OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 1 ...

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2017

951

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 1 November 2017

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2017 952

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


953

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P. IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P. THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H.


THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE RIMSKY YUEN KWOK-KEUNG, G.B.M., S.C., J.P. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS W. YANG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY THE HONOURABLE JAMES HENRY LAU JR., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY THE HONOURABLE JOSHUA LAW CHI-KONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE


955

THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING PROF THE HONOURABLE SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH THE HONOURABLE EDWARD YAU TANG-WAH, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL WONG WAI-LUN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT THE HONOURABLE KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION THE HONOURABLE PATRICK NIP TAK-KUEN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS MR SONNY AU CHI-KWONG, P.D.S.M., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SECURITY CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber) TABLING OF PAPER The following paper was laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:

No. 18 ― Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Fund Annual Report for the year from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question. Enactment of a local national anthem law 1. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): The National Anthem Law of the People's Republic of China ("National Anthem Law") came into force on the Mainland on the 1st of October this year. It has been reported that that piece of national law will be listed in Annex III to the Basic Law and applied locally by way of legislation by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council

(1) given that in response to a question on the retrospective effect of the local national anthem law recently, the Chief Executive indicated that "normally, not many enactments in Hong Kong come with retrospective periods, but it does not mean that there is none", but Article 12 in Part II (Hong Kong Bill of Rights) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, which implements Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that applies to Hong Kong, stipulates that there are no retrospective criminal


957

offences or penalties, whether the authorities will ensure that the local national anthem law complies with the requirements of Article 12;

(2) which of the articles in the National Anthem Law will be applied in

SAR through the local national anthem law; if Articles 5 and 11 of the National Anthem Law will be applied in SAR, how the following contents of these Articles will be applied under the local national anthem law: "[t]he State calls upon citizens and organizations to perform and sing the national anthem on appropriate occasions to express patriotic sentiments", and "[s]econdary and primary schools shall make the national anthem an important part of patriotism education, organize the students to learn to sing the national anthem, and educate the students on the history and spiritual connotation of the national anthem and to obey the etiquette for performing and singing the national anthem"; and

(3) whether the publication of works of secondary creation of the

national anthem on the Internet will be made a criminal offence under the local national anthem law; if so, of the details (including the considerations for determining the level of penalty); if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, our consolidated reply to Dr WONG's question is as follows: According to Paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 18 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China ("the Basic Law"), the laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") shall be the Basic Law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong as provided for in Article 8 of the Basic Law, and the laws enacted by the legislature of the Region. National laws shall not be applied in the HKSAR except for those listed in Annex III to the Basic Law. The laws listed therein shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the Region. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress may add to or delete from the list of laws in Annex III after consulting its Committee for the Basic Law of


the HKSAR and the government of the Region. Laws listed in Annex III to the Basic Law shall be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Region as specified by the Basic Law. The National Anthem Law of the People's Republic of China ("the National Anthem Law") was adopted at the 29th session of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People's Congress on 1 September 2017, and has come into force nationwide since 1 October 2017. Similar to the national flag and the national emblem, the national anthem is the symbol and hallmark of the nation. The National Anthem Law is a national law outside the limits of the autonomy of the HKSAR, and as such may be listed in Annex III to the Basic Law pursuant to Article 18 of the Basic Law. After the adoption by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the decision to add the National Anthem Law to Annex III of the Basic Law, the HKSAR Government will commence the preparation of local legislation for the National Anthem Law, and apply the Law in the HKSAR by way of appropriate local legislation in compliance with the constitutional and legal regime of the HKSAR. It would include taking into account the relevant provision of Article 12 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. Since the National Anthem Law has yet to be included in Annex III of the Basic Law and the local legislative process has yet to commence, it is premature to comment on individual provisions and details at the present stage. In the course of enacting the relevant local legislation, the HKSAR Government will consult the Legislative Council and the public and discuss the legislative proposals. With respect to primary and secondary education, the Education Bureau has earlier indicated that the learning contents of the national anthem have already been incorporated into the subject curricula (such as General Studies and Music) at primary and secondary levels and in Moral, Civic and National Education. Starting from the junior primary level, students have ample opportunities in and outside lessons to sing the national anthem. Schools generally play the national anthem during the flag-raising ceremony on important days and special occasions, such as speech day and sports day. The Education Bureau will give due attention to the local legislation for the National Anthem


959

Law, take prompt action to review the curriculum and administrative arrangements, and update the learning and teaching resources so as to support schools in the effective implementation of the Constitution and Basic Law Education, as well as to develop in students a respect for the national anthem. The HKSAR Government will further discuss the relevant offences and levels of penalty during the local legislative stage. In general, the laws in the physical world are applicable to the cyber world based on actual circumstances. The Police often appeal to the public to use the Internet properly and lawfully, and to refrain from sending any messages that, for example, are irresponsible or incite others to engage in illegal activities. In case of any illegal activities online, the Police shall collect evidence for follow-up investigations. President, as I have mentioned just now, Legislative Council will have ample opportunities to discuss and scrutinize the local legislation for the National Anthem Law during the legislative process. I look forward to working with Legislative Council jointly and effectively on the local legislation for the National Anthem Law. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, concerning the enactment of local legislation to implement the National Anthem Law, we hope that while seeking to protect the national pride symbolized by the playing of the national anthem, the Government can also consider people's freedom of expression. Therefore, can the Government undertake that it will publish a White Bill on the enactment of local legislation to implement the National Anthem Law, so that the public and the Legislative Council can both be thoroughly consulted? Most importantly, the White Bill must clearly set out the various occasions of playing the national anthem to which the future legislation shall apply. The ambit of the legislative provisions should be restricted as far as possible to official occasions of playing the national anthem, and should not affect people's daily life. The national anthem is broadcast before television newscasts, for example. Will people's behaviour on such occasions also be brought under regulation? SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr WONG for the supplementary question. When doing the task of enacting local legislation to implement the National


Anthem Law, we must follow all the constitutional and legal requirements, and the local legislation eventually enacted must comply with the Basic Law, the provisions of which already protect freedom of speech and other rights. I therefore believe that the piece of local legislation scrutinized and passed by the Council will surely comply with the Basic Law. We agree that the National Anthem Law is a national law and the national anthem deserves our respect. Hence, we have a constitutional duty to enact local legislation to implement the National Anthem Law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. At the same time, we must also obey the Basic Law and protect the freedoms concerned. Second, on the specific approach to consultation, I can first say that our consultation work will certainly include consultation and discussions with the Legislative Council and the public. Regarding the specific form of public consultation, we will first study and discuss the issue of local legislation internally with the relevant departments (including law enforcement departments). This will be followed by the drafting of legislative provisions. Afterwards, we will work out an appropriate way to consult the Legislative Council and the public. I can assure Members that we will definitely give full consideration to the opinions of the public. In fact, we are aware that even at this very time when the National Anthem Law is yet to be added to Annex III to the Basic Law, many different opinions on this topic are already voiced in society. We will listen to such opinions carefully and take them into account when drafting the local legislation. MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong people are mostly sensible and rational. But surely, a handful of them are irresponsible in their words and inconsistent in their behaviour. They condemn policemen as "triad cops", but they will turn to the Police for help when in trouble. They always boo when the national anthem is played, but they still travel with the HKSAR Passport issued by the country and seek help from the Chinese embassy when running into trouble overseas. It is definitely necessary to impose appropriate regulation on all such behaviour, which does not show any self-respect and respect for the country. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, please state your supplementary question directly.


961

MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): Yes, President. In the course of enacting local legislation, adaptation to the situation in Hong Kong is of course a very important thing. And, I want to ask the Secretary one question. In connection with enacting a piece of legislation that suits the circumstances in Hong Kong, has he drawn up any consultation and legislative timetables which can enable Hong Kong people to have a clear idea of the Government's plan. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHEUNG for the supplementary question. First, I very much agree that since the national anthem is the symbol and hallmark of our country, we must respect it. The National Anthem Law is a national law, so if it is added to Annex III to the Basic Law under the relevant procedures, we must enact local legislation on its implementation in the SAR. In fact, we will proceed with the enactment of local legislation on the National Anthem Law as soon as practicable, because we have the constitutional duty to apply this national law locally. Thus, we must enact local legislation as early as possible. First, together with the relevant departments, we will explore how we should go about the drafting work under our constitutional framework, legal system and principles of law during the process of enacting local legislation on this national law. Then, we will come to the Legislative Council and listen to public views. I hope that when we come to the Legislative Council, Members can recognize the legislative exercise as our common duty and expeditiously complete the scrutiny necessary for enacting the piece of local legislation. As for the actual timetable and form of consultation, we will make an announcement as soon as we finish the internal discussion and the basic drafting work. MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, people all hope that the authorities can expeditiously announce the specific arrangements for consulting the public on the enactment of local legislation. Respect for our country consists in showing respect to our national emblem, national flag and national anthem. The wilful boos heard at the playing of the national anthem and the various acts of desecrating the national emblem and the national flag in the past have frankly hurt the feelings of many people very deeply.


May I ask the Secretary what else he can do as the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs to enhance Hong Kong people's recognition and understanding of the nation, apart from enacting legislation? SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms LEE for the supplementary question. I believe most people in Hong Kong do have a sense of national identity, and they do respect the nation. Likewise, the national flag, the national emblem and the national anthem are symbols of the nation which should be respected. It is regrettable that a handful of people have opted to behave in certain ways or express certain emotions to show their disrespect for the national anthem. A law will be an effective means to deal with this, as it can make people know clearly that they must respect the national anthem, and set out the scope of regulation and the penalties for the offences committed. Since there is a national law of the national anthem in the country, we must enact local legislation to implement this national law. Furthermore, I think it is also important that the public should have a correct understanding of our constitutional system. We must realize the relationship between the Central Government and the SAR under the principle of "one country" and "two systems" and the Basic Law. We must respect "one country" and should also make the best use of "two systems". I believe such a correct understanding is very important. Second, I believe we must all seek to promote people's understanding of both the country and Hong Kong through two-way activities and exchanges. Third, in society, we must foster the cultural value that despite our dissenting views or personal feelings, we must still express ourselves through proper and lawful channels. We should not refrain from any improper behaviour. I trust that if we can foster such an understanding and cultural value, it should be possible to avoid many such behaviours. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I believe many people will agree that we must respect the national anthem. In fact, many Hong Kong people say so. But many more people in Hong Kong would respect the national anthem if the totalitarianism and autocratic Rule of the country had not given the Chinese people such a sense of oppression.


963

President, with your help, I wish to ask two questions. First, anyone violating the National Anthem Law in the Mainland will be liable to imprisonment for three years or more, yet there is no corresponding penalty of comparable severity in Hong Kong. How will the authorities tackle the difference between the two systems, and how will they align the severity of the penalty under the local legislation with that of the national law listed in Annex III to the Basic Law? Most importantly, many people purporting to have close ties to Beijing now say that the local legislation on implementing the National Anthem Law will carry retrospective effect. Is this a forewarning that the authorities will seek to convict large numbers of Hong Kong people in reprisal after enacting the local legislation? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has raised two supplementary questions. Secretary, you may answer either one of them. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Alright. I thank Dr KWOK for the question. First, I think the premise of Dr KWOK's question just now is based on a one-sided view. I think our understanding and description of things in the country must be more balanced. Second, he has asked a specific question on penalties. As I have pointed out earlier, we will consult the Legislative Council and the public on the criminal offences and penalties concerned when drafting local legislation to implement the National Anthem Law. But I must say that actually, the existing National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance already provides for the offences and penalties concerned, stating that a person who desecrates the national flag or national emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 (i.e. $50,000) and to imprisonment for three years. When we consider the criminal offences and penalties in the local legislation, we will certainly take account of the provisions in the existing National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my question on retrospective effect and reprisal.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you have raised two supplementary questions, and the Secretary has answered one of them. MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, the national flag, the national emblem and the national anthem are symbols of our country, so it is only right and proper for the country to require people to respect these symbols. In fact, the ceremony of playing the national anthem on all occasions must be solemn. Once the National Anthem Law is added to Annex III to the Basic Law, the work of enacting local legislation will soon commence, and Hong Kong people must obey the local legislation eventually enacted. But on the other hand, I also think that in some cases, such as cultivating love for the country and patriotic sentiments, the enactment of legislation alone will not suffice. The enactment of legislation aside, has the Government drawn up any social publicity plan? On many occasions of playing the national anthem in the community nowadays, we can still see that many people are not aware that they must remain standing in the process. Has the Government drawn up any scheme or programme on community publicity after the enactment of legislation in the future? SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I thank Mr WONG for the question. Speaking of major occasions, as I have pointed out earlier, we mainly depend on education and Basic Law promotion to foster people's understanding of the country and cultivate their respect for the country, the national flag, the national emblem and the national anthem. Specifically, in schools, we have been making efforts to promote respect for the national anthem. We will continue with and enhance our efforts as appropriate. Moreover, we will also consider Mr WONG's suggestion and study how to further promote the awareness or the right behaviour after the enactment of legislation. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, Article 7 of the National Anthem Law provides that when the national anthem is played, the people present must remain standing solemnly and refrain from any behaviour disrespectful to the national anthem. But the provisions of the National Anthem Law just make


965

very general reference to what occasions are to be covered. As Mr WONG Kwok-kin asked just now, how should local residents behave then? Are there any specific requirements on the identities and roles of the organizations playing the national anthem? And, must they receive prior authorization? Suppose I play the national anthem now with my mobile phone now, do Members have to stand up solemnly and immediately? People are gravely concerned about these issues. I know the Secretary will not discuss the provisions with us in detail today. But the first supplementary question raised by Dr Helena WONG earlier was about whether a White Bill would be published in the consultation process relating to the enactment of local legislation. I do not intend to ask a question about such a specific issue. Instead, I only want to ask him if he will first consult the public and the Legislative Council before the formal drafting of legislative provisions, so that we can fully voice all such worries and point out possible grey areas? SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, the Honourable Member has referred to many specific scenarios. I agree that we must tackle and consider these scenarios when enacting the local legislation. We will certainly consider all these issues when enacting the local legislation, and drafting the relevant bill in the future. As mentioned just now, discussions on the National Anthem Law have been going on all along, and many views have been put forward. As a result, we have already gained an understanding and grasp of the scenarios and issues involved. We will first make internal efforts to find out how the enactment of local legislation can comply with Hong Kong's constitutional and legal systems, and will draft a rough framework of the bill internally. Afterwards, we will consult the Legislative Council and the public on the basis of the outline. I believe this approach should be more effective. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my question. My question is very clear. Will he consult the Legislative Council and the public before formal drafting? He now says that they will first draft a rough framework. Does he mean that they will first draft a rough framework before conducting consultation and eventually writing up the provisions?


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, allow me to add a few words here. The whole process of enacting local legislation actually comprises several stages. Which stage is the Honourable Member referring to when he asks about the formal drafting of provisions? You know, when we handle the various tasks of legislative enactment, I may, for example, consult the Panels concerned at certain stages. We will then have many chances to discuss the related issues. Therefore, in reply to the Honourable Member's question, I would say that Members need not worry, as we will follow the normal procedures in our work. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question. Financial position of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority 2. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, it has been reported that the continued drop in the number of candidates sitting for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("HKDSEE") in recent years has led to a reduction in the income of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") from examination fees. However, the continued rise in the number of HKDSEE candidates with special educational needs ("SEN") has resulted in an increase in its expenditure on the provision of special examination arrangements. According to HKEAA's statements of comprehensive income, HKEAA has recorded deficits in the past two financial years. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the estimated number of HKDSEE candidates and, among them, the percentage of those with SEN, in each of the coming five years;

(2) whether it knows the latest financial position of HKEAA; whether it

has assessed the impact in the past five years caused by HKEAA's budgetary constraints on HKDSEE candidates (including the rates


967

of increase in examination fees and the level of support provided for candidates with SEN) and its overall service quality; if so, of the details; and

(3) whether the authorities will, on the premise of not adjusting

examination fees, allocate additional resources to HKEAA or deploy other methods to help HKEAA resolve its financial difficulties; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") was set up in 1977 under the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority Ordinance ("HKEAAO") (Hong Kong Ordinances, Cap. 261). It is an independent statutory body. Its major function is to administer public examinations to cater for the needs of the local education system and society and to conduct various professional and international examinations. HKEAA utilizes its own income and assets to support its daily operation according to HKEAAO and does not receive any recurrent subvention from the Government. According to Section 9 of HKEAAO, the resources of HKEAA consist of the fees of the public examinations or other examinations/assessments, payments received for other services rendered by HKEAA, and subsidies provided by the Government to assist HKEAA to conduct public examinations, etc. The income of HKEAA is mainly derived from examination fees, followed by the sale of publications and provision of assessment services for individuals and organizations. My reply to the questions raised by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung is as follows:

(1) According to the population projections released by the Census and Statistics Department ("C&SD"), the population of the age group between 15 and 19 residing in Hong Kong is projected to decrease continuously from 2018, with a slight rebound in 2022. Although the projections do not correspond to the number of candidates taking the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("HKDSE"), it is expected that the number of HKDSE candidates in the future will be aligned with the change in population size of the relevant age group.


In the past five school years (2012-2013 to 2016-2017), about 2.5% of HKDSE candidates applied for special examination arrangements. Since students with special educational needs ("SEN") are not identified in the projections of C&SD and these students may not apply for special examination arrangements when they take HKDSE, the estimated number of students who will apply for special examination arrangements from HKEAA in the next five years is not available, but the related percentage is expected to rise slightly. Owing to the drop of the number of candidates in whole, it is difficult to estimate the actual number of candidates who will require for special examination arrangements. However, HKEAA will continuously review the provision of special examination arrangements for candidates with SEN.

(2) and (3)

Under HKEAAO, HKEAA is required to submit its annual estimates

of income and expenditure and programme of its proposed activities including the proposed public examination fees to the Government for approval, and to table its annual audited accounts and report of activities at the Legislative Council every year. HKEAA has been financially sound over the past five years. Since its income is mainly derived from examination fees, HKEAA is proactively adopting measures to generate revenue and manage costs including controlling the increase of the number of personnel, reducing the number of temporary staff, lowering the overtime allowance and cost savings from rental, etc., in the face of decreasing number of candidates in recent years and the relevant population projections. To ensure the quality of assessment and fair assessment for candidates, HKEAA will continue to implement necessary measures as appropriate, including the provision of special examination arrangements to candidates with SEN. HKEAA will review HKDSE fees annually, taking into account various factors, which include the cost of arranging examinations, the economic conditions of Hong Kong, inflation, the affordability of students and parents and the financial situation of HKEAA, etc. The Government will also take into consideration these factors when approving the proposed adjustment to the public examination fees. To ensure that


969

no students will be denied access to public examinations because of financial difficulties, the Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency administers the Examination Fee Remission Scheme to provide assistance to eligible HKDSE candidates.

HKEAA is the statutory authority in Hong Kong for conducting

public examinations and a strategic partner of the Government in providing quality education. It has always been operating on a self-financing basis. However, the Government has, with sound justifications and without undermining the independence of HKEAA, provided HKEAA with non-recurrent grants, which included grants to support the assessment development and research activities, the modernization and development of the examination systems, the fitting out of the temporary onscreen marking centre on Hong Kong Island, payment of the rental and the related expenses, the development of HKDSE Examination system, and the expenses of conducting the 2011 Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination and the 2013 Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination for private candidates, for lowering the cost of conducting public examinations. The Government will continue to keep in view the financial position of HKEAA, the operational expenses of conducting public examinations as well as the level of examination fees, and to encourage HKEAA to continue with its efforts to cut costs and generate additional revenue. Besides, the Government will confer with HKEAA on a feasible financial plan in due course to help it maintain its provision of professional examinations and assessment services to the public despite a drop in the number of HKDSE candidates.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary's reply just now points out that it is difficult to estimate the rate of increase in the number of candidates with SEN. As a matter of fact, the number of such candidates has indeed shown a rising trend, and this will increase the administrative and financial expenditure of HKEAA. Last year, HKEAA introduced an additional examination format requiring oral instead of written answers for candidates with hearing impairment. Over 200 candidates opted this examination format. As we can observe, the administrative and financial expenditure of HKEAA will


surely increase and will further increase in the future. The Secretary says that he will closely monitor the financial position of HKEAA. However, the measures that have been adopted so far are just the cutting of staff and working hours, and increases in examination and assessment fees, as mentioned just now. President, the manpower of HKEAA is already very tight and the pay levels of its staff are even 15% or so lower than those of other public-sector employees. In that case, Secretary, if expenditure is further reduced, will the remunerations of HKEAA staff be affected? If no, will HKEAA introduce fee increases to shift the financial burden to candidates' parents? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, the manpower requirements or establishment of HKEAA are of course determined by actual operational needs. As for pay adjustment, HKEAA actually commissioned a consultancy study in 2014 to ascertain the rates of pay adjustment for its staff. I therefore wonder where Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has obtained the statistics which lead him to say that the pay levels of HKEAA staff are lower than those of other public-sector employees. Anyway, we firmly believe that as a responsible employer, HKEAA will determine the pay levels of its staff based on periodic market manpower reviews and studies. As said in the main reply, over the years, HKEAA has derived income for meeting its operating costs mainly from candidate fees in public and international/professional examinations, and from the sale of publications and the provision of other services. We note that HKEAA recorded slight deficits in the past one to two years, chiefly due to the drop in the number of candidates. But as I pointed out in the main reply, we think that HKEAA's overall financial position has been sound over the past five years on average. In conjunction with HKEAA, we will continue to hold in-depth discussions and studies on its financial position in the future. But for the time being and at this stage, I do not think it is necessary for the Government to step in. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, I must thank Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung for asking this question, because HKEAA's financial position is indeed our grave concern.


971

According to Mr Rock CHEN, Chairman of HKEAA, HKEAA now possesses a reserve of $210 million. This sounds quite a big sum. But it has already been pointed out there is now a deficit mainly due to the drop in the number of candidates. The number is expected to keep dropping steeply in the coming few years, so the reserve will be used up very soon. Mr Rock CHEN predicts that the reserve will be used up two years later, and HKEAA does not have any other sources of income. In that case, if HKEAA cannot pay its staff, it will be impossible to hold HKDSE. This is something totally unimaginable. What are we going to do then? If we look at HKEAA's annual surplus positions, we will see that in 2012, when there were more candidates, it still had a surplus of more than $60 million. But in 2016, it recorded a negative surplus of $20 million. This causes our great worry. We understandably fear that because of this, students may have to pay higher examination fees eventually. HKEAA estimates that if the financial burden is totally shifted to students, some of them may fail to cope. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, please state your supplementary question directly. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Can I ask the Secretary what he is going to do as the person in charge of HKEAA's finances? I have heard the Secretary say that he will continue to discuss with HKEAA. But I think the problem is already very pressing by now. Have the authorities come up with any specific scheme or even several alternative schemes for us to choose from? Are increases in school fees and examination fees one of the options being considered? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, I just wonder how carefully Mr IP has checked the statistics of HKEAA. If Members totally accept the figure he has mentioned and think that this should be the amount of money given to HKEAA, then the Government will have a much easier job. However, we hold a very responsible attitude towards the use of public resources. Hence, when discussing the matter with us, HKEAA must satisfy the Government that its operating costs are at a reasonable level, and so are its amounts of deficit or surplus. It is only when we are thus satisfied that we will hold further


discussions with HKEAA on, first, whether HKEAA really needs any help from the Government in the time to come, and, second, if the answer is yes, how such help should be offered. Therefore, I am unable to tell Mr IP now what exactly the Government is going to do, because we are still examining HKEAA's existing measures of creating revenue and cutting expenses in order to ascertain whether there are any viable alternatives. I will consider what to do next after all this. But in any case, ensuring the fair and efficient conduct of examinations is of very great importance to the entire education system, and this is our prime consideration. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered? MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, I actually asked the Secretary whether increasing examination fees is one of the options. But his reply just now did not cover this issue. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, as I said in the main reply, one source of HKEAA's income is HKDSE fees, and there are other sources, including various other examination fees, different types of services charges and government funding. Therefore, if there is a need to increase HKEAA's income, these other sources may also be considered. MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): President, after reading the Secretary's main reply, I fully sympathize with him. HKEAA was set up in 1977, when Hong Kong was still under British administration. But today, Hong Kong is run by ourselves. For this reason, our education system should now aim to provide quality education to our students, and the policy considerations back in 1977 must no longer be used as the basis of operation in 2017. The provision of quality education hinges on a good support system, and HKEAA is an indispensable part of this very system.


973

It is no longer viable for the Government to act like the British Hong Kong administration, shifting the responsibility to HKEAA and asking it to function as a self-financing body. The British Hong Kong administration could argue that it did not have any responsibility, but the existing SAR Government cannot. Therefore, President, may I ask the Secretary whether he has ever considered paying all public examination fees for Hong Kong people? If the Government does so, HKEAA will not need to cut any manpower and so on. You know, it is impossible to make a horse run fast without giving it any fodder, as one saying goes. The Government should do so, because Hong Kong needs quality education services. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, actually, the costs of many public services in Hong Kong are paid by users, either partially or fully. This can of course be an option in our present discussion on HKEAA's financial situation. Also, if we are really to contemplate the adoption of other alternatives, we must first consider all relevant factors thoroughly. Admittedly, the HKDSE fee may be adjusted annually, but still, any such fee increases may not necessarily enable HKEAA to recover the costs fully. Since most students will take HKDSE only once in their school life, the examination fee probably will not pose any heavy burden to them or their families. And, in case any candidates need any financial assistance, they can seek help from the Examination Fee Remission Scheme administered by the Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency. The Scheme aims to ensure that students in financial assistance will not be denied enrolment to public examinations through lack of means. For all these reasons, philosophically at least, we should really ask ourselves whether the Government should still pay all the examination fees for Hong Kong people as an integral part of full education provision, as requested by Mr SHEK a moment ago. I think this idea actually involves, for example, the "user pays" principle, and the community really needs more time for consideration. I will not say that it will never be considered, but we really need to do some long-term policy studies and consider all related consequences and impact. We have been doing things this way over all the years, and we do not observe any direct impact on the quality of education. I thus think we can continue to explore this issue.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered? MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): President, I shall be very brief. The Government can offer each person in our population of 7.6 million a transportation allowance of $300 without even consulting anyone, so it must be no big deal at all for it pay students' examination fees, right? Why can't it consider this idea? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHEK, this is not the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Honestly, following the change of the examination system, the income drop of HKEAA is only natural. We did not review the situation or discuss the related problems at the time when the examination system was changed, so we honestly did not do our job quite so well. I think at this very time when HKEAA faces tight resources, the Government should do more to help it. For instance, many candidates or small tutorial centres need to pay HKEAA a copyright fee for using past examination papers, and the copyright fee of past papers is very expensive. Will the Government try to do something in this respect, purchasing the copyright of all past papers with one lump sum, so as to give HKEAA some steady income, and at the same time give all students the benefit of not having to pay any copyright fee for using past papers in their revision? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, as I mentioned earlier, the charging of examination fees is not the only means through which HKEAA seeks to recover its operating costs, and the sale of past papers is also one way of costs recovery. All along, HKEAA has been ploughing back the proceeds from the sale of past papers to the holding of HKDSE, so as to ease the pressure of examination fee increases. In response to Mr CHAN's proposal that the Government should purchase the copyright of all past papers, I would say this is also one feasible form of government funding, though I only know he talks about using one lump sum and do not know whether the Government is supposed to sell the copyright in the end. In our discussion with HKEAA, this proposal will be discussed as one feasible option.


975

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third question. Resumption of land in the New Territories for housing development 3. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, currently, in the New Territories … (Dr Helena WONG stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, what is your point? DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please put your main question. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, currently, about 1 300 hectares of land in the New Territories may be regarded as brownfield sites. There have been public comments that the problem of scarcity of land for housing stems from the Government's failure to properly address the hoarding of agricultural land by developers and to put the large number of brownfield sites to optimal use. Regarding the resumption of land in the New Territories for housing development, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the total area of the brownfield sites owned by each of the top 10 owners owning the largest aggregate areas of brownfield sites in Hong Kong at present;


(2) whether it will consider resuming all the brownfield sites for housing development by invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that; of the respective numbers of units of public rental housing, subsidized sale housing and private housing that can be provided on such brownfield sites; and

(3) given that the authorities are adopting an enhanced Conventional

New Town Approach in taking forward the Kwu Tung North and Fanling North New Development Areas project, under which owners of private land with an area of not less than 4 000 square metres may apply for modification of lease to pursue their own development of the land, but sites with an area smaller than that will be resumed by the Government for development, of the criteria adopted by the authorities for determining that threshold; whether the authorities will, for the sake of fairness, consider standardizing the compensation to land owners basing on the rate of ex-gratia allowance for Zone A agricultural land upon resumption of the land; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr KWOK for his question. My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(1) In examining whether to develop a site, the Government will consider mainly, among other factors, the planning for the surrounding area, actual geographical environment, traffic and infrastructure capacities, urban design, environmental and ecological impacts, outcomes of other technical assessments, etc. As the Government does not take into account the ownership status of private land in the land use planning process, we do not keep the information requested by Dr KWOK.

(2) According to the Lands Resumption Ordinance ("the Ordinance"),

the Government may invoke the Ordinance to resume private land, having regard to the Government's need, only for an established "public purpose" pursuant to the Ordinance. Generally speaking,


977

land resumption for a "public purpose" takes place usually in development projects for new towns, public housing, or community facilities under public works programmes such as schools, parks, hospitals, welfare service complexes, etc. In other words, the Government has no justification and power to invoke the Ordinance to resume private land before the relevant "public purpose" is established.

It is rather unrealistic to expect the Government to resume all

brownfield sites for housing development, as such an expectation presupposes that all brownfield sites are suitable for housing development and that those sites to be resumed must meet the requirement of "public purpose". Indeed, not every brownfield site has development potential, in view of their scattered distribution, irregular shape, or locations subject to certain development constraints, etc.

This notwithstanding, the Government is not leaving brownfield sites

untouched. Under the multipronged land supply strategy, brownfield sites are one of the main established sources of medium- and long-term land supply. To develop brownfield sites in the rural New Territories ("NT"), we must first resolve issues concerning transportation, infrastructure, and supporting community facilities. Therefore, we are according priority to tackle large clusters of brownfield sites with higher development potential, with a view to carrying out comprehensive planning and large-scale development together with their adjoining areas. This approach helps achieve a self-sufficient community and enhance the cost-effectiveness of the supporting infrastructure. Along this direction, the three new development projects involving land resumption in the coming few years in Hung Shui Kiu, Yuen Long South and Kwu Tung North/Fanling North ("KTN/FLN"), together with the potential development areas in the NT North, will cover around 540 hectares of brownfield sites.

The number of residential units to be developed in any particular

New Development Area ("NDA") depends on various objective factors and technical constraints, and therefore is not estimated in a


generalized manner. Taking KTN/FLN NDAs as an example, the development area amounts to 320 hectares, including about 50 hectares of affected brownfield sites. Upon full development, about 60 000 new residential units can be provided, of which about 60% will be public housing. The development area of the Hung Shui Kiu NDA amounts to 441 hectares, including 190 hectares of affected brownfield sites. Upon full development, about 61 000 new residential units can be provided, with about equal proportion of public and private housing. As for Yuen Long South, the development area is about 185 hectares, including 100 hectares of affected brownfield sites. Upon full development, about 28 500 new residential units can be provided, of which about 60% will be public housing. The above three new development projects will deliver a total of about 149 500 residential units, of which about 85 100 will be public housing. The actual ratio of public rental to subsidized sale housing within the total supply of public housing will be determined by the Hong Kong Housing Authority in the detailed design stage, with regard to the housing needs of the society and the situation of housing supply at the time.

In addition, the Government will strive to complete the survey on the

existing profile and operations of brownfield sites and the consultancy studies on the feasibility of accommodating brownfield operations in multistorey buildings within the coming year, so that both the Government and the community will be in a better position to look for the best way to deal with the remaining brownfield sites of about 760 hectares. When it is necessary to resume private land for development, the Government would exercise the powers conferred by relevant legislation to effect the resumption and make compensation accordingly.

Most brownfield sites are currently occupied by various industrial

operations providing support for the development of local industries (such as construction, logistics and recycling industries), and generating employment opportunities. When developing brownfield sites, it is necessary to examine carefully how to optimize land use and consolidate operations that are still needed in Hong Kong.


979

(3) Under the enhanced Conventional New Town ("CNT") approach adopted for the KTN/FLN NDAs, the Government would, as a general rule, resume and clear all private land planned for developments, and dispose of the land planned for private developments in the market. Prior to the resumption and clearance of land, the Government may allow in-situ land exchange applications from land owners of sites planned for private developments, subject to their meeting the specified criteria and conditions. This approach is similar to the one adopted for the development of new towns, such as Sha Tin, Fanling/Sheung Shui and Tseung Kwan O New Town, in the past when the Government undertook most of the work of private land resumption, while allowing at the same time private land owners to apply for modification of lease (including in-situ land exchange) for private developments. Compared with the original CNT approach, the enhanced approach imposes more stringent requirements for lease modification applications, including those concerning the site area, development timetable, and compensation offered to tenants or occupiers by applicants.

Regarding the land area, the Government specifies that for

applications for in-situ land exchanges in the KTN/FLN NDAs, the site under application should have an area of not less than 4 000 sq m, with all the lots within the area under a unified ownership, to ensure planning integrity and comprehensive development. Having reviewed the circumstances and cases of site developments in existing new towns, the Government considers that specifying the area requirement of a proposed site for in-situ land exchange being not less than 4 000 sq m is reasonable, as this may help ensure that the developments to be carried out by the landowner would have some greening and ancillary facilities (such as recreation facilities and carparks) without being too fragmented or deviating from the appropriate form of development envisaged in a NDA. Furthermore, any development under a lease modification application is required to ensure timely supply of housing and other facilities. For applications failing to meet the requirements by the specified time frame set for the development programme, the private land in question would be resumed by the Government for development.


Under the Government's prevailing compensation arrangements for acquisition of private land in NT, statutory compensation is made to landowners in accordance with the applicable legislation. In addition, the existing mechanism provides for an alternative to statutory compensation, i.e. an ex-gratia zonal compensation system consisting of four compensation zones (i.e. Zones A, B, C, and D). Generally speaking, if the area concerned is located in the New Town Development Areas, it is classified as Zone A under the existing mechanism.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, the Government cannot possibly be unaware that the four big families are holding more than 100 million sq ft of agricultural land. With such a fanfare of publicity, the Government has been saying that there is a shortfall of land amounting to 1 000 hectares. But the brownfield sites alone already measure 1 300 hectares. Deducting the 540 hectares for which planning has already been made, there are still 760 hectares left. And, computation based on the Government's existing public housing standards show that the remaining brownfield sites are enough for constructing homes for 58 000 households, or all the applicants on the Waiting List. The Government's policy is to resume any site smaller than four hectares, and at the same time funnel benefits to those big landlords or property tycoons owning a site bigger than four hectares. How can the Government be so shameless? It bullies small farmland owners, but funnels benefits to owners of large sites. President, I do not oppose the Government's invocation of the Ordinance for the purpose of launching necessary development projects, especially public housing construction programmes. The reason is that public housing construction can meet the aspiration of the public and fulfil the land resumption criteria of the Government. Of course, Carrie LAM must not use the resumed lands for constructing units under the Green Form Subsidized Home Ownership Scheme. I must tell the Secretary that the threshold of four hectares is a very partial one. Why does the Government do so? Is it its intention to funnel benefits to the several property tycoons and big landlords? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Dr KWOK for his supplementary question. In fact, it is the long-standing practice of the Government to allow reasonable private-sector participation in NDAs. This practice has its advantages. For instance, in cases where a private developer


981

already owns certain land lots in the NDA concerned, the development project can proceed faster and the risk of legal disputes faced by society will be lower. But Dr KWOK, I must first point out that the present application requirements for in-situ land exchange in KTN/FLN NDAs is: a site with unified ownership measuring no less than 4 000 sq m (i.e. at least 0.4 hectare). Why do we set down this requirement? After studying many cases, we have come to realize that setting the threshold set at this level can prevent fragmented development and basically ensure the provision of appropriate support facilities in the development concerned, such as the ones I have mentioned―recreational establishments and car parks. Moreover, there is also one requirement in the enhanced Conventional New Town Approach. Private developers are required to offer compensation to occupiers and provide timely housing facilities, so as to dovetail with the development project concerned. This is the basic rationale behind the approach. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered? DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): My question is clear. I actually asked the Secretary to tell us the reason for not resuming all the sites for public housing construction. Isn't it very obvious that he is trying to give people owning over 4 000 sq m of land … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you have clearly pointed out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add? DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): … He has not answered my question … Does this imply that he has been brazenly funnelling benefits to property developers? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you have already clearly pointed out the part of the supplementary question which has not been answered. Please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?


SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr KWOK for his clarification. The enhanced Conventional New Town Approach, which I talked about just now, is basically about lands to be used for private development. I mean lands that are to be used for private housing development in the future. If certain land lots are identified for public housing construction and the Government is not their owner, then the Government will generally acquire the lands through resumption, a means recommended by Dr KWOK just now. And, in most cases, the lands resumed will then be handed over to the Hong Kong Housing Authority or the Hong Kong Housing Society for developing public housing. MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, in early October, Mr Stanley WONG, Chairman of the Task Force on Land Supply, said that the Task Force unanimously agreed that brownfield sites were not idle lands, and 90% of them were supporting various economic activities. They thus agreed that land should be reserved for re-provisioning these economic activities. He estimated that in Hung Shui Kiu, for example, one-third of the total brownfield area there (i.e. 60 hectares) would have to be reserved for reprovisioning these economic activities. But then, according to the Yuen Long South Recommended Outline Development Plan, which the Government announced in early August, only 11 hectares of all the 110 hectares of brownfield area in Yuen Long South are to be reserved. This is only one tenth of the total, which is far below the proportion recommended by the Task Force. May I ask whether the Government will review the above outline development plan having regard to the view of the Task Force, and determine the proportion of land to be reserved for reprovisioning in future brownfield developments, with a view to reserving sufficient land for the continuation of economically valuable brownfield activities? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LAU for his supplementary question. I think the development of brownfield sites is quite a challenging task. It is indeed true that the Task Force on Land Supply has discussed this very topic. And, in the time to come, the Task Force will collate arguments both for and against the use of brownfield sites as a major source of land supply in the future.


983

As I understand it, Mr Stanley WONG was actually referring to the case of Hung Shui Kiu as an example to illustrate his point. In the case of Hung Shui Kiu, we will clear roughly 190 hectares of brownfield sites, and a portion of this total, about 50 to 60 hectares, will be reserved for logistics operations. In other words, about one third of the cleared brownfield sites will be reserved. This is the proportion of reserved lands for Hung Shui Kiu. It must be admitted that the proportion for Yuen Long South is lower than this. I have pointed out in the main rely that we will strive to complete the survey on the existing profile and operations of brownfield sites and the consultancy studies on the feasibility of accommodating brownfield operations in multistorey buildings within the coming year. With the help of multistorey buildings, the numbers of brownfield economic operations that can be accommodated by a fixed area of land may increase. But I want to clarify two things here. First, a ratio of 1:1 for the exchange of brownfield land is out of the question. If we were able to do so, the problems we now face would not have been so formidable. Second, suppose we can really provide lands in Hung Shui Kiu for the operation of logistics businesses or other high value-added and related ancillary industries in the future, I think we really need to put in place a transparent and fair application system, rather than simply adopting a ratio of 1:1 for the exchange of brownfield land. This is because we must optimize the use of land, and also because land use efficiency and modern modes of operation are also very important considerations. As for the requirements and allocation mechanism, when the above mentioned studies are completed, we will report the findings to the Legislative Council. (The Secretary for Development remained standing) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please sit down first. You can stand up again and give a reply after another Member has put his or her supplementary question. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Secretary, a new administration always brings a new way of doing things. But under the proposed compensation scheme, the authorities still allow the owner of a site bigger than 4 000 sq m to participate in redevelopment. This adherence to the old practice is a good thing.


My supplementary question is about statutory compensation. Apart from the existing mechanism of making cash compensation or the ex-gratia zonal compensation system consisting of four compensation zones, will the authorities consider returning to the glorious past and adopting the very successful "Letter B system" again? By so doing, the difficulties in the land resumption process can be reduced and the site owners (i.e. the small site owners) can also benefit from the future development. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr HO for his supplementary question. The Development Bureau and Lands Department have begun liaison with stakeholders on land resumption and clearance in KTN/FLN. A major view we learn from the liaison so far is that in certain situations, they need to pass the means test for housing allocation. Their major aspiration is whether their applications can be flexibly handled, and whether they can be exempted from the means test. Some also opine that the ex-gratia compensation, which has long been set at $600,000, should be suitably increased. Like what I said earlier, the Government will carefully consider these issues and views, but we will not speculate on any future options as this can be dangerous. There are reasons for adopting the present compensation system. If the compensation system remains unchanged, we will continue to adopt it; if there is any changes, we will clearly brief the stakeholders. But allow me not to speculate on the future directions here, including the feasibility Dr HO just said. MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, developing brownfield sites is one of the long-term plans to resolve the land problem in Hong Kong. The Government should expeditiously step up enforcement actions to maximize the benefit of developing brownfield sites. Although we now have the Ordinance, we can still see people forcibly occupy brownfield sites and this practice is very common. Some people even say that some syndicates are operating behind these illegal occupation. Whenever the Government announces a land resumption exercise at certain a location, they will bring their tools to build camps or shacks, or even farm at the site, in order to earn compensation. These acts have delayed the land resumption process.


