs were at odds due to some uncertainties over the areas covered by the injunction, the occupiers still moved away some of the mills barriers on their own initiative to meet the requirements of the injunction order and to show respect for it. Of course, if there were really uncertainties over the scope of the injunction as the order itself did not explicitly spell out or illustrate in plans the areas covered by the order, insofar as this point is concerned and if both sides held different views, the correct way to resolve this should be the plaintiff or the Secretary for Justice seeking further instructions from the Court to clearly explain the boundary of the areas covered by the injunction order. However, as we can see, the situation then was still broadly peaceful with the injunction order being enforced by all parties in a rational and restrained manner and with no bloodshed or violent fights. This has precisely shown that when the


bailiffs enforced the injunction order truly in compliance with the procedures, the occupiers would appreciate and respect the court order and they would understand that the bailiffs have to discharge their public duties and enforce the injunction order. When all the parties respect procedural justice, what effects would be achieved? Conflicts would be avoided; damages would be avoided; and bloodshed that nobody would wish to see would be avoided. This also reflects that in a society where the rule of law prevails and if everyone respects procedural justice, the rule of law will be brought into effect, unlike what is happening now as some people categorically stressed the need to comply with the law and respect the Court on the one hand but neglected everything in the actual enforcement of the injunction order with the sole purpose of clearing the site. Is this fair and just? Is this what we wish to see in a society where the rule of law prevails? Such practices may be considered acceptable according to the concept of rule by law generally adopted in the Mainland, which holds that the end justifies the means and the law is merely a tool of the rulers to govern the people. However, the spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong is different in that when the law-enforcement officers, the Court or the people all respect the Court in handling cases on the principles of fairness, impartiality and justice as well as the importance of procedural justice, the entire society will have an entirely different view on the rule of law which takes exception to the thinking that the end justifies the means, especially when it is a political end. President, the High Court has again granted an injunction order recently, calling for the clearance of parts of the occupied areas in Harcourt Road, Connaught Road Central and Cotton Tree Drive in Admiralty. Here, let me once again appeal to the Police and once again appeal to the authorities to respect the terms and procedures of the injunction order issued by the Court. I believe occupiers will and I call on them to respect and give effect to the Court order but at the same time, in the enforcement of the injunction order, all parties should respect the basic procedural justice. I do not wish to see more cases of frivolous enforcement of the injunction order or bloodshed. When everyone appreciates the importance of the various terms of the court order, everyone has to respect them disregarding whether or not you like them or not, and this is the responsibility that rulers and the occupiers must fulfil. Thank you, President.


3111

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): It has been very cold today and yesterday. Two lines of poem suit the occasion well: "Plum blossoms rejoice at the snow-covered sky/Flies frozen to death are nothing unusual." The illegal Occupy action has been going on for 68 days. The initial "love and peace" advocacy and everything that was lied to the citizens have completely collapsed now. Today, the public opinion shows us clearly that citizens loath the actions of this crowd of mobsters and want them to quit. Sadly in the debate of the adjournment motion proposed by Dr Kenneth CHAN, Members of the opposition camp are still using specious arguments and sophistry to distort right and wrong and twist the cause and effect. Especially the legal sector in the opposition camp, whoever professors, scholars and lawyers have distorted the entire rule of law principle and promulgated such false reasoning and evil doctrines to aggravate these violent acts. We all gasped in amazement how they knowingly broke the law. President, the other day a reporter asked me how I would explain the unusual phenomenon of a crowd going to Mong Kok to shop every night after the clearance operation. I answered, "I believe all Hong Kong citizens know it very well if they went there really for shopping." Even in a phone-in TV programme this morning, an interviewee of the surname WONG was pretty honest in saying that he had some other agenda. But Mr Alan LEONG of the Civic Party told the media the other day that he did not know why citizens passing by Sai Yeung Choi Street and Portland Street had to be there stirring up troubles. Alas! I do not understand why he made that remark. As someone from the legal sector, he already knew what had happened ― people with such knowledge and understanding also knew what had happened ― his remark has deceived not only the citizens but also himself. What for? The reality has shown us that these so-called "shopping tours" were vicious. Look at that fashion shop in Mong Kok where people stormed in and looked for trouble. Were they shopping? No. After their entry, the shop could not even lower the shutter, and the Police were eventually called in to provide assistance. It has been the same every night in Mong Kok. Since the clearance operation, this group of people have been acting like pests, feared anywhere they passed by and shops, especially jewellers, along their paths had to lower their shutters to avoid them. I have got in touch with the industries and the latter expressed grave concern about this phenomenon, because that group of the so-called shoppers come from complicated backgrounds. You all talked fervently that they were just shopping but are you going to be responsible for anything that happens?


Talking about the Police, I must salute them for their professional spirit and tolerant attitude. Besides saluting them, I also admire them. What the opposition camp has said in the Council since yesterday is unreasonable accusation of the Police. Should the Police just let them charge? Should the Police after being slapped on the left cheek turn to them the right cheek also? Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has just made some fair comments about the "shopping" in Mong Kok, which was the first of its kind I heard in the entire debate. The strange thing is Mr Dennis KWOK has just given a passionate talk about the injunction orders and made a statement "get to the goal by hook or by crook". Is legal means some unscrupulous means? As a lawyer and barrister, how could he actually say such words. I am totally perplexed even after some serious thoughts. Are those charging actions and illegal occupation not unscrupulous means? Yes, they are. It is apparently distorting right and wrong. Those statements are definitely bad examples to children. Mr KWOK has also said something about someone breaking the law is damage done to the rule of law. Right this is illegal. The problem is these professors and lawyers said breaking the law would not deal a blow to the rule of law. It is really bizarre how they have encouraged and harboured unlawful acts, which indeed undermine the foundation of the law. As a legislator and a member of the legal sector, he is indeed so ignorant about the law. I am baffled. I think many Members have presented a lot of opinions about the adjournment motion proposed by Dr Kenneth CHAN today. What the pro-establishment camp has said represents my views. Thank you, President. I so submit. MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, the unlawful Occupy action has lasted for more than two months. The public can no longer tolerate the occupation of roads by protesters and there are strong calls for strict law enforcement by the Police to restore social order. Last week, the Hong Kong Police demonstrated the highest level of determination and capacity to take law-enforcement actions in a resolute manner. They successfully assisted the bailiffs in removing the barricades from the occupied area in Mong Kok and, at the same time, carried out a clearance operation there. The social order of Mong Kok was therefore restored to normal in general and the clearance operation taken


3113

by the Police was supported by the general masses and public opinion. Since the outbreak of the Occupy action, the Police have been exercising the highest level of restraint and tolerance. The calls from the grassroots for expeditious clearance operations by the Police were actually growing stronger. However, the opposition camp took a pre-emptive step instead to raise doubts about the legitimacy of the law-enforcement actions taken by the Police and accused the Police of clearing the sites by taking advantage of the injunction orders. These remarks are complete nonsense which seriously undermine the rule of law in Hong Kong. The opposition camp even smeared the clearance operation by the Police as excessively violent. This accusation is absolutely a distortion of the facts. President, the opposition camp has time and again accused the Police of using excessive force ever since the outbreak of the Occupy action. Their accusations often only focused on some particular parts of an incident which were then magnified infinitely to the neglect of the causes of such incident. They have even distorted the facts and depicted the protesters who undermined the rule of law as innocent citizens while police officers who strictly enforced the law were depicted as "black cops" using excessive force. Yet, they were completely silent on the violence of some protesters who had attacked police officers and charged at the police cordon. On the 25th and 26th of November, the plaintiff and bailiffs of the Mong Kok injunction orders had, prior to the enforcement of the injunction orders issued by the Court, completely followed the procedures to publish such orders in newspapers, posted notices and informed the protesters to leave the roads in question. Enough time was also given to the protesters to pack their belongings and leave. However, the protesters disregarded the injunction orders and refused to leave. The Police therefore, at the request of the bailiffs, made intervention in the incident. If the protesters had respected the court order and left at their own initiative, why should the Police disperse the crowd with the use of force? Not only did the protesters ignore the Police's advice and refuse to disperse, they also tried to re-occupy Mong Kok by violence. Some protesters adopted the guerrilla tactics of rushing into the carriageway time and again with all kinds of excuses, such as "crossing the road", "shopping" and "dining at Little Sheep hot pot", in an attempt to re-occupy the roads. Even though the Police had repeatedly made broadcasts to the protesters who were having an unlawful


assembly and advised them to leave as soon as possible, the protesters and troublemakers not only ignored such orders, they also took the opportunity to occupy the roads and cause troubles everywhere in Mong Kok, leading to confrontations with the Police. As a result, many shops nearby shut their doors and stopped doing business. Besides, the protesters divided themselves into groups to run along the dark and narrow alleys in Mong Kok in an attempt to occupy another area as well as "marching" towards Tsim Sha Tsui and Tai Kok Tsui. All of these scenes have been captured by various media and television news reports which can be seen by all of us. So, I hope Members from the opposition camp will not lie through their teeth and ignore the facts to accuse the Police of charging at and assaulting the protesters with intent. In the face of protesters who did not have any regard for laws, it was appropriate, reasonable and lawful for the Police to take strict law-enforcement actions. Members from the opposition camp have glorified the Occupy action as "a peaceful protest" and depicted the protesters as "unarmed". Was that really a peaceful protest? Were they actually unarmed? The answer is clear to all of us. Nonetheless, Members from the opposition camp kept lying through their teeth. The Police have seized a large number of offensive weapons, including a wine bottle-opener with a metal awl in the fore-end, an axe, a hammer, a crowbar, lime, stones and wooden planks embedded with nails, which were found in the occupied area in Mong Kok and on the body of protesters. This great variety of weapons can be compared to the instruments of the top ten tortures in the Qing Dynasty. During the clearance operations taken by the Police in these days, radical protesters surrounded the Police and hindered their law-enforcement actions time and again. The protesters even provoked police officers in a planned and organized manner, throwing objects at them and charging at the police cordon. All of these things can be seen in the massive number of online videos by everyone now. I was extremely angry and found it completely unacceptable after watching a video, in which I saw that a large number of protesters and rioters, who were facing the police cordon, kept hurling abuses and insults at police officers. In the end, they even made an attack with different objects. I believe we have all noticed that but Members from the opposition camp have never made any fair comment here. Scholarism even made an appeal to the public on a social networking website to surround the Police from the Yau Ma Tei MTR station. This is thus a plain fact that occupiers have obviously tried every possible unlawful and violent means to re-occupy Mong Kok.


3115

Members from the opposition camp raised doubts about the operation of the Police in a selective way. However, they turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the actions of rioters and remained completely silent about this. It is obviously a distortion of the facts and cover-up of offences. Today, I have listened to the speech of Mr Charles Peter MOK who spoke in a loud voice. He said that they were extremely resentful of the Police's disregard for justice. He also mentioned that we, as Legislative Council Members, had to monitor the Government. If all Legislative Council Members are upholding the values of justice and fairness, I believe we are duty-bound to monitor the Government. However, I found out that quite a number of Members sitting here have taken part in these unlawful activities and, I believe, the public have noticed that too. Sometimes, I really find it inconceivable that those Members who took part in the unlawful actions should be monitoring law enforcement by the Police. During the clearance operation of Mong Kok on that day, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Gary FAN and others from the opposition camp arrived at the site together with Miss Yvonne LEUNG, a standing committee member of the Hong Kong Federation of Students. They impeded the operation by raising unreasonable questions as they challenged and asked the representative lawyer of the injunction orders' plaintiffs issues that had already been set out in the injunction orders over and over again. As a result, the whole process of removing barricades was subject to repeated delay. Members from the opposition camp stood behind Miss Yvonne LEUNG to show staunch support and led the occupiers in shouting slogans from time to time. They as Legislative Council Members actually hindered the enforcement of court orders by bailiffs. I think this kind of behaviour is extremely shameless. I have carefully noticed yesterday and today that many Members from the opposition camp took the moral high ground and made accusations of the Police repeatedly. They also mentioned that the Police had partnered with triads to carry out the clearance operation and for this Occupy action. However, this argument is sometimes totally incomprehensible to us. From the television news and media reports, I saw that some triad leaders had come to the Legislative Council for discussion and co-operation with pan-democratic Members from the opposition camp. Was it actually the Police who had partnered with triads or were there some Members who had a secret plot with triads? I dare not say anything about this indeed. Nonetheless, the fact that "Scar-faced Kong" has visited the Legislative Council is obvious to us.


They have also mentioned that the Police have enforced the law not in accordance with international standards. Sometimes, I found that in comparison with the American Police, the Hong Kong Police Force is much gentler, calmer and more rational in carrying out law-enforcement actions. At least, I did not see any Hong Kong police officer throwing a protester to the other side, nor did I see any violent actions taken at the protesters by the Police at the early beginning without any warning. Honestly, I cannot figure out whether the Police should, when urging protesters to leave the site and stop occupying the roads, actually kneel down and say, "Please leave and let us enforce the law", so that it will be considered as compliant with international standards? Furthermore, Members from the opposition camp described the Police as charging at and assaulting the protesters for no reason. Did it really happen for no reason? Regarding those so-called "citizens" who went to Mong Kok for late-night shopping, who are they actually? I cannot understand why you would support these people who were obviously destroying and disturbing the peace as well as supporting them to go for late-night shopping in Mong Kok. We also saw that when the protesters were crossing the road, they dropped some money and then picked it up. So, they are the peaceful protesters whom you are supporting. After hearing such fallacies, I therefore sincerely hope that Members from the opposition camp can reflect upon their moral sense and examine in all conscience that in response to the calls of the majority public, the Police are, for the sake of upholding the rule of law in Hong Kong and protecting the best interests of Hong Kong people, facing huge difficulties in law enforcement. Please show some support to them. Student organizations which are leading this Occupy action often mentioned the slogan of "resolving political issues by political means". If they truly want to "resolve political issues by political means", I think they should make an appeal to the occupiers to leave. What we mean by political means is resolving disagreement through dialogue. However, ever since the SAR Government engaged in a dialogue with the student representatives in regard to constitutional reform in late October and proposed to submit a Public Sentiments Report to the Central Authorities as well as establishing a platform, the student representatives showed no sincerity at all and made a taller demand instead to insist on a retraction of the 31 August Decision of the National People's Congress.


3117

This has exactly indicated that they basically do not intend to "resolve political issues by political means" but "resolving political issues by violent means". The Occupy action failed to gain the support of the public as more than 80% of the public opinion demanded the occupiers to retreat. Various sectors of the community and the general public supported the Police to take strict law-enforcement actions and demanded that the Police should, after restoration of order in Mong Kok, restore order in the occupied areas in Admiralty and Causeway Bay as soon as possible. I also urge all occupiers to leave the area in the vicinity of the Legislative Council, including the current demonstration areas of the Legislative Council, so that other members of the public can also have an opportunity to express opinions to Legislative Council Members. President, I so submit. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, for some time of late, many members of the Hong Kong public and I could see many scenes of violent clashes in news reports every day. The clashes that occurred in Mong Kok, outside the Legislative Council and the Central Government Offices were increasingly violent and an increasing number of people were injured and shed blood. No matter if the injured were young people or police officers, it was Hong Kong people, our own people, who shed blood. This breaks our hearts and makes our hearts ache. We expected the Occupy Central movement to happen but in the end, the loss of control, which we are absolutely unwilling to see, also occurred. We feel both helpless and angry. Now, public opinion is very clear and the great majority of members of the public demand that the Occupy Central participants withdraw from the sites immediately. We do not understand why up to now, both the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) and Scholarism are still bent on having their own ways and have completely refused to listen to others' views. In campaigning for democracy, they keep bashing their heads against a brick wall and insisting on adopting a wrong and unreasonable approach. Nor do I understand why someone who teaches law in university would teach people that breaking the law would not cause any impact on the rule of law. Is doing so not actively undermining the foundation of the rule of law in Hong Kong? I do not


understand why Members of the pan-democratic camp, as legislators, have to take part in and control, and even advocate and assume a leading role in, the illegal occupation and violent charging. On seeing that the public were resentful, they immediately drew a line, so as to keep their votes, saying that the violence had nothing to do with them. How possibly can that be? Yesterday, Dr Kenneth CHAN said in the debate that he wanted to target the police's handling. Why do we not debate the tactics employed by the people and protestors in the unlawful Occupy Central movement? Why do we not debate the approach adopted by some Legislative Council Members to openly encourage the public to break the law? Why do we not debate in the legislature the approach of using the "non-cooperation movement" to try to paralyse the Government's administration? Does it mean that if one hoists the flag of the so-called genuine universal suffrage and democracy, one can resort to means fair or foul, act wilfully and defy laws human and divine, so as to achieve political ends? Dr Kenneth CHAN pointed out in his speech that Hong Kong people nowadays lived in a chaotic time, that Hong Kong people had to make a greater commitment to this movement and that people who were hostile to young people would surely be regarded by young people as their enemies. It seems the aim of this movement is to make young people in Hong Kong nowadays antagonistic to the Government. From the very beginning, the three organizers of Occupy Central and Members of the opposition have encouraged and mobilized young people to campaign for a proposal on universal suffrage non-compliant with the Basic Law through the unlawful act of occupying Central. Right from the start, this was doomed to yield no results and would only make young people disappointed and angry. President, originally, Hong Kong was not so chaotic and instead, it was very peaceful. It was the three organizers of Occupy Central, the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) and Scholarism, as well as Members of the opposition that deliberately incited the confrontation and hatred and caused chaos in Hong Kong in the name of justice and democracy. Dr Kenneth CHAN, Hong Kong people have already paid a heavy price for this unlawful Occupy movement that we neither agree with nor accept, and you still want us to make an even greater commitment?


3119

President, yesterday, I heard Benny TAI say that he did not know how to occupy streets but was very good at occupying hearts. On hearing that, I felt most frightened. Is not occupying hearts even more terrible than brainwashing? Is this not an approach adopted all along by evil cults? Do people whose hearts and souls have been occupied still have their own will and thinking? Mr TAI also said that surrendering oneself to the authorities would give play to and manifest the rule of law, and it would be tantamount to assuming criminal liability and responsibility. I believe the great majority of members of the public do not agree with this kind of fallacious reasoning. Moreover, yesterday, he also talked about surrendering oneself to a limited extent, without giving an honest and detailed account of one's offences, so may I ask if this is "genuine surrendering" or "bogus surrendering"? The three organizers brought about the Occupy Central with their own hands, talking about occupying the Central District with peace and love and advancing democracy. Before the Occupy Central movement started, I had already repeatedly queried how it could be ensured that the Occupy movement would not get out of hand. How could it be ensured that it would not turn into violent clashes? How could its peacefulness be guaranteed? How could democracy be achieved using coercive and unlawful tactics? What would be the results? The Occupy Central movement has been going on for more than two months, what can we see? What we can see is hatred, confrontation, loss of control and violence. We are further and further removed from civilization and democracy. The three organizers also said that the Occupy Central movement had awakened the awareness of democracy in the new generation. Unfortunately, the fact is that they have painted a veneer of justice on their unlawful actions and the truth is that they have strengthened the anti-rule-of-law and anti-government sentiments among many people. They have dealt a serious blow to the rule of law in Hong Kong, damaged innumerable family relationships, affected the livelihood of many members of the public, ruined the future of many students and inflicted serious damage on Hong Kong's international image, so the damage and implications are far-reaching for Hong Kong. May I ask how possibly could these three organizers of the Occupy Central movement shoulder all the responsibility?


In these few days, these three organizers kept criticizing the Government for being insensitive and indifferent, saying that the Police have carried out heavy-handed suppression and used excessive violence. What is the truth? These three organizers and this group of Members in the pan-democratic camp let the Occupy movement get out of hand. Not only did they let protestors occupy roads freely, they even wanted to storm the Legislative Council Complex, besiege the Central Government Offices, condone the occupiers in harassing the family members of police officers and even beat up off-duty police officers. You gave students a free rein in leading the movement, thus resulting in bloodshed but now, are you blaming the Police for enforcing the law too strictly? Moreover, please do not say that the unlawful occupiers who played a part in charging were all unarmed, peaceful and non-violent. From the bags of lime and bricks found in Mong Kok, through recent press reports on the 13 types of weapons made by protestors to deal with the Police, including home-made shields embedded with wooden boards and nails, to the throwing of pepper powder and unknown powders, the use of very bright torch light and laser beam, bricks, fine sand and gravel, the throwing of drink cans, and so on, can they still be considered unarmed? What is violence? Verbal insults are verbal violence and using verbal insults collectively in the human-wave style is serious violence. On the Internet, we found that protestors in Mong Kok received instructions stating clearly that their aim was to provoke police officers, compel them to use force, and infuriate them, so that they would make mistakes. They teach protestors to make sure they make video recordings of the unseemly behaviour, jot down their service numbers, then publish them on the Internet to vilify them, tarnish their image, carry out "doxing", lodge complaints, make a fuss and make allegations against the Government, with the aim of ruining the image of the Police Force, demonize police officers, deal blows to the morale of the Police Force, elicit reactions in public opinion, make the public hate the Government and secure their continued support for the Occupy movement. We can also see in various video footages that protestors hurled abuses at police officers, calling them police curs, dogs, black cops, turtles and police scum. There are also many other terms that I cannot bring myself to name as they are even more repulsive and humiliating to hear. They also used mobile


3121

phones and video cameras to take pictures of the faces of police officers at close range, barged hard into them, surrounded them, coerced them into releasing people and even attacked off-duty police officers violently, thus inflicting serious injuries on police officers. All these are violence, pure and simple. Yesterday, Mrs Regina IP also talked in detail about the serious violence of "doxing" individual police officers on the Internet, so I am not going to repeat this today. I only wish to point out that today, Members of the pan-democratic camp have one-sidedly criticized the police, in an attempt to mislead the public and invert right and wrong, so this is unfair to the Police. May I ask what the Police can do in the face of violence? What can they do in the face of people who do not comply with injunction orders? Yesterday, Mr Gary FAN said that the Police had used the injunction orders as the pretext to disperse occupiers in Mong Kok. I wish to remind Mr FAN that the occupation of streets per se is unlawful, so the Police do not need any excuse to enforce the law. At present, the great majority of members of the public demand that the Police enforce the law and clear the sites as soon as possible. Many people think that the Police have been far too tolerant and ceremonious in dealing with violent protestors and occupiers. Many members of the public told me that they understand the position of the Police as it would not be possible to prevent illegal protestors from continuing to occupy roads or doing so again without using a certain amount of force. On the television, we could see instances of violent charging, and in recent days, there were groups of people who pretended to be passers-by doing shopping, crossing the road, picking up money or waiting for people. They rushed into shops to create confusion, then pretended to cross the road again, waited for people again and crossed the road repeatedly. They smiled and grimaced cheekily, adopting a mobile form of road occupation, making a fool of the Police, disrupting order and wasting police manpower, so we really find such sights unbearable. Mr Gary FAN went so far as to say that due to the site clearance operations of the Police, shops in Mong Kok had to be shuttered, thus affecting their business. So it was not the occupation of streets and the mobile occupation carried out by those people that prevented people from doing business, was it?


I really do not wish to cite any more individual incidents to prove that certain protestors or police officers were in the wrong. In a situation of chaotic charging, many problems and misunderstandings would surely arise. I believe that in complaint cases, the offenders will receive fair treatment and judgment because the system in Hong Kong is proven. What we must rein in is further acts of violent charging, and violations of law can by no means be tolerated. The Police must enforce the law. President, all along, I have hoped that students taking part in the Occupy Central movement could remain peaceful and rational and distance themselves from violent troublemakers, and that they would know how to truly advance justice and democracy, rather than getting into a dead end. However, the HKFS and Scholarism initiated the siege of the Central Government Offices, thus escalating the action for no reason, so I was again disappointed. However, President, I do not feel hopeless yet. I still have some hope for the young people who are involved in the Occupy Central movement. I hope they can pause and look in retrospect at their experience over the past two months, open up their minds and listen to the voices of the general public. I hope they can do some serious soul-searching and give play to the true democratic spirit. I hope they will understand that if any movement loses the support of the general public, it will not be successful. A civilized society and a democratic system are not built in a day, rather, it is necessary to tread our way step by step, together with the Hong Kong public. In addition, in the pursuit of ideals, we must also recognize the reality. We have to uphold "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". We cannot just care about "two systems" and show no respect for "one country". National sovereignty must be manifested in the development of a democratic system in Hong Kong, or there cannot be any way ahead. Trust has to be established and threatening will only create confrontation. Without trust, there cannot be any opportunity for co-operation and dialogue. In Hong Kong nowadays, the public are actually not as miserable as Members of the pan-democratic camp or organizers of the Occupy Central movement portrayed it, nor is the Government uncaring and indifferent. We have robust finance, a professional Police Force, a sound judicial system, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and quality residents. The problems faced by Hong Kong, for example, wealth disparity, the need to


3123

restructure the economy and high property prices, also pose problems to other advanced and developed cities and other places may not have done any better than we have. All members of the public have the responsibility and have to make commitments to solving the problems in Hong Kong. Reforming the political system or replacing the Chief Executive would not solve the problems right away. Even if we were to let Mr Alan LEONG or Mr Albert HO become the Chief Executive, there would still be poor people in Hong Kong and students would still be unable to buy homes upon graduation. In fact, there is no way out for the Occupy movement, so it is time to let go and withdraw. We should go back to our respective positions, do a good job of our duties, re-establish social order, re-establish dialogue, communication, mutual trust and heal the wounds of Hong Kong. Let us draw a lesson together, ponder about the painful experience, set aside sorrow and hatred and resolve the conflicts and problems in Hong Kong in a practical manner, so as to find a way out for Hong Kong in the future. President, in the past few days, many members of the public said to me that the Occupy Central movement had brought sorrow and pain to Hong Kong and they surely would not forget it. After this battle, they realize the importance of the vote in their hands and have registered as voters. In the future, they would vote for Hong Kong's development. I believe there is still hope for Hong Kong's future. President, I so submit. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, yesterday, the Occupy Central Trio and their supporters went to the police station to turn themselves in. They also called on the protesters to withdraw, drawing a full stop to the Umbrella Movement at this stage. I would like to pay the highest tribute to the Trio on behalf of the Democratic Party. As they said, the work over the past year or so has awaken the sense of democratic movement of many Hong Kong people, which certainly include many young people. Recently, we visited Taiwan to observe the elections there. We observed that young people in Taiwan, including those young people who had stormed into the Legislative Yuan in the Sunflower Movement, and Taiwan people of different ages have a thorough understanding of the situation in Hong Kong. Many


young people had come to Hong Kong to stay on the streets and they were awed by the scene. Many of them think that the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong will directly affect the election outcome in Taiwan. Certainly, Taiwan people support this protest by Hong Kong people, which is carried out in a peaceful, rational and non-violent manner. President, the Trio have inspired so many people to support democracy, and I hope we will really see the realization of democracy. Dr Elizabeth QUAT said just now that many people had already registered as electors. We very much agree with this. The Administration often expresses the hope for selecting the Chief Executive by "one-person-one-vote" election in 2017 and says that over 5 million people may cast votes by then. However, President, we all know that only 3 million people have registered as electors currently. Over the years, a million or so people have refused to register as electors. Among the 3 million registered electors, less than half of them have actually cast their votes. To the public who have come forward in response to the call of the Trio and the Umbrella Movement, I implore all of them to register as electors. Just as the authorities said, the 5 million-odd people should all do the registration. An election will be held next year. I certainly have to implore all of them to cast their votes, and we will see to whom they will vote for. We are striving for a democratic system. The votes are in the hands of electors and no one knows for whom they will cast their votes when they vote at the polling stations. Nonetheless, we will accept any result coming out of a fair, just and democratic system, which is a system we have been striving for with persistent and strenuous effort. Our concern is not about whether or not Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert HO or Dr Elizabeth QUAT can be the Chief Executive. In fact, who will be the Chief Executive is not the point here. If the Chief Executive is elected by Hong Kong people through a fair and just system, I will accept the result willingly even if I do not like the Chief Executive elect or I have not voted for him, for the key is the system. Yet, President, why are people fighting so hard now? Because under the system of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC), electors will not have a genuine choice. By then, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert HO or any other "Albert" from our camp will have no chance to stand in the election. Only people from the pro-government camp or the two or three


3125

persons selected by the Central Authorities or plutocrats can stand in the election. If so, even if all the 5 million registered electors cast their votes, they will not have a genuine choice. Concerning this issue, Hong Kong people of all ages, including young people who are not yet in the university, young people who are studying in universities, and even older people, have a clear grasp of the situation. Last week, when I was in Taiwan, I noticed that Taiwan people also had a clear understanding of it. President, I hope Hong Kong society will understand this, for they are particularly concerned about the unity of the nation. In the face of the events now happening in Hong Kong, the 20 million or so Taiwan people are dumbstruck. They are awed by what is happening. I have to reiterate once again that I am extremely grateful to the Trio for courageously coming forward, pointing out that the movement is an act of civil disobedience and so they turned themselves in. We who have participated in the civil disobedience will also shoulder the responsibility. They are the enlighteners who have prompted thousands to tens of thousand people to show concern about the issue and take part in it. The credits should go to them. This is a movement built on love and peace. I will condemn any acts or behaviour which are against love and peace. I condemn the Police for beating the public and I condemn any person who uses violence to charge at the Police. For in that case, it is definitely not the movement I signed to join last year. Therefore, we have to make it very clear that we are not involved in any violent acts. I hope Members will stop slandering. Regarding the many heart-rending incidents that occurred, including members of the public being beaten in the head with blood gushing out and even the Police being beaten, they are definitely situations we do not want to see. For this reason, we call for an independent inquiry into the incident, particularly on the firing of 87 tear gas canisters by the authorities for no reason and whether the authorities were totally wrong in doing so. President, when the Secretary came to the Panel on Security to give an account of the Umbrella Movement, he did not dare mention this incident, and the footage played by the authorities did not show a single shot of the tear gas scene. However, the scene has been made the newspaper headlines and magazine covers overseas. Why would the authorities feel so ashamed and frightened? Do the authorities want to pretend that nothing has ever happened? Therefore, if the


Chief Secretary for Administration is to draft the so-called report on the latest public sentiments, the report must mention the reasons for the Police to fire 87 tear gas canisters at an unarmed group standing in the streets on 28 September. It was the firing of these tear gas canisters that prompted thousands to tens of thousands taking to the streets to strive for universal suffrage and protect the students. Both the authorities and Hong Kong people are shocked that these people have not turned back once having come out. Today is the 86th day of the movement. Why would the public be so pertinacious? I definitely oppose violence. I am absolutely opposed to it. In fact, the public, particularly the young people, are so pertinacious only because they aspire to striving for a democratic system upholding freedom and the rule of law for themselves and their families. Many young people cannot see a promising future; they only see a Hong Kong affected by serious corruption. People who are rich and powerful, as well as those inclined to Beijing and the rich and powerful, will make rapid advancement in their career. But for others, despite the strenuous effort made and the possession of a university degree, they can hardly find a job with good prospects. Recently, a member of the public told me that he knew a large local bank was recruiting staff, but none of the successful candidates was from the local universities. He asked the reason for that, and the man from the bank told him that local university graduates lacked vision and students under the education system of Hong Kong were all like that. I really must clarify this point. Do large companies in Hong Kong really have this presumption about students taught under the local education system? President, the present incident is caused by some deep-rooted problems, one of which is the absence of universal suffrage. President, your goodself warned two years ago or even earlier that if the issue on universal suffrage was not addressed properly, governance would be impossible in Hong Kong. LAM Woon-kwong also warned that if universal suffrage was not handled properly, Hong Kong would be doomed eternally. However, those rich and powerful inclined to Beijing refuse to heed the warnings of the President and LAM Woon-kwong. They do the contrary by pushing Hong Kong society to the brink of being torn apart completely. President, concerning the issue of the riven society, I surely share the hard feeling. We also understand that there are divergent views in society. The key to addressing these divergent views is communication but not the indifferent attitude adopted by the "LEUNG Chun-ying clique". They are simply thinking


3127

that, "I just do not bother about their occupation, and when worse come to worst, I can call in police officers to strike them with batons." How would such a "clique" be qualified and capable of governing Hong Kong? It is most lamentable that the Central Government condones these people in adopting this approach in Hong Kong. Worse still, it hints that, "We are not concerned about Hong Kong, for other cities of the country are now making remarkable development, and we just do not care how Hong Kong will become." How can they adopt such an attitude? The Central Government has promised Hong Kong people that the Chief Executive will be elected by universal suffrage in 2017, and that we have "one country, two systems", "high degree of autonomy" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". However, these institutions are being eroded day by day and we are growing increasingly worried. It seems that our freedom is dwindling. Yet I must admit that we still have "one country, two systems". Why? If not because of "one country, two systems", all of us may have been arrested or plunged into some miserable situation. For in the Mainland, people are arrested immediately after they have posted something on the Internet showing support for the Occupy Central movement. No one knows how many people in the Mainland have been arrested because of this so far. Therefore, I admit that we have "one country, two systems". However, we do not aspire for this kind of "one country, two systems". We want a comprehensive system which ensures that our freedom, rule of law and lifestyle are protected. Moreover, the Central Government has promised Hong Kong people that we may elect the Chief Executive by "one-person-one-vote" universal suffrage in 2017. But some Members now say that, "Anyone trying to abolish the functional constituencies will just be dreaming, for the functional constituencies will last for centuries. They definitely cannot be abolished." Do they respect the Central Authorities and what it said? The Central Authorities have promised that after the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, the functional constituencies of the Legislative Council will be abolished in 2020, and by then, all Members of the Legislative Council will be elected by universal suffrage. The is the actual situation. As a saying goes, "to bust the ghosts with a sieve ― for everyone is the god". On the one hand, the Central Authorities have put forth some proposal which it has no intention to implement, and on the other, the rich and powerful in Hong Kong who are inclined to the Communist Party of


China (CPC) stated that, "We will not give up any rights and privileges we have already got, and no matter what Beijing has said, we will make sure that functional constituencies will last forever, ensuring that the sons and grandsons of the existing rich and powerful will continue to enjoy these rights and privileges." Under this circumstance, President, you will surely understand why Hong Kong people, young people in particular, will feel so hopeless about the future and why they must protest, will you not? Moreover, in comparison with Taiwan, the present protest is but mild. We all know that many people in Taiwan had died or been imprisoned for decades due to protests. Some people told me that we would not be long to meet the same fate. They say, "By then, there is no need to surrender as you did now, for someone will knock on your door at 3 am to search your home." Under the governance of the CPC, I believe people striving for democracy are well prepared for this psychologically. However, President, we insist on being peaceful, rational and non-violent in striving for democracy. Today, we do not only need to face a society torn apart, we also need to face the poor administration of the SAR. The papers submitted by the authorities to the Legislative Council are sometimes mere rubbish. On many issues, the authorities have behaved in an entirely irresponsible manner. It will just provide some piecemeal figures or data in a sloppy manner, leaving things in an ambiguous and unclear state. The Government also refuses to have genuine communication with Members in order to work together to identify a way out for administering Hong Kong. President, it does not matter how Beijing will treat Hong Kong, yet if we continue to tear ourselves apart, refusing to identify a political solution to the political problem, the disputes, guerrilla occupation and protests on the streets will never end, President. I so submit. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I wish to pay my highest tribute to the Occupy Central Trio who turned themselves in yesterday. They have really made a great achievement in the fight of the Hong Kong people for genuine universal suffrage and especially for the political awakening of Hong Kong people for the next two generations.