985

May I ask the Secretary, in order to deal with the complicated ownership of brownfield sites and illegal occupation of these sites, whether the Government will consider making reference to the Local Development Orders in the United Kingdom and streamline and expedite the planning permission procedure of brownfield sites, so as to ensure the smooth conduct of brownfield site resumption? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LAM for his supplementary question. If the authorities need to resume a brownfield site, there is now a compensation or relocation system for licensed structures or squatter huts on the site. I wish to respond in two parts to the situation mentioned by Mr LAM. If a person builds a shack on a piece of land, whether or not the site is a brownfield site, because of hearsay that the Government is going to resume that piece of land, the person is not entitled to any compensation because he does not meet the relevant requirements. Actually, the Lands Department will step up monitoring and enforcement actions in these sites, and the community liaison team will conduct briefings in the community to warn the public against buying or renting these shacks. The authorities will strive to conduct public education and regulatory work in this regard. There is another level to the situation Mr LAM mentioned, and that is, how to deal with illegal occupation of land, and Mr LAM also mentioned a piece of legislation. I have listened to his view. Let us find relevant information and conduct studies, and get back to Member later. At present, the authorities have not done any studies in relation to introducing that piece of legislation into Hong Kong. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I very much support the enhanced Conventional New Town Approach because it can expedite the development process. If we refer to the document on the implementation arrangement of the Hung Shui Kiu NDA scheme, we will find that the authorities also opt for the enhanced approach. But the approach they adopted for developing the North East New Territories NDA has aroused suspicion of collusion between the Government and the business sector. I truly do not understand why the authorities have to set such a high area threshold this time. President, let me explain a little. I entrusted my assistant to do some calculation. The purple area in this diagram roughly covers a plot of …


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, please put your supplementary question directly. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Okay. The area threshold, as provided in the document on the North East New Territories NDA, is 4 000 sq m, and the area threshold for Hung Shui Kiu is 10 000 sq m. This gives people an even stronger impression that the Government is colluding with the business sector, so that the few mega property developers can benefit from the development projects. Why do the authorities not follow the 4 000 sq m threshold provided in the document, so that small and medium developers can also participate in the development projects? I truly do not understand. The present approach will only let the mega developers get the benefits. Can the Secretary give us an explanation? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr TIEN for his supplementary question. I believe Mr TIEN is referring to the commercial land in Hung Shui Kiu and not the residential land, especially the land adjacent to the future Hung Shui Kiu Station. The rationale of the Government for the project is that the area is a prime site and if there is going to be large commercial development in the area, more land may be needed. But, as I mentioned earlier, in our liaison with the stakeholders, we do receive a clear message from them that the threshold is too high, which may actually be infeasible in reality and make the system exist only in name. They question why the Government has to press ahead with this threshold if it is practically impossible. The Government will carefully consider the views received. I hope Mr TIEN can understand that I will not make any speculation on any future actions to be taken, since the authorities have to follow established mechanism in making further consideration. If there is any changes, we will announce them to the public, together with our justifications for the changes. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question.


987

Measures to boost innovation and technology development 4. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the Policy Address recently published has put forward measures in eight major areas to boost innovation and technology development in Hong Kong. Such measures include an increase in resources for research and development ("R&D"), the development of the Lok Ma Chau Loop into the "Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park", and the development of an international innovation and technology hub in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area through the development of the Bay Area and collaboration between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. Furthermore, the Government will establish a high-level inter-departmental Steering Committee on Innovation and Technology, which will be personally led by the Chief Executive, to examine and steer the implementation of such measures. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as the Government will increase R&D resources, and has set a target of doubling the percentage of Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D to the Gross Domestic Product from 0.73% to 1.5% within five years, whether the Government has set specific short-term and medium-term target percentages, as well as a timetable for the implementation and review of the various measures; whether it has considered setting a longer-term target, e.g. to increase such percentage to 2.5% within the coming decade; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) regarding the implementation of the measures to develop the Hong

Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park as well as to develop an international innovation and technology hub in the Bay Area, whether the Government has drawn up specific work plans and timetables (including plans on how to enhance the collaboration on innovation and technology between Hong Kong and the Mainland places in the Bay Area), so that the industrial and commercial sectors as well as the innovation and technology sectors of Hong Kong may fully grasp the opportunities to be brought by the development of the Bay Area; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) in respect of the Steering Committee on Innovation and Technology

as well as the related advisory bodies to be established, whether their memberships will include world-class technology experts and


entrepreneurs, and whether their terms of reference will include listening to and responding to the aspirations of the members of Hong Kong's innovation and technology sector, mapping out a longer-term and more comprehensive strategy on innovation and technology development, and formulating key performance indicators for the relevant work; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): Thank you, President. I thank Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok for his question. In the Policy Address delivered last month, the Chief Executive announced that the Government would step up its efforts to develop innovation and technology ("I&T") in eight major areas, including: (a) increasing resources for research and development; (b) pooling together technology talent; (c) providing investment funding; (d) providing technological research infrastructure; (e) reviewing existing legislations and regulations; (f) opening up government data; (g) Government leading changes to procurement arrangements; and (h) strengthening popular science education. The Government firmly believes that I&T can become the new economic growth point of Hong Kong. We will implement various new initiatives and strengthen the ongoing initiatives, in order to diversify our economy and enhance Hong Kong's competitiveness. Having consulted the relevant Policy Bureaux, our reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(1) The Government is committed to increasing resources for R&D. At present, R&D expenditure in Hong Kong accounts for about 0.73% of the Gross Domestic Product, with public investment dominating at about 55%, which is different from the situation in other advanced areas. Our goal is to increase the total R&D expenditure by local public and private sectors to about $45 billion, representing 1.5% of the GDP by 2022. At the same time, we hope to progressively reverse the ratio of public sector versus private sector expenditure on R&D from government-led to public-private participation with investment from the private sector dominating, i.e. at a ratio of about 45% to 55%, which will make R&D funding more sustainable. To achieve this goal, we will gradually increase public R&D investment, at the same time encouraging private enterprises to conduct more R&D activities.


989

On public R&D investment, the various schemes under the Innovation and Technology Fund ("ITF") finance projects that can contribute to I&T upgrading and development of industries in Hong Kong, encourage private enterprises to invest in R&D and applied technology, and commercialize outstanding local R&D achievements. ITF has doubled its financial support for I&T from $730 million in 2013-2014 to over $1.5 billion in this financial year. We will arrange injection to ITF as appropriate with a view to supporting more R&D activities. On the other hand, the grants from the University Grants Committee ("UGC") constitute the majority of research expenditure for universities. In 2015-2016, the reported aggregate expenditure on research of the UGC-funded universities amounted to $9.55 billion, representing an increase of more than 10% as compared with the previous year. To further promote R&D activities in universities, the Chief Executive announced in the Policy Address that no less than $10 billion has been set aside for university research.

As regards private sector, to encourage private enterprises to conduct

more R&D projects, it was announced in the Policy Address that enhanced tax deduction for local R&D expenditure will be introduced. The first $2 million of qualified R&D expenditure will be eligible for a 300% tax deduction, and a 200% tax deduction will be provided for the remaining balance. We have already started the relevant law drafting work. Should the proposal be supported by the Legislative Council, the initiative is expected to be implemented in Q3 2018.

We will strive to achieve the five-year goal set. In fact, if the share

of R&D in the private sector can grow steadily, our target to increase the percentage of R&D expenditure to the GDP to 1.5%, if not higher, is not out of reach.

(2) We attach great importance to I&T cooperation between the

Mainland and Hong Kong. Combining Mainland's rich resources and production capability, as well as Hong Kong's strengths and experience in internationalization and applied research, the competitiveness of the industries in both places can be enhanced, thereby achieving win-win.


The Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park ("the Park") in the Lok Ma Chau Loop will be the largest-ever I&T platform in Hong Kong, while the development plan for a city cluster in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area is an important national development strategy, both of which will bring significant opportunities for Hong Kong's economic development.

We are working on the development of the Park at full steam. The

Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation established a wholly-owned subsidiary company named Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park Limited, which is vested with the responsibilities to build, operate, maintain and manage the Park, on 6 October this year. In addition, the Planning Department is consolidating the representations and comments made by the public and relevant organizations on the draft Lok Ma Chau Loop Outline Zoning Plan and will submit them to the Town Planning Board for consideration on 17th this month. Statutory procedures of the road work for the Advance Works have been completed, and preparation work for the Main Works Package 1 is underway. Upon completion of the detailed design of the Advance Works, we will seek funding from the Legislative Council for the construction of the Advance Works and the detailed design of the Main Works Package 1 in the first half of 2018. Should the project funding be approved by the Legislative Council, the Advance Works could be commenced thereafter. We will strive to provide the first developable land to Hong Kong and Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park Limited by 2021 to commence building works.

The Innovation and Technology Bureau is actively participating in

the study work on developing an international innovation and technology hub in the Bay Area under the development plan for a city cluster in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area. We wish to connect the upstream, midstream and downstream sectors of I&T industries through the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area and collaboration between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, thereby developing an international innovation and technology hub in the Bay Area. We will continue to maintain close communication with relevant government departments in the Mainland and actively cooperate with the Mainland in the planning work to further promote I&T cooperation with the Mainland.


991

(3) The development of I&T involves different areas, requiring cooperation and coordination across bureaux. The Chief Executive announced in the Policy Address to set up and personally lead the Steering Committee on Innovation and Technology to examine and steer measures under the eight areas of I&T development as well as smart city projects. The Steering Committee is a high-level, inter-departmental Government internal committee with membership comprising the majority of the Government Secretaries as well as the relevant department heads to steer, coordinate and take forward I&T development in Hong Kong in a more expeditious and efficient manner. We have devised the terms of reference of the Steering Committee and will convene the first meeting as soon as possible.

The Government will, through other existing advisory bodies

including the Committee on Innovation, Technology and Re-industrialization chaired by the Financial Secretary, continue to listen to views from different sectors in society including technology experts and entrepreneurs on taking forward I&T development and re-industrialization.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, regarding part (1) of my main question, I am glad to hear the Secretary for Innovation and Technology say in his main reply, "[O]ur target to increase the percentage of R&D expenditure to the GDP to 1.5%, if not higher, is not out of reach." However, the crucial factor leading to the achievement of the goal lies in whether there is sufficient local scientific research talent. Thus, I would like to ask the Secretary if the Government has any specific statistics and targets of relevant manpower needs in respect of the manpower planning in this regard, and whether it has any specific policies and initiatives to meet such needs for scientific research talent? SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): I thank Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok for his supplementary question. To pool together more technology talent to complement the "re-industrialization" movement in Hong Kong, the Government will earmark $500 million under the Innovation and Technology Fund ("the Fund") for the launch of the Technology Talent Scheme, aiming at training and pooling together more outstanding technology talent while encouraging them to pursue a career in innovation and scientific research. One of the initiatives is to establish a "Postdoctoral Hub" to provide funding support for institutions being awarded scientific research projects under the Fund, Hong


Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation, and incubatees as well as tenants of Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited to recruit postdoctoral talent for scientific research, and to cultivate world class technology talent. In addition, the Government will provide funding to subsidize local enterprises for training their staff on advanced manufacturing technologies, especially those related to Industry 4.0, with a view to driving "re-industrialization". New initiatives under the Technology Talent Scheme are expected to be rolled out next year. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered? IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): The Secretary did not answer my question. I enquired specifically about whether the Government has any statistical information and targets on manpower needs, but the Secretary did not give any answer to that. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): Very well, I will make some additions. At present, there are approximately 8 000 Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics ("STEM") graduates on average every year. However, a lot of the STEM graduates have already switched to work in other fields instead of STEM. And so, retaining STEM talent as far as possible is our top priority. Next, we hope to attract more top-notch scientific research institutions both from abroad and the Mainland to come to Hong Kong for training local talent. In this connection, we hope that we are able to retain technology talent to stay in the I&T industries in the first place; second, we can adopt new training approaches, including making use of those government-subsidized projects as well as the resources contributed by other top-notch technology research institutions in respect of talent training.


993

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): It seems that the Secretary did not answer my … can he provide the relevant figures on manpower needs? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO, you have stated your supplementary question and the Secretary has given you the answer, so please be seated. MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): President, to promote I&T development, many countries have, in fact, implemented the introduction of the subject of computer coding to the primary school curriculum. As we can see, Korea decided to include computer coding as a compulsory subject for primary schools this year, which will also be introduced to secondary schools next year; Japan decided to include computer coding as a compulsory subject for primary schools which will also be introduced to secondary schools in the coming two years; and for Israel, needless to say, computer coding was introduced to schools early in 1998 and many of their graduates are capable of joining international scientific research institutions to take up posts of programmers nowadays. Given the whole world is trying hard to catch up, I would like to ask if the Government has plans to do the same; if so, of the details? SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Honourable Member for his supplementary question. Training of computer coding talent is among our projects that we currently explored together with the Education Bureau, and I trust that the Education Bureau has its own plans regarding this. We will bring up this matter to the Steering Committee on Innovation and Technology for discussion. The Chief Executive also mentioned in the Policy Address that the Government will take a further step to provide studentships for local students to attend postgraduate programmes, with a view to nurturing more local students to become highly educated academic and scientific research talent for the sake of building a local talent hub. We propose to inject $3 billion into the Research Endowment Fund and the return on investment generated therefrom will be used to provide studentships for all local students admitted to UGC-funded research postgraduate programmes within the normal duration of the programmes, where each student will be granted a scholarship of $42,000 each year which is


equivalent to the tuition fee payable. I believe that these examples can help illustrate our efforts towards this end at different levels, including primary and secondary school levels. MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary said in his main reply that the Government would step up its efforts to develop I&T in eight major areas, including reviewing existing legislations and regulations. President, I have a very good example here: A spinning mill will be opened in Tai Po Industrial Estate in the next two months. Everything is fine with the cooperation between the spinning mill and Tai Po Industrial Estate and the tenancy agreement was quickly signed, but the plan got stuck after being submitted to the Buildings Department. Processing of the plan has been underway for several months but has yet to be approved so far. While the Government said on the one hand that it would review existing legislations and regulations, however, in what way can the Secretary straighten out the situation especially when the Buildings Department is not under the purview of the Policy Bureau led by him? SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): I thank Mr CHUNG for his supplementary question. What Mr CHUNG has mentioned just now is a cross-departmental project which can be brought up to the Steering Committee on Innovation and Technology and we will seek to resolve the problem at cross-departmental level. Furthermore, the Chief Executive suggests to revamp the Central Policy Unit as the Policy Innovation and Co-ordination Unit responsible for policy research and innovation, coordination across bureaux and departments, enhancing public participation as well as rendering assistance in coordination work for cross-bureaux policies selected by the senior leadership of the Government. It will also coordinate creative development projects meant to bring greater social benefits. Therefore, I trust that the revamped Central Policy Unit will better perform its functions. Meanwhile, the Government wish to listen to views such as those you have expressed just now so as to improve cross-departmental coordination. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Thank you, President. Regarding the opening up of opportunities in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area,


995

development of a Smart City, or the promotion of scientific research, both the industry members and the public do wish to see the launching of some concrete projects instead of plans or proposals only. Earlier on, DAB proposed to the Government the establishment of smart communities of elderly care through cooperation among the Government, businesses, schools and the public Establishing smart communities of elderly care that consist of Hong Kong style hospitals, scientific research units run by universities, scientific enterprises and innovative elderly care services will be contributive to addressing the problem of population ageing besides encouraging innovation and start-ups in the field of scientific research. Above all, this will provide the elderly persons with better choices of elderly care. Places such as Zhongshan and Huizhou in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area are suitable sites for establishing smart communities of elderly care to serve as demonstration projects on Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area cooperation. Since the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS") has been implementing various elderly housing projects, the Government should consider providing support to HKHS in promoting the establishment of local smart communities of elderly care. President, I would like to ask if the Secretary will consider doing so? SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): I thank Dr QUAT for her supplementary question. The Innovation and Technology Bureau has been encouraging people to make use of I&T to improve daily life, including that of the elderly persons. Last year, the Innovation and Technology Fund for Better Living was launched to provide funding for projects on improving people's daily life by making use of I&T and to pass on the benefits to the needy, among which are those I&T projects for the elderly persons. Recently, we have launched the Midstream Research Programme for Universities and the theme of the first round of programmes is medical and health care services for the elderly, with the focus on dementia and relevant projects. The first round of applications have been vetted and approved by the expert panel formed by academics and industry members. We are in support of eight projects in principle, seven of which involve inter-institutional cooperation. In total, $30 million of funding has been granted. Hence, Dr QUAT needs not worry. Apart from medical technologies, we also provide support for health care services.


Moreover, we have three local R&D centres, including Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel, Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute and R&D Centre for Logistics and Supply Chain Management Enabling Technologies. These R&D centres are collaborating with the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals to develop comfortable apparel-based tracking system for elderly persons with dementia in order to prevent them from wandering away. All these are health care projects aimed at providing elderly care. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr QUAT, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered? DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): My question is rather specific, which is: Will the Secretary consider promoting smart communities of elderly care both in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area and in Hong Kong? The Secretary did not give any answer to this. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): Here is my answer: I will support the proposal and bring it up to the Steering Committee on Innovation and Technology. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question. Preventing Japanese encephalitis from spreading in Tin Shui Wai 5. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Japanese encephalitis ("JE") is a mosquito-borne disease. Most people infected with JE virus have symptoms that are comparatively mild or not apparent. Since January this year, there have been five JE cases in Hong Kong, all of which being locally acquired cases. The patients in two of the aforesaid cases live in Tin Shui Wai and in another case, which is the world's first case of JE being transmitted by blood transfusion, the blood donor concerned also lives in Tin Shui Wai. Some


997

members of the public suspect that quite a number of Tin Shui Wai residents have been infected with JE virus. Besides, it has been reported that there is a serious mosquito problem in Tin Shui Wai … (Mr Andrew WAN stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please hold on. Mr Andrew WAN, what is your point? MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, as a quorum is not present in this Chamber, I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please continue with your main question. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Japanese encephalitis ("JE") is a mosquito-borne disease. Most people infected with JE virus have symptoms that are comparatively mild or not apparent. Since January this year, there have been five JE cases in Hong Kong, all of which being locally acquired cases. The patients in two of the aforesaid cases live in Tin Shui Wai and in another case, which is the world's first case of JE being transmitted by blood transfusion, the blood donor concerned also lives in Tin Shui Wai. Some members of the public suspect that quite a number of Tin Shui Wai residents have been infected with JE virus. Besides, it has been reported that there is a serious mosquito problem in Tin Shui Wai and the reasons for that include the failure of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department officers to gain access to private farmlands in the district to carry out anti-mosquito work. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


(1) apart from deploying additional manpower to carry out anti-mosquito work in Tin Shui Wai, whether the authorities have, since January this year, targeted the pig farms near the district in carrying out anti-mosquito work; if so, of the details;

(2) given that the findings of a survey conducted by me earlier have

revealed that the level of awareness of JE vaccines among Tin Shui Wai residents was rather low, and a number of JE cases have occurred in the district, of the reasons why the authorities have not considered providing vaccination for residents in the district and stepping up publicity in this respect; and

(3) whether the Government monitored in the past three years the

anti-mosquito work carried out at private places (particularly on private lands in Tin Shui Wai); if so, of the details?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government has all along attached importance to pest, rodent and mosquito control. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") set up four Pest Control Inspection Teams in May this year to step up inspections of construction sites and potential sites for mosquito breeding and enforcement actions against mosquito breeding. Among the five local Japanese encephalitis ("JE") cases this year, two patients live in Tin Shui Wai and the blood donor involved in a case of JE being transmitted by blood transfusion also lives in Tin Shui Wai. Against this background, the Government has strengthened anti-mosquito work in Tin Shui Wai. Where the circumstances so warranted, the Government may consider exercising its authority under section 27 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) to enter private premises (including private land) for carrying out anti-mosquito work. My reply to various parts of the question raised by Mr LEUNG is as follows:

(1) In view of the above JE cases, FEHD has carried out targeted anti-mosquito work, including conducting entomological surveys and carrying out anti-mosquito work in areas within a 2-km radius of the residence of the patients and the places visited by them during the incubation period. District task force meetings have also been conducted to liaise with relevant government departments and


999

organizations to step up anti-mosquito work in areas within their purview. In response to the above local JE cases, FEHD has collected and tested 53 mosquito samples. All samples were found negative for JE virus.

The relevant government departments have also stepped up their

anti-mosquito work accordingly. Apart from strengthening the anti-mosquito work in Tin Shui Estate and other relevant housing estates in Tin Shui Wai, the Housing Department has installed six additional mosquito trapping devices in Tin Shui Estate with a view to reducing the number of adult mosquitoes at public areas and lowering the risk of contact between mosquitoes and humans.

In August and September this year, FEHD increased the number of

pest control roving teams in Yuen Long district by two teams to 22 teams under the current contract under the Home Affairs Department's District-led Actions Scheme, so as to step up the anti-mosquito work at the public areas in the vicinity of Tin Shui Wai Open Nullah, Tin Heng Estate, Tin Chak Estate, Tin Yan Estate, Tin Wah Estate and Tin Shui Estate.

FEHD has also conducted joint site visits with the Agriculture,

Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") to the Wetland Park and the pig farms situated within the 2-km radius of Tin Shui Estate to offer technical advice on mosquito prevention and elimination. Other actions taken are as follows:

(a) Notices have been issued by AFCD to advise pig farmers to

take anti-mosquito measures, such as installing mosquito trapping devices in their pig farms to lower the risk of contact between mosquitoes and pigs;

(b) Health talks on anti-mosquito work have been organized for

the pig farmers; and (c) Concerted efforts have been made by relevant bureaux and

departments to step up anti-mosquito work in the vicinity of pig farms.


After conducting inspections on the pig farms, the two departments considered the measures implemented by the pig farmers to be effective.

On top of the above, FEHD has also strengthened the surveillance of

JE vectors since October 2015. In the period between January and August this year, a total of 251 mosquito samples were collected and tested, all of which were found negative for the JE virus.

(2) In general, when determining whether to provide vaccination to a

specific population, the Government must take into account well-established scientific criteria and a number of public health considerations, including the efficacy and side effects of the vaccine, the availability of other effective preventive measures, cost-effectiveness, the administrative arrangements for vaccination and adequacy of vaccine supply.

The Scientific Committee on Vector-borne Diseases ("the

Committee") under the Centre for Health Protection of the Department of Health has discussed the use of JE vaccination in Hong Kong as a measure to prevent JE at several meetings. The Committee considered the territory-wide incidence rate of local JE cases in Hong Kong to be low. Even in high-risk areas such as those near pig farms, the incidence rate was comparable to the incidence rates in countries and areas where JE vaccination has been used to prevent JE after incorporation of the JE vaccine into the immunization programmes in those countries and areas. The Committee considered that although serious side effects are uncommon with modern JE vaccines, the number of such serious side effects is directly proportional to the number of people vaccinated. The Committee estimated that the number of serious side effects due to the JE vaccine far outweighs the protective benefits of the vaccine in preventing JE in areas where JE occurs infrequently such as Tin Shui Wai. The Committee has thus concluded that the risks of using JE vaccine in the Hong Kong population, including the population living within a 2-km radius of pig farms, to prevent JE outweigh its benefits. The Committee also recommended other measures, such as mosquito control and personal protection against mosquito bites, to prevent JE.


1001

(3) To effectively prevent and control the breeding of mosquitoes, the Government's efforts alone are not enough. We need the participation of various sectors and the community. The most effective way is for the public to start at individual level and at home by removing stagnant water in their premises and taking personal protective measures against mosquitoes. If the owners of private properties have difficulties in conducting the mosquito prevention work, FEHD will be ready to offer appropriate assistance. FEHD may also consider exercising the authority to enter private premises, including private land, to carry out anti-mosquito work if necessary. For example, FEHD has been installing mosquito screens at vent pipes of septic tanks in private village houses, including private village houses in more than 150 villages in Yuen Long District, since March 2016 to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes in the tanks.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in the few years between 2013 and 2017, 2016 is the only year in which there has been no occurrence of JE case. In other words, JE has all along been a disease affecting the whole of Hong Kong. The Secretary indicated just now in her main reply that the use of JE vaccines would have more negative effects than positive ones, and JE vaccination was therefore not a recommended measure to prevent JE. However, according to the information we collected, JE vaccines have already been incorporated into the immunization programmes in most Asian countries or areas, such as Australia, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, meaning that the risks of using JE vaccines do not really outweigh its benefits as suggested by the Secretary. Secretary, as the situation in these countries or areas is comparable to that in Tin Shui Wai, would it be a more effective measure to prevent JE by providing vaccination for residents in Tin Shui Wai? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Mr LEUNG for the supplementary question. As pointed out just now, the territory-wide incidence rate of JE cases in Hong Kong is considered to be low, and even in high-risk areas, the incidence rate is comparable to the incidence rates in countries and areas where JE vaccination has been used to prevent JE after incorporation of the JE vaccine into the immunization programmes in those countries and areas.


Generally speaking, there are currently two types of JE vaccines registered in Hong Kong, and both of them are of proven efficacy. But as in the case of general pharmaceutical products, the use of JE vaccines may cause allergic reactions, serious side effects or adverse complications on the central nervous system. Therefore, after considering the side effects of the JE vaccine and the low incidence rate of JE in Hong Kong, the expert committee under the Centre for Health Protection concluded that the risks of providing large-scale vaccination outweigh its benefits. Anyone who wishes to make arrangement on their own for receiving JE vaccination is also advised to seek medical opinions beforehand. MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): President, although the ovitrap indexes in Ma On Shan for February and March in 2017 are zero, it does not mean that the mosquito problem and problem of biting midges in the district are not serious. It was reported that JE virus has been isolated from biting midges in Taiwan, thus exposing children of schooling age in the area to certain risks of being infected with the disease. I understand that programmes on the prevention and control of mosquitos and biting midges will be organized in February and March every year, and does the Government have any plan to include biting midges in the watch list, with a view to tackling more effectively the problem of biting midges in black spots in the coming year? Will joint operations be conducted with the Leisure and Cultural Services Department to remove broken branches, rotten leaves and stagnant water? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms YUNG for the supplementary question. The Government has been carrying out surveys of such mosquitos as aedes albopictus that can transmit dengue fever, and the ovitrap index can reflect the presence of adult aedine mosquitos, a vector of dengue fever. Apart from holding inter-departmental meetings to review our anti-mosquito strategy every year, the Government has also made ongoing efforts in preventing mosquito breeding and monitoring the situation. Moreover, we are also aware of the problem of biting midges in many different districts. Therefore, in addition to the large-scale anti-mosquito campaign launched every year, the District Councils and officers of FEHD will jointly tackle other problems identified by members of the public concerning biting midges, pests or rodents. We will also brief the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene of the Legislative Council in due course on our work plan for the coming year.


1003

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary mentioned in the main reply that anti-mosquito measures implemented in some pig farms were found effective. In this connection, I would like to point out that whenever a JE case was identified, the Government would inform the public in the press release issued of the presence or absence of pig farms in the vicinity, and in most cases, there was no pig farm in the target area. However, such a practice has rendered the attempts to bring the mosquito problem in pig farms under control a sheer waste of efforts, and has left a deep impression in people's mind that pig farms are very dangerous places. This is very unfair to our endeavours to promote the future development of livestock industry in Hong Kong. Hence, when JE virus has generally not been found in the vicinity of many pig farms, as evidenced in cases occurred in Kwai Chung, Sheung Shui and Sha Tau Kok where there is no pig farm nearby, I would like to ask the Government: Whether it will review the mechanism for disseminating such information and make adjustment to the contents of future press releases issued in this respect? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Mr HO for his supplementary question and views. There are now 43 registered pig farms in Hong Kong which supply live pigs for human consumption, and as pointed out by Mr HO, these farms are mainly located in places like Yuen Long, the North District and Sai Kong. The information disseminated by the Department of Health for any mosquito problem identified mainly seeks to convey a message to the community that certain risks exist, so that members of the public could be aware of the mosquito problem, the ways to protect themselves against mosquito bites and the Government's anti-mosquito strategy. If there are views that the risk warning messages sent by the Government in this regard might create certain misunderstandings or problems, we will definitely review the relevant system.

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, the main reply by the Secretary has only given us a general picture of the Government's measures against the mosquito problem, but it occurs to me that the main question raised by Mr LEUNG Che-cheung is asking about the situation in Tin Shui Wai, because as we all know, such cases have occurred more than once in Tin Shui Wai. With regard to certain places such as Tin Shui Wai or Tsing Yi, in which the ovitrap indexes have recently reached the alert level, instead of general anti-mosquito work, will the Government specifically introduce certain anti-mosquito and targeted measures to tackle the problem? I am sure recurrent anti-mosquito


measures are in place, but with regard to districts with a serious mosquito problem, will the Government specifically introduce some targeted measures to prevent and control mosquito breeding? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms MAK for the supplementary question. I am sure apart from recurrent measures, such as inter-departmental discussions on anti-mosquito strategy and anti-mosquito work carried out in various districts when an increase is recorded in the relevant ovitrap index, our colleagues in FEHD will also conduct regular surveillance on the situation of mosquito breeding in different places. If there is a sudden increase in mosquito population or a surge in the ovitrap index in a particular place, FEHD will immediately step up the anti-mosquito work in the area. We notice that construction sites are black spots for mosquito breeding, and hence we have all along been issuing advisory letters on the need to remove stagnant water and follow hygiene measures in construction sites. If it is confirmed that JE cases have occurred in Tin Shui Wai or other places, the Department of Health will conduct questionnaire surveys for areas within a 2-km radius of the places visited by the patients concerned, and step up public education on the prevention and control of mosquito breeding. FEHD will also step up the anti-mosquito work in the vicinity, and apart from the use of mosquito larvicidal oil, additional mosquito trapping devices will be installed in order to tackle the problem with the use of more innovative technologies. The Housing Department and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department have also installed additional mosquito trapping devices in premises under their management, with a view to facilitating their anti-mosquito work. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, the main question is mainly about the situation in Tin Shui Wai, but judging from the supplementary questions raised just now as well as the supplementary replies given by the Secretary, the problem is not confined to Tin Shui Wai, pig farms, construction sites or places largely covered with plants. As two fifth of the JE cases this year occurred in Tin Shui Wai, I would like to know whether the Government has tried to find out the reasons behind, so as to ascertain whether it is just a coincidence or whether it is caused by some special reasons, thereby taking the necessary preventive measures.


1005

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Paul TSE for the supplementary question. We attach great importance to every single JE case regardless of the district involved. Although I have mentioned just now that the incidence rate of JE cases in Hong Kong is considered to be low, we have not taken the matter lightly. We have always responded to the mosquito problem identified in any district of Hong Kong with stepped-up actions, and apart from reviewing our anti-mosquito work, we have also strengthened public education in this regard. However, we will still adopt a district-led approach as far as the territory-wide strategic work is concerned. Apart from monitoring the ovitrap index which is closely related to the transmission of dengue fever, I will also attend meetings with the Environment and Hygiene Committee of various District Councils in person. Such meetings, which are convened once every six months, can give me a better understanding of how we can promote our anti-mosquito measures or other initiatives at the district level more effectively. Therefore, a comprehensive planning has indeed been undertaken for our anti-mosquito work in all aspects from macro strategy to coordination work among various departments and cooperation with District Councils. If any exigency arises, FEHD will also step up its work in this respect. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question. Policies on retirement protection 6. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, it has been reported that Professor Richard H Thaler, a Nobel Memorial Prize laureate in Economics, and Professor Cass R Sunstein of the Harvard Law School have pointed out in a book co-authored by them that just by making small thoughtful changes to the environment and by giving a gentle nudge, without forcing people nor constraining their freedom of choice, it is sufficient to create an environment for making appropriate decisions to steer things in a direction that is beneficial to all. Regarding policies on retirement protection, Professor Thaler suggests increasing employees' retirement savings rate through the two mechanisms of automatic enrolment and automatic contribution escalation, while giving employees the freedom to opt out. In addition, the findings of a recent survey indicate that the respondents are most worried about their housing needs after retirement. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


(1) given that since the beginning of this year, the Tracker Fund of Hong Kong ("TraHK") has achieved a rate of return of over 30% excluding dividends whereas the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") schemes have delivered an average rate of return of merely 15% (i.e. only half of the rate of return of TraHK) over the same period, whether the Government will make reference to Professor Thaler's views and create an environment for making appropriate decisions by providing information on the returns of different investment options, and study the abolition of the requirement of the MPF System for making mandatory contributions, to let members of the public make their own choice on whether they will continue investing in MPF schemes, or switch to invest in TraHK, which has an expenditure ratio of about one-fifteenth of those of MPF schemes only, or other investment vehicles; if not, how the authorities explain to the public that it is still reasonable to adopt the practice of obligating such contributions even though, contrary to the suggestion of the Nobel Prize laureate, the practice hinders members of the public from making the most rational and most beneficial investments for their retirement protection;

(2) given that the aforesaid survey findings indicate that the housing

needs after retirement is the public's greatest worry, that financing down payment is the biggest hurdle to home ownership for quite a number of people, and that the housing policy of the current-term Government emphasizes a focus on home ownership, whether the authorities will examine allowing first-time home buyers to use the accrued benefits in their MPF accounts to make down payments; if not, how the authorities convince the public that investing in MPF schemes provides better protection for retirement life than investing in owner-occupied properties; and

(3) as some academics have pointed out that since the Mandatory

Provident Fund Schemes Authority ("MPFA") has failed to make ends meet for seven consecutive years, MPFA is unable to fend for itself, not to mention convincing the public to trust that the MPF System under its monitoring can offer retirement protection, and in view of MPFA's financial deficits for consecutive years, the availability of ample fund options in the investment market which offer better returns than that of MPF schemes which charge account holders fees of nearly $10 billion annually, of the Government's


1007

policies in respect of reminding MPF contributors, particularly those who choose to make additional voluntary contributions, that before they decide to increase their contributions, it is advisable for them to compare the returns of MPF schemes with those of TraHK and other investment tools so as to make sensible choices?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") System runs in the form of privately managed mandatory retirement schemes with an aim to mandating the working population and their employers to make contributions during employment for their retirement savings. It is complementary to other pillars of retirement protection to provide retirement savings for the working population of Hong Kong. Before the MPF System was implemented, only one third of Hong Kong's working population were covered by retirement protection. Currently, 85% of Hong Kong's employed population (over 3.2 million employees and self-employed persons) are covered by the MPF System or other forms of retirement protection scheme enjoying different levels of retirement protection. From inception of the MPF System until end September 2017, MPF contributions together with investment returns have grown to $793 billion, $229 billion of which were investment returns net of fees and charges. Over the 16-year period, the MPF System recorded an annualized return of 4.4% after fees and charges, higher than the 1.8% average yearly inflation rate over the same period. It is clear that the MPF System has added value to the assets of scheme members. Replies to the various parts of Mr Paul TSE's question are as follows:

(1) It is not appropriate to compare retirement protection schemes based on mandatory monthly contributions with retail fund subscriptions.

First, under MPF schemes, trustees are required to take up various

administrative work to protect scheme members, including verifying the monthly contributions made by employers for employees, assisting in recovering default contributions from employers, and reporting default contribution cases to the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority ("MPFA"). However, expenses of retail funds in general (including the Tracker Fund of Hong Kong ("Tracker Fund")) do not include the costs of such administrative work.


In addition, scheme members can invest in the Tracker Fund through MPF schemes as well. At present, 12 out of the 32 MPF schemes provide Constituent Funds that invest in the Tracker Fund.

(2) MPFA is conducting a study on allowing scheme members to

withdraw part of their MPF accrued benefits before attaining the retirement age for first home purchase. However, I must emphasize that the MPF System was set up to help the working population accumulate savings for their retirement. Any arrangements allowing early withdrawal of accrued benefits will lead to a reduction in accrued benefits for scheme members' retirement. There are views from the community that we could follow overseas examples, such as the Central Provident Fund ("CPF") in Singapore, to allow partial withdrawal of accrued benefits for home purchase. In the Singaporean system, there are three sub-accounts in a member's savings scheme for retirement, home purchase and medical purposes respectively; and the contribution rate of CPF could reach 37%. It is inappropriate to compare it directly with the MPF System where the total contribution rate of both employers and employees is only 10%. In any event, in determining whether to allow scheme members to withdraw accrued benefits early on the grounds of first home purchase, the Government will consider all relevant factors holistically, and study carefully whether that reason is congruous with the policy objectives of establishing the MPF System.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

(3) The operating expenses of MPFA are not borne by scheme members.

For almost 20 years since its establishment, MPFA has mainly relied on the investment income generated from the Government's $5 billion one-off Capital Grant provided in 1998 to cover its operating expenses. The MPF legislation approved by the Legislative Council in 1998 provides that MPFA can collect an annual registration fee from MPF trustees to cover its operating


1009

expenses. However, MPFA has not imposed this fee since the implementation of the MPF System. It is not desirable for MPFA to be in a lack of recurrent income. The Government and MPFA are actively studying proposals to help MPFA achieve long-term financial sustainability.

As mentioned in the reply to part (1) of the question, since the nature

of MPF schemes and that of retail investment tools are not the same, it is not appropriate to make comparison between the two.

MPFA currently provides scheme members with different tools to

help them make investment decisions, such as the Fee Comparative Platform for MPF Funds and the Trustee Service Comparative Platform. In February 2018, a new MPF fund performance platform will be launched on MPFA's website. Information about fund performance as well as risk and fee levels will be made available on the platform, thereby facilitating the effective selection of Constituent Funds by scheme members that suit their investment needs and risk appetites.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government of this term has adopted a new housing policy with its focus on home ownership. Such policy initiatives include enhancing the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme ("GSH"), regularizing the Interim Scheme to Extend the Home Ownership Scheme Secondary Market to White Form Buyers ("the Interim Scheme"), and implementing the "Starter Homes" scheme. However, the problem is even if they are successful in the ballot draws for these subsidized flats, they are still down with their luck as the lack of down payment savings will compromise their home ownership plans. What can they do then? Deputy President, unless they have the financial backing of their fathers, a common saying in society, the only feasible way is to use their MPF contributions to make the down payments. In this regard, Prof Andy KWAN and other people have said that MPF contributions, just like properties, are essentially personal assets. Instead of forcing us to make annual MPF contributions and to pay over $10 billion in management fees, why does the Government not follow the Singapore model?


The Secretary has briefly explained the rationale, but I am still unclear about the differences between the two systems. Why does the Government not allow the public to partially withdraw their MPF contributions for property down payments? This could help address people's housing needs, which is the greatest worry of the retirees. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I have said earlier, we appreciate the concern of Members, and we are also aware of the concern about property down payment in society. Therefore, as I have mentioned just now, the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority ("MPFA") is studying the feasibility of withdrawing part of money from MPF accounts for first home purchase. We are undergoing policy study in this area. Nevertheless, I would like to raise two points. First, due to the rather low MPF contribution rate, the average account balance of Hong Kong MPF contributors is only about $180,000. Generally speaking, a part of that $180,000 is not really helpful for home ownership purpose. Despite this, we will study the feasibility of this policy. Second, I would like to talk about the Singapore's experience which I have mentioned just now. Working Singaporean will have three sub-accounts under the CPF scheme, including an Ordinary Account which can be used for home ownership, insurance payment, investment, or education. The proportion of contributions of scheme members for housing, retirement protection, and medical insurance is aged-based. For working Singaporean aged 35 or below, the Ordinary Accounts has a 62% share in the total CPF contributions. So, if they wish to withdraw money from this account for home purchase, they can have around 23% out of the total 37% contribution rate (i.e. close to two thirds) for first home purchase. We can see the great difference between the contribution rate in Singapore and the 10% total contribution rate in Hong Kong. We can see the actual situation. We are considering the conceptual and policy aspects of allowing Hong Kong contributors to withdraw their MPF contributions for first home purchase, just as what other regions are doing. But in the process we see some practical limitations. Because of these limitations, we have to put more efforts in studying the feasibility of this policy and it implementation.


1011

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the MPF Default Investment Strategy ("DIS") has commenced operation since 1 April 2017. DIS, commonly known as the lazybones' fund, adopts an age-based de-risking investment principle. There is a remarkable similarity between this principle and Prof Richard THALER's ideas of giving a gentle nudge and the provision of default choices to retirement funds. DIS is only half a year old, so it will be too early to consider its effectiveness. But I would like to ask the Government if it has set up a review and enhancement mechanism for DIS. If such a mechanism is in place, please give the details. Deputy President. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr LIAO for his supplementary question. DIS, which was launched this April, has a fee control mechanism which caps the management fee at 0.75% and the out-of-pocket expenses at 0.2%. In the launch of DIS, we consider the adoption of such fee caps feasible. Of course, we fully understand that the general public and Members are concerned that there should be rooms for further adjustment of the fee levels. Actually, when we consider that the management fee levels of previous MPF funds mostly stand at 1% or so, the 0.75% fee cap should somewhat meet the requests of MPF contributors. In the mid-term, the Government will introduce an eMPF to see how this centralized electronic administration platform can help relieve the burdens of MPF trustees in scheme administration and other work. We hope that eMPF can help reduce the administration work of trustees and thus lower the MPF fees, though this e-platform will only be available several years later. We will review the management fee cap in three years after the full launch of DIS. MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): If we look for a meaningful rate of return for comparison, we should not simply calculate the average return rate of all funds carrying high, medium and low risks. I would like to point out that the MPF system is offering some index funds which are similar to the Tracker Fund. As at September, the highest return rate of such funds net of the administration fee is 30.7%, comparable to that of the Tracker Fund. If we are a bit aggressive


and pick the Hong Kong equity funds, the best performed fund records a return of 37% net of the administration fee. So, the MPF system actually provides a variety of fund choices. Despite the many fund choices in the MPF system, quite a number of Hong Kong people know very little about the system. This is not desirable. Hence, I would like to ask the Government what measures MPFA will take to let the public have a good grasp of the return rates of funds and the operation of the MPF system, with a view to making them understand the huge benefits the MPF system can bring to them. May I ask what the Government will do in this respect? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on the education front, as I have said just now, MPFA has set up online comparative platforms for MPF, including the Fee Comparative Platform for MPF Funds and the Trustee Service Comparative Platform. We will step up our efforts to help users understand more about the relevant services. Earlier on, I have said that MPFA would launch an enhanced platform on its website in February next year to provide additional information on fund performance as well as risk and fee levels. The objective is to provide scheme members with more information to facilitate their effective selection of funds that suit their investment needs and risk appetites. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): Secretary, I seek your help to review MPFA's handling of claims for withdrawal of MPF accrued benefits for people suffering from mobility impairment or dementia. The current procedures are extremely complicated and the fees are very high. I have handled a case where the family of a coma patient really needs money to support their living and to pay for medical expenses. However, they will need to apply to the court for the appointment of a committee of the estate in order to withdraw the patient's MPF accrued benefits. This will incur a large sum of money. Hence, I would like to ask the Secretary if he will look into the issue and streamline the procedures, so that families of people suffering from mobility impairment or dementia can withdraw the MPF accrued benefits on their behalf to supplement their living or medical expenses.


1013

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding the case Mr LAU has referred to, we have put in place some procedures to deal with claims for the withdrawal of MPF accrued benefits for people with mobility impairment or those who cannot take care of their day-to-day affairs. The aim is to prevent possible impersonation of these MPF contributors or improper handling of their accounts. For the sake of protecting these people, we understand that the procedures are rather stringent. We will ask MPFA to be mindful of any problems that may arise from the procedures and the fees incurred, and to conduct a review to facilitate the claim process. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the high fees charged by MPF trustees has been a fundamental problem in the operation of MPF. For years, many Hong Kong people have criticized the MPF system for its high fees. The introduction of default funds has indeed provided the market with an additional choice, but the problems of the underperformance of some trustees and the funds' charging of high fees but generating low returns continue to prevail. I would like to ask how the authorities assess the high-fee low-return funds which underperform the market. How can the authorities press for a rewards and punishment mechanism to remove funds that do not perform satisfactorily? Will the authorities make such an arrangement to enable people to be better informed and to make better choices? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, trustees of MPF funds will regularly review the fee structure, operation, investment performance, etc of their funds. We can see some cases of trustees' termination of the work of some fund managers under their schemes. We observe that trustees' monitoring of the fund performance is conductive to the overall operation of funds and boosting their returns. Hence, we will urge MPF trustees to pay special attention to the monitoring need. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.


WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The average consultation time per patient in public hospitals and clinics 7. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the Hospital Authority set up a task force in 2008 to follow up on the issue of excessively short average consultation time per patient in its public hospitals and clinics, and at the same time commissioned The Chinese University of Hong Kong to conduct a two-year study and to recommend a reasonable length of consultation time. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:

(1) the reasons why the findings of the aforesaid study have not yet been published by the Hospital Authority so far and whether they will be published expeditiously; if so, when they will be published; and

(2) whether the Hospital Authority will introduce measures to increase

the average consultation time per patient in public hospitals and clinics; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen on the consultation time of the Hospital Authority ("HA") is as follows:

(1) In order to enhance the quality of its primary care services, HA commissioned The Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2008 to conduct a review of the development, positioning and staff training of its general outpatient ("GOP") services for internal reference purpose. The review did not cover whether a reasonable length of consultation time for GOP services should be set. As the review was intended for HA's internal reference, its findings have not been published. HA has, however, implemented a range of improvement measures for its GOP services in the light of the findings, such as increasing the quotas for GOP services, introducing services provided by multi-disciplinary teams of healthcare professionals for the management of chronic diseases and strengthening staff training. Members of the public have been informed of such measures through various channels.


1015

(2) Regarding GOP services, HA provided more than 600 000 additional attendances in the period from 2012-2013 to 2016-2017. The consultation time per patient has also increased gradually. The average consultation time was about 6.7 minutes in 2008. Since 2014, HA has adopted a planning parameter of 8 minutes when planning for additional GOP services, representing an improvement of up to 20%. Moreover, the Coordinating Committee in Family Medicine of HA reviews the consultation time on a regular basis with a view to striking a balance between healthcare manpower and service needs of patients.

As for specialist outpatient ("SOP") services, SOP clinics of HA

provides specialist services for patients referred by medical practitioners registered in Hong Kong. During consultations, specialists conduct necessary examinations and provide appropriate treatments for patients according to their clinical conditions. The actual amount of consultation time varies with the clinical conditions of each patient and the complexity of each case. Generally speaking, the consultation time for new cases is longer than that for old ones. Given Hong Kong's ageing population and rising prevalence of chronic diseases, there is an ever-increasing demand for SOP services. These factors, coupled with the inadequate supply of healthcare manpower, have resulted in the extension of working hours of healthcare staff providing SOP services in order for them to meet the mounting service needs. To enhance service capacity, HA will continue to actively employ additional doctors in different specialties and part-time doctors. Suitable serving doctors who are going to reach the retirement age of 60 or complete their contracts will also be re-employed to perform clinical duties and help train young doctors.

Restrictions on extension of squatters and erection of agricultural structures for agricultural uses 8. MR STEVEN HO (in Chinese): President, quite a number of farmers have relayed to me that currently, farmers have a great need for suitable facilities (e.g. agricultural structures) for use in agricultural production. However, according to the prevailing squatter control policy, any extension, new erection, addition,


change of use or alteration with materials that does not comply with the Squatter Control Survey Record is not allowed for surveyed squatters. On the other hand, some farmers have indicated that at present, the authorities often refuse to grant them a Letter of Approval for Agricultural Structures and the relevant certificate of exemption ("Letter of Approval") for erecting agricultural structures on agricultural land for keeping watch, storage or other related agricultural uses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the current number of surveyed squatters on agricultural land across the territory, with a tabulated breakdown by District Council district;

(2) of the respective numbers of applications for repairing surveyed

squatters on agricultural land received, approved and refused by the authorities in each of the past five years; if there were refused applications, of the reasons for that;

(3) whether the authorities will improve the prevailing squatter control

policy and consider approving applications for repairs or extension of surveyed squatters on the basis of certain constructive factors (such as actual needs in agricultural production and enhancement of productivity, as well as with conservation significance and compatibility with the surrounding environment); if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) of the respective numbers of applications for issuance of Letter of

Approval received, approved and refused by the Lands Department in each of the past five years; if there were refused applications, of the reasons for that; whether other means are currently available for farmers to apply for erecting agricultural structures?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, under the prevailing squatter control policy, squatter structures surveyed during the 1982 Squatter Control Survey ("SCS") were allocated squatter survey numbers, but they remain unauthorized in nature and are only "tolerated" on a temporary basis. The Government's position is that any surveyed squatter structure on Government land is unauthorized occupation of Government land and any surveyed squatter


1017

structure on private agricultural land is an unauthorized structure on private agricultural land, but they are "tolerated" on a temporary basis, provided that the location, dimensions, building materials and use are the same as the record in the 1982 SCS, until the surveyed squatter structure has to be cleared for development, environmental improvement or safety reasons, or until the surveyed squatter structure is phased out through natural wastage. Such "tolerance" does not create any legal rights or interests or obligations, and does not confer on any person the right of occupation of land. Under the squatter control policy, any extension, change of use, rebuilding without prior approval or alteration with materials that do not conform to the record in the 1982 SCS is not allowed. A surveyed squatter structure not complying with the aforementioned requirements will lose the status of a surveyed squatter structure and its SCS Record will also be cancelled. In view of public concern about non-compliant squatter structures and having considered that the squatter control policy explicitly requires enforcement actions to be taken against non-compliant squatter structures, the Lands Department ("LandsD") announced on 22 June 2016 the strengthening of squatter control measures. Specifically, if there is evidence showing that a new extension has been completed after that day, actions will be taken by LandsD to cancel the squatter survey number instantly and demolish the whole unauthorized structure on Government land immediately upon detection without giving any opportunity to rectify. Similarly, if the newly extended structure sits on private land and is in breach of the lease conditions of the private agricultural land, LandsD will immediately take lease enforcement actions. The squatter structures then surveyed for agricultural-related use are regulated by the same squatter control policy. Prior approval is also required for any repairs. Such restrictions, which are not targeted only at agricultural use, have nothing to do with the Government's agriculture policy. Separately, there is an established mechanism to allow farmers who wish to erect agricultural structures (e.g. greenhouses, livestock sheds, hatcheries, fish ponds, store rooms, etc.) on private agricultural land to apply for a Letter of Approval for agricultural structures. To facilitate application by farmers, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") will receive application forms and conduct preliminary processing. AFCD will assess if the structures under application are necessary for agricultural operations, and refer the case and its assessment to LandsD for processing according to the established


procedures. Unlike squatter structures, issuing a Letter of Approval for agricultural structures is an official arrangement which ensures that only applications for erecting agricultural structures are allowed. My reply to the four parts of the question is as follows:

(1) LandsD's seven regional Squatter Control Offices ("SCOs") across the territory keep records of surveyed squatter structures, but no separate statistical breakdown by District Council districts is available. According to the records, the number of surveyed squatter structures involving private agricultural land is tabulated below:

SCO

Number of surveyed squatter

structures on private

agricultural land

(As at 30 June 2017)

Squatter Control/Hong Kong and Lei Yue Mun Office 1 122

Squatter Control/Kowloon, Tsuen Wan and Kwai Tsing Office 5 095

Squatter Control/Islands Office 4 591 Squatter Control/New Territories East (1) Office (covering Sai Kung, Sha Tin, Tai Po and (part of) North District)

20 541

Squatter Control/New Territories East (2) Office (covering (part of) North District and (part of) Yuen Long)

78 593

Squatter Control /New Territories West (1) Office (covering Tuen Mun and (part of) Yuen Long) 43 290

Squatter Control /New Territories West (2) Office (covering (part of) Yuen Long) 107 340

Total 260 572


1019

(2) Information on applications for repairs of surveyed squatter structures on private agricultural land processed by LandsD during the period from 2012 to 30 June 2017 is as follows:

Year

Number of applications received

Number of applications

approved

Number of applications rejected

Reasons for rejection

2012 8 8 0 - 2013 10 10 0 -

2014 9 8 1

The conditions of the squatter structure did not comply with the surveyed records of the structure.

2015 11 9 2

The applicant withdrew the application; The genuine intention of the applicant was to re-erect his/her surveyed squatter structure on another lot.

2016 12 9 3

The applicants withdrew their applications; The applicant failed to provide documents to prove that he/she was the resident of the surveyed squatter structure.

2017 (up to

30 June) 9 9 0 -

(3) As set out in the preamble of my reply, under the prevailing squatter

control policy, surveyed squatter structures remain unauthorized in nature and are only "tolerated" on a temporary basis. Any extension or change of use is not allowed.

If there is a genuine need to build an agricultural structure, a mechanism has been put in place to allow an application for a Letter of Approval (for details, please refer to the introductory paragraphs


in the preamble of my reply) or a Short Term Waiver ("STW") (for details, please refer to part (4) below) for agricultural structures on private agricultural land, so that such facilities can be built.

(4) Information on the number of applications received, approved and

rejected, and on reasons for rejection in respect of Letters of Approval for agricultural structures on private agricultural land received by LandsD during the period from 2012 to 30 June 2017 is tabulated as follows:

Year

Number of applications received

Number of applications

approved

Number of applications rejected

Reasons for rejection

2012 55 50 1 The dimensions of the structure exceeded the requirement.

2013 21 19 1 The dimensions of the structure exceeded the requirement.

2014 21 10 3

The applicant failed to provide sufficient information; The application did not meet planning requirements; Unauthorized structure(s) was(were) found on the lot(s) under application.

2015 27 12 3 The applicants failed to provide sufficient information.

2016 30 8 3

The applicant failed to provide sufficient information; Unauthorized structure(s) was(were) found on the lot(s) under application.

2017 (up to

30 June) 21 5 1

Unauthorized structure(s) was(were) found on the lot(s) under application.


1021

Note: Since it takes time to process an application, the applications approved and rejected during the above mentioned periods may not correspond to the applications received during the same period. According to our records, more than 50 applications are still being processed. Most of the cases are pending supplementary information to be provided by the applicants. District Lands Offices can only continue processing the applications upon receipt of the required information.

Apart from a Letter of Approval for agricultural structures mentioned in the introductory paragraphs in the preamble, a land owner may also submit to LandsD an application for an STW to build other non-domestic facilities on private agricultural land. When the application is received, LandsD will seek advice from relevant government departments and post a notice on the application site. If the application for an STW is approved, the applicant has to pay the relevant fee to the Government.

Assistance Scheme for Hawkers in Fixed-pitch Hawker Areas 9. MR HO KAI-MING (in Chinese): President, the Government launched the Assistance Scheme for Hawkers in Fixed-pitch Hawker Areas in June 2013. One of the arrangements under the Assistance Scheme is to provide a one-off ex-gratia payment to hawkers operating in 43 fixed-pitch hawker areas who have opted for voluntary surrender of their hawker licences to the Government. The Assistance Scheme has been in place for four years since its launch and will expire in June next year. Regarding the implementation of the Assistance Scheme, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of applications received and approved so far by the authorities for surrender of hawker licences, and set out a breakdown of the approved applications by (i) name of fixed-pitch hawker area and (ii) location of stall in the hawker area; and

(2) as the authorities indicated at a committee meeting of this Council

that they would consider re-issuing the surrendered hawker licences for application by interested parties, whether the authorities will consult the trade and the public on the plan of re-issuing the hawker licences; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and of the expected time for announcing the details of the plan?


SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, to reduce the fire risks posed by on-street hawking activities, the Government obtained funding approval of $230 million from the Finance Committee on 15 March 2013 for operating a Hawker Assistance Scheme ("the Scheme") for the licensed hawkers in 43 fixed-pitch hawker areas in the territory. The five-year Scheme commenced on 3 June 2013. It aims to further improve the fire resisting capability and design of hawker stalls, and to relocate stalls away from staircase discharge points of buildings or emergency vehicular access. The Scheme covers the following features:

(a) Hawkers who are required by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") to relocate their stalls for fire safety reasons may apply for a one-off relocation cum reconstruction grant to dismantle their old stalls and build new ones at the newly assigned pitch spaces to meet the fire-resisting specifications drawn up by FEHD in consultation with the Fire Services Department and the Buildings Department.

(b) Hawkers who are not required to relocate their stalls under (a) may

apply for a one-off in-situ reconstruction grant to carry out partial or full reconstruction of their stalls in-situ to meet the prescribed fire-resisting specifications for reducing fire risks.

(c) An ex-gratia payment ("EGP") of $120,000 will be paid to hawkers

(except those whose licences are newly issued pursuant to the hawker licensing policy review in 2008-2009(1)) who opt for voluntary surrender of their hawker licences to the Government. This helps expedite the release of vacant pitches and hence facilitates the relocation of stalls which pose higher fire risks. Hawkers who have obtained a one-off grant for relocation cum reconstruction or in-situ reconstruction of their stalls under the Scheme will however not be eligible for EGP, if they surrender their hawker licences subsequently.

(1) A comprehensive review on hawker licensing policy was conducted in 2008 and 2009.

A number of measures were subsequently implemented, including issue of new hawker licences for vacant fixed pitches with support from respective District Councils. For this group of new entrants to the hawking trade, should they choose to surrender their licences so soon after the licences have been issued, a strong case for granting them an EGP does not exist.


1023

My reply to the various parts of the questions is as follow:

(1) Since the Scheme was launched in June 2013, apart from relocating stalls of higher fire risks and handling stall reconstruction as a matter of priority, FEHD has also endeavoured to bring about enhancement to the operating environment in the hawker areas, including rationalizing the overall layout of the concerned hawker areas where circumstances permitted and enhancing safety of the fixed electrical installations to hawker stalls. As at 30 September 2017, excluding applications for stall relocation and reconstruction, 789 eligible hawkers surrendered their licences for EGP. Among them, 720 cases were completed with concerned pitches vacated.

Regarding the pitches mentioned above, some have been used to accommodate stalls located outside building staircase discharge points or emergency vehicular access and stalls that require relocation due to fire safety considerations; some have been absorbed in the course of rationalization of the overall layout of hawker areas; and some have been reserved for resiting commitments. As at 30 September 2017, only 336 vacant pitches remain. Please refer to Annex for details.

FEHD is actively following up cases in which hawkers have yet to apply for the Scheme or the reconstruction of stalls is still in progress, thereby bringing all stalls up to relevant standards and improving the fire safety of the hawker areas by the end of the Scheme in June 2018.

(2) As regards whether to re-issue new hawker licences to fill the existing vacant pitches, FEHD will carefully consider the matter in due course, taking into account the circumstances of individual hawker areas, including fire safety, environmental hygiene situations and business environment, comments of relevant departments, as well as the views of relevant District Councils and local residents. The matter will be reported to the relevant Legislative Council Panel when appropriate.


Annex

Position Showing Applications for Surrender of Hawker Licence under the Hawker Assistance Scheme and Vacant Pitches

(As at 30 September 2017)

District Location of Hawker Areas

Number of Application for

Surrender of Hawker Licence

for Ex-gratia Payment

Number of Application for Surrender of

Hawker Licence processed

Number of

Vacant Pitches*

Eastern Chun Yeung Street 19 19 2 Marble Street 51 48 7 Kam Wa Street 21 20 5 Tai Tak Street 15 14 3 Mong Lung Street 10 8 0 Sub-total 116 109 17

Central and Western

Pottinger Street 7 7 6 Graham Street 13 13 11 Gage Street 4 4 4 Li Yuen Street East 5 5 0 Li Yuen Street West 5 5 0 Peel Street 18 17 7 Wing Kut Street 1 1 0 Upper Lascar Row 1 1 0 Man Wa Lane 1 1 0 Sub-total 55 54 28

Wan Chai Gresson Street 12 12 8 Cross Street 2 2 2 Tai Yuen Street 2 1 1 Jardine's Crescent 25 25 9 Sub-total 41 40 20

Yau Tsim Reclamation Street 60 55 25 Pak Hoi Street 3 3 3 Saigon Street 5 3 2 Canton Road 26 21 18 Bowring Street 13 10 7 Temple Street 55 48 33 Sub-total 162 140 88


1025

District Location of Hawker Areas

Number of Application for

Surrender of Hawker Licence

for Ex-gratia Payment

Number of Application for Surrender of

Hawker Licence processed

Number of

Vacant Pitches*

Mong kok Tung Choi Street 161 150 37 Canton Road 64 52 36 Fife Street 15 14 11 Yin Chong Street 13 12 7 Ki Lung Street 16 13 8 Poplar Street 8 6 4 Fa Yuen Street 1 1 0 Nelson Street 14 14 13 Sub-total 292 262 116

Sham Shui Po Wing Lung Street 33 31 22 Fat Tseung Street 17 14 7 Cheung Fat Street 23 23 12 Fuk Wa Street 11 10 1 Fuk Wing Street 1 1 1 Pei Ho Street 7 7 3 Apliu Street 12 12 9 Ki Lung Street 7 7 4 Tai Nan Street 1 1 1 Kweilin Street 0 0 0 Sub-total 112 106 60

Kowloon City Pau Chung Street 11 9 7 Sub-total 11 9 7 Total 789 720 336

Note: * The figure represents the number of pitches vacated as a result of voluntary surrender of

hawker licences under the Scheme. The figure does not include pitches located outside building staircase discharge points/emergency vehicular access, earmarked to accommodate stalls that require relocation due to fire safety considerations, absorbed in the course of rationalization of the overall layout of hawker areas, and reserved for resite commitments due to various purposes.


Designated camp sites in country parks being occupied for a long period of time 10. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Chinese): President, it was reported by the media last month that some people had occupied designated camp sites in country parks for a long period of time for profiteering purpose. Other people who wanted to use the camp sites would have camping areas released to them only if they rented tents and bought food from the occupiers. I have also found that some people have allegedly occupied camp sites with old and dilapidated camping equipment. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of complaints received by the authorities in each of the past five years about the occupation of camp sites in country parks; how the authorities handled such complaints; among them, of the number of those which were found substantiated and the follow-up actions taken by the authorities; whether the occupation of camp sites for profiteering purpose is against the law; if so, of the penalties; and

(2) whether the authorities inspected the use of designated camp sites in

each of the past five years; if so, of the details; of the policy in place to ensure that members of the public have a fair chance to use the camp sites, and whether they have reviewed the effectiveness of that policy?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, our reply to the questions by Mr CHAN Han-pan is as follows:

(1) In the past five years, the number of complaints related to occupation

of camping sites in country parks received by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") is:

Year Number of complaint 2012 0 2013 3 2014 7 2015 15 2016 20


1027

After receipt of the complaints, AFCD would conduct site inspections and step up patrol as necessary. In the investigations of the above complaint cases, AFCD did not detect any occupation of camping sites for rental or food sale for profit.

According to the Country Parks and Special Areas Regulations,

Cap. 208A ("the Regulations"), camping and erection of tent in country parks are allowed in designated camping sites only. The sale or rental of any commodity or article in country parks without permission contravenes the Regulations and is liable to a maximum fine of $2,000 and imprisonment for three months.

(2) AFCD has set up 41 designated camping sites in all country parks in

Hong Kong. Staff of AFCD regularly patrols the camping sites in country parks and will step up patrol during long holidays. AFCD is responsible for the daily management of these camping sites including the handling of wastes and recyclables, cleansing of public toilets and facility maintenance. AFCD will take appropriate follow-up action if any illegal act is detected during patrol.

In the designated camping sites in country parks, AFCD provides

basic facilities for camping including flat areas for erecting tents, tables and benches, barbecue pits, toilets and litter/recycling bins, etc. Members of the public can use these camping facilities free of charge on first come, first served basis. AFCD noticed that there has been an increasing demand in camping facilities within country parks in recent years and some designated camping sites are very popular in long holidays. To meet the demand of country park visitors, AFCD has improved the facilities of camping sites and designated more camping sites in recent years including the establishment of two new camping sites in Sai Wan and Tai Mong Tsai in 2014 and 2015 respectively, and the upgrading of the Wan Tsai campsite in the Sai Kung West Country Park in December 2016. AFCD will continue to enhance the services and facilities for camping based on the usage and popularity of camping sites in country parks.


Regulation of inbound Mainland tour groups 11. MS STARRY LEE (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that Hong Kong is one of the popular tourist destinations for Mainland residents. In the preceding "National Day Golden Week" alone, the number of inbound Mainland tour groups ("IMTGs") doubled as compared with that of the same period of last year. In order to combat problems such as zero-fare IMTGs and forced shopping, the Mainland authorities introduced the Tourism Law in 2013, with a view to curbing the irregularities in the tourism industry. However, some members of the industry have pointed out that the effectiveness of such legislation has gradually weakened following the changes in the business situation of the tourism industry, and there are signs of resurgence of activities involving IMTGs at low fares and with arranged shopping. In addition, given the low tour fares of these IMTGs, arrangements are normally made to send tour group members to have meals and shop at designated restaurants and shops located in such districts as To Kwa Wan, Hung Hom, North Point and Aberdeen. As a result, there are a large number of coaches parking and picking up/dropping off tourists in those districts, causing serious traffic congestion and affecting the daily lives of the residents there. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of complaints received from IMTG members by the authorities in each of the past three years, and among such complaints, the numbers of those involving forced shopping and those in which tour group members discovered after shopping at designated shops that the goods they bought did not match the descriptions; of the numbers of investigations conducted and law enforcement actions taken in respect of such complaints;

(2) whether it will study the taking of measures from the perspective of

consumer rights to combat arranged shopping tours, including deploying more police officers or customs and excise officers to patrol outside designated shops in order to enhance the deterrent effects; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) whether it will discuss with the Mainland authorities ways to step up

efforts in combating IMTGs at low fares; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;


1029

(4) of the number of complaints received by the authorities in each of the past three years about IMTGs causing nuisances to local residents, as well as the details of such nuisances, with a breakdown by District Council district; of the authorities' measures to follow up such complaints;

(5) whether it has assessed if the tourism supporting facilities in the

aforesaid districts are sufficient to meet the demand in the coming three years; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(6) whether it will study the introduction of a demerit point system by

way of legislation under which travel agents will be given demerit points if complaints against them about causing nuisances to a district have been found substantiated, and travel agents who have incurred full points will have their licences suspended?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government all along attaches great importance to the balanced, healthy and sustainable development of the tourism industry, and strives to balance the impact of the industry on Hong Kong's economy and the livelihood of our community. With the relevant bureaux and departments consulted, our consolidated reply to the question raised by Ms Starry LEE is as follows:

(1) The numbers of complaints received by the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong ("TIC") from visitors of inbound tour groups from the Mainland and follow up by TIC in the past three years are shown in Annex 1.

(2) The Government attaches great importance to the protection of

travellers' consumer rights. TIC has regulations prohibiting travel agents and tourist guides from compelling or misleading visitors in any way to make purchases, or forcing visitors to stay in registered shops. In addition, before arranging tour group members to patronize registered shops, travel agents must register with TIC the information on the shops concerned. Registered shops have to make pledges with TIC, including complying with the requirements of the "Refund Protection Scheme (Registered Shops) for Inbound


Tour Group Shoppers" ("Refund Protection Scheme"). According to the Refund Protection Scheme, if Mainland visitors are dissatisfied with their purchases, and the purchased items are not damaged and are free from wear and tear because of use, they can receive full refund if their request for refund is made within six months after their purchase and with the original receipts. If a registered shop breaches its pledges, TIC may, depending on the circumstances, penalize the shop concerned. TIC also deploys staff to patrol registered shops to make sure that the shops, travel agents and tourist guides comply with its relevant regulations.

Meanwhile, the Trade Descriptions Ordinance ("TDO") prohibits

unfair trade practices deployed by traders against consumers, including aggressive commercial practices. The Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED"), as an enforcement agency, adopts strategies comprising law enforcement, compliance promotion, as well as publicity and public education. Insofar as the tourism industry is concerned, C&ED maintains close liaison with the trade and TIC and organizes seminars on TDO from time to time. C&ED also proactively handles enquiries and complaints from the locals and tourists, and conducts patrols and promotional activities in the market.

C&ED conducts large-scale patrol exercises at districts where

various registered shops are located (including Hung Hom, To Kwa Wan, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kwun Tong, Kowloon Bay, Tai Kok Tsui, Lai Chi Kok, etc.) and reminds shopkeepers to uphold business integrity. If any violation of TDO is detected, C&ED will take enforcement actions resolutely to combat illegal acts. During long Mainland holidays, C&ED steps up patrols and enforcement operations. For example, during the National Day Golden Week this year, C&ED launched an operation codenamed "Aegis", in which C&ED stepped up patrols at shopping spots for tour groups and shops in tourist areas, and distributed leaflets to tourists and tourist guides, so as to promote smart consumption and remind traders to abide by TDO.

(3) The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

("HKSAR") all along maintains close liaison with the China National Tourism Administration ("CNTA") on the regulation of tourism markets in Hong Kong and the Mainland, and regularly


1031

provides updates on the situation of Hong Kong's tourism industry to CNTA. The Mainland authorities are also supportive of the HKSAR Government's regulatory work. The Tourism Commission ("TC") and TIC will inform CNTA of suspected non-compliance cases in Hong Kong to facilitate the latter's investigation and follow-up with regard to the Mainland organizing agents concerned. In addition, the HKSAR Government and CNTA signed an Agreement on Further Enhancement of Tourism Co-operation between the Mainland and Hong Kong in August 2017. Both parties agreed to enhance cooperation in tourism regulation by working together to tackle unreasonably low-priced group tours and other acts of non-compliance, and foster the healthy and orderly development of the tourism markets in the Mainland and Hong Kong.

(4) to (6) The numbers of complaints concerning nuisances caused by inbound

tour groups from the Mainland that TC received in the past three years are shown in Annex 2. The Transport Department ("TD") and Hong Kong Police Force ("Police") do not maintain statistics on the breakdown of complaints involving inbound tour groups from the Mainland.

The relevant departments of the Government have been adopting

various measures to minimize the impact brought about by tour groups on the community. On tackling congestion caused by coaches, the Police has been taking enforcement actions to crack down on illegal coach parking. TD and other relevant departments have also been promoting the use of legal coach parking spaces through exploring and introducing different measures. The Government has been providing additional pick-up/drop-off spaces and parking spaces for coaches at appropriate locations (including tourist and shopping hotspots) on condition that road safety and other road users are not affected, as well as letting car parks for coach parking on the basis of short-term tenancy ("STT"). For instance, since 2015, TD has set up a new metered coach parking site at Hoi Yue Street, North Point, providing about 30 coach parking spaces. To tackle the shortage of coach parking spaces in the Kowloon City District, the Lands Department ("LandsD") arranged


for the temporary letting of two areas of unallocated Government land at Wa Shun Street as well as at the junction of Bailey Street and Sung Ping Street, Hung Hom on the basis of STT in 2016, providing about 20 and 70 coach parking spaces respectively. The retendering of the two STT car parks is being followed up by LandsD. Furthermore, the Government will request developers to provide appropriate numbers of coach parking spaces in suitable new developments.

TC, in collaboration with TIC, all along maintains liaison with travel

agents, restaurants and shops receiving inbound tour groups from the Mainland, calling upon them to maintain order when receiving the tour groups in order not to affect the livelihood of the community. From time to time, TIC issues circulars to its travel agent members urging them to ensure that tour coaches comply with traffic rules when going to tourist attractions, as well as to minimize the inconvenience caused to other road users. TC will continue to, through TIC, remind travel agents and tourist guides to step up visitor flow management when bringing visitors to shops and restaurants, as well as to pay attention to the real-time situation at the destinations and avoid crowding around specific restaurants and shops at the same time. TC will also encourage the trade to make use of information technology to strengthen communication with shops, restaurants, tourist guides, coach drivers, etc. to improve visitor flow control.

To strengthen cooperation and coordination among various bureaux

and departments, the Financial Secretary convened a high-level tourism coordinating meeting in early October 2017. At the meeting, the relevant bureaux and departments agreed to step up a number of measures, including strengthening enforcement actions against illegal coach parking and exploring measures to promote the use of legal parking spaces by more coaches, such as increasing the number of temporary metered coach parking sites and letting car parks with short-term coach parking spaces, so as to further reduce the impact of visitor flow and road traffic arising from inbound tour groups on the districts concerned. The Government will continue to closely monitor the condition of tourism supporting facilities in different districts and maintain close liaison with the travel trade and other stakeholders, so as to minimize the inconvenience caused by


1033

inbound tour groups to the community through appropriate and practicable means.

The Government introduced the Travel Industry Bill into the

Legislative Council in March 2017 for the establishment of the statutory body Travel Industry Authority ("TIA") to regulate travel agents, tourist guides and tour escorts in a holistic manner. When formulating the staffing requirements of TIA, the Government will ensure adequate manpower thereof for inspecting whether travel agents receive inbound tour groups in an orderly manner. As necessary, TIA will consider formulating appropriate administrative measures to tackle relevant issues in the future. We will continue to seek the Legislative Council's early approval of the Travel Industry Bill, such that the new regulatory regime can be implemented as soon as possible to strengthen regulation of the market on inbound tour groups from the Mainland.

Annex 1

Numbers of Complaints Received by TIC from Visitors of Inbound Tour Groups from the Mainland and

Follow up by TIC in the Past Three Years

2015 2016 2017

(January to September)

Total number of complaints from visitors of inbound tour groups from the Mainland*

260 cases (involving 301 items)



Complaint items: Coerced shopping by tourist guides 121 51 49 Shopping at registered shops# 148 110 108 Others 32 16 19 Notes: * A single case may involve more than one complaint item. # This covers problems concerning refund and purchased products not matching sales

descriptions, quality, prices, maintenance services, etc.


In the past three years (i.e. from 2015 to September 2017), there were a total of 50 established non-compliance cases involving coerced shopping by tourist guides after TIC's handling, but there was no established non-compliance case involving purchased products not matching sales descriptions.

Annex 2

Numbers of Complaints Received by TC concerning Nuisances Caused by Inbound Tour Groups from the Mainland

in the Past Three Years

District Involved 2015 2016

2017 (January to September)

Kowloon City District

6 cases (traffic congestion,

environmental hygiene and noise)

2 cases (traffic congestion and environmental

hygiene)

5 cases (traffic congestion and environmental

hygiene) Wan Chai District

1 case (traffic congestion and environmental hygiene)

Eastern District

1 case (traffic congestion)

Yau Tsim Mong District

1 case (traffic congestion)

Southern District

1 case (traffic congestion and environmental hygiene)

1 case (traffic congestion

and noise) Others 1 case*

(traffic congestion and noise)

Total 11 cases 2 cases 6 cases Note: * The case concerned reflected in general the nuisances caused by tourist activities. The

districts mentioned included border areas, Eastern District, Kowloon City District, Yau Tsim Mong District, Southern District, etc.


1035

Review of long-term and indeterminate prison sentences 12. MR DENNIS KWOK: President, the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Ordinance (Cap. 524) provides that long-term and indeterminate prison sentences must be referred to the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board for review in accordance with specified timetables. Where the Board considers it appropriate to defer making a recommendation for a determinate sentence for a prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence, it may order the release of the prisoner conditionally under supervision. Moreover, the Board may order a prisoner whose indeterminate sentence has been converted by the Chief Executive to a determinate one to be released early under supervision. According to the last two reports of the Board, which cover the period from June 1997 to June 2004, only two cases of conditional releases under supervision were effected throughout the whole period. Some family members of prisoners have expressed concern about the infrequent grant of the aforesaid two kinds of release of prisoners. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of an annual breakdown of the respective numbers of cases since July 2004 in which the Board ordered prisoners to be (i) conditionally released under supervision and (ii) released early under supervision;

(2) whether the Correctional Services Department makes

recommendations on the aforesaid two kinds of release of prisoners to the Board; if so, of the respective numbers of recommendations made each year since July 2004; and

(3) when the next Board report will be issued?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: President, the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board ("the Board") is an independent statutory body established pursuant to the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Ordinance (Cap. 524) ("the Ordinance"). Its main functions include reviewing the indeterminate sentences or long-term prison sentences of 10 years or more of persons in custody ("PICs"). Under section 6 of the Ordinance, the Board shall consist of 8 to 11 members appointed by the Chief Executive. The President and Deputy President must be judges or former judges of the Court of First Instance. Other members include persons with expertise and experience in various disciplines such as psychiatry, psychology, social work, law, education, commerce or industry, etc.


Under section 11 of the Ordinance, the Commissioner of Correctional Services must refer cases of PICs serving the aforementioned sentences to the Board for sentence review in accordance with the stipulated review schedules. For example, the sentence of a PIC serving a mandatory life sentence or a long-term prison sentence is to be referred to the Board for review as soon as practicable after the 5th anniversary of the date of the start of the sentence, then every two years thereafter. The Board would review each case on its own merits and consider all the relevant factors, including the nature of the offence committed by PIC, the length of the sentence already served, whether PIC has repented his wrongdoing, and the possible impact on public safety, etc. Our reply to the different parts of the question is as follows:

(1) Pursuant to section 15(1)(b) of the Ordinance, the Board may, when reviewing the sentence of a PIC, make a conditional release order to direct a PIC serving an indeterminate sentence, such as a life sentence, to be conditionally released under supervision if the Board wishes to defer making a recommendation to the Chief Executive for converting the sentence to a determinate one. From 2004 to 2016, 10 PICs were ordered by the Board to be conditionally released under supervision.

Pursuant to section 15(1)(c) of the Ordinance, the Board may make a post-release supervision order to direct the early release of a PIC under supervision if his indeterminate sentence has been converted by the Chief Executive to a determinate one. From 2004 to 2016, 102 PICs were ordered by the Board to be put under supervision after release. The annual breakdown of the above figures is at Annex.

(2) On each sentence to be reviewed by the Board, the Correctional Services Department ("CSD") would provide the Board with a report on PIC covering such matters as the length of the sentence already served, PIC's conduct in prison, remorse shown for the offence and CSD's recommendations, if any, such as whether an indeterminate sentence should be converted to a determinate one. After considering CSD's recommendations and other relevant factors, if


1037

the Board recommends an indeterminate sentence to be converted to a determinate sentence and the Chief Executive accepts the recommendation, the Board will make a post-release supervision order. CSD does not make recommendations for conditional release under supervision. The Board does not keep statistics on the number of recommendations made by CSD.

(3) Information on the Board, including its functions, duties,

membership, sentence review schedules and procedures, principles which the Board must have primary regard to, factors to be considered by the Board in the sentence reviews, caseload and statistics, is available on its web page. As such information is already available to the public, the Board does not publish regular reports separately.

Annex

Number of PICs ordered by the Board to be conditionally released under supervision and put under supervision after release

(2004-2016)

Year Number of PICs ordered by the

Board to be conditionally released under supervision

Number of PICs ordered by the Board to be put under supervision

after release 2004 0 9 2005 0 8 2006 1 10 2007 1 2 2008 0 10 2009 1 5 2010 0 7 2011 1 4 2012 2 2 2013 1 14 2014 2 10 2015 0 15 2016 1 6 Total 10 102


Supply of and demand for parking spaces in Ma On Shan 13. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, in recent days, many residents in Ma On Shan relayed to me that there was a severe shortage of parking spaces in the district. Regarding the supply of and demand for parking spaces in Ma On Shan, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective current numbers of parking spaces provided in the (i) housing estates, (ii) shopping malls and (iii) temporary car parks in Ma On Shan, and (iv) the current number of roadside metered parking spaces in the district, with a tabulated breakdown by the geographical distribution of such parking spaces and category of vehicles to be parked;

(2) whether it has compiled statistics on the numbers of various

categories of vehicles in frequent need of parking in Ma On Shan at present;

(3) of the number of fixed penalty tickets issued by the Police in each of

the past three years in respect of illegal parking in Ma On Shan; (4) whether the authorities will provide additional parking spaces for

motorcycles, container vehicles, medium/heavy goods vehicles and tourist coaches in Ma On Shan, so as to solve the shortage problem of such parking spaces in the long run; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) given that in recent years the authorities resumed a number of pieces

of land originally used as temporary car parks in Ma On Shan and rezoned them for housing development purpose, resulting in an even tighter supply of parking spaces in the district, whether the authorities will separately identify idle land for providing temporary car parks in the district; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(6) of the number of revisions that have been made to the standards and

guidelines on parking facilities, since they were drawn up, in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"), as well as the rationale and basis for each of the revisions; and


1039

(7) as it is stipulated in HKPSG that "[o]ptimum use should be made of existing parking facilities and the demand for such facilities should be carefully managed. In those situations where demand for facilities still exceeds supply consideration should be given to providing additional facilities provided that such provision would not be contrary to the Transport Strategy and that it would not overload the road system", whether the authorities will, targeting at the problem of insufficient parking spaces in Ma On Shan, formulate short, medium and long term measures, with a view to thoroughly solving the problem of severe shortage of parking spaces in the district; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of Dr Elizabeth QUAT's question is as follows:

(1) and (2) At present, there are over 18 000 vehicle parking spaces of various

types in Ma On Shan. Among them, 16 846 parking spaces are located in residential developments or shopping malls; 1 376 are located in short-term tenancy ("STT") car parks; and 248 are on-street parking spaces. The details on distribution of parking spaces are at Annex 1.

The Transport Department ("TD") has not compiled statistics on the

numbers of various types of vehicles which need to be parked in Ma On Shan.

(3) In 2015, 2016 and 2017 (up to 30 September), the Police have issued

18 244, 19 423 and 15 788 fixed penalty tickets respectively in relation to illegal parking in the area under the Ma On Shan Division.

Enforcement actions have been carried out as appropriate by the Ma

On Shan Division in accordance with the Selected Traffic Enforcement Priorities of the Police. To tackle illegal parking, the Ma On Shan Division has implemented targeted traffic control measures at different hours. The Police will continue to closely monitor the traffic conditions.


(4), (5) and (7) The Chief Executive's 2017 Policy Address set out that the

Government will implement a series of short- and medium- to long-term measures to increase parking spaces in various districts having regard to the local situation in order to combat illegal parking. These measures include studying the opening up of parking spaces and loading/unloading bays currently designated for own use of the development projects concerned and putting them up for night-time public parking of commercial vehicles; requiring developers to provide parking spaces at the higher end of the range under the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"); and providing public car parks in suitable new government, institution and community facilities.

TD addresses the parking issues of Ma On Shan mainly through the

following measures:

(a) providing additional on-street parking spaces at locations where there is parking demand, on condition that traffic flow, road safety and road users are not affected;

(b) keeping close liaison with relevant departments to identify

suitable sites for use as temporary car parks as far as possible and monitoring the utilization of such car parks. If the demand for parking spaces for individual type of vehicle is particularly high, the required numbers of parking spaces for those vehicle types will be specified in the tendering or contract renewal of the temporary car parks concerned so as to relieve the demand for those types of parking spaces; and

(c) requiring developers to provide parking facilities in new

development projects. TD will suggest to developers the numbers of parking spaces required for the projects concerned in accordance with HKPSG, and will consider adopting flexibly the higher end of the range of parking standards as the basis of calculation, taking into account traffic and transport related factors in the vicinity of the projects. TD will also impose additional terms on suitable projects requiring the provision of public parking spaces.


1041

TD has planned 18 additional on-street night-time parking spaces for goods vehicles at Hang Kin Street and Sui Cheung Street in Ma On Shan. District consultation on the plan is underway. TD has also proposed adding around 40 motorcycle parking spaces at the STT car park planned for Area 73 in Ma On Shan. Meanwhile, the department will continue to actively communicate with other relevant government departments to identify idle land suitable for use as STT car parks.

According to the survey on STT car parks in Ma On Shan conducted

by TD in late 2016, the day-time utilization rates of parking spaces for various types of vehicles were below 70%; while the night-time utilization rates of parking spaces for private cars and coaches were generally higher. A number of sites in Ma On Shan originally used for temporary car parks have been taken back by the Government in recent years for residential or government facilities development. Although parking spaces will be in relatively tight supply in the areas concerned during the construction phases, TD has taken into account the traffic demand of those areas and required the project proponents to include in the projects public parking spaces for various types of vehicles in order to relieve the public demand for parking spaces. For instance, TD has requested that public parking spaces for private cars, minibuses/school buses, light goods vehicles and motorcycles should be provided under the planned "Sports Centre in Area 103, Ma On Shan" project.

(6) From time to time, the Government reviews and updates the

standards in relation to parking spaces set out in HKPSG. The considerations include the utilization rates of various types of parking spaces and circumstances affecting vehicle fleet growth, etc. HKPSG was formulated in 1982. The Government has updated the standards and guidelines in relation to parking spaces in Chapter 8 of HKPSG a number of times since 1997. The scope of amendment is set out at Annex 2. The Government will continue to review and update the standards and guidelines of parking space in a timely manner.