3129

Both yesterday and this morning I have heard many Members of this Council from the pro-establishment camp as well as officials try their best to denigrate the Umbrella Movement. No matter how hard they try in rejecting it, and how reluctant officials are to face it, this Occupy Central movement initiated by the Trio has doubtless transformed into the Umbrella Movement. It does not matter if the pro-establishment camp and the Government question this Umbrella Movement and even try to smear it, I am sure that the people of Hong Kong will pass their judgment that these people are standing on the wrong side of history. President, it is true that the Umbrella Movement is now in its nadir at the moment but anyone who knows history will think that low ebb does not and should not signify the failure of the campaign to fight for genuine universal suffrage. We always think of Mahatma GANDHI. He suffered many setbacks when he led the movement for the independence of India. We know from history that after leading the Salt March, although he was able to arouse people's attention to the power of being united, his friends from the same political party were expelled from the Indian parliament and his supporters were robbed of their houses by the government. In exchange for these heavy political prices paid, he was only barely able to get certain political results which were insignificant. However, if we continue with our search in the history of India, we will know that the significance of this Salt March led by GANDHI lies in changing the political climate of India. It is like the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong which leads to the awakening of young people straddling two generations. President, just now some Members questioned whether when Mr Albert HO or me served as the Chief Executive, there would be no poor people. The answer is "no". There will still be poor people in Hong Kong. But we will not say to the poor, "If you make less than $14,000 a month, I cannot let you have the same right to take part in politics like other people." Perhaps university students will not certainly see their hopes dashed and they can climb the social ladder by their hard work. Why? Because it seems that Hong Kong has changed. If the present system we have does not change, there will still be people who have pledged in the election that he would be the nemesis of hegemony and saviour of the grassroots making comments like the so-called "14K theory". If we still do nothing about the situation and adopt this system of nepotism and let people who are so fat that they cannot pull up their socks to engage in secret deals with the CPC regime and let these people become candidates for the Chief Executive


election, how can those who take part in the Umbrella Movement and especially those young students see any hope? President, I am grateful to Dr Kenneth CHAN for proposing this motion today so that I can talk about my views on the clashes between the public and the Police. I have asked myself this question: Are police officers really left with no choice? Do they have to hit a citizen behind his back with a baton? Do they have to point their middle finger at the demonstrators? Do they have to insult demonstrators wilfully as we saw on the TV on Monday or on the streets in Mong Kok last week? Do they have to threaten a female student that she would be brought to the police station and raped? Is there a need to hit people with a baton and cried, "Crap, crap"? Or when clearing the posters on the footbridge in Admiralty, do they have to tear these posters into pieces and throw them down to Harcourt Road, clapping their hands and making a "come on" sign in this course? Are police officers really left with no other option? President, I am quite worried because the next site to be cleared should be Harcourt Road in Admiralty. And based on what has happened in Mong Kok and what we have seen on the footbridge in Admiralty, I feel very concerned that when protest zones in Admiralty are to be cleared, the kind of fiery desire displayed by the Police in seizing Admiralty back and destroying the protest zones may even be stronger than that found in Mong Kok. President, it is now the 68th day and both the Central Government and the SAR Government have not really responded to the aspiration for genuine universal suffrage. They have not made the slightest indication that the issue can be discussed. The obstinate insistence is that the candidates for the Chief Executive election in 2017 can only be nominated by one political party, that is, the Communist Party of China (CPC). And before one can secure a nomination, you must say something pleasing to the ears of the CPC. You cannot choose to be silent. President, this makes those participants of the Umbrella Movement feel very concerned. They consider that if they were to leave this way, they would never be convinced. However, I hope these participants can see that, the regime they face is one that is rigid like an iron plate and it will never give up an inch. This movement should undergo a process of intensification and interaction should be initiated in the community before another wave can be formed, reaching yet


3131

another climax in the fight. For now, it is not meaningful to squander time with the Government by staying in Harcourt Road. I wish to point out that I have recently read an article written by Mr LAU Sai-leung on the Internet entitled to the effect of "The Cold-blooded Mindset". I should like to see if the Secretary for Security will care to react to that. If we look at the history of Hong Kong, we will know that during the 1970s we had a movement to protect the Diao Yu Islands. If the President can still remember it, there was a scene in which a British Superintendent who hit the head of a student and the latter had blood all over his face. This scene is a symbol of the suppression of the student movement by the colonial government. Starting from the 1990s, with efforts made by the Police, the public came to change its impression of the Police and they give people an impression that the Police are professional and they are there to serve the people, unlike the public security officers or armed police. In recent years there are people with ulterior motives who try to place the Police in a position which is in direct confrontation with the people. As Mr LAU Sai-leung said, this starts with comments about those "waste youths" and those university students and secondary school students who fight for genuine universal suffrage are dehumanized and rendered into abstract concepts. The Police would use force to attack the scum of society and useless crap. This is why the Police were saying, "Crap, crap" as they raised their batons and hit the protesters. Another example is the case about a teacher called LAM Sze-wai being blown up indefinitely. The official media from Beijing say categorically that these people who fight for genuine universal suffrage are incited by foreign forces. According to Mr LAU Sai-leung, this is advocating nationalism. Mr LAU also mentions the idea of creating character differentiation in image. The Police are told to beat people up and this earns them the name of "black cops". But while the occupied zones are receiving great acclaim and the movement is hailed by global media as the most civilized resistance, this produces a desire among the Police for revenge. Of course, Mr LAU is only making his analysis. But his analysis merits some deep thoughts by us. The question is: Are there really people who because of political motives are doing their best to escalate the clashes between the Police and the public? In the days to come, the Police will become a political tool that can never stay neutral and serve the public in a professional manner. It would be very dangerous if such a day really comes. I hope the Secretary for Security can take this angle and do


his own analysis to see if the problem of police violence is caused by a so-called situational system. This situational system covers the abovementioned comments on the "waste youths", nationalism, and blowing up the incident of a teacher called LAM Sze-wai, and so on. All these make the Police think that they are deprived of their dignity and there is a difference or shortfall in their image, hence creating a desire in them for revenge. If it happens that there are really people who produce this situational system, I think that the Secretary for Security or the Commissioner of Police should be duty-bound to change this situational system. It can be very simple, President, for example, by changing this system into one that admits the pursuit of democracy, fairness, justice and peace in every person. And when a police officer raises his baton, he should think of those standing in front of him as his sons and relatives who have come out to fight simply because they do not see any hope and the Government is not responding. Then you will think whether you will still want to raise your baton and hit and call them crap. President, a famous Chinese historian TANG Degang once described the development of democracy in China this way and now I quote. It is to this effect: "A person who writes history…can see the development of the course of history, with waves splashing across thousands of miles. And if there are just a few fatuous old men who try to hold back the mighty torrents of the Yangtze River, I would consider them as doing an impossible task." May I remind Chairman XIE Jinping, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying and Members from the pro-establishment camp, all the things that you are doing which run counter to this ardent desire of Hong Kong people to determine their own fate (The buzzer sounded) … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, speaking time is up. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): … are no more than a mantis trying to stop a chariot. (After the President had called upon Dr CHIANG Lai-wan to speak, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)


3133

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Please do a headcount in accordance with Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please speak. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, Mr Alan LEONG mentioned just now that previously, a teacher, Ms LAM, had been criticized for using foul language, right? Mr LEONG, in fact, the Ms LAM in question attracted comments from the public not because she used foul language; the main reason was that she was a teacher. In the same vein, when some lawyers or barristers made comments that were at odds with the law or made statements suggesting that breaking the law would not undermine the rule of law, they also aroused resentment in all sectors of the community because although they are members of their profession, they are undermining the foundation of the rule of law … President, Mr Alan LEONG is leaving the Chamber now. President, despite Mr Alan LEONG's absence from the Chamber, I still have to continue, do I not? We all know that recently, some Members from the legal profession said that the Police had taken advantage of the injunction orders on Mong Kok to clear the site and believed the Police were at fault. In fact, I was not the only one who asked: Did the Police do anything wrong? Even a lot of members of the public also wondered what was wrong with that. In this regard, I really do not know what was wrong. I asked them to look at what was wrong. They said that first of all, the Judge had specifically included a direction in the injunction orders stating that if the bailiffs deem it necessary, they can ask the Police for assistance and help, right? Moreover, according to section 10 of the Police Force


Ordinance (Cap. 232), the duties of the Police Force include "controlling traffic upon public thoroughfares and removing obstructions therefrom", right? Accordingly, the Police have the authority to clear the site at any time. I hope Members or Mr LEE Cheuk-yan ― he is looking at me now and I thank him for doing so ― can think about this: As he has quite a lot of international connections, maybe he can look at which countries, regions or cities allow citizens to commit civil disobedience by occupying some trunk roads, tunnels or bridges, and for two months for that matter. The day before yesterday, in a function organized by a chamber of commerce in conjunction with some foreign consuls, I asked the consuls if such things had ever happened in their countries. They said of course in the negative, that it may still be all right to occupy parks, that even Occupy Wall Street had taken place in a park, so how could such an outrageous thing as occupying roads happen? They said this would not be allowed for even two days, not to say two months, and that the protestors would be immediately removed. Therefore, we can see that the Hong Kong Police are actually very restrained. In this connection, I heard only this morning that the New York police … we have all learnt that some black people in the United States died one after another due to some incidents ― I will not go into the details. In the last incident, some police officers in the United States shot dead two youngsters. This morning, I heard in another piece of news that a police officer, while on duty, killed … (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up) MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, a quorum is not present in the Chamber, and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's speech is very muddled, so may I ask her to organize her thoughts a little? I request a headcount. I ask her to look carefully before speaking again. It should be the State of Virginia. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (While the summoning bell was ringing, Mr WONG Ting-kwong stood up)


3135

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, what is your point? MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. Is it raining here in the Legislative Council Chamber? There is an opened umbrella over there. I wonder what is happening. (Dr CHIANG Lai-wan talked while remaining standing) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please sit down. MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, another point of order. The placard that reads "put Hong Kong people first" is not related to this debate. Why is it placed here? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Is Mr Gary FAN present? Mr FAN, please wait until the debate on your motion to display that placard. MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, is holding an opened umbrella in the Chamber allowed? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, is that your umbrella? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): This umbrella is about the Umbrella Movement. Though many people are critical of the Umbrella Movement now, I support it. What is the problem? (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung debated with other Members) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please stop debating on their own? Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please sit down. (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung kept speaking loudly in the Chamber)


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please do not speak loudly in the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please continue with your speech. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, whenever I speak, there are always Members who request a headcount for no reason, especially in the middle of my speech. That is really a kind of parliamentary violence. President, in your capacity, you really need to talk to them at times. We actually have power in our hands, but we cannot abuse it. Therefore, I wish that they would understand this, and that you would be fair in presiding over the meeting. I earlier said that compared with many Western counterparts, the Hong Kong Police are very much restrained. This morning, I learnt of the prospect of riots in these days in the United States, in particular New York, and the New York City Government has made it clear that any occupation of roads, bridges or tunnels is not allowed, and that offenders will be severely penalized. As for how severe the penalty is, perhaps we or the Hong Kong Police would like to draw reference from them, because the United States is praised for its human rights condition by many of the Members present. Only then will they be able to get a better idea of what human rights are. President, as Members can see recently, after the clearance of streets in Mong Kok, a lot of people are still staying there every day and refuse to leave, even though they do not occupy major trunk roads. A few days ago, some people claimed they were merely passers-by but had no idea why the Police beat them. Earlier, we also saw the clashes at Lung Wo Road, where an associate professor of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) claimed that he merely sat on the roadside for some rest and a chat in company of friends looking for family members. President, we also rest and chat in the vicinity every day. And we always cross the roads in Mong Kok, as thousands of people do every day. Why do the Police not beat or arrest them? President, the HKU associate professor has really baffled me. With so many coffee shops in the neighbourhood, like Starbucks, and so on, why did he not sit in any of them, but chose to sit in the middle of the area where a clearance operation was in progress and did a chat


3137

there? I remain puzzled no matter how hard I try to figure it out. That is our HKU associate professor. President, I am about to collapse. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair) In addition, some protesters are now resorting to intangible violence, which is even more unbearable and ruthless than the tangible one. They kept provoking and chiding the Police and even went on to shine camera flashlights at them, as Members could see. This is actually the kind of intangible violence that is highly exhausting. Such intangible violence has not only infuriated the Police, but also those people living in the neighbourhood. I am not sure if Members are aware of the elderly who have been living in the areas for decades. They have neither the ability nor the will to move out. In particular, residents who have formed a neighbourhood among themselves in some old streets in Mong Kok are familiar with the places, and moving out is the very last thing they want. However, they could not sleep well over these past two months. Deputy President, that is really an intangible kind of disturbance and violence. Therefore, we can see that many members of the public doubt why the Police do not take law-enforcement actions earlier. They wish to have a good sleep after police actions, but there are still people roaring on the streets at night. Hence, I very much hope that the occupiers or those who wander at night will stop disturbing the elderly living in the areas, who really find it hard to sleep at night. That is also the case for those having to go to work, who have been subject to immense mental stress. Deputy President, as regards Ms Claudia MO's speech I heard yesterday, I must say a few words in response. Ms MO's remark that both public officers and the Police are supported by taxpayers has prompted me to doubt whether Ms MO is so supported. She is as well. She is so capable that she not only has taxpayers' support in the form of the salary earned from this Council, but she also gets paid by a university through taxpayers' money. She gets two pay cheques from taxpayers. Nevertheless, what are the differences between what they and the Police do? The Police have to uphold the rule of law and maintain order, while they incite students to engage in civil disobedience to fight for what is due to them, so on and so forth. We are really worried as to how people think differently nowadays, and it is really scary to teach students in such way.


Fortunately, Hong Kong students are not all fools, and many of them are smart. Last week, I saw some young people dine with some women and their children. We came to this subject of young people should not join Occupy Central. Then, some of the young people talked about how they were always so labelled nowadays, and wondered how many of them had really joined the Occupy action. According to the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS), the largest turnout of young people for a single assembly is merely 10 000 or so. He also said that the HKFS is not formed as a result of an election that saw their participation, and that Scholarism is just a group composed of a handful of people, so it is by no means a body for secondary school students. It is neither formed as a result of an election that saw their participation, nor representative of young people. There are now 200 000 or so students in post-secondary institutions in Hong Kong. How many of them have really come out? Let us suppose that an assembly has drawn a record-high turnout of 10 000 young people. This would mean 240 000 young people have not come out, and they are all good students. I wish Members could cease using young people as the shield. I suppose that 1 000 people are now occupying the roads, and Members are aware of the fact that 16% of the occupiers are students, as some surveys show. It means that out of the 200 000 or so post-secondary students in Hong Kong, merely 160 students have joined the Occupy action. Given that some graduates may open umbrellas at graduation ceremonies, I have made enquiries with the relevant university authorities to see if many of the graduates did so, and the reply is that no more than ten or so out of hundreds of graduates have done so. About the graduation ceremony the Hong Kong Baptist University held for its master programmes last week, I asked if anyone had opened umbrellas, and was then told that only one did so. Members should not play up the matter as Dr Kenneth CHAN does by saying that "if you are hostile to students or young people, they will treat you so". This is a fitting remark on Dr CHAN himself. How can he be hostile to young people? We have 200 000 or so pliable young people, while those who really come out constitute the minority. Will he please recognize this. Moreover, in a radio programme today, I heard a young man's account of the reason for joining the Occupy action, namely to fight for something due. Deputy President, what do we deserve actually? Each of us were born naked, and we fight for everything we now possess bit by bit. If one suggests that he


3139

deserves something and he has to get it, he may go deep into the countryside, where he can merge with the Heaven and Earth freely. If he is to live in this civilized society, such a society is built on the rule of law. Hence, I wish that people would abide by the rule of law, no matter what they are going to fight for. Deputy President, as regards our universal values nowadays, apart from democracy, Members should also be aware of the importance of the rule of law (The buzzer sounded) … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, speaking time is up. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in three of the eight meetings so far convened in the new Session of this Council, pan-democrat Members have proposed to debate the law-enforcement actions taken by the Police in major events. Nevertheless, on the surface, the pan-democrat Members have called for debates on particular events, but the reality, as expected, is that every time they speak, they just recount what have happened for reasons no other than: first, reinforcing their role in this Council and manifesting their role as supporters for the Occupy action in the form of confrontation within this Council, hence they need to make remarks in this Council that would have the Police all hamstrung; second, attacking the Police without any bound or limit would not only tie their hands up but also serve the purpose of cheering up the occupiers at the same time. This would in a way condone related violence and spell out their aspiration that the Occupy action should continue. This is what the pan-democrat Members are thinking. Deputy President, to put it simply, let us ask the pan-democrat Members, how is the mess in relation to the Occupy action be cleared up, if this or that action is not allowed? If chiding or beating is not allowed and, an amendment of the 31 August Decision is the only option that can save the day, how is it possible? If such amendment was really possible, the stalemate would not have lasted for more than 60 days. That is utterly impossible.


In addition, I hope the pan-democrat Members can be pragmatic and listen to what members of the public say. At present, the call for clearance is getting increasingly clear, distinct and vocal, why do they turn a deaf ear to it? Despite their hope of playing as supporters for the Occupy action, yet honestly, who will heed their command on the scene? Why do they insist on taking up that unnecessary role? On the contrary, if no one follows the lead of the pan-democratic camp, which is involved in organizing the action, let alone the Police. The Police called on the protesters to go home a long time ago, so did the Government, senior officers of the Police as well as police representatives and, as I surmise, even their parents, but all to no avail. When they do not heed the advice, how should it be handled? Deputy President, let me talk about the bounden duty of the Police. Section 10 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) provides for the duties of the Police Force, including "(a) preserving the public peace", which means maintaining the safety of the public, or maintaining law and order of society. This is their top priority. I believe the Police are able to remain politically neutral. However, over a period of time in the past, the pan-democrat Members have been working hard to put the Police in a position antagonistic to the occupiers. As long as the roads are not occupied, the Police have no intention to suppress anyone from making speeches; and if they submit a formal application for a gathering at the Victoria Park, the Police will not bother, regardless of how irrelevantly they speak. Nevertheless, they are now blocking the roads and creating disturbances to the community, so the Police have to do what they are duty-bound to do. They should not put the Police on the opposite side, a move that is utterly unfair to them and will stir up hostility against them. This is what they created with their very own hands. May they please spare the Police. In fact, yesterday, some members of the public supportive of the police's law-enforcement actions presented to them a banner inscribed with four Chinese characters, which literally mean "combat crimes and maintain social order". The meaning is as clear as what that banner conveys, and that is exactly what the Police should do. Why do they need to maintain social order? Let us consider to whom the Police are accountable. They always portray the Police as being accountable to the Government. But as far as I understand it, the Police are accountable to the interests of those who abide the law, the general public as well as society as a whole, and this is indispensable. They should stop doing the Police injustice and giving them a bad name.


3141

Furthermore, let me come back to an earlier point, where Ms Emily LAU mentioned the use of tear gas. In fact, I was stunned by the footage on the firing of tear gas, because the last time it was used was eight to nine years ago against the Korean farmers in 2005, and no one could have expected that it would be used again. However, when I look at it from the perspective nowadays, between tear gas and baton, which one is more lethal? Of course, no one will deny the more lethal nature of a baton, but the crux lies in the view that tear gas should not be used. In theory, when tear gas is fired, people will disperse and leave rather than staying together and inhaling it, and the Police will not surround them, so they are given room to retreat and disperse, which is a better alternative than the use of force. However, the pan-democrat Members disallow its use. As for pepper spray, the protesters have well taken protective measures, so what can the Police do? They can only talk, but they have talked for a long time to no avail, so they have to use force today. This is actually the pan-democrat Members' own making, because they disallow the use of this and that. What equipment is left on the body of a police officer then? The baton. Moreover, I would like to strike home another message. As Members can see, the police work mainly to disperse the crowd and wish that the occupiers will go home, with no intention of arresting them. If they are arrested and then left with a criminal record for unlawful assembly, this record will follow them the rest of their life. However, when the Police use batons to disperse people nowadays, they will only beat the protesters' legs and body parts below the waist on most occasions, hoping that they will expeditiously go home without incurring any other consequences. Will there be pain? Physically there is, but it is transient and will ease. It is different from a criminal record, which will affect the future and the whole life. Hence, after weighing the pros and cons, the Police have actually demonstrated great restraint. I wish Members would stop blaming them. At the same time, there is another point I would like to make in defence of the Police. Since a fortnight ago, the pan-democrat Members have always sought to describe the Police as "killing so much as to become red-eyed" and "beating whoever in the way". However, my explanation for the Police is that if they have really become "red-eyed", it has nothing to do with the work, but the fact is that they are very much fatigued. They are on duty around the clock, and each shift lasts for 12 hours. They are unlike the protesters, who may take a rest


in the occupied areas or even go home when there is no action, and not many are staying overnight in the areas. In addition, the pan-democrat Members may come out whenever they see any footage on charging, and would take a rest after that. However, can the Police take any rest? No. Even though no one is charging, the Police will still need to stay in the vicinity or stand by. They need to keep working each and every hour, so they are very much fatigued. Some police officers have said that overtime pay is not what they really desire even though they are so entitled. They prefer staying with family members at home, where they may have some rest as well. That is what lies in their hearts. Here, I would really like to cheer the Police up by saying "hurray" to them. To combat crimes and maintain social order, they have spared no effort in fulfilling their duties, as evident in the incident that unfolded in Mong Kok, where all roads have finally become accessible. I would like to thank the Police for their contribution, and at the same time commend the way they brace themselves for any profanity or rude men they come across. Next, I also wish to say that prior to the issue of the injunctions, the Government, the Police and those affected parties have already demonstrated immense patience in the face of the incident. However, as the issue of the injunctions reflects recently, the harm the Occupy action has inflicted on the community is so deep that both legal intervention and police assistance are warranted. As Members can see, the so-called love and peace has once existed without doubt. But to my understanding, it existed before 28 September, the time when only talk took place. Once the roads were blocked, it already became a far cry from love and peace. Furthermore, the incident as a whole is still developing. As Members can see, there was a time when nothing happened, but it was followed by scenes of charging or confrontation which scared a pan-democrat Member and the Occupy Central Trio into turning themselves in immediately out of worries about the incident spiralling on an aggravating course. Frankly, from an overall perspective, the Occupy action of over 60 or so days has not only gathered a crowd, but also seen the setting up of barricades for the charging crowds. Initially, they used love and peace as the banner to show that their action was principled and to preach some of their messages; but in reality, as the incident unfolded, Members could see how those who charged or created troubles were


3143

hiding behind the barricades to pose enormous difficulties for the Police in law enforcement. Therefore, I truly wish that through the surrender of the Occupy Central Trio and the pan-democrat Member, occupiers who are genuinely peaceful and open-minded will go home expeditiously, such that the Police will be able to identify those who charge and cause troubles with malicious intentions as soon as possible and bring them to justice. Besides, Members may also note Ms Emily LAU's remark that there are currently more than 5 million eligible voters but only 3 million or so have registered, hence more people would come forward to do the registration and get involved so as to the boost the voter turnout. In fact, I was a little stunned by her tone of arrogance. Why? Because she may have done some computation, which leads her into thinking that they are bound to win sliding victories in 2015 and 2016 with their existing vote base coupled with the one built upon the occupiers outside. Nevertheless, I wish to point out that many of the countless people we met within the community told us that they were long-time supporters of pan-democrat Members, but would no longer be so. Of course, I would proceed to ask them of the reason, and their reply was that if discussion had taken place initially or the matter had not dragged on for so long, it would still have been pardonable; however, the present chaos had a beginning but no ending. There was no one to shoulder the responsibility, and political wisdom was absent, and Hong Kong was to pay a heavy price for this. Hence, they are too scared to support them anymore, because they have seen their true faces. I hope they will reflect on themselves from this painful experience and stop messing Hong Kong up. In addition, they mentioned the need for better policymaking by the Government, which of course is beyond dispute. Nevertheless, on the premise of doing better in policymaking, which path should Hong Kong take going forward? If I am so asked, I would point out the need of nurturing more political talents, who have to be persons with a broad international outlook so as to bring to Hong Kong good experience from overseas encompassing governance approaches as a whole and their effectiveness, instead of merely the electoral system. With such political talents, Hong Kong will have future. At present, however, the next generation that they support focuses on merely one thing, that is, putting aside the livelihood-related and economic aspects of the community for the sake of constitutional reform. In this way, it is


impossible for them to become our political talents in the future. The future development of Hong Kong will not centre on a single issue. What we need is the community as a whole moving forward together. I hope Members can proactively nurture the next generation into citizens accountable to the community, such that we in Hong Kong can find a new way out together. Thank you, Deputy President. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, there is currently a term called "Tiger Mom" in the international community, which is meant to ridicule some Asian mothers who drill their children like hell, moulding their children into their desired archetypes. Today I saw Dr CHIANG Lai-wan roar like a tiger, and I now realize that she is a "Tiger Mom". She said that 10 000 people are the bad guys and 240 000 are the good ones. She was trying to impose her thoughts on other people, equating people fighting for democracy and universal suffrage with the bad guys whereas the other people are the good ones. I think the good guys are actually all supporters of the Umbrella Movement. So, in categorizing people this way, she was imposing her very naïve thinking on the young people. I hope the young people will clearly tell this "Tiger Mom" whether she can represent them. I hope that they will really respond to her. But Deputy President, in the history of Hong Kong, I think this Umbrella Movement will be described as a magnificent, awe-inspiring pro-democracy movement which has awakened the entire generation. Here, I must pay tribute to the Occupy Central Trio because since they came forth two years ago to say that they would fight for democracy by way of civil disobedience, they have enlightened this generation, and they have enlightened the community of Hong Kong to fight for our due rights through the Occupy movement. Certainly, it was when the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Scholarism called for a class boycott and subsequently entered the Civic Square that kick-started this movement. This, coupled with the fearless spirit of many people who not only refused to step back but even marched forward in the face of tear gas canisters, are what made this Umbrella Movement so touching to us. Therefore, I believe this is definitely how history will ultimately write about it. People who have been staying in the occupied areas for 60-odd days all firmly uphold a principle and that is, they call for the withdrawal of the decision made by the National People's Congress (NPC) on 31 August, and we Hong Kong people want genuine universal suffrage. Let each and every one of us now living in turbulent times


3145

fulfil our share of this responsibility. I hope that Hong Kong people will keep up with their efforts and work hard for this cause. On the other hand, history will accuse LEUNG Chun-ying of tearing society apart and sowing hatred in society by suppressing the Umbrella Movement by police force, which is most heart-rending. We feel heart-rending because we saw the Police getting out of control, using excessive violence, treating the people as their enemies and creating hatred. Let us examine in retrospect what happened in Mong Kok and Lung Wo Road between 25 and 30 November. What did we see during this period? The Secretary said just now that the Police were not out of control but I believe Hong Kong people had seen the Police getting out of control. The Police were out of control in that they bashed at all passers-by alike and bashed on all the heads that came into their sight, causing bad injuries to the people. Did Members see people bleeding? What is it if it is not the Police getting out of control? When the Police saw reporters, they knew only to arrest them and neglected everything. What is it if it is not arbitrary assault and arbitrary arrest? Then they even bashed at the first-aid workers. In fact, the first-aid workers have reported on their casualties. At Lung Wo Road on 30 November alone, 15 members of the medical teams and 30 volunteers were beaten up. What is it if it is not the Police getting out of control? This is what we have seen for real. Mr KWOK Wai-keung said earlier that the police officers' eyes were red because they were burnt out. But what I saw was that when the police officers struck at the protesters and I looked into their eyes, I saw that they were red. I think their eyes had become red from assailing the people, and this made my heart ache. Then the Police violently struck at whoever they saw, and have you seen those scenes? What is it if it is not the Police getting out of control? So, we really saw that the Police have recently ruined the professional image which they have long built up. We heard that the Police had said to the protesters, "Do you want to be taken to the police station and be raped?" Should they say such things? Of course, Members may say that this is the problem of individual policemen, but it is really heart-rending that society is so full of hatred and torn apart as such. Let me make it clear here that I am not saying that there were no provocative actions by the protesters on the opposite side. I saw that they insulted the Police with abuses, and I think it is not a good direction for things to go on like that. Both sides should cast aside hatred. However, let us not forget one thing and that is, the policemen have batons, tear gas canisters, pepper based


solution and pepper spray. They are people with force. What do the protesters have? Therefore, in comparison, what is it if it is not the Police using excessive force? Having said that, I think the Secretary and LEUNG Chun-ying should be blamed for the entire incident. The Police were out of control because it was actually you who pushed the Police to the front line and made them do such things, and it was you who instructed the Police to use such force on the protesters. Therefore, in the entire incident, we saw that LEUNG Chun-ying had failed to solve the political issue by political means and he had even pushed Hong Kong to the brink of hatred. He is the chief culprit. Therefore, let us not forget the initial intent, and let us not forget that the Police are just a chess piece of LEUNG Chun-ying. If we want to pursue responsibilities, we must pursue responsibilities from LEUNG Chun-ying. How could a Chief Executive do such things? First, the entire incident was caused by LEUNG Chun-ying and the NPC from the very outset. Had LEUNG Chun-ying not written the report in such a way and submitted it to the Central Government and had there not been the NPC decision on 31 August, would the Occupy movement come into being? In fact, the pan-democratic Members already pointed out in the press conference convened some time ago that the NPC must not set a framework and impose it on us. We said that it would be most important for Hong Kong society to hold discussions first but there was not a chance at all. They simply imposed a framework on Hong Kong people. Some pro-establishment Members said earlier that we are damaging the rule of law, but the NPC was the first to do damage to the rule of law. The NPC has erected "unauthorized building works" because the second step of the Basic Law's "Five-step Process" does not stipulate that the NPC can explain how the constitutional reform should proceed as it only stipulates that the NPC can determine whether the Basic Law would need to be amended. The NPC should have finished its job after making a determination but what happened was that they not only made a determination but even explained how amendments should be made. Therefore, if the rule of law is said to be damaged, the NPC was the first to damage it in not allowing room for Hong Kong people to hold discussions on our own. Therefore, the constitutional system of Hong Kong people is destroyed by the NPC. There is basically no room for us to truly discuss the right to genuine universal suffrage to which Hong Kong people are entitled.


3147

Second, the reason why I said that the chief culprit is LEUNG Chun-ying is that as Members can see earlier, LEUNG Chun-ying has pushed the Police to the front line, making them employ excessive force to suppress the unarmed protesters. Some people said that the protesters have shields and helmets with them too, but can shields and helmets resist the police batons? I think the protesters should not use shields in the first place, for this may imply a wish to launch attacks, and as I often said to the protesters, they would not be able to attack the Police with their shields because the Police would use batons and pepper spray and so, their umbrellas and shields would not serve any purpose since they had already resorted to this level of violence. This is so heart-rending. Yet, LEUNG Chun-ying just could not care less, knowing only to push the Police to the front line in an attempt to resolve this political problem by police powers and force. Third, LEUNG Chun-ying has put the Court on the spot. It is obvious that he can enforce the law but he put the Court on the spot. Then he took advantage of the injunction order, saying that they would not take clearance actions and that they only wished to provide assistance for the civil proceedings by helping the bailiffs to execute the court order on behalf of the private organization. But when they arrived at the scene, they went back on their words, saying at one time that they were there to enforce the injunction order but denying it at another. In fact, it turned out that they were not there to enforce the injunction order and they eventually took actions speedily. It was originally said that 200 "little red caps" would be there to cut the plastic cords, but it turned out that the Police already entered the site and took actions to the neglect of everything, and they were actually not enforcing the injunction order at all. They were obviously going back on their words. Then why should they put the Court on the spot? He has put the Court on the spot, leveraging on the court's authority to clear the site. I think this also amounts to damageing the rule of law. Fourth, I think the worst thing about LEUNG Chun-ying is that he has traded the people's blood for a higher popularity rating for himself. Why does he have to draw blood? Why can he boost his popularity rating by drawing blood? We are really in great distress because he has created divisions in society. He has most successfully torn society apart to the extent that the people seem to be not moved by the Police beating the protesters and injuring them badly. He has brainwashed the people and described the protesters as rubbish


and waste youths. In pinning such labels on the protesters, LEUNG Chun-ying, how merciless you are! He has plunged society into such a sorry state in exchange for his status and for his being able to continuously hold the office of Chief Executive, hiding up at the back but instructing the Police to come forth to play the role of bad guys. This is LEUNG Chun-ying. In order to defend your master, you people in the pro-establishment camp have always accused us of confusing right and wrong. The fact is that you are most adept at reversing the effect as the cause and calling a stag a horse. It cannot be clearer that the NPC Decision is the cause and the Occupy movement is the result, but why have you not talked about this very cause of the NPC Decision on 31 August which has deprived Hong Kong people of universal suffrage? When you criticized that "gau wu"3 is naïve and selfish, please do not forget that this is the effect, and the cause is the Police arbitrarily beating passers-by in Mong Kok and provoking public rage and as a result, the people have resorted to this mobile means of putting up a fight by way of shopping. Why do they have to put up a fight by way of shopping? Why do they have to adopt this "guerrilla" approach? Would these happen if the Police did not arbitrarily assault the passers-by and arrest the reporters? I hope Members can think about what the cause is, rather than merely discussing the effect. Then they only saw that there were a lot of shields, but do not forget that the cause is the Police bashing on people's heads and the protesters put on helmets because the Police have bashed on people's heads. So, I hope Members really must not reverse the effect as the cause. Now that things have developed to the present state and here, I call on all sides to cast aside hatred. The Police have already bashed on the heads of many people, causing injuries to them, and I hope that they can stop using force. Of course, I will make an appeal to the protesters too, and at Lung Wo Road on that day, I also appealed to the protesters to not to charge but some protesters said "no". They said that they must charge for the purpose of self-defence. But I really hope that the protesters can think about it. It is not the case that I oppose their charging actions but even if they have to do so, they must have a strategy. As the saying goes, "when the enemy advances, we retreat; when the enemy retreats, we advance". We have already occupied some places and all we need

3 "Gau wu" is the Cantonese transliteration of "gou wu" in Putonghua which means shopping.


3149

to do is to hold onto these places in order to pressurize the Government. We must not give the opposite side an excuse to use force. If protesters charge the Police cordon lines, they would be easily beaten up and injured, and this is what I most do not wish to see. At Lung Wo Road on that day I said very clearly to the protesters that I did not wish to see them being beaten up and injured; nor did I wish to see the Police beating up and injuring people. Therefore, we must insist on upholding the principle of peace and non-violence because we have no weapon, and our only weapon is our moral force. If we even let go of it, LEUNG Chun-ying would easily flaunt with arrogance and make use of us. So, I very much hope that we can insist on peace, so that we will have the moral force to fight for the right to democracy to which we are entitled. I think the entire Umbrella Movement has won a battle but there is still a long way to go for us to win the entire war. We must continue to stand united; we must continue to work hard and continue to uphold the principle of peace and non-violence until we win a victory. We hope that (The buzzer sounded) … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE, speaking time is up. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): … the day when Hong Kong has genuine universal suffrage will arrive as soon as possible. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding the occupied area in Mong Kok, some organizations in the transport trade have obtained injunction orders from the Court earlier to prohibit occupiers from further occupying the roads in Mong Kok. The Court has also stated that during the enforcement of injunction orders by the bailiffs, the Police can provide assistance to them when necessary. The bailiffs officially executed the injunction orders on 25 November to remove the barricades in Mong Kok while the Police also provided timely assistance upon request. However, the law-enforcement power of the Police is not restricted to the enforcement of injunction orders. The Court has also indicated that apart from assisting the enforcement of injunction orders, the Police also have authority to enforce the laws that were beyond the scope of injunction orders. The Police were also


responsible for exercising the powers conferred by the laws of Hong Kong to maintain the peace and public order in Hong Kong as and when necessary, such as in the situation where troublemakers took part in unlawful activities to continue the unlawful assembly and occupation of roads. I wish to point out here that apart from Mong Kok, the Occupy actions in Admiralty and Causeway Bay are also unlawful activities. I urge occupiers to retreat as soon as possible and end their action. Deputy President, at the beginning of the unlawful Occupy action, those who made remarks to encourage and affirm the movement as well as trying to exculpate and defend the occupiers were the sympathizers or abettors of the movement; those who attended the unlawful assembly, made speeches and interfered in law enforcement by the Police were the participants of unlawful activities; those who only accused the Police of enforcing the law without accusing the people who had resisted violently were conniving at violent resistance; those who told the occupiers that it was unnecessary to obey the injunction orders were even the inciters of unlawful activities. In conclusion, all of these people have destroyed the rule of law in Hong Kong. It is absolutely ironic that many of those who exactly tally with such descriptions of destroyers of the rule of law are present today in the Chamber and they have righteously criticized the Police who are actually safeguarding the rule of law. I did not hear a single criticism or accusation made of the illegal nature of the incident or the people who had charged at the Police (including physical, verbal and Internet violence) during the Occupy action, which is not surprising to me. Deputy President, during the enforcement of the Mong Kok injunction orders, the Police had been urging the public through the media to refrain from going to … (Mr SIN Chung-kai stood up without a reason) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN Chung-kai, please sit down. Mr MA Fung-kwok, please continue with your speech. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): … had been urging the public through the media to refrain from going to the high-risk area in Mong Kok and they had


3151

also been making broadcasts on the spot to urge the public to leave. As they were unable to differentiate between protesters and the ordinary public, it was unavoidable that the crowd on the spot would be implicated during the process. However, I cannot help asking why those crowds of people would appear in those places at that time? What were they doing actually? Did they understand what was happening over there in the past 60-odd days and on that particular day? Did they hear the warning issued by the Police? If they are depicted as innocent people, I am afraid there is a lot of explaining to do. As for those innocent citizens who complained that the Police had inflicted unreasonable violence on them, what did they do before the camera began to capture and film? I believe it would be really difficult to draw an immediate conclusion. Under such circumstances, I think that those who were simply onlookers or bystanders should also be responsible for their own safety. The easiest measure is to stay away from the ocuppied area or refrain from going to places with public assemblies. Deputy President, I have watched some violent scenes which, I would say, are totally disgusting, including both the scenes of a crowd charging at the Police or clearance of sites and enforcement of law by using force. Nonetheless, it is necessary for us to face these shots or scenes and, more importantly, distinguish right from wrong. During the Occupy action which has lasted for over 60 days, I think that the overall performance of the Police has been most restrained and professional, definitely not inferior to that of some advanced countries or the so-called "international standard" that has often been mentioned recently. Therefore, I think their efforts should command full recognition and support. Undeniably, I also have to emphasize that the Police can only use a corresponding level of force during the enforcement of injunction orders issued by the Court or clearance operations. They definitely should not use excessive force as it is the bottom line of a civilized society upholding the rule of law. Yet, how shall we define a corresponding level of force? It then raises the standards of law enforcement by the Police and requires them to conduct themselves in a more professional manner. Regarding the approaches and standards of law enforcement of individual police officers, if anyone has suffered unreasonable treatment, he should lodge a complaint in accordance with the established mechanism. I also hope and believe that the Administration and the Police will pay more attention to such aspect and handle the cases in a serious and impartial manner.