Annex 1

Number of parking spaces in Ma On Shan A. Residential developments and shopping malls

Property names Private cars

Light goods

vehicles

Medium/ heavy goods

vehicles Motorcycles Total

Baycrest 503 - - 21 524 Bayshore Towers 511 - - - 511 Chevalier Garden 546 35 - - 581 Chung On Estate 862 60 - 73 995 Double Cove 1 022 8 - 104 1 134 Fok On Garden 93 - 4 - 97 Fu Fai Garden 65 - - - 65 Heng On Estate 500 40 - 45 585 Horizon Suite Hotel 42 - - - 42 Kam On Court 215 - 4 23 242 Kam Tai Court 718 4 - 43 765 Kam Ying Court 455 - - 38 493 La Costa 347 - - - 347 Lake Silver 344 - - 35 379 Lee On Estate 339 25 - 46 410 Ma On Shan Centre 214 - - - 214 Marbella 102 - - - 102 Monte Vista 1 255 - - 41 1 296 Mountain Shore 375 - - 40 415 Ocean View 533 - - 44 577 Oceanaire 437 - - 44 481 Park Belvedere 441 - - 69 510 Saddle Ridge Garden 823 51 - - 874 Sausalito 135 - - 9 144 Sunshine City Plaza 1 394 - - - 1 394 The Waterside 101 - - - 101 Villa Athena 1 180 - - - 1 180 Villa Oceania 111 - - 28 139


1043

Property names Private cars

Light goods

vehicles

Medium/ heavy goods

vehicles Motorcycles Total

Vista Paradiso 1 575 - - - 1 575 Yan On Estate 99 8 - 11 118 Yiu On Estate 475 17 - 64 556 Total 15 812 248 8 778 16 846 B. STT car parks

AAddress STT

Number Private Cars

Light goods

vehicles

Medium/heavy goods

vehicles

Coaches Motorcycles Total

Area 77, Po Tai Street, Ma On Shan, Sha Tin, N.T.

ST 2018 238 - - - - 238

Choi Sha Street, Lok Wo Sha, Ma On Shan, N.T.

ST 2086 371 - 51 16 - 438

The junction of Hang Fai Street and Sai Sha Road, Ma On Shan, N.T.

ST 2073 178 - - - - 178

On Chun Street, Area 100, Ma On Shan, Sha Tin, N.T.

ST 2051 243 - - - - 243

On Luk Street, Area 103, Ma On Shan, Sha Tin, N.T.

ST 2125 233 29 - 11 6 279

Total 1 263 29 51 27 6 1 376 Note: The above data are compiled by TD based on the information available on the car park operators' websites and information provided by the organizations and car park operators concerned for reference.


C. On-street parking spaces

AAddress

Metered Non-metered

Total Private cars

Goods vehicles

Coaches Subtotal Private

cars

Night-time goods

vehicles

Motor- cycles

Subtotal

A Kung Kok Shan Road

24 - - 24 - - 3 3 27

Hang Chi Street

- 20 - 20 - - - - 20

Hang Kwong Street

- - - - 2 - - 2 2

Hang Shun Street

52 22 - 74 1 - 10 11 85

Lok Wo Sha Lane

35 - 8 43 - - - - 43

Ma Kam Street

- - - - 2 - - 2 2

On Chun Street

- - - - - 15 14 29 29

On King Street

21 - - 21 2 - 17 19 40

Total 132 42 8 182 7 15 44 66 248

Annex 2

Chapter 8 of HKPSG Amendments in relation to parking standards and guidelines

Month/Year Scope of Amendments Nov 1997 - Based on the findings of the study on the Provision of Industrial

Premises and the Development of Planning Guidelines and Design Parameters for New Industrial Areas and Business Parks (PIPNIB Study)

- Parking and loading/unloading requirements in industrial/office

buildings for a number of uses including import/export firms Oct 2000 - Revised guidelines for pedestrians, cycling and parking

facilities Mar 2003 - Revised standards and guidelines for parking facilities in

various types of development projects (including private residence, public housing, commercial, business and industrial developments and schools)


1045

Month/Year Scope of Amendments Jan 2005 - Revised parking standards for conference and banquet facilities

in hotels Dec 2006 - Minor technical amendments to the parking standards for cars

and bicycles in residential developments May 2009 - Revised parking standards for subsidized housing based on

finding of the Study on Parking for Public Housing Developments

May 2011 - Provided guidelines for electric vehicle charging facilities Aug 2011 - Provided planning standards for cross-boundary coach

termini/stops and to update parking standards for persons with disabilities

Feb 2014 - Revised parking standards for private housing based on findings of TD's "Review of Parking Standards for Private Housing Developments in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines"

May 2016 - Inserted a footnote on parking requirements for subsidized saleable housing developments

Building safety 14. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Chinese): President, subsequent to a building collapse incident at Ma Tau Wai Road in 2010, the Buildings Department ("BD") conducted an inspection on all private buildings aged 50 years or above in the territory, and launched in 2012 the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme ("MBIS"). However, in June this year, the balcony of a flat in a 61-year-old building collapsed. An investigation report on this incident published by BD on the 4th of last month pointed out that declined concrete strength, corrosion of steel reinforcement bars, increase in loading and lack of maintenance were the factors contributing to the collapse of the balcony. It has been reported that alterations were made to the layouts of a number of flats in the building concerned for converting such flats into sub-divided units for letting. Moreover, a property developer has acquired 80% of the property titles of the building concerned and intends to implement a redevelopment project after it has acquired the remaining property titles. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


(1) among the private buildings aged 50 years or above in the territory in respect of which inspections have been conducted by BD or carried out under MBIS, of the respective numbers of those buildings (i) which have been assessed as having danger of collapse and in urgent need of repair, (ii) some flats in which have been partitioned into sub-divided units or undergone unauthorized structural alterations, and (iii) the owners of which have not complied with the statutory orders issued by BD on the building repair works required to be carried out and the number of prosecutions instituted by the authorities against such owners;

(2) as there is no incentive for developers to carry out repair and

maintenance works for those old buildings of which they have acquired a majority of the property titles and which are awaiting demolition, whether the authorities have measures in place to step up the monitoring of the state of repair and maintenance of such buildings, so as to prevent collapse of such buildings due to prolonged lack of maintenance; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) whether the authorities have currently put in place a contingency

response mechanism to provide prompt assistance to affected residents in the event that a building collapse incident happens; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) whether the authorities will review afresh the existing policies on

and procedures for building redevelopments, with a view to expediting redevelopments for old buildings thereby thoroughly addressing the problem of ageing of buildings; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Buildings Department ("BD") has been adopting a risk-based approach to deal with dilapidated buildings and unauthorized building works ("UBWs") systematically. However, building safety problems could not be sustainably and effectively resolved by BD's enforcement actions alone. Owners shall assume responsibility for the safety as well as repair and maintenance of their properties


1047

while the Government would provide assistance and support to responsible owners and take enforcement actions against dilapidated or defective buildings and UBWs in an orderly manner. Regular inspections and timely repairs are crucial and one should not wait until the buildings have become defective or dangerous for taking remedial actions. To strengthen its efforts in dealing with aged buildings and promoting building safety, BD has fully implemented the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme ("MBIS") since 30 June 2012, which tackles building dilapidation at its root through upholding the concept of "prevention is better than cure". The relevant legislation empowers BD to issue statutory notices to owners of private buildings aged 30 years or above (except domestic buildings not exceeding three storeys), requiring them to carry out prescribed inspections and, if necessary, prescribed repairs of their buildings. The inspection should cover the external elements, structural elements, fire safety elements, drainage system and UBWs of the buildings. In consultation with BD and the Home Affairs Department ("HAD"), the Development Bureau provides a consolidated reply as follows:

(1) In the past three years (i.e. from 2014 to 2016), BD: issued a total of 2 098 statutory investigation or repair orders for

dilapidated or defective buildings, covering 731 buildings aged 50 years or above. During the same period, 2 813 buildingsNote were repaired or rectified, and BD instigated a total of 110 prosecutions against non-compliance with statutory investigation or repair orders of which 66 cases were convicted. In respect of the prosecutions cases, BD does not compile statistics on the age of the buildings involved;

issued mandatory building inspection notices to a total of 2 697

buildings (covering 1 021 buildings aged 50 years or above). During the same period, among the 935 buildingsNote with inspection

Note: Relevant figures may not correspond to the statutory investigation orders/statutory repair

orders/mandatory building inspection notices issued during the same period from 2014 to 2016.


completed (including 400 buildings aged 50 years or above), repair works were required for 840 buildings (including 390 buildings aged 50 years or above); and

inspected 8 729 sub-divided flats ("SDFs") and found 397 cases of

unauthorized structural alteration. There were 756 SDFs with irregularities rectified. In respect of these cases, BD does not compile statistics on the age of the buildings involved.

(2) As mentioned above, owners have the responsibility to carry out regular inspections and repairs of their properties and the common parts of the building to ensure building safety.

As far as the work of BD is concerned, BD has been adopting a

multi-pronged approach to tackle the dilapidation and ageing of buildings. Apart from the aforementioned MBIS, BD follows up public reports on individual cases of defective buildings and issues statutory orders requiring owners to carry out investigations or repairs to properly deal with such problems.

In addition, through large scale operations, BD proactively selects

target buildings for taking actions against dilapidated or defective buildings and UBWs. Statutory orders will be issued to require owners to carry out investigations and repair works if necessary.

Owners who fail to comply with statutory mandatory building

inspection notices, investigation orders, repair orders, as well as UBW removal orders will be prosecuted. In case the condition of the building or UBW constitutes imminent danger, BD may appoint consultants and government contractors to carry out building inspections, investigation, repair and removal works related to the statutory orders/notices in the owners' default and the costs of the works, supervision charges and surcharges will be recovered from the owners upon completion of the works.

(3) BD has put in place established mechanism and procedures to handle

building-related emergencies including arranging professional officers to stand by duty during both office and non-office hours. Upon receiving reports of building-related emergencies, the duty


1049

officers will go to the scene promptly for follow-up actions including on-site assessment of the building safety condition, devising emergency remedial actions or temporary support proposals for the building, mobilizing government contractors to carry out emergency demolition or strengthening works, and applying to the court for emergency closure orders if warranted to ensure building and public safety. The established mechanism also includes notifications to relevant departments, such as the Fire Services Department, the Hong Kong Police Force, HAD and the Transport Department, etc. Emergency responses and assistance will be given by BD to these departments according to the respective functions of the departments so as to ensure public safety and mitigate impacts of emergency incidents on residents and the general public.

Under the government emergency response system, HAD, being the

disaster relief coordinator, will coordinate disaster relief efforts with other government departments at the local level through District Officers. The respective District Office ("DO") will provide suitable relief services at the scene to meet the needs of people affected, such as setting up inter-departmental help desks, making on-the-spot registration, and opening temporary shelters for accommodating the homeless victims. DO will also provide the victims with daily necessities in collaboration with relevant government departments, or refer cases to the relevant departments such as Housing Department and Social Welfare Department for provision of housing and other types of assistance. Moreover, relief funds will be granted to the registered victims as necessary to meet their imminent needs.

(4) In accordance with the Urban Renewal Strategy promulgated in

February 2011, the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") would focus its resources on taking forward urban renewal by way of "Redevelopment" and "Rehabilitation". To explore more effective ways of addressing the urban decay problem, URA has commenced in May 2017 a district planning study on a pilot basis for Yau Ma Tei and Mong Kok ("Yau Mong District Planning Study"), which have a high concentration of old buildings. The Yau Mong District Planning Study aims to explore ways of enhancing the efficiency of existing land use and the redevelopment potential in the two districts.


The findings would serve as the basis for URA to identify more effective and efficient ways for urban renewal as well as practical and feasible ideas and modus operandi for adoption in other districts and the work strategy of urban renewal in future. URA has also commenced in August 2017 a study on building rehabilitation strategies to formulate appropriate and sustainable measures to prolong the lifespan of buildings.

Recommendations contained in the Law Reform Commission's Report on Arrest published in 1992 15. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, the Report on Arrest ("the Report") published by the Law Reform Commission ("LRC") in 1992 put forward 61 recommendations on the exercise of powers of stop, search, arrest and detention ("statutory powers") by law enforcement agencies and related matters. After studying the Report, a working group set up by the authorities in 1993 accepted 30 in full and 21 in principle, and rejected 10 recommendations therein. On the other hand, the English Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ("PACE") of the United Kingdom provided that the Home Secretary should lay before the House of Commons of the Parliament the codes of practice on the exercise of statutory powers by police officers for approval, and that police officers breaching the codes could be subject to disciplinary actions. LRC recommended in the Report that practices similar to those under PACE be adopted for Hong Kong, but working group did not adopt the recommendation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the latest position of the implementation of each of the recommendations accepted in full or in principle by the working group, as well as the relevant work plans for the coming three years (set out one by one in a table); in respect of each of the recommendations rejected by the working group, of the reasons for rejection given by the authorities at that time, and whether the authorities assessed afresh its feasibility in the past three years; if so, of the assessment outcome (set out one by one in a table);

(2) as it has been almost 25 years since the Report was published, and

as there are comments that at present, the society's demand for and expectations of human rights and conduct of law enforcement


1051

officers are higher as compared with those of the past, whether the authorities will consider afresh adopting the recommendation to draw up codes of practice for police officers, as put forward in the Report; if so, of the details and the follow-up work; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) given that one of the concluding observations, published by the

United Nations Committee against Torture in February 2016 after its consideration of the fifth periodic report submitted by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region ("HKSAR") on the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in HKSAR, is that Hong Kong should make public the police general orders and related guidelines on the use of force, whether the authorities will accept the suggestion by making public fully the Police General Orders, the Force Procedures Manual and other related orders or codes of practice; if so, of the details and the follow-up work; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President,

(1) The Report published by the Law Reform Commission ("LRC") in 1992 put forward 61 recommendations on the powers of stop, search, arrest and detention of law enforcement agencies and other matters related to the exercise of such powers. In 1993, the Government set up an inter-departmental working group to study the recommendations. The views of the working group were deliberated in the public consultation in 1996 and discussed at the Legislative Council Panel on Security meeting in February 1998. The HKSAR Government also provided information on the follow-up actions on the various recommendations for the meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Security in July 2004.

Among the 61 recommendations put up by LRC, 51 were accepted

or accepted in principle, and the majority of them had been suitably implemented with regards to the existing law enforcement practice and local situation. These include, for example, the appointment of "Custody Officers" and "Review Officers" by law enforcement agencies to ensure those in detention are treated properly, stating in


layman's term the reasons for the stop and search to the persons affected by law enforcement agencies, the expanded use of video-interviewing with suspects, disclosure of statistics and information in relation to stop, search and road block checks, as well as ensuring that the person arrested should be informed that he is under arrest and of the ground for the arrest, etc. Regarding the recommendations to be followed up, since the relevant reasons and grounds were put up many years ago, we need to review and consider their way forward taking into consideration the changes of situation since then and local law enforcement experience.

As regards the remaining 10 recommendations, including the

adoption of the English Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on issuing code of practice to facilitate the exercise of powers by police officers, as well as the recommendation of giving persons not charged or not convicted the rights to witness the destruction of their fingerprints and samples, etc., the working group has rejected them as they were considered unnecessary, impracticable and/or would unjustifiably weaken the law enforcement capability.

(2) The Police General Orders ("PGO") are made by the Commissioner

of Police ("CP") in exercise of the power conferred on him by section 46 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232). The section provides that CP may from time to time make such orders that he thinks are expedient to enable him to administer the Police Force, render the Police Force efficient in the discharge of its duties and for carrying out the objects and provisions of the Police Force Ordinance, etc.

LRC recommended that when it is necessary to amend the code of

practice, the law enforcement agency should go through the legislative process regardless of how minor the proposed amendment is. We consider that the code of practice must be amended frequently in the light of day-to-day operational experience to ensure that it meets the needs of law enforcement. LRC's recommended way of amendment would be inflexible and might affect the responsiveness of the law enforcement agency. We consider the existing way of amending the code of practice through administrative means effective and should be maintained.


1053

(3) The Police have currently uploaded part of PGO to the Police's public website for public inspection. As for other orders or guidelines which are not disclosed, their disclosure would affect the proper and efficient conduct of the Police's operations, and the Police's work in the prevention and detection of crimes. As regards the use of force, there are stringent police guidelines for the use of force, and the force to be used by the Police shall be the minimum force necessary for achieving a lawful purpose. Police officers shall, before using force and when circumstances permit, give warning of their intention to use force, and the persons involved shall be given every opportunity, whenever practicable, to obey police orders. Police officers shall exercise a high level of restraint at all times in the use of force. The use of force shall cease once the purpose of which has been achieved. The guidelines on the use of force are not suitable for disclosure as operational details are involved.

Innovation and Technology Fund for Better Living 16. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, the Innovation and Technology Fund for Better Living ("FBL"), established by the Government with an allocation of $500 million, has been open for application since 31 May this year. FBL subsidizes projects aiming at improving people's daily living or benefiting specific community groups through the use of innovation and technology ("I&T"). Non-governmental organizations subvented by the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"), public bodies, professional bodies and trade associations are eligible to apply. Some members of the social welfare sector have indicated that at least 200-odd small and medium-sized social welfare organizations ("SWOs") not subvented by SWD are not eligible to apply, and they consider that the threshold for application for FBL is too high. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of applications received, vetted, approved and rejected by the authorities so far; the contents and modes of the I&T projects involved in the applications; the total and average amounts of funds granted to the approved applications; if there were applications rejected, of the main reasons for that;


(2) whether the authorities had, before launching FBL, consulted the social welfare sector on issues such as the eligibility criteria for application for FBL; if so, of the details and the views received; and

(3) of the justifications for FBL to accept applications from the

aforesaid organizations only; whether it will extend the coverage of organizations eligible for application to include small and medium-sized SWOs not subvented by SWD; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, our reply to the question raised by Mr Charles Peter MOK is as follows:

(1) The Innovation and Technology Fund for Better Living ("FBL") was launched on 31 May this year. As at 25 October, the FBL Secretariat has received a total of 650 enquiries and 17 applications. From the enquiries received by the FBL Secretariat and through the contact with relevant organizations, we learn that a number of organizations are preparing their applications and plan to submit them shortly.

Part of the applications received are from private companies, which

do not meet the eligibility criteria of FBL. The FBL Secretariat has returned the applications concerned, and advised the applicants to partner with eligible organizations for resubmission.

The applications received fall into different categories, including:

mobile apps that provide information, equipment that facilitates persons with disabilities and teaching tools with technology applications. The average amount of funding sought is about $3 million. The Assessment Panel of FBL will convene meeting in November to assess project proposals that have gone through preliminary assessment.


1055

(2) We have consulted relevant government departments, Legislative Council Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting and the Assessment Panel on the details of FBL prior to its launch. The Assessment Panel comprises members from different sectors, including the social welfare sector. All the sectors have expressed support for the establishment of FBL. FBL's mode of operation, including eligibility criteria, project requirements and implementation details, etc., is the result of rounds of discussions. Upon the launch of FBL, this bureau conducted four briefing sessions to promote FBL for organizations including the social welfare sector. Participants showed very positive response to FBL.

(3) FBL generally accepts applications from the following

organizations, including: non-governmental organizations subvented by the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"), public bodies, professional bodies and trade associations. This is to ensure that the applicant's background aligns with the objectives of FBL (including the project should involve the application of innovation and technology ("I&T") to improve people's daily living, or address the needs of specific community groups, and be non-profit-making during the funding period) in order to prevent abuse. Nevertheless, flexibility is also provided under FBL. If an applicant can provide information to prove that its objective and business meet the requirements of FBL, the application will be considered by the FBL Secretariat. Indeed, the FBL Secretariat has received applications from social welfare organizations ("SWOs") not subvented by SWD and is conducting assessment.

The FBL Secretariat has also received many enquiries from SWOs

not subvented by SWD and explained to them that they are welcomed to submit applications if the proposed projects contain I&T elements and are beneficial to the community.

As FBL is a completely new scheme, we will regularly evaluate its

operation and effectiveness. We also plan to conduct a review two years after its launch to consider whether its mode of operation or other details require enhancement or adjustment.


Management of stray cattle 17. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, regarding the management of stray cattle, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of stray cattle captured, sterilized and relocated by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") in each year since the Capture-Sterilization-Relocation Programme was launched in 2011; the current health conditions of such cattle;

(2) as it has been reported that AFCD relocated stray cattle to Chong

Hing Water Sports Centre in Sai Kung, but that place does not have sufficient grass and water for cattle's consumption nor enough woodland for their shelter, and the cattle may easily be knocked down by vehicles as there are many vehicles travelling there during holidays, of the measures put in place by AFCD to improve the living environment of such cattle, and whether AFCD will review its criteria for selecting the destinations for cattle relocation;

(3) as some members of the public have gone to Chong Hing Water

Sports Centre to feed the cattle, whether AFCD has assessed if the fodder used is suitable for feeding the cattle and if such action will result in the cattle losing their instinct to forage for food; if so, of the assessment outcome; of the measures put in place to ensure that the stray cattle in various country parks are healthy and have enough food;

(4) of the number of stray cattle which sustained injuries or died after

being hit by vehicles in each of the past five years; the measures put in place by the authorities to reduce such traffic accidents; as some members of the public have suggested fitting stray cattle with reflective collars to enable drivers to notice cattle wandering on the roads at night, with a view to reducing such traffic accidents, whether the authorities will consider adopting the suggestion; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) given that AFCD has all along been exploring for years the

feasibility of the proposal of installing cattle grids to confine the movements of stray cattle, but it has so far not yet implemented the


1057

proposal, of the latest findings of its exploration (including the problems that may be involved), and whether it has any implementation timetable for the proposal;

(6) whether AFCD has made reference to other practices in overseas

countries, with a view to formulating measures to effectively confine the movements of stray cattle and reduce traffic accidents involving cattle; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(7) as it has been reported that in Sai Kung in September this year, after

a cow had been hit by a taxi and died, a person at the scene who suspected the cow was pregnant cut open the abdomen of the cow at the roadside in an attempt to save the life of an unborn calf, whether such an act of a person who is not a registered veterinary surgeon is legal and subject to regulation by law; how the Government currently handles animals (including cattle) injured in traffic accidents which are suspected to be pregnant?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Transport and Housing Bureau, my reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) Since the end of 2011, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") has been implementing the "Capture-Sterilization-Relocation" programme for stray cattle to control their population and reduce the nuisance caused to nearby residents. Over the past three years (i.e. 2014 to 2016), a total of 60, 70 and 69 heads of cattle respectively were relocated after being captured and sterilized where circumstances warranted. AFCD conducts on-site inspections at the places to which the cattle are relocated on a weekly basis to observe the cattle's conditions. Overall speaking, most of the relocated cattle have been in good health conditions since the launch of the programme.

(2) and (3) The siting criteria of AFCD for cattle relocation include ensuring

adequacy in food, water, woodland and shelter for the cattle, and that the sites are kept at a distance from public roads in the urban areas.


AFCD will review from time to time the sites for relocation of cattle to assess whether the habitat continues to be suitable for cattle.

Located within the Sai Kung Country Park, Chong Hing Water

Sports Centre in Sai Kung complies with the above siting criteria and provides a suitable living environment for cattle. The cattle can roam around freely in the country park, and live with the feral cattle originally inhabited there. With about 4 500 hectares of green space, the Sai Kung Country Park has abundant natural resources (including plants, water and woodland) to provide adequate food and a suitable habitat for cattle in all seasons.

AFCD does not encourage members of the public to feed stray cattle,

and has reminded cattle concern groups to stop feeding them. When members of the public are found feeding cattle during AFCD's regular inspections, they will also be reminded the same. Stray cattle by nature forage in the wild. Providing food for cattle may affect their natural behaviour and survival instinct, causing them to become reliance on human for food. Over time, stray cattle may even seek food from countryside visitors and take in food that is inappropriate for their consumption (such as meat).

(4) to (6) The Government does not have statistics on the number of cattle

injured or died in traffic accidents. Appropriate traffic signs are erected by the Transport Department at road sections where necessary to alert drivers of cattle.

AFCD notes that cattle concern groups have put reflective strips on

some cattle. However, AFCD is of the view that relocating cattle to spots with lower traffic flows is more effective than putting reflective strips on cattle in minimizing traffic accidents involving cattle. AFCD will continue with the work of relocating cattle to country parks.

AFCD and relevant departments have carried out a detailed study on

cattle grids, which found that such facilities are generally used on private land in farms in foreign countries to prevent cattle from


1059

going outside the farms. With reference to the overseas experience, it is considered that there are potential safety hazards to road users if cattle grids are installed on local public roads.

(7) In case of animal (including cattle) getting injured in a traffic

accident, the frontline police officers will inform AFCD or the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("SPCA") for follow-up actions. Depending on their respective condition, injured animals will normally be sent to SPCA for treatment. Regarding cattle injured, AFCD officers will attend the scene to determine whether the injured cattle is suitable for treatment on the spot or needs to be sent to AFCD's farm for detailed inspection and treatment, based on the specific circumstances of the case (including the degree of injury and whether the injured cattle is pregnant).

In the absence of appropriate medical facilities, and on public health

grounds, normally no surgery will be performed by veterinary surgeons on animals at the scene of accident. Anyone who wantonly or unreasonably does any act causing any unnecessary suffering to injured animals would contravene the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) and may be prosecuted.

Operation and management of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal 18. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Chinese): President, the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal ("KTCT") commenced full operation in 2014. The facilities at places within KTCT such as the ancillary commercial area and the taxi passenger waiting area at the transportation area are managed by the terminal operator, while those at places such as the communal areas and the KTCT Park are managed by the relevant government departments. The Tourism Commission under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is responsible for monitoring the operation of KTCT. On the other hand, the Director of Audit pointed out in the Report No. 68 of the Director of Audit, which was published in April this year, that the actual number of 191 cruise calls to Hong Kong in 2016 (of which 95 calls were made at KTCT) was 31.3% and 5% lower than the Government's estimated numbers under the "high growth scenario" and the "low growth scenario" respectively. Moreover, more than half of the ancillary commercial area was not let out for business, ancillary transport facilities were


inadequate, lifts/escalators malfunctioned repeatedly, and the problem of water leakage/seepage within KTCT remained to be improved. Regarding the operation and management of KTCT, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the percentage of the leased area in the total area of the ancillary commercial area of KTCT in each of the past three years;

(2) whether it knows the rental income received by the terminal operator

in each of the past three years; the amount of variable rent paid by the terminal operator to the Government and the percentage it represented in the total amount of rental income, in each of the past three years;

(3) as the terminal operator has implemented a number of measures to

enhance the ancillary transport facilities at KTCT, including (i) arranging different shuttle bus routes for choices by cruise passengers, (ii) giving prior notification to the taxi trade on the berthing schedule one day before a cruise arrives in Hong Kong, and (iii) issuing tunnel coupons to taxi drivers who pick up passengers at KTCT, of the current operation of such measures;

(4) whether the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department

investigated in the past three years the causes of the repeated malfunctions of lifts/escalators and gave the public a detailed account of the investigation report and the follow-up work; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) whether, in the past three years, the Architectural Services

Department gained an understanding of the causes of the problem of water leakage/seepage within KTCT and worked out a thorough solution; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(6) whether the authorities reviewed in the past three years the

positioning of the ancillary commercial area of KTCT, such as converting the area into an open space and a composite commercial area with Hong Kong people being the main service targets, so as to attract various types of shops to move in; if not, of the reasons for that; if so, the details, and whether the review outcome will be made public; and


1061

(7) whether the authorities will study the appointment of an independent organization to operate KTCT on free market principles; whether the authorities will step up the monitoring of the operation of KTCT so as to avoid wasting public resources?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, back in the earlier years when the Government was considering the construction of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal ("KTCT"), it was projected that the number of ship calls and cruise passenger throughput in Hong Kong as a whole would range from 181 to 258 and from 564 102 to 1 041 031 respectively by 2023. The number of ship calls at KTCT this year is estimated to be 190, and the total number of ship calls in Hong Kong as a whole will reach 250. The cruise passenger throughput in Hong Kong as a whole this year is estimated to exceed 850 000. In other words, the number of ship calls and cruise passenger throughput in Hong Kong as a whole this year will both achieve the then projected performance by 2023. My reply to the seven parts of Member's question is as follows:

(1) The ancillary commercial area at KTCT has a total floor area of 5 600 sq m and is divided into seven shops of different sizes. As at end 2015, five (71%) of the shops with a total area of 4 890 sq m (87%) were leased. As at end 2016, six (86%) of the shops with a total area of 5 245 sq m (94%) were leased. Currently, all the seven (100%) shops of the ancillary commercial area with a total area of 5 600 sq m (100%) were leased. However, one of the merchants who occupies a shop of 2 196 sq m has ceased operation due to its own issues. The terminal operator is taking legal actions to recover possession of the shop. Yet, since the terminal operator is still required to pay rent to the Government, the Government does not suffer any financial loss.

(2) The terminal operator is required to submit to the Government a

monthly income statement with breakdown of every rental income item. The amount of variable rent payable by the terminal operator to the Government is set as a percentage (from 7.3% to 34%) of the terminal operator's gross receipts. We cannot disclose information involving the actual receipts of the terminal operator (including the


rental income of the ancillary commercial area) as it belongs to internal commercial information of the terminal operator which is confidential.

(3) The Government and the terminal operator have been continuously

improving the transport connectivity of KTCT. During ship call days, the terminal operator would arrange free shuttle bus services that are provided by two nearby shopping malls. According to our observation during the last year, the current level of service is sufficient to meet the demand of cruise passengers. Under normal circumstances, passengers do not have to wait before boarding.

Regarding taxi supply, the terminal operator has continued to

communicate closely with the taxi trade. In addition to providing relevant information (such as cruise ships arrival time and passenger capacity) to taxi call centres one day in advance of ship calls, the terminal operator also meets regularly with representatives of the taxi trade to furnish them with ship call information. Apart from that, on special occasions, such as when two cruise ships are at berth simultaneously, the terminal operator would distribute tunnel coupons as incentives to increase taxi supply as and when necessary. According to our observation during the past year, taxi supply is adequate. The taxi waiting time for visitors is in general no more than 15 minutes even during the times when two cruise ships are at berth simultaneously.

In addition to the above measures, the transport service operators

have, at the request of the Tourism Commission, strengthened the services of green minibus and franchised bus, and introduced ferry service so as to improve the transport connectivity of KTCT. Separately, at the high-level tourism coordinating meeting chaired by the Financial Secretary, it was decided that Government departments should further enhance the transport connectivity of KTCT. Specific measures include: (i) expediting the works of Kai Tak Road D3 (Metro Park section), which links KTCT with Kowloon Bay and the vicinity, with a view to commencing construction works in 2018; (ii) introducing a new bus route to connect KTCT and Kowloon Tong as early as in the first half of 2018; and (iii) completing the installation of various sets of signage for guiding drivers to KTCT as soon as possible by the second quarter of 2018.


1063

(4) There are a total of 78 lifts and escalators in KTCT. The Tourism Commission has been working closely with the Electrical and Mechanical Services Trading Fund ("EMSTF"), which is responsible for the repair and maintenance works, to ensure that these facilities could function properly. Past records indicated that most of the incidents were due to external factors, including improper operation (e.g. misuse of keyswitch) and obstruction by foreign objects, etc. and could generally be rectified within a few hours. Equipment failure constituted only a small portion (about one third) of all the incident. EMSTF has taken further measures, including (i) improving the operational environment of lifts/escalators; and (ii) educating users on the proper use of lifts/escalators (including enhanced training and ad-hoc training in addition to basic operation training) in order to reduce the number of incident reports. Following the implementation of these measures, the number of incident reports has dropped by 36% from 25 cases in the first half of 2016 to 16 cases (with only 5 cases related to equipment failure) during the same period in 2017.

(5) The total floor area of KTCT is over 140 000 sq m and the

850-metre long terminal building is surrounded by the sea on its three sides. Therefore, a relatively large surface area of the terminal building is exposed to the threats of inclement weather. Against these circumstances, the Architectural Services Department ("ArchSD") has been closely monitoring the seepage/leakage situation of the terminal building during inclement weather since its completion and has been requesting building contractors to carry out corresponding improvement works whenever necessary.

At the request of the Tourism Commission, ArchSD has formulated

multiple measures (including improvement works and enhanced inspections) with corresponding specific timeline to address the seepage/leakage issues. Some of the measures have been completed and the situation has further improved. The number of seepage/leakage cases has reduced by 60%, from 74 cases in the first half of 2016 to 29 cases during the same period in 2017, and the vast majority of which (i.e. 25 out of 29) were minor seepage cases only.


(6) The main purposes of KTCT are to enable berthing of cruise ships and for embarkation/disembarkation of cruise passengers. The ancillary commercial area, as approved by the Town Planning Board, accounts for only 4% of the total floor area of KTCT and is mainly for serving cruise passengers. Moreover, the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Park at the rooftop of the terminal building is open for public use year round by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. In fact, to better utilize the facilities, KTCT is also used for other purposes that would not affect cruise operation, such as hosting of events.

(7) The cruise operation area and the ancillary commercial area of

KTCT are currently operated on commercial principles by a terminal operator appointed through open tender. The terminal operator is required to regularly report its work to the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Management Committee, which is chaired by the Tourism Commission and comprises members from relevant government departments. The Government has been overseeing the performance of the terminal operator through the Committee effectively, and has requested the operator to make improvements in certain aspects, including the utilization rate and leasing situation of KTCT. In the past four years, the utilization, leasing situation and vehicular flow arrangements of KTCT have shown continuous improvements. The Government will continue to supervise the performance of the terminal operator to ensure the optimal use of the facilities of KTCT and its orderly operation.

Monitoring of minor works carried out in private residential buildings 19. MS STARRY LEE (in Chinese): President, in June this year, part of the balcony of a flat in an old building in Hung Hom collapsed. The investigation report on the said incident released last month by the Buildings Department ("BD") pointed out that the collapse was triggered by the overloading of a cantilevered beam of the balcony concerned, which was attributable to the prolonged lack of maintenance of the cantilevered beam, alterations to the parapet and raised floor finishes. It has been reported that quite a number of flats in old buildings in the district have been converted into a number of sub-divided units ("SDUs"), and property titles of a majority of the flats in such buildings have been acquired by developers pending redevelopment, thus making


1065

it difficult for the owners of such buildings to raise funds to carry out building maintenance works. On the other hand, if owners of private residential buildings intend to carry out certain minor building works on their flats, they are required to submit a notice to BD in advance pursuant to the provisions under the Minor Works Control System ("the Control System"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of notices for minor works submitted under the Control System received by BD in each of the past three years;

(2) of the number of cases that came to the knowledge of BD in each of

the past three years in which minor works had been carried out without submission of notices required under the Control System, with a breakdown by the way they came to BD's knowledge (i.e. (i) reports by members of the public, (ii) referrals from other government departments and (iii) investigations initiated by BD); the number of cases in which the parties concerned were convicted as a result, as well as the penalties generally imposed on them; and

(3) as converting a flat into a number of SDUs would easily cause water

seepage problems and add loads to buildings, how the authorities ensure that such minor works will not affect the structural safety of buildings?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, when carrying out any alteration works at their premises, owners shall ensure the relevant works comply with the relevant provisions of the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123) ("BO") and its subsidiary legislation. To facilitate the members of public to carry out small scale building works through simplified statutory procedures, the Government launched the "Minor Works Control System" ("MWCS") on 31 December 2010. Under the simplified procedures of the Building (Minor Works) Regulation (Cap. 123N) (B(MW)R), owners can appoint prescribed building professionals and registered contractor to carry out the works and submit the relevant documents to the Buildings Department ("BD") per the respective categories of the minor works. In consultation with BD, the Development Bureau provides a reply as follows:


(1) In 2014, 2015 and 2016, BD received about 107 000, 116 000 and 135 000 minor works submissions respectively. These submissions include the notices of commencement of works submitted before the carrying out of Class I and Class II minor works(1) and certificates of completion submitted upon completion of all classes of minor works. BD does not categorize or compile statistics on the number of these minor works submissions.

(2) Except those works exempted under BO or minor works under

MWCS, all building works require prior approval and consent from BD before commencement. If such works were commenced without having obtained the prior approval and consent from BD, they would be regarded as unauthorized building works ("UBWs").

For enforcement of UBWs, be cases are reports from the public,

referrals from other government departments or investigation initiated by BD, BD will take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with the prevailing UBWs enforcement policy, which includes serving statutory orders under BO to the owners of the premises requiring removal of UBWs. Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with an order served on him within the specified period shall be guilty of an offence. According to BO, such persons may be liable on conviction to a fine of $200,000 and to imprisonment for one year, and to a fine of $20,000 for each day during which the failure to comply with the Order has continued.

In 2014, 2015 and 2016, BD received about 41 000, 41 000 and

37 000 report cases of UBWs. Besides, BD will also conduct large-scale operations by serving statutory removal orders against actionable UBWs upon inspection on the relevant owners. In 2014, 2015 and 2016, BD selected about 200, 190 and 80 target buildings for carrying out of the large-scale operations.

(1) Minor works are classified into three classes of I, II and III according to their nature,

scale, complexity and safety risk they posed. Class I minor works are relatively more complicated, they require higher expertise and more stringent supervision and appointment of prescribed building professionals and registered contractors. As Class II minor works are less complicated than Class I minor works, owners shall only appoint prescribed registered contractors to handle. Class III minor works are small-scale and common in household.


1067

BD does not separately conduct detailed categorization or compile statistics on UBWs without submission of notifications of commencement of minor works.

(3) Under the B(MW)R, minor works involving subdivision of flats,

e.g. erection of partition wall, laying of solid floor screeding or erection or alteration of aboveground drain, are required to be carried out by prescribed building professionals or registered contractors to ensure the quality of works. BD has provided technical guidelines for the works associated with subdivision of flats, which include detailed elaboration of the relevant minor works items, and the prescribed building professionals and registered contractors are reminded of the factors to be considered when carrying out minor works and compliance with BO and its relevant regulations.

Meanwhile, BD would conduct audit checks to ensure the minor

works comply with the provisions of the legislation and have attained the required quality and standard. If irregularities are found, like the subdivision has caused overloading to floor slabs, BD would require the prescribed building professionals and registered contractors to rectify the problem and take enforcement actions under prevailing law as necessary. In the past three years, BD has conducted an audit check of about 6 800 documents per annum from the minor works submissions to BD by building professionals or registered contractors, amongst which the relevant persons involved in 10 cases of irregularities have been convicted.

Young people acquiring properties with support from parents 20. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, the results of a survey reveal that in recent years, property prices in Hong Kong have repeatedly hit record high and have risen to a level way beyond the purchasing power of members of the public. Hence, 45% of young respondents intend to acquire properties through the mode of "hinging on father's deed", i.e. parents who have retired or will soon retire make down payments for their children acquiring properties (in particular the new developments for which developers offer mortgage loans with high loan-to-value ("LTV") ratios) by using the proceeds obtained from remortgaging or topping up the mortgages of their self-occupied properties, in respect of which the mortgage loans have been fully or almost fully repaid. It has been reported


that some banks allow customers who have reached the age of 55 to extend their mortgage repayment periods to 30 years, which is tantamount to encouraging soon-to-retire people to remortgage or top up the mortgages of their self-occupied properties. In addition, some developers offer buyers high interest rate mortgage loans with LTV ratios as high as 90% to 120% of the prices of the properties concerned. As such, buyers may acquire properties without having to raise sufficient amount of money for the down payments. The LTV ratio of the mortgage loans offered by developers is generally pitched at 80%, which is higher than the 60% LTV ratio generally offered by banks. On the other hand, the Consumer Council has used a unit costing HK$8,480,000 as an example to illustrate that the interests payable for a mortgage loan taken out from a developer exceed that for a bank mortgage loan by more than $5 million. Moreover, according to the information provided by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA"), the growth rate of the total residential mortgage loans of Hong Kong rose from 3.1% in the second half of last year to 4.1% in the first half of this year, and the ratio of household indebtedness to the gross domestic product also rose to 68% in the second quarter of this year, representing a rise of 2.5% over the same period last year. Some commentators on current affairs and veteran practitioners in the real estate industry have expressed concern about the situation where more and more young people acquire properties through the mode of hinging on father's deed because once mortgage rates rise and the property market takes a downturn, both generations will become property owners in negative equity. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has assessed the current total mortgage loans involving acquisition of properties through the mode of hinging on father's deed;

(2) whether it has studied the adverse impact on the two generations of

mortgage borrowers once the cycle of rising mortgage rates and falling property prices comes around; if so, of the details; if not, whether it will commence such a study immediately;

(3) of the policy in place to alert members of the public (i) of the high

risks associated with acquiring properties through the mode of hinging on father's deed, and (ii) to be cautious about the possible risks arising from mortgage loans with excessively high LTV ratios offered by developers, which are not regulated by HKMA, amidst soaring property prices;


1069

(4) as it has been reported that the numbers of cases concerning repossessed residential properties and forfeitures of preliminary deposits in property transactions have increased in the recent half-year, indicating a risk of downward adjustment of property prices, and the possibility of a spate of cases in which both generations of mortgage borrowers are unable to repay mortgage loans with high LTV ratios offered by developers, of the policy put in place by the Government to consistently monitor the practice of developers offering high interest rate mortgage loans with high LTV ratios to buyers; and

(5) as the Secretary for Transport and Housing stated clearly at a

Legislative Council meeting that HKMA was aware of the trend of young people acquiring properties through the mode of hinging on father's deed, and that HKMA would implement suitable measures when necessary to ensure that the relevant risks were properly managed by banks, of the details of and implementation schedule for such measures?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, in respect of the phenomenon of parents helping their children's property purchases, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") has been monitoring market developments and analysing the impact on the banking sector. If parents provide support to their children's property purchases with their own savings, the impact on banking stability will not be significant. However, if the support comes from proceeds of re-mortgages or top-up mortgages of the parents' existing properties from banks, the risks of the banking sector may increase. Should interest rates rise or property prices fall, both the parents and their children will face financial risk. Based on HKMA's monthly residential mortgage survey, the average monthly refinancing mortgage loans (which include top-up mortgages) increased from 2 200 cases in 2016 to 3 100 cases in the first nine months of 2017. However, based on what HKMA has learnt from major banks, the increase is mainly due to a reduction of mortgage interest rates and banks' offering of other incentives to mortgage borrowers as a result of heightened market competition, which have attracted mortgage borrowers to refinance their existing mortgage


loans to reduce their interest expenses. Only a small part of mortgage refinancing relates to cases with top-up mortgages. HKMA's existing supervisory guidelines on mortgage lending include requirements for banks to strengthen their risk management for mortgage refinancing. If banks assess parents' applications for refinancing mortgage loans based on net worth instead of income level (e.g. retired borrowers without a stable income), the loan-to-value ("LTV") ratios of the relevant mortgages will have to be reduced by 10% to 20%. If parents having existing mortgages were to act as guarantors for the mortgage loans of their children's newly purchased properties, the LTV ratios of the new mortgage loans will need to be reduced by 10% and the debt servicing ratio cap will have to be reduced by 10 percentage points, following the requirements applicable to multiple mortgages. HKMA also notices that in order to attract buyers, property developers have launched a great variety of mortgage plans and incentives, which include interest holiday, no requirements for income proof and mortgage loans with LTV ratios of as high as 80% or more. HKMA does not regulate property developers. Nevertheless, as banks do lend to property developers, in order to ensure that banks are managing the relevant risks properly, HKMA introduced supervisory measures in May this year, under which banks have to set aside an adequate amount of capital for credit risk exposure to the property developers concerned, as well as to lower the financing ratios applicable to construction loans. HKMA has reminded the public repeatedly on different occasions that buying a property is not only one of the most important decisions in life, it is also a financial transaction entailing significant leverage through borrowing. They must be mindful of their ability to cope with the potential risk that may arise from possible changes in the economic and market conditions as well as mortgage interest rates and do not overstretch themselves. In particular, prospective buyers should ensure that they fully understand the detailed terms and conditions if they opt for the mortgage plans offered by property developers. While the incentives may look attractive in the short term, prospective buyers should take into account any changes that may occur in the future, assess carefully their repayment ability and make a shrewd and prudent decision. HKMA will continue to monitor the property and mortgage markets closely, and will adjust the relevant supervisory measures as and when necessary to ensure that banks are managing their risk properly.


1071

Health protection for women 21. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, the Government indicated in the Policy Address delivered recently that it would strengthen its support for families to "protect the interests and well-being of women". However, many members of the public have relayed to me that the Government's measures for protecting the health of women are inadequate. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the top five diseases causing death of females in Hong Kong at present and, in respect of each of such diseases, (i) the number of newly confirmed cases, (ii) the number of deaths and (iii) the age distribution of the deceased persons, in each of the past five years;

(2) given that the Community Care Fund launched a three-year pilot

scheme in October last year to provide free cervical cancer vaccination for teenage girls from eligible low-income families, of the estimated expenditure of the scheme, and so far (i) the number of beneficiaries, broken down by age group, (ii) the expenditure incurred, and (iii) whether the number of beneficiaries has met the Government's target;

(3) whether it will consider providing free cervical cancer vaccinations

for all women of the relevant age cohort in the territory; if so, of the details and the timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) of the number of person-times and age distribution of women

receiving cervical smear tests at the Woman Health Centres and Maternal and Child Health Centres under the Department of Health in each of the past 10 years;

(5) of the public healthcare institutions which currently provide cervical

smear tests for women; the number of units providing such service and the average charge for each test;

(6) of the respective numbers of (i) newly confirmed cases of and

(ii) deaths caused by cervical cancer and breast cancer for each age group of women in each of the past 10 years;


(7) whether it has plans to provide free medical consultation and breast cancer screening services for women with higher risk of breast cancer; if so, of the details and the timetable; if not, the reasons for that; of the public healthcare institutions which currently conduct breast cancer screening for such women;

(8) as some women have relayed that the waiting time for receiving

mammography and breast ultrasound scanning at public hospitals is too long, which may thus result in delay in their receiving diagnoses and treatments, whether the authorities will introduce measures to shorten the waiting time; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(9) as a report of the Hong Kong Breast Cancer Foundation indicates

that most breast cancer patients have no family history of breast cancer, whether the Government will introduce measures to enable those women falling into this category to receive diagnostic confirmation and treatment in the early onset of the illness; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(10) whether it has plans to follow the practices of places such as the

Mainland and Taiwan in implementing a breast cancer screening programme for women, and providing breast cancer screening services for women in need through public-private partnership or collaboration with non-profit-making women health centres in the community; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

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

(1) The top five diseases causing death of females in Hong Kong in 2016 were malignant neoplasms (cancer), pneumonia, diseases of heart, cerebrovascular diseases, and nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis. A breakdown of the number of registered female deaths caused by the above diseases from 2012 to 2016 by age group is at Annex 1.


1073

The number of newly confirmed cases of malignant neoplasms (cancer) from 2011 to 2015 is at Annex 2. The Department of Health ("DH") does not maintain the number of newly confirmed cases of other diseases.

(2) The Community Care Fund ("CCF") launched the Free Cervical

Cancer Vaccination Pilot Scheme ("the Pilot Scheme") in October 2016 to provide free cervical cancer vaccination service for the following teenage girls from low-income families:

- female recipients of age 9 to 18 under the Comprehensive

Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"); and - female students aged 9 or above on full grant under the School

Textbook Assistance Scheme.

The Family Planning Association of Hong Kong ("FPAHK") is the implementing agent of the Pilot Scheme. The total provision for the three-year Pilot Scheme is $98.75 million. It is expected to benefit about 31 100 teenage girls.

During the implementation of the Pilot Scheme from October 2016

to the end of September 2017, FPAHK provided free cervical cancer vaccination service for 10 144 eligible teenage girls, at an expenditure of $21.31 million. A breakdown of the number of vaccine recipients by age is at Annex 3.

(3) In Hong Kong, cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers

among women, which is primarily caused by persistent infection with high-risk human papilloma virus ("HPV") through sexual contact. According to the latest recommendations issued in 2016 by the Scientific Committee on Vaccine Preventable Diseases ("SCVPD") and the Scientific Committee on AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections ("SCAS") under the Centre for Health Protection, HPV vaccine is effective and safe for individual protection against cervical infection and cancer arising from specific types of viruses.


SCVPD and SCAS considered that the public health strategy for HPV vaccination should be formulated on the basis of clinical evidence available internationally, epidemiological understanding and the projected population benefits derived from local studies. In this connection, the Government is conducting a study on the cost-benefit analysis ("CBA") of organized population-based vaccination. An analysis report is expected to be ready in the first half of 2018. SCVPD and SCAS will carefully review its recommendations in light of CBA results with a view to coming up with recommendations on the long-term strategies for preventing cervical cancer. SCVPD and SCAS will publish their recommendations in due course.

(4) and (5) Launched by DH on 8 March 2004 in collaboration with the health

care sector, the Cervical Screening Programme ("CSP") is a territory-wide programme to encourage women aged 25 to 64 who ever had sex to have regular cervical cancer screening. Its objective is to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening so as to reduce the incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer in Hong Kong. CSP has also established the "Cervical Screening Information System" for storing all the data related to CSP and sending reminders to participants.

DH, non-governmental organizations and private health care

facilities are the major service providers of CSP. A total of 31 Maternal and Child Health Centres ("MCHCs") under the Family Health Service of DH provide cervical cancer screening service to eligible women, aged 25 to 64 who ever had sex, at a charge of $100 per attendance. Recipients of CSSA, Level 0 Voucher Holders of the Pilot Scheme on Residential Care Service Voucher for the Elderly or holders of medical waiver certificates are exempted from payment. The three Woman Health Centres ("WHCs") and 10 MCHCs under DH which are providing women health services to women aged 64 or below would also provide cervical screening service.


1075

A breakdown of the number of attendances for cervical screening services at MCHCs and the number of enrolment for women health services in the past 10 years is at Annex 4.

Apart from the Family Health Service of DH, cervical cancer

screening services are also provided by Social Hygiene Clinics and the Elderly Health Services of DH to women according to their need.

As regards non-governmental organizations (e.g. FPAHK and the

United Christian Nethersole Community Health Service) and private health care organizations, they also provide cervical cancer screening services where charges are determined by individual health care service providers as well as whether additional services are required.

The Government announced in January 2017 that CCF had been

invited to launch a three-year Pilot Scheme to subsidize eligible low-income women to receive cervical cancer screening and preventive education. The Pilot Scheme aims to reach out to low-income women to encourage them to receive cervical cancer screening and enhance their awareness of cervical cancer, so as to reduce the risk of them contracting cervical cancer. The Pilot Scheme is expected to be launched in December 2017 and details will be announced in due course.

(6) Information on the number of newly confirmed cases and registered

deaths caused by breast cancer and cervical cancer respectively for females from 2006 to 2015 by age group is at Annex 5.

(7), (9) and (10) The Government attaches great importance to the prevention and

control of cancer, including female cancers. As early as 2001, the Government has established the Cancer Coordinating Committee ("CCC") which is chaired by the Secretary for Food and Health and comprised members who are cancer experts, academics, doctors in public and private sectors as well as public health professionals. The CCC formulates comprehensive strategies and makes recommendations for the prevention and control of cancer. The Cancer Expert Working Group on Cancer Prevention and Screening


("CEWG") under CCC is responsible for regularly reviewing the evidence on cancer prevention and screening, and formulating evidence-based recommendations and measures which are suitable for local conditions. In 2016, CEWG reviewed the latest scientific evidence of the screening of and revised recommendations for seven major cancers (including breast cancer) in Hong Kong. Details are set out in the website of the Centre for Health Protection at <http://www.chp.gov.hk/en/content/9/25/31932.html>.

Population-based breast cancer screening by mammography is a

subject of controversy. While experience in western countries shows that the implementation of population-based breast cancer screening by mammography has helped detect breast cancer in its early stages and reduce its mortality rate, some studies such as the systemic review of Cochrane Collaboration in 2013 and a study report released by the Swiss Medical Board of the Switzerland have revealed that breast cancer screening by mammography can cause problems and harm such as over-diagnosis and over-treatment. Hence, the advantages of such screening may be outweighed by its disadvantages. A report released by Canada in 2014 based on a large randomized controlled trial of more than 90 000 women in Canada has also found that mammography does not reduce breast cancer mortality in women, but has led to unnecessary surgery or treatment. It has therefore suggested reassessing the need of mammography screening. While some Chinese or Asian communities have implemented population-based breast cancer screening programmes, there is no comprehensive data published that can reflect the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the programmes. There are also no studies indicating that the programmes can effectively reduce the mortality rate of breast cancer. Besides, some local studies have indicated that population-based breast cancer screening by mammography may lead to more women receiving unnecessary medical examination and treatment.

From the above scientific evidence, CEWG concluded that there is

insufficient scientific evidence to recommend for or against population-based mammography screening for general female population in Hong Kong. It is noted that all screening tests have


1077

their limitations and cannot be 100% accurate. Women who are considering to take breast cancer screening should seek advice from doctors based on their individual conditions and needs, and that they should obtain detailed information about the limitations, potential benefits and risks of taking the screening test before making a decision.

Women who are considered to be at increased risk of breast cancer

(e.g. being a carrier of certain gene mutations such as BRCA1/2, having a family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer, and having received radiation therapy to the chest before the age of 30) should consult doctors on their assessment and advice before deciding whether breast cancer screening is necessary.

Studies showed that raising women's awareness of the symptoms of

breast cancer would facilitate early diagnosis and increase chances of cure. For this reason, all women, no matter whether they are at average risk or higher risk of developing breast cancer, should be cautious of the normal appearance, feel and cyclical changes of their breasts, so that they can detect any irregular changes in their breasts as early as possible and seek doctors' advice immediately.

From the public health perspective, the Government must cautiously

assess a series of critical factors when considering whether to introduce a population-based screening programme for a specific disease. These factors include to ensure that prevalence of the disease in Hong Kong, accuracy and safety of screening tests, effectiveness in reducing incidence and mortality rates, feasibility of implementation, the resources, manpower and facility capacity of health care system, and public acceptance. The overriding concern is screening does more good than harm to the general population. Given the lack of public health evidence as supported by scientific soundness at present, the Government does not have plans to introduce programmes or provide service through public-private partnership for population-based mammography screening.

Women at higher risk of developing breast cancer can seek

assessment and advice from a doctor in order to make an informed choice on whether they should receive mammography screening.


The Women Health Service under the Family Health Service of DH currently follows the advice of CEWG to promote healthy lifestyles as the main prevention strategy and breast awareness among women, so that medical attention can be sought as early as possible if any abnormalities of the breasts are identified. Women at higher risk of breast cancer may decide to receive mammography screening after medical assessment.

The three WHCs (on a full-time basis) and the 10 MCHCs which

provide women's health check-ups (on a sessional basis) are listed below:

Name of Clinic

WHCs Chai Wan WHC Lam Tin WHC Tuen Mun WHC

MCHCs Ap Lei Chau MCHC Sai Ying Pun MCHC Wang Tau Hom MCHC West Kowloon MCHC Fanling MCHC Lek Yuen MCHC Ma On Shan MCHC Tseung Kwan O Po Ning Road MCHC Tsing Yi MCHC South Kwai Chung MCHC

Moreover, DH also actively promotes the importance of healthy

lifestyles maintaining healthy body weight, regular exercise and breastfeeding for the prevention of breast cancer.

(8) Mammography and breast ultrasound imaging services will be

arranged by public hospitals for patients based on doctors' assessments on the patients' conditions. Those patients who are confirmed or suspected of having breast cancer, or assessed to be at high risk, will be accorded priority for receiving such services. The Hospital Authority will review its services from time to time in order to provide appropriate services for its patients.


1079

Annex 1

Number of registered deaths caused by the top five diseases for females by age group in 2016

Ranking Type of disease

Number of registered deaths for females

Number of registered deaths for females by age group

0-19 20-44 45-64 65 and above

Age unknown

1 Malignant neoplasms (cancers)

5 762 15 247 1 744 3 756 0

2 Pneumonia 3 899 6 21 116 3 756 0 3 Diseases of

heart 2 805 8 37 176 2 583 1

4 Cerebrovascular diseases

1 558 4 24 140 1 390 0

5 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis

866 1 4 53 808 0

All other causes 5 769 73 214 548 4 932 2 All causes 20 659 107 547 2 777 17 225 3

Number of registered deaths caused by the top five diseases

for females by age group in 2015




0-19 20-44 45-64 65 and above

Age unknown


5 971 19 285 1 819 3 848 0


heart 2 841 4 32 170 2 635 0





0-19 20-44 45-64 65 and above

Age unknown


1 588 2 22 141 1 422 1


843 0 6 38 799 0







0-19 20-44 45-64 65 and above

Age unknown


5 580 22 213 1 682 3 663 0


heart 2 895 9 23 183 2 680 0


1 619 4 29 153 1 433 0


871 1 4 55 811 0



1081

Number of registered deaths caused by the top five diseases for females by age group in 2013




0-19 20-44 45-64 65 and above

Age unknown


5 655 17 256 1 665 3 716 1


heart 2 624 3 31 157 2 433 0


1 595 4 24 141 1 426 0


826 1 6 53 766 0







0-19 20-44 45-64 65 and above

Age unknown


5 403 8 267 1 551 3 577 0


heart 2 885 7 35 177 2 665 1





0-19 20-44 45-64 65 and above

Age unknown


1 596 4 28 140 1 424 0


830 1 7 58 764 0


Notes: (1) Source: The Census and Statistics Department and DH (2) Figures for 2017 are not available at the moment

Annex 2

Number of newly confirmed cases of malignant neoplasms (cancers) for females in Hong Kong from 2011 to 2015

Year Number of newly confirmed cases 2011 12 974 2012 13 581 2013 14 022 2014 14 517 2015 14 946

Notes: (1) Source: The Census and Statistics Department, DH and the Hong Kong Cancer Registry

of the Hospital Authority

(2) The number of new cancer cases from 2016 to date is not available at the moment


1083

Annex 3

Number of persons vaccinated under CCF Free Cervical Cancer Vaccination Pilot Scheme (by age group)

Age Number of eligible teenage girls vaccinated

9 970 10 1 108 11 1 186 12 1 127 13 1 040 14 971 15 911 16 964 17 1 098 18 620 19 or above 149 Total 10 144

Annex 4

Attendance for cervical screening services at MCHCs and enrolment for women health services from 2007 to 2016

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Number of attendances for cervical screening services at MCHCs

100 000 102 000 99 000 99 000 95 000 98 000 99 000 99 000 97 000 102 000

Number of enrolment for Women Health Services

20 000 18 400 19 300 19 000 19 500 19 200 19 200 18 000 16 800 15 500

Notes: (1) MCHCs of DH do not keep the breakdown of the number of women receiving cervical screening services

by age (2) WHCs of DH do not keep the attendance figures for cervical screening services


Annex 5

Number of newly confirmed cases of breast and cervical cancers for females from 2006 to 2015 by age group

Type of disease Year Number of newly confirmed cases

for females

Number of newly confirmed cases for females by age group

0-19 20-44 45-64 65 and above

Age unknown

Breast cancer 2006 2 584 2 616 1 357 608 1 2007 2 701 0 602 1 454 643 2 2008 2 616 1 583 1 427 605 0 2009 2 945 0 596 1 676 673 0 2010 3 014 0 603 1 709 702 0 2011 3 419 0 626 1 975 818 0 2012 3 508 0 651 2 035 822 0 2013 3 524 0 631 2 057 836 0 2014 3 868 0 663 2 241 963 1 2015 3 900 0 648 2 206 1 046 0

Cervical cancer 2006 459 0 124 191 144 0 2007 399 0 105 176 118 0 2008 358 1 92 160 104 1 2009 453 0 132 191 130 0 2010 400 0 110 178 112 0 2011 391 0 120 165 106 0 2012 457 0 142 207 108 0 2013 503 0 131 238 134 0 2014 472 0 126 232 114 0 2015 500 0 143 225 132 0

Notes: (1) Source: The Census and Statistics Department, DH and the Hong Kong Cancer Registry

of the Hospital Authority (2) The figures from 2016 to date are not available at the moment


1085

Number of registered deaths caused by breast and cervical cancers for females from 2006 to 2016 by age group

Type of disease Year Number of registered

deaths for females


0-19 20-44 45-64 65 and above

Breast cancer 2006 463 0 67 221 175 2007 526 0 62 268 196 2008 508 0 62 254 192 2009 555 0 62 283 210 2010 561 0 56 289 216 2011 552 0 39 306 207 2012 601 0 59 314 228 2013 596 0 69 303 224 2014 604 0 41 320 243 2015 637 0 53 362 222 2016 702 0 52 356 294

Cervical cancer 2006 133 0 17 46 70 2007 129 0 13 44 72 2008 120 0 17 48 55 2009 128 0 10 53 65 2010 146 0 17 53 76 2011 151 0 20 58 73 2012 133 0 16 54 63 2013 142 0 17 54 71 2014 131 0 10 62 59 2015 169 0 20 75 74 2016 151 0 16 66 69

Notes: (1) Source: The Census and Statistics Department and DH (2) The figures for 2017 are not available at the moment


Enforcement of the Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade Practices) (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 22. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Chinese): President, the Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade Practices) (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 (Ordinance No. 25 of 2012) amended the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362) to crack down on common unfair trade practices, and the relevant amendments have come into full operation since 19 July 2013. Regarding the enforcement of the aforesaid legislative amendments by the Customs and Excise Department, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the Department's manpower responsible for the relevant law enforcement work in each of the past three years;

(2) of the following statistics on the relevant law enforcement work since

the aforesaid legislative amendments came into operation:

(i) the number of prosecutions and, among such cases, the number of those involving repeated offenders;

(ii) the number of convictions and the number of persons

convicted; and (iii) the penalties imposed on the convicted persons in general, and

the number of persons who were sentenced to imprisonment; and

(3) whether the Department has plans to step up its law enforcement

actions in the coming year; if so, of the details of such plans as well as the additional manpower and budgeted expenses involved?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the amended Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362) ("the Ordinance") came into full operation on 19 July 2013. The Ordinance, which covers goods and services, prohibits unfair trade practices including false trade descriptions, misleading omissions, aggressive commercial practices, bait-and-switch, bait advertising and wrongly accepting payment. The Customs


1087

and Excise Department ("C&ED") has been adopting a three-pronged approach in enforcing the relevant requirements:

(a) compliance promotion―though conducting briefings for and visits to traders, C&ED tenders advice and guidance to traders on the legal requirements under the Ordinance as well as measures that should be taken for complying with the Ordinance;

(b) enforcement―C&ED takes necessary and timely enforcement actions to combat non-compliant conducts, so as to build public confidence; and

(c) publicity and education―C&ED, in coordination with the Consumer Council, has launched extensive publicity and education programmes, raising consumers' awareness of unfair trade practices, promoting the concept of "smart consumption", and also promoting good practices amongst traders.

As the Ordinance covers a wide range of goods and services, in order to facilitate traders' compliance and optimize the use of enforcement resources, C&ED adopts a risk-based approach under which priority is accorded to handling cases that may have significant implications on consumers, the trades or the community at large. Regarding the three parts of the question, the reply is as follow:

(1) In the past three financial years, C&ED's staffing and expenses involved in enforcing the Ordinance are as follows:

Category Year

2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Establishment 190 190 190 Expenses involved ($1,000) 95,100 92,850(1) 92,830 Note: (1) As the rank of the staff responsible for enforcing the Ordinance changed,

the expenses involved in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 were lower than that of 2015-2016.


(2) Since the implementation of the Ordinance in July 2013 until September 2017, C&ED's statistics of enforcement in relation to the Ordinance are as follow:

Number of prosecutions cases 311

- Number of persons/companies involved 378 - Number of cases involving repeated offenders 9

Number of convicted cases 283(2) - Number of persons/companies involved 331 - Number of persons sentenced to imprisonment 35 - Number of persons sentenced to Community

Service Order 17

- Number of persons/companies fined 284 Note: (2) There are nine cases with ongoing legal proceedings.

Among the cases convicted between July 2013 and September 2017,

some offenders were sentenced to immediate imprisonment ranging from 14 days to 6 months. For cases with suspended sentence, the offenders were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 14 days (suspended for 18 months) to 8 months (suspended for two years). Some offenders were fined or sentenced to Community Service Orders. The fines ranged from $500 to $152,000 while the Community Service Orders ranged from 60 hours to 240 hours. Also, some offenders were sentenced to a probation order, or to training centre or detention centre(3).

(3) In the coming year, C&ED would continue to enforce the Ordinance

proactively and tackle common unfair trade practices from various angles to protect the interest of consumers. C&ED would, based on actual situation such as changes in trends of unfair trade practices deployed and changes in types and numbers of complaints, take

(3) In one case, C&ED charged the defendants with fraud under the Theft Ordinance, as well

as false trade descriptions under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance as alternative charges. The two defendants were convicted of fraud and were sentenced to training centre and detention centre respectively.


1089

targeted enforcement actions such as test-buy operations. Also, C&ED would enhance its efforts in conducting compliance promotion as well as publicity and education for the public and the trades with a view to achieving greater enforcement effectiveness. During the National Day Golden Week long vacation periods of the Mainland, C&ED would step up enforcement actions and patrols, including distribution of leaflets to tourists, tour guides and traders in shopping spots arranged by tour groups and shops in tourist areas, in order to promote smart consumption among tourists and remind traders to abide by the Ordinance. Besides, C&ED would actively conduct patrols at large-scale exhibitions held in Hong Kong, which include explaining to the exhibitors the requirements of the Ordinance and distributing leaflets to call for compliance prior to the start of the exhibitions. During the exhibitions, on-site patrols would be conducted to ensure compliance, while quick response teams would immediately attend to complaints and follow up with reports of suspected violation of the Ordinance. C&ED would flexibly deploy its resources and review its manpower at suitable time in order to cope with the relevant work and future challenges.

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government motions. At the meeting of 25 October 2017, this Council already commenced the motion debate on "Taking forward the follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link". During the debate, Ms Claudia MO moved a motion under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the debate be now adjourned. This Council now continues with the debate on the adjournment motion. Stand-over item: Government motion on taking forward the follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (since the meeting of 25 October 2017)


MOTION ON TAKING FORWARD THE FOLLOW-UP TASKS OF THE CO-LOCATION ARRANGEMENT AT THE WEST KOWLOON STATION OF THE GUANGZHOU-SHENZHEN-HONG KONG EXPRESS RAIL LINK Motions moved without notice 01 Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 26 October 2017 under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the debate be now adjourned (Mr CHU Hoi-dick stood up) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, what is your point? MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, may I ask if a quorum is present in the Chamber? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is not present. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request 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) MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Honourable Members have had lunch already. So, why have they left the Chamber so soon? They should stay in the Chamber and listen to the arguments on this adjournment motion.


1091

Deputy President, first of all, I want to talk about this caricature I have here. Yesterday was Halloween. This caricature is designed by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"), and the humans and demons in it are readily recognizable. One of the demons is recognizably me, and another is Ms Tanya CHAN. She also thinks so, as she is raising her hand in agreement. Deputy President, let me point out that this caricature is not a correct depiction of who is a human and who is a demon. I myself think that I am a human, but you see, I am being burnt by your party, DAB. I am being tortured in a raging inferno. I think many people also feel that they are being tortured in the same way, because many things they hate to see, such as the co-location arrangement for West Kowloon Station of the Express Rail Link ("XRL"), are now irreversibly underway due to the big push by pro-establishment Members. Deputy President, I think this caricature is not such a ready and clear depiction of the truth. It simplistically glosses over the many unclear areas and divergent views concerning, for example, the government motion on its co-location arrangement for West Kowloon Station of the XRL. I want to take this opportunity to explain why I support Ms Claudia MO's adjournment motion. Once pro-establishment Members hear the mentioning of "adjournment", they will generally spring up, and argue that Members who oppose the co-location arrangement for West Kowloon Station of the XRL should proceed straight to the motion debate, give their arguments and cast their votes (pro-establishment Members are in the majority, so they will of course shout for voting). They all question why an adjournment motion should still be moved and why there should still be any further delay. Honourable Members, I want to distinguish between two scenarios here. The first scenario is that what is said in a certain motion is already very clear and there are no legality questions. In that case, there may be a point to ask us to proceed straight away to a motion debate. Of course, even so, pro-democracy Members will not allow any forcible acts either. We will not yield and will still fight to the very end. But, Deputy President, we will insist that moving an adjournment motion is the only responsible approach if we are met with the second scenario, where a motion is still very crude, especially in respect of legality questions, and the Legislative Council should not proceed to a motion debate. Honourable Members, there are grounds for such a differentiation of scenarios.


Actually, as shown by various cases since the formation of the first Legislative Council in 1998, if the Legislative Council considers that a particular motion carries contents which may contravene the Constitution of China and the laws of Hong Kong, or which the Court has yet to rule on, the Legislative Council will not proceed to a motion debate. Deputy President, in May 2007, former Member LEUNG Kwok-hung moved a motion on the 4 June incident which, among other things, asked for putting an end to one-party dictatorship. The then President, Mrs Rita FAN, ruled that "as this Council is the legislature of a special administrative region established in accordance with Article 31 of the Constitution, it would not be in order under the Council's Rules of Procedure to debate a motion which, if passed, would signify the making of a demand to CPG (the Central People's Government) that it should end the one-party system enshrined in the Constitution." This is the first example. The second case occurred in May 2004, also when Mrs Rita FAN was the President. At that time, former Member LEE Cheuk-yan proposed a motion on "The 1 July march" and Mrs Rita FAN made her ruling. Actually, a motion on the 1 July march has been moved annually over all the years. But it so happened that in May 2004, the authorities have not yet issued a "notice of no objection" for the march. As a "notice of no objection" was not yet issued, Mrs Rita FAN questioned the legality of the march and thus ruled that the motion could not be submitted to the Legislative Council for debate. The third case took place in August 2008, also when Mrs Rita FAN was the President. At that time, Mr James TO proposed the motion on "Introducing legislative amendments to open up community radio stations". Former Member CHAN Kam-lam proposed to move an amendment to the motion and former Member Ronny TONG proposed an amendment to Mr CHAN's amendment. At that time, Mrs Rita FAN likewise expressed her views. A judicial review was then underway, and Mrs Rita FAN opined that Ronny TONG's amendment amounted to a prediction of the outcome of the judicial review. As a result, she ruled that it was inappropriate for Ronny TONG to move his amendment. In other words, before the Court makes any judgment on a particular case, no Member shall move any motion that amounts to a prediction of the Court's judgment. For that reason, Members should not propose such a motion for debate in the Council … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, I have to remind you that if you cast doubt on the legitimacy or constitutionality of the co-location arrangement, you should present your views in the motion debate on the


1093

co-location arrangement. In this motion debate, please focus on whether or not you support Ms Claudia MO's adjournment motion. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, thank you for your reminder. The chief reason why I support the adjournment motion is that we should not proceed to the debate at all. We should take a step back to look at the motion when we speak … Although the President has ruled that the motion can be put before the Legislative Council for debate, Members still need to understand the practice, convention and rulings of the President of the Legislative Council in the past, so that they can have a basis to decide how they should vote on the adjournment motion. Deputy President, let me return to the present debate. I want to point out that I actually do not agree to every ruling of the then President in these three cases. But I still think that we should now follow the same yardstick when considering the wording and contents of this co-location motion. I think if we use the same yardstick, we will agree that this present government motion is at least on a par with, if not exceeding, the one proposed by "Long Hair" in 2007 on ending one-party dictatorship. Let me give three points to show why they are on a par with each other. The first point is about Article 20 of the Basic Law. The Government says in its motion that it will take forward the follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement pursuant to the "Three-step Process" proposal announced on 25 July 2017. The "Three-step Process" proposal is actually based on the invocation of Article 20 of the Basic Law. The Secretary for Justice thinks that invoking Article 20 of the Basic Law will not contravene Article 18 of the Basic Law. But many lawyers or people from various sectors have pointed out that the invocation of Article 20 will contradict Article 18. The reason is that the invocation of Article 20 is meant to grant other powers, that is additional powers, to the SAR Government. In that case, why should the granting of additional powers to the SAR Government instead end up in depriving a certain place in Hong Kong of the protection under Article 18? Deputy President, at present, we do not know the answer to this question, and we may have to wait until after the first step of the "Three-step Process" is taken, that is after the Hong Kong Government and the Beijing Government have reached an agreement. By that time, we may find out the answer in the terms of the agreement. Or, the Government may give a more detailed explanation when


the proposed arrangement is put forward to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"). In any case, I must emphasize that at this very moment at least, we do not know the answer. And, since we do not know the answer, we can say that the inconsistency between the invocation of Article 20 and Article 18 is not yet resolved. Second, as stated in "Three-step Process" paper issued on 25 July, following the decision of NPCSC to invoke Article 20, the Mainland Port Area in West Kowloon Station will not be deemed as under Hong Kong's jurisdiction. This will cause yet another conflict, and this conflict is likewise unresolved. It is the conflict with Article 7 of the Basic Law, which provides, "The land and natural resources within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be State property. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be responsible for their management, use and development and for their lease or grant to individuals …". I am not going to dwell on this. The Mainland Port Area in West Kowloon Station will not be deemed as under Hong Kong's jurisdiction. But at the same time, the Government requests to rent this area to the Mainland Government, and the basis of the lease is Article 7 of the Basic Law. I really want to know how the conflict can be resolved. The Mainland Port Area is no long deemed as Hong Kong's territory, but the Government has to invoke Article 7 of the Basic Law in order to effect the leasing of the area to the Mainland Government. In that case, how come Article 7 can remain effective while Article 18 cannot? This is a contradiction. The third conflict is even more severe … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU, let me remind you once again that you are discussing the legitimacy or constitutionality of the co-location arrangement. I understand that one of the grounds that you support the adjournment motion is that you question whether the scheme is constitutional and legitimate, but please do not discuss this at length until this Council debates the co-location motion. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I will just talk about this briefly. I will not go into detail, because there are perhaps many things we do not know until after the judicial case is over. I wish to speak on the third point. Actually, the Court will not dare to make a decision. What kind of decision am I talking


1095

about here? I mean the Court will not dare to make a decision on whether the co-location arrangement is contravention of the fundamental principles of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong? Deputy President, in fact Mr Holden CHOW said last time that the Court had yet to make a judgment on the legal issues, and that we should wait until the Court had done so. Our standpoint is also that the Court has not yet made a judgment. And, this can explain precisely why the Legislative Council should not hold any debate. This is because we are not clear about the whole issue, and we do not actually know what we should argue about. So, Deputy President, I am not going to speak on the fundamental principles anymore. Let us return to the topic, because we can see that by extension, the first and second points are somewhat related to the fundamental principles. Deputy President, my point of view is really very simple. My opinion is that we must support the adjournment motion because the motion proposed by the Government is deficient. Since it is very deficient, particularly in respect of legal issues, the only result of having a debate must be the kind of sloppy arguments advanced by Mr CHAN Hak-kan last week. What are these arguments? Let me quote his words here, and Mr CHAN Hak-kan can correct me if I am wrong. Pro-democracy Members want to set up port area in Mainland for the implementation of co-location clearance over there. But according to Mr CHAN, we are against co-location clearance, and our opposition actually stems from our disapproval of the XRL. In his words, we ask for the dismantling of the XRL. Then, he goes on to say that we oppose the XRL because we cannot return to Mainland. Also, he says, the fact that we cannot return to the Mainland is due to our dislike of China. He therefore concludes that we do not want to be Chinese. Deputy President, this kind of overgeneralization reminds me of a famous sentence from Lu Xun's Miscellaneous Thoughts: the mere sight of short sleeves is immediately associated with silky white arms and shoulders, complete nudity, the genitals, sexual intercourse, an orgy, and an illegitimate child. Deputy President, we really do not want the Legislative Council to proceed to a motion debate with such a shaky legality basis, one which leads to endless sloppy speeches. And, do not forget that all such remarks are groundless and full of overgeneralization devoid of any statistical support. Therefore, my thoughts are very clear. The adjournment motion proposed by Ms Claudia MO can actually help the Legislative Council extricate itself from


this unreasonable predicament. Faced with the current situation, the Government should go back and study the issue again. It must then submit a proposal on implementing co-location clearance in the Mainland and conduct public consultation at the soonest possible time, so as to give the public the opportunity to express their views. I so submit. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion, moved under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that the debate be now adjourned. Deputy President, this motion debate actually started last week. I therefore had the chance to listen to Members' speeches last week and think over the motion this week. What Mr CHU Hoi-dick pointed out just now is something very important: our present discussion is indeed extremely immature. I am not saying the proposal put forward by the Government is extremely immature; it may instead be very mature. But a proposal should also go through such processes as discussion and dialogue if it is intended to be widely accepted by society at large and by all sides in the legislature. If such a process is full-fledge, a consensus will be reached; failing this, we know at least where our differences lie. Otherwise, the debate may become an emotional one in which we point accusing fingers at each other without examining the facts, and thus rendering no effective solution to the problem. I have been listening to the entire debate on the co-location arrangement since last week and found that the issue is highly controversial, with our opinions sharply divided. On the one hand, supporters believe that the Express Rail Link ("XRL") can generate great time and economic benefits, and thus boosting Hong Kong's competitiveness. Opponents, on the other hand, find it a severe violation of the Basic Law for a Mainland Port Area to be established within Hong Kong's territory and let Mainland laws be enforced there. All these comments are crucial and we should carry out effective communications in an attempt to sort out our differences. Deputy President, Hong Kong people now hold highly divided opinions over the co-location arrangement put forth by the Government. The resulting confrontation between us is enormous and it will probably lead to far-reaching consequences. To me, a responsible government should tackle the issue rigorously and clarify the controversies diligently. I doubt if the Government should push the proposal through. Instead of pushing it through, can we spare


1097

ourselves more time to examine the circumstances? I do hope for the chance to communicate directly with the Government, for instance to discuss the relevant issues with them in person. But we were not given such a chance in the past. If in a dispute, a severe confrontation between the two sides is resulted from misinformation or misunderstanding of facts―on the part of the Government or the community―this kind of dispute is indeed completely unnecessary. Therefore, we must listen attentively and allow ourselves more time for analysis while trying to search for increasingly reasonable arguments and position. Among the arguments that I have heard, many of course find development an inevitability. And with the ease of traffic between the two places, they expect to see a boost in both the economic benefits as well as Hong Kong's image as an international city. They may also regard the concerns presently raised by the opponents an exaggeration, as the concerns can be dispelled if one respects and abides by the laws of wherever place one visits. But our question is: in relation to the Government's current proposal on the co-location arrangement, are concerns raised by the opponents mere exaggeration? Is the Government proposal going to bring as much cost-effectiveness as the Government has claimed? Is there any room for compromise with regard to questions concerning the Basic Law? Any genuine solution to the legality issue? Are these queries reasonable, meriting our attention and response? Or are they just unfounded criticisms? The Government has not answered these questions clearly, and if we endorse the proposal now, there will be no turning back in the future. Then, shall we listen to them even more attentively? Deputy President, we may still recall people's objection raised against the construction of the XRL project eight years ago. Eight years later, the public today is overwhelmed with the amount of problems we see in this project: unreliable data, overspending and delays, ineffective supervision, and so on. At that time, the Government told us that the co-location arrangement was not the only option on the table; there were issues awaiting clarification and thus further room for discussion. But three months ago, the present proposal came about all at a sudden and the official line now differs markedly from the previous one. These issues must be clarified thoroughly before we can have an understanding and then a decision whether to support the proposal or not. The present situation under which no dialogue is exchanged and no consultation is conducted will actually lead to major confrontation in society and result in dire consequences. We must get to the bottom of the current situation and let people know the underlying reasons for and against the proposal.


It is remarkable that many legal practitioners and colleagues of this Council have cast doubts on the Government proposal, questioning whether it is a severe violation to the Basic Law in letter and in spirit. The proposal, which is said to be setting a dangerous precedent, is further described as a "cession-based co-location arrangement" on Hong Kong soil. Is this remark doing justice to the proposal? If so, can the loss be compensated by the enhanced economic benefits and international image that we will have? How should we seek a balance between the two? "One country, two systems" as practiced in Hong Kong is the essence of our core values. Shall we defend it with all our might? We do need time to clarify all these before forming our own views. We have to consider the above questions one by one, along with other issues which include a number of community proposals such as separate-location clearance, CIQ (Customs, Immigration and Quarantine) co-location clearance in West Kowloon which I think is highly worthy of discussion and examination, "on-board clearance", "pre-clearance" for northbound travelers, and co-location clearance in the Mainland. In my opinion, we should give ourselves time to examine each and every one of these proposals until we are perfectly clear about them. We can adopt a rational decision making model to appraise each of these proposals, together with the co-location arrangement proposal currently put forth by the Government. We shall examine their pros and cons, compare and evaluate them before arriving at the proposal most appropriate to Hong Kong and most acceptable to the Hong Kong people. I do not agree with a comment made by the Secretary or some other people that the other proposals are unworthy of consideration. I think we should be fair and allow ourselves sufficient chances and time to thoroughly understand each of these proposals, to consider and to compare them. Is it true that none of these proposals are able to realize XRL's advantage of easier access to cities throughout the nation? I think we have to discuss all these questions with the aid of concrete data … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, I would like to remind you that you are the 23rd Member who speaks on the adjournment motion moved by Ms Claudia MO. You have already spoken for more than eight minutes. Please be as concise as possible when quoting arguments made earlier by other Members and stay focused on whether you support the adjournment motion. The merits and demerits of the co-location arrangement can be discussed when and if this Council proceeds to the motion debate on the arrangement.


1099

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have not started discussing the merits and demerits of the co-location arrangement. I just find it necessary to allow ourselves adequate time and chance to examine the issue before forming our own views. This is the point that I made just now: We need time to study the issues. Another vitally important point is that: Have the people got enough chances to express their views if we have to make such a crucial decision today? As representatives of the people, have we done enough consultation to let people voice their own opinions? On the grave issue of supporting the government proposal or otherwise, have we arrived at a carefully thought out conclusion? I am sure every one sitting here understands that the present debate has become polarized, with either camp joined by a lot of people. Such polarization actually does no good to Hong Kong. If we have to face up to and tackle the problem, it is best to spend more time to conduct consultation and provides all relevant information in the process to facilitate an in-depth understanding of the issues. This practice, which is commonly used among democratic societies to deal with divided views, was also a time-tested measure adopted by Hong Kong society. In the past, whenever we lamented the lack of democracy in Hong Kong, some would remind us the practice of "consultative democracy" in the territory. Consultation is important as a way to maintain the effective operation of Hong Kong. When we are about to face a deciding moment, how should we conduct a consultation? Why not conduct an effective one to help build consensus or help people understand the differences among us? Shall we do it rigorously and conscientiously? A consultation is also conducive to strengthening the transparency and accountability of the decision making process, and rekindling the hope to rebuild mutual trust and support among the public. Decision making does not mean making judgment arbitrarily. People should not be expected to accept any proposal chosen as the best for them. Decision making is a process which involves lobbying and discussion, a process in which people are encouraged to express their own views. To me, the process is essential to promoting political stability, social harmony and reaching a win-win solution. Therefore, I see no reason to force the issue now. Shall we conduct a rigorous and in-depth public consultation before making such an important and controversial decision? In this process, I have to ask myself, as a representative of the education sector, how I am going to decide, to cast my vote and whether conditions are ripe for making such decisions. I have to gather opinions from within the


Professional Teachers' Union and solicit members' views to see what their take is. I believe that if given more time, we can organize a forum for a rational analysis of this issue. I actually find this very important. If the adjournment motion is carried, we are relieved of making a decision now; we will then have sufficient time to carry out the work mentioned above. I am sure the above task has to be done not only in the education sector but also in other sectors, and geographical constituencies as well. I am sure, as responsible Members, all of us would like to complete the task. A bona fide debate must rest on accurate knowledge and genuine understanding. A legislature must found its roots in people's opinions and authorization. These are the prerequisites for a quality legislative debate. At the end of the day, we have to be accountable to the people. Therefore, I do hope that the adjournment motion can be carried so that we can conduct a rigorous consultation afresh. The Government should all the more shoulder the responsibility of conducting a large-scale opinion survey or soliciting opinions from various community districts or social strata. I think all these should be done by the Government to enhance the effectiveness of the decision. I so submit. MR ABRAHAM SHEK: I would like to make a declaration: I am an independent director of Mass Transit Railway Corporation. Deputy President, as the debate on Ms Claudia MO's adjournment motion has dragged on for the second week, the public has seen the high-profile antics played by the opposition Members in the guise of discharging the duties of a legislator. This is repugnant. If every legislator in this Council exercises his or her duties like Claudia, abusing and manipulating the Rules of Procedure in order to thwart an agenda item for attaining their political goals, then the business of this Council will end up in a stalemate to the detriment of the normal functioning of the legislature for acting in the best interest of the community, with over-politicization taking priority over public interest in a wider sense. Everybody knows that Ms Claudia MO's adjournment motion is meaningless, in the sense that it is a waste of our time in this Council to argue for superfluity's sake. This is purely for superfluity's sake. Clearly, the opposition Members' plan to prevent the Government motion on the co-location arrangement of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail


1101

Link ("the co-location arrangement") from getting through this Council by last week was unfortunately successful where the opposition Members employed destructive tactics of making incessant quorum calls to give effect to the purpose of filibustering. Deputy President, politics is an art of compromise. Very often, we have to agree to disagree. I am sure that no issue put forward by the Government for debate in this Council will have the unanimous support of every Member of this Council, not even our pro-establishment Members nor members of the public. However, as legislators, we have to discharge our duties in the best interest of the public, taking a moderate approach instead of going to extremes. Monitoring the Government's work is not equivalent to being hostile to the executive arm of the Government; monitoring the Government's work does not mean we have to upset the Government merely for the sake of upsetting it. Most importantly, monitoring the Government's work is no excuse for unwarranted filibustering. Deputy President, I have no doubt that the co-location arrangement is a controversial issue that may arouse public concerns about "one country, two systems" being put at stake. That is probably the reason why the Administration has deferred the debates on the CSAs and the Third Reading of the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2017―they, I mean the stamp duty, should be throw into the coffin―and puts this motion at the very top of the agenda of the Council meeting on 25 October with a view to allowing this Council to debate on such a controversial subject despite the Administration's belated awareness of the need of a debate on the co-location arrangement and the fact that the nature if the government motion on the co-location arrangement is not legally binding. Because of the controversial nature of the co-location arrangement, an open-ended debate is welcomed as Members of this Council can articulate their views freely, whether they support it or not. The opposition Members, too, can make use of the debate to express their concerns. After all, they represent the people who voted for them. Their concerns over the negative implications the co-location arrangement may have on the constitution and "one country, two systems" will be recorded in the Hansard as an official record. Against this backdrop, I do not agree with Dr Helena WONG's suggestion of shelving the debate indefinitely till the Government has released all the information requested by the opposition Members. This is the information requested by the opposition Members. It is unacceptable. The opposition Members can make such a request at the debate and if the Government fails to provide such information


before the implementation of the co-location arrangement, history will do justice should anything go wrong with its sabotaging "one country, two systems"―and this is not likely to happen―and impairing the interests of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong people. Deputy President, the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("Express Rail Link") is to be commissioned in 2018. We are running against the clock to prepare for its smooth implementation. Obviously, we need to cherish every opportunity given to this Council for expressing our views on this very subject, however favourable or critical the comments will be. The views expressed will be consolidated into constructive criticism from which reference may be drawn by the authorities for their pending preparation work towards the commissioning of the Express Rail Link. By doing so, we have, at least, done our job as far as reasonably practicable on the part of a legislator. If we discard such an opportunity, it is tantamount to dereliction of duty, my dear Honourable colleagues. Interestingly, the opposition Members kept saying that the SAR Government has a predetermined stance―why not?―and it has been extremely frugal with making arrangements for discussing the co-location arrangement, but the opposition Members are now rejecting a golden opportunity laid before them and shifting the focus on the subject merely to the political facet, regardless of the socio-economic implications of the issue. Sadly, this is a shame for the opposition Members' panic over China's interfering into Hong Kong's internal affairs has swallowed their rationality. Franklin D. ROOSEVELT once said―if I may quote―"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". The opposition Members must act rationally and do not let fear swallow your soul. Both the location of the rail terminal in West Kowloon and the co-location arrangement are irreversible facts because what is being done is done. And so, any discussion based on this premise should be meaningful and worth pursuing. If the opposition Members cannot accept this premise, certainly there is no point discussing the co-location arrangement, not to even speak of adjourning the debate. Nevertheless, dwelling on the impossible dream of rejecting to accept the reality will get Hong Kong nowhere. Under "one country, two systems", I still believe we can strive to strike an appropriate balance in the best interests of Hong Kong and the people of Hong Kong, while maximizing the benefits to be brought by the Express Rail Link. I know this will be so and I have been there all these years as a member of this Council and the Mass Transit Railway Corporation. We have been working very hard for the 2018 opening.