Deputy President, in the motion debate yesterday, Dr Kenneth CHAN mentioned the views expressed by the Hong Kong Journalists Association on the matter that I had, in my capacity as the representative of the pro-establishment Legislative Council Members, read out a statement on 28 November to support strict law enforcement by the Police, oppose any illegal and violent behaviour, strongly condemn the troublemakers for destroying the public order and charging at the Police who were taking law-enforcement actions. As far as I understand it, Members who had signed the joint statement on that day were absolutely not targeting at the press nor making any negative comments of the media. Instead, they reminded the press with good intentions that they should be aware of their safety. I had also issued a statement the next day to clarify my stance which, unfortunately, did not receive wide coverage. I might as well take this opportunity to read out the statement again and the contents are as follows: "In regard to the open letter issued by the Hong Kong Journalists

Association today, there are some misunderstandings in its contents so I have to make a reply for clarification and set the record straight.

"On behalf of 40 pro-establishment Legislative Council Members, I read

out the joint statement on 28 November to show open support for strict law enforcement by the Police, recognize their restrained and professional performance, urge the public to stay rational and obey the law, oppose any illegal and violent behaviour and strongly condemn the troublemakers for destroying the public order and charging at the Police who were taking law enforcement actions. This is actually a responsibility of Legislative Council Members.

"The press and the Police were performing an important social function in

this Occupy action, both of which are equally indispensable. The press has to hold fast to their posts and remain objective, neutral, impartial and fair when reporting the facts to the public; the Police also have to maintain law and order with impartiality and take strict law-enforcement actions. Only if both of them perform their respective duties can the society of Hong Kong and interests of the public be protected.

"I have noticed the worries of many press unions which had expressed

concern over the personal safety of front-line reporters and they hoped that


3153

the Police can understand the difficulties in reporting faced by journalists and the need of reporters to cover the news. I hereby urge all journalists to stay extremely vigilant when covering the news with personal safety being the prime concern and avoid causing unnecessary conflicts in chaotic situations.

"Many press unions have already made a report in the Police Headquarters

on the cases where two journalists were allegedly treated in a violent way. They also planned to lodge a further complaint to the Complaints Against Police Office. Hong Kong is a society upholding the rule of law and therefore if anyone has suffered unreasonable treatment, he certainly has the right to lodge a complaint in accordance with the ordinary method. I hope and believe that the Police will follow up seriously and take appropriate actions.

"Being the representative of the publishing sector, I am pleased to act as

the bridge for communication between the press unions and the Police to foster mutual communication and build up a tacit understanding so that unnecessary clashes and misunderstandings between the two parties can be avoided during the covering of news or enforcement of law. I also trust that neither the press nor the Police are prepared to see any occurrence of conflicts." (End of statement)

Deputy President, I understand that in order to get the first-hand news of the clearance operation and provide live coverage, reporters usually go into the middle of protesters or the crowd who often use mobile phones or recording cameras nowadays to film the situation live. From the media reports, we can see that some media workers or some ambiguous media workers were mixed with the crowd and the Police. When conflicts occurred during clearance operations, it was indeed really difficult for the Police to immediately identify the reporters and, as a result, there might be some clashes or misunderstandings. We absolutely do not want to see such situations and are trying to avoid that. Therefore, I really hope that the tacit understanding between the Police and the media can be enhanced and improved while arrangements for easier identification can be made to prevent recurrence of unnecessary clashes or misunderstandings during news reporting or law enforcement in future. In this connection, I am really pleased to, as the representative of the industry, act as the bridge between


the press and the Police to foster their mutual communication so that both parties can understand the operational needs of the other party and co-operate with each other. Deputy President, I so submit. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it is indeed worrying that front-line police officers and members of the public are in great danger as they are now in confrontation with each other. Here, I would like to say a few words on a few basic viewpoints before all else. First, the entire issue should not be regarded as a direct clash between the police officers and the public. Instead, it should be resolved by political means. Second, what we can see now is a vicious cycle. Should either party go overboard, the other party will definitely react in an even more radical manner. Hence, I have to emphasize that while members of the public should adopt a peaceful attitude, the Police Force should also behave in an impartial and restrained manner. Third, I have no intention to impose sanctions on either party because the Police enjoy an unequal edge in terms of power, gear and organization. Therefore, the Police must face up to the use of excessive force squarely. The leadership in the Police Force must be over-indulgent of their rotten apples if they are not punished. We must understand that the Police Force must abide by the law under its constraints since their authority comes from it. There is a greater need for them as professionals to exercise greater restraint. Next, I would like to elaborate on the three aforesaid basic viewpoints. Firstly, insofar as political solutions are concerned, the present political issues must be resolved by political means. The Government must respond to public opinion rather than relying solely on clearing the sites by force. Political issues cannot be resolved by sole reliance on the display of police vehicles, the formation of police manned barriers and the deployment of pepper spray, tear gas or batons. On the contrary, the continued escalation of force against the protesters will only compel them to resort to more radical means in staging their struggles. I very much agree that both parties have a role to play in resolving political issues. The present political problems cannot be resolved unless both of them are prepared to extend an olive branch. However, the Government still has to play the leading role. Only the SAR Government or the Central


3155

Government can take the first step in creating an opportunity for a political solution. During the period just passed, we could see that the problems had not been tackled in a positive manner. The remark made by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying earlier that all struggles would prove futile was simply like pouring oil on the flames. It showed that he looked down upon the people's voice. I would like to tell him and the SAR Government that it would be equally futile to put police officers in confrontation with members of the public and relying solely on suppression to resolve political issues. When a struggle staged by the public is looming, a responsible leader would not tell them that all struggles would prove futile. What should be the right attitude adopted by him when confronted with a struggle? As a responsible leader, he should reflect on himself, feel uneasy, work out a solution and roll up his sleeves to tackle the problems. Judging from the present circumstances, he is passing the buck to the police officers. However, as pointed out by me just now, we must face the fact that the police officers are in confrontation with the public. Over the past period, we have seen police officers assaulting the masses with batons, with quite a number of people sustaining head injuries over the past couple of days in particular. In the past couple of days, I was in Taiwan observing the elections held there. When I returned to the hotel in the evening, I would watch the news and footages about Hong Kong. It is unbelievable that the Hong Kong Police Force could have abused the use of force to such an extent. Even innocent passers-by could have been surrounded and then kicked and punched by a group of police officers. Some of them might even be assaulted with batons. How could all these become familiar scenes in Hong Kong? There is no reason for Hong Kong to come to this pass. I recall that I began making friends with Mainlanders more than a decade ago. When they visited Hong Kong, they told me that the police officers in Hong Kong were very different from the public security officers on the Mainland. They said that they felt secure when they saw the police officers here. I took great pride in Hong Kong because it was a civilized place with well-established systems. However, what can we see now? We can see police officers hurl insults at the public or even threaten a female protester, "Do you believe I will arrest you and take you to the police station…?". I do not want to go on


anymore. I really cannot believe such acts could have taken place in Hong Kong. Even medical team members have been reportedly chased and beaten by policemen. Although we do not expect policemen to be saints, we must understand that their basic duty is to maintain law and order, rather than venting their spleen. Although I know that they are under great stress, they must also understand that many professionals in Hong Kong often have to deal with tremendous stress, too. Let me cite teachers as an example. A teacher facing a difficult class is also under considerable pressure. Over the past decade, the pressure faced by an increasing number of teachers has become so great that they have to seek treatment from psychiatrists. Some of them are even on the verge of nervous breakdown. However, in spite of this, we will still not tolerate the use of corporal punishment by teachers in classrooms. Severe punishment will definitely be imposed should any case of corporal punishment is reported. Hence, I would like to point out here that policemen are obliged to maintain law and order and public order, rather than posing as a threat to public safety. However, what did we see after the deployment of tear gas on 28 September? Commissioner of Police Andy TSANG shouted at an internal meeting of the Police Force, "You have done nothing wrong!". I do not mean that the police officers have done anything wrong, but we can clearly see that the deployment of tear gas and the constant use of excessive force by police officers are totally wrong. Can he see this point? Will he come forth and issue a solemn statement? I think that the senior echelons of the Police Force must address squarely, recognize and directly confront this problem. As I mentioned in the past in this Chamber, only through facing and reflecting on the problem as well as their own mistakes can the Police eventually command respect from us. We have to understand that the rate of public satisfaction with the Police Force has continued to drop. According to a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong, the net satisfaction rate of the public with the Police force was 64.8% in 1997, which was a very high figure. However, the rate dropped to 48.9% two years ago in 2012, and further to 36.3% in the middle of this year. I wonder how low the figure will get after the events recently. Such situations must be addressed squarely, and in doing so, safeguards in the system are required because the source of police power is the law, as I mentioned just now. However, it is very important that in handling public law and order, the police authority is founded on the trust and respect of the general


3157

public, without which the public might most probably make all sorts of intervention when the Police perform their duties. Hence, after reviewing its long-standing practice, the United Kingdom decided that there is no need for the British police officers to carry guns because their source of authority is considered to have been derived from public trust. But what is the basis for public trust? The institutional safeguards we enjoy. The use of batons by the Police Force in the past couple of days has been called into question. It has been reported that policemen were originally required to compile a report after the use of batons. However, they have recently been told to stop this practice. This has raised concern about whether batons will be used by the Police Force recklessly and outrageously to treat the public with violence. Furthermore, the Police refused to confirm at a press conference whether or not this allegation is true. The use of weapons by the Police is governed by a very strict set of principles and guidelines and regulated by the Police General Orders. Nevertheless, Chapter 29 of the Police General Orders, which deals with restrictions on the use of weapons by police officers, has never been made accessible to the public. In my opinion, for the betterment of this system, this Chapter should be made public to enable the public to have a better understanding of the yardstick adopted by the Police Force in law enforcement, thereby enhancing its transparency. Should the Police go beyond the limit, the public may lodge a complaint, thereby enhancing the transparency of the enforcement of law by the Police and boosting public trust. Another defect in the system is the role of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC). Over the past two months, we have seen the recurrence of abuse of power by the Police, while there is a falling tendency of the public confidence in the Police. However, what have we seen? After the incident, we were told by the Police to complain to the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO). However, we are aware that the CAPO lacks credibility because it operates under a system whereby one's own mates investigate their peers. Hence, thanks to the establishment of the IPCC, we are able to enjoy greater institutional protection. It is a great pity that over the past two months, the IPCC has accomplished nothing, as if it has disappeared. We have absolutely no idea of the position and points of view of its Chairman, Mr Larry KWOK, as well as the plans of the IPCC. All along, the positions of the Vice-Chairmen of the IPCC have been taken up by pan-democrat Members, but we can see that this tradition has collapsed. If the IPCC has no credibility recognized by the public, how can it


ensure the credibility of the Police Force? Hence, insofar as this issue is concerned, we must work out solutions to further enhance our system and avoid abuse of power by the Police Force before their credibility can be enhanced. Lastly, I would like to make several requests: I hope the Secretary can respond clearly whether or not he agrees that some members of the Police Force have applied excessive force and this is absolutely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. Moreover, a solemn approach must be taken in dealing with this matter. Second, I hope the Secretary can reiterate in his response that the Police Force must maintain political neutrality to ensure that it will not be influenced by political organizations during law enforcement. Third, as I pointed out just now, the IPCC plays a very important role in the system. I call on the IPCC to accomplish its tasks seriously and deliver. Moreover, its system should be enhanced, including the selection of candidates. There is also a need for us to consider whether or not the IPCC should be given independent investigation power. Should it fail to maintain a good performance, the Legislative Council should seriously review its work and decide whether or not improvements or changes should be made to the system. I also appeal to the masses to adhere to the principle of peace. We also understand that the Police Force are, to a certain extent, victimized by the Government's current practice, thus they have been placed between a rock and a hard place, namely, the Government and the public. We should not criticize police officers responsible for performing general duties severely. Our targets are those police officers found having abused their power. Lastly, I would like to say that Rome is not built in one day, but it can be torn down very quickly. If the Government fails to respond to and deal with the matter at the political level and the Police Force fail to address their own problems seriously, the image of the Police Force will definitely suffer a sharp decline. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have to thank Dr Kenneth CHAN for proposing this urgent adjournment debate as well as the President for giving him permission to do so. This debate is really urgent because we have already seen the escalation of violence to dangerous proportions.


3159

In our next move, we might be confronted with not only police violence but also mass violence. When the movement started, masses were compelled to occupy roads due to the mishandling by the Police. As a result, the Police had to use tear gas and inappropriate force to deal with protesters and masses yearning for democracy. All along, the protesters and masses had employed peaceful means with umbrellas, shields in their hands and goggles to resist the Police's use of force. Originally, their shields were made of plastic bottles wrapped in plastic sheets. Now, they have switched to wooden shields, and some people have even accused them of turning to metal ones. Nevertheless, all these things are merely used to counter force and violence. With violence escalating to such a state today, I am very worried that some people will begin fighting back or adopting offensive strategies, which is absolutely the last thing I would wish to see. I do not want to see any people get hurt, no matter which side they belong to. What is more, I do not want to see any people lose their lives. Neither do I wish to see police officers or protesters injured. However, is the Government aware that the present situation has become most acute? The hatred between the Police and the masses will only intensify should police officers be left to go out of control, escalate their violence and adopt an indifferent attitude by refusing to have dialogue with the masses, with the situation allowed to worsen further. There is no need for me to explain in detail the Police's loss of control and the hatred shown by the masses. Many colleagues have mentioned the indiscriminate assaults of people by a police superintendent and the masses running for cover. We could see on the television that the masses had nowhere to turn to. What duties were those police officers in blue uniform required to perform? Actually, they were supposed to be responsible for tackling terrorists, but were the masses terrorists? Why did the Police have to go to the extreme? What did I see and hear in Mong Kok? I witnessed a group of police officers suddenly pointing to a group of protesters and jumping at one of them, pushing him to the corner of a wall and then pressing him onto the ground before dragging him to the road while his friends were so afraid that they started to cry. What had he done? He had neither done nor said anything. It was just that the police officers turned insane and charged forward to tackle him when someone shouted "black cops" on the sideline.


The police officers have evolved from assaulting people in "dark corners" to doing so in an "open and aboveboard" manner. Moreover, they have become very smart for they have learnt to surround the assaulted person with human barriers to prevent the actual scenes from being filmed. However, the protester was obviously injured when he was escorted away from the scene, though he had done nothing at all. We have seen too many such scenes in which the protesters are like rabbits fighting against lions pouncing at them. During a conversation with a group of housewives, I was told by a mother that she lived in Mong Kok and her children were once assaulted by police officers on their way home. She asked me this question, "What sort of a world is this? How can you ensure public safety?" Even a small group of people on their way home could be interrogated by policemen. Some media organizations, including global media organizations, have complained to me in anger. I have been told by a reporter that he lost consciousness for around 10 seconds after being pushed by policemen to the corner of a wall and having his head bumped against it. To date, he still has no idea where he should go to lodge a complaint because he considers it futile to approach the Complaints Against Police Office. We have indeed seen too many attacks and assaults of people in the media coverage. I have been told by many healthcare personnel that they had been bludgeoned and sprayed with pepper based solution. Some of them were even assaulted by policemen when giving support to some injured protesters who had lost consciousness. What consequences will the insane behaviour of the policemen bring? The answer is hatred between the protesters and the Police. Although there is nothing the protesters can do but continue to tolerate the assaults by the policemen, I can tell Members that since matters have come to this pass, I have found it impossible to advise the protesters to hold onto their peaceful principle in staging their struggle. Members should have seen the smashing of the glass panel of the Legislative Council Complex by protesters. I was hoping to stop the protester from doing so. I really do not wish to see them commit acts considered violent by me. Not only are such acts unacceptable, but the entire movement has also been ruined. However, the smashing of a glass panel by protesters and the violence demonstrated by the policemen in front of


3161

the camera before the very eyes of Hong Kong people and people in other parts of the world are actually poles apart. How can I advise the protesters to keep their struggle peaceful? When I was told by quite a number of young people that they were prepared to sacrifice their lives, I told them not to think so because they had a good future ahead. However, they told me that they did not wish to face such a regime in the next three to four decades. When they say that there is no way out for them in society, do Members think that they are referring to the economy? What they mean is that they refuse to accept a barbaric and unreasonable society with excessive police power. Nor will they accept a society where there is collusion between business and the Government as well as real estate hegemony. They will have no footing in such a society. Nevertheless, they are requested to leave in peace and return to a social order they are reluctant to face. They would rather risk their lives to confront the powers-that-be because they have been constantly treated to force and violence. Since our society has come to this pass, is it already close to great danger? In the event of casualties, such as the beating to death of a policemen by protesters, what consequences will arise? The Police will definitely launch a counter-attack with a force 10 or 100 times stronger. Should something like this happen, how many protesters would be killed? Should we allow things to develop in this way? Is this regime determined to stick to its indifferent attitude, despite some people thus being sacrificed? Even if the Government is challenged by the protesters, it will not be afraid because the protesters are simply not a threat at all. How can ordinary people rival the Police in terms of force? How can eggs challenge a high wall? All the eggs will definitely be smashed one day. Will the Government feel better then? Believing themselves to be the only winner, the tyrannical people who rule Hong Kong think that the young people serve themselves right even if they risk their own lives. They just wait and see how long the protesters can stand to be beaten as they wish if they like to take to the streets to be beaten. These young people might be the children of yours and mine. Why have the powers-that-be become so crazy as to refuse to engage in dialogue? Do these people who rule Hong Kong think that these young people have no thinking? Is it wrong to fight for democracy? If the powers-that-be consider it undesirable to resort to violent means, why do they not sit down for a good discussion? Why can they not do so? People who like reasoning, such as I, have found their arguments untenable


because we have already split into two camps, peaceful struggle or violent struggle. Will LEUNG Chun-ying, head of the SAR Government, please wake up. Do you want to follow this path? Will Hong Kong benefit from it? Some young people are on a hunger strike, being beaten up, or risking their lives to fight against the powers-that-be. Is the Government still unwilling to stop its actions? In my opinion, the Government should at least demonstrate sincerity by telling everyone to stop and prevent the recurrence of violent incidents. Both the Police and the protesters should stop for discussions. Not only are we confronted with restraints, but the decision made by the National People's Congress (NPC) can simply not be influenced by the SAR Government. As for the livelihood issues, how can Hong Kong strive to fight for democracy under the two systems of the "one country, two systems" implemented by such a totalitarian State? Although the door has been shut by the NPC, we can still continue with our discussion because the decision was made by the NPC, not the SAR Government. There is no problem at all. This we do understand. I call on the Government not to act like rascals in challenging us because it has infinite power. Although the policemen have weapons in their hands, they lack self-restraint. Not only are they filled with hatred, but they also breed hatred, thereby making themselves and the protesters … let us see how ridiculous they are. How about their conduct? Not only do they dare to provoke the protesters publicly, but they also dare to raise their middle fingers, shout obscenities, threaten to rape, and so on. Is this the so-called professionalism? Why do they treat Hong Kong people in this manner? Are all the Hong Kong people rioters? Are all the people who have taken part in the Umbrella Movement rioters? Are the Police determined to catch and kill us all? Our level of civilization is falling drastically. What is the Government doing? What sort of society does it wish Hong Kong to become? Does it wish to turn Hong Kong into another Mainland? The Government might as well declare discarding "one country, two systems"! When I came across a former member of the disciplined forces in Mong Kok, he proposed that a law on Mong Kok be passed expeditiously as the rule of law must be upheld. Since Mong Kok has now become a place of lawlessness, he believed that it would be better to enact legislation to stipulate that policemen could assault and arrest people indiscriminately without any need to abide by the law. This new piece of legislation should be called the "Mong Kok law". He


3163

requested me to propose to the Government the enactment of such a law because this is the only way to uphold the rule of law. Is it the intention of the Government to make society come to this pass? What does the Police want the protesters to do before they are willing to stop taking actions and resorting to violence to give the next generation room of survival and living? Can the Government open a dialogue with us with a bit of sincerity without merely thinking about winning? It is because when the Government wins the battle and when it thinks that it is in control of everything, it is actually heading for extinction and failure. I definitely do not wish to see the recurrence of violent incidents. Will the Government please say "stop". I am not asking it to surrender. I only hope that it can show a little bit sincerity and let us see that it is taking a humane approach in tackling the predicaments confronting Hong Kong today. I so submit. (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up after Mr WU Chi-wai had been called by the Deputy President to speak) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): A quorum is not present in the Chamber. Please do a headcount. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please speak. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it is now the 68th day of the Umbrella Movement today. Students and members of the public are fearless and undaunted. In their pursuit of justice and the establishment of a political


system which will effectively solve conflicts in society, they use their bodies to resist police batons and in love and peace they resist the SAR Government hiding behind police force. The President once said that if this political reform package failed to pass, Hong Kong would certainly become a place where governance would be impossible. The Decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on 31 August has put a full stop to the passage of the constitutional reform package. This prompted the outbreak of the Umbrella Movement on 28 September. Students taking part in the Umbrella Movement and members of the public fighting for democracy occupied the streets and said to the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration with the greatest voice that they hope to solve political issues by political means. According to Article 45 of the Basic Law, the method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation of the Hong Kong SAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. With respect to the actual situation, the facts uncovered during the Umbrella Movement and the power of the people as manifested in it have proved that there have been changes in the actual situation. These changes are not empty talk but they can be seen on the TV and before the eyes of the decision-making officials. People fighting for democracy are braving the tear gas, police batons and pepper spray. They occupied entire stretches of roads and later the occupied zones were extended to Mong Kok and Causeway Bay. It is a mass movement that stunned the whole world. Has LEUNG Chun-ying failed to see this entrenched conflict in society and did he not see that there have been changes in the actual situation? It is unfortunate that the Government chose not to see and employed the Police to clear the protest zones with force. May I ask the SAR Government whether Hong Kong can be governed better with this? The Government places the Police between a rock and a hard place, but what good will it bring to society? The most important duty of the Government is to govern the place effectively. But this is not what the SAR Government is thinking. It is tearing our society apart and it wants to pitch the Police between a rock and a hard place. As a result, hatred breeds. This is really a malicious, heartless and inept Government with its Chief Executive. If it chooses to clear the protest zones with force, it will only lead to fierce resistance. This Government is shameless and it pretends not to see the social conflicts behind the occupation movement. Those people from the pro-establishment


3165

camp with all their grins and grimaces and who confuse right and wrong have not done anything to find a solution to this problem of governance. In the meantime, they are adding fuel to fire and turning a blind eye to the fact that grievances in society will not go away with this dispersal of the crowds by police with force. They are blind to the fact that hatred cannot be eliminated. May I ask, just how this Government is going to mend a torn society like this? How can people be persuaded to put down their hatred? In the present circumstances, those with power will certainly have a bigger responsibility than those who have not. This is because those in power possess massive social resources, huge public powers and the protection of law. If nothing is done by those in power or the Government, what can we do? Does this mass movement have to die down first before the Government can agree to reopen discussions? Or when after the people have withdrawn from the occupied zones, what we can do is just to commence work and dialogue under a constitutional reform framework that does not show any trace of sincerity? We can hardly see any possibility of the Government and society opening a dialogue anew. We have heard the Government say that the Decision by the NPC is like an iron plate that can never be changed. We have also heard from the pro-establishment camp that the Basic Law must be obeyed and under no circumstances can the NPC Decision be changed. I recall that this sounds exactly the same when the pro-establishment camp and the Government talked about the constitutional reform package in 2010. In other words, the package then is something that no attempt at bargaining can be made. We should never think about that. I recall at that time the Democratic Party made a proposal for an improved package which to this day is still slammed by the radical faction of the democratic camp. At first Members scorned the proposal and thought that it could never be realized and it ran counter to the Basic Law. However, a responsible government is obliged to study what can be done to adopt another approach, like those of us in politics being obliged to think of ways to solve problems. At first when discussion was conducted on constitutional reform, it was the view shared by the community that civil nomination is the only standard. At that time there were also people, including Members from the Democratic Party, who pointed out that we were pursuing a just society, where the political system will allow all political forces to take part. But we will never accept that citizens can only choose candidates who have been screened and approved by the Central Authorities. This must be bogus universal suffrage. How can we choose from a heap of rotten apples?


The great civil rights leader Nelson MANDELA once said that both the oppressors and the oppressed need to be freed. This is because those people who rob others of freedom are themselves prisoners to hate and they are fettered by prejudice and short-sightedness. He said this because he loved his land, just like people who take part in the Umbrella Movement love our land. In the society we aspire for, it should never appear a situation where people are oppressing one another. So the very first day when MANDELA came to power, he called upon the people unequivocally that they should put hatred down, for he did not want the land he loved so much to live under hatred. Of course, I do not think LEUNG Chun-ying would have this breadth of mind, nor can we expect that from the pro-establishment camp with all their air of arrogance. It is the view of LEUNG Chun-ying that public opinion has shifted to his favour and he can do whatever he likes. Let us all ask ourselves this very question: Will problems in our society be solved with all his pride and arrogance? I raised the question in my previous many speeches. Since the pro-establishment camp has got the blessing from the Central Government and possesses so many social resources and the support of those people with vested interest, do they have the boldness to play the role of a ruling party? Or do they just want to hide behind the Central Government and be no more than yes-men? Have they ever thought that under these circumstances, where should Hong Kong be heading? Will there be a way out only when everybody is muffled and silenced? Have we ever thought about any solution other than having the Police to clear the protest zones with force? Can our next generation accept a system that is dysfunctional and a society where justice is not seen to be done? If it happens that police officers use steel batons to beat up your children, what will you think? Is it true that your children will never have any chance of being beaten up by police officers with steel batons? We may choose not to become "Tiger Dads" and "Tiger Moms" because we respect the freedom of our children. But how can we forbid them to take part in the Umbrella Movement for the sake of justice? They join the Umbrella Movement and fight for a just and democratic society. But they may be beaten up by others. What do you think of that? Will you still shout at the top of your voice that the Police should use force to clear the protest zones? Deputy President, LEUNG Chun-ying said that the fight put up by the people would be futile. Not only does he not think of solutions to the problem, but he also is happy to see that public opinion has changed. He is turning a political problem which in fact shows the internal conflicts of the people and


3167

which can be solved into a conflict of friend and foe. He treats those making petitions and staging demonstrations as enemies to his rule. He condones police clearance by force, even to the extent that he believes blindly that order can be restored in Hong Kong after the clearance and there will be no more adverse effects on economic development. But is this true? Can that be true? Can a Hong Kong after the clearance really return to its former looks? When the seeds of hatred are sown, will they not germinate? The Police before the 1970s were licensed rogues as we all know. It is only after decades of hard work that the Police have gained the trust of the people and become protectors of our society. But LEUNG Chun-ying has put the police between a rock and a hard place and he has not done well to solve political problems. As a result, people have lost their confidence in the Police. This will only make enforcement difficult in future. It will also lead to problems in governance. Problems will infest the parliamentary assembly and governance will become harder than ever. This is what the President, Mr Jasper TSANG, said when he predicted a situation where governance would be impossible. Can those with power and vested interest see this? Will this situation not cause any damage to them? Just what kind of damage will that be? If political issues are not solved by political means, speaking for our society and those with vested interest, it will mean more losses than gains. So in the face of the Umbrella Movement, the mass movement, social division and the perpetuation of hatred, the only way out is to ask LEUNG Chun-ying to put down his knife and start a dialogue with the people, take the first stride to establish a system in society and identify a platform which can truly solve the problems before us. Thank you, Deputy President. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to talk about an issue relating to the rule of law here. Earlier on a number of colleagues in the pro-establishment camp mentioned that if a person does not abide by the law or people with neither power nor clout put up a fight for their ideals on the streets, that would be tantamount to damaging the rule of law in society. Deputy President, I have pointed out the various factors of rule of law in this Council before, and Mr Dennis KWOK has also said that the most primary level of rule of law is compliance with the law. But what kind of law is it that we are talking about? Indeed, the principle of the rule of law consists of various factors: First,


there is a law to go by; second, the law is basically able to protect the people as well as people with neither power nor clout; third, an independent judicial system; fourth, officials who have public powers enforce the laws with an impartial and just attitude; and fifth, everyone is equal before the law. Other factors certainly include accessibility to court services by all. All these are important cornerstones of the rule of law. Many pro-establishment or pan-democrat Members have also talked about this in their speeches earlier, so I do not wish to make further repetition. Over the past few weeks, we have seen many incidents of division and hatred in society. But Honourable colleagues in this Council, government officials and even members of the general public are actually just a chess piece. Why can this Umbrella Movement persist for nearly 70 days? It is because the leader of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), namely, the Chief Executive, has completely been caught in a quandary and he entirely has no idea about how to deal with the conflicts with the people. He should be ultimately held responsible for this incident. I have time and again pointed out in this Council that the Police Force are also no more than a chess piece and a victim. I will not cite other examples because many Members can also cite a lot of examples supporting or opposing this point in this Council. I only wish to share with you, Deputy President, and Members the policy of apartheid in South Africa. South Africa started to implement apartheid in 1948. The first wave of the policy saw the introduction of various laws governing people of different colours. For example, marriage was prohibited between persons of different colours; besides, some job types could be taken up only by the whites. These were among the first batch of legislation on racial segregation introduced in 1948. In 1953, a public safety law and a criminal law were passed in South Africa to allow the South African Government to declare a state of emergency anytime in order to suppress protesters or protesters opposing the unjust racial segregation policies. What use could these public safety and criminal laws serve? If South African citizens assembled in opposition to these unjust racial segregation policies and laws, the Government or the Court could impose fines, imprisonment or corporal punishment (that is, whipping with a leather whip) on them, and these were the laws in 1953. In 1960, a group of black people refused to carry their identity cards with them at a place called Sharpeville ― I do not understand even now why we have to carry our identity cards when we go out ― it was in the 1960s back then, and a group of black people refused to carry on them their


3169

identity cards in order to stage a civil disobedience movement. The South African Government then immediately declared a state of emergency for 156 days and in the end, 69 protesters were killed and 187 others injured. Do we wish to see history repeating itself in Hong Kong? If we do not sit down and talk about it in all calmness but hurling accusations at each other and slinging mud at each other, are we doing the right thing at all? Deputy President, I hope that the SAR Government can listen to the voices of the people today. I hope they can listen to the voices of those sleeping at the roadside in such cold weather and the voices of the students on hunger strike. In fact, the SAR Government should have heard those voices clearly enough over the past 68 days, and most people are actually just opposed to the decision made on 31 August. If the Government continues to make use of police powers to suppress these protestors rather than resolving the problem by political means, the problem would never ever be resolved. Let me come back to this issue about the rule of law. Deputy President, just now I cited the racial segregation laws in South Africa as an example. Assuming the SAR Government has enacted a piece of legislation one day to prohibit the people from opposing the decision made on 31 August or else the emergency laws would be brought into effect, and assuming some Hong Kong citizens do not abide by this piece of legislation, does it mean that they would be damaging the rule of law? The point that I wish to make is that concerning the rule of law as referred to by us, does it mean that we must abide by all the draconian laws? This seems to be the tone of the pro-establishment colleagues as they consider compliance with the law by the people an essential factor and even the most important element. I urge Members to listen to this story about the history of South Africa. Deputy President, I so submit. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Dr Kenneth CHAN for moving this motion for adjournment of the Council for debate. We have certainly had a similar debate more than once, but the issues have changed following the course of events.


In the past few days, I heard people say that although the Police had applied force more than usual, such force was necessary and proper, while indicating that police officers just targeted limbs instead of heads. However, I saw from the television that some arrested protesters suffered head injuries and were bleeding. I cannot figure out why they were bleeding from head injuries if police officers had targeted their limbs only. I also hope that Mrs Regina IP can explain why those protesters with their head bleeding as seen on the television would be like that. Even if they had a bleeding nose, the blood would not flow upward to the top of their head. It would just flow to their chin. "YUAN Cau" is not present now, but after listening to her speech, what comes to my mind is that she is talking gibberish. After all, Deputy President, it is actually all about one question. Why do they have to "put up a fight"? They are at least being rebellious, if not counter-revolutionary, as they do not accept the decision on constitutional reform. Have the Police used violence? Everyone can see it clearly from the television. Both sides have offered their own version of the story. The question of whether violence has been used is open for discussion. However, the incidents that took place in recent days have indeed intensified our worries. The incident in which a student was denied entry to the Mainland has invited questions about Mainland policies raised by Members yesterday. In fact, the student went back to the Mainland just for attending a banquet. Surely he would not stage a revolution, would he? Members of the Parliament (MPs) of the United Kingdom wished to come to Hong Kong to learn about the implementation of the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong (Joint Declaration). Originally, Hong Kong Government should be responsible for its own immigration policy. But before the arrival of the British MPs to Hong Kong, Hong Kong was stripped of its power by the Chinese Government to administer the immigration policy, and the MPs were also denied a visit to Hong Kong. In fact, if Hong Kong is doing well, the Government will definitely spare no effort in inviting them to come. I am not sure if Members know how many people are invited to visit Hong Kong by our Government from all over the world every year. It not only sends


3171

out invitations, but also meets all expenses out of its own pocket. Under the usual practice, these visitors invited by the Government will stay for a week. At times, arrangements will be made for Legislative Council Members to meet with them. Now, the British MPs wish to visit Hong Kong, yet they meet with denial. What is going on? Does the Government try to keep good things to itself or attempt to cover up its disgraces? They have already grasped the situation from television footage. Will they form a more positive view about the incident after a visit to Hong Kong? Of course, this we cannot tell. But if they are denied a visit, they will certainly have hard feelings, thinking that the denial must be related to some ulterior motives of the Government. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) President, the Joint Declaration is a matter not just between China and the United Kingdom. Long ago in 1984, this declaration was already filed at the United Nations back then, making it an international agreement. And both China and the United Kingdom also carried out lobby work worldwide, advocating that the Joint Declaration was a credible international agreement. Now China seems to deny that its Ambassador to the United Kingdom has told the chairman of the relevant affairs committee that the Joint Declaration is dead, thus rendering the issue a "Rashomon". It would certainly be best for him to come to Hong Kong to give an explanation, but he was denied a visit to Hong Kong by the Government. What policy is this? Simply speaking, it is again staging "beating up one's son behind closed doors", considering it the best solution. As long as someone comes to the square, he will naturally be colluding with foreign forces. It was previously known as "colluding with foreign forces". Now, "foreign forces" has changed to "external forces". What does it mean by "external"? Anywhere outside Hong Kong is an external place. In the same vein, I wonder if the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong's colluding with Beijing is also known as "colluding with external forces"? So, it is easy to conclude that Taiwan must be an external force outside Hong Kong. President, when the Lung Wo Road site was cleared on Monday, I had yet to return to Hong Kong. At that time, I was observing local elections in Taiwan.


When I visited various election headquarters in Taipei and Taichung City, I would pose the same question, asking them whether the Umbrella Movement and Occupy Central movement had any impact on the elections in Taiwan. People of the election campaign offices who received us certainly had different views. To sum up, members of the Kuomintang, be it Jason HU or Eric CHU, all indicated that there was not much impact as it was only a local election. But we are well aware of the result that they have lost. When I visited the election headquarters of the Democratic Progressive Party, the officers who received us indicated that there would be impact, but failed to give specific details. A person who has come under the spotlight in the Taiwan elections this time around is the Mayor of Taipei City, KO Wen-je. He is an independent candidate who comes from neither the blue nor the green camp, but may favour the green camp more. When I posed this question to the officers of KO Wen-je's election campaign office who received us, they clearly stated that the Umbrella Movement this time around had obvious impact on their electoral situation. One of the implications can be quantified. There were some one thousand polling stations for the elections in Taipei City, and several thousand returning officers were required to read the votes aloud. When the polling ended at four o'clock, they would immediately read the votes aloud. The some one thousand candidates did not come from the same political party, so how would it be possible to get a large number of people to count the votes for them? For this reason, online recruitment of returning officers was necessary. And after the first week of recruitment, it turned out that there were only some one thousand applications, thus failing to meet the target. But following the launch of the Umbrella Movement and the subsequent deployment of tear gas by the Police on 28 September, all of a sudden, online applications for the post of vote counters flooded in, doubling the previous figure. Next, after the conclusion of the elections, I had an opportunity to get into contact with one or two assistants of the election campaign of KO Wen-je. I do not know whether they are the so-called core members, but they have offered advice to the campaign. In fact, the establishment of KO Wen-je's election campaign office is more or less attributed to the emergence of a so-called third force (that is, a force that is neither blue nor green) following the initiation of the Sunflower Movement. As to whether the Sunflower Movement has any impact on the student movement in Hong Kong, we may conduct a detailed study if the opportunity presents itself.


3173

Nevertheless, is the student movement in Hong Kong an outcome of the Sunflower Movement during which the Legislative Yuan was occupied back then? I know that there are certain exchanges between Hong Kong students and the students who initiated the Sunflower Movement. Is the student movement in Hong Kong inspired by them? To some extent, things will naturally follow this course. When I was in Taiwan, I saw some T-shirts with the imprint of "Save our Taiwan by ourselves" while in Hong Kong, there are also some T-shirts with the message "Save our Hong Kong by ourselves". I do not know whether it is copied by Hong Kong from them, or the other way round. There are indeed similarities between both and literally, they are learning from each other. In fact, when the ongoing Sunflower Movement came to a certain stage in mid-September, the election campaign office of KO Wen-je had almost exhausted all relevant topics, and the movement had also started to go downhill. But as I have just said, one of the factors concerns the launch of the Umbrella Movement and the subsequent deployment of tear gas by the Police, which resulted in an instant rebound in the number of vote counters doubling the previous figure. We also know that there is an office in Taiwan co-ordinating the Hong Kong movement, and another factor concerns the moves taken by the officers of KO Wen-je's election campaign office at that time. As soon as the Umbrella Movement kicked off, they stood at the entrance to the local office of the Hong Kong movement, holding umbrellas to signify their support. In mentioning all this, what message do I actually wish to strike home? Those who can hear people's voice will read people's mind, and those who fail to hear people's voice will be punished by elections. Let me use a colloquial expression. Kuomintang is way too muddle-headed, failing to read people's mind and mistakenly thinking that the Umbrella Movement would not bring much impact. On the contrary, the Democratic Progressive Party considered that there would be impact, and KO Wen-je even said that the impact would be substantial, showing that they were able to read people's mind. A forum was held after the elections. One of the scholars made a good point, pointing out that the Umbrella Movement had led to an outcry in the Taiwanese's heart, and they spoke their mind out with votes, thus contributing to the election victory of KO Wen-je. I understand that at the present moment, Hong Kong is experiencing a reversal of public opinion in some measure. The call for clearance has been growing. As a matter of fact, in some television or media programmes, I also expressed my wish that the occupied area of the Umbrella Movement should be


cut down, and that occupiers should consider a retreat. In early November, I also talked on behalf of the Democratic Party with the students as to whether a referendum by resignation should be staged as a transformation of the movement. In the end, we certainly could not come to any consensus and so, the plan was aborted. But apparently, given the aspiration for democracy and disappointment about "one country, two systems", the blockade of a road or two for some more days will not cause people's mind to sway. When I was in Taiwan, I asked the Taiwanese what the greatest impact of the Umbrella Movement was. According to one or two scholars, the Taiwanese consider that the principle of "one country, two systems" has gone completely bankrupt. To the majority of the international community, the Umbrella Movement signifies the downfall of "one country, two systems". Even if it is not completely bankrupt, it is heading towards bankruptcy. At this stage, we are talking about how to clear the sites and whether force should be used. But no matter how we put it, it is actually a stopgap rather than radical solution. This is a political issue. We understand that Beijing may have an ultimate policy. Initially it put forward the principle of "no compromise, no bloodshed" while recently, someone has told me that the instruction of XI Jinping is "no repeat of the 4 June incident, no bloodshed on streets". But now, this no longer applies. There has already been bloodshed. The protesters suffered head injuries and were bleeding. We can see from the television that many protesters were bleeding from head injuries. The force used in clearance operations may be dialled up increasingly, and when the Admiralty site is cleared, more people may suffer under the force of the Police, or the so-called proper or necessary force as claimed by Mrs Regina IP. I have had exchanges with some Taiwanese social activists, including the younger generation and those who have been through the Wild Lily Movement and the Sunflower Movement this time around. The more mature ones particularly say that in fact, every mass movement is destined to suffer imminent failure, but in the long run, consequences must ensue. The Umbrella Movement may also meet with forceful clearance and inevitably end in failure. But Secretary, I hope you can tell the Chief Executive that even though the Police are equipped with steel batons and act in a valiant and mighty manner, they are unable to win people's heart. Should we govern our society with force? Or should we strive to win people's heart? Now, they can only please the rulers.


3175

A recent rumour has it that the Government does not intend to clear the sites now. Rather, it will adopt a delaying tactic so that the movement will dissolve itself. But this is just the so-called tactics, involving some strategic issues. It has been 17 years since the reunification. Hong Kong people's sense of belonging has been weakened rather than heightened. This is not a good way of governance. It not only fails to win people' heart, but also runs counter to people's aspirations. A student leader of the Umbrella Movement who wished to attend a banquet in the Mainland was denied entry. What is going on? What message do you wish to convey? Do you intend to punish him by denial of entry so that he could not attend the banquet? For what purpose do you punish him? Certainly, any person from Hong Kong must bear the consequences if they break Mainland laws upon entry to the Mainland territory. In Hong Kong, many people have participated in the Umbrella Movement. Whether the Police will settle the scores later on should be a matter addressed by the law. But in the end, only one question remains, and that is whether they can win people's heart. The Secretary can go further to shout at the top of his lungs, advance various arguments, back the Police up, continue to support them and allow them to make fiercer attacks. But should you govern in this way? Should the Hong Kong SAR Government govern in this way? If we do not sit down for a serious discussion, can we solve the existing problems? I anticipate that what follows may be a third debate of a similar nature, and the last round of debate will not come until the Admiralty site is cleared. However, after the Admiralty site is cleared, another occupy movement is likely to take place because members of the public are still unwilling to give in, nor do they accept the decision on constitutional reform. I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Christopher CHUNG, please speak MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, just now, Mr SIN Chung-kai denied that the unlawful Occupy Central action colluded with foreign forces but I believe he would not deny the fact that he has colluded with influential people in Hong Kong. The press has reported clearly that he and Jimmy LAI jointly invited some influential people in Hong Kong to have meetings in the Legislative Council to discuss how to proceed with the Occupy Central action, so basically, the nature of this Occupy Central action has changed. In addition, before I come to my speech proper, in fact, I also want to ask the sponsor of this motion, Dr Kenneth CHAN, if he had taken part in this Occupy Central action together with his daughter? How many nights has he spent on the protest site outside? He may have spent very few nights there, or perhaps he has never done so. In that case, if he only indulges in empty talk without taking any action, how possibly can this Occupy Central action succeed? President, the illegal Occupy Central action is a scourge for Hong Kong and the public. It is now being roundly condemned by many people and I believe this Occupy Central movement would only end in a note of regret and sorrow. Since you do not know when you should advance or retreat, this movement has dragged on for 60 days and the longer it drags on, the more the public hate it. In particular, in this movement, the people who know politics the best and are most versed in organizing campaigns are precisely this group of Members in the pan-democratic camp. Unfortunately, when undertaking important pursuits, these politicos cherish their bodies but when they see petty benefits, they are reckless. They are fierce of mien but faint of heart, fond of scheming but cannot make decisions, so how possibly can they not fail? Please get sober. President, yesterday, the so-called Occupy Central Trio performed a surrender show together with the Cardinal, all grinning cheekily. Outside the police station, they appeared to take unabashed pleasure in doing so, choosing one of the lightest offences to admit to, thinking that this would do. They thought that by choosing the lightest offence, they could settle their bills early, thus limiting the costs. This "banquet" was of their making but in the future, it will be the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Scholarism that have to foot


3177

the bill, so you can say that they lack a sense of camaraderie and you can also say that these people have betrayed the students. Prior to this, when they met the press, that imposter of a pastor even shed tears in an attempt to win exposure but in fact, he had not the slightest sense of remorse whatsoever. They are believers but I wonder if they would still be able to cry when the Final Judgment comes. President, apart from these imposter clergymen, the faces of those academic rascals are even more hideous. The illegal Occupy Central movement this time around was started by these academic rascals. They made preparations as far back as one year ago, so it was not because the National People's Congress shut the door that this occupy movement arose, as claimed by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan. In fact, they made deployments as far back as one year ago, so they have practically inverted right and wrong. A year ago, they organized a lot of workshops, forums and drills to prepare for the arrests and beatings by the Police. In fact, they have probably made sufficient preparations. However, upon the launch of the Occupy Central movement, this group of politicos all disappeared and were nowhere to be seen. Only those academic rascals, that is, the likes of Mr IP Kin-yuen, were left, and through the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, teachers in secondary schools and even primary schools and kindergartens were incited to deceive little children and students by encouraging them to stage class boycotts. Even kindergarten pupils of a tender age were not spared. They were encouraged to hate fellow pupils whose parents were police officers, thus creating hatred in society. Who caused all this? It is no other people than these lecturers. President, these academic rascals kept preaching such messages in schools, leading students into thinking that this is a so-called revolution or Umbrella Revolution unfolding on a magnificent scale. When the number of people taking part in class boycotts reached several thousands, these academic rascals, imposter clergymen and politicos suddenly thought that their aspirations were within reach, so they made the impromptu announcement that the Occupy Central movement was launched, thus turning "Occupy Central" into "Occupy Admiralty". They thought that a lot of people had responded to their call, so they could subdue the Hong Kong Government, bring the Beijing Government to its heels and make them listen to their commands. However, they congratulated themselves too early. At such a time, these politicos came out, talking about how great all this was, describing it as a revolution unfolding on a magnificent scale. They said so in this Chamber and also to the mass media outside. In doing so, what they wanted was to gain political capital. They also said that


through the occupation of various districts, they wanted the movement to mushroom all over Hong Kong. They first occupied Tsim Sha Tsui, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay but when they went to other districts, starting from Yuen Long, the public woke up and realized that it was not a so-called democratic revolution, rather, it was a kind of violent and illegal movement, one that affected the daily life of the public, so the public did not support them. Therefore, starting from Yuen Long and extending to such places as Chai Wan and Sham Shui Po, no matter which district they went to, "mushrooming all over Hong Kong" became "doomed immediately all over Hong Kong". However, this group of politicos still failed to realize that the game is as good as lost and still tried to gain political capital by hoisting the flags of the Civic Party, Labour Party and Democratic Party in the protest sites, for fear that people did not know they had taken part in this movement. At the beginning, they were nowhere to be seen but when clashes occurred, they immediately distanced themselves from the students and protestors launched the charging. Now, realizing the matter is getting more and more serious, some of them talked about surrendering themselves, hoping to ask for the bill at an early date, and, thinking that by paying a cheaper bill, they could settle the matter. In fact, there is no such bargains in this world, so they must not start dreaming so early. They wanted to seize power but in fact, this "spring dream" called the Umbrella Revolution will end very soon. The public are watching and hate is simmering in their hearts. All of them do not welcome you. In the past 60 days or so, the Police have been maintaining order outside the occupied sites in local communities and their performance has won the support of the general public. When we conducted the signature campaign, in the short span of two weeks, some 1.8 million signatures in support of the Police and the early restoration of order were collected. In these some 60 days, the actions taken by the Police were not many. Some individual incidents may be controversial or problematic but there are channels for lodging complaints. Such problems are not that great in number but the opposition blew such matters all out of proportions and even scripted some comments to cover up the fact that they had beaten up other people. Who heard the police officer say he wanted to arrest that female student and take her to the police station to be raped? What is the evidence? It is sheer nonsense! They thought that by telling a lie a hundred times, it would become the truth. This has all along been their trick.


3179

President, even though they told such lies, they could not cover up the fact that the public support the Police. We often say that the Hong Kong Police Force cannot meet international standards but in the international community, the professionalism of the Hong Kong Police Force is highly admired. What did the occupiers do? They raised their hands high but their legs were kicking police officers. It was said that they were unarmed, but underneath the cartons held by them were sharp metal sheets. They said they wanted peace and love but they often used nails as "a display of love", so can doing so be considered peaceful? We could all see that indeed, they did not have "an inch of iron" in their hands but they hid two sections of steel pipe in their backpacks. Does this mean they were on their way to the occupied sites to connect water pipes in the early hours of the morning? They only wanted to beat up police officers. They placed bricks on the ground, set up barricades, threw pepper powder as well as unopened canned drinks at the Police and the Police ― from superintendents to constables ― all suffered injuries, so why were there no reports on this? The mainstream mass media, in particular, radio stations, and the publicly-funded Radio Television Hong Kong for that matter, did not report on this. It has become the propaganda machine for the illegal Occupy Central movement and an anti-government mouthpiece, yet it uses the Hong Kong Government's funds. President, the occupiers verbally insulted police officers during the occupation. When nothing happened, they would hurl verbal abuses at the Police but when something happened, they knew they could call in the Police to protect them. I think police officers also need to find a mental balance. Someone may make a reference to their mother an hour ago but an hour later, they have to protect that very person and separate him from other people with different political views to ensure his safety. When something has happened and you are taken to the police station, you know how to plead police officers to give you another chance, so one cannot tell if it is police officers or protestors who are experiencing a split personality. President, having come thus far, I believe the curtain will fall on this so-called Umbrella Revolution very soon. Here, I hope that people in the opposition can wake up. It is not true that you can succeed by exploiting a group of students and make them come out like this. The reality is the reality. If you want Hong Kong to make progress and continue to enjoy democracy, I


hope you will have regard to the reality and ask this group of students to stop occupying the streets early. I hope you would turn back before it is too late. With these remarks, President, I salute the police. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, the Umbrella Movement is a full-scale resistance carried out in a peaceful and non-violent manner with the original intent of striving for genuine universal suffrage. In the past 68 days, the great majority of the people participating in the Umbrella Movement upheld the principle of peaceful and non-violent resistance for most of the time. In the violent scenes that occurred, more often than not, we would see anti-Occupy Central people provoking peaceful protesters first with verbal violence and then with physical violence. Against this background, violent scenes occurred. President, recently, I witnessed a similar scene in the Umbrella Community Day event. On that day, I was at the Umbrella Community Day held in Hung Hom where Scholarism and the Labour Party had set up street booths. They distributed leaflets to the public to explain the original intent of the Umbrella Movement, and issues relating to the constitutional reform and genuine universal suffrage. However, they were disturbed by a group of so-called residents who had been mobilized in advance. In fact, these so-called residents were using the same approaches to disturb students and volunteers at street booths in various districts. These people had been waiting for us before the event actually started and then used the same approaches to disturb the students. They scolded the students with verbal abuses and foul language, snatched their leaflets, torn the leaflets and then threw at them. After that, they would make physical clashes to intimidate the students, forcibly preventing the students from exercising their civil rights. The students were only distributing leaflets, yet this group of people from the anti-Occupy Central camp being mobilized in advance caused troubles at the scene and made police officers worn out. Some residents at the street booths in Hung Hom recognized that some of the anti-Occupy Central members causing nuisance were members of the electioneering team of Dr Priscilla LEUNG and some were volunteers of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB). However, Dr Priscilla LEUNG and Members from the DAB pretend that they have nothing to do with these incidents. They speak words opposing violence,


3181

supporting police officers and maintaining the rule of law, yet they condone their supporters in using the most brutal method to interfere others in their exercise of civil rights and freedom of speech. They even condone their supporters in using force and violence to intimidate students, volunteers and Members at the scene. These people from the anti-Occupy Central camp ― may be only some but not all of them ― who are related to Members of the pro-establishment camp directly or indirectly even charged at police officers maintaining order on the scene, causing great pressure to the Police. Who are actually exhausting police officers? When students stage events at street booths, people from the anti-Occupy Central camp may also stage events at street booths to promote their anti-Occupy Central concepts, yet they chose to charge the street booths of the students. According to the experience on that day, I have to express my greatest gratitude to the police officers. The police officers had separated some people from the anti-Occupy Central camp who had been stirring up troubles. These people looked malicious, they scolded others with foul language and some even screamed in my ear. They caused nuisances for as long as three hours. Who are being unreasonable indeed? If they wanted to debate, we might have debates. However, they were not engaging in any rational debate, and they were just screaming in your ear and pushing police officers. Who are being friendly to police officers, who are being harsh to police officers, and who have added pressure and burden on police officers? I think Members from the pro-establishment should reflect on this. President, we understand that the Occupy movement has lasted for 68 days. The occupation of roads has truly caused inconveniences to the public in their daily life and accumulation of grievances. I believe the occupiers have made repeated apologies for this. Yet had they had other alternatives, they would not have to sleep on the road, would they? They do so because there is no way out on the issue of constitutional reform. The Government has acted perfunctorily during the dialogue and the consultation, making it impossible to find a way out. As a result, the people cannot but choose the path of staging civil disobedience through peaceful protests and occupation. Actually, LEUNG Chun-ying is the first to blame, for the first step in the constitutional reform was wrong. He has strangled the opportunity of reform whereby the functional constituencies can be abolished or the number of functional constituency seats of the Legislative Council reduced in 2016. He has also failed to make an all-out effort to strive for genuine universal suffrage from the Central Authorities. He is unworthy of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong people.


The 31 August Decision of the National People's Congress (NPC) has "shut the three doors". It has deprived Hong Kong of the opportunity for various sectors to reach a consensus through dialogue and ruled out the possibility of implementing genuine universal suffrage, ruining the future of young people. On 28 September, the Police fired 87 tear gas canisters, from noon till the early morning. These canisters awakened a vast majority of Hong Kong people, bringing 200 000 people to the streets to oppose the clearance by force by the Police and support the students to strive for genuine universal suffrage. On a couple of nights in Mong Kok, I talked to some people staying there and asked them why they would come out this time and did not return home. They said that the Police had not made any apology so far for the firing of tear gas canisters at peaceful protesters, so they would not go home. Recently, we know and understand that many people are looking forward to an early withdrawal of the Occupy movement. Though some people support a withdrawal, I hope the Government will not misinterpret it as the public accepting the bogus universal suffrage with screening. A political issue should be solved by political means. But the Government went down the wrong path at the beginning and dragged on, giving no response to the aspirations of the students. LEUNG Chun-ying and certain members of the pro-establishment camp have been mobilizing people opposed to the Occupy Central movement behind the scene to fight against the masses. They adopted the approach of pitching masses against masses to drag on for two months, causing society to tear apart completely, where police officers are forced to press at the front line, facing challenges and work pressure which I think are the greatest since the riots in 1967. President, I am extremely sympathetic to police officers caught in the predicament. Yet, I think the senior echelon of the Government, LEUNG Chun-ying, has done a disservice to them, for he has not used proper political means to solve the problem but only passed the problem to the Police. Some police officers may be facing tremendous pressure and are on the brink of an "emotional outburst". As such, we notice that the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) and the Complaints Against Police Office have received many complaints about abusive arrest and beating recently. Although I have not yet examined these cases personally, I believe the IPCC will examine all the evidence in a comprehensive manner before making any judgment. In view of the large number of complaints received, should the Police or the senior


3183

echelon of the Government reassess or address squarely the power abuse problem that may be caused by the "emotional outburst" of police officers, and examine ways to restore the public image and credibility of the Police Force? President, I do not believe that all police officers are "black cops" and the public should not insult police officers with foul language. However, in the clearance operations recently, many issues have prompted queries. First, I read a newspaper report yesterday about the Police arresting a batch of people during the clearance operation in Mong Kok and in the course of dispersing protesters, and they were ordered to stay in a covered carpark after arrival at the police station and they had waited there for many hours. These people were only wearing light clothes when the temperature dropped significantly at night. They felt cold as they did not have thick clothes to keep warm, so they asked the police officers on scene to provide blankets for them. There were dozens of arrested persons there, yet the Police had only given them two blankets. When the students requested the Police to provide more blankets, the police officers said that no more blankets were available and only rubbish bags could be provided. Eventually, these students had no choice but covered themselves with rubbish bags to pass the night. If no blanket was available in the police station at the time, we surely could not complain about that. However, when the arrested persons entered the police station to give statements, they noticed that there were a lot of blankets in the police station. In other words, the police officers were lying to the students at the time. Hong Kong as a cosmopolitan city should comply with humanitarian standards, that is, persons under detention should be entitled to fundamental rights like the provision of food, water and clothes to keep warm. Besides, these people were only under arrest, they were not subject to official prosecution or imprisonment. Why then were they not provided with blankets even though blankets were available in the police station? Were certain police officers taking revenge on them deliberately? It is a matter of humanitarianism. Let us turn to the use of police batons. Under what circumstances is the use of police batons appropriate? I hope Secretary LAI Tung-kwok will explain it clearly to Members later. Certain Members from the pro-establishment said earlier that as protesters would put on goggles and masks and open their umbrellas to counter the pepper spray used by police officers, police officers could only use batons, and this resulted in the many scenes of police officers beating people with batons. Yet how should police officers use their batons? Are there any rules or procedures? According to my understanding, police


batons should not be used as a weapon to cause casualties but should be targeted at limbs. Many Members from the pro-establishment camp said earlier that police officers were aiming their batons at the body parts below the waist, such as legs. In fact, many people at the scene have witnessed and television stations have recorded that some of the police officers on the front line, even those of the superintendent rank, were beating the crowd from head level in a nearly crazy manner. Some people were already on the run, but the police officers continued to hit them at their heads, causing bleeding on their heads. Some police officers even beat protesters on the back of their necks. If the back of the necks of these protesters are broken, affecting their central nervous system, they may become paralysed for the rest of their lives. Should the Police use such approaches to deal with young people who participate in the Umbrella Movement merely to strive for democracy for Hong Kong? The Police are beating them in their upper bodies to their lower bodies, beating their heads, neck and other vital body parts, and this may cause fatal injuries. Is this in compliance with the ethics of police officers? I hope the Secretary will clarify this point later. He should also arrange for front line police officers to learn the correct use of police batons and remind them to be restrained. Certainly, we also urge the public participating in the movement to continue to hold fast to the peaceful and non-violent principles. Recently, student Joshua WONG has lodged a complaint. He was arrested in the clearance operation in Mong Kok on 26 November. I believe that with his slim build, he could hardly resist the 10 police officers and must have been subdued. On that day, the Police deployed a large number of uniformed officers to arrest him, and he said that the uniformed officers had made six to seven attempts to injure his private part at that time, and caused injuries to his neck and face. Should this be regarded as an indecent assault and sexual assault? President, Mr CHU, a former a police officer, said that he was in Admiralty on 1 December, early Monday morning. He went there merely because he wanted to help the injured protesters and he had no intention of charging at the Police. As a former police officer, he saw that police officers were using excessive force on that day. After that, he stayed at the scene until the early morning, and then he saw that some police officers were using foul language to insult protesters. At the time, the police officers in question had not put on the police vest or displayed their police warrant cards, and they just appeared at the scene as plain-clothes officers. A female protester refuted the accusation of the police officers concerned, and three of the plain-clothes officers threatened that if the female protester spoke again, they would arrest her and rape


3185

her in the police station. Such comments caused an uproar in the crowd. Is it in compliance with the code of practice of the Police Force for police officers to make such intimidation of assaulting a female protester? President, through the debate today, we would like to urge the Police to reflect on the principles on the use of force, and urge those participating in the movement to uphold the peaceful and non-violent principles as they persevere in the protest. MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, over the past two months or so, we could see protestors charge at police cordons on a number of occasions, insult police officers with foul language, throw bottles, water and pepper powder at police officers, spray them with fire extinguisher foam and push mills barriers against them. The protestors were equipped with helmets, shields and goggles, so people with a discerning eye can all see that these are premeditated, planned and unlawful acts of collective violence. Of course, we could also see the scene of a glass panel of the Legislative Council Complex being damaged, so the so-called "love and peace" is just a lie. Given the development of the Occupy movement so far, the public can already see very clearly what it is and are very disgusted with it. People who foment trouble only wanted to create incidents in an attempt to upset the Government's operation and undermine economic development. The whole society was completely riven and it never occurred to them whether or not their behaviour is consistent with the principles of the rule of law and democracy. Recently, because of the injunction orders granted by the Court, Mong Kok was liberated but the troublemakers remain unwilling to give up. Each night, they aggregated in the Mong Kok area and attempted to occupy Mong Kok again, including playing the game of "dropping money while crossing the road" to deliberately block the traffic. They incited a general armed uprising and taught tactics of confrontation. The behaviour of protestors was blatant and constituted the serious offence of contempt of Court. In the past two days, protestors caused obstruction and nuisance to shops. They did whatever they liked and caused great nuisances to shop tenants and members of the public. These people flouting the law and creating trouble looked very smug in front of the cameras of television stations, so this is really more than one can bear. Unfortunately, the pan-democratic camp and Benny


TAI even praised such behaviour as creative. It is surprising that being a lecturer, he has such a sense of the rule of law, so he is really leading the younger generation astray and setting a bad example to children. It is worthwhile to share with Members a passage in the editorial of the Hong Kong Economic Journal today. It reads to this effect, "The atmosphere in society at present is perhaps excessively lenient to young people. In the face of the siege of the Central Government Offices initiated by the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Scholarism recklessly, society is only concerned about slamming the police for using excessive violence in dispelling the crowds but has not looked in depth into the reckless actions of the protestors who completely disregarded the consequences. The students were bent on calling for an offensive to besiege the centre of power of the SAR Government. If anyone expects the well-trained and well-equipped law-enforcement officers to ceremoniously and voluntarily make way and throw the doors wide open, it would surely be as naive as an imbecile talking about his dreams. For this reason, Members of the pan-democratic camp did their utmost to exhort against taking such an action prior to the incident. This notwithstanding, some representatives of public opinion with foresight still tried to smooth things over by talking about respecting the students afterwards, rather than giving them a severe warning in the sternest of terms, so this is tantamount to encouraging young people to continue to throw themselves against the brick wall by resorting to illegal means.". President, Members can see that public opinions in the community have condemned irresponsible Members of the opposition who do not distinguish between right and wrong. They often say that the situation nowadays is the result of the injustice of the system in the Government and the violence built into it. I must tell the Hong Kong public solemnly that Hong Kong is a society upholding the rule of law. Before the return of sovereignty, the political system was devised after a long period of discussion between the Chinese and British sides, whereas the subsequent development is prescribed by the Basic Law. Whether or not this system needs to be changed should follow the stipulations of the Basic Law and the decisions of the NPCSC. One cannot accuse the system of being unjust, then use the occupation of roads and the interests of the general public as the bargaining chips to coerce the Central Government into accepting an unlawful demand. Therefore, it should be said that the situation today is the result of the instigation by the Occupy Central Trio and Members of the opposition. The process of constitutional reform has been launched and


3187

according to normal reasoning, if one wants to make improvements to this electoral system to make it acceptable to all parties, one can reflect and express one's views through legal channels and it is practically unnecessary to resort to brutal and illegal actions when waging struggles. So is this not obviously trying to mislead the public, with a view to inciting them to take to the streets and engage in unlawful acts? President, today, I heard Mr Albert HO talk about the Central Authorities withdrawing the timetable for universal suffrage for 2017 and 2020 and this is surely telling blatant lies to mislead the public. The fact is that the Central Government has laid down a framework for universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020 and honoured the promise of developing democracy in a gradual and orderly manner. A year ago, in a deliberate and methodical manner, Benny TAI already schemed to use the Occupy Central movement to paralyse the entire territory and threaten the Central Authorities. Right from the beginning, he knew that this movement could not possibly be a peaceful struggle, yet he deliberately chose to emphasize "love and peace". The aim is to deceive students and members of the public who ordinarily do not like to take part in politics and exploit their noble ideal of demanding democracy. However, what they were involved in was actually premeditated acts of violence. From time to time, Mr Alan LEONG and Mr Albert HO would even say that abiding by the law was not what the rule of law was all about and an act was not illegal so long as it was one of civil obedience. Mr Kenneth LEUNG also cited the example of India just now, saying that not all laws had to be complied with. I felt furious on hearing that. Obviously, in making such comments, a selective approach was adopted. May I ask you to state clearly which of the existing laws you are not going to comply with? There is little wonder that even now, some occupiers staying in the streets still refuse to admit that their occupation of roads is a criminal act. Members of the opposition criticized the Government for foisting the political issue upon the Police and using batons to resolve it. This is a claim that totally confuses truth and falsehood. Originally, political issues should be dealt with according to the law through legal channels, rather than trying to obtain results by unlawful means. Maintaining social order is the inherent duty of the Police. In the face of illegal and violent acts, not only did Members of the opposition fail to condemn them; they even blamed the Police for using force to deal with mobsters, so what kind of justice is this? Is this for the good of Hong Kong?


Mr Dennis KWOK, a Legislative Council Member representing the legal profession, said that the Police had used the pretext of assisting bailiffs in enforcing the injunction orders of the Court and exploited this opportunity to clear protestors from the sites. So according to him that amounted to disrespect for the Court as well as the rule of law and was a procedural injustice. On hearing that, I was puzzled. Mr KWOK kept blaming the Police and throughout, he defended the legality of the illegal occupation, so it is obviously a wrong interpretation of the rule of law. Mr Dennis KWOK queried if the rule of law would be undermined simply because some people violated the law. Of course, ordinary crimes may happen on a daily basis and it cannot be said that the rule of law is undermined on account of this. However, major thoroughfares have been occupied for more than 68 days, a raid was mounted against the Central Government Offices, facilities of the Legislative Council were damaged and the injunction orders of the Court were ignored, so can these not be considered as undermining the rule of law? These are facts and it is probably that Mr KWOK and members of the opposition have turned a blind eye to them, or they are simply defending illegal and violent behaviour. Right from the very beginning, the Occupy movement has been plainly and purely an arrestable offence. The Police always have the power to clear the sites. They had it in the past, they have it now and they have it in the future. This is not prejudiced by the injunction orders of the Court. With regard to the lawbreakers in society, the police can exercise the power of arrest according to the law at any time and in any place. This is the law and this is the rule of law. The temporary injunction orders do not affect the original powers of the Police under the law, that is, on the one hand, the police can assist bailiffs in enforcing injunction orders; and on the other, they can also exercise their original powers. The Police absolutely have the power to enforce the law in various parts of Hong Kong and when necessary, they definitely can take law-enforcement actions. Mr Albert HO also said yesterday that in law enforcement, it is entirely possible for the Police to invoke the powers conferred on them by the Public Order Ordinance or other criminal laws and that there was practically no need to rely on the injunction orders of the Court to disperse the crowds. Nevertheless, on the one hand, he made such an assertion; and on the other, he criticized the Police for forcibly clearing the sites. Mr HO blamed the Police for not exercising the powers they have, believing that this is a cowardly aspect of the


3189

Government; furthermore, he vowed that if the Police clear the sites, he would take peaceful and non-violent actions and is prepared for arrest by the Police. Mr HO, have you ever thought about whether you believe in your own words or not? Would the other occupiers believe in them? Would the Hong Kong public believe in them? It is true that the Police have the power to enforce the law but in the past two months, they did not clear the sites because the Government and the police both adopted a restrained attitude, caring very much about the students. They do not wish to see any bloodshed. Officials at all levels of the SAR Government and Members of the pro-establishment camp in the Legislative Council have time and again urged the occupiers to disperse peacefully. Unfortunately, these earnest and well-meaning advice and kind words were only like a puff of wind passing the ear. Not only has the opposition not complied with public opinion by dispersing peacefully, so that peace in society can be restored, it has even acted wilfully and made mistakes time and again. Some Members of the opposition held that the Government should open a dialogue with the students again to resolve this issue, in an attempt to pass the responsibility for the prolonged occupation to the SAR Government. Just imagine: If the students and Members of the opposition all demand that the Decision of the NPCSC made on 31 August be withdrawn, that LEUNG Chun-ying step down, that Secretary LAI Tung-kwok step down and the Commissioner of Police of the Hong Kong Police Force, Andy TSANG, also step down, is there any basis for dialogue? Even Mr Ronny TONG of the opposition thinks that this is unrealistic. Worse still, in recent days, one after another farce has been staged. It is said that in surrendering oneself to the authorities, no defence would be put up, yet one was accompanied by a group of lawyers; the lightest offence was chosen and only the offence of unlawful assembly was admitted. President, we also heard Mr Alan LEONG say that this resistance movement had been initiated by the Occupy Central Trio. Obviously, such actions are designed to toy with the rule of law, in an attempt to get away from the law. Moreover, it was also said shamelessly that the Police should produce evidence before they could prosecute people for serious offences and that if the Court imposed heavy sentences, there would be something wrong with the judicial system. We believe such remarks are tantamount to openly challenging the fairness and impartiality of the Judiciary in Hong Kong. In view of the damage wrought to Hong Kong by this Occupy movement initiated primarily by Benny TAI, the Occupy Central Trio and


Members of the opposition in recent months, it can be said that they are guilty of unpardonable evil. Yesterday, an editorial of the Oriental Daily News reads to this effect, and I quote, "In fact, being unlawful is being unlawful and undermining the rule of law is undermining the rule of law. No matter if one surrenders oneself to the authorities or not, essentially, there is no difference. Just like murder and arson, by surrendering oneself to the authorities, does it mean one has atoned for one's wrongdoing? The organizers of Occupy Central were a scourge to Hong Kong and the public and their wrongdoing is grave. It is only when they receive lenient sentences that there is something wrong with the rule of law." (End of quote) President, the tolerance of the Hong Kong public has limits. This incident has caused us very serious damage, so ultimately, we advise the occupiers to end the Occupy action and leave the occupied sites of their own accord to prevent major bloodshed. President, I so submit. MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, I have risen to speak because I want to refute… (Mr Gary FAN stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, please hold on. Mr Gary FAN, what is your point? MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): A quorum is not present in the Chamber. Please do a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)


3191

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, please continue with your speech. MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in response to the speeches made by certain Members earlier in order to point out their mistakes. The first Member whom I wish to refute is Mr Christopher CHUNG. He said earlier that in turning themselves in to the Police, the pan-democrats and the Occupy Central Trio actually wanted to "swipe the card to settle the bill" and then get away but to Hong Kong people, they could never run away from their debts. However, I think his remark is not accurate because other than having brilliant oral skills, they are also good at "defaulting on payment of their bills". Before the start of Occupy Central, they signed more than 1 000 pledges undertaking that they would turn themselves in to the police after the movement. Let us see how many people have turned themselves in to the police today? Of course, the Occupy Central incident has not yet come to an end, so let us wait and see how many people will really turn themselves in to the police and how many different excuses will be used for "defaulting on payment of their bills". The second Member is Dr Helena WONG. She said earlier that she does not believe that all the policemen are "black cops". But does she believe that all the protesters are peaceful, rational and non-violent, and that they are the initiators of everything that happened? This may not necessarily be the case. She even described the Police as acting like mad dogs in wielding their batons. But then I wish to ask: A couple of days ago at the Admiralty Centre in Admiralty, a dozen people assaulted an off-duty policeman ― I am not sure if he was off duty and I do not care about whether he is a policeman or not ― a dozen people were assaulting one person, and what kind of animal would she use to describe those people assaulting another man? So, from these cases we can see that our pan-democratic friends always apply double standards in making observations. I originally did not intend to speak today but having listened to the speeches of a number of Members, such as Mr Dennis KWOK who talked about the rule of law and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan who talked about moral force, I think I must say a few words. Speaking of moral force, fortunately, Mr WONG Kwok-hing is in the Chamber now … and fortunately he has already spoken or else he would definitely press the button, take out the the book titled 《泛民收錢實錄》 (A Record of Money Received by the Pan-democratic Camp), and repeat


what was reported in the Oriental Daily News on 14 October. However, I will still say a few words for Mr WONG Kwok-hing. Hong Kong people and I have seen how Mr LEE Cheuk-yan or some Members who have received money conduct themselves. We know very well how he gave empty talks about the most upright moral force but acted surreptitiously in reality and pocketed the money first. Some Members appeared to be firm and stern in upholding justice on the surface but when they faced their sponsor they would bow to his wishes and lick his boots with servility and act at his beck and call. I must say that such an attitude of life is most impressive and commands my utmost admiration. So, Hong Kong people really have to see clearly what these people have done in Hong Kong. Mr KWOK mentioned the rule of law earlier on. To put it more accurately … My party comrades and I or the pro-establishment Members must make a clear explanation in response to Mr KWOK's theory about rocking the rule of law. We cannot say that breaching the law is not considered to be undermining the rule of law so long as the lawbreaker can take a series of follow-up actions to accept punishment. In fact, inciting people to break the law or spreading rumours or theories to tell people that breaking the law is not considered to be undermining the rule of law is precisely the most awesome weapon to rock the rule of law. In describing the Police and our Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, Mr KWOK said that the end justifies the means or in other words, achieving a political aim by hook or by crook. This remark does strike a chord in me, but why does it strike a chord in me? I would like to make a few points. First, some members of the public are now called the mob. They have been incited and instigated by you to obstruct the roads of the people, to jeopardize the economy of Hong Kong and to ruin the prosperity of Hong Kong, in fighting for a constitutional reform proposal which is against the law and disastrous to Hong Kong. Is this achieving a political aim by hook or by crook? Unopened soft drink cans and planks with nails embedded on them and wrapped in cardboard were used to charge the police cordon lines, provoke the Police, and press the Police to employ force. Is this achieving a political aim by hook or by crook? Those people claimed that they came to "gau wu" (which means shopping) ― I am sorry, but it is difficult to pronounce these two words ― but their purpose was actually to cause hindrance to the shops in doing business and they even tried to stop the shops from lowering the shutter in the hope of wasting police resources and forcing the Government to accede to their demands. Is this


3193

achieving a political aim by hook or by crook? We have seen so many people inciting the public to break the law and rocking the rule of law in Hong Kong and yet, these Members with a legal background even said that there would not be any problem with the rule of law and that so long as the procedures are complied with, there should not be any problem and they urged the public to believe them. Is this achieving a political aim by hook or by crook? Some Members have spoken against their conscience without turning a hair, and though we have actually seen this for many times in this Council before, what they have done this time around has gone to such an extreme that this is the first time that I have come to see it. In this Occupy Central movement, you Members, the Occupy Central Trio and members of the higher strata in society should know that some protesters and even some students with immature minds may not be rational in their actions. Apart from expressing the people's or protesters' aspirations to the Government, you, being leaders, also have the duty to tell them what they should not touch and what they should refrain from rocking, such as the rule of law, as well as the overall interests of the majority of Hong Kong people. However, you are exactly those people who seek to achieve a political aim by hook or by crook. Even though the protesters' demands are unreasonable, irrational and unfeasible, and even though they resorted to violence, you people have remained unconcerned and turned a blind eye to all this and even looked for excuses by hook or by crook, applauding them and encouraging them to charge ahead. Do you know that every applause from you would push the protesters in front and even the entire Hong Kong one step closer to hell? Now that you do not know how to end this movement, and just as Mr Christopher CHUNG said, you want to "swipe your card to settle the bill" but then, you even proposed in this Council motions for adjournment under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure to kick up a big fuss over this in the hope of separating yourselves from the violence which is all instigated by you but encouraging the protesters to march forward meanwhile. What is the purpose? This is actually to pave the way for the future elections in the hope that when running in the elections, you can have an excuse to say that you did advise them to leave and that you had nothing to do with the violence. However, all this is actually of your own making. You have this "magic band" called "peace and love" with you and you put it around Hong Kong people … Why do I not say that it is a halo? Because it is


not a halo at all. It is just a "magic band". I may be as naïve as the lovely Mr CHUNG is, and I have seen only today what it means by achieving a political aim by hook or by crook. Certainly, perhaps I have not awakened yet and I am still bound by the band, and there may still be a lot of magic tools up your sleeves that you have yet taken out. But being a Hong Kong citizen, I really do not wish to see any more of this. Lastly, I would like to respond to the remarks made by Mr Alan LEONG because the speeches made by Members of the Civic Party today have deeply struck a chord in me. What he meant is broadly this: History will tell the truth. Let me respond to him with these two lines: "周公恐懼流言日，王莽謙恭未篡時" (When the Duke of Zhou feared rumours; When WANG Mang was humble and yet to usurp the throne). Mr CHAN Kam-lam said on a previous occasion that the yellow umbrella rebellion was able to gather great momentum at the outset because some Hong Kong people who did not know the truth and were even instigated to take part in it were actually very supportive of it. This is a fact and there is no gainsaying it. But let us look at the public opinions today. Time will really tell, as it is now shown that the public no longer support this movement and that they have realized the true nature of this incident as more and more scandalous stories about the leaders have been exposed. So, time will really tell. I hope that Members in this Chamber, the Trio outside this Council and even leaders of the yellow umbrella movement will turn back and repent, so as to stop being sinners in the history of Hong Kong. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I wish to thank Dr Kenneth CHAN for moving this motion for the adjournment of the Council, and I have to thank the President for permitting this motion. Thus it can be seen that the question is a specific issue of urgent public importance. In fact, in the meeting of the Panel on Security on Tuesday, Members of the democratic camp had also proposed an urgent meeting to be held within this week to discuss issues arising from the police's handling of the Occupy movement. At that time, a lot of pro-establishment Members opposed the idea and some even said that it was not urgent at all, and that it could be dealt with after the end of the whole movement.