1103

Should the co-location arrangement turn out to be overdone and unreasonable after its implementation, I do believe that the people of Hong Kong will voice their objection. I trust in the people of Hong Kong, don't you all, the opposition Members? With these remarks, I oppose to Ms Claudia MO's motion. Thank you, Deputy President. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I oppose Ms Claudia MO's motion to adjourn the motion debate on the co-location arrangement. Due to the opposition camp's abuse of the Rules of Procedure and their filibuster, the motion debate on the co-location arrangement has been stalled for three weeks. Up to now, we are still unable to kick start the debate. This is a full display of the domineering style of the opposition camp. Mr CHU Hoi-dick has said it would be inappropriate to commence such a discussion when relevant legislative provisions were still unavailable. His remark is misleading. According to the "Three-step Process", the Government will first seek authorization from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") to kick off the "Three-step Process" in order to implement the co-location proposal in Hong Kong. This is step one. The Government will then submit the proposal to the Legislative Council for local legislation, and the legislative provisions will be available at that particular step. How can we skip the first two steps and jump to step three now? How can we simply deny discussion of the co-location motion because we are not in step three? I find such remark extremely misleading. Besides, Mr IP Kin-yuen said social opinions were divided. He also said he would like to discuss his many worries. But then he left the Chamber when discussion was on the way. As we can see, opposition Members' attendance rate were low in the past few days. Obviously, they are so domineering that they refuse and are reluctant to discuss with others. Nor are they ready to heed other views. The opposition camp said there was no opportunity for discussion on the one hand, but they used tricks to adjourn and abort Council meetings to block the discussion on the other. Then at a meeting of the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways, they changed their minds and indicated their wishes to discuss the issue. The opposition Members once boycotted a visit to West


Kowloon Station to observe how the co-location clearance procedures would be conducted. Later on at the Railway Subcommittee meeting, they said they wished to conduct such a visit. From these we can see the oppositions Members have actually messed things up. They are shilly-shallying and wavering. They are hypocritical, just like chameleons changing their colours. Indeed, the Government's submission of this motion to the Legislative Council signifies its respect for the legislature. This is beyond doubt. After all, the Government has hammered out a feasible co-location proposal following years of hard work. It then submitted the proposal to the Legislative Council for discussion in order to collect views from both sides of the Members and from various perspectives. However, before we could commence the co-location motion debate, Ms Claudia MO moved this motion to adjourn it. If the opposition Members think they have sufficient justifications, why do they try every means to thwart the commencement of the debate? I believe the public can see clearly what the opposition Members have done. I do think that even though the Government does not submit the co-location motion to the Council, it will still have authorization. The House Committee held a meeting to discuss the proposal right after it was released, and three Panels convened a joint meeting to further discuss it on 8 August. Mr Jeffrey LAM and I proposed a motion to support the co-location proposal at that meeting, and the motion was passed. Hence, in my viewpoint, the co-location proposal has already got the mandate. The Government's submission of the relevant motion to the Legislative Council essentially signifies its respect for the legislature. Mr CHU Hoi-dick said he would oppose and fight against the proposal to the end. In the interest of the public, we could definitely fight with him to the end. But I hope Mr CHU Hoi-dick would not be so immature. Are there any rooms for discussion and coordination, other than fighting to the bitter end? I do not know where he is now. But I hope when he comes back to the Chamber, he can think over the situation clearly that Members should rather use reasons to convince others than to exploit the loopholes of the Rules of Procedure to create hurdles and abort meetings. This is unsportsmanlike conduct. In soccer games, these acts are tantamount to foot sweep and the grabbing of clothes. Hence, I hope the opposition Members can think over it thoroughly. Deputy President, I am against this motion.


1105

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on behalf of the New People's Party, I speak to oppose Ms Claudia MO's adjournment motion. As Mr Charles Peter MOK pointed out last week, since the unification, it has been a constitutional practice for the Government to move a motion on every significant policy initiative for debate at the Legislative Council. There were such cases shortly after the handover. The first case was in May 1999 when the Government referred the judgment on the right of abode of NG Ka-ling to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") for interpretation. The then Secretary for Justice moved a motion debate on the issue. At the end of 2000 when I was the Secretary for Security, I also moved a motion debate on the Public Order Ordinance in response to criticisms which denounced the proposed law as a draconian law. Then in May 2002 when the Government introduced the Principal Officials Accountability System, the then Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Mr Michael SUEN, also moved a motion debate on it. These debates enable Members to fully express their supportive or opposing views regarding the respective policies and their remarks can be put into record. These debates are very valuable also because they help enhance the public's understanding of those controversial issues. I do not agree with the argument that it is inappropriate to debate the co-location arrangement because of its legal uncertainty. There were also voices in society questioning the legality of the Public Order Ordinance and the seeking of NPCSC interpretation during the relevant motion debates. But the more the truth is debated, the clearer it becomes. I also disapprove of the saying that without comprehensive consultation, the co-location arrangement should not be pursued in full swing. The fact is many Hong Kong people are keen to have more convenient ways to travel to the Mainland for sightseeing or work, and are looking forward to the implementation of the co-location arrangement earnestly. As some Members have just pointed out, discussion on this topic has actually started since 2009 when the Government first submitted its XRL funding application to the Legislative Council. In other words, the topic has been discussed for eight years, and there have been ample opportunities for discussion in society. Hence, it is time to expeditiously take forward the proposal. After completion of the Council debate on the co-location arrangement, the Government would kick off the "Three-step Process" to enable the general public to enjoy the bonus to be brought about the XRL. Therefore, I am against the adjournment motion. I so submit.


DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I certainly support this motion that the debate on the "co-location" be now adjourned. I even think that it is a kind of regression to discuss the Express Rail Link ("XRL") issue or various "co-location" proposals now in 2017, that is, nowadays Hong Kong. This regression is also the biggest reason why I support the adjournment motion. I am not sure whether my choice of word is appropriate, but I do feel this is an era of collective dementia. If you ask me, I can say that the issue is still fresh in my mind. When the issue of XRL was discussed between 2009 and 2010, various sectors and members of the public raised their different views and criticisms on the issue. I can still recall that the person in charge was Secretary Eva CHENG. But nowadays, nobody even mentions all of these. Why do I say that this is an era of collective dementia? I will explain my point from several perspectives. First, as far as the economy is concerned … Deputy President, is it a quarter to 3:00 pm now? Deputy President, I shall wait first. I will request a headcount after they have left. Last time because Members had not all left the Chamber, I was criticized for requesting a headcount when Members were still present. Deputy President, I request a headcount, thank you. 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) DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, unfortunately, it just so happens that each time I am speaking, the minute hand of the clock touches the three-quarter mark, so there is some interruption to my speech. I have mentioned that I support the adjournment motion on the debate of the "co-location" motion. I even think that a kind of collective dementia has occurred in Hong Kong nowadays, because we are still raising the same arguments against "co-location" or XRL that were raised seven or eight years ago. Of course, I must say that my speech on the XRL issue now and my subsequent speech on the same issue will both prove that I am also a dementia patient. I am also a collective dementia patient, and this explains why I am repeating some contents and remarks that were put forward seven to eight years ago.


1107

Why do I say so? First of all, we are not discussing the legislative provisions involved, or arguing about the site of the construction of XRL or how it should be constructed. I think the symptom of our collective dementia is that there are too many instances of defying the common sense well-known to Hong Kong people in the course the discussions. Let me cite an example from the economic perspective. Now we all know that the XRL project has been delayed for three years and apparently $19.6 billion is overspent. During this period (especially in March 2016) an extra funding request was approved. According to the Government's initial estimate, after XRL has commissioned, a direct economic benefit of $87 billion will be generated. But due to persistent overspending, one can actually see that XRL has already overspent more than $100 billion. The Government and relevant operating departments have admitted clearly that the financial internal rate of return ("FIRR") will only be 4%. That is to say, as Frederick MA, Chairman of the board of directors of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), said, chances are the $80 million monthly operating cost would only be offset and XRL could only recover its cost if XRL's future return is raised. This is the first example. It reveals to us the reason why this dementia has developed along with the social development of Hong Kong in the past decades, in particular the decades of a robust economic growth. Obviously, we are running a losing business, but we still insist on doing it. We know very well that we cannot recover the cost, but we keep on overspending, and even the operator tells us that we need to earn $80 million in order to offset the monthly operating cost and to keep XRL afloat. As to this issue … (Mr Steven HO stood up) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, please stop for a while. Mr Steven HO, do you have a point of order? MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Dr CHENG Chung-tai has been discussing economic efficiency, which is irrelevant to the adjournment motion this time around.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, you are the 27th Member to speaking whether the adjournment motion should be supported. Please focus on the question and say concisely whether you support the motion. With regards to the pros and cons of the co-location arrangement, you can discuss them when we enter the debate on the co-location motion. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I understand … that Members should not debate with each other; it is not appropriate for us to debate with each other. I have been emphasizing that my discussion aims to show why the motion should be adjourned, and my point is that the debate itself will cause dementia. Therefore, I must give some examples to show that all the facts about economic efficiency, costs and cost recovery and so on are already right before our eyes. One obvious defiance of the cornerstone of Hong Kong's success, very obviously, is that the business will not be profitable at all. So, why should it continue? I do not think my speech has strayed from the subject, because I am adhering to my argument all along. My argument is that I support the adjournment motion because the debate contents will make everyone stupid. Deputy President, do you understand that? The fact that we discuss these things will make us stupid. For this reason, I think the continuation of discussion will make our society more stupid. Nevertheless, I also understand that a society all for mediocrity or retrogression may find things like this justifiable. I am only trying to explain why they are justifiable, Deputy President, I will return to the discussion. This is only one of the many examples. I wish to cite another example concerning the economy. Similarly, now the Government only charges XRL a nominal premium of $1,000, and at the same time it charges a Government Rent at 3% of the rateable value for a 50 year lease period. At present, Secretary Frank CHAN emphasizes that XRL can generate about $270 billion for Hong Kong because it is a cross-boundary structure, and its long-term indirect impact on Hong Kong will be even bigger. The question is, as I have said earlier, how can the Government come up with two sets of figures, namely a monthly turnover of $80 million and a long-term economic benefit of $270 billion? The formula used to compute these two sets of figures is itself a defiance of common sense and conventional reasoning, otherwise no such figures can possibly be arrived at.


1109

For that reason, Deputy President, from the economic perspective alone and from the perspective that doing business is Hong Kong's means of support over all these years, this will be a loss-making business. It is wrong for the Government to start the construction in the very first place. Since the construction is underway, what should we do? Should we stop the loss? As to the ways to stop loss, should we withdraw, or should we bite the bullet and continue? At present, it is obvious that the Government is forcing the whole of Hong Kong to repeat the mistake with it. This is exactly the reason why we become more stupid. A more stupid thing is about the economy. We have already entered the discussion concerning the rule of law or politics. Of course, I am not going to discuss provisions about legal principles. I only wish to point out one thing as there is an example of retrogression. That is, can the Deputy President understand that in Hong Kong, as far as the political correctness that we all understand is concerned, Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China. Of course, some may agrees, but this is not the issue here. Nevertheless, if Hong Kong is already part of the People's Republic of China, then why should the infrastructure built in Hong Kong need to establish a Chinese leasehold within Hong Kong's territory and to set up a Mainland port area within the leasehold? The Secretary said that any 999 call dialled from this area would be transferred to the Mainland's public security authorities, and it would be up to such authorities to decide whether or not Mainland law would be enforced in this area. Can Members see how ridiculous it is? Can this be called any discussion? I think it is just the gimmick of some talk shows … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, you have already entered the content of the "co-location" motion. Please return to the present motion. You mention in your speech that the discussion on "co-location" will make our society stupid. Members have noted your argument. Please raise some new arguments. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Really? I think there are many stupid things here. Therefore, I will provide one more example. When a person dials 999, the call will be transferred to Mainland public security authorities. They will be asked if Mainland's law will be enforced. How irrational it sounds!


Deputy President, I am not talking about legal issues. Nowadays, Hong Kong does not have death penalty. But if someone has smuggled heroin into the Mainland port area within West Kowloon Station, and someone calls the police. The crime is deemed to as committed within the Mainland port area, so should the smuggler be given a death sentence? Will it contravene the Basic Law? This scenario alone is already very puzzling, right? Someone reports a smuggling activity within the Hong Kong port area and the smuggler is apprehended, and if the person who reports the case claims that he is willing to present himself as a witness. In Hong Kong where the "one country, two systems" principle is adopted, there is no death penalty. But according to Chinese law, anyone involved in smuggling or drug trafficking may be given a death sentence. In that case, should the smuggler be given the death sentence? I know that the discussion of these contents has obviously touched upon the legal principles. But I wish to say that the stupid thing is that the debate itself or the discussion on the "co-location" has already proved that this is the inevitable problem that we have to face under the "one country, two systems". For that reason, both pro-establishment Members or pan-democratic Members think that the issue should be discussed. However, what I wish to emphasize is that it is not something that we should not discuss. But it will cause a retrogression in society if we keep on debating these kind of issues which have already defied common sense and conventional reasoning. The retrogression does not mean any retrogression in the rule of law or the economy, but a kind of retrogression of Hong Kong people as a community. As far as the economy is concerned, we thought in the past that the cornerstone of Hong Kong's success is the pragmatism, competence and efficiency of Hong Kong people. People who do business know very well that they cannot afford to do a losing business. But unfortunately it happens that Hong Kong has been doing a losing business over the past 20 years. At a certain stage, we may do something to stop loss. But it happens that we are not doing that. We just damage the established system of Hong Kong. We make the mistake again and again. We will lose the whole of Hong Kong, even. We have come to an irreversible situation. This is not just about business losses, it will cost our lives … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, first, you are repeating your views. Second, you have entered the substantive discussion on


1111

the pros and cons of the "co-location" motion. I am reminding you for the third time that if you fail to focus on whether you support the adjournment motion, I will consider asking you to stop speaking. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Yes, Deputy President, therefore I agree that this kind of debate will cause a retrogression in all of us. Just now I took a retrogressive step myself. Obviously, I should not discuss that, but I am still discussing that. Lastly, I have to give an example. Actually, the XRL that we are talking about is not a real high-speed railway. They are just "D" trains. The high-speed rail that we are talking about should meet an international standard. In the past, when Hong Kong people talked about high-speed rail … my knowledge about high-speed rail came from the high-speed rail accident which took place in Wenzhou, but no one in Hong Kong talks about it now. The XRL in question are the trains that run through Hong Kong's subterranean. Of course, as to why it should run through the heart of Hong Kong, we have conducted numerous debates on it. Nevertheless, if we adhere to today's question in the discussion, then I need to ask Members again, are we talking about high-speed rail or "D" trains? Why should the co-location arrangement damage the "one country, two systems" principle for the sake of replacing the through trains at Hung Hom? To elaborate it further, at the very worst, assuming that XRL is the real high-speed rail, why should the Government keep the operation of the KCRC, that is, the through trains at Hung Hom, while boasting how awesome the XRL and the Hexie Hao high-speed trains are? Since XRL will reach West Kowloon Station directly, and these through trains could also reach Guangzhou … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, you have strayed from the subject. Upon the completion of XRL, whether or not the MTRCL's through train should keep on operating is another question. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I understand and agree with you. Please do not be agitated. I will not use up all the 15-minute speaking time. My conclusion is: I support the adjournment motion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-14262276


PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the debate today is about the adjournment motion moved under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Last week after the Council Meeting had adjourned, a current affair commentator said something which urged me to read the whole motion again … I seldom work so hard on a motion. Allow me to spend a little time to read out the motion wording because the current affair commentator said last week that the focus of the government motion is all along not about discussing the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") or the co-location arrangement, but about discussing the "Three-step Process" proposal. I still have about 10 minutes to speak. Let me use a little time to read out the motion wording first. The title of the government motion is "Motion on taking forward the follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link". The motion proposed by Secretary Frank CHAN is as follows: "Regarding the arrangement for conducting Hong Kong and Mainland customs, immigration and quarantine procedures ('the co-location arrangement') at the West Kowloon Station of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ('XRL'), this Council supports the Government in taking forward the follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement pursuant to the 'Three-step Process' proposal announced on 25 July 2017, including reaching a Co-operation Arrangement with the Mainland, seeking the approval and endorsement of the Co-operation Arrangement by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress through a decision to be made by the Standing Committee, as well as commencing the local legislative process thereafter, so as to meet the target of implementing the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station upon the commissioning of the Hong Kong Section of the XRL in the third quarter of 2018, with a view to fully unleashing the transport, social and economic benefits of the Hong Kong Section of the XRL and maximising convenience to passengers." I read the motion wording several times, and the words of the current affair commentator then came to my mind. The intention of the Government in tabling a motion to the Legislative Council is all along never about discussing whether we support XRL or the co-location arrangement. If I may borrow the words of a Member just now, the Government does it out of respect for the Legislative Council. It wants to tell Members that it is going to use the


1113

"Three-step Process" to take forward the co-location arrangement and it now consults Members whether they agree to it or not. Ms Claudia MO says she disagrees, so she does not even think it is necessary to discuss it. I also think that we need not discuss this subject here. Why? According to the information provided to me by my colleague, the Chief Executive says on 26 October that it is out of respect that she submitted the motion to the Legislative Council for discussion. If Members prevent the resolution of the motion by filibustering during the motion debate, then due to time constraint, respecting the Legislative Council or not is no longer a factor to be considered. The Government does not rule out initiating the "Three-step Process" at the same time. The Government says it "does not rule out". I am quoting its Chinese wording here. In other words, this motion debate is actually unimportant. It is only a courtesy the Government tries to pay out of respect for the Legislative Council. We have spent almost two days of meeting time on this, together with the time we spent on this motion today. Why does the Government have to consult us on the "Three-step Process" proposal? I arrive at a conclusion and let me use a comparison to illustrate my point. The Government which represents Hong Kong people intends to invite the Mainland authorities to rent a place in Hong Kong to conduct customs, immigration and quarantine procedures, so it asks Hong Kong people whether it is acceptable to implement the co-location arrangement by seeking prior approval and endorsement of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") and initiating local legislative process thereafter at the Legislative Council. But to date, we still have not started discussing the co-location arrangement. Hence, Deputy President, you are correct. We do not need to discuss this arrangement here because we may later have a chance to do so. But the Government has already said so much on the subject, why does it want us to debate this motion at this stage? I do not think the Government should spend so much time on debating this motion at this stage. I thus support the adjournment motion moved by Ms Claudia MO. One of the reasons is that I believe Members do not quite care about discussing whether the Government should adopt the "Three-step Process". The Secretary for Justice announced the "Three-step Process" on 25 July, mainly hoping that Hong Kong and the Mainland …


DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have been explaining the government motion and the "Three-step Process" proposal. I believe Members already have a clear understanding of them. Please focus on whether you support Ms Claudia MO's adjournment motion. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I do not know if you have listened attentively to my speech. Perhaps you have not. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have listened attentively to your speech. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): All along I say I do not support the government motion, but I support the adjournment motion moved under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure by Ms Claudia MO. You can certainly say that I have digressed from the topic, but I need to explain the government motion in order to explain why it need not be discussed here. I am not saying that we will definitely lose in the voting on this motion, so we will later have a chance to discuss the government motion. I am saying that I must first bring out the content of the government motion and why it need not be discussed at this stage, in order to arrive at my conclusion that I support the adjournment motion moved under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure by Ms Claudia MO. I think my stance is very clear. However, as a teacher myself, I do understand that at this time after lunch, around 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm, one will feel very tired. I hope Deputy President can stay focused and listen to my explanation why we do not need to discuss the government motion. I thank you for interrupting my speech and I will now come back to the words of the Secretary for Justice. Fortunately, I have a script to help me continue with my speech. The "Three-step Process" I mentioned just now is a mechanism that Hong Kong will use to invite the Mainland authorities to rent a place in Hong Kong. I must stress that the invitation is extended by the Hong Kong side. The Mainland side has not asked us to do so. This is what the "Three-step Process" is all about. Why do we need to discuss the place to be rented? The discussion is completely unnecessary. Why do I say so? First, under the "Three-step


1115

Process", the Mainland and Hong Kong will reach a Co-operation Arrangement. The SAR Government will represent Hong Kong people … I hope it can because our Chief Executive is not returned by direct election … it will discuss the various arrangements with the Mainland authorities, and the Legislative Council does not have a say here. I remember a current affair commentator has made fun of the arrangement, saying that the Legislative Council does not need to spend so much time on the discussion, simply asking the supporting Members to write a joint letter to the Government indicating their support of the arrangement and the matter is done. This precisely shows that the first step of the "Three-step Process" does not require our discussion. The Government wants to consult us for public opinion. I believe the democratic Members do represent quite a large portion of the public opinion, although a few of them have been disqualified. The democratic Members should represent at least over half of the public opinion, and the public opinion is very clear. But the Government still wants to discuss it. Is it necessary to do so? According to the Secretary for Justice, the second step is to seek the approval and endorsement of the Co-operation Arrangement by NPCSC by making a decision. This is also irrelevant to us. No matter we agree or disagree, the Secretary for Justice will have to take this procedural step. To put it in everyday terms, he will have to do the rounds. And the third step is local legislation, or, according to the Secretary for Justice, the third step is to implement the co-location arrangement in the Hong Kong SAR through enactment of local legislation. Is it necessary for the Government to discuss the "Three-step Process" at this stage in the Legislative Council and seek our support for it? Deputy President, I have reservation about it, and I absolutely do not think it is necessary, since whether the Government has our support or not, it will press ahead with the arrangement. Like I said just now, the Government, being the representative of Hong Kong people, invites the Mainland authorities to rent a place in Hong Kong, and there is no need to discuss at this Council whether it has the right to exercise these rights. Why do we have to discuss the arrangement here? I really do not understand. So, Ms Claudia MO has opted for a very good approach. Instead of having a premature discussion, it would be better to adjourn the debate. This is my logic. Last but not least, nine Members have proposed an amendment to the motion. Of course, I will not be as unreasonable as to read out all the nine


amendments. I have 15 minutes to speak and I do not need to filibuster like that. The amendments proposed by the nine Members can be summarized into a few points. First, they focus on saying that the Government basically has not conducted any public consultation on the "Three-step Process" proposal or the co-location arrangement to be implemented after the "Three-step Process"; and second, they oppose the co-location arrangement. Deputy President, if they all along oppose adopting the co-location arrangement for the customs, quarantine and immigration procedures, is it not a waste of time that the Government insists on having a discussion here and asking for our support? Hence, regarding the question whether the motion debate should be adjourned, my logic is straightforward. Being a teacher, I need to have a sense of duty, a clear mind and be articulate. Besides, some Members say that the Government does not need to seek the support of the Legislative Council on the co-location arrangement and the "Three-step Process" proposal because they contravene Articles 18, 22 and 20 of the Basic Law, and the Government fails to justify its case. So, why should we still have the discussion? Another point raised in Members' amendments is that the co-location arrangement violates the principle of "one country, two systems" and it is infeasible. The nine Members who have proposed an amendment to the government motion focus on these four points and these four points are not directly related to the "Three-step Process" proposal. Given that the situation is so complicated and chaotic, and I may have explained it a much more chaotic way than Dr CHENG Chung-tai did, and also possibly because of my chaotic mind and stupidity, I thus think that we do not need to have a discussion here. Why do we have to spend so much time on the discussion? Moreover, the Government undeniably tries to win a public mandate through the Legislative Council. Whether we are the majority or the minority of this Council, or a member of the pro-establishment camp or the democratic camp, we are authorized by the people. We have gone through an election. Although I come from a functional constituency of the "ghouls and bogies", I am elected by my constituents and I have many votes. If the Government asks me whether we support the "Three-step Process" proposal, I will still say the same thing, and that is, it does not need to ask us this question, because we do not agree with the co-location approach in the first place, so why do we need to discuss whether we agree with the "Three-step Process" proposal? Deputy President, the logic is the same. Hence, I believe all along this matter need not be discussed.


1117

When I take a step back and give this discussion some thoughts, I suspect whether this is some tactics of the Government. It raises this issue out for discussion at this stage, so that we focus all our energy on discussing the co-location arrangement. Given the Government says that the majority of the people support the co-location arrangement, we, being the minority, can finish expressing our views on the pros and cons of the arrangement and the Government's approach in a few days. After that, we will have exhausted all our strategies. In future when the Government proceeds to the third step and commences local legislation, it can say at the Bills Committee that we have finished expressing our views long ago and we are singing the old tunes again. So, it can then stop any further discussion and conclude that the co-location arrangement is feasible. The Government invites the Mainland authorities to rent a place in Hong Kong and says that implementing the co-location arrangement here in our home is a good thing. But no one knows whether the Government will honour its words. And certainly, even if it does keep its word, it is not related to the motion … Deputy President, I know … But if so many matters are unrelated to this motion, why should we discuss it now? So, I absolutely agree with Ms Claudia MO to have moved an adjournment motion under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Lastly, I want to say that the campaign slogan of the Carrie LAM Government is "we connected" … sorry, I have wrongly added the sound of "ed" to the word "connect". I cannot pronounce the word as accurate as Mr Josiah LAU does. It should be "connect". The new Government has done a lot of work and it has four years or so in its term. And we still have two to three years in our term. I hope that we can sit down and try to put "we connect" into practice. In fact, it is not imperative that the co-location arrangement and the "Three-step Process" proposal be discussed in the Legislative Council. We have other occasions to try to practice "we connect". After completing the discussion on this subject, XRL will be able to reach Futian, Beijing or Wenzhou quickly. It will then be up to the public to decide whether they will travel by XRL. Deputy President, this is the everyday life of the people. I have spoken for 14 minutes without knowing it and I think it is about time for "Ah Ting" to speak. Thank you, Deputy President.


MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would first of all like to thank Ms Claudia MO for moving this motion to adjourn the debate. Please allow me to first respond to the remarks made by Dr CHENG Chung-tai earlier. In fact, I have seldom listened to Dr CHENG Chung-tai's speech in full. I absolutely do not agree to his remarks that the whole community will become stupid with the present discussions on the co-location arrangement or the issues concerning the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). The justifications put forward by every Member or the Government are of course based on their own stance. Some may consider them words of wisdom, while the others may describe them as nothing but sophistry, but the most important thing is that those who listen to these remarks should have a discerning mind. They will in no way become stupid as a result of the current debate, unless they do not know how to distinguish between right and wrong. Deputy President, let me get down to business. I have listened very attentively just now to the speech of Mr Abraham SHEK, whom I respect very much. He repeatedly stated that the co-location arrangement of XRL was extremely important to Hong Kong, and significant public interests were involved. I have utterly no intention to debate on the economic benefits of XRL, and I am of the view that it is not an opportune time for us to discuss the matter today. However, all judgments concerning the economic benefits of the project are made on the basis of different assumptions, some of which can be very optimistic while some can be quite pessimistic. I am no expert in this regard and cannot say with any certainty that the co-location arrangement of XRL is greatly or not a bit beneficial to the economy of Hong Kong, and both viewpoints are not convincing to me. Yet, it seems that Mr Abraham SHEK has not taken the time to mention in his speech another very important matter involving public interests, that is, the spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong. As mentioned by a number of Members just now, the rule of law of Hong Kong has come under attack as a result of the XRL project, and in this connection, please allow me to quote Article 18 of the Basic Law to illustrate the point. Deputy President, it is clearly stipulated in Article 18 that "[t]he laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be this Law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong as provided for in Article 8 of this Law, and the laws enacted by the legislature of the Region. National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed


1119

in Annex III to this Law. The laws listed therein shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the Region. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress may add to or delete from the list of laws in Annex III after consulting its Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the government of the Region. Laws listed in Annex III to this Law shall be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Region as specified by this Law." (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) It is specified very clearly in Article 18 that generally speaking, Mainland laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") except for those relating to defence and foreign affairs or other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of HKSAR. Very obviously, the proposed co-location arrangement of XRL seeks to designate an area within the territory of Hong Kong for the purpose of enforcing Mainland laws in that area, which is apparently in contravention of the requirements under Article 18 of the Basic Law. In this connection, the Government explained that the provision invoked was Article 20 instead of Article 18 of the Basic Law. Article 20, provides, "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may enjoy other powers granted to it by the National People's Congress, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or the Central People's Government." Simply put, the Government argued that … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, you are talking about the details of the motion on the co-location arrangement. The discussion now is on the question of whether we should adjourn the debate on the motion, so please go back to the subject under discussion and speak on the adjournment motion. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, thank you for reminding me of the original intention of the adjournment motion. I have to cite the articles of the Basic Law because it is of paramount importance that motions moved in this Council must comply with the requirements under the Basic Law.


It is argued that the current motion moved by the Government is in no way against the Basic Law, but I can hold the directly opposite opinion. Therefore, I do need to cite the articles of the Basic Law to illustrate why I support Ms Claudia MO's adjournment motion. I hope the President could understand my point of doing so. I consider it extremely ridiculous for the Government to invoke Article 20 of the Basic Law to explain its case, because Article 20 seeks to grant other powers to HKSAR, but not to provide a legal basis for the HKSAR Government or this Council to forsake its powers or narrow down the scope of its autonomy, since this will run completely contrary to the original objective of Article 20. If Article 20 can be so invoked according to the Government's logic, it can also be used in the future to abolish other protection or promises granted to HKSAR under the Basic Law. In that case, is it not true that instead of granting other powers to HKSAR, Article 20 has become a tool for Hong Kong to "castrate" itself, narrow down the scope of its autonomy and restrict its own powers? Would it be a complete distortion of the original intention of the Basic Law if the Article is so interpreted? Hence, if a motion moved in this Council on the co-location arrangement is possibly in contravention of the Basic Law, a debate on the motion in this Council should not be allowed, let alone putting the motion to vote here. Some Members pointed out that apart from Article 18 and Article 20 of the Basic Law, other examples such as the arrangement implemented respectively at the Shenzhen Bay Port and the Loop could also be used to explain the current case. With regard to the arrangement implemented at the Loop, this is a step that the HKSAR Government and the Shenzhen Government must take back then to address the problem pertaining to boundary demarcation, which arose after the straightening of the river bed of the Shenzhen River. The case is completely different from the arrangement currently proposed for West Kowloon Station. West Kowloon is certainly within the territory of Hong Kong, and the situation there is entirely different from the problem pertaining to boundary demarcation at the Loop. As for the example of the Shenzhen Bay Port, it is also an utterly different thing because Shenzhen Bay is located in the Mainland, and unlike those in Hong Kong, people in Shenzhen Bay cannot enjoy the protection under the Basic Law. If it is argued that approval should be granted today for the setting up of the Mainland Port Area at West Kowloon Station because the same has been given


1121

back then for the establishment of the Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port, and that the example of the Shenzhen Bay Port could be taken as a precedence or background information which we should draw legal reference from, I consider it a fairer approach to state it clearly from the outset that the arrangement implemented at the Shenzhen Bay Port would serve as a precedence and similar arrangement could be adopted in Hong Kong in the future. I think it would probably be more fair if a clear statement to that effect could be given, but to say the least, I and most Hong Kong people cannot recall that such a statement was made at that time. President, what is another reason behind my support for the adjournment motion? In my opinion, there are serious procedural deficiencies on the part of the Government in the entire discussion of the co-location arrangement. The Government pointed out repeatedly that the issue has in fact gone through in-depth and detailed discussions over the years, and that after a comprehensive study of all options, it considered the co-location arrangement the only feasible option, while all other options were totally not feasible. Secretary Frank CHAN even tried to explain his position with the very witty remarks of "it would be better not to meet", and said that in order not to tear Hong Kong further apart, he would rather decline invitations for meeting with students from various students' unions and discussing the co-location arrangement with them. As a man of great wisdom, Secretary Frank CHAN can in fact … President, Mr Paul TSE is raising his hand. (Mr Paul TSE raised his hand and stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, what is your point? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Members have been criticizing Secretary Frank CHAN repeatedly and citing the remarks made by the Secretary to illustrate their points. Such criticisms have become tedious and repetitive, and are irrelevant to the question under debate. I hope the President would make a ruling. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, I have already reminded you just now and would like to remind you once again that the discussion now is on


the question of whether we should adjourn the debate. Please speak on your justifications for supporting or opposing the adjournment motion, and do not go into details about the motion on the co-location arrangement. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, I understand, but I would like to seek your elucidation of the point raised by Mr Paul TSE. I think the rule he invoked to raise his point is Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which stipulates that the President may take action if it comes to his attention that a Member has persisted in irrelevance or tedious repetition of his own or other Members' arguments in a debate. However, President, this is the first time that I speak on this argument, and there is no repetition on my part. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, you have made no repetition in your own arguments, but have repeated the arguments put forth by other Members. I am now reminding you the second time that you have digressed from the subject, and you should go back to the question under discussion. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, have I persisted in "tedious" repetition of the argument concerned? This is the first time that I speak on this argument. President, does it mean that once a Member has first spoken on all relevant arguments, no other Member should repeat the arguments put forth by that Member? For example, if Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has elaborated her points very clearly in her speech and put forth all arguments supported by the pro-establishment camp, should we then take it to mean that no other Member could repeat her arguments? I consider this extremely ridiculous. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have the duties to preside at Council meetings in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. I believe Members are aware that the two requirements in question have already been clearly stipulated in the Rules of Procedure. Mr Paul TSE has also clearly expressed his views. Yet, as President of this Council, I can exercise my discretion in handling such cases. Please go back to the adjournment motion and continue with your speech.


1123

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Alright, President. What I have tried to elaborate just now is in fact very clear, and that is, there are problems with the Government's entire consultation process. Hence, I am of the view that without adequate public consultation, the proposed arrangement should absolutely not be introduced into this Council for deliberation and even voting. In order to substantiate this point, I certainly have to probe into the inadequacies in the public consultation conducted by the Government. I therefore hope that Members could have more patience, so that I could offer my justifications. Secretary Frank CHAN said that he did not wish to meet with university students since "it would be better not to meet", but I think he should in fact meet with them. Secretary Frank CHAN is a man of great wisdom, and he has an in-depth understanding of the thoughts of young people, so why should he be afraid of meeting with university students? As Secretary Frank CHAN has stated clearly the other day, he understands why young people wish to acquire a new car, and knows that they are actually doing this to let their soul wander around with their body. When he is creative enough to give us such a reply, I am sure he definitely can connect with young people, and there is no reason why he should disconnect himself with them. President, according to the Government, it has taken all options into consideration, and it is therefore not necessary to conduct further consultation since the issue has already been subject to adequate discussion in the community. However, after joining this Council, I have asked the former Secretary for Transport and Housing repeatedly at meetings of the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways that whether the co-location arrangement has been finalized. He has all along replied that the arrangement was yet to be finalized, and an announcement in this respect would be made before the expiry of the term of office of the last-term Government. He has broken his promise in the end, and the arrangement was eventually announced by the current-term Government. As he has only been repeating the same reply over and over again, we can never find the chance to enter into a concrete discussion on the details of the co-location arrangement, such as its positive and negative effects, ways to resolve relevant controversies on legal matters, and so on. Yet, the Government tells us now that the issue has already been subject to discussion, full consideration has already been given, and it is therefore not necessary to conduct consultation.


Such remarks are indeed grossly ridiculous. If things can really be handled in this way, in case the Government comes across other controversial issues in the future, it can also claim that full consideration has already been given, and that being Dr Know who is omniscient, it understands perfectly well what other people have in mind and there is hence no need for us to express our views. It is therefore not necessary to conduct any consultation in the future. But is it really the case? Certainly not. Mrs Regina IP, who was former Secretary for Security, has carried out public consultation repeatedly back then on the very controversial issue of legislating for Article 23 of the Basic Law, and I have to express my admiration for her courage. Although the public consultation conducted was of no help for her to gain the support of the majority of Hong Kong people, she was at least willing to come forward to explain, and her attitude was relatively humble. She just urged members of the public to "wait and see" and have faith in her, and did not dare to say that full consideration has already been given and there was no need to conduct further consultation. Although Mrs Regina IP was a very domineering public officer then, her attitude was relatively humble, and it only makes me miss the days when she was the Secretary for Security even more. President, it is my opinion that the Government should conduct extensive and thorough public consultation on a motion of such importance, and should in no way bypass the basic procedures on grounds of an urgency to take the matter forward, because by so doing, we can neither uphold the core values of Hong Kong nor defend our established system which has been proven effective. Thank you, President. MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): If nothing special happens, I should be the last democratic Member to speak on this motion. I was present most of the time during this adjournment motion debate since I want to listen to the views of both democratic and pro-establishment Members. After all, moving an adjournment motion is not a decision that should be made casually, not because whether you may be criticized for doing so, but because what Members' views are. I do not want to repeat what other Members have said. So, I will focus my speech today on why I support the adjournment motion moved by Ms Claudia MO.


1125

First, as Mrs Regina IP also pointed out just now, there are three examples of the Government moving a motion in the past. Of course, we have also done our homework. The first example is about the NG Ka-ling case. Members who have a chance to refer to the Legislative Council paper will know why the matter was brought to the Legislative Council for discussion. In fact, before the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") issued an interpretation of the Basic Law, the Court of Final Appeal had made a judgment on the case. But perhaps because the Government wanted to use the Legislative Council as a rubber stamp again, it agreed to pass the matter to NPCSC for an interpretation. The matter developed in the following sequence: the Court of Final Appeal handed down a ruling on 29 January 1999; about four months later, that is on 19 May 1999, the Secretary for Security moved a government motion requesting NPCSC to make an interpretation of the Basic Law; and in another month later, that is on 28 June, NPCSC made the interpretation, which subsequently led to the first black gown protest of the legal sector. I believe the Secretary for Justice sitting opposite to me should still have a deep memory of it. Next, I will talk about the information I have prepared. In fact, I truly hope that Members can have a sensible discussion today. Why do we have to move a motion to adjourn the debate? In fact, as many Members have pointed out, we may have collected a lot of information about XRL over the years of discussion on this subject, but looking at the matter again today, we may have been deceived by the Government. Let me cite a simple example. The Government announced the XRL construction project in 2008, and one month later Mr WONG Ting-kwong moved a non-binding motion on the subject. The Government made it clear at the debate that it would continue to explore the feasibility of the co-location arrangement, but it would also give leeway to both the "separate location" and "co-location" options in the design of the XRL terminus; and sufficient space would also be reserved in the XRL Mainland stations in, among others, Futian, Longhua, Humen and Shibi for the "separate location" option. The attending public officer making replies to Mr WONG Ting-kwong at that time was the Secretary for Transport and Housing. Perhaps President may still remember that Eva CHENG, who is now the Non-executive Director of the Bank of China, repeatedly said this point at the Finance Committee meetings, including the meeting on 8 January 2012. Members can refer to the relevant Legislative Council papers.