3195

I do not know whether the pro-establishment Members have raised objection or protested in front of the President after the President granted the permission to this motion debate. Some said that this issue had been discussed repetitively. There is no point to argue at all, if it is repetitive, then the President would have not permitted the motion for the adjournment of the Council to discuss this so-called specific issue of urgent public importance. The wording of Dr Kenneth CHAN's motion is: "The Police's assistance in enforcing the injunction orders in Mong Kok and its handling of public assemblies since 25 November 2014", that is, last Tuesday. Actually I do not quite agree with Dr Kenneth CHAN's wording. First, it was not the Police who assisted in the execution of the injunction orders, it was the injunction orders that helped the police to carry out the clearance of Mong Kok. Second, it was not about the handling of public assemblies. Actually it was about the police's handling of the crowds after the injunction orders were enforced. The fact is that after the clearance of Mong Kok, the crowds were dispersed in all directions, and many of them were not participating in an unlawful assembly. It was not even a public assembly as people were just hanging around near Langham Place. Some people left the occupied areas, but they knew nothing about the development, thus they were just showing concern by staying in the vicinity. Others were just taking a rest. Of course some were onlookers for fun or excitement, and some were passers-by. They were not necessarily participating in a public assembly at all. Earlier the Police were mocked, that a political issue should only be solved by political means, yet the Police were "open and aboveboard, but beating you up in a dark corner". Now that the dark corner glows, and the dark corner has become Mong Kok. What we are going to review today is the way the Police handled the matter, the police's handling of the process of the execution of the injunction orders, as well as the Police's handling of the subsequent public activities. Nevertheless, after hearing the opening remarks of the Secretary, I considered that he had no intention to do any soul-searching or introspection. Certainly, pro-government Members will defend the Police and argue that it was the occupiers who committed the wrong-doings and broke the law in the first place. The Secretary needs not repeat that, as everybody knows that the Occupy movement is unlawful. But does it mean that the Police can mess things up in the course of enforcing the injunction orders? Does it mean that the Police can beat up passers-by arbitrarily just because the Occupy movement is unlawful?


The so-called spirit of the rule of law is that the public should be law-abiding, whereas the Government, the Police and law-enforcement agencies should all the more be law-abiding. On last Tuesday and Wednesday, the Police stated explicitly that they would provide assistance in the execution of the injunction orders along Argyle Street and Nathan Road in Mong Kong. I hope the Secretary can go over your own reply on 20 November to Mr Dennis KWOK's urgent question. You replied that as stated in the orders: "The bailiff do take all reasonable and necessary steps to assist the plaintiff and its agents to effect the clearance and removal of the obstructions." This is the first point; the second point is: "The bailiff be authorized and directed to request the assistance of the Police where necessary." After we have gone through every items of the entire injunction orders, we learnt that the bailiffs should take the lead while the Police should provide assistance; the bailiff was the leading person while the Police were just playing the supporting role. But what happened in reality? The reality is, the Police conducted the clearance with the help of the injunction orders. Of course, the Secretary will argue that there was an explicit provision in the injunction orders that without prejudice to the provisions of the Police Force Ordinance, the injunction orders would not obstruct the Police in their execution of duties and that the Police were not confined to carrying out their duties within the areas covered in the injunction orders. I am repeating this point for you, so that when you give your closing remarks, you need not repeat that many times. Does everybody know what this metaphor means? The trailer of the movie is that the Police will provide assistance to the bailiffs in the execution of the injunction orders, but what kind of movie was shown on Nathan Road? It was the big clearance by the Police, big arrest. Everybody in Hong Kong, or even the whole world knew that the SAR Government was simply putting up a show and the injunction orders were just the props. LEUNG Chun-ying, Rimsky YUEN, LAI Tung-kwok, all of you know that fairly well, even if you are putting up an act, it is fine, Secretary, but you should be acting until the end of the show. Why do I consider that they have not acted out the full show? I remember that when the interim injunction orders were granted, the people in the Mong Kok occupied areas were rather anxious, and a lot of organizations and the people there discussed the details of the injunction orders. For example, were persons deemed obstructions? When the bailiffs arrive, would the public be considered obstructing the execution of the injunction orders if they walked back to the pavement? How could they communicate with the bailiffs upon their arrival?


3197

How could the details of the injunction orders be clarified? What were the due rights of the public? However, what happened on the day of the clearance? The bailiffs only read out the injunction orders at the junction of Nathan Road and Argyle Street, and shortly after that, they requested police assistance. What is acting out the full show? As Nathan Road is rather long, the bailiffs should read out the injunction orders at both ends of the section of Nathan Road, from the junction of Argyle Street to the junction of Dundas Street, as well as in the middle section of it. But did it happen? Let me show Members the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the appeal against the Mong Kok injunction orders, it stated in paragraph 20 the following three steps to be taken by the bailiffs: "(a) informing the person concerned as to the gist of the injunction; (b) warning him that his action is likely to constitute a breach of the injunction; and (c) warning him also the possibility of his being arrested if he does not desist." Did the bailiffs take all these three steps? If the bailiffs had not done that, did the Police do that? What happened on the day of the clearance? Some of our pals of the People Power were in the middle of the area covered by the injunction orders, and they said they could not see any bailiffs; all they could see was the constant influx of police reinforcements. They kept their hands raised and backing off to Dundas Street until they could go nowhere, then the Police wrestled them down to the ground and stomped on them for more than 20 times. They had counted the stomping as they could hear that "we have been tolerating you for so long." As they were all pushed to the ground, certainly they could not see who was saying that, and I dare not say it was any one of the police officers who said that. But even if it was the Police, as Mrs Regina IP said, pushing you onto the ground was to prevent you from being bashed by batons till you fainted. Well, you may also argue that they bashed you with batons just because they were preventing you from being shot by guns. It is all up to you to say whatever you wish. Some of our pals had their glasses broken, blood vessels broken and bleeding in their eyes. Obvious bruises near the eye could still be seen. The fate of students was even worse. They were put under arrest when they tried to ask the bailiffs about the details of the injunction orders, and they were accused of obstructing the bailiffs in executing the injunction orders. Even raising a question was an offence; they were arrested for asking a question. It was quite different from the previous approach adopted in the clearance of the CITIC Tower blockage.


The High Court promulgated on Monday another injunction order for Admiralty. The deadline already passed by 2 pm today, which was only for the submission of some supplementary information. It is estimated that the entire process of the injunction orders would be completed by early next week before they could be executed. The injunction orders this time around do not cover the section of Harcourt Road and Connaught Road outside the Central Government Offices. The areas are not on the list. However, after drawing lessons from the previous removal of barricades which turned out as a clearance of the sites, I believe everybody has anticipated that even the injunction orders covered an area of merely 3 ft, actually the Police would have the power to clear up the entire street, as they are entitled to exercising other powers at the same time. Recently, some reports have pointed out that the Police might take the initiative to clear the sites earlier than scheduled, without the need to wait for the clarification of the injunction orders against Admiralty. Of course, this is correct, for the Police can take actions anytime, but the dissemination of this message may as well be a tactic of the Police or the Government. Nevertheless, if Secretary LAI Tung-kwok really has the say, I would prefer him not hiding behind the injunction orders. He had better take the resolute action as he said. He should not wait anymore, as he should not wait at all. Please do not lay another count of contempt of court against these students and members of the public. I hope the Secretary will take my suggestion into consideration. As to the handling of crowds during and after the execution of the injunction orders and clearance of occupied areas in Mong Kok, President, of course we consider it very wrong. At that time, the Police decided to take the sweeping approach of apprehending even innocent people with a view to suppressing them, putting them under arrest first and keep on beating them until they were frightened and terrified. The Police said they had been extremely tolerant but those scenes happened all the same. If they cannot take it anymore and they are about to blow up, what will happen next? Did the Secretary envisage the possibility and whether any precautionary measures were put in place? Was it actually just the "interaction" within a small group of policemen, that is, just as Mrs Regina IP said, their emotions were heightened in the interaction, both sides had lost control, or was it just a tactic of the Police? Moreover, I have heard that the Police were brainwashing the policemen, or shall I say, they were instilling ideas into the minds of officers that all the


3199

occupiers were bad guys, terrorists or mobsters, therefore they should not show any mercy. Even a veteran officer, Mr CHU King-wai, Divisional Commander of Shatin Division, was caught on camera beating passers-by indiscriminately with his baton in the public eye. Secretary, was it an isolated case or was it some kind of phenomenon? We have also seen that an officer, after using up the whole can of pepper spray, unexpectedly hit the head of a member of the public with the butt of the pepper spray can. Has he violated the relevant guidelines? An old lady said, upon seeing the scenes, it reminded her of the three years and eight months under Japanese Occupation. At that time, if passers-by failed to follow instructions of the Japanese soldiers or members of the Imperial Japanese Army, their heads would be hit by rifle stocks. She said that the current situation was just like that time. Everybody could see that there was this couple who were just passing by Mong Kok, but the guy's neck was hit by the policeman while he was trying to protect his girlfriend. Initially, he dared not report the case as a witness, because he was afraid of reprisal. He was afraid that his information would be handed over to the Mainland authorities and then he would not be able to visit the Mainland in future. However, he finally considered that he had the duty to report the case, therefore he decided to make it public. Some Members said that we are finding fault in the police with a magnifier or a microscope, but I feel rather sorry that the reality is just the opposite. Now, even a short-sighted person or a bespectacled person who has his glasses fallen onto the ground can see clearly all of these scenes. Then the pro-establishment camp will say that the Police had already urged the public not to go to Mong Kok and other dangerous places of high risks. The underlying meaning of this explanation is that it was trouble of the peoples' own making; they just deserved to be beaten up, they deserved the punishment. This is their mentality. Mr CHONG Yiu-kwong, solicitor and Deputy Chair of Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, criticized the police for abusing their powers. He pointed out the fact that the Police using the baton to attack the people, dispersing the public and prohibiting the public from staying on the pavement was a de facto curfew, but the Police failed to announce martial law in accordance with the due process. Besides, the fact that the Police demarcated certain districts as restricted zones without giving clear explanations to the public of the rationale or reason of dispersing the public, the size of the restricted zone and the result of entering the


zone, had implicated innocent people in the Mong Kok clearance operation. The remarks were accurate. If they think that normal people should not go to Mong Kok at such a chaotic time, then the burden should be placed on the Government, for it should announce the curfew. If a curfew were announced, then people would know that they should refrain from going there, while people keep on heading for that district would probably be beaten up, then it would be them who had to kiss the rod. Nevertheless, now those shop owners do not even know whether they should keep on doing business or not. They fear that the Police might appear and disperse the passers-by at any time. If so, the Police would beat up people arbitrarily and people might dash everywhere, or there will even be bloodshed, then Mong Kok will become spectre for everyone. For that reason, I consider that the announcement of a curfew will cause no traumatic experience to people, as long as the Government makes it clear that how many days will the curfew remain in force, and the entire episode will end after a certain period. Nevertheless, now that people are being beaten up arbitrarily and people are dashing everywhere, this will cast a spectre over passers-by and shop owners. For that reason, I urge the Secretary to take my suggestion into consideration, that is, to announce a curfew, instead of saying that the public have been told not to go there, therefore they should not go there, and if they do, they should kiss the rod without any complaint. Moreover, I hope all members of the public who have been beaten up by the Police without a good reason to come forth and report their cases or file complaints. Even if some people say making a complaint will be futile, as most cases would not be dealt with, at least we can leave a record in history. I know that some civilian violence-monitoring groups are collecting the relevant data. If members of the public dare not report their cases to the Police, or they are afraid of reprisal or fear that their information would be handed over to the Mainland authorities and then they would not be able to visit the Mainland in future, then they may consider liaising with these civilian violence-monitoring groups. Lastly, I wish to share one thing. A young man who got to the front line had talked to me. He said he actually wanted to hit back, but he restrained himself eventually, for he knew that if a policeman were hit, that would not be something most people would agree with, understand or support. Nevertheless,


3201

he also told me that if the Police heighten the level of violence next time, he would not know if he could bear it anymore. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I think a quorum is not present in the Chamber. Please do a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please speak. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I have to explain to the pro-government Members why this yellow umbrella is here. It is the symbol of the Umbrella Movement. Here, I would also like to salute those Mainland compatriots who have been imprisoned for supporting the Umbrella Movement. I hope the Central Government will release them soon. They have only made brief online comments on the movement. Members, you referred to this movement as a colour revolution and said that it began intentionally with love and peace but would end in enmity and violence. Mr IP Kwok-him, when you attended secondary school at the Hon Wah College in 1967, did you take part in the fight against the violence of the British? You said you did but were not arrested. In an interview by Gary Ka-wai CHEUNG, you said it was not right at that time to plant bombs, and said you heard people say on the bus: "You damned leftists who plant bombs to kill are preventing me from making my living". May I ask if we have bombs in our Umbrella Movement? Do we have an underground arsenal? Is anybody wielding knives? Has anyone been killed?


Mr WONG Kwok-kin, you were a seaman and might not be in Hong Kong when the fight against the violence of the British broke out. We cannot have double standards. You are now mocking "the Trio", remarking that they have been useless from the start. President, the Central Cultural Revolution Group issued the "May 16 Notification" on 16 May 1967, marking the beginning of attacks by reasoning and defence by force. The Central Cultural Revolution Group which was controlled by the Gang of Four headed by JIANG Qing incited the nation to embark on a big violent struggle. At that time, there was also the Anti-British Struggle Committee in Hong Kong to fight against British rule in Hong Kong. While the Gang of Four was attacking by reasoning and defending by force on the Mainland, there were people in Hong Kong responding immediately. You said this is a colour revolution intent on starting a riot. Can you tell me what the Anti-British Struggle Committee was? In those years, you opposed British rule in Hong Kong. You considered yourselves to be righteous and could thus resort to violence and killing. But what have we done today? We are just saying that since Hong Kong has been reunited with China, we should be given the universal suffrage as promised. What have we done? Have we done what you did, such as planting bombs, wielding weapons, setting up commandos, assassinating LAM Bun? We have not. Mr IP Kwok-him, should you not repent when you chided us? In his book, Gary Ka-wai CHEUNG has annexed a list on the statistics for the leftist riots: 51 died; a total of 832 injured; 1 936 prosecuted ― this last figure must be understated and wrong. As for bombs, 8 074 suspected bombs were detonated by the bomb disposal squad and there were 1 167 genuine bombs. So, the Umbrella Movement is simply no match compared to the riots of your time. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, back then, people died in the riots, and there were over 8 000 bombs. Can you find any now? DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, point of order. "Long Hair" has strayed from the question. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Please stop clocking my speaking time. We are having a debate, condemning the use of violence by the Police and I am making a comparison …


3203

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, please do a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (While the summoning bell was ringing, some Members were debating among themselves while seated) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please refrain from debating among yourselves while seated. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please stop debating. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue with your speech. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, today, I heard the pro-government camp make overstatements. After the rigid order was issued by the CPC, the majority of the people would make all sorts of exaggerations. Let me cite a very simple example. During the fight against the violence of the British, there was an occasion when ZHOU Enlai read a report by the Xinhua News Agency about the British authorities in Hong Kong having beaten to death or injured 200 to 300 people. After pondering over it a while, ZHOU Enlai found it unreasonable as the Hong Kong and Macao Work Committee should have made a report to him. So, he asked how many in fact had died. He found out there was only one death but was overstated to one death and over 200 injuries. How did ZHOU Enlai respond? He said, "This is a serious distortion and will all the more provoke the people's indignation, putting our nation in a very passive position … What is your purpose of inflating the incident?" At that time, Premier ZHOU Enlai was seeing his power being usurped. The situation is the same today. This movement in Hong Kong is peaceful but since the authorities have engaged triads in the clearance, the Police could only look on with folded arms and be dubbed "black cops". What is the


use of "overstating"? Please take a look at these photos. These people were badly beaten then. Do you feel outraged? See, these were your comrades. What is the difference between the scenes of the fight against the violence of the British back then and the scenes today? This worker was in San Po Kong, I believe he threw a bucket as he was suppressed. Did you not praise him for what he did? You should treat the others and yourselves alike. President, I would also like to quote the words of your brother ― he was also a political criminal. The fight against the violence of the British almost drew to a close in September but he was reported for distributing flyers at St. Paul's College. He was 400% a political criminal. He himself also said that the radical acts of the leftists in those days were inappropriate and failed to win over the hearts of the people. The planting of bombs was even worse as … Mr IP Kwok-him, be fair, you also said the British authorities planted bombs. Today, we are protesting here … Let me cite a very simple example. The night of 3 October is the turning point of the Occupy movement. What happened that night? The triads were mobilized to assault people in Mong Kok and the Police turned a blind eye to it. The same happened on 4 October. Therefore, a lot of people felt that the Police were not impartial. The Police were miserable. A throng of triads suddenly appeared and since it had been made clear to them that no arrests would be made, the Police could only watch them assault the people. The video footages are still here. If the Police fired 87 tear gas canisters resolutely on 28 September, why did they not enforce the law on 3 October? Why did they have to create conflicts? Then, when they cleared Admiralty, there were also triads and members of the blue ribbon camp came out to hit the occupiers. The Police stood on one side without taking any action. Given these circumstances, how can the people be convinced that the Police are impartial in enforcing the law? Please go back and take a good look at the recordings. Correspondingly, with regard to the Lung Wo Road incident ― I was there that night ― regardless of what they did, were they as fierce as those triads? Did they use weapons? President, what is the entire issue about? The NPCSC has been misled by the royalists in Hong Kong and on the Mainland and insisted on making an interpretation in breach of the constitution. The decision on "shutting the door" made on 31 August prompted many people to come out. The Monkey King can turn his hairs into persons by blowing them. Even if Benny TAI was the Monkey King, he could not have been able to spur so many people out to the


3205

streets, right? We did tell the authorities not to decide on "shutting the door", but they did not listen. Was is not the same when we asked the British Hong Kong Government not to hit the workers? What took place in San Po Kong was a labour dispute. Why were they so outraged and why did it end up in riots? Because the CPC wanted them to riot. Today, the CPC fails to address the situation and we are thus made the scapegoat. How can we trust their words? Twenty-five years ago, there was the bloody crackdown on the 4 June incident. After a meeting, the CPC General Secretary ZHAO Ziyang was suddenly dismissed. He could not be seen while alive, and his body was not seen after death. Even his family members were not allowed to pay him respects after he had passed away. Do you believe ZHAO Ziyang really colluded with foreign forces? Then, there is the case of LIU Shaoqi. Back then, you also said that he should be brought down. You branded him a traitor, covert spy and public enemy. The plenary Party endorsed since there was enough evidence, as you said. There is nothing we can do. This is giving the dog a bad name and hanging him. So, I find it very ridiculous after hearing it. Who am I "Long Hair" to have the honour to be a dog? At the worst, I will be imprisoned for a year or six months and be disqualified as a Member of the Legislative Council, but you have to watch out for your twilight years. By all means, you can hurl abuses at me, but you are wrongly accusing those people out there. In a mass struggle, scenes of pushing and shoving are unavoidable. Are these riots? Do they aim at violence? Are you kidding? Do you want me to quote from the Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung? "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay … A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another". We have made no mention of such. We are fighting by peaceful and non-violent means. However, LEUNG Chun-ying is not capable of addressing this problem. He has resorted to alternative means by turning to the triads. After provoking hostility between the Police and the people, he again failed to resolve the situation and could but seek the granting of injunction orders. President, if LEUNG Chun-ying had wanted to enforce the law, all he had to do was to invoke the Public Order Ordinance and this movement would have come to an early end. Nonetheless, since he was afraid, he resorted to crooked means instead, resulting in this mess. President, in this connection, every pro-government Member is forced to declare his stance here. They have never been so eager. Mr TAM Yiu-chung


is ready to rise to speak later. Buddy, what good does it do you to fight on? Do you think that public sentiment has really reverted? Are you nuts? I have said repeatedly that even if the participants of this movement are wrong this time ― I would not say whether they are wrong, I would only point out my mistakes ― the situation now is that the eagle is sick, therefore, it flies lower than a fly, and not the fly flying higher than the eagle. And you are the flies! Regardless of whether you are condemning our movement as wrong, let me take myself as an example. I have gone down on my knees and also erred, but let me tell you: Even if you are the high wall and I am the egg, it is always the egg being pelted at the high wall. Let me reiterate: There is only one objective for this movement of ours, and it is to revoke the 31 August Decision of the NPC, restart the consultation process, implement civil nomination and genuine universal suffrage for Hong Kong people. No matter what tricks you employ, they will be to no avail. The NPC has breached the Constitution, and this should be addressed. Let us see if the NPC will address it next March. Members, the Sunflower Movement of Taiwan has come to a lengthy stalement. At the lowest social cost, they punished the Kuomintang by way of elections. Today, we can do nothing to punish you. Society has to pay such a big price because of our corruption, the absence of a system of universal suffrage (The buzzer sounded) … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up. MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is at least being sincere in some extent rather than being hypocritical. This is a compliment. Yet I do not understand whether the triad he mentioned is called "scar faced Kong", so he had better explain whether he is referring to that "scar faced Kong" when he mentioned the triads? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, since he wants me to explain it, I must explain that…


3207

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time has ended. MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, it is somehow ridiculous that the motion for the adjournment of the Council this time around is proposed by the Member from the pan-democratic camp. Why am I saying this? It is obvious to all that Members from the pan-democratic camp have participated in the Occupy action, be it in the open or behind the scene. Besides, they have signed the statement of intent, so they have violated the law. Otherwise, they do not need to surrender to the Police. Now the lawbreakers have proposed a motion for the adjournment of the Council to condemn the law-enforcement officers, is it not ridiculous? It is even more ridiculous that the motion debate is attempting to target only one point but not other aspects. In other words, it targets only at the Police and police officers and makes no mention of the events taken place and the actual situation in the Occupy movement as a whole. It only blames police officers for beating people but gives no explanation of why police officers have to do the beating and why the Police have to use force to exercise its power to carry out clearance. Therefore, I think the pan-democratic camp is directing all efforts towards besmirching and condemning the Police Force as a means to shift the focus. With the development of the Occupy movement thus far, the pan-democratic camp has become extremely passive. They dare not oppose openly the opinion of over 80% of the public. They dare not express support openly for the continuation of the occupation, and they do not dare state clearly that the clearance operation of the Police in Mong Kok is supported by the public. It is obvious to all that the Police are duty-bound to enforce the law and that the Occupy action in Mong Kok is unlawful and jeopardizing the interest of society and many members of the public. Based on the expectation of mainstream public opinion, the Police are fulfilling its obligation to carry out clearance, for even without the injunction orders, the Police have to carry out the clearance operation all the same. Some people accuse the Police of hiding behind the injunction orders in carrying out the clearance. Even if that is the case, what is wrong with that? The ultimate aim is to clear up the site, and the clearance operation means to clear up the site. This is something the Police should do, and the injunction orders


will not affect the enforcement power of the Police, for this is their duty. Some people say that the scope of the clearance operation of the Police exceeds the scope specified in the injunction orders. However, the Police are not subject to the restriction under the injunction orders to carry out the clearance operation only in the specified places or areas. It is the duty of the Police to clear up any site where occupation is taking place and where roads are blocked. In the course of clearance, it is natural that some undesirable and individual events may happen amid chaos. However, these undesirable events definitely will not affect the overall direction of the Police in enforcing legal provisions and the duty to clear up the site. Among Members of the pan-democratic camp, no one so far has dared oppose the clearance operation openly, so they are only pointing fingers and shifting the focus to the use of excessive force by the Police in the clearance operation. Members must note that they have not said the Police are wrong in carrying out clearance but only that the Police have used excessive force. The other claim is that the clearance operations of the Police have exceeded the areas specified in the injunction orders. Honestly, I believe the Hong Kong Police Force are an outstanding and professional police force renowned worldwide. In the whole Occupy incident, the force applied is minimal in comparison with the clashes between the police and the crowd in various places around the world, which we often seen on the television. Certainly, I agree that interaction is a factor. In the Occupy action this time around, occupiers have applied very low force. Therefore, the clashes between both sides are much milder than those that occurred in the international arena as seen on the television. In the 1970s, I was a seaman. In a couple of years, I witnessed the "Spring Struggle" staged by local workers in Japan to strive for better benefits. The actions were so fierce that they were beyond comparison with the movement in Hong Kong this time. At that time, both parties resorted to the use of long clubs, iron bars and glass bottles to attack the opposing party. Even in the 1980s, in the protest by dockyard workers in South Korea, the violent clashes between the workers and the police of South Korea were far fiercer that those we see in Hong Kong this time. Although protesters overseas are more violent than protesters in Hong Kong, they act in a more open manner and do the beating as they say. But


3209

protesters in Hong Kong are not being so. When they raised their arms to press forward, they used their legs to kick the Police; they wrapped wooden planks with cartons so that it looked as if they were using low violence, but the fact is that wooden planks are wrapped inside and sharp nails are embedded on the cartons. They used square shields instead of round shields for round shields will not cause injury, but the corners of square shields may be used to attack others. Therefore, it is lying with eyes open to say that protesters have not used force and have not charged at the Police. Members from the pan-democratic camp have shifted the focus to the level of force used by the Police, attempting to distract attention. They often say that political issues should be resolved with political means. But why was this argument of resolving a political issue with political means not raised prior to the occupation? Before the Occupy action, the SAR Government and the relevant departments of the Central Authorities had made repeated attempts to resolve the issue with political means. The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR had met with Members from the pan-democratic camp. Arrangements had been made for all Members of the Legislative Council to visit Shanghai and for departmental officials of the Central Authorities to visit Shenzhen in the south to meet with all Members. In the meetings in Shanghai and Shenzhen, time was reserved specially for Members from the pan-democratic camp to express their views. There were attempts made to resolve the political issue with political means. However, Members from the pan-democratic camp hijacked public opinions and the movement, attempting to force the Central Authorities to yield to their request as a solution to the political problem. After the outbreak of the Occupy action, some people revisited the proposition of resolving political issues with political means. Has not the Government tried this approach? The Government has tried to do so. For the three-member Task Force on Constitutional Development had had a dialogue with the Hong Kong Federation of Students, and the Government had held out the olive branch by undertaking to submit a public sentiments report and set up a multi-party platform for discussion, trying to find a way for occupiers to withdraw. However, right after the dialogue, they flipped the table on the other side. Is this the right attitude of seeking to resolve political issues with political means?


The Occupy movement has sustained for more than 60 days. It is not only a pure political issue but one that involves the rule of law. For a period of some 60 days, the movement has not been addressed and occupiers are allowed to occupy trunk roads. This is no longer a mere political issue, it has developed into a problem affecting the rule of law of society. A problem concerning the rule of law should definitely be dealt with according to law. If the issue is to be dealt with according to law, the Police should enforce the law. It is just that simple. Therefore, it is ridiculous to condemn the Police for enforcing the law. Even if a political issue is to be resolved with political means, the law should formed the foundation of the solution, and the legal foundation is the Basic Law and the 31 August Decision of the NPCSC. If we do not act in accordance with these laws, it will be impossible to solve this political issue. If political issues are not to be resolved on the basis of law, there will only be one way out and, that is, revolution. When it comes to revolution, actions are no longer based on law but on one's own will, for it is the original intent of a revolution to demolish the structure of the existing regime and the existing law for the establishment of a new set of rules. However, it is strange that both occupiers and Members from the pan-democratic camp have refused to admit that this is a revolution. They say this is not the Umbrella Revolution but the Umbrella Movement. What is the difference between a movement and a revolution? Perhaps we should ask Mr WONG Yuk-man to explain it, for I believe he knows this better. According to my shallow understanding, if it is a movement, the actions taken should at least be compliant with the existing law. Participants should act on the basis of law and solve the problem within the framework. If we say that this is a revolution, the law can simply be ignored. Participants may adopt their own set of rules and do things not stipulated in the law. For instance, they may continue to urge for civil nomination and restarting the "Five-step Process" of constitutional reform, which are issues not stipulated in the law. Therefore, I hope Members will think carefully before they say that a political issue should be resolved by political means, pondering what this actually means. With the development of the incident thus far, many young people still take to the streets in Mong Kok every night after the clearance operation. I will not describe their actions as "fighting for" a goal, and I will say that they are only "fooling around". For we can see from the television that those people are


3211

acting frivolously and causing troubles for fun. They are not only disrupting the objects along the streets but also some of the shops, preventing these shops from closing. They also move around the streets to disrupt social order. In the face of these incidents, Members of the pan-democratic camp have not made any condemnation, but taken pleasure in seeing all these happen. Honestly, all political parties of the pan-democratic camp must be careful about this. The practices of these people are extremely annoying. As they do this again or as these disruptions continue another day, the public will dislike the political parties of the pan-democratic camp more. These political debts must be settled in future, and they will have to pay back eventually. Although Members from the pan-democratic camp dare not support them openly, they do not distance themselves from these people clearly or persuade these people to stop doing so. Many Members from the pan-democratic camp are still saying today that they will accompany the occupiers to walk to the end, yet they dare not say they are participating in the movement and will persevere till the end. Why? They after all do not have the political courage to make this commitment. They will only say that since the students want to go on, they will accompany the students to the very end, and they are only accompanying them. I think this is hypocrisy. I hope that young people now listening to the broadcast of this meeting will realize this point. Colleagues from the pan-democratic camp and Members of this Council should stop passing on the wrong message to young people, that the motion for adjournment of the Council this time is proposed to show support to young people for them to continue with their wrong actions. Repent! If one insists on doing the wrong, one must pay back in future. In fact, it will not be long before they have to pay back. President, I so submit. (After the President had called on Mr James TO to speak, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated his wish to speak) MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount according to Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, please speak. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, having listened to the speech of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, I must say that he has my sincere admiration. I think that Members from whichever political parties and groupings who have a historical sense must resolutely uphold some basic and common values that should not be changed lightly. President, if I reflect on myself in detail, I would say that I am unable to do this myself. But in my speeches on several occasions recently, I hoped to suggest some forward-looking views and to share with Members some possible options as a way out. Several students are on hunger strike outside the Legislative Council now. They hope to conduct a dialogue with the Government but in its statement made a couple of hours ago, the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration said that there is no room for dialogue. I found this very strange. Why do they refuse even to conduct a dialogue? Last week, I was in Taiwan observing their elections, but I still know that the Chief Secretary for Administration has had discussions with several colleagues of the Legislative Council ― I would consider that a kind of dialogue ― and their meeting was subsequently reported in a lot of newspapers. As far as I understand it, the Chief Secretary for Administration asked the pan-democratic Members whether they would definitely vote against the constitutional reform proposal if the ban imposed by the decision made on 31 August was not lifted. They clearly told the Chief Secretary that they would definitely vote against it. Of course, these four colleagues did not attend the meeting as representatives of Members, but I believe the Chief Secretary, in arranging for a meeting with these several colleagues, at least thought that they could understand or broadly grasp her views. If the Chief Secretary did not have the confidence to convince these four Members during the discussion to allow


3213

room for negotiation in the second-stage consultation, she did not necessarily have to meet with them and yet, the Chief Secretary still chose to conduct a dialogue with these several Members even though these Members gave her the answer that they would definitely vote against it. However, when these several students are staging a hunger strike at the risk of endangering their lives and health, hoping and pleading for a dialogue, why is it that their wish cannot be granted? President, I remember there are two key points in the last dialogue between the students and the Government. The first is the Public Sentiments Report and the second is the setting up of a platform for dialogue. Of course, nobody would think that the Public Sentiments Report or the platform for dialogue could resolve all the problems but at least they were suggested by the Government in the hope that the gap between the two sides could be narrowed, or those proposals could help bring both sides closer to each other. This is the first dialogue. Is it that no follow-up is necessary after the first dialogue? No. After the first dialogue, actions should be taken to follow up the details of this dialogue but how? For example, how is the Public Sentiments Report progressing? It is nowhere to be seen now and so, with regard to what the Government has said, is that true or not true? Has the Government truly written a report or is that not true? I have tried to follow this up by questioning the Government on the progress of the Public Sentiments Report but I have not been given a reply. Some colleagues may not be too keen on it, for they think that the Public Sentiments Report would be fraudulent and pointless. However, I think the Public Sentiments Report can reflect the public opinions after 31 August and the SAR Government is duty-bound to accurately, objectively and comprehensively convey these views to the Central Government. The SAR Government cannot say that the Central Government is already aware of these opinions and that it even knows more than the SAR Government does. It is the constitutional duty of the SAR Government to enable the Central Government to understand the public sentiments from the assessment provided to it by the SAR. The Chief Secretary said that a Public Sentiments Report would be compiled but it is still nowhere to be seen now. I still remember that after the end of the dialogue on that day, some reporters asked Secretary Raymond TAM at the press conference when the Public Sentiments Report would be completed and the Secretary answered that it would not be long. Why? Because they would often need to update the information, and even if the Central Government


made them submit a report, they could still complete it expeditiously. Over the last few dozen days, there were many reports claiming that the Central Government had been asking the SAR Government to submit a report every day. President, the Public Sentiments Report has a direct bearing on the clearance actions taken outside this Council or other important factors that may lead to non-peaceful situations, so to speak. I remember that in the press conference ― I am not sure whether it is during a press conference or the dialogue ― an official said that if there are concerns about inaccurate reflection of public opinions in the Public Sentiments Report, student organizations can convey public opinions to the SAR Government in the form of written submissions for incorporation into the Government's report. I do not remember whether it was the Secretary or the Chief Secretary who said this … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TO, I must remind you that the issue under debate in this motion for adjournment is the Police's assistance in enforcing the injunction orders and its handling of public assemblies. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I know, President. What I am talking about is the preamble which explains why this stalemate has emerged, and the premise on which the current situation has arisen as a result of the loss of patience. The Government should conduct a dialogue with the students on this Public Sentiments Report or it should at least seek their views on how the Public Sentiments Report should be compiled. According to the Chief Secretary, the Public Sentiments Report will be submitted to the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council direct and this may probably provide a basis for the Central Government to make a decision after getting the full picture. I think it is unreasonable to remain idle until the protesters escalate their actions and resort to besieging the Government and then the Government giving a free hand to the Police in chasing after and beating the protesters. In fact, it is written explicitly in the guidelines of the Police Force the circumstances under which the use of force is considered appropriate. If the protesters are already leaving the scene but the Police still continue to chase after and beat them with their batons, it is impossible for such actions to be considered compliant with the regulations of the Police Force in any case. Why did this situation arise? It was because the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration has stalled on honouring its words and even


3215

failed to take follow-up actions as undertaken in the last dialogue. The protesters could do nothing but escalated their actions. When their escalated actions turned out to be futile, they staged a hunger strike and all they have asked for is a dialogue with the Government. However, the Government has refused to conduct a dialogue with them. What does this mean? Do they intend to continue with the stalling tactics? Do they want to continuously make use of the Police Force to deal with a political issue which should supposedly be dealt with by the Government? President, with regard to what I have said concerning the causes and consequences or the factors that can help resolve this incident in the future, you may think that these parts are not quite proportionate to the theme of this motion today and so, I am not going to talk about the platform for dialogue. I think the approach of resolving political issues by political means can be adopted in many cases, rather than leaving the Police to be caught between a rock and a hard place and plunging them into a state of most intense division as it is happening now. As a result, some people who could no longer hold back committed impulsive acts as they feverishly chased after and assaulted the protesters. Now that things have developed to such a sorry state, I think the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration should indeed take the largest share of the blame. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, you have granted leave for Mr CHAN to propose this motion of adjournment to have an urgent debate on the issue, but after hearing the speeches made by Members from the pan-democratic camp yesterday and today, I do not see that there is any urgency for the debate. I have only heard them make repeated rebukes against the Police on law enforcement. During the 60-odd days of the Occupy Central movement, I have been asked by the public on different occasions when the authorities will clear up the sites. People who asked this question were very anxious. Many of them were people I know but some I did not know. Some of them were people I met on the streets or in my community. The watchman of the building in which I live asks me every day when the authorities will clear up the sites. Many people told me that they were in misery. One of them told me, "My husband has to spend two


more hours on traffic in addition to his working hours. Will they show some mercy? When will the authorities address the problem properly?" There are continual cries for action. I could only explain to them time and again, "The clearance operation has to be done properly, or else, it will invite criticisms, and the protesters will return after the clearance." This is how I tried to convince them and explain to them. However, I can fully understand their anxiousness. According to a number of opinion polls conducted recently, over 80% of the interviewees support early clearance by the Police, for they find the occupation annoying. This is the fact. Certain so-called "representatives of the public" often criticize Members from the functional constituencies for not understanding the public sentiments, yet I really doubt how they interpret the public sentiments. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen pointed out earlier that the reading out of the injunction order prior to the clearance operation in Mong Kok was only a show, and they should have made repeated announcements at one end of road and then at the other. As we watched the situation on the television, we found it annoying and pondered at heart, "Does the Government really need to do so? In fact, the Government can carry out clearance even without the injunction order." However, the Government chose to make proper arrangements on all aspects. So, it waited patiently for the Court to issue the injunction orders, provided legal aid to the respondents in lodging appeals and published the injunction orders in newspapers. The Government only removed the obstacles after obtaining the consent of the Court. Against this background, I would say that the Government has made the greatest effort to act in the most sincere manner with the greatest leniency. In the entire clearance operation in Mong Kok, I think the Police have done its level best and their contribution should be recognized. I think it is definitely inappropriate for anyone to besmirch the Police Force. Certainly, we understand that there will be "sequelae" to the clearance. Up to last night, there have been some "post-actions" in Mong Kok. It is expected. Some people carried out various kinds of activities in the late night, yet their actions were meaningless and would only intensify the dislike of the public towards them. I hope Members from the pan-democratic camp will not stand by them, otherwise, they will suffer. They should not shelter these people, for it will only arouse enmity.


3217

Ms Claudia MO and all Members from the pan-democratic camp kept criticizing the Police for using force to deal with protesters to flare up hatred. However, I think the Pandora's box of hatred was opened by the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS), Scholarism and the pan-democratic camp. Had not the HKFS, Scholarism and the pan-democratic camp provoked the public, the incidents would not have happened. Members all know that they urged the public to besiege the Central Government Offices (CGO) last week. This is an extremely serious offence. The purpose of besieging the CGO was to disrupt the work of the Government and paralyse its operation. It was obviously a criminal offence. How will a law-abiding person urge other people to take such an action? As seen on the television, the Police had set a cordon with mills barriers and made repeated public announcements to tell the protesters that they were violating the law and advised them to leave. Did anyone heed the advice? No. The public announcements of the Police were made unceasingly. Later, we saw the Police hoist the yellow warning banner, but it was in vain. The red warning banner was eventually hoisted to warn the protesters that the Police would take action if they did not disperse. But some of the protesters did not follow the advice and even dashed into the road, which was a very dangerous act. Under this circumstance, how could the Police take no action? However, when the Police took action, these people expressed strong views about that. I think the situation was the result of protesters not heeding the warnings. Someone explained that he had gone there to find his friend or to chat with his friend. Who will believe this? What do you think is worthy of discussion in such circumstances? The place was crowded with people, so why went there to find a friend? One would only put himself in danger if he went to the scene, risking his own safety. After people were arrested by the Police, they made various complaints. I think all these are unreasonable. If Members from the pan-democratic camp lay the blame on the Police Force, I think they are ― let me use the description they always use to accuse us ― really shameless. Mr Albert CHAN said earlier that protesters might escalate their actions and might even follow the practice of the Red Brigades of Italy in the 1970s of the last century to make bombs and initiate terrorist attacks. He was inciting protesters to use violence and even initiate terrorist attacks to seriously disrupt the


order of society, and I think such remarks must be condemned. It seems that he intends to turn Hong Kong into the Islamic State, which is really ridiculous ― a comment made by Ms Emily LAU frequently. Mr Albert CHAN is still inciting protesters to charge at the Police violently even now. On the day the clearance operation was carried out in Mong Kok, we saw him. More often than not, we could see Members from the pan-democratic camp seemingly attempting to prevent protesters from taking violent actions, but their efforts were in vain. Their actions on the contrary obstructed the Police in enforcing the law. They were making law enforcement more difficult. Members from the pan-democratic camp often criticize the Government for failing to address public aspirations. In fact, the Government has always been doing so. Perhaps Members from the pan-democratic camp are dissatisfied with the response, so they criticize the Government for failing to respond to the aspiration of the public. During the meeting with representatives from the HKFS, the Task Force on Constitutional Development led by the Chief Secretary for Administration made four suggestions on behalf of the Government, but the HKFS did not appreciate these or they were not interested in them. They continue to disregard the Basic Law and the 31 August Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) and insist on civil nomination and the withdrawal of the relevant Decision. How can the Government respond to these requests? Members often say that "political issues should be resolved by political means". I have heard this comment numerous times. It is true that constitutional reform is a political issue, and if the political issue can be resolved properly by political means … Under the "Five-step Process", we have already taken the first two steps. As for the "third step", it will be the second round of consultation to be launched by the Government. We may all express our views during the consultation period. Under the framework of the NPCSC, there is indeed ample room for discussion. After the discussion, they may support it if they like it. The pan-democratic camp has the right to veto it in the Legislative Council and they have enough votes to oppose the proposal. However, they instigated the public to resort to violence, clashes and protests, and they initiated the non-cooperation movement in the legislature. May I ask how these actions will benefit society? I think we should stop saying "political issues should be


3219

resolved by political means", for this is not the actual case. They only aim at instigating the public to take violent actions. Mr SIN Chung-kai who seemed to be quite excited said earlier, "You see, the Occupy Central movement has caused the Kuomintang of Taiwan to suffer a devastating defeat in the latest election, so you had better behave yourself." This is roughly what he means. He also said that he arrived at this conclusion after observing the elections. Though I had not visited Taiwan to observe the elections, I believe the Kuomintang of Taiwan will sum up their experience and conduct studies on the outcome of the elections. I think they will not conclude that the result was affected by the Occupy Central movement, for the Occupy Central movement has nothing to do with them. On the contrary, I think that the Democratic Party should consider their prospect carefully. Regarding the constitution reform proposal last time, I recall that the Democratic Party took a relatively rational and pragmatic path. Regrettably, they dare not take the same path this time around. Perhaps they have already gone down another path. I would like to remind them out of good intent that if they go along this path, they will face great dangers. In the pan-democratic camp, the radicals will not support the Democratic Party, and if the Democratic Party does not return to the previous rational and pragmatic path, they may turn out to be neither fish nor fowl ― they will gradually lose the support of the public. I think they should seriously consider whether they should adopt the attitude they adopted in the previous constitutional reform, and examine the impact on the Democratic Party of taking on the path of the radicals. This is my sincere reminder. I hope they will not follow the radicals. Let us return to the rational and pragmatic path and work together for the selection of the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" in 2017. This will be better than following others to stage struggles which are not supported by the public. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak)


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have finished speaking on the motion. I now call upon the Secretary for Security to speak on the motion. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I have listened carefully to the views expressed by Honourable Members. The following is my response to them. Abiding by law and returning the roads to the people On 10 November, the Court issued an injunction in relation to the obstacles on a section of Nathan Road both bounds between Argyle Street and Dundas Street. On 26 November, upon the request of the bailiffs, the police assisted in executing the removal of obstacles on the relevant section of Nathan Road. At that time, on the relevant section of road were 10-odd obstacles which were composed of heavy articles such as pallets and mills barriers, destructive items such as plenty of bamboo poles and iron nails, and a number of tents, all of which had to be removed before Nathan Road both bounds could be reopened. This operation was even harder than reopening the section of Argyle Street between Nathan Road and Portland Street on 25 November. As the operation at Nathan Road on 26 November was met with hindrance from occupiers, the Police had no alternative but to take resolute actions. Having taken into consideration of the scene at that time where the crowd was dispersing to areas not covered by the injunction order, the Police removed the rest of the barricades with the power conferred by legislation which included the Police Force Ordinance in the peripheral area outside of the injunction order. In the consecutive nights that followed, some people openly flouted the law and caused troubles in Shantung Street, Sai Yeung Choi South Street and even in the Tsim Sha Tsui area. In the interest of protecting public safety, the police had to send in officers to station in these areas and make arrests where appropriate. In the operations, the police acted in accordance with law and in compliance the rules of conduct, with a view to facilitating the smooth execution of the injunction, restoring the normal access to roads, and allowing shops to resume business operation and people to resume normal life gradually. Throughout the entire incident, the Police have abided by the law in enforcement and upheld the rule of law. Regarding the brutal mud-slinging done by some who claimed that


3221

the Police had "trampled on the rule of law" and "carried out a violent suppression", I consider such accusations extreme distortions of the truth and completely groundless. I noted that some Members claimed that the Police had extended the area covered by the injunction without proper authorization and the bid was tantamount to imposing a curfew. I cannot agree at all with such claim as the Police were only trying to prevent unlawful assemblies in accordance with law. In the bail conditions imposed by the Court, the Judge included a rule to ban arrested protesters from setting foot on a prescribed area in Mong Kok and part of the prescribed area lying outside of that covered by the injunction. The persons concerned were dissatisfied with the coverage of the banned area but their subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Judge. I firmly believe that the majority public would like the area covered by the injunction and its adjacent roads which were once unlawfully obstructed to remain free from occupation in future. I also believe that the public at large would not like to see the repeated staging of "back-alley guerrilla warfare" night after night, with residents and shops harassed persistently. It is definitely not easy for the policemen to use their own bodies to safeguard the cordon lines and to keep the situation under control. The actions taken by the Police should command widespread support from the people. Using appropriate level of force President, some Members have accused the Police of making "abusive arrests" and employing excessive force against people under arrest. I must say that I cannot agree with such allegations. As a matter of fact, in such an extremely chaotic and dangerous situation arising from the charging acts of a crowd of protesters, physical scuffles are inevitable and the Police have to act decisively. During the operation at Mong Kok, some protesters deliberately created scenes of clashes and refused to disperse despite repeated advices, whereas some others intentionally procrastinated in complying with the court injunction or even treated it with contempt. If the Police did not take action after giving warnings, they definitely would not have been able to assist in the execution of the injunctions, not to mention helping restore social order. The Police have emphasized repeatedly that with regard to the determination of an appropriate level of force, the most


important consideration is the actual situation at the scene. In such a tense situation, the overall performance of the Police Force is extremely restrained and tolerant. If there are people who consider individual police officers have used excessive force, they can lodge a complaint to the Police through the existing mechanism and the Police will follow up on it seriously. The Independent Police Complaints Council will also conduct objective, impartial and independent examinations in accordance with law on reportable complaint cases. I reiterate that the force used by police officers in the operation at Mong Kok was a level appropriate to the situation at that time. The role of the Police in the operation and the consequences faced by those who violated or interfered with the execution of the injunction were known to all. During the operation, the Police had explained their purpose for a number of times with the public address system, asked people to leave and given warnings repeatedly. Meanwhile, the Police took decisive actions at the appropriate time, and struck a balance between the principle of using the minimum level of force and the need for effective action. During the operation, the Police Force proved themselves as a professional and outstanding disciplinary service, capable of keeping situations under control. President, the operation at Mong Kok did not happen all of a sudden. The occupation at Mong Kok has persisted for more than two months. Both the Police and the citizens could have foretold that clashes might happen anytime, and the Police have also repeatedly urged members of the public not to go to the protest sites for avoidance of danger. All in all, the occupiers should not have interfered with the Police in law enforcement, still less should they have charged the police cordon lines with violence. On the contrary, they should have left as early as possible. All violent and unlawful acts should be condemned. President, the public have high expectations on the Police Force at all times and the Police understand very well that they should act with restraint and professionalism in law enforcement. In the recent situations, front-line police officers have been under heavy pressure: when protesters were dispersed, they would certainly blame the Police; when arrested, they would definitely accuse the Police of using "inappropriate force". But we should give the matter its fair deal whereas. Hong Kong people have all witnessed that before taking action to remove barricades on the road, the Police had repeatedly given advices and made


3223

statements, and displayed warning banners to protesters. But all these failed to achieve the desired result as protesters ignored police instructions, deliberately challenged the police verbally and even hindered police enforcement with violent behaviour. When physical scuffles happened, protesters were bound to lodge complaints and to pursue responsibilities, lashing out at the policemen in front of the media. As Members are probably aware, during the operations at Mong Kok last week and this past weekend, more than 30 police officers were wounded. We can see from media reports that a police officer had the corner of his eye smashed, with blood running down all over his face. But the wounded officer was just sitting quietly on the side without getting any media coverage. Come to think about this. One of the reasons for the Hong Kong Police Force to enjoy a high reputation internationally is their spare use of high level of force. Similar incidents also happen in foreign countries and we can put ourselves in their position so as to make a detailed comparison between the Hong Kong Police Force and their overseas counterparts. Some may argue that overseas protesters take violent actions and may even set fire on cars while Hong Kong protesters practise "peaceful disobedience". But is this the whole truth? Just look at the shields seized by the Police. They were handcrafted by the protesters and embedded with thick screws and sharp iron nails on the surface; also, the sharp knives and other pointed weapons found in the occupied areas, and the police cars damaged by protesters, Members will then understand that some protesters are in fact well-equipped to take part in violent clashes. President, like all other citizens, policemen are also part of society and Hong Kong is their home. While performing duties, they met protesters who provoked them with strong flashlight shone on their eyes, who insulted them with foul language, who continually charged at them with violent means. The amount of pressure sustained by them was way beyond our imagination. But the Police have all along insisted that front-line police officers should exercise restraint by all means. As a matter of fact, during the past couple of months, the Police have shown an enormous amount of restraint and patience towards the protesters. With regard to accusations of individual officers for the use of inappropriate force, the Police will follow up on them fairly and impartially. But I think it is neither fair nor moral for people to make use of the accusations to sling mud at the entire Police Force or even mislead the public deliberately.


For more than two months in the past, the charging and clashes which took place in different areas where unlawful assemblies were held have inflicted injuries on nearly 130 police officers. The siege and clashes that happened outside the Central Government Offices (CGO) last Sunday alone inflicted injuries on 17 police officers, including one who once lost consciousness in an attack of three off-duty officers by a group of troublemakers. Prolonged operations have definitely brought about impact on the psychological condition of police officers. The Police Force have all along been promoting a caring culture and have established an excellent system for providing training in stress management and educational information, so as to strengthen the resilience of officers. Starting from basic training, the Police Force have provided relevant courses in psychology in policing and stress management, so as to help officers maintain a positive work attitude and positive emotions. In the current Occupy Central-related operation, the Police Psychological Services Group closely monitors the development of events on a daily basis and dispatches to the colleagues various inspirational messages and provides them with suggestions on self-care and emotional adjustment, through the Carelinks Cadre which is made up of volunteer police officers trained in counselling, through mobile phones and the intranet within the Force. Senior management and clinical psychologists of the Force have also visited the standby areas of front-line colleagues, including the Police Headquarters, the CGO and Mong Kok Community Hall, and so on, for visits and direct communication with the officers, in a bid to help them adjust their emotions and understand their morale. Maintaining rule of law in accordance with people's aspiration The Occupy Central movement has seriously undermined the rule of law in Hong Kong. In view of this, the Court has granted a number of injunctions, corrected various misconceptions on the rule of law in relevant judgments, and banned dozens of people arrested to enter Mong Kok or Admiralty under bail. Yesterday, more than 60 people which included the Occupy Central Trio turned themselves in to police. But whether the chaos created by the continued defiance at Mong Kok night after night will come to a stop hinges on the co-operation of the people and the efforts of the Police. Indeed, there is no dispute over illegal nature of the Occupy movement. Looking forward, the trend


3225

of law flouting can only be corrected with people's continued co-operation with the Police, their support for the Force and their avoidance of highly dangerous protest and occupied areas. To maintain law and order in areas cleared of barricades and to ensure public order, the Police have to deploy a huge amount of manpower to perform additional station and patrol duties. Such arrangement has to continue and the relevant cost incurred in turn has been levied on all Hong Kong people. Therefore, the best solution is for everyone to abide by law, refraining from flouting the law intentionally, and more importantly, the occupiers to end the occupation and let Hong Kong people resume their normal life. With all of these remarks above, I definitely will not agree with the accusations that the Police have "degenerated into political hatchet men", "failed to follow the Court's guidelines" and "made up an excuse for site clearance", and so on. In the past two-odd months, the authorities have emphasized persistently that the Occupy Central movement cannot drag on forever, that it will have to come to an end one day and the Police will take appropriate actions in due course. I reiterate, if anyone obstructs reopened roads and other roads, the Police will take decisive actions to maintain public order and protect public safety. The Police will also maintain a suitable amount of manpower at Mong Kok so as to prevent lawbreakers from causing troubles on the slightest pretext or occupying other roads. President, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the clashes which happened in the night on 30 November and in the early hours of 1 December. If the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Scholarism had not instigated rally participants to besiege the CGO that evening, no incidents of violence would have happened. Protesters charged the cordon lines of the Police with a mills barrier phalanx made by themselves, in accordance with the instructions given and in an systematic manner, such that violent clashes happened in a number of places. Some protesters, in a manner resembling mobsters, even used fire distinguishers, grounded pepper, sharp points and shields made by themselves with metal plates and pointed nails to attack the police violently, unlawfully entered construction sites nearby to steal water-filled barriers, bricks, concrete components, and so on, to construct barricades. They also scattered sand and stones on Lung Wo Road, apart from slinging thin nylon strings across the Road, in order to trip police officers who were performing duties. In total disregard of personal safety, they insisted on causing bloodshed


and acted with the aim to paralyse the transport lifeline of Hong Kong Island and the operation of the CGO, passing over a hefty bill to Hong Kong people to settle. I state my strongest and most severe condemnation of such brutal charging and irresponsible behaviour which are in total disregard of personal safety. I reiterate that the Police will not tolerate any unlawful action. The Police will not hesitate but enforce law resolutely, maintain public safety and order, arrest lawbreakers and bring them to justice. President, if there were no unlawful obstruction of roads, no unlawful assembly and no unlawful charging, the Police do not have to work overtime for a prolonged period and they can resume the performance of their everyday work, and Hong Kong people can resume their normal life. President, I so submit. Thank you. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I put the question on the adjournment motion, I wish to remind Members that if the motion is passed, I shall adjourn the Council under Rule 16(3) of the Rules of Procedures. In that case, this meeting cannot proceed to consider the remaining items on the Agenda. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That this Council do now adjourn. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (No hands raised) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (Members raised their hands) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is not agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion negatived.


3227

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The meeting shall now continue and handle motion debates with no legislative effect. The first motion debate is on the Report of the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy. Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon Dr Fernando CHEUNG to speak and move the motion. REPORT OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LONG-TERM CARE POLICY DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, having just finished debating a very heavy motion on the greatest conflict in society nowadays, we now return to discussions on livelihood issues. President, the two are actually related, because without democracy, how can we talk about people's livelihood? President, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy (the Joint Subcommittee), I move the motion as printed on the Agenda. The Joint Subcommittee was jointly appointed by the Panel on Welfare Services and the Panel on Health Services in November 2012 to study the long-term care (LTC) policy and services and make recommendations. The Joint Committee held a total of 18 meetings to discuss the relevant policy with the Administration, and it received views from 176 deputations on various issues of concern. After considering the discussions with the Administration and the views of the deputations, members have put forward a number of recommendations. Details of members' deliberations and their recommendations are set out in the Report. I now outline the deliberations and recommendations of the Joint Subcommittee on several major areas. Regarding the policy and planning on LTC services, members consider that the existing provision of LTC services is fragmented with unnecessary categorization under "elderly" and "persons with disabilities". Actually, such categorization is against the international trend of no distinct age limit. The Administration is urged to conduct a comprehensive review of its LTC policy with a view to offering services according to the needs of recipients, instead of


their age. Given that the Chief Executive has tasked the Elderly Commission to prepare the Elderly Services Programme Plan, members consider that the Elderly Services Programme Plan should be prepared in tandem with the Rehabilitation Programme Plan, so that the Administration can map out holistically the direction of LTC policy according to the needs of recipients. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair) The Joint Subcommittee is gravely concerned about the inadequate provision of residential care services (RCS) and community care services (CCS) for the elderly and persons with disabilities. Members consider that the inadequacy arises from the lack of good planning to address the huge demand. They call on the Administration to have long-term planning, in terms of manpower and training, as well as funding for provision of RCS and CCS, with data and analyses from the information collected under the Standardised Care Need Assessment Mechanism for Elderly Services and the Central Referral System for Rehabilitation Services, with a view to making a projection of LTC needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities in the next 10 to 20 years. Members note that the inadequate provision of subsidized places in residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs) and for persons with disabilities (RCHDs) has resulted in a long waiting time for admission to these residential care homes. Members strongly urge the Administration to set target admission time for both RCHEs and RCHDs. In this connection, members call on the Administration to expeditiously increase the number of subsidized places in RCHEs and RCHDs. The Administration is also requested to reserve lower floors of the building blocks in its public housing projects for provision of RCHEs or RCHDs. Regarding CCS, members note that most elderly people wish to live independently in a familiar community rather than living in an institution; in the light of the international trend, they urge the Administration to strengthen the provision of home care and CCS to facilitate the elderly to age in place. Members note that each elderly person on the Central Waiting List is being taken care of by a responsible worker (RW) regarding his LTC services application. Eligible elderly persons are invited to join the Pilot Scheme on


3229

Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly via their RWs. Members are concerned about the impartiality of RWs in helping these elderly persons to select CCS given the employment relationship between RWs and recognized service providers. Members suggest that independent social workers, rather than RWs employed by non-governmental organizations and social enterprises, should be assigned to draw up care plans for these elderly persons. Besides, members urge the Administration to reintegrate the existing services under the Integrated Home Care Services (Ordinary Cases) (IHCS(OCs)), the Integrated Home Care Services (Frail Cases) and the Enhanced Home and Community Care Services, with a view to alleviating the heavy workload of the service teams for the IHCS(OCs). Members call on the authorities to provide a concrete timetable for a comprehensive review of the Integrated Home Care Services (IHCS). Different stakeholders should be invited to give views on the way forward. Members also expressed the concern that the waiting time for training places in day activity centres and sheltered workshops for persons with disabilities is as long as six to seven years. They consider it important for the Administration to set specific targets to reduce such waiting time. In its report, the Joint Subcommittee has given an account of its deliberations on other aspects of LTC services and put forward its recommendations. I am not going to dwell on them here. I urge the Administration to accept the various recommendations set out in the report. Deputy President, I am now going to speak in my personal capacity. In advanced countries, LTC is a major policy area, but in Hong Kong, it has been neglected over all the years. Honestly, can anyone of us avoid ageing? Everyone may suddenly become a person with disabilities, right? In our own families, there may also be elderly people and persons with disabilities. When we have problems with our physical and mental health and hence need care and attention, LTC will become our basic need. When it comes to the future needs of society and the necessity of resolving the population ageing problem we are facing, the Government has all along been reluctant to formulate any longer-term or integrated planning. I believe that should there be any elderly members in our own families, all of us here, government officials not excepted, will have a big headache when trying to find a decent RCHE, irrespective of personal wealth and standing. Such is the difficulty we face nowadays. In this very city of ours, which boasts of itself as a metropolis in the 21st century, the majority of our


elderly people must live in institutions even more crowded than "sub-divided units", where sanitary conditions are unacceptably poor. What should be the direction of our policy on the provision of LTC services to those in need? I worked in the United States for many years, with LTC services as one of my work focuses. Our aim was to enable persons with disabilities and elderly people to live in the communities as much as possible, even if their physical and mental health warranted hospitalization. This aim is in line with the Government's advocacy of "ageing in place". But how much has the Government done and devoted in respect of this advocacy? In the United States, we sought to improve day care services and home care services as much as possible. Doing so was not difficult in the United States. With such improvement, they were able to live an independent life in familiar environments with their families; they were also able to live with dignity and choose their own ways of living. On our part, we would provide them with assistance in their own residences if necessary. During daytime, they stayed mainly in care centres, where there were many group activities, treatment services and various other things that served to stimulate their senses and mental faculties, and in this way, they could continue to make use of their abilities. They were provided with services during daytime, and after going back, they could still receive services at their homes if necessary. Hence, given an appropriate interface between these two types of services, many people's need for residential care can already be avoided. Not many people want to send elderly people or persons with disabilities to residential care homes. We actually hope that they can live at home. However, the living conditions in Hong Kong are so appalling, and large numbers of people are waiting for such services. The number of people awaiting the IHCS is 5 000, and the average waiting time is even as long as half a year or more. As for day care centres, the waiting time is also five to six months. Can people afford such a long wait? Family members cannot possibly quit their jobs in order to look after them 24 hours a day. Those families who have the means can no doubt employ a helper. But there may be language barriers and cultural differences, so can those helpers employed to look after elderly persons always perform to the satisfaction of the employers? The answer is negative. Those families who do not have the means to employ a helper will have to send their elderly people to private residential care homes.


3231

People may well argue that the market mechanism should be left to eliminate the problems. But what are eliminated instead? Well, it is elderly people who are eliminated. The market mechanism has eliminated all elderly people instead of the problems. It should be our duty to cater for their demand in this respect. They have made so many contributions to society over all the years, and we are now enjoying the fruit of the economic prosperity made possible by their hard work. But in the end, we simply abandon them and brush them aside. Why should we formulate such a policy? The quality of subsidized residential care homes may be a bit higher. But what is the actual situation? In 2004, some 20 000 people were on the waiting list. Today, the number has increased to some 30 000. The number of people has been rising, and the waiting time has likewise been increasing. This is not to speak of the fact that the yearly total of elderly people who died while waiting for a place has risen from some 3 000 persons in 2004 to some 5 000 people today. On the other hand, how many additional residential care places for the elderly has the Government offered every year? Are there 600 additional places a year? But the number of such deaths is now some 5 000 a year. Is the situation of persons with disabilities any different? Their situation is just the same. The number of people awaiting places in hostels for moderately mentally handicapped persons rose from 1 300 in 2004 to 1 600 in 2013. The average waiting time increased from 37 months to 83.8 months. As for the number of people awaiting places in hostels for severely mentally handicapped persons, it also rose from 1 800 in 2004 to some 2 000 in 2013. The waiting time likewise increased from 49 months to 86.4 months. If Members browse the website of the Social Welfare Department, they will see that the department is now processing the "ordinary" cases on the waiting list that were lodged in 1999. These applications were lodged in 1999, but they are processed only now. Deputy President, these are all outrageous examples. The Joint Subcommittee now recommends that a target of some sort must at least be set. Even in the case of applications for public housing, there is an allocation target of three years ― though this is largely a lie, but there is at least a target. Time may now be running out for those elderly people and persons with disabilities on the waiting lists. There is no longer any excuse for the Government to evade the responsibility. These people have all been assessed by professionals to be in need of institutional care. But then, they are made to wait endlessly. There is


such a shortage of residential care places. People must all wait for community services and day care services. We often boast of our economic success, and what we hope for is just the provision of appropriate care to the elderly and persons with disabilities. But the Government's welfare regime simply does not allow any integration of services. Users of centre-based day care services are not permitted to apply for home-based care services, and users of home-based care services are unable to enjoy centre-based day care services either. Centre-based day care services, home-based care services, institutional care or temporary institutional care, and care by family members should actually form an integrated whole. I suppose you should all see this point. Those experts I knew in San Francisco Bay Area once visited Hong Kong, and the Labour and Welfare Bureau even commissioned them as consultants. Some friends of mine in Canada are likewise LTC experts, and they were also commissioned to offer advice in Hong Kong. The Government should thus understand what I have been saying. So many years have passed, but why does it still fail to draw up a more satisfactory policy? Therefore, Deputy President, I hope that the Government can seriously handle the report of the Joint Subcommittee and also our recommendations. We honestly do not want to take to the streets all the time and resort to parades and demonstrations as a means of fighting for what we want. And, I must add that it will be useless to stage even 100 demonstrations because with the remaining time in their life, all these people cannot possibly wait any longer. Suppose you now have an elderly person at home who needs residential care, can you arrange any place for him? Why has Hong Kong been plunged into such an absurd state? The Government must therefore seriously handle the situation. LTC is an important social policy. The Government must formulate long-term planning. I so submit. Dr Fernando CHEUNG moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That this Council notes the Report of the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG be passed.


3233

UNDER SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I need to thank Dr Fernando CHEUNG for moving this motion. Over the past two years, the Legislative Council Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy has studied the subject matter in great detail and made arrangements for concerned groups and members of the public to express their views. Indeed, when I was the Commissioner for Rehabilitation in the past, I participated in most of the meetings. I would like to take this opportunity to give Members my heartfelt thanks and to express gratitude to the concerned groups and members of the public for their views. I will now begin with a gist of the long-term care policy and services for the elderly persons and persons with the disabilities. The long-standing objective of the Government is to provide appropriate and timely support for people in need of long-term care and to ensure that public resources are put to appropriate uses. On the front of elderly services, our aim is to enable our elderly persons to live in dignity and to provide necessary support for them, so as to realize the objective of promoting their "sense of belonging, sense of security and sense of worthiness". To this end, we have been proactively developing an elderly-friendly community for the convenience of the elderly and promoting the concept of "active ageing". As for the frail elderly persons, we have been providing them with subsidized community care and institutional care services under the policy which supports "ageing in place as the core, institutional care as back-up" to cater for their different care needs. The resources allocated by the Government to elderly care services have been on the increase. In 2014-2015, the estimated government expenses on elderly services within the social welfare agenda amount to $6.23 billion, a 15% increase when compared with last year's revised estimates, and a substantial increase of as much as 60% when compared with the figures six years ago (2009-2010). With regard to rehabilitation policies, we are committed to providing training and support for persons with disabilities to help them develop their potentials and integrate into the community. We are also committed to strengthening the caring capability of their carers and alleviating their burdens.


As regards the persons with disabilities who are unable to live independently and whose family members cannot take care of them fully, we provide them with appropriate residential care and support. The relevant arrangement is in line with the essence of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Convention). Since the Convention came into effect in August 2008, the Government has all along been allocating additional resources to support persons with disabilities. In 2014-2015, the estimated expenditure on rehabilitation services amounts to $5.1 billion, which is almost 20% more than last year's revised estimates, and represents a substantial increase of over 80% when compared with the relevant expenditure made before the commencement of the Convention. Ageing at home is a common wish shared by most elderly persons, and this is in line with the Government's "family-focused" policy on welfare services. Hence, we are providing a series of subvented community care services and carer support services for elderly persons with long-term care needs. We have been increasing the quota for community care services continuously. In 2014-2015, we will increase some 230 day-care places. Starting from March next year, we will increase the number of "Enhanced Home and Community Care Services" places to 1 500, representing an increase of 27%. We are also trying out new service modes, including launching the Pilot Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly, the Pilot Scheme on Living Allowance for Carers of the Elderly Persons from Low Income Families, and so on. Likewise, many persons with disabilities also prefer to live in their own homes. As such, we are providing them with a series of support services including home care, day care, district support centres, vocational rehabilitation training, occasional child care, medical and healthcare support, and so on. We also keep enhancing our various services, including introducing a case management approach to District Support Centre for Persons with Disabilities, increasing the number of occasional child care places, launching an Integrated Support Service Programme for Persons with Severe Physical Disabilities, and so on.


3235

Both elderly persons and persons with disabilities may need to receive residential care due to health or other reasons (such as family situations). On the front of residential care services for the elderly, we will continue to adopt a multi-pronged approach to increase the number of subvented care home places. From now on to the year 2016-2017, we will increase subvented places by around 1 600. In addition, we have also reserved spaces in 11 development projects to provide an estimated addition of some 1 200 care home places. In the face of an ageing population, we must develop new ideas to address the increasing demands for elderly services. The Pilot Residential Care Services Scheme in Guangdong introduced towards the end of June this year provides elderly persons with an option of living in the residential care homes for the elderly operated by two non-governmental organizations of Hong Kong. We have also commissioned the Elderly Commission to explore the feasibility of introducing residential care service vouchers for the elderly, so as to give elderly persons more flexible and dignified choices. As regards persons with disabilities, as at the end of September 2019, the Social Welfare Department has provided a total of 12 139 subvented places, excluding the 365 places bought under the Bought Place Scheme for Private Residential Care Homes for Persons with Disabilities. We hope to increase 6 200 rehabilitation service places within the coming few years, including 2 713 residential care service places. Furthermore, we have also launched the Special Scheme on Privately Owned Sites for Welfare Uses in September last year to encourage social welfare organizations to make better use of their land through in-situ expansion or redevelopment, so as to provide more elderly care and rehabilitation services and facilities. Social welfare organizations are responding to the Scheme enthusiastically, and according to their rough estimates, an addition of more than 10 000 elderly care and rehabilitation service places can be provided in the coming five to a dozen years if all the proposals can be implemented smoothly, thereby addressing the demand for services and shortening the waiting time substantially. The Government has also invited the Elderly Commission to prepare an Elderly Service Programme Plan within two years to map out the future


development of elderly services. The Programme Plan is expected to be ready by mid-2016. Deputy President, I so submit. I will respond to the consolidated main points raised by Members after they have expressed their views. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, firstly I have to thank Dr Fernando CHEUNG for proposing this motion today, and my thanks go also to all members of the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy for their efforts. From December 2012 to July 2014, the Subcommittee has held a total of 18 meetings and it has put forward various specific proposals in its Report. Long-term care is a very important and wide-ranging topic. With an ageing population and the average life expectancy getting longer in Hong Kong, the society's demand for long-term care is also on the rise. The Government has all along striven to safeguard and promote people's health, and long-term care is one of the areas which we attach great importance to. The medical policy of the Government is to ensure that people will not be denied suitable medical services due to financial difficulties. Under this premise, we have been in close co-operation and co-ordination with the Labour and Welfare Bureau. Our wish is to provide appropriate long-term care services to the people in need so that the elderly can age in place. Next, I will talk briefly about the work in the medical domain which has been discussed by the Subcommittee. I will respond in my concluding speech after listening to views expressed by Members. The first point is about care services for people with dementia. Three of the proposals put forward by the Subcommittee pertain to mental health, including enhancing co-operation with the Labour and Welfare Bureau to provide care services for people with dementia, stepping up of dental and psychiatric outreach services for persons with intellectual disabilities and reviewing the Case Management Programme for people with severe mental illness (SMI). The Government care very much about the mental health of the public. We have adopted an integrated model to provide people in need with preventive


3237

measures, early identification, timely intervention and treatment, as well as rehabilitation services, so as to promote mental health. Through co-ordination and co-operation with the Hospital Authority (HA), the Labour and Welfare Bureau, the Social Welfare Department (SWD), non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders, we have provided multi-disciplinary and cross-sector mental health services to people with mental health disorder. In respect of dementia, the multi-disciplinary medical team of the HA has been providing comprehensive and continual medical services. Patients suspected of suffering from dementia will be referred to the departments of medicine or psychiatric departments of the HA hospitals for assessment. Depending on the severity of the case, medical personnel will draw up a suitable personalized treatment plan and provide the patient with drug treatment, cognitive training and rehabilitation service as required in each case. In the meantime, through various channels, the HA will provide family members and carers of dementia patients with support and training to enhance their understanding of the disease and caring skills. The HA will also refer suitable patients to community service organizations for follow-up upon assessment. Moreover, through its Community Geriatric Assessment Teams and psychogeriatric outreach teams, the HA will provide outreach services to sick elders, including those suffering from dementia, who are residing in residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs). The services provided include the formulation of treatment plan, monitoring of rehabilitation progress for the patients and follow-up consultation. If required, on-site training will be given to carers at the RCHEs to enable them to master the skills for taking care of dementia inmates. At present, the scope of service of the Community Geriatric Assessment Teams under the HA covers around 650 RCHEs, while that of the psychogeriatric outreach teams covers the majority of the subsidized RCHEs in the territory and over 200 private RCHEs. Dental and psychiatric outreach services for mentally handicapped persons is also a topic of concern in the Report. I would like to introduce the outreach services in this regard as well. At present, in addition to providing in-patient service, the psychiatric service for intellectual disability of the HA will also provide outreach service for the severely mentally handicapped persons residing in residential care homes for persons with disabilities and their carers. As for the mentally handicapped persons of moderate and mild degrees, the specialist psychiatric departments of the HA clusters will provide patients with appropriate


in-patient or specialist out-patient service, day training and community psychiatric service according to their needs. Regarding dental service, the Government's policy on oral health and dental care is to raise public awareness of oral hygiene and health through promotion and education to encourage people to foster good oral hygiene habits. To promote oral health for the mentally handicapped students, the Oral Health Education Unit of the Department of Health (DH) has launched the Dandelion Oral Care Action since 2005. It targets at the moderately and mildly handicapped students studying at schools for the mentally handicapped children. With the co-operation of the schools and parents, the students are taught tooth-brushing skills and how to use dental floss so that when they leave school, they will be able to clean their teeth properly, which will in turn promote healthy teeth and gums. At present, all primary students in Hong Kong, including those studying at the special schools, can join the School Dental Care Service. In order to take care of the special oral care needs of the intellectually disabled students, from the academic year of 2013-2014 onward, the DH allows all intellectually disabled students studying at the special schools to join the School Dental Care Service up to 18 years old for oral health education, an annual oral check and basic teeth care. Moreover, the intellectually disabled persons can also have access to the emergency dental service provided by the government dental clinics under the DH for the public. We understand that the intellectually disabled persons may have weaker ability to care for their teeth and have special need for dental care. When they undergo dental treatment, they may also refuse to co-operate with the dentist as they are uncomfortable with the unfamiliar environment. Therefore, the Food and Health Bureau has provided subsidy for the Hong Kong Dental Association Ltd., the Hong Kong Special Care Dentistry Association and the Evangel Hospital to launch the four-year Pilot Project on Dental Service for Patients with Intellectual Disability. Under the Project, intellectually disabled adults with economic needs will be subsidized to receive initial oral check, dental treatment and oral health education at dental clinics which have joined the Project. Under the Project, dentists will apply special measures, such as behavourial handling skills and dental sedation to improve the co-operation of the intellectually disabled patients, in the hope that they can receive suitable dental service. If


3239

necessary, arrangements will be made for the patients to receive the necessary dental service in hospitals under intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. Currently, the Government has earmarked $20 million for this Project. It is estimated that around 1 600 intellectually disabled persons will be benefited. During the four years of the Project, each qualified recipient will be entitled to a maximum subsidy of $12,000. Moreover, if clinical advice requires, a certain amount of extra subsidy will also be available for the removal of wisdom tooth. In the initial stage of its launching, the Pilot Project targets at the mildly intellectually disabled adults who are receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) and referred by the rehabilitation service units of social welfare institutions. As regards the situation of mental health case management, as of 31 March 2014, the HA has followed up around 46 000 patients with SMI. From April 2010, the HA has in particular introduced the Case Management Programme for patients with SMI, to provide those of them living in the community with intensive, continuous and personalized support. The case managers of the Programme will work closely with the other service providers, especially the Integrated Community Centres for Mental Wellness set up by the SWD to provide target patients with community support. Initially, this Programme covered three districts but in 2014-2015, the coverage has been extended to all 18 districts throughout the territory. Regarding financial assistance on medications and medical and rehabilitation appliances, the two other proposals of the Subcommittee on the medical front pertain to the relaxation of financial assistance in these two areas, as well as the enhancement of hospice care service. Under the current medical policy, services provided by public hospitals and clinics are heavily subsidized by the Government, up to 96.8%. Qualified persons can have access to HA hospital and out-patient services at a low fee, for example, general out-patient service, in-patient service, wound dressing and injection. CSSA recipients can even be exempted from these fees. The HA also has in place a medical fee waiving mechanism for non-CSSA recipients who are in financial difficulties to apply for the waiving of medical fees. Although the majority of the people turn to subsidized public medical services, given their clinical needs and condition, some patients have to pay for


self-paid drugs which are outside the standard charges provided by public hospitals and clinics, or pay out of their own pockets for medical items. To assist this group of people who have to pay for self-paid drugs or medical items but are in financial difficulties, the HA has set up the Samaritan Fund to provide them with financial support. The Fund covers a number of medical items required by the persons with disabilities and chronic patients in their treatment process in public hospitals or clinics. In addition, since its establishment in 2011, the Community Care Fund has launched assistance programmes in succession, including two medical assistance programmes, to provide subsidies for the needy and the qualified. In 2013-2014, the Samaritan Fund has approved a total of 5 490 applications, with the total amount of subsidy reaching $377.9 million. On hospice care service, the HA has been providing palliative care services with a comprehensive service model for the terminally-ill patients and their families through a multi-disciplinary team of professionals, including doctors, nurses, social workers, and so on, to help them face the discomfort from terminal diseases (such as cancer and organ failure), as well as the pressure and fear associated with death. At the moment, the HA has 16 hospitals providing palliative care services, including in-patient, out-patient, day palliative care, home care and grief counselling. Deputy President, the Government has always striven to ensure that everyone can enjoy suitable public medical services. We will continue to implement the measures mentioned above to protect the health of the public. We will also step up the relevant services and support if necessary. In this connection, the proposals in the Subcommittee's Report cover various aspects and targets of service. I will made a brief response after Members have expressed their views. I so submit. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?


3241

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the discussion on the long-term elderly care policy has been going on for 10 to 20 years but I find it very disappointing that prolonged discussion is still going on and the Government is still dragging on with superficial efforts. The Government has resorted to the same tactic once again today by sending two Under Secretaries to give us an accounting journal of the measures in place, which are actually known facts. The crux of the matter is: Can the Government give me a concrete answer as to whether it will take on board each of the 30-odd recommendations contained in the report? It would really make my day if the Government can jot down and undertake to implement the recommendations later and I would really like to have a reply for each of the recommendations instead of a repetition of what has been done. Such repetition is indeed meaningless. Though Members have been thanked just now for spending two years to deliberate on the subject, the Government has subsequently switched to give an account of the measures taken instead of giving us the most straightforward response by answering clearly if the views expressed by the Joint Subcommittee have been noted. Please stop giving us an accounting journal of what has been done. I find the planning as suggested in the first recommendation particularly important. The Administration has been clearly requested to conduct its study on the Elderly Services Programme Plan (ESPP) together with the Rehabilitation Programme Plan (RPP) and no distinct age limit should be imposed since recipients of the services under the two plans are actually two groups of people with the same needs. Such being the case, why does it not address the needs of younger persons with disabilities and the elderly who mostly have difficulty in walking in one go? Can the problems of these two groups of people be resolved concurrently in a single planning exercise? This is our very clear request. Nevertheless, planning is exactly the last thing that the Government would like to do. Why is this so? There are worries that resources would have to be allocated after a planning has been conducted. This is a commitment which the Government does not want to make. The Government is only prepared to adopt the approach of "squeezing toothpaste out of a tube" to allocate resources on a yearly basis. This approach will no longer be possible when a planning has been carried out since everything has to be implemented as planned while the Government will be held responsible for failing to realize what has been planned and an explanation will be called for. Since the Government will not be under the pressure from fulfilling what has been pledged as long as a planning has not


been made, it is believed that it would very much like to avoid making any planning in this respect. In addition, the Administration is often criticized for the excessive long waiting time for residential care services and it is said that there are far more applicants who died while waiting for a place than those who have actually been admitted. The relevant figures show that the situation is really terrible as applicants are required to wait nine years for admission to hostels for persons with severe disabilities and six years for training places in day activity centres and sheltered workshops. I do not think anyone would find such an outrageously long waiting time acceptable. We have asked in the report for the adoption of a target oriented approach and queried if a target waiting time could be set. A pledge can actually be made in this regard since all sorts of performance pledges have been formulated by the Hong Kong Government for its services during all these years and I see no reason why one cannot be set for the waiting time required. I of course understand that the waiting time for such services is affected by a number of complicated factors such as the special preference of some elderly people for placement in a particular home, which in the Administration's view has made it impossible to set a target time for their admission, but I think a truthful explanation can actually be given for such cases. Nevertheless, there is no reason why a target waiting time cannot be set for applicants who have indicated a preference for admission to residential care homes in a particular district if the Government can wholeheartedly implement the measures suggested in the report, that is, reserving some areas in public housing projects for the provision of residential care homes and back up the measure with various Bought Place Schemes. With regard to Bought Place Schemes, there are weaknesses in their implementation. For example, we have repeatedly urged for an improvement of services and staff treatment under such schemes. However, employees of residential care homes are now required to work 10 to 12 hours a day, which has made it difficult to attract people to join the sector. This is the reason why we have been asking for enhancement in Bought Place Schemes, including the relaxation of the 50% ceiling imposed at present for the number of purchased places in residential care homes, so that more places can be bought. This will at least enable operators of residential care homes to have a grasp of their financial condition and the resources at their disposal after they have sold the places, thus putting them in a better position to consider offering their staff a better remuneration package.


3243

However, should the Administration really strive to provide residential care homes with additional resources by increasing the number of purchased places under the Bought Place Schemes, monitoring measures have to be put in place for supervision on the quality of services to the elderly and the working hours of workers in such institutions. Improvements to the Bought Place Schemes will be rendered meaningless if supervision cannot be exercised on these two areas after the provision of additional resources, while operators of residential care homes are allowed to exploit their clients and employees and aim at making profit without any regard to service quality. In this connection, will efforts be made by the Administration to enhance the Bought Place Schemes? The granting of carer allowance, though easy to be implemented, is another measure which has been delayed with all sorts of excuses. Although a scheme is now in place under the Community Care Fund (CCF) to grant allowance to carers of elderly people, we fail to understand and have repeatedly asked for the reason why the granting of carer allowance cannot be extended to carers of persons with disabilities? This is really perplexing to me. Having failed to settle even such a trivial matter after one year, can a concrete answer be given by the Government now to indicate if allowance will be granted to carers of persons with disabilities? Moreover, what we are asking for is not the introduction of a scheme under the CCF or a pilot scheme, but the formulation of a long-term policy for the granting of carer allowance. When will the practice adopted under the CCF, which is of a short-term and trial nature, be turned into a long-term policy? Is it possible for the Administration to implement the simple measure of granting carer allowance? While some recommendations among those put forward in the report do not involve the allocation of resources, some have to be funded by resources. For those recommendations which do not involve the allocation of resources, it is hoped that a better co-ordination of services will be secured to ensure the smooth implementation of various measures and avoid overlapping and mismatch of policies. However, for many other recommendations which have to be funded by resources, does the Government really lack the means to achieve them? In fact, the Government lacks many things, such as planning, commitment, caring and love, although it does possess ample financial resources. With such a huge fiscal surplus of $2,000 billion at present, the Government possesses the economic means and I wonder why it is not willing to put them into use. Of course, the Government should not use up the entire sum of the surplus but it is not difficult to allocate a few dozen billion dollars to do the job (The buzzer sounded) …


DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE, speaking time is up. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): … and it is all the more easy to set aside several billion dollars for this purpose. MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, since I joined the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy (the Joint Subcommittee), I have been actively participating in its meetings and its deliberation on the services under the long-term care (LTC) policy. It is hoped that on the one hand, LTC and services will be made available as soon as possible to the elderly, people with disabilities and the chronically ill; and on the other hand, to relieve the burden and distress of their family, in particular the plight of the helpless grass-root families. The policy study conducted by the Joint Subcommittee has now come to an end, but not because of marked improvements in our LTC policy. On the contrary, the number of places available for various types of residential care services (RCS) still falls short of public expectations significantly. For example, as far as elderly services are concerned, as at the end of August in 2014, 24 250 elders are still waiting for subsidized care and attention places and 6 440 elders are waiting for subsidized nursing home places on the Central Waiting List for subsidized LTC services. The average waiting time for admission to nursing homes and hostels for severely mentally handicapped persons is more than three years and nearly nine years respectively. Due to the lack of care and attention, the health condition of elderly applicants and applicants with disabilities is deteriorating and every year, quite a number of them have died before being admitted to residential care homes. In 2013-2014, 5 700 elderly passed away while waiting for RCS places. Not only have the applicants been tortured both physically and mentally by such an endless waiting day after day, their family members have also been put under immense pressure and given a very hard time since they have to perform the dual roles of caring for the family and taking up employment. Such problems can only be solved through the adoption of a two-pronged approach: firstly, shortening the waiting time for RCS places so that elderly applicants would be admitted to residential care homes as soon as possible; and


3245

secondly, granting allowance to carers so as to alleviate the pressure from livelihood on them. A pilot scheme has already been introduced under the Community Care Fund to provide allowance to carers of elderly persons and I hope the scheme will be extended to cover carers of persons with disabilities or with chronic illness as early as possible. There are a number of factors behind the inadequate provision of and the long waiting time for RCS places for the elderly but it is attributed mainly to the fragmentation of various serves and the lack of co-ordination under the LTC policy as well as the absence of a specific projection of future needs in the medium and long terms. In this connection, I concur with the recommendations put forward in the report and hope that data would be collected by the Government under the Standardized Care Needs Assessment for Elderly Services to make a projection of LTC needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities in the next 10 to 20 years, so that early planning would be carried out on such areas as manpower, funding, land provision, and so on, to reserve more time for such processes as training, consultation, deliberation, and so on, with a view to achieving effective enhancement of LTC services. Deputy President, as a representative of the labour sector, I would like to say a few words specifically on the manpower problem in the elderly care sector. On the one hand, operators of residential care homes for the elderly generally consider it necessary to expand the scope of labour importation to address the manpower shortage problem, but on the other hand, there are many recognized training courses available locally to ensure the supply of trained personnel. For example, an annual intake of over 2 000 trainees has been recorded for various elderly care training courses offered by the Employees Retraining Board and the Social Welfare Department; over 1 500 training places have been provided every year with the introduction of training courses for health worker registration; and an additional 1 000 training places will also be provided with the launching of the Pilot Project on Multi-skills Workers Training next year. It is hoped that the provision of such training programmes will ensure adequate supply of manpower for the elderly care sector. Moreover, in order to attract young people to join the field and avoid the wastage of talents, the remuneration package and the prospect for promotion in the caring profession should be reviewed. The work of the Joint Subcommittee has come to a close but the challenge posed to LTC services is still formidable. The Government is hereby urged to seriously respond to the recommendations put forward in the report and work in


collaboration with various sectors with a view to gradually alleviating the problem of undersupply of LTC services. Deputy President, I so submit. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, if one is interested in only the recommendations of this report, they can be found on pages 13 to 17, a total of 40 recommendations set out in these four pages. It has taken the Joint Subcommittee two years to complete the report. Upon listening to the speaking notes read out by the two Under Secretaries for some 20 minutes, I have the same question in mind as Mr LEE Cheuk-yan: If we take a review on these 40 recommendations, how many of them have already been implemented? This is my first point. My second point is: If long-term care policy is really so important, why should the Secretaries of the relevant Policy Bureaux be absent today? Both Policy Bureaux concerned send their Under Secretaries to attend this motion debate only. What a coincidence! While Under Secretaries certainly have their political importance, should we not expect the Secretaries in charge of the relevant Policy Bureaux to be the decision makers? Is this situation attributable to some not-so-good attitude in the past? By that I mean the two Policy Bureaux have been taking long-term care policy lightly, thinking that they can muddle through by recapping the contents of some old files as the issue has been under discussion for some 20 years and the things discussed are more or less the same. Actually, do they have any respect or regard for the discussions between Members and many concern groups over the past two years in adopting such an approach? How are they going to treat our views? Indeed, the speeches we make here are for the record only. Do our views have any real effect? As the President has referred to earlier on, this motion does not have any legislative effect. Nevertheless, I believe long-term care policy is an important policy. Why do I think so? Long-term care policy comprises several parts and covers different types of people. The first type is elderly persons, the second is the chronically ill, and the third is persons with intellectual disabilities. How many people in Hong Kong fall within these three categories? I am sure the Government knows it very well. If the social welfare sector and the medical sector have done a lot of relevant work as mentioned by the Government just now, are these three types of persons receiving adequate care of acceptable standard?


3247

The planning of a long-term care policy should cover four areas. The first area is community rehabilitation ― this is the Government's idea, not mine. The second area is ageing at home. The third one is the need or otherwise of elderly persons in the community to live at home until the end of their lives, which means whether they prefer to pass away at home. The fourth is institutional care. In my view, the long-term care policy should cover the three types of persons and four areas I have referred to. That is why it has taken us two years to come up with the 40 recommendations which take up four to five pages of the report. Now that the Government has said so many things, I really would like to see … If I had a secretariat, I would ask my staff to check how many of the initiatives mentioned just now have been implemented. Just now the Government said a lot of work had been done, and both the representative of the Social Welfare Department and the Under Secretary for Labour and Welfare also said that a lot of work had been done, such as allocating more funding to purchase a large number of residential places to address needs. The Secretary for Food and Health also said that a lot had been done, and he even mentioned about dental care service for children. I cannot understand why dental care service for children is also one kind of long-term care. It really beats me. Anyway, they have mentioned a lot of arrangements, but how many of them have really been implemented? How many of the initiatives involving the three types of people and four areas I mentioned just now have been implemented? According to my understanding, the most important point is that quantity and quality are the two major aspects to be covered and given most weight to in policy planning. Speaking of quantity, I believe Members all know that this refers to the services provided for the aforesaid three types of persons and four areas. We have been waiting for years, but the Government does not seem to care. The care homes are in poor conditions, and this is a quality-related issue, and quality is affected by manpower support and planning efforts. All these factors are major policy areas of the Government, and I have no intention to expound on them one by one. This is what the Government's policy planning work should be about. But then, has the Government attached importance to long-term care policy and put it on its administration agenda for the coming three years? While the arrangements may not be able to resolve all the problems emerged in the coming twenty years, what results can they achieve in respect of the issues I referred to just now in the coming three years? Let us forget about quantity for the moment, as the issue of waiting time will inevitably be raised in the discussion on quantity. Waiting time is an issue which makes many people furious, as some elderly persons have passed away before they are


allocated a care home place, while some others who have been assessed as in need of care still have to wait and will not be allocated a place until their conditions get even worse. I will now switch to the issue of quality, the quality of care homes. Deputy President, I am not in any position to comment on the quality of care homes. However, I wish to point out that the regulation of the care homes involving the three types of persons and four areas mentioned just now is gravely unsatisfactory, as the existing legislation concerned was written a long time ago and fails to keep up with the times. Let me use a care home as an example. A care home would not be assigned a nurse unless it has an intake of 60 residents. An odd arrangement in this connection is that if the care home fails to recruit a nurse, it can hire two health workers instead. I cannot help but ask this question: How is the quality of the healthcare services provided by two health workers compared to that of a professional nurse? Would it be possible that since the salary of a professional nurse is rather high and some care homes can neither recruit a nurse nor train up their own nurses, they have to settle for a less satisfactory arrangement and hire two health workers instead? As Mr POON has mentioned earlier on, the non-government organizations are offering a number of health worker training courses. Nevertheless, some health workers may not be able to perform duties involving "two tubes and three syringes", let alone some complicated healthcare procedures. My focus is that as the existing planning fails to keep up with the times, the Government should show its determination by reviewing the relevant planning and refine it. Under the existing planning, 50% of the care homes in Hong Kong are providing institutional services for elderly persons and persons with intellectual disabilities, and these care homes are all privately run. For such care homes, if they cannot recruit a nurse in accordance with the relevant requirement, they will simply neglect the requirement by accepting only 58 residents. In that way, they need not do so much work, nor hire two health workers, as one is already enough. Under such circumstances, how can the Government make any plans? What is worrying is that this opens a loophole in long-term care services. With unsatisfactory manpower planning, laws and regulations in need of amendment and the lack of appropriate reviews, how can the services provided in this respect be up to standard? I am not asking for high quality services; I just hope that the services can be of a better quality. As far as the issue of quality is concerned, I am sure the Government knows very well where the problems lie.


3249

Another point I wish to talk about is manpower. Let me cite community rehabilitation as an example, as community rehabilitation requires supporting services in different respects. When talking about community rehabilitation, home care or hospice care, do we mean professional care services or day-to-day care? We need to determine the levels of care services provided, but the Government is unwilling to do the job. Under the circumstances, the so-called planning can achieve no results, as the personnel will only allocate services in accordance with the figures in hand. Deputy President, my remaining speaking time is less than 30 seconds. The points I have raised just now are the problems arising from government policies and they must be faced squarely. If the Government faces up to these problems squarely, it will know what it should do regardless of whether it has the resources required. Only in that way can the services provided for the three types of persons requiring long-term care and the services involved in the four aforesaid areas move further ahead. Otherwise, we will only be dwelling on some trivial matters like the length of waiting time or the reasons why certain approach does not work. It is my hope that the Government will face up to the problems concerned. Thank you, Deputy President. MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am not a member of the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy. However, I met outside the Legislative Council yesterday a group of people who require long-term care. While I talked to them, I promised I would go over this Report. After reading the Report, I discovered that a lot of the issues have been discussed in previous meetings of the Legislative Council and the Panel on Welfare Services. I cannot understand why the Government has not yet addressed these long-standing issues properly. If the Government follows up the content of the Report, it can surely improve the services for those people who require long-term care. Hence the Liberal Party supports this Report. From the Report, we learn that the major problem, or the problem which is of concern to many, is the serious shortfall in places at the residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs). The figures show that up to 30 September, there are only 26 000 places at the homes for the aged but 30 000 elderly persons are waiting for them. If we take population ageing into account, I believe the future waiting time will become longer and so will the waiting list. The figures also show that as of the end of October, it takes the elders 20 months to wait for a place at the care and attention homes for the elderly, while a place at the nursing homes requires an even longer waiting time, which stands at 33 months. So,


some elderly persons pass away before they are allocated a place. These figures are really heart-wrenching. In 2010, 4 500 elderly persons passed away before they were admitted; in 2013, the figure was as high as 5 700. On seeing these figures, one will feel that the Government should devote more time and resources in this respect so that the elders will not have passed away before getting a place. I understand that it may take some time even if we urge the Government to increase the places or buy more places. Therefore, the Liberal Party proposes that immediate arrangement be made for the issuance of elderly care vouchers. For instance, elderly care vouchers of $5,000 should be issued to the elders each month for them to buy places at the private homes or hire someone to provide home service. In addition, the Government should also consider providing children with tax allowance. This will encourage them to take care of the elderly persons at home, with the hope of helping these waiting elders in the short-term. The Report has also made proposals on disability allowance. It suggests providing people of different degrees of disabilities with different disability allowance to purchase equipment or medical appliances. Of course, we have to be careful with the definition of the degree of disabilities to ensure that people in need can get the subsidy. As for the chronically ill, we are all aware that they have to pay a big medical bill. Thus, I think the Government should increase the subsidy for their medical expenses. We of course know that there is the Samaritan Fund, but I think the drugs covered by the Drug Formulary should also be increased so that the people in need can get more assistance. The application threshold must be lowered and the procedure must be streamlined to benefit all those in need. Deputy President, faced with so many proposals, the Government will surely ask where the money comes from as a lot of expenditure is involved. This is the same old problem. Does it mean that there is going to be another tax increase? There is in fact unnecessary. We all know that the Government has a handsome reserve. Mr LEE Cheuk-yan said earlier that the reserve stood at $2,000 billion but he has actually understated. The figure should now be $3,000 billion. We are not asking the Government to spend the entire $2,000 billion or $3,000 billion. What we are saying is that the Government should use the interest from this $2,000 billion or $3,000 billion or the annual investment return. Even if the situation in 2013 was worse, there was a 2.7% return, or $76 billion. Over the past five years, the average annual return was 3%, and over the last decade, the average was as high as 4.1%. I propose using a portion of this $76 billion, only $10 billion, without touching on that reserve of


3251

$2,000 billion or $3,000 billion. Just the interest or return alone is sufficient to meet the expenditure, and we can help our fellow people who are in need. Therefore, Deputy President, I hope that the Government will not be worried that the reserve will be exhausted after spending this $3,000 billion. What I am proposing now is to use the interest from the $3,000 billion to help those in need. I hope the Government can accept our proposal. Thank you, Deputy President. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy (the Joint Subcommittee) has examined a number of issues. Speaking of chronic illnesses, I remember that the Joint Subcommittee has held a special meeting and a hearing on dementia. In addition, the Joint Subcommittee has also convened a hearing on drugs support and other aspects. As I can hardly cover everything within my speaking time of seven minutes, I wish to focus my discussion on elderly persons, especially those awaiting residential care services on the Central Waiting List for Subsidised Long Term Care Services (the Central Waiting List). I wish to thank the Director of Audit for releasing the Director of Audit's Report No. 63 (the Director of Audit's Report) last week. A chapter entitled "Provision of long-term care services for the elderly" has revealed that the Social Welfare Department has covered up certain statistics. As some Members pointed out just now, around 30 000 elderly persons are awaiting the allocation of subsidized residential care places on the Central Waiting List. The Audit Commission has revealed that the Government has covered up 6 800 "inactive" cases. Among these cases … During the period between January and August this year, 560 out of the 3 400 cases receiving the allocation of residential care services were classified as "inactive". In fact, the elderly persons involved in such cases were "active" rather than "inactive", and they would be allocated residential care places anytime. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) Just now, some Members pointed out that planning was very important. Much to our surprise, it has been found that the statistics reported to the


Legislative Council by the Government were not totally accurate and were unable to reflect the whole truth. In fact, the Government could have put the number of "inactive" cases in brackets in its paper, rather than concealing it. If certain statistics are concealed, how can planning be formulated? Or, is it the case that the Government has no intention to formulate planning at all? Even Members without any community services experience are already able to say it as a catchphrase that by 2041, three out of 10 people will be elders, meaning that there will be around 2 million elderly persons by that time. This is known to everybody. At present, the number of elderly persons awaiting subsidized residential care places is on the rise year after year ― some elderly persons die in the course of waiting ― and elderly persons who can gain admission to residential care homes are actually not the relatively younger elderly. Statistics have told us that elderly persons are admitted to subsidized residential care homes at the age of 82 on average rather than in their sixties. This is different from the case for public housing allocation, where one can receive public housing allocation earlier if his wait begins earlier. Elderly persons and retired persons actually do not want to live in residential care homes. Rather, they want to live a free live in the community. However, perhaps because their family members find it difficult to take care of them as they may be suffering from chronic illnesses or residual defects after accidents, they have no alternative but to apply for admission to residential care homes. The number of such cases is not small indeed. Therefore, I hope the Government can clearly present the relevant statistics rather than concealing them when dealing with the issue concerned. The second figure revealed by the Audit Commission likewise deserves Members' careful consideration. Ten or 13 years ago, the number of subsidized residential care places was 2 000 more than the number of places provided today. The reason? Certainly I will not blame the Government for that, as both the average net floor area per resident and the quality of services have improved today. But the point is that there were fewer elderly persons 10 years ago than today. If the number of residential care places provided under the Enhanced Bought Place Scheme (EBPS) is excluded, the number of subsidized residential care places today (meaning those provided by elderly services organizations) is instead fewer than in the past. This is very problematic indeed. What should we do?


3253

What circumstances are faced by those elderly persons not living in subsidized residential care homes? Some of them continue to live in the community, alone perhaps. I have learnt from many reports and the authorities' replies to questions that many elderly persons are actually living in private residential care homes. A single elderly recipient of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) living in a private residential care home on average receives $4,927 of the CSSA a month. This is the maximum amount he can afford. But the cost of operating a subsidized residential care place is $13,000 to $14,000 at present. Members can all understand that the services purchased with $5,000 and $13,000 will certainly differ in quality. What is more, private residential care homes must pay exorbitant rents too. According to the Director of Audit's Report, the average net floor area per resident in non-EBPS private residential care homes for the elderly is 7.5 sq m, and the average number of staff per 100 residents (nurse) is 0.2. In the case of subvented and contract residential care homes for the elderly, the average net floor area per resident is 17.5 sq m and 20.8 sq m respectively, and the average number of staff per 100 residents (nurse) is 5.1 and 7.7 respectively, in marked contrast to the figures I have just mentioned. We hope to see an end to the non-cooperation movement in this Council, so that this Council can handle various items as early as possible and more residential care places can be provided. At the same time, we must solve the problem concerning the failure of the number of residential care places to catch up with population growth. As I have noticed, the Director of Audit's Report has also mentioned that some residential care homes for the elderly under the EBPS are private ones. But such residential care homes are quite popular. Why do I say so? The number of EBPS places provided by a residential care home is capped at 50% of its total number of places, but once a vacant place arises, it will be filled up immediately by an elderly person. In that case, can the Government consider the idea of doing something with private residential care homes while developing subsidized residential care homes? I think Dr Fernando CHEUNG, the mover of this motion, will certainly agree that satisfactory provision of community care services is most important. At present, the expenditure on community care services is $970 million, and the expenditure on subsidized residential care services is $3.41 billion. We can see that the expenditure on community care services is much lower. But the existing


community care services have indeed failed to meet the recipients' needs. The cost for providing services to an elderly person is some $4,000 on average, and the quality of such services is already quite good. How can the Government further improve the quality? Or, is it the Government's intention to rely only on the ineffectual Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly? At present, the organizations providing services are utterly unable to sustain their operation and provide ongoing services. Can the Government resolve their problems? We hope that the Government can draw up a planning blueprint so that the pressure on residential care services arising from keen demands for such services can be relieved through community care services. At the same time, we also hope to see a stable and orderly expansion of the quotas of residential care services. I so submit. Thank you, President. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, I support the motion moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG but I am keener to see more efforts than mere lip service from Dr CHEUNG and other Members of the pan-democratic camp. The non-cooperation movement underway should be called off, the filibustering activities should be brought to an end and things should not be made so difficult for the elderly. President, what is the reason for me to say so? The funding proposal to allocate $65 million for the construction of a residential care home for the elderly at Anderson Road was originally scheduled for discussion at the Finance Committee meeting on 4 July in the last session but the item has been delayed for five months since as at today (that is, 4 December), its deliberation is still pending due to the filibustering activities. Moreover, the filibustering activities have caused taxpayers and all Hong Kong people a huge loss. As a result of such activities, an increase of $2.3 billion has been recorded in the construction costs of 27 public works projects. President, as the funding applications approved in 2013-2014 merely involved a total grant of $2.6 billion, representing a considerable discrepancy from a total grant of $60 to $70 billion or even $70 to $80 billion approved in previous years, how can members of the public not become furious?


3255

President, I draw this red card now to warn Members of the pan-democratic camp ― I can see that Mr Alan LEONG, the next Member to speak, is nodding his head and smiling and I wonder if he would respond to the delay in the refurbishment of the Hong Kong Buddhist Hospital, a medical institution in the constituency to which he belongs. As the issue under discussion is elderly care services, I will focus my speech on the residential care home for the elderly at Anderson Road. If we take the construction cost of $65 million for the residential care home for the elderly as the basis of calculation, 35 residential care homes of a comparable scale can be provided with the increased costs of $2.3 billion. How many residential care places can be offered with the provision of these 35 institutions? The answer is 3 536 places. How many day care places does the number tantamount to? It is equivalent to 707 such places. Therefore, the pan-democratic Members should make more efforts than just paying lip service. If a filibuster has not been staged, the increased costs of $2.3 billion might have been devoted to providing elderly care services, which is under discussion now, and making long-term planning for the development of such services instead of letting the hard-earned money go down the drain like this. I hope all Hong Kong people would realize the truth. President, this is a sheer waste of construction costs. However, President, such institutions are after all hardware whose costs can be calculated, but not so for the value of human lives. It is a cruel fact that some elderly people, though on the waiting list, can never be admitted to residential care homes. Is that fair to them? According to the most updated statistics released by the Audit Commission two weeks ago, 5 700 elderly persons have gone to heaven while waiting for admission to such institutions every year. President, I implore the pan-democratic Members and all Hong Kong people to take a look at the other side of this red card. Their delaying tactics have led to such shocking cases as the funding proposal for the residential care home for the elderly at Anderson Road. If we could make it and have introduced short, medium and long-term plans in time, the 5 700 elderly who have passed away every year while waiting for residential care services would have been provided with the services required. In this connection, 475 human lives are involved every month and around 16 for every day. President, as I have said at the beginning, the construction of the residential care home for the elderly at Anderson Road has been delayed for five months and how many human lives were at stake during these five months? The answer is 2 375.


I do not know how we should measure the value of such human lives but it is very clear that their value can never be calculated in money terms. Therefore, just as Dr Fernando CHEUNG has said just now, how can the elderly be made to wait for such a long time? They just cannot wait. He blamed the Government for procrastinating on the matter as if their needs would have been handled and addressed in this way but I would like to ask Dr CHEUNG and other Members of the pan-democratic camp: If they still have a conscience, should they stop hijacking the interests of the elderly and hindering the normal operation of this Council by staging a filibuster? Mr Alan LEONG is the Chairman of the Public Works Subcommittee and under his leadership, what have the Subcommittee done in the current session? They have only been filibustering since the session began in October. President, I earnestly hope that an alarm could be sounded with the showing of this red card today so that the pan-democratic Members would stop standing in the way and bring an end to the filibustering activities in this Council. They should, instead of filibustering, exercise their duties and rights according to normal procedures and consider the merits of issues put forward to vote for or against or abstain from voting on the subjects proposed. Another meeting of the Finance Committee is scheduled to be held tomorrow and they are urged once again that for the benefits of all elderly people in Hong Kong and those awaiting residential care places (The buzzer sounded) … the filibustering activities and the non-cooperation movement should be brought to an end. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, your speaking time is up. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, vociferousness is not synonymous to righteousness. We now realize that "royalists" must be capable of such a clever ploy. They have even made use of the Report of the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy (the Report) to gloss over the evil deeds of LEUNG Chun-ying. This is really a very clever ploy, and I must learn from Mr WONG Kwok-hing. They have produced the red card, but why don't they show it to LEUNG Chun-ying outside the Chief Executive's Office? I met with Mr CHOW Luen-kiu of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions just yesterday. If Mr WONG Kwok-hing is not aware of this, he can ask Mr CHOW. Mr CHOW belongs to a newly established construction industry


3257

alliance comprising more than 10 organizations (including those from the engineering sector and the construction sector). I had a one-hour discussion with him, during which I explained very clearly, as the President should also know, that I was trying to look for a way out of the impasse and open up a path in the absence of any. I therefore wanted to exercise my authority as Chairman of the Public Works Subcommittee to advance the time of discussing the works projects on schools, community centres, government complexes and sewage facilities ― the very projects mentioned by Mr WONG Kwok-hing. However, LEUNG Chun-ying refused. I have actually written a 16-page ruling and uploaded it onto the website. If the President has any time, he may read it and edify me. No one could have imagined that at the last minute, LEUNG Chun-ying directed Secretary Prof K C CHAN to pour away all the flour which I wanted to use for baking bread. He suddenly struck off from the Agenda of the Public Works Subcommittee all the 10-odd items which I could juggle to the top for early discussions, thus depriving me of any room for manoeuvre and making it impossible for me to identify any solution or way out. Hence, having heard Mr WONG Kwok-hing's vociferous speech just now, I honestly think that he should walk over to nearby Lung Wo Road to discuss with LEUNG Chun-ying. Yesterday, I made the same appeal to people from the alliance, explaining to them that people should exert pressure not only on the Legislative Council but also on LEUNG Chun-ying. Or, precisely, I should say that the bulk of the pressure should be brought to bear on him because he has power and it is he who is playing with politics, President. President, very soon, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) will have an opportunity to conduct a public hearing on two chapters in the Director of Audit's Report No. 63, namely Chapter 1 on the provision of long-term care services for the elderly and Chapter 2 on the provision of health services for the elderly. Pursuant to and in compliance with the fine convention upheld by the PAC all along, I do not really intend to say anything on these two chapters in my speech today. We should withhold our conclusions until evidence has been gathered in the public hearing and the PAC has completed its internal deliberations. Yet, I still wish to say that ever since I joined the Legislative Council in 2004, I have been a member of the Panel on Welfare Services and I have always been very concerned about care services for the elderly, largely because I think that elderly persons all dedicated themselves to Hong Kong in their youth and we will never be where we are without their efforts and contributions. I do not think that anyone will have any doubt about this.


What we observe now is a worrying situation. The average age of those elderly persons on the Central Waiting List for subsidized residential care places was 83 in 2013. But what was the average age of the elderly persons who were allocated subsidized residential care places? It was 87. As an old saying goes, "People rarely live to be 70". But all those "elderly brothers and sisters" aged 83 must wait four years before they could be allocated a residential care place. The number of "elderly brothers and sisters" in the waiting line, as we learnt from our constant monitoring, was 4 000 to 4 500 a year before the year 2010 ― it turns out that ascendancy to heaven is even quicker than admission to elderly homes, I must say. However, the corresponding number rose to 5 700 last year. This is an infuriating situation, and we should rightly be infuriated because Hong Kong is such an affluent place. We have no lack of money, but so many elderly persons waiting for subsidized residential care places eventually die before getting a place. We really owe them an apology, President. Therefore, we will definitely see what we can do in the PAC, so as to explore how a greater number of residential care places can be made available to them. I have just one minute left. Since Mr WONG Kwok-hing has "opened fire and started the battle", I must give a response. Anyway, most importantly, we hope that after reading the Report, the Administration can implement the relevant recommendations as much as possible. This is our obligation towards the elderly, an obligation that society cannot evade. I hope especially strongly that the Government can really conduct a comprehensive review of the long-term care policy, because we have learnt from the audit report that the present policy is very much "piecemeal" in nature, lacking in any integrated strategy. This is regrettable. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, originally I would like to respond to Mr WONG Kwok-hing, who has left immediately after his speech. But he is now gone. If the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) did not put forward a package to the Beijing authorities which is the closest to the 31 August constitutional reform package ― I do not see why the 31 August constitutional reform package of the Beijing authorities will be so close to the constitutional reform package proposed by the FTU. I do not know whether the former is listening to the latter or vice versa. But since the FTU put forward this package earlier than the Beijing authorities, I will naturally assume that the Beijing authorities are listening to the former ― if it could put forward a package


3259

which was more open, we would not need to occupy Central. If a genuine universal suffrage was given to us, we would not need to occupy Central. Concerning the non-cooperation movement, now I am not sure who are co-operative and who are not co-operative. Mr Alan LEONG said earlier in his speech that we dealt with a few agenda items last week. One item was passed while some items were suspended and would continue to be dealt with at the next meeting. The Public Works Subcommittee meeting will be held again next week. However, the Government rearranged the items which we have successfully suspended to the very last of the agenda. Originally, we would want to deal with the items concerning schools, community centres, homes for the elderly and the like first. Nonetheless, as Mr Alan LEONG said, the Government has taken away the flour and then put into some controversial items. We have suspended these items which were however being arranged to the last slot. President, I do not know who is playing tricks. In regard to the report from Dr Fernando CHEUNG, first of all, I am grateful to him for preparing this report. If the Government can accept half of the recommendations in this report, I will be extremely happy. A group of elderly people and some organizations for the disabled which are concerned about the long-term care policy have given us a letter, and we acknowledge their views. Hence, I would like to take this opportunity and read out part of their aspirations, as a token of our support to them: The existing provision of long-term care (LTC) services is fragmented with unnecessary categorization under elderly and persons with disabilities, which is against the international trend of no distinct age limit. We urge the Administration to conduct a comprehensive review of its LTC policy with a view to offering services according to the needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities, instead of their age. In the long run, the Government should map out the overall development of LTC policy according to the needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities. Since the residential care services and community care services for the elderly and persons with disabilities are insufficient, there are already over 30 000 people on the waiting list for residential care homes for the elderly, while nearly 5 000 elderly persons pass away every year in the waiting period. The situation is really saddening. At present, there are 8 000 people on the waiting list for residential care homes for persons with disabilities. The average waiting time is seven to eight years. In the interim, virtually no assistance is provided to the persons with disabilities and their carers. Facing tremendous pressure from our livelihood, we ask the Government to conduct long-term planning on the funding for residential care


services and community care services, with a projection of the LTC needs of the persons with disabilities in the coming 10 to 20 years. They mention 20 years in their letter but this is not enough indeed. The Government says that by 2039, nearly 25% of the population will be above 65 years of age. Hence, the planning should be at least up to 2047. In the 2014 Policy Address (that is, the policy address for this year), paragraph 63 was well written by LEUNG Chun-ying: "I (LEUNG Chun-ying) emphasized in my Manifesto the need to respect, love and care for the elderly. I will ask the Elderly Commission to prepare an Elderly Services Programme Plan within two years." However, I hope that this is not a trick to gain time. It is very obvious that at present, a so-called long-term elderly care policy cliff has already appeared. Basically, we cannot cope with the current situation any more. However, the speed of providing new residential places will definitely be slower than the speed of ageing of the elderly persons. In the future, the average rate of increase will be very high. At present, people above 65 years of age account for 13% or 14% of the population. By 2039, the percentage will be nearly 25%. Apart from in-patient service, the Government has to deal with home care services urgently. In simple terms, the purpose of the so-called home care services is that with certain appropriate assistance, the elderly persons can stay in their original residence. For the elderly suffering from slight or moderate impairment, with certain assistance, such as patient accompanying service and meal delivery service, they can still take care of themselves or have someone to take care of them. In this way, they need not be hospitalized. This can alleviate the need for in-patient service. We can say that if some home care services are well arranged, the need for in-patient service can be alleviated. Secretary, in respect of home care elderly service, I know that it will be discussed in the meeting of the Panel on Welfare Services next Monday. However, I hope that the Secretary will do something more than discussing the item. Even though comprehensive planning has yet to be done, more services should be expeditiously provided and he should do as much as he can. It is very sad that we saw the Government handing out $200 billion over the last seven years. But on these less controversial services, the rate of increase is disappointing. Just now, I saw that some Members from the industrial and commercial sectors, such as those from the Liberal Party, raised no objection to


3261

Dr Fernando CHEUNG's report, and I cannot see any disputes here. There will be disputes in the area of constitutional reform. But on these services, it seems that the direction of all parties is the same … Secretary, you are here now … Under your leadership, the progress in various aspects, including those about in-patient or none in-patient services, have been very slow and what has been done is insufficient. Therefore, the current problem is on operation rather than the policy. Within the scope of assistance under the Secretary's management, how can the Government provide or increase the services so as to alleviate the cliff crisis? For people like us who are over 50 years old, our parents will be the recipients of these services. If they have the ability, they can take care of themselves (The buzzer sounded) … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN, your speaking time is up. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): However, many people need government support. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong is facing an ageing population and the challenge brought about by the issue of caring for the elderly. It is imperative for the community and the Government to prepare for a rainy day and tackle the problem as early as possible with a comprehensive policy and a holistic approach. In 1997, an objective has been set by the then Chief Executive for the policy on caring for the elderly to provide the elderly with a sense of security, a sense of belonging and a feeling of health and worthiness as well as to promote the Government's long-term care (LTC) policy of ageing in place. However, as far as we can see after 17 years, as at October this year, there were over 31 000 elderly waiting for admission to various types of institutions providing residential care services (RCS) and the average waiting time was 33 months or even three years for those awaiting subsidized places in subvented institutions. Meanwhile, the Pilot Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly (the Pilot Scheme) launched in September last year has adopted the approach of "money


follows the user", with an aim to promote ageing in place for the elders in relatively better health conditions so that the demand for and the pressure on RCS can be directly relieved. Nevertheless, as pointed out by the Audit Commission earlier, there were only 1 200 elderly users participating in the Pilot Scheme one year after its implementation. Among them, 310 had not commenced using the services and the vouchers issued to 180 of them had become void. The situation as mentioned above has revealed two problems. First, there is an undersupply of RCS places for the elderly. Second, the idea of promoting ageing in place with the issuance of service vouchers is not well received. However, this is in fact not the case in reality. Regarding the undersupply of RCS places for the elderly, a mix of public and private modes actually exists in the provision of RCS for the elderly in Hong Kong and the private sector is providing more than half of the 75 000 places available in the market, excluding those provided by contract institutions and by purchase of places. It is revealed in the report by the Audit Commission that an overall vacancy rate of 26% has been noted for the RCS places for the elderly in Hong Kong. In other words, the problem does not lie in the inadequate supply of such places but instead, it is the number of subsidized RCS places which has fallen far short of the demand, thus resulting in the forever long queue on the Central Waiting List. The root cause for this should be the lack of proper guarantee for the living environment as well as the service quality of private RCS for the elderly due to limited resources and manpower. At present, the average net floor area per resident in subvented institutions is 17.5 sq m and the average number of care workers per 100 residents is 16.3 while the corresponding figures for private institutions are only 7.5 sq m and 8.4 care workers respectively. Obviously the latter compares less favourably with the former. Frequent reports in the media about the outbreaks of infectious diseases such as influenza and even alleged cases of elder abuse or neglect in some residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs) have also discouraged elderly people and their family from applying for such places in the private sector. As it would be impossible for the Government to provide adequate subvented RCHEs within two to three years, efforts have to be made to restructure the existing services provided by RCHEs in the private sector with the resources available. For example, the Government should conduct a review on


3263

the existing Code of Practice for Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) and introduce amendments to the Code as appropriate with a view to enhancing the quality of RCHEs in the private sector, including the making of improvements to their manning ratio as well as their service management. A quality assurance mechanism should also be put in place to attract elderly people to apply for such places, thereby alleviating the pressure from the demand for subsidized places. The Government should also keep on identifying suitable sites for the provision of subvented RCHEs to increase the supply of subsidized places so that the elderly would not be kept waiting endlessly. As for the elders in better health conditions, most of them do have the wish of ageing in the community and in this connection, the Pilot Scheme launched last year has become very important. Under the Pilot Scheme, institutionalization of elderly people can be avoided since personal services such as meal delivery and household cleaning services may be procured to help them age at their own place. Similar practices have also been adopted in many overseas places for many years. In Australia, for example, transitional care has been provided to elderly patients discharged from hospitals so that they would not be sent directly back to RCHEs. However, the Pilot Scheme launched by the Hong Kong Government in September 2013 was not well received. Some service operators told me that both the elderly and their family had little knowledge but many questions about the operations of service vouchers issued under the Pilot Scheme, in particular, the ways to make payment and procure services. As such, although they have potential needs for such services, they have been discouraged to participate in the Pilot Scheme. Affordability is another factor that has to be considered. Though a sliding scale of co-payment has been put in place under the Pilot Scheme to determine the level of payment to be made by the voucher holders according to their monthly household income, due to limited knowledge about the details of the Pilot Scheme, potential users have backed away when they know that the maximum amount of service fees to be paid each month would be $2,500. With regard to the feedback from service operators, one of the service providers has relayed to me that a monthly subsidy of $110,000 is required for the 20 elderly users. As it would not be possible for the organization to provide the services by itself and its staff establishment of care workers is inadequate to meet the service demand, a working team consisting of healthcare personnel such as care workers, physiotherapists, and so on, has to be engaged at huge costs, thus rendering its service operations all the more difficult.


President, according to the updated figures provided in the latest issue of the Hong Kong Monthly Digest of Statistics, as far as the average life expectancy is concerned, ours is the longest in the world with 81.1 years for men and 86.7 years for women. Therefore, in order to cater for the needs of the future population, the Government should expeditiously review the LTC policy. I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): The problem of an ageing population in Hong Kong is in fact increasingly serious. According to the latest population projection of the Census and Statistics Department, the population aged 65 and above will increase drastically from 1.02 million in 2013 to 2.56 million in 2041. In other words, by 2041, about one in three persons will be an elderly person. In terms of proportion, this is much higher than the figure in 2013 when one in seven persons was an elderly person. The Democratic Party is not satisfied with the Government's intention to adopt some remedial measures as a means to cater for the needs of the elderly, while turning a blind eye to the aspirations aired by many organizations in regard to the White Paper on Social Welfare Development. Over the years, the Democratic Party, in its Legislative Council election platform or in its recommendations to the policy addresses, has been urging the Government to map out a development blueprint on the social welfare policy in Hong Kong for the next five and 10 years, which includes setting specific targets, subsidizing systems and service pledges for various kinds of services, to ensure that eligible persons can obtain the necessary services at the appropriate time. In this report, the Government emphasizes the policy principle on long-term care services for the elderly, which is "ageing in place as the core, institutional care as back-up" in the possible areas. From the angle of the Government, this could be the most cost-effective policy objective among many others. However, have sufficient efforts been made to "ageing in place as the core"? Can it make the elderly … In fact, if their physical condition allows,


3265

under whatever circumstances, most elderly persons would hope to remain in the communities that they know well. Nevertheless, due to the situation of their families, many elders really need certain support. Can the government policy provide them with the support? The most obvious situation is that half of the population in Hong Kong live in public housing estates, while most of the residents in public housing estates are the grassroots. From my experience in working, I learn that in the course of ageing in place, elderly persons will generally face two major problems. The first is the problem of living environment and the second is whether the network of mutual support necessary for ageing in place is good enough. A further question is whether these policies can be linked together. The public housing allocation policy of the Housing Department (HD) shows that this is not the case. For instance, the HD points out that if a young relative wants to take care of an elderly person but he is living in a different district, he will have to live in that district for six years before he can apply to move to the area in which the elderly person concerned lives. Why has that to be six years and not a shorter period of time? This is the first question. Second, in the allocation of public housing districts, we always request that the carer and the elderly person be allocated to the same district. However, the HD says that the family qualified for allocation should not attempt to jump the queue by asking for allocation to the urban area in which the elderly person concerned lives when the family is being allocated to the New Territories. We opine that in the course of allocation, the Government should consider the important factor of mutual care family network, so that the allocation system can allow the family being allocated with a housing unit to live in the vicinity of the parents. Nonetheless, this is not considered in the HD's policy. But why? If the overall policy of the Government attaches much importance to ageing in place, family care network will be its most important element. In this connection, have the government departments done well in their co-ordination work? Ageing in place also involves certain specific community care services. Hence, the pilot scheme on community care service voucher for the elderly is necessary. It is hoped that with various kinds of service arrangements, the elderly staying at home can receive appropriate care services.


However, we notice that generally speaking, even for those elderly persons who are able-bodied and can move at ease, which are known as general cases, the service demands are in fact very substantial. If the application threshold can be lowered a bit so that they think they can get help to alleviate the pressure from family care, they will be more than happy to seek assistance from the Social Welfare Department. A kind of long-term relationship will thus be built up. Starting from this point, many elderly persons will have linkage with service institutions when further service is needed in the future and this will form another kind of relationship. They will place more trust on the service institutions. They think that the service provided by these institutions is reliable and the institutions can understand their difficulties in livelihood and thus provide them with support. As a matter of fact, I think this kind of support is very important to the elderly persons. However, this is not what the overall policy looks like, as it is seriously fragmented and separated. For instance, when an elderly person receiving A service from certain service unit needs B service, he may have to seek assistance from another institution. If this goes on, the bonding accumulated will be severed, and the relationship between the institutions and the persons in need of the service has to be built up again. To the elderly persons or to those who need long-term care, this kind of bonding and relationship is as important as direct subsidy and service provision. Nevertheless, has that been considered by the Government? The Government says that the need for general service is substantial, and hence it has to review whether it can cope with the situation. However, it is unable to cope with the service need of the physically weak and the elderly. This situation is very weird indeed. In respect of the concept of ageing in place, we very much hope that the elderly can start using the service when they are still healthy, instead of saying that since the elderly persons are still in good health and can take care of themselves, they do not need to seek assistance from the institutions. In my opinion, the Government should consider one more element, which is the long-term, mutual trust relationship between the persons in need of the service and the service units. In fact, this is beneficial to the overall community care services. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?


3267

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I wish to thank Dr Fernando CHEUNG for leading the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy (the Joint Subcommittee), of which I was also a member. In the Joint Subcommittee, my deepest impression was of the strenuous efforts made by the several government officials to explain the Government's policy. But they themselves knew that Members were all very impatient and would grill them all the same. Actually, population ageing is by now a plain fact, and the question of how to look after the elderly is one major challenge the Government must face up to. We naturally support very strongly the Government's policy of "ageing in place as the core, institutional care as back-up". But the fact is that many people are right now in need of and waiting for institutional care places. Yet, the number of publicly-funded institutional care places is far from being able to meet the demand of society. We can even foresee that the shortage and supply-demand imbalance will only keep worsening in the future. I talked about my deepest impression just now. This actually came when we asked the Government, in the Joint Subcommittee, whether it could increase the number of publicly-funded institutional care places for the elderly. The Government replied several times that it had tried very hard to look for sites, but its efforts had been in vain. In brief, the Government now has no lack of money, but there are no sites for constructing any hostels. The problem is not the Government's unwillingness to construct any hostels but the lack of sites. Hence, the question is really this: has the Social Welfare Department or the authorities responsible for Hong Kong's overall planning and development ever included welfare needs, especially facilities like hostels for looking after elderly people and persons with disabilities, in the blueprint of our overall land planning? Let me ask a very simple question here. Under the land planning for the North East New Territories New Development Area, the lands over there are already put to maximum uses. Everybody only wants to know the numbers of public housing units and private residential flats to be constructed there. But how many sites has the Government earmarked in the North East New Territories New Development Area for the construction of hostels to provide elderly people with accommodation and to look after them? Has the Government earmarked any sites at all? As I can observe, there is a lack of understanding and co-ordination among many government departments, which was why we wanted to ask all these questions in the Joint Subcommittee. Some government


measures are actually worth promoting. For instance, the lower floors of certain public housing blocks are reserved for constructing hostels to accommodate elderly people, while the upper floors are used for providing public housing units as usual. Suppose there is a public housing construction programme for the next 10 years, is there any plan to extend this very desirable practice to all public housing estates in the future, so as to reserve the lower floors for accommodating the elderly people in the districts concerned? Apart from a supply shortage and a long waiting time that outlasts many elderly applicants, the provision of hostels is marked by yet another problem, the problem of geographical distribution. Elderly people may not be able to secure any places unless they go to very remote districts. If they want to specify a district and live in a hostel which is not so remote in location, they may have to wait a very long time. At the end of the day, some families can only choose those hostels in remote districts as they cannot afford to wait that long. Hence, many families have come to face a situation. For instance, there may be only two elderly people in a family, and one of them is "super old" while the other is "quite old". I mean the latter is also very old by any standards but has to serve as the carer of the former. Now, when one of them fails to manage at long last and must live in a hostel, the cross-district problem will pose very great frustration to the family. I mean the other elderly person must first take a certain means of transportation and then interchange to another before he can visit his spouse, who now lives in a hostel in another district. This causes frustration and immense difficulties. Whenever I visit such hostels, I invariably see elderly people visiting their family members in other districts. They visit their family members every day and must suffer the fatigue of travelling long distances. If we are to do better in this respect, we must depend on longer-term planning. In the course of land planning, spaces and sites must be reserved for the provision of social welfare and the construction of elderly hostels. Allocation for such purposes at the early stages is required. However, in that case, our Secretary for Labour and Welfare must have a bit more foresight. He must make proper planning for long-term social welfare provision. The Democratic Party has repeatedly requested the Government to formulate a blueprint for the development of Hong Kong's social welfare policy in the next five years, 10 years and even in the time beyond that. This blueprint should tell us how many hostels for the elderly and persons with disabilities we still need, set a target and a timetable along with the reservation of sites under land planning. And, it should also specify the number of floors in each public housing block that


3269

will be reserved for looking after elderly people as our population ages. Without such a blueprint, even if we hold 1 000 debates, elderly people will still pass away before their turns come. I hope that the Government can increase the number of places. President, this report raises many issues. Another segment which I also consider very important is the provision of assistance to carers. I am very happy that the Government has launched some pilot schemes. But these pilot schemes are far from being able to provide sufficient assistance to the large numbers of carers. Many carers have been looking after their needy family members at the expense of their own time and jobs, and they are caught in financial hardship. I very much hope that the Government can issue a carer allowance to them and provide community care services, so that they can have some breathing space. President, elderly people have spent all the time in their life on looking after their families and those needy family members of theirs. I hope that when the time comes for them to be looked after, society will not abandon them. I hope that elderly people can all receive appropriate care with dignity in their twilight years. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I wish to thank Dr Fernando CHEUNG once again for proposing this motion and the many Members who have spoken just now. They have provided us with many concrete views. I must also apologize here. As I had to attend a student dialogue activity at The Chinese University of Hong Kong this afternoon ― it was scheduled a long time ago ― I was not able to be present here in time at the beginning of this debate and must instead ask the Under Secretary to speak on my behalf. I hope Dr Fernando CHEUNG can appreciate this. This issue covers an extensive scope, involving the relevant policies, the planning, types, contents and monitoring of services, and also talents training. I will give a concise reply.


Members have asked whether long-term care services should be provided on the basis of recipients' needs instead of age. On this issue, I wish to point out that the term "disability" covers a wide range of categories, including intellectual disabilities, mental illnesses, physical disabilities, visual impairment and hearing impairment. At present, the authorities provide corresponding and professional community care, residential care and day training services to persons with different types and levels of disabilities based on their needs, so as to facilitate their rehabilitation. With the exception of rehabilitation services for children, services for persons with disabilities are generally targeted at those aged 15 or above. We understand that persons with disabilities will have greater care needs as they grow old, and therefore we have allocated additional resources to rehabilitation services units for the purpose of supporting old-aged users of rehabilitation services. Long-term care services for the elderly are generally provided to those elderly persons aged 60 or above. As elderly persons differ from persons with disabilities in their needs for community care, residential care and day training services, we need to provide them with professional and unique welfare services geared to their respective needs, so that they can live out their twilight years in contentment. Members have expressed concern about the issue of assisting elderly persons and persons with disabilities in living in communities. We agree to this objective. All along, we have striven to enhance community support and care services. Apart from increasing service quotas, we have also sought to improve service quality. As one of the initiatives, we will incorporate daytime home care and home-based on-site carer training into the Enhanced Home and Community Care Services (EHCCS) in March next year as a means to further enhance the support for frail elderly persons living at home. What is more, we have already reported to the Legislative Council Panel on Welfare Services on the implementation of the first phase of the Pilot Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly (the Pilot Scheme) launched in September last year. All the 1 200 service vouchers were already distributed to eligible elderly persons in April 2014. The Pilot Scheme marks an important step in promoting the thriving supply and diversified development of community care services. The Social Welfare Department (SWD) has already commissioned the Sau Po Centre on Ageing of the University of Hong Kong to conduct an evaluation and studies on the first phase of the Pilot Scheme. The


3271

evaluation outcomes will help us improve the design of the second phase of the Pilot Scheme and the service contents as well. Concerning the proposal on consolidating the Integrated Home Care Services (IHCS) and the EHCCS, I wish to say that we are willing to explore the feasibility of doing so. But I wish to point out that the development of these two services is marked by their respective historical background. In addition, the service targets of the IHCS include ordinary cases and also frail cases, whereas the EHCCS targets at frail cases only. Therefore, in planning for the consolidation of these two services, we need to carefully address the care needs involved in non-frail cases. In respect of residential care, we strive to increase service quotas by adopting a multi-pronged approach. This includes the identification of suitable sites and premises for the purpose of setting up welfare facilities and the purchase of quality residential care places from private residential care homes under the Bought Place Schemes. We will continue to maintain close liaison with relevant government departments such as the Housing Department, the Lands Department, the Planning Department and the Government Property Agency, and examine the installation of service facilities and the conversion of existing facilities for elderly persons and persons with disabilities under their new development and redevelopment projects (such as public housing development projects and projects under the portfolio of the Urban Renewal Authority) and in vacant buildings. Moreover, while taking forward the Special Scheme on Privately Owned Sites for Welfare Uses (the Special Scheme), we will also explore the feasibility of launching new schemes, such as a voucher scheme on residential care services for the elderly. We believe this will help further increase the supply of subsidized residential care places. But I must point out that the waiting time for subsidized services is subject to various factors, such as applicants' specific choices of residential care homes and districts, and service wastage rates. Therefore, it is hard to estimate the waiting time. Many Members have expressed concern about the quality of residential care homes for the elderly and persons with disabilities. We are likewise highly concerned about this. At present, the SWD regulates residential care homes under the Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance and the Residential Care Homes (Persons with Disabilities) Ordinance. The Director of


Social Welfare will issue codes of practice from time to time to set out the principles, procedures, guidelines and standards for the operation and management of residential care homes. There is also a notice on admitting and caring Human Immunodeficiency Virus-infected residents. The SWD will also conduct random inspection of residential care homes at regular intervals, so as to ensure that they are in compliance with statutory requirements. Through the Bought Place Schemes, we seek to improve the manpower ratios and the per capita space standards of those residential care homes participating in the scheme. At the same time, the SWD has set up Service Quality Groups which comprise persons with disabilities, their family members and carers, and/or community figures respectively for residential care homes for the elderly and persons with disabilities. They will visit those residential care homes participating in the Bought Place Schemes without any advance notice. There are views that private residential care homes for the elderly should be encouraged to take part in assessment programmes. President, in fact, when purchasing residential care places under the Enhanced Bought Place Scheme, the SWD will award additional scores to residential care homes which have passed accreditation or assessment, so as to encourage them to participate in the assessment programmes. We have raised the subsidies for places under the two Bought Place Schemes in this financial year, with an aim to enhance the support and care for those elderly persons and persons with disabilities living in the subsidized residential care places under the schemes. We will continue to keep a close watch on the quality of private residential care homes for the elderly and persons with disabilities. There are also views that the authorities should review the Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance and the Residential Care Homes (Persons with Disabilities) Ordinance, so as to formulate more stringent service standards. We will keep a close watch on the development of the industry and conduct timely review. We provide respite services for elderly persons and persons with disabilities, so that their family members or carers can put aside their caring responsibilities for a short while and relieve their stress by taking a rest, or attend to their personal business. In the case of the elderly, apart from the existing designated places for respite services, casual vacancy places in all the day care centres/units and subsidized residential care homes can also be used to provide


3273

respite services. We will continue to increase the number of designated places for respite services in newly established day care centres/units and contract residential care homes. In the case of persons with disabilities, we also make use of casual vacancy places and designated places for respite services to provide service. Members have also expressed concern about the respite services for children with disabilities. In fact, we have allocated an additional recurrent expenditure of $23.8 million in 2014-2015, so as to increase the respective quotas of short-term day care and residential care services by 186 and 256 for persons with disabilities aged six or above. The SWD has already uploaded the information on designated places for respite services onto its website and will update the information regularly, so as to enable people to grasp the information concerned. Speaking of carer subsidies, I wish to point out that carers of the elderly play a very important role in elderly persons' ageing in place. Apart from service support and training, we also launched the two-year-long Pilot Scheme on Living Allowance for Carers of Elderly Persons from Low Income Families through the Community Care Fund in June this year, so as to enable elderly persons in need of long-term care to receive more proper care with the assistance of their carers. At the same time, the elderly persons concerned can still use subsidized community care services and continue to live in the communities familiar to them. We will conduct a review of the pilot scheme during its implementation, assess its effectiveness and impacts, and determine the way forward based on the assessment outcomes. All this will also help us explore the applicability of the relevant measure to severely disabled persons. There is also a proposal on preparing the Hong Kong Rehabilitation Programme Plan in tandem with preparing the Elderly Services Programme Plan (the Programme Plan). The Chief Executive already stated in the 2014 Policy Address that the Elderly Commission would be asked to prepare the Programme Plan, so as to formulate long-term planning for elderly care services within two years. We will make timely reference to the experience of the Programme Plan and determine the tasks to be undertaken in our next revision of the Hong Kong Rehabilitation Plan. In the case of mental health, the SWD has set up Integrated Community Centres for Mental Wellness (ICCMWs) since 2010 to provide services such as public education, day training, counselling, outreaching services, and case


referrals. At present, our resources commitment for the ICCMWs amounts to as much as $205 million each year. Among the 24 ICCMWs, permanent accommodation has been secured for 13 of them and they have already commenced service; premises have been secured for another five; a site has been identified for another and consultation will be conducted in the local community; for the remaining five, suitable permanent accommodation is yet to be secured. But I wish to point out that some of the service operators which are still unable to secure any premises are now providing services in temporary accommodation. The SWD is now providing rental subsidies to those service operators with temporary accommodation set up in commercial buildings. Concerning manpower planning, President, I must say we deeply understand that the industry has keen manpower demand. We have taken measures to increase its manpower supply. With a view to motivating young people to join the long-term elderly care industry, the Pilot Training Programme for Multi-skills Workers for the Elderly Services Sector has been launched with government subsidies to recruit young people to engage in care work in residential care homes for the elderly under the "first-hire-then-train" approach, so that they can learn and work at the same time. In view of the positive feedbacks on the pilot programme, we will roll out the Navigation Scheme for Young Persons in Care Services offering a total of 1 000 training places in the next few years, in a bid to provide one-stop employment and training services to young people who aspire to a career in elderly care and rehabilitative care. We also understand that the availability of clear career prospects in the elderly care services industry can enhance its appeal and in turn increase the long-term supply of various types of manpower for the industry. In this connection, I wish to point out that the Specification of Competency Standards for the elderly care services industry under the Qualifications Framework has been drafted, and the industry has also been consulted. After the implementation of the Qualifications Framework, the career advancement ladder for practitioners seeking development in the industry will become more certain. This will help induce more people, especially young people, to join the industry. I wish to give a concise reply to Dr Helena WONG at this point of my speech. Just now, she said that we were totally devoid of any long-term planning for developing residential care homes in, for example, the North East New Territories. I wish to add a few words here. First, speaking of the North East New Territories development, we will build a large-scale elderly care


3275

services complex in Shek Tsai Leng to provide 1 000 residential care places, so as to cope with the needs arising from the development of Shek Tsai Leng and the North East New Territories in the future. In addition to Shek Tsai Leng, various sites in other development areas have also been earmarked for elderly care and rehabilitation services. On the other hand, as I said in the keynote speech just now, the Special Scheme is a breakthrough and a new concept, showing that we seek to optimize our lands and resources. While maintaining close contact with all welfare organizations, we have encouraged them to take out their lands or carry out in-situ redevelopment, addition and expansion works. All this is done for the sole purpose of providing more service quotas. As I have already explained to Honourable Members, and as Honourable Members are also aware, if the 60-odd proposals put forth by the 40 or so organizations are all implemented, around 9 000 elderly care places, comprising 7 000 residential care places and 2 000 day care places, can be provided. As for rehabilitation services, there will be some 8 000 places, among which 6 000 will be day training places and 2 000 will be residential care places. All these will make up a total of as many as 17 000 places. I believe that within a time frame of five to 10 years, the problem with waiting time and the existing pressure from keen demand will be significantly alleviated. But I want to say that we will not be satisfied with this. We will continue to strive for resources and new sites so that we can do better. President, with a view to supporting elderly persons and persons with disabilities in need of long-term care, the Government has introduced many measures and provided them with various services to meet their needs in different respects. Some of them are new ideas and new initiatives which we have formulated after consolidating the views of various social sectors. I have just given many examples, such as the service voucher scheme and the Special Scheme. These are all new measures, new ideas. We will continue to maintain good communication with Honourable Members and various social sectors, and to adopt pragmatism in ensuring satisfactory service delivery and planning. President, I so submit. Thank you.


UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I once again thank the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy for putting forth a range of recommendations. I would also like to the Members who have given their valuable opinions just now on how to enhance the relevant services. Many of their opinions are worth our reference. I would like to respond to the salient points made by Dr Fernando CHEUNG and other Members earlier on. Most Members have mentioned the importance of planning and long-term planning in their speeches, and some of their recommendations on the report are related to the latest efforts of the Food and Health Bureau, which I would like to brief Members as below. In respect of the provision of services to people with dementia and mental health services, we have established a Review Committee on Mental Health since May 2013. The Review Committee adopts a life-course approach to the review and focuses its initial efforts on examining adult mental health issues. Meanwhile, two expert groups have been set up under the Review Committee to study dementia care and mental health services for children and adolescents. The Review Committee and the two expert groups will continue to work on the related areas. Upon the completion of the review, we will announce the recommendations of the Review Committee. Just now a number of Members touched upon the manpower issue, particularly the problem of healthcare manpower, in their speeches. Of course the Food and Health Bureau is particularly concerned about the problems relating to healthcare manpower and has set up a review committee on healthcare manpower planning, which is a high-level committee dedicated to planning in order to meet the manpower needs arising from the six professional areas (such as doctor, nurse, dentist, pharmacist, and so on) in the future. The report of the Subcommittee recommends that the Hospital Authority (HA) should provide psychiatric outreach services for persons with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. Given the manpower shortage of psychiatric doctors and the heavy workload of the existing practitioners, at present the HA has no plan to provide comprehensive psychiatric outreach services for persons with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities who have been admitted to residential care homes for persons with disabilities. That said, the HA will make efforts to enhance psychiatric manpower and review the demand for psychiatric outreach services and the operational arrangement for such services in order to meet various needs and make adjustments accordingly.


3277

The Report has also mentioned the manpower need of the Case Management Programme. In this respect, the current number of cases handled by each case manager is different. This hinges on a number of different factors, including the level of risk and needs of each patient who receives support under the Programme. On average, each case manager has to take care of 40 to 60 patients with severe mental illness concurrently. In the future, the HA will review the manager-to-patient ratio under the Case Management Programme, and will continue to recruit case managers with a view to enhancing the manpower establishment. Moreover, the HA will deploy and adjust manpower flexibly according to the operational and service needs of hospitals in different clusters. As to the problems mentioned by Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan about the drugs of the chronically ill, the Drug Formulary and Community Care Fund, I would also like to make a response here. Regarding the financial assistance on medication and medical/rehabilitation appliances, first of all, the HA has implemented various measures, including relaxing the financial assessment criteria for the Samaritan Fund (SF), in a bid to improve the operations of SF so that it can benefit more patients. For instance, from September 2012 onward, when a patient's annual disposable financial resources are assessed, the patient's maximum annual contribution payable for drugs will be calculated after deduction of an amount from the patient's disposable assets based on the number of family members concerned. In 2014-2015, the amount of deduction stands between $221,000 and some $700,000. In addition, a patient's maximum annual contribution payable for drugs has been reduced from 30% to 20% of the patient's annual disposable financial resources. Later on, the HA will review the effectiveness of the measure in relaxing the financial assessment criteria. In addition, the HA recognizes the importance of enhancing the operational transparency of the Drug Formulary and participation of patients. To that end, the HA has already put in place various channels to garner opinions of patients. For example, the HA Drug Advisory Committee holds a meeting every three months for assessing new drugs and scrutinizing the applications for their inclusion into the Drug Formulary. To enhance the transparency of the decision making process for the inclusion of new drugs into the Drug Formulary, before a meeting of the Drug Advisory Committee, the HA will upload the list of drugs for deliberation onto the Internet for information of the general public, and inform various patient groups through the Alliance for Patients' Mutual Help Organizations.


When considering whether to include new drugs into the Formulary, the HA would take into account the scientific evidence on safety and efficacy, cost effectiveness, technology advances in treatment options and service scope in public hospitals. This would require professional knowledge on the part of doctors, clinical pharmacologists and pharmacists, so that the Drug Advisory Committee can provide independent and professional advice to the HA. The SF will continue to act as a safety net for needy patients. It provides subsidy to the patients who need to buy privately purchased drugs and medical items that are not covered by the standard charges of public hospitals and clinics. Over the last three years, the subsidy provided by the SF has been on the rise. In 2011-2012, the total amount of subsidy provided by the SF was 262.8 million. The amount increased to 328.5 million in 2012-2013. In 2013-2014, the amount climbed further to 377.9 million, and 5 490 applications were involved. Looking ahead, the HA will review and enhance the SF on a regular basis so that the fund can benefit more needy patients. Finally, I would like to tell Members that the Food and Health Bureau will soon commission a consultancy study on the medical and healthcare services for the elderly. Just now a number of Members also touched upon the importance of elderly in society in their speeches. As the population is ageing, we hope to do a better work in this aspect. This study, which aims to provide quality healthcare services to the elderly, will help us map out the long-term development direction for healthcare support for the elderly with chronic illnesses and hospice care. Proposals on this study are being invited from relevant organizations. President, we, together with the Department of Health and the HA, will continue to review the demand for various healthcare services. We will conduct planning for healthcare services according to various factors, including the growth and changes in Hong Kong's ageing population, medical technology advances, healthcare manpower, and so on. Moreover, improvements will be made according to the principle of making the best use of resources in order to meet with the overall needs in society. The valuable opinions given by the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy are inspiring for the Government to formulate healthcare measures. Here, I once again express my gratitude to the efforts of all the members of the Joint Subcommittee. In the face of the challenges arising from population ageing, in addition to implementing the existing healthcare policies continuously,


3279

we will promote collaboration between the medical and welfare sectors for effective utilization of resources and implementation of various measures. We will continue to enhance public healthcare services in a bid to protect the health of the public. President, I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Given that Dr Fernando CHEUNG has used up his speaking time, I will not call upon him to speak in reply. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed. SUSPENSION OF MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow. Suspended accordingly at 8.12 pm.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 4 ...

Documents

Transcript of OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 4 ...