Another point of concern revealed in the discussion is that a 28 000 sq m space was reserved for the Mainland Port Area. This point has rarely been brought up by Members and other people. This was said by Ir WAI Chi-sing, the then Director of Highways and now the CEO of the Urban Renewal Authority, in 16 January 2010. I urge fellow Members, especially pro-establishment Members, to help find out why, since we are not "persuasive" enough, why the current Government paper indicates that the Mainland Port Area will occupy an area of over 100 000 sq m? What has happened in the interim? I certainly know that the train platform, and I believe also the train itself, will occupy part of this area, but what exactly has happened? Moreover, the law is another point of great concern. I must talk about this point because the Government now intends to invoke Article 20 of the Basic Law as in the case of the discussion on the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area in the past. I will refer to the corresponding discussion, including the verbatim record at the Second Reading debate on the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area at that time. Mr Ambrose LEE, the Secretary for Security at that time, made an undertaking. Why did he have to go into such specific details? It is because, President, the Bills Committee only made a brief scrutiny of the bill. It completed the scrutiny in 16 meetings within one and a half months. In fact, I hope pro-establishment Members can do us a favour and look into this matter. The then Secretary for Security specifically said … Let us do a headcount first. Thank you, President. 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) MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): I was talking about Article 20 of the Basic Law just now. I wish to take this opportunity to read out Article 20 for Members, so as to illustrate why the Article is very relevant to the "follow-up tasks" under discussion today and why I support Ms Claudia MO's adjournment motion. This is because the Government intends to invoke Article 20 of the


1127

Basic Law to request NPCSC to make a decision. The Article is as follows, (I quote) "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may enjoy other powers granted to it by the National People's Congress, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or the Central People's Government". The Article was cited at the debate on the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Bill. But as I said just now, when the Bill was considered at the Bills Committee, some Members raised concerns to the then Secretary for Security and asked him to explain the scope of application of Article 20. Hence, when the Bill resumed its Second Reading debate on 25 April 2007, he made the following remark in page 5933 of the binding Official Record of Proceedings of the Legislative Council, "I wish to stress here that the SAR is competent to acquire additional powers from the Central Authorities under Article 20 of the Basic Law. The SAR Government must exercise these additional powers in accordance with the Basic Law, and we will not, and I stress, will not, deprive the SAR of its rights protected by the Basic Law." The words "and I stress" in the quote is not said by me, but by the Secretary for Security. Why do I have to read out this remark? As I pointed out just now, this is related to the follow-up tasks, but this is also what we have the greatest doubt about. The former public officer explicitly said that our rights protected under the Basic Law will not be deprived. How come it is now different? As we know, under the second step of the "Three-step Process", we will seek the approval and endorsement of the Co-operation Arrangement by NPCSC. But please do not forget this Basic Law in my hand. Each Member should have a copy. Assuming that the Basic Law and the NPCSC decision are equal in authority, I wish to tell Members that the description and the map of the boundary of the administrative division of the Hong Kong SAR are set out in the Basic Law. If you refer to Instrument 11 of your copy of Basic Law, it is talking about the Order of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. It states that on 4 April 1990 … the map of the administrative division of the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China was approved by the State Council and to be promulgated on 1 July. Apart from the description of the lines of latitude and longitude of the boundary, there is also a map. What do I try to bring out here?


Obviously, West Kowloon is located within this territory. How come the Government can now abruptly take away a part of the territory in the name of Article 20 of the Basic Law? This is no small matter. Before the Government can fully explain itself, I hold that we should take this matter seriously. Members who have referred to the 27-page paper provided to the Legislative Council will know that within the future Mainland Port Area, we do not have any authorities, except some civil authorities. But of course, there are six exceptions. Members who have studied the paper should know. However, Members should not think that this arrangement is entirely identical with the arrangement adopted for the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area. I have a copy of that ordinance in my hand. The case of Shenzhen Bay Port Area is more straightforward because the area in not within Hong Kong. That is why we need an NPCSC decision and relevant legislative support if we wish to extend the application of Hong Kong laws to areas outside our administrative region (i.e. outside Hong Kong). It was relatively easy to tackle the problem at that time because as long as the jurisdiction of the courts is defined, the courts can regulate "any cause or matter, civil or criminal" under section 7 of the ordinance. But is the present case also that straightforward? Many Members just now raised many queries, and also Mr Kenneth LEUNG who spoke last time if Members have noticed. Can the Government really explain all these queries later? If it cannot, we should not forget that the motion today is about the follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement, and the first step is to reach a Co-operation Arrangement in which everything will be written in detail except the six exceptions I just mentioned. However, to date, apart from the scanty information provided in the paper, we know nothing in detail. I do not know whether pro-establishment Members know more than we do, but I wish to point out that this adjournment motion only seeks to adjourn the debate on this motion and this does not mean that the Government cannot submit another similar motion to the Legislative Council again. I hope that the pro-establishment camp can work with us and strive to obtain more relevant information. We all have experience of being betrayed by the Government in the past. The Government first sought $66.9 billion funding from the Legislative Council, saying that the XRL project would yield a 6% economic return. But in 2015, the


1129

Government sought further funding from this Council again due to cost overruns of the project, but saying that the economic return was revised to 4%. Certainly, this may be related to the different economic performance of the two places, but all these estimations should be obtained by assessments. We wrote to the Government and requested for such information, a very simple request that the Government had also answered in 2009. We only want an updated version and we have no intention of making things difficult for the Government. We only want to have the information that we should have the right to know. But of course, even if we were able to obtain the information, we could not stop the commissioning of XRL. We never overestimate our power, or unrealistically think that we can stop XRL from commissioning. The XRL will be commissioned no matter the co-location arrangement is set up or not because its successful commissioning is determined by the construction project. We cannot stop it from commissioning. We just want to have the right to know more. Mr Abraham SHEK said just now that even if the Government has deceived us, it doesn't matter because history will do us justice. But I am afraid I would have died by the time history does us justice … President, I am talking about myself, not you. I thus hope that we can obtain the information soon, so that we can have clear evidence as early as possible. Fortunately, we have the verbatim record prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat for the meeting today and also the paper of the Finance Committee. Nowadays, information technologies are advanced, but they are not as good as a formal record. We hope that the Government can respond to us at the end of this adjournment motion or later at the co-location motion to relieve our worries. I remember in his reply to our letter Secretary Frank CHAN says that these are unnecessary worries, but I think some of these worries are justified and I hope that, as a sensible and responsible Government, it can use this opportunity to make an explanation. Last but not least, I always insist that the Government should be prepared because some court cases last month and the month before last are still pending judicial reviews and there are yet to be any conclusion. I believe Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN knows best what I am saying. What will happen in the end? I don't know. But if the court ultimately rules that the co-location arrangement violates the Basic Law, what should the Government do? Would the Government request NPCSC to make another decision, stating that the


arrangement is authorized by NPCSC which is out of the jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts to handle, and then treat everything as if nothing has happened? Or would it request NPCSC to make another interpretation of the Basic Law? Is this the last tactic of the Government? I hope the Government will think twice before doing so. Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN was very prudent last time when handling whether an NPCSC interpretation should be sought for the fourth time to handle the DQ case (the case of Members being disqualified). I hope the Secretary for Security would be as prudent as he handled the DQ case last time when he handles this case now and persevere with the matters that the Hong Kong SAR Government has the authority to handle and does not seek an interpretation from NPCSC. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any public officer wish to speak? (No public officer indicated a wish to speak) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, do you intend to reply? MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I am very eager to reply, but it is a pity that the government officials have not uttered even a word. Perhaps, they think that they can thus get away. The adjournment motion under discussion is not intended to end our discussion on co-location clearance. It is only intended to make us pause and think for a little while before holding any further discussion. I have made a request for adjournment mainly because so many questions are still unanswered. I am going to speak on economic efficiency, but my purpose is not to argue with the Government. I must make this clear because Secretary for Transport and


1131

Housing Frank CHAN has himself raised this issue in his reply, and I am afraid people may thus think that he has already answered the question I raise and wonder why I should still insist on moving the adjournment motion. The discussions on the economic efficiency of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") have always focused on the saving of time. People say that the XRL will be a very fast and convenient means of transport, claiming that the time it can help us save in the coming 50 years, or half a century, will be worth $80 billion to $90 billion in money terms. They claim that the time saved may worth as much as $90 billion, so let us assume that this is really the case. We all know that time can mean money, but then the Government also says that new posts will be created. This is quite a far-fetched claim, similar to the broken windows theory, isn't it? Why don't they just argue that since robbery can give the police work to do, and can boost insurance and repairs services, it should also be regarded as an economic activity? The claim is a very far-fetched one indeed. An even more far-fetched claim is that the commercial superstructure development of the XRL terminus will also worth $90 billion. I do not mean that the Secretary's reference to the commercial superstructure is totally unrelated to economic efficiency. We indeed know that in the case of other MTR lines, superstructure developments are also regarded as a means of subsidizing the costs of railway construction. This is true. But the point is that even if this waterfront site is not used by the XRL but is just devoted to the building of ordinary commercial blocks, it will still be a place of very high commercial value. But the authorities simply … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, let me remind you that you are supposed to give your reply regarding the adjournment motion. You are not supposed to actually discuss the co-location arrangement. Please return to the topic. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I know. I am in fact explaining why I have moved the adjournment motion. Okay, I know what you mean. I ask for adjournment because the Government is unable to answer our questions. I am now going to tell you why I think he has not answered our questions. His reply


is very ridiculous. When computing the total worth of the time saved, the posts created and the commercial superstructure development in the coming 50 years, he simply multiplies $90 billion by three and gives us the figure of $270 billion. This is far from convincing. So, he has not answered our questions. We still have many queries, and this is the exact reason for my moving the adjournment motion. Besides, he says that with the XRL, Hong Kong will become a land transportation hub. How can this be possible at all? Hong Kong is certainly an aviation and shipping hub, but it cannot possibly become a land transportation hub after the commencement of the XRL. We have always talked about the Hong Kong section of the XRL as the "Southern Gate" of China. We have all the time talked about the "Southern Gate" only. How come there is now such a change, and why do they suddenly start to talk about Hong Kong becoming a land transportation hub? A hub is a place having a well-developed network of connections with other places. The XRL is built underground, but it is still a mode of land transport. Are you saying that you can go to Taiwan or Japan straight by the XRL? Total nonsense! So, we definitely have many doubts. Besides, we also have doubts about many statistics. This is the booklet I received from MTR during our visit to the corporation years ago. The booklet contains many statistics, but you can of course say that they are no longer up-to-date after all the works delays and cost overruns over all the years. The other day, I kept questioning Secretary Frank CHAN on such statistics, but he did not give any reply at all. He only said that there would be as many as 100 000 passengers per day. Please note that he said "passengers", not "passenger trips". He also said that the carrying capacity per hour per direction would be as many as 10 000 passengers. He simply did not answer my questions at all, and all we can hear is just the Government's prevarication. In that case, how we can proceed to the formal debate? Are we supposed to let the Government open the door wide and allow Mainland public security personnel to enforce Mainland laws here in Hong Kong? When there are so many doubts, how can we possibly proceed to the debate? Moreover, there are still many unanswered questions, including the four major queries raised by CitizenNews. In 2008, the Government set up a task force dedicated to discussing the implementation of co-location clearance. But the Secretary totally ignores this and does not give any response at all.


1133

Prof Anthony CHEUNG once said that there must be the approval of society and Hong Kong people would have sufficient time and opportunities to voice their views on this issue. But has the Government ever consulted the public? The Secretary has still refused to give any response and simply kept saying "legally speaking". This is actually the same as saying that they can do whatever they like. What is more, the Secretary once said that no place within Hong Kong's boundaries would be carved out of Hong Kong's territory. But a place is now going to be carved out. He now denies that this is going to be the case, and simply says that the Mainland Port Area will not be deemed to be under Hong Kong jurisdiction. He just cannot answer questions that way. He just cannot keep saying that the problems you have raised do not conflict with the "Three-step Process". This is not the attitude a responsible Government should adopt when responding to media enquiries. Therefore, I think there are still many problems. You know, I am still very curious about the task force set up nine years ago in 2008. What kind of department was it? Who were its members and did they ever say anything significant? I am still very curious about all these even now. Are we supposed to wait on and on, until these details are disclosed under the Official Secrets Act 30 or 50 years later? It is only a railway after all. Why such secrecy? This will only make people think that the Secretary is trying to conceal certain facts. Mr CHAN Hak-kan is right in saying that all is about trust. The Secretary himself has kept arousing my doubts, so I do not trust him. He dismisses my doubts as unjustified, but I myself think that my doubts are perfectly justified. As early as late 2014, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office already endorsed the implementation of co-location clearance in Hong Kong. And, I heard that in May or June 2016―it should be 30 May―delegations of the State Council, Guangdong Province and Shenzhen visited Hong Kong for the precise purpose of discussing how to implement co-location clearance. The exact words of these delegations were "to ensure both sides will take forward the implementation of co-location clearance". Then, why didn't the Hong Kong Government release the news in the middle of last year? And how come the Information Services Department did not do its job? At that time, all Bureau Secretaries except Secretary for Transport and Housing Prof Anthony CHEUNG … He was quite honest then, as he said that his Bureau only played a supporting role in the matter, and the Department of Justice, the Security Bureau


and the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau were all involved. Therefore, do not tell me that the XRL is purely a transport issue. If so, why were so many Policy Bureaux also involved. The list, which I have read out just now, tells everything. At present, we simply feel that the XRL issue is just like an attempt to force a person get married at gunpoint. The proposal has been laid on the table and there is no way to say No. This is very unsatisfactory, so can we just stop and think for a little while? Earlier on, I heard a very insightful opinion. I am of course talking about Mr CHU Hoi-dick's remarks on supporting my adjournment motion. As he pointed out, there were past cases in which this Council decided not to hold a certain debate for the time being when the issues concerned were deemed to be unconstitutional and against the Basic Law. Why are there all these sudden crackling sounds of plastic wrappers? That is strange. Oh, they are gone now. Someone must have opened a plastic wrapper just now, right? The advocacy of ending one-party dictatorship in the case mentioned by Mr CHU Hoi-dick just now was put forward by Long Hair. The then President of the Legislative Council ruled that there was a problem with this advocacy. I agree. You may well argue that no one has ever queried the constitutionality of the co-location arrangement so far. But I must say four Hong Kong people have separately applied for judicial review. Yet, the Court has combined the four cases into one single case. According to the judge, the co-location arrangement cannot be taken as a substantive decision even with the consent of the Executive Council. The Court will find it hard to declare whether it contravenes the Basic Law before the decision is actually executed. But the sad truth is that as explained by Senior Counsel Martin LEE, once the "Three-step Process" proposal is approved by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"), it will be impossible to apply for judicial review. Once the NPCSC approves this proposal, how can the Court of a small place like Hong Kong challenge its decision? Here is exactly the tricky part of the whole thing. You see, it is just like you must first obtain a permit for leaving a city, but then you can obtain the permit only after leaving the city. This is the tricky part of the whole thing. At this moment, we do not know what decision will be made, and I must say this is precisely another good reason for moving an adjournment motion, because … Well, as ruled by the judge, the co-location arrangement is subject to


1135

the decisions of NPCSC and the Legislative Council, which is responsible for taking the final step of enacting local legislation in the "Three-step Process". It follows that the Court cannot possibly predict the decisions of NPCSC and the Legislative Council. Here, we see that the judge's concern is the question of law. But will NPCSC refuse to grant approval? So, you all laugh now. Likewise, will the Legislative Council refuse to approve? Well, you need not ask actually. You see, the Government has so quickly submitted the motion, and its aim is to secure its passage ideally before March. On the other hand, all those bootlickers simply cannot wait any more, and they are almost on the point of falling upon their knees to say, "Yes, Sir." So far, many legal questions have not yet been answered, and I do not know how they can be answered. In the end, when all becomes a fait accompli, the Government will say, "This is it and it must be passed." Also, the greatest horror actually comes from the invocation of Article 20 of the Basic Law. I have learned a saying from young people, and I like it very much: "A dyke as long as a thousand miles may crumble because of an ant hole". You see, there is this long dyke, built with the purpose of protecting the people. But then, ants breed somewhere on it, forming an ant hole. In the end, this one-thousand mile dyke may crumble because of this small hole. If the present co-location arrangement sets a precedent, we will be very worried. They say we need not worry, as the Secretary for Justice has already promised that this will not happen again without good reasons. But the press has kept talking about how soon this Secretary for Justice may resign. The next Secretary for Justice may hold a different viewpoint, and when something new happens, he may find very good reasons for doing so once again. What kind of assurance can the Government give Hong Kong people?? Members belonging to the other camp will probably say, "You trust the Government. The one important word is 'trust''". But I am really worried because the Government is just not trustworthy, and it cannot command any trust at all. Perhaps you may advise me not to exaggerate the situation, but I have to exaggerate and I do have concerns because nowadays … I remember that just a year ago, to "DQ" (disqualify) Members of this Council was totally unimaginable to me. If you told me a year ago that certain acts of a Member would cause him to be disqualified, I would say your words are an exaggeration. But since this has really happened, I no longer have any faith in the Secretary for Justice for what he has done now, having particular regard to Article 20 of the Basic Law which expressly provides that Hong Kong may enjoy other powers granted by the


NPCSC―Hong Kong should have been granted more powers indeed. But Hong Kong is now made to forego some of its powers and beg the Mainland to take them back. How strange it is! Why is Hong Kong empowered to, under the order of Beijing, surrender certain powers to the Central Government? This sounds very illogical even when theories of international jurisprudence are applied. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I put the questian to Members on the adjournment motion, I must remind you that pursuant to Rule 40(2) and Rule 40(3) of the Rules of Procedure, if the motion has been agreed to, the debate on the question shall stand adjourned; if the motion has been negatived, the debate on the co-location arrangement before the Council shall be continued. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the debate be now adjourned. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (Members raised their hands) Ms Claudia MO rose to claim a division. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes. (While the division bell was ringing, Ms Starry LEE stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, what is your point?


1137

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I declare that the accountancy firm I work for is the auditing firm of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), but I take no part in the business related. (Mr Abraham SHEK stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, what is your point? MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): President, as I have declared before, I am a Non-executive Director of MTRCL, but I will vote on this motion as the motion is unrelated to MTRCL. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed. Functional Constituencies: Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the motion. Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Kenneth LAU voted against the motion. Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.


THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote. Geographical Constituencies: Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Jeremy TAM voted for the motion. Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan voted against the motion. THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 34 were present, 9 were in favour of the motion, 23 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 13 were in favour of the motion and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council now continues to debate the motion on the follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members who wish to speak on this motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. Ms Claudia MO, who will move her amendment, has spoken. I now call upon the remaining seven Members who will move the amendments to speak, but they may not move amendments at this stage. Ms Tanya CHAN, please speak.


1139

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I think many colleagues are likely to speak on this topic. I am not sure if Members still remember this remark: "a government official with no expectation is always courageous". President, it is "courageous" not "reckless". Who made this remark and when? This was Carrie LAM who made such a remark in October 2015 when she was the Chief Secretary for Administration, a position under the command of one but in command of thousands. In 2015 when the Legislative Council proposed to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the lead-tainted water incident, she said in her concluding speech that "a government official with no expectation is always courageous". Of course, in 2015, she might not have known her predestined role, and she might have thought only of her happy retirement life with her husband. However, as things turned out, "689" had to leave the Chief Executive post and she has taken up this top post. In this respect, should her remark be changed to "a person with expectations will self-castrate the moral integrity; a government official with expectations will be very daring"? She is really daring. I do not know why a government official has to be so bold. I understand that in general government officials should be fearless in their discharge of duties. Just like Mr Abraham SHEK has advised Members that we should not fear the fear itself. But for what purposes she has to be so bold? If she works according to rules and procedures, what she needs is indeed the determination and faith. Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN told the special meeting of the House Committee of the Legislative Council on 3 August that it was Hong Kong which requested to implement the co-location arrangement. It was also Hong Kong which sought the endorsement of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") under Article 20 of the Basic Law for the implementation of the co-location arrangement in Hong Kong. However, it is precisely his decision, his saying, or this co-location arrangement, that will smash the safeguard of the "one country, two systems" principle enshrined in the Basic Law, allowing the Mainland to legally enforce its laws in the Hong Kong territory. As I have said, the Basic Law has clearly defined the geographical area of Hong Kong. How can the Government turn a blind eye to the demarcation and seek another NPCSC decision in order to cede our land to make way for the co-location arrangement? Can Article 20 of the Basic Law be applied this way? In my amendments to the motion, I question if Articles 18 and 22 can be ignored. The disregard of the two provisions is unjustifiable as they also form part of the Basic Law. The explanation of the Secretary says Articles 18 and 22 are no longer applicable to the said area after the Government


cedes it to the Mainland. However, if we look into the current Co-operation Arrangement, the inapplicability actually might involves many other aspects and the Hong Kong laws as a whole will then be … Under the Co-operation Arrangement, Hong Kong would actually give up its entire legal jurisdiction in the area. We would then be given some powers in six aspects as almsgiving. Aside this, the area would entirely be under the Mainland laws. What is the point of talking about "one country, two systems" or Articles 18 and 22? To me, the current co-location arrangement is even more terrible than the adoption of Article 23 of the Basic Law. For the latter, we can simply focus on the provisions themselves and pay attention to the Sword of Damocles hanging over our head and the devil in the details. But this co-location arrangement is definitely a total destruction of the principle of the Basic Law from the very fundamental. As the Chief Executive, Carrie LAM does not speak for Hong Kong people. Instead, she is so determined to finish her first political task thoroughly that she ignores public views and denies public consultation. She rushes to finish her task boldly. She definitely needs to be bold. She abandons Hong Kong people, betrays Hong Kong people, and takes Hong Kong people to the ship as hostages. Matters relating to the Stamp Duty Ordinance are no big deal, and thus can be put aside. At first, she said she respected the Legislative Council, but we have to see clearly. As Prof Joseph LEE has pointed out, the purpose of today's motion debate was to pave the way for the implementation of the "Three-step Process". Her original intent was to make Members lay out a red carpet for her to hold a kicking-off ceremony before the commencement of the "Three-step Process". I am sorry, but this "show" is unlikely to be put on stage. Hence, last week, she told us in haste that the "Three-step Process" might have to be implemented in one go. I am sorry, but she has to be careful not to trip and fall during the process. The motion debate is not just about the holding of the kicking-off ceremony. As I have said earlier, in page six of the Work Progress of the 5th Term HKSARG's First 100 Days in Office, it is written clearly that this motion with no legislative effect, scheduled to be moved on 25 October, is proposed "with a view to concluding the public discussion". With no public engagement process and no public hearing, how can the submission of the motion for debate at the Legislative Council be able to conclude the public discussion? This gesture is no longer required now as we would adopt a "one-step process" instead. It is now Carrie LAM herself who dismantles her own stage. Basically, the entire co-location arrangement shows the disrespect for public opinions and the


1141

dwarfing of Members. She wants to teach us the supremacy of the "Grandpa". Nothing else matters. We can put on hold all other things, and even throw away the Basic Law. This co-location arrangement was not made public until 25 July. I remember that I raised an oral question to the then Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG in March. Why did I raise the question? Because in a February meeting of the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways―sometimes the Subcommittee would start its meeting very early―I heard for the first time the Under Secretary say the Government would put forward a proposal by the end of its term. I awoke on hearing the word "proposal". What would be in it? It was the first time I heard about a "proposal". So, I continued to listen to his reply, and he did mention the word "proposal" again. I immediately asked my colleague, who was Mr LAM Cheuk-ting if my memory was correct, whether he could also hear the word "proposal". His answer was yes. I then said the Government has never given such a concrete reply. However, two weeks later, the Government told us that it would explain to us the "direction" before the end of its term. Obviously, there is a mark difference between a "proposal" and a "direction". Hence, I raised an oral question on this in March. But the Government could not answer directly, only saying that the meanings of "direction" and "proposal" were broadly the same. I do not know why … the reply is just so unbelievable. I think former Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG who has already left the Government will have some other thoughts on this. The Government visited the Legislative Council twice to discuss the co-location arrangement after the release of the proposal on 25 July. As some colleagues have mentioned, officials attended two meetings on 3 August and 8 August respectively for some four hours in total. Apart from the document we have in hands, Members may remember that there is another government paper in reply to Dr Fernando CHEUNG's question. Of course, we know the schedule is tight, so we have to be fair to the Government. Actually, I am a member of a Concern Group set up earlier on the co-location arrangement. I propose this motion amendment also in the name of the convenor of the Concern Group. The several amendment items to the motion are exactly the requests of the Concern Group. They include the Government should no longer mislead the public; its proposal should not contravene the Basic Law; and it should conduct a public consultation. We have made the three requests on the very first day we set up the Concern Group. Now, I amend the Government's motion on the basis of the Concern Group members' decisions. However, the Government simple ignores


our requests and refuses to conduct any consultation. We feel quite helpless about this. Concerning our request for information, we have reasonably written four letters to the Government to ask for relevant documents. Our Honourable colleagues, I can reasonably tell you that we have repeatedly written to the Government to request access to information not because we want to make things difficult for the Government. As I have said just now, we simply requested information on the train frequencies, the service concession agreement, the station design plan―the Government is better giving the plan to us than letting the media to expose it―and the patronage. The requested information is highly relevant to what the Government has told us all the way. Do not forget that even if we put aside the cost recovery issue, the XRL will also definitely affect the city's future economic development and even the Mainland-Hong Kong development. After all, I think my request for information is justifiable, and this is not created by me. As I have just said, the Government did provide relevant information to us in 2009 and 2010 when it applied for funding support. However, it firmly rejected requests from some other parties for updated information later on. In 2015, the Government gave us some piece-meal information again when it required supplement provision for the project. Today, I once again request to obtain updated information from the Government. Honestly, the pro-establishment Members should bear in mind that such information is necessary for an objective evaluation of the economic benefits the XRL could bring to us. We have to ask ourselves what train frequency arrangement could generate the greatest benefit. Many Members in the Chamber have also joined subcommittees on the West Kowloon development. Can you imagine if the daily patronage of the XRL Hong Kong section reaches 100 000 … the truth is that too many or too few passengers will also pose problems. We will suffer losses if there is insufficient patronage; we will get stuck in traffic congestion, even serious ones, if passengers jam the rail link. Therefore, Members need to understand why we have to ask for information on the train frequencies, estimated passenger trips and the station design. As far as we understand, intermediate stops are the most profitable. But some have said that the number of intermediate or terminal stops might be reduced. So, what will be the development direction? Surely, the Government will only give this sort of reply: "The details are under discussion and the relevant information will be available in due course"


1143

However, this has been such a long discussion. The Government could hammer out the co-location arrangement only after eight years' of discussion. Why could the Government not tell us the relevant arrangements? I am not requesting to obtain the detailed provisions of the Co-operation Arrangement. Our request for information is really reasonable. I can give you copies of our letters to the Government if any Member is interested. We then requested to meet with the Director of Bureau. Why? It is because the Director of Bureau named me in a radio programme where the three Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux were guest presenters. I was so lucky that he said he wanted to meet with me. So, I asked if this was in a form of open meeting. Oh sorry, no open meeting would be held. Could it be an open debate then? The answer was also No. So, could the Director of Bureau meet with the Concern Group? Sorry but we could only meet sometime later. Nothing about the meeting was heard afterward. It does not matter. We still have an alternative proposal and would like to have a formal meeting with you and the other two Secretaries. But this request was also rejected. President, this Secretary of Department and this Director of Bureau did have met with some other friendly organizations. I noted from a newspaper report―I forgot this was from today's Wen Wei Po or Ta Kung Pao―the Director of Bureau attended a seminar which was also joined by some young people. The seminar was of course not about the XRL. But why the Secretaries could not attend the forum held by the student unions? I feel really sad from the bottom of my heart. You said it was better not to meet up because such a meeting would only tear society apart. I was deeply saddened by his remark. Why the situation would turn further sour after the meeting? Could you look back on what the incumbent Chief Executive did in 2007? In that stormy year when the Government had to demolish the Queen's Pier, this woman had the guts to go into the crowd alone. There was no boos and catcalls. Nor did any one surround her. She went into the crowd safely and delivered a speech before several hundred people. It is what a government should be. Now, she has become the Chief Executive. Why should she not rule this city with the same attitude and mindset now? She went into the crowd that day to convince them with reasons not because of her courage, but because of her confidence in Hong Kong people, a belief that Hong Kong people are not frivolous.


Today, the Government refuses even to explain the reasons to the student unions and university students. I totally cannot understand this. I have with me messages from three university students. I do not have enough time to read them all out, so I can only give the excerpts. The first is LAM Chak-kong, a third-year Bachelors of Arts student. LAM said: "If the previous NPCSC interpretations of the Basic Law have damaged Hong Kong's judicial independence, the co-location proposal would shatter it altogether. In Hong Kong, the Basic Law and the judicial independence have always been the two cornerstones which enable the city to survive in the international society. The loss of the judicial independence is set to deprive Hong Kong of its unique position and values. I believe that the Hong Kong Government is most clear about the consequences. But the perverse measures of the Government have just run counter to the judicial independence." The second student surnames LEUNG, a Bachelor of Biomedical Sciences student. LEUNG said: "The Government always accuses the young people of not understanding China, and blames our ignorance for the many rifts and misunderstanding in society. The truth is the young people know China so well that they find the Government's taking the lead in destroying the 'one country, two systems' unbearable, and the application of the Mainland laws in the Hong Kong territory unacceptable." WONG Ching-tak, a third-year Bachelors of Arts student, said: "Many Hong Kong people are actually not asking for anything. They just want to keep the status quo. They do not want Hong Kong to change and deteriorate further. I call on the Government to show mercy and let Hong Kong people go. Some people often say we oppose for the sake of opposition. Indeed, we do not want to do so. Is this not tiring? But the Government has not done even a single good thing. Hence, if the Government continues to choose to be confrontational, we have no choice but to stand firm and resist." I do not have much time left. I do not know if … the fact that time is running out has multiple meanings, including not knowing for how long I can still be a Member. However, I remember one thing, though it is not directly related to the current subject. Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN, who is sitting opposite me, was back then the Chairman of the Bar Association. At that time, I needed to apply for permission to do something outside the scope of duties of a barrister. Despite his very busy schedule, he took the trouble to call someone who has just started her career as a barrister. He called to caution me specifically. He said: "Many people are watching you, so be careful". I was so touched at the moment, and I understand that people in power should all the more take care of the weak.


1145

I still have 30 seconds left. I know that we cannot change the co-location arrangement. I also understand that the XRL is to commence operation, and I realize as well that this co-location arrangement is set to completely devastate the Basic Law. Yet, I sincerely hope the SAR Government and persons in high positions will cherish Hong Kong as your homeland. I beg you to check such brutality and have mercy. I beg you to stop forgoing our "one country, two systems", and our "high degree of autonomy" anymore. I so submit. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, the Government has been telling Hong Kong people that there is only one clearance mode for the Express Rail Link ("XRL")―"cession-based co-location arrangement". In the name of speed and convenience, the Government has joined hands with the "royalists" to hijack public opinions and achieve its real intention of ceding the territory of Hong Kong. Without any public consultation, it makes a forcible attempt to implement the co-location arrangement at West Kowloon Station and apply Mainland laws in Hong Kong, in contravention of Article 18 of the Basic Law and ruining the spirit of "one country, two systems". President, I request 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 have returned to the Chamber but have not yet returned to their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, please continue. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, when there is clearly a better option, the Government has instead chosen to defy Hong Kong people's opinions, please Beijing and adopt this co-location arrangement, which is actually the most unworkable option with the least support of Hong Kong people. Secretary Frank CHAN even tells Hong Kong people that choosing a lifelong partner does not necessarily mean the giving up of other options. The media should really find out what "other options" Secretary Frank CHAN still has. The Government has been withholding information and misleading the public. I hope Hong Kong people can realize that in regard to XRL clearance, there are in fact other options, much better options. (Members were talking in their seats) President, can you ask Members not to talk? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quite. Mr Jeremy TAM, please continue with your speech. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, we do have other options, much better options. You know, you can be the real boss only when you have options. Many alternative proposals for the XRL have in fact been put forward in society. And, I think the idea of implementing co-location clearance at Futian Station is the most workable option among all the alternative proposals. I recommend that we should adopt the real Shenzhen Bay model. All passengers, north-bound and south-bound alike, must alight at Futian Station to go through immigration, customs and quarantine clearance before they can board the train again. President, Futian Station comprises three floors: the ticketing floor, the waiting floor and the platform floor. I recommend that the waiting floor should be converted into the co-location clearance venue for the two places, in a way similar to the proposed co-location arrangement at West Kowloon Station. I have visited Futian Station personally. Vast areas on the ticketing and waiting floors are in fact vacant, as the two floors are merely used for waiting and ticket inspection purposes at present. Information shows that the gross floor


1147

area of Futian Station is 1.6 million sq ft, which is equivalent to 21 standard football pitches. Currently, it is the biggest underground train station in Asia. There is surely adequate space for setting up boundary checkpoint facilities. President, the Government says there is no alternative to the "cession-based co-location arrangement" at West Kowloon Station. But Cable News has proven that this is just a lie. Throughout the planning and construction stages, Futian Station was all the time intended to be used as a boundary checkpoint. On 23 August 2006, the Ministry of Railways and the Shenzhen Municipal Government signed a memorandum on establishing an XRL station in Shenzhen City. This memorandum touches on the provision of boundary checkpoint facilities at Futian Station to facilitate passenger immigration clearance. In July 2008, sources from the Shenzhen Municipal Planning Bureau disclosed that both Shenzhen and Hong Kong were discussing "a new clearance model" under which a boundary checkpoint is to be established in Futian District, and all passengers must undergo the immigration clearance of the two places at this checkpoint. In August the same year, the construction of Futian Station commenced. On 28 July 2010, a report of the Shenzhen Urban Transport Planning Centre even set out the completed layout design of the boundary checkpoint. In May 2014, a port research group formed by the National Office of Port Administration and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council visited Futian Station to inspect its construction progress. As officially announced at that time, studies on the provision of "customs clearance facilities at Futian Station" were still the focus. In June 2015, about half a year before the commissioning of Futian Station, after engineers of the China Railway SIYUAN Survey and Design Group Company Limited inspected Futian Station, it was suddenly announced that no boundary checkpoint would be established at Futian Station, and boundary checkpoint facilities would not be provided there as a result. Throughout the planning and construction stages, Futian Station was all the time intended to be used as boundary checkpoint. They considered the idea viable and in fact intended to go ahead, only that it was suddenly decided to cancel the plan. The Government has never told Hong Kong people the reasons for dropping the idea of setting up a boundary checkpoint at Futian Station. I can say that when compared with the "cession-based co-location arrangement", "co-location at Futian Station" is a much better choice. The


reasons are as follows. First, this option will not cause any substantial increase in journey time, as it is only the adjustment of the priority. According to the Government's projection about the passenger-handling capacity at Futian port, actually it will only need four minutes to complete the clearance process of all passengers of a fully-loaded XRL train (that is, 579 people). Second, no Mainland officials will carry out their duties in Hong Kong (West Kowloon Station). Third, it could help the Mainland's efforts to intercept illegal immigrants, as south-bound fugitives and terrorists will be intercepted at Futian. This could better address China's border security need. Fourth, if a boundary checkpoint is established at Futian, certain space at West Kowloon Station can be released. And if the space at West Kowloon Station intended for a boundary checkpoint is rented out, we can collect $6.2 billion each year. The West Kowloon Station boundary checkpoint area of 2.15 million sq ft is about two times of the total shop area of Times Square. Based on the rental per square foot at the nearby Element shopping mall, we note that this can generate a yearly revenue of $6.2 billion. If that could operate for 10 years, actually it may fill up the immense $86.4 billion expenditure in constructing XRL. Fifthly, north-bound Hong Kong residents need not leave their homes earlier, because if the "co-location at Futian" model is adopted, people taking the 10 o'clock train only need to arrive at the platform by 10 o'clock. They need not spare time for the check-in process to avoid missing the train just like they are taking the planes or going through the co-location process in Hong Kong. Sixth, based on the precedent of the Shenzhen Bay model, the time needed will be shorter than that as proposed in the "Three-Step Process". Having regard to the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Bill in the past, actually we have only spent a little more than two months to complete the entire scrutiny process, therefore the entire scrutiny process can be completed before the commissioning date that the pro-Administration concerns most. In short, the "co-location at Futian Station" means that the Basic Law can be adhered to, we can have more stringent border security, we can provide more convenience to passengers, and more rental income can be earned. Even though everyone has to walk a few more steps, the Basic Law can be safeguarded, that is, we can immediately resolve the controversy regarding the execution of Mainland laws in Hong Kong. On top of that, the rental income can off-set the fathomless pit, that is, XRL's expenses. It can fully resolve all the contradictions.


1149

President, the Government tries to push through the "cession-based co-location arrangement" by exaggerating the benefits of the XRL. However, if we study the details, we know these are all lies. The Government makes publicity and tells Hong Kong people that we can reach downtown Guangzhou in 48 minutes by taking the XRL from West Kowloon Station. Later on, it turns out that downtown Guangzhou in the Government's mind is the Guangzhou South Railway Station situated in the far-off Panyu. Passengers have to take a 50-minute transit from there to the real downtown area of Guangzhou, that is, Tianhe Central Business District after they have taken XRL from West Kowloon Station to Guangzhou South Railway Station. If we take the XRL to downtown Guangzhou in the future, it will actually take us almost two hours. A three-runway research report published by the Airport Authority Hong Kong points out that the XRL ride was not competitive when compared with planes as the ride would take more than four hours. (Some Members were talking in their seats) President, will you please ask Members to keep quite. I can hear them keep on talking. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quite. (Some Members were talking loudly in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quite. Members should not speak in their seats without my permission. Mr Jeremy TAM, please continue. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Subsequently, this three-runway research report pointed out explicitly that the XRL ride exceeding four hours was not competitive at all. The information concerning other major cities such as Beijing, Chongqing, Chengdu, Xian and Kunming was also contradictory to the Government's publicity. Several days ago, Prof ZHAI Wanming, a leading high-speed train expert who attended the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, pointed out that the Non-stop Bejing-Hong Kong line was not cost-effective, and the cost effectiveness of the so-called "through-train" was doubtful.


According to the papers submitted to Legislative Council's Public Works Sub-committee, the Government has once again downward adjusted the estimated Economic Internal Rate of Return ("EIRR") to 4%. When compared with the estimated EIRR of other Hong Kong infrastructures during their construction, such as 16.5% of the Western Harbour Crossing and the Eastern Harbour Crossing respectively, 11.2% of the Lantau Link, 10% of the Airport Express, 9% of the South Island Line (East), or as high as 28% of the Central-Wan Chai Bypass, the 4% return of XRL would be really too low. The Government even said that the EIRR of XRL would be comparable to other sizable infrastructure projects. It can be said that the Government has told a pack of lies. Assuming XRL can achieve such an economic benefit, it does not seem to have much difference in terms of the cost-effectiveness of implementing the "co-location" at West Kowloon Station or the Mainland. However, Secretary Frank CHAN simply stifled all the room for discussion by saying that it was a waste of time to discuss the alternative option. At the same time, he could not provide any substantive data to prove that how inconvenient the alternative option could be. Up till now, the Government could not put forward a detailed XRL timetable. Nobody really knows how many direct trains will be put in place, how many trains will stopover and which station will be included for long-haul trains. As to public debate, Secretary Frank CHAN simply avoided it. He also avoided the chance of explaining the proposal to students. President, despite the fact that the Government considered that the West Kowloon Station proposal was so important, it was reluctant to conduct any public consultation or public hearing. It dared not to do all of these things. Was it really because Secretary Frank CHAN knew not how to do it, or was it because he was so reluctant to do it, or had he received any order to keep his mouth shut? The Civic Party reiterates that we resolutely oppose the "cession-based co-location arrangement" at West Kowloon Station, and we oppose the arbitrary enforcement of Mainland law in Hong Kong as proposed by the Government and the pro-Administration by way of hijacking public opinions. The co-location at West Kowloon Station violates the Basic Law and undermines the spirit of "one country, two systems". The "cession-based co-location arrangement" at West Kowloon Station is "unnecessary, useless and unrealistic". Hong Kong people were cajoled into this situation by the lying Government. Now that everything is set hard and fast and


1151

the Government is trying to force Hong Kong people to accept a proposal which makes very little contribution to the economy. Eva CHENG, the one who told us a pack of lies, has shown a clean pair of heels. If anything happens in future, who exactly will bear the blame? Will Secretary Frank CHAN come out and be accountable for it? For that reason, the Civic Party has all along been supporting the "co-location at Futian Station" proposal that I have mentioned earlier. The proposal conforms with the Basic Law as well as the original design. I hope the Government will stop saying that there is no alternative option and no other option. The facts are all before us: There is always an alternative option. The Government should come out and explain to us why it was scrapped. President, even so, it will be fine. But the Government should not say that there are no other options. From a different angle, the Government is reluctant to disclose anything about Hong Kong's "cession-based co-location arrangement" proposal even we have been asking the Government for the details over the years. It was not until the time was running out that the Government requested the Legislative Council to conduct a motion debate without binding effect. The Government has put it very nicely by saying that it respects public opinions and the legislature, and the "Three-step Process" will only be implemented after the debate. But what happens now? The result is, as it cannot catch up with the schedule in time, the Government says that the three steps will commence concurrently. President, how much respect it gives to the Legislative Council? I really do not understand. How can the Government lack in commitment towards the public, students or the Legislative Council? How can it give no account of the proposal? I only request the Government to come out and give a clear account of it, right? Why it dares not to give an account of it? It constantly gives us different excuses and even says it is not necessary to discuss those options and it is a waste of time to discuss them. President, if the Government considers it a waste of time, then it is a waste of time to debate the motion with us, because there is only one result no matter how hard we debate the issue. That is, the Government will continue its "Three-step Process", and it will move on immediately. I so submit.


MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, my fellow party member Ms Tanya CHAN delivered quite an impassioned speech just now, and I deeply understand how she feels. I am sure she must have recollected the circumstances under which the funding proposal relating to the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") project was approved by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council back in those years. The then Secretary for Transport and Housing has pointed out very clearly at that time that apart from the co-location arrangement, consideration would also be given by the Government to exploring the feasibility of other options, including the options of separate location arrangement, on-board clearance, and so on. Besides, it was also alleged that the economic benefits of XRL would not disappear even without the co-location arrangement. When these words which Ms Tanya CHAN has heard very clearly in this Council then still ring in our ears, it is no wonder that all those disputes surrounding the co-location arrangement and the XRL project have remained fresh in our memory and come back to her mind. There is nothing wrong with the concept of the co-location arrangement per se, and such a system is implemented in many other countries. I will make a detailed elaboration on these overseas examples later. There is also nothing wrong with the XRL project per se, but how come the implementation of the co-location arrangement in Hong Kong will give rise to serious legal problems? People always say that we should act strictly in accordance with the Basic Law, but has the co-location arrangement been proposed strictly in accordance with the Basic Law? If the answer is positive, how come no one has raised the issue concerning the clear legal basis provided under Article 18 of the Basic Law, and why has the Government paid no attention to the issue at all? Article 18 of the Basic Law clearly stipulates that: "National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to this Law. The laws listed therein shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the Region. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress may add to or delete from the list of laws in Annex III after consulting its Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the government of the Region. Laws listed in Annex III to this Law shall be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Region as specified by this Law."


1153

Just like the National Anthem Law which has become the subject under discussion lately and other national laws concerning territorial integrity, territorial waters, the national flag, the national emblem, and so on, the most crucial requirement is to act in accordance with Article 18 of the Basic Law, and confine laws listed in Annex III to those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") as specified by the Basic Law. The meaning of the wordings used in this Article are indeed very simple, and the most important effect this Article seeks to achieve is to confine the scope of application of most Mainland laws to areas outside instead of within the territory of Hong Kong. This is also the crux of the principle of "one country, two systems". We of course understand that certain restrictions have to be imposed on the application of Mainland laws in Hong Kong because this is a major principle under "one country, two systems" that we should uphold. As for immigration matters, these are the internal affairs of Hong Kong under Article 154 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that the HKSAR Government shall be responsible for the enforcement of immigration legislation as well as the application of immigration controls on entry into, stay in and departure from HKSAR by persons from foreign states and regions. This is also part and parcel of the limits of the autonomy of HKSAR as specified under the Basic Law. Generally speaking, when it comes to immigration matters, the people of Hong Kong certainly know that regulation should of course be exercised by the HKSAR Government on its own. Such being the case, how come the Government can now give no regard to the clear stipulations of Article 18 of the Basic Law, and comprehensively apply the full set of Mainland laws within a particular area of Hong Kong? In addition, the Basic Law will not be applied and implemented in that area, meaning that the basic rights and freedom that the people of Hong Kong enjoy under the Basic Law will have no value and meaning at all in that area. I am sure we all understand what precedence such an arrangement will set for Hong Kong, and many fellow colleagues are so concerned about the issue because this is exactly what they fully understand. The arrangement is tantamount to forsaking part of the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, with the result that the Basic Law and the laws of Hong Kong will no longer be implemented and applied within one of the areas in the city centre of Hong Kong, and Mainland laws will instead be fully implemented there. This is exactly the reason why we have put a question repeatedly in a focused manner to


officials of the HKSAR Government and that is: If the requirements under the Basic Law can be so forsaken, it will tantamount to breaking the express rules provided in Article 18 and Article 19 of the Basic Law. Furthermore, very clear provisions concerning the jurisdiction of HKSAR have been laid down in Article 19, and the provisions shall be applied in the entire territory of HKSAR, so that the whole of HKSAR shall be vested with independent judicial power. However, in order to implement the co-location arrangement, the Government now insists that Mainland laws shall be applied within a particular area of Hong Kong, thereby breaking the above rules under the Basic Law. It is even stipulated in Article 22 of the Basic Law that departments of the Central Government, or provinces, autonomous regions under the Central Government shall obtain prior approval of the HKSAR Government before enforcing laws or executing duties in Hong Kong. The various requirements and original intentions of the Basic Law are indeed very clear, and their main objective is to prevent the enforcement of Mainland laws in Hong Kong by law enforcement officers from the Mainland. This is also the reason why barriers after barriers have been set up against extending the scope of application of Mainland laws to Hong Kong. It is also mentioned in the book entitled 《香港基本法起草過程概覽》(An Overview of the Drafting Process of the Basic Law of Hong Kong) that when Article 18 of the Basic Law was drafted, members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee have deliberated on the ways to handle national laws relating to such issues as defence, foreign affairs or national unity, territorial integrity. When it came to such concepts as national unity and territorial integrity, they considered that these concepts were clear and were not difficult to define. Therefore, laws relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of HKSAR as specified in Article 18 actually refer to laws listed in Annex III to the Basic Law, such as the legislation on territorial waters and the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Flag, which I have mentioned earlier. The arrangement is definitely not difficult to understand, because defence and foreign affairs may involve such matters as territorial issues, and the defence and foreign affairs of a country are also closely intertwined with the issue of national unity. Hence, when we look back on the drafting process of Article 18, it can be said that the contents and original intentions of the Article are very clear.


1155

Let me go back to the co-location arrangement. We have opined that the current proposed option is the most extreme option. From the co-location arrangement implemented respectively between Canada and the United States, the United States and Ireland as well as France and the United Kingdom, we can see that the practice adopted in these places is not exactly the same as that proposed for Hong Kong. The main difference lies in the fact that under the co-location arrangement between Canada and the United States, for example, it has been made very clear from the outset in the relevant agreement that all rights granted to Canadian nationals under the constitution of Canada shall remain unaffected inside the United States port area set up in Canada. Under the agreement on the co-location arrangement implemented between the United States and Ireland, it is also stipulated that anyone who enters the control zones of the United States set up in Ireland for immigration clearance shall still be covered by the national laws and constitution of Ireland, and all protection and rights granted to them under these laws and constitution shall still apply. Similarly, under the co-location arrangement implemented for Eurostar, the high-speed train services between France and the United Kingdom, officers of the United Kingdom stationed in France will never try to exercise such powers as the power of detention, or seek to invoke the laws of the United Kingdom to detain, investigate and even arrest any person. They will only execute their basic duties as immigration officers. Therefore, although a co-location arrangement is implemented between two countries, officers stationed in their control zones set up in another country shall still abide by the laws and constitution previously in force in that country, and the protection and rights granted under these laws and constitution shall remain unaffected. However, how come attempts can now be made, on the contrary, to break the many express rules provided under the Basic Law in order to facilitate the implementation of the co-location arrangement when some public officers or officials of the Central Authorities have always said that we should act strictly in accordance with the Basic Law when implementing such an arrangement in Hong Kong? We have pointed out that since the Government has made it very clear back then that it would examine the feasibility of other options, and explore if consideration could be given to alternative options other than the co-location arrangement, as a responsible Government, it should at least brief us on all options in an open and honest manner, and carry out a formal public consultation


on these options. The Government should tell the people of Hong Kong what are the advantages of and the difficulties in implementing the co-location arrangement; what options of separate location arrangement the Government has examined, why are they considered feasible or not feasible and what difficulties will be encountered; what options of on-board clearance the Government has examined and considered, or whether it has examined options of on-board clearance plus separate location arrangement but considered them not feasible; or what problems will there be if immigration clearance procedures are completed in Futian Station. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair) The objective of conducting public consultation is to explain to the people of Hong Kong in the process the pros and cons of different options. As the co-location arrangement is a very controversial measure that will give rise to many legal and constitutional problems, public consultation is indispensable. Furthermore, since the Government has clearly stated back then that it would examine and consider other options, it is the most basic expectation of members of the public that the Government would at least brief us on these options in an open and honest manner. I am not asking the Government to disclose the details of its communications or meetings with Mainland officials. There will be no need for the Government to do so, but during the public consultation process, it can give us an account of the advantages of several options in a very objective manner, and set out one by one with statistical data and justifications the reasons why they are considered not feasible and the difficulties we will encounter. Hence, the Government must absolutely understand that many people in Hong Kong cannot feel at ease about the co-location arrangement because they realize that in so doing, the provisions of the Basic Law will be distorted. Should the Basic Law articles be so invoked simply with an authorization obtained from the National People's Congress? When the arrangement is totally in contravention of other articles of the Basic Law, can the National People's Congress still exercise its power to do so? I wish to elaborate on the case clearly here today and put this on record: If the Basic Law can be so invoked, what consequences will arise, how will the Basic Law be further distorted in the future, what kind of attack this will cause to


1157

the Basic Law and the principle of "one country, two systems". It is my hope that we should not forget all these consequences even though this motion can be passed today. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, all Members from our Civic Party have raised amendments to the government motion this time. The reason is simply a misnomer. The title of the government motion is: Motion on taking forward the follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). Under this proposal, 105 000 sq m of land in the West Kowloon city centre will be ceded. Secretary John LEE also said that no Hong Kong police officers would come to render help even when you dialled "999" in West Kowloon. The proposal is now described as if it has gained full support from the Hong Kong people. The Government has indeed spared no efforts in promoting the proposal day in and day out, and it shied not from the use of misleading diction in the process. With the aid of the royalists, the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon is forcefully publicized in all corners of Hong Kong. The reality, however, is that 43% of the people do not wish to see the "cession-based co-location arrangement" implemented in West Kowloon and instead hope the Government will adopt co-location clearance in Futian. The Futian model is time-saving, financially gainful, and more importantly complies with the Basic Law. Why do people hold such a preference? The answer is "fear". Fear develops as people are deeply distrustful of the Government after getting cheated on repeatedly. And the source of such uneasiness and fear finds its roots eight years ago. The lie started when the then Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva CHENG spoke evasively to the Public Works Subcommittee, in a bid to secure funding approval for the construction of the XRL. According to the meeting minutes we have read, the then medical sector representative LEUNG Ka-lau openly remarked that he voted for the funding application just because Secretary Eva CHENG had promised on separate-location clearance. After getting the first batch of funding by deception, the Government has not been able to resolve the legal issues early on. As the problem keeps dragging on till today, the Government can only step up its efforts. Thus, the three Secretaries and the Chief Executive collaborate to tell serial lies while ceding our land and betraying Hong Kong in an unprecedented


move. Then, how can the Hong Kong people take the matter light-heartedly and let the Government freely proceed with the co-location arrangement and the "Three-step Process"? Deputy President, the XRL project and the co-location arrangement are one dirty deed which opens the way to another. After the Hong Kong people were robbed seven years ago, the Basic Law is now stabbed as the co-location arrangement and the "Three-step Process" are jeopardizing Articles 18 and 20 of the Basic Law. In his fraudulent invocation of Article 20 of the Basic Law, Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN is camouflaging, behind complicated legislative procedures, a proposal that contravenes the Basic Law fundamentally. This indeed is a joint effort made by Beijing and Hong Kong to destroy our wall of safeguard. The Civic Party can in no way accept such a distorting interpretation. Article 20 of the Basic Law provides that (I quote) "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may enjoy other powers granted to it by the National People's Congress, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or the Central People's Government." (End of quote) Despite their vastness in scope, the "other powers granted" cannot contravene the legal principles of the entire Basic Law, not to say to sabotage "a high degree of autonomy". The misleading interpretation of Article 20 of the Basic Law and the pushing through of the co-location arrangement lead immediately to a close encounter of the Mainland Public Security officers. Deputy President, this is not a one-hour living circle but a one-hour apprehending circle. When the Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank CHAN was drafting his speech, he presumably could not foresee Secretary for Security John LEE's candid revelation that the 999 call one made in West Kowloon would be forwarded to the Mainland, right? The honest response made by Secretary John LEE proves the validity of people's suspicion, showing that it is not a product of conspiracy theory but an exact fact. On 30 July this year, Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN said in a radio programme that the co-location arrangement was only put in place for unleashing the efficiency of the XRL, not for undermining or curtailing the freedom and rights enjoyed by the Hong Kong people. I would like to ask Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN how his remarks can supersede those made by Secretary LEE last week. Or, are these two secretaries playing different parts in a deception which aims at undermining and curtailing the freedom and rights of Hong Kong people under the pretense of unleashing the efficiency of XRL? Is this the political mission to be accomplished by the current Government in its first 100 days of office?


1159

Deputy President, a former Legislative Council Member of our party, Dr Margaret NG, made similar remarks in the Finance Committee on 15 January 2010. She said the XRL project reminded people of a wooden horse, the Trojan Horse in ancient Greece. The Government is desperate to build XRL and does this in total disregard of its effectiveness or cost. Is this really a political mission? Is the Government going to solicit views from the people, to see if they can accept when such an arrangement is actually implemented in the city centre? Regrettably, however, Dr Margaret NG seven years ago could not envisage in her wildest speculation that in seven years' time, the present day Special Administrative Region Government, under the leadership of Carrie LAM, will refuse to conduct even a consultation. Deputy President, let us now look at the cost effectiveness of XRL, the so-called convenient XRL. It is said that Hong Kong will be marginalized if the co-location arrangement is not implemented. All in all, however, the big picture will be like: if the Government forces through the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon, the city centre will be marginalized. Why? Given this precedent, the train terminus at Hung Hom, the airport and even the China Ferry Terminal can certainly be ceded bit by bit, under the same logic and the same arrangement. As a matter of fact, a document provided by the MTR Corporation also said that the XRL might be extended to Hong Kong Island. If this plan is materialized, will the Western District be ceded tomorrow, following the example of West Kowloon today? Then, how much of Hong Kong will remain even before 2047, Deputy President? Our Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Dennis KWOK have just cited detailed statistics to refute one by one the arguments Secretary Frank CHAN made in his speech. The arguments he made were in fact groundless, unreasonable and blindly support the "cession-based co-location arrangement" in West Kowloon. Ms Tanya CHAN has also indicated the feasibility of community proposals, on top of how the co-location arrangement and the "Three-step Process" are going to jeopardize Article 22 of the Basic Law. Deputy President, my amendment also points out the merits of implementing co-location clearance in Futian. Under this proposal, 105 000 sq m of valuable land in West Kowloon city centre will be made available for lease. As a matter of fact, it is undeniable even to Secretary Frank CHAN that the XRL project has now become an overspending black hole. If we can make use of the relevant lot to generate rent, the financial burden will be


effectively relieved. More importantly, we do not have to bother the Central Authorities to activate the "Three-step Process". And the Chief Executive needed not have emerged last week to warn us in a threatening tone that if the motion could not be carried by the Legislative Council in time, the "Three-step Process" would be activated in parallel. Deputy President, as a matter of fact, on the premise of complying with the Basic Law, we can complete the enactment of local legislation in two months, thus allowing the implementation of co-location clearance at Futian Port, in full realization of XRL's effectiveness as the most convenient form of public transport between China and Hong Kong. This indeed is a time-saving and cost-recovery option which helps maintain "a high degree of autonomy". Deputy President, what is regrettable is that in a contradiction to the principle of not avoiding any difficult task, our Chief Executive and Secretaries have not only failed to directly communicate and discuss with the public and engage them in consultation, but also refrained from attending a forum held by university students. They were so arrogant that they even asked people to borrow video recordings from the Information Services Department instead. Maybe Chief Executive Carrie LAM was in fact teasing her subordinates indirectly for their constant delivery of standardized message in a way resembling the replaying of a tape-recording. This may actually be Carrie LAM's intention. But why the governance style of Carrie LAM, who vows to mend the rift, walk with the people and take forward new policies, reminds us of LEUNG Chun-ying, the former Chief Executive who has just vacated his seat? Deputy President, the so-called government motion without legislative effect that we see today will eventually be passed with the blind support of the royalists in a swift, rubber-stamping move. Returned by a small number of votes but occupying the majority of seats, the royalists will ignore people's support that we garner in the real world. Then, the Government can tell people, loudly but with distorted justification, that it has secured support from the Legislative Council and that they can take forward their "Three-step Process in Betraying Hong Kong". "Cession-based co-location arrangement" and the "Three-step Process" are going to jeopardize the personal safety of all Hong Kong people. They also sabotage overnight the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration which are the only safeguard Hong Kong has since the reunification. Is the current-term Government going to uphold the people-based principle? Or is it going to debase itself to a regime that ignores public opinion, governs obstinately


1161

and violates the law in a betrayal of Hong Kong? It all depends on a flash of decision that crosses the Chief Executive's mind. Deputy President, rumours have it that the Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN is highly likely to step down by the end of this year and returns to private practice as a barrister in the near future. I just hope that the Secretary for Justice can ponder on the issue and call a halt before it is too late. If … Deputy President, maybe the other colleagues also have their views to give. I heard people talking just now … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet in the Chamber. Mr Alvin YEUNG, please continue with your speech. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Deputy President. I would just like to plead with the Secretary for Justice to call a halt to the issue before it is too late. If Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN invokes Article 20 of the Basic Law and interprets it with such distortion during his term of office, he indeed will set a very bad precedent. I would not like to see the Basic Law distorted on the excuse of convenience and speed. This will definitely set an extremely bad precedent, a precedent unheard of even in other jurisdictions in the world: surrendering one's own rights as though in an act of voluntary castration and cession. Deputy President, I will leave the discussion about whether this is a territory-ceding proposal for the time being. From the very beginning, I have said that people are suffering from a kind of fear. The source of such fear comes from that government officials are keen to turn our protective devices into weapons harmful to us. They actively destroy the firewall, the device which shields Hong Kong from the impact posed by the other system, and further hurl the bricks ripped from the wall at us. This is the situation that we now see. Deputy President, I have never cast doubt on Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN's wealth of knowledge in the legal discipline. I have never cast doubt on Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN's sincerity in serving the people when he took up the position. However, the objective truth is that we are going to see Article 20 of the Basic Law rendered this way in his term of office. How will this turn out in the end? What will the Basic Law become in future? Being the other system under "one country, two systems", does Hong Kong have anything left to protect itself? What we are now discussing is the cession of land from


West Kowloon to let Mainland officers enforce their own laws there. And indeed, Secretary John LEE has revealed to us the truth: if crime happens there, our 999 calls will be redirected to the Mainland. Deputy President, this indeed is the source of our worries, this indeed is the source of our anxieties. I have no idea about the blueprint that Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN has been drawing for Hong Kong's future. I am also clueless of what his successor will have in mind, how he will protect Hong Kong, after Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN's departure from the current position. However, as a legal practitioner, I am absolutely sure that Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN does not understand Article 20 of the Basic Law like what he is now saying, and the Article provides definitely not the "powers" as now referred to by the Government. In essence, Article 20 of the Basic Law is a provision that safeguards Hong Kong. I earnestly implore Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN to think thrice before he leaps. Deputy President, the Basic Law is designed to protect Hong Kong people. The Basic Law is designed to let Hong Kong enjoy a certain amount of rights. The spirit of Article 20 of the Basic Law is that if there were certain powers not in the hands of Hong Kong when the Basic Law was adopted on 4 April 1990, we can invoke Article 20 to seek these powers from the Central Authorities. This, rather than what is claimed by the Special Administrative Region Government today, is the spirit underlying the enactment of Article 20. This exactly is the source of our anxiety; this exactly is the reason for the Civic Party to anxiously make our final appeal to the Government and to Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN. Lastly, Deputy President, I would like to quote to the officials sitting in the Chamber today a line from Confucius, "If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music will not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot." The XRL project and the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon started off seven years ago without a correct name and truthful language. Now the Secretary for Justice and the Secretary for Security defend the proposal with fallacious justification and at the expense of the development in proprieties and music, appropriateness of punishments, credibility of senior officials and orientation of the people. These precisely are the reasons behind our moving of amendments to desperately urge the Government to call a halt to it in time.


1163

I sincerely implore Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN and other senior officials to study the above comments made by Confucius. We wish to leave a mark in the history of Hong Kong with the final attempt we make. I do hope we were wrong. I so submit. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this discussion has wasted the bulk of the meeting time of this Council, and we are doing something which we should not be doing. Why do I say that? Because the Government, in the name of the Legislative Council, is trying to give some kind of protection or make-up to the co-location arrangement which fails to gain public support. While trying to defile public opinions, it also wants to win kudos through the passage of this motion by the Legislative Council. Deputy President, as we all know, the discussion and dispute on the co-location arrangement of course do not start from now. At first … (Dr Fernando CHEUNG stood up and requested a headcount) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please hold on. Dr Fernando CHEUNG requested a headcount. Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (While the summoning bell was ringing, some Members returned to the Chamber but not to their seats) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) (Some Members spoke loudly in the Chamber)


DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please be quiet. Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please continue with your speech. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have here in my hand a paper from the Legislative Council Panel on Constitutional Affairs. It is the "Guidelines on Public Consultation" which sets out the general guiding principles adopted by the Government in undertaking public consultation. In paragraph 2, it says, "… we consider it essential to respond in a timely manner to public demands, and to take public opinion into account when formulating public policies and programmes." The public should be consulted on a subject by the Government at as early a stage as possible. Following the adjournment of the first Legislative Council meeting in this session, the Government did a nasty trick of announcing the co-location arrangement after the suspension of another Council meeting. Afterwards, the Administration came to the Legislative Council twice, pretending to consult Members, but refused to conduct a public consultation. When attending the Legislative Council meeting later on, Mrs Carrie LAM showed her authority and this Council was asked to pass a motion, which was under the escort of some faulty public opinions. Has the Government carried out the principles laid down by itself? "The purpose of consultation exercise, the options available and the Government's preferred option … should be set out clearly" by the Government. Therefore, apart from the co-location arrangement model, there should also be the separate-location arrangement model, while the possible locations for implementation should include Shenzhen, Futian, Guangzhou and the like. Has the Government introduced various models in detail to the public for their discussion? It is clearly written in the guidelines that "the scope of consultation should be as wide as possible". But what has the Government done? The Government has met with pro-China groups, held closed-door meetings with its own people and only conducted simple discussions. Has the Government conducted any public consultation on this subject? Has it responded to questions from the public? Secretary Frank CHAN even hid away from the seminar organized by a student union. What kind of consultation is it? The Government is totally oblivious to the guidelines written by itself. Have you read the guidelines laid down by the authorities? This paper has listed out all the principles very clearly. In the item "Suitable public functions" under "Means of public consultation", there is such a principle: "Policy issues could also be communicated to the public through various other means". In the


1165

Legislative Council, Mrs Carrie LAM told Members that the public could listen to the discussion of the Council, or watch the video clips on YouTube. What is this Government doing? It is asking the public to listen to what Frank CHAN and Rimsky YUEN said earlier. Can this be regarded as consultation? Does the Government feel ashamed of itself? To the Government and Mrs Carrie LAM, this may not be anything new. How does the Government usually conduct a consultation? When Mrs Carrie LAM was the Secretary for Development long time ago, she said she would conduct a consultation in respect of a certain project, but she also said that demolition was necessary. The Government has also shocked the public in the construction of the Hong Kong Palace Museum in West Kowloon Cultural District. Back then, after consulting the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in charge of the West Kowloon Cultural District Project, it said that the consultation work was already completed. But in reality, there was not any public consultation at all. Afterwards, how did the Government explain to us? It said that there was also no public consultation when a pair of pandas was given to Hong Kong as a gift by the Mainland. Will consultation be unnecessary for any controversial project? This is to tell us that the Government will still conduct consultations. However, there will be no consultation when a subject is controversial, when the public are not easily fooled or when the Government does not want to hear any voices of opposition, as it can foresee that the outcome will not be to its liking. The Government is degrading itself in hijacking the Legislative Council to pass the motion. When half of the Members in the Legislative Council are returned by functional constituencies, can this Council really reflect public opinions? While we are not holding the Government accountable for its unsatisfactory job in constitutional reform which resulted in the absence of universal suffrage for the Legislative Council, it, on the contrary, is hijacking the Legislative Council to pass this highly unpopular co-location arrangement. Deputy President, what did the Government say to us then? I have some scores to settle with the Government. It said that it has conducted a consultation on the co-location arrangement and the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") and thus the arrangement carries the popular mandate. However, after looking through all the consultation papers, I cannot find any trace of a wide consultation at the initial stage on either the agreement to the construction of XRL, its alignment, the fund allocation in 2009 or the additional funding last year. There has not been any genuine consultation, not even once. Mrs Carrie LAM says that the Government has the agreement from the public. I would then


ask her to show us the proof. Based on the consideration of three important factors of economic return, the alignment and the violation of the Basic Law, how will the Hong Kong people agree to and accept this co-location arrangement of XRL? The Government is unwilling to tell the public the truth. Instead, it shamelessly tells us that consultation has been done. Secretary Frank CHAN, can you show us any proof? Of course, you can say that certain groups have done some opinion polls on behalf of the Government. However, they were all secretly done. Please show all the data to us and then ask the public whether they are worried that Article 22 of the Basic Law will be ruined by the co-location arrangement. Have you asked this question? What benefits will this so-called co-location arrangement or XRL bring to us? There will be 90 and 24 daily train pairs between Hong Kong and the Shenzhen and Guangzhou areas respectively. As a matter of fact, we all know that the Ministry of Railways, which is in charge of the high-speed rail network in the Mainland, is a highly corrupt department, and the former Minister of Railways even stepped down not long ago. The commissioning of the high-speed rail in the Mainland has triggered a lot of controversies back then. We all learn that there were train collisions, poor safety factors and a lot of people reaping profits out of this project. Besides, Guangzhou, Beijing, Wuhan and Shanghai are the few hubs within the high-speed rail network. The Secretary may also know that most of the trains will go to these so-called hubs. When the authorities say that the high-speed rail starts from Hong Kong, they are actually telling a lie. They can only say that in terms of alignment, there will be trains departing from the city station of Hong Kong to other high-speed hubs. This pattern is in fact very common in these days. The cross-boundary buses are running from city to city. The through trains, which have already been commissioned, also run from one city to another. If we follow the logic of the Government, the co-location arrangement should be implemented at all the stations concerned in Hong Kong, including the cross-boundary bus station in Mong Kok, because the cross-boundary buses departing from that station are in fact going to various cities in the Mainland. As we all know, it is difficult to safeguard the Basic Law but is very easy to undermine the Basic Law and the "one country, two systems" principle. We are not substantially segregated from the Mainland, but only rely on the Basic Law and the legal system to protect ourselves. There is neither a wall to protect the "one country, two systems" principle of Hong Kong, nor anything to ensure


1167

the continuous application of the principle of "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong". If the Government, instead of taking the lead to acknowledge this situation and to defend the Basic Law, is taking the opposite direction, how are we going to implement the principle of "one country, two systems" so that national laws will not apply to Hong Kong? The Government lied to us when talking about the arrangement between the United States and Canada or the arrangement of Eurostar. We should know that even the customs officers of the United States cannot fully enforce the laws of the United States at the Canadian border. In case someone fails to observe the discipline or the use of force is warranted in the arrest, they will ask the Canadian police or law enforcement officers to handle the situation. Have we done the same? The answer is obviously in the negative. Not one formal consultation session has been organized by the Government. The paper in my hand sets out the undertakings of the Government pertaining to public consultation, as well as the principles laid down by the Government itself. The Government needs to conduct consultations in a very serious manner, even when carrying out public opinion surveys. Such surveys may have to "be carried out to ascertain public views on controversial issues, or public reaction to existing and proposed policies or actions, and to detect changes in public attitudes towards longstanding issues." In case a public opinion survey is being conducted, it has to be "one which uses a probability sample, a carefully designed and tested questionnaire and trained interviewers". This is a far cry from the response given by public officers like Frank CHAN or Rimsky YUEN, who say that public surveys have been done by some organizations, and anyone can check out those polls himself if he has any doubts. Is it what the Government should do? Have they consulted the Central Policy Unit? Prof LAU Siu-kai was previously the Head of that Unit. Ask him whether the universities will allow the Government making irresponsible remarks, like the carrying out of some surveys can be taken as an agreement from the Hong Kong people to the arrangement concerned. What we are now discussing is the principle of "one country, two systems", and a project worth nearly $100 billion. After we have aired so many views, the Government just wants to end this up by arbitrarily saying that opinion polls have been done in the community. The Government is really going too far. It has reduced to deceiving the public that a genuine consultation has been conducted.


The Government has not told us the truth. From the start, it has not told us about the economic return. The situation is getting worse and worse, and the accounts are simply not clear. We are not provided with any information, but Mr Frederick MA said that the operating cost of XRL could reach $80 million a month. How do they arrive at this figure? What will the amount of profits be? When can the investment be recouped? We learn nothing about all these. However, the Government is not talking about actual recoupment of the investment, but is asking us to imagine the amount of economic return 50 years later. We do not have any expectation from the Government. After all, Hong Kong people have been deceived and robbed twice, in 2009 and last year respectively. We could still stand it even if the money of Hong Kong people was snatched to construct the "white elephant" project of XRL, as we could at least hold fast to our last defence, the principle of "one country, two systems". Nonetheless, we now meet the first example of undermining the principle of "one country, two systems", and that is the co-location arrangement. If the Government does not admit to this, it is ineligible to be here telling the public that it will defend the principle of "one country, two systems". Other options, including the separate-location arrangement at Futian, will not do any harm to the principle of "one country, two systems" or lower the effectiveness of the "white elephant" project of XRL. In all other options proposed by the experts, Futian is also mentioned. Ms Eva CHENG, the former Secretary for Transport and Housing, said very clearly during a Legislative Council meeting that firstly, the co-location arrangement might not be necessary, and secondly, while studying the feasibility of the co-location arrangement, she would also reserve enough space at the XRL terminus and other places, including Futian, Longhua, Humen and Shibi, for conducting immigration and other such procedures. Members may see that a whole floor at Futian Port has been reserved for such a purpose, but the Government refused to accept that option. Without consultation and discussion, the Government firmly believes that the co-location arrangement is the best option. But this what a swindler will do. He will allure you into a snare, telling you that if you take this panacea which is the best, you cannot go wrong. But if you take it, you will be doomed. We defend Hong Kong so that it is still unscathed so far. The principle of "one country, two systems" is written in the Basic Law, and let us observe it. This is very important and is also the humblest request from me. We all know


1169

that the Government keeps on telling lies, one after another, but we are not very concerned about it. At this moment, the most important and fundamental point is that we can tolerate the co-location arrangement no longer as it will completely ruin the principle of "one country, two systems". This is a road of no return. As we all know, with the implementation of the co-location arrangement, there will be law enforcement at the West Kowloon Terminus by law enforcement officers from the Mainland. Will they not do so in other places in the future? What they enforce are national laws and the law enforcement officers can carry weapons, why not? May I ask whether there are other ways to make sure that Hong Kong people will not be easily accused of violating national laws, such as being charged with the offence of inciting subversion of state power, the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles? The list of offences can go on and on. Please stay sober. What we think might not happen can certainly happen. When our great Motherland is staying on the path towards a powerful country (The buzzer sounded) … what else can it not achieve? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Your speaking time is up. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first, I have to make it very clear that I am not against the co-location arrangement. I just oppose the Government's current proposal to co-locate the clearance facilities at West Kowloon Station ("WKS"). It is kind of basic knowledge that co-location clearance is more effective than the separate-location option. The need for passengers to stop twice for customs clearance is definitely less effective than the one-stop arrangement. Hence, we are not against the concept of co-location clearance, and we believe this is the direction toward maximizing the economic benefits, if any, of the XRL. It would be desirable if we could implement co-location clearance as far as practicable. The problem is the Government's insistence on implementing the WKS co-location clearance. This has aroused great controversy, mainly in the legal aspect. Though there are also voices in society questioning the economic benefits of implementing the co-location clearance at WKS. They believe that the Mainland co-location clearance option, similar to the current co-location arrangement at the Shenzhen Bay Port, would generate greater benefits.


First, I want to talk about the legal issue, as the question of lawfulness is 100 times more serious than the economic benefits. The implementation of the WKS co-location clearance is contrary to the Basic Law. Many legal professionals have pointed out that the WKS co-location arrangement has breached various Basic Law provisions which include Article 17: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") shall be vested with legislative power; Article 18: National laws shall not be applied in HKSAR; Article 19: HKSAR shall be vested with independent judicial power and shall have jurisdiction over all cases in the Region; and Article 22: No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which HKSAR administers on its own, and all offices set up in HKSAR by departments of the Central Government, or by provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the personnel of these offices shall abide by the laws of the Region. These are the most fundamental provisions in the Basic Law. I have already explained them in detail during the adjournment debate, so I am not going to repeat here. Nevertheless, I wish to reiterate that the WKS co-location arrangement violates the Basic Law, and thus takes away the most fundamental safeguard from the Hong Kong people. This is of great importance. If we allow this to happen, the Basic Law will become nothing. The reason is simple. The Government's explanation says the WKS co-location clearance is lawful and does not violate the Basic Law because the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") set up inside WKS does not belong to Hong Kong, and thus the Basic Law no longer applies to the area. Deputy President, how ridiculous it is? Now, under the Basic Law, HKSAR can declare some places inside Hong Kong suddenly become outside of the city's territorial boundary. Deputy President, I have no idea as to the credibility of the Government. In a document submitted to the Legislative Council on 8 January 2016, the Government still said, as I read out directly from the document, that "no area within the [West Kowloon Terminus] will be carved out of the HKSAR's territory". The Government still said "no" in the 8 January 2016 document. However, in paragraph 47 of another government document released on 25 July 2017, it said: "For the purpose of exercising jurisdiction over the MPA by the Mainland, with respect to the application of laws and delineation of jurisdiction, the MPA will be regarded as outside the territorial boundary of the HKSAR." I remember Secretary Frank CHAN clearly assured us in the Special House Committee meeting that what the Government has said throughout the XRL


1171

discussion since 2000 was true, the entire truth. The Secretary said the Government has told the truth, but we can find contradictory remarks even in Government documents written in black and white. In 2016, the Government said no area within the West Kowloon Terminus would be carved out of the HKSAR's territory. In 2017, however, it reserved course and regarded MPA as outside the territorial boundary of the HKSAR. Deputy President, this Council and this Government have the obligation to face the Hong Kong people. Can we excise a particular land area from Hong Kong in order to dis-apply Hong Kong's jurisdiction over that piece of land simply for the sake of economic benefits and convenience? Is this not ridiculous? It is so ridiculous that Secretary for Justice has to surprise the media with the reply that the Basic Law has not set out the geographical area and the territorial boundary of Hong Kong. If this is the case, Deputy President, where are we now? Are we in Hong Kong? Our laws are so unclear that we have no idea of where Hong Kong is. Our overall area of jurisdiction is so ambiguous that we can say some places are out of our jurisdiction one day, and we are uncertain about our jurisdiction area the other day. How can our jurisdiction be reduced to a farce? This distorted explanation confounds right with wrong. In order to justify its obviously groundless proposal which runs counter to the Basic Law, the Government has exhausted every possible means to look for loopholes. Now it says under Article 20, the Central Authorities can grant other powers to HKSAR to surrender a part of its territory. What the granting of powers exactly means? Does it mean the granting of extra powers to the Government to tell Hong Kong people that for the sake of convenience, a part of West Kowloon would become a non-Hong Kong area? Even the areas where XRL trains pass by are regarded as the moving boundaries. While XRL trains are still on the Hong Kong land, the train compartments are considered under the Mainland jurisdiction. It is so funny, totally unprecedented, and a full display of the unrivalled creativity and imagination. The Government had once quoted a number of overseas examples, saying that countries of the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and Canada have also adopted similar co-location arrangements. But later on, the Government dared not talk further about overseas experience as it discovered that none of these countries would surrender their jurisdiction to others in the implementation of co-location clearance. Instead, the jurisdiction is clearly defined by the territorial boundary.


This is true that Hong Kong is not a country. But the city is a Special Administrative Region ruled under the Basic Law. We adopt "one country, two systems", and our legal system is entirely different from that of the Mainland. Therefore, the Basic Law provides that the laws in force in HKSAR should be Hong Kong laws, and national laws shall not be applied in HKSAR except for those listed in Annex III. Deputy President, these Basic Law provisions are clear enough, so the Government cannot choose but to force its co-location arrangement through. Can the co-location arrangement generate great benefits? I am not an expert in this field. But on the basis of the government information and the folk wisdom, the benefits of the co-location arrangement seem to be very limited. The co-location clearance will be convenient only to longer-haul passengers whose destinations are not Shenzhen or Guangzhou, as passengers for the two cities can simply get off and do the customs check there. In other words, no matter where these passengers undergo the check, either in Hong Kong, or in Mainland cities of Shenzhen or Guangzhou, they will need to get off the train one time only, and they will reach their destinations after the customs check. Hence, the co-location arrangement is not beneficial to them at all. But this group of passengers precisely accounts for more than 80% of the estimated patronage. Why must we need to destroy the Basic Law to excise a part of our territory and make it a non-Hong Kong area, only for the convenience of less than 20% of the XRL passengers who take medium or long-haul journey? Worse still, the Government has bluntly refused to pledge that this arrangement is an exception, not to be taken as a precedent. Hence, when this proposal is endorsed and the relevant bill passed, it is possible that the Government would adopt the same arrangement to other crossing facilities in Hong Kong. Sooner or later, simply in the name of convenience, the Central district and some other places or even the cross-boundary coach services might be turned into Mainland port areas. Another batch might include the district of Mong Kok, Tai Kok Tsui, and Tuen Mun. The more Mainland port areas we establish inside the Hong Kong territory, the more convenience it would bring to Mainland passengers. Hence, it is advisable to set up the many Mainland port areas in one go, so that Mainland visitors can conveniently return home after the customs checks. However, we all know that this is not feasible. This is absolutely absurd. The adoption of the Government's co-location arrangement will set a bad precedent. The worst of all is the destruction of the Basic Law by making Article 20 overriding all other Basic Law provisions. Through the granting of


1173

extra or other powers to Hong Kong under Article 20, some areas within the Hong Kong boundary will be deprived of the safeguards of the Basic Law. Hence, if the Central Authorities or our rulers frown at a particular piece of legislation, they may first seek the NPCSC interpretation of the Basic Law. If the legislation itself does not provide for this, they can simply adopt Article 20. In other words, if it involves a particular piece of legislation, they can use the NPCSC interpretation to make the laws adapt to the rulers' will; if not, they can use Article 20 to meet the needs of rulers. This is utterly unreasonable and barbaric. This is a forceful manipulation of the Basic Law framework to arbitrarily reduce its safeguards for Hong Kong people. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) President, today we are discussing a very serious issue. What prices Hong Kong people have to pay for the so-called economic benefits and the saving of travelling time? Even some wordings of this non-legal binding motion, for example, are deceiving people. President, it is good that you resume the Chair. Actually, you should also look into the wordings carefully. The original motion reads: "Regarding the arrangement for conducting Hong Kong and Mainland customs, immigration and quarantine procedures ("the co-location arrangement") at the West Kowloon Station of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), this Council supports the Government … pursuant to the 'Three-step Process'". The motion states clearly at the very beginning that it is about the arrangement for conducting the customs, immigration and quarantine procedures. But what is in the actual arrangement? It is the handing over of the entire jurisdiction to the Mainland. In case our residents dial the 999 emergency calls inside MPA, their calls will be transferred to the Mainland public security authorities. So, what exactly are the customs, immigration and quarantine procedures? The entire MPA is clearly located within the Hong Kong territorial boundary, but why is it under the Mainland jurisdiction? Only six pieces of Hong Kong civil legislation can be applied in the area. The motion only mentions the conduct of the customs, immigration and quarantine procedures, so why all Mainland laws are applicable in the area? This is downright deception. Even the contents of the motion are deceiving people. If this motion is only about the customs, immigration and quarantine procedures, such legal framework as the "Three-step Process" and the Co-operation Arrangement … you should not do that.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please stop speaking immediately. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary said in his opening speech that he had solicited plenty of comments from the people and conducted rounds of consultation with regard to the co-location arrangement. Similar messages have also been conveyed by other government officials on other occasions. However, if we do think about this carefully, we will see the Secretary has just made a few appearances in Legislative Council meetings and on radio programmes during the last few months. He even selectively went only to activities held by groups in support of the co-location arrangement. His presence in these activities is far from sufficient in view of the divergence of opinions in the community. Such solicitation of opinion also fails to meet the requirements for genuine consultation process. Given that the new Government vows to adopt a new style of governance and engage people in public discussion, the approach it now uses in taking forward the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon Station is certainly a negative example. Many may think that the Government has provided a lot of information and the co-location arrangement has been extensively discussed in the community during the consultation process. But we will understand the problem if we recall the remarks made earlier by officials of the previous term Government and by the other so-called authoritative figures before the current Government announced the co-location arrangement in July this year. On 17 June this year, Mr RAO Geping, a member of the Basic Law Committee predicted that the co-location arrangement would model on the precedent set by Shenzhen Bay. The law enforcement powers of the Mainland officials would however be confined to technical and specified areas such as boundary control and security checks. There is no need for the Hong Kong people to bother themselves with self-created worries, according to RAO. As mentioned by Dr Fernando CHEUNG just now, this motion with no legislative effect is about conducting the so-called customs, immigration and quarantine ("CIQ") clearance in West Kowloon Station. What exactly is that? The "Three-step Process" has spelt this out: because of concerns in national security and in security, Mainland public security authorities shall have full enforcement power in West Kowloon. So here we see a change. Are we


1175

bothering ourselves with self-created worries or is this a genuine source of worry? On 18 June, the Secretary for Transport and Housing said that no concrete plan had been made for the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon Station. Yet, he believed that Mainland personnel would only handle customs clearance in West Kowloon Station under the proposal. How come in just two weeks, the comment made by the former Secretary for Transport and Housing is shelved and ignored by the current-term Government? And the latter does not even care to explain to the public the reason behind such a major change of plan which comes about in just two weeks' time. The two examples above show that either the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government has all along been pulling wool over our eyes, saying that "the co-location arrangement" involves only customs clearance, quarantine procedures and security checks; or the new Government has lied to us that the proposal has gone through extensive discussion. As a matter of fact, the official information paper we now have at hand was given by the Government in 2015. It was provided as part of the response the Government made to the legislature upon our persistent interrogation on the overspending and delay of the XRL project. We do not have the latest assessment figures as at today; and we are uncertain of the validity of those figures we read on newspaper that are said to have been obtained from the Secretary. Secretary Frank CHAN asked us the day before yesterday to broaden our frame of reference when considering investment return. Hence, the commuting time saved in the next 50 years, the 10 000 job positions created and rental income generated from the three commercial buildings atop West Kowloon Station are all regarded as part of the $270 billion economic return produced by this proposal. This figure looks phenomenal. But, if such logic is sound, all the proposed works should be endorsed in future as long-term projections are definitely hard to dispute. The Government is just providing some causal figures which no one can tell their validity, right? The actual costs we have to pay in order to gain these economic benefits are also outside of the Secretary's formula. For instance, the public may consequently develop worries over the implementation of "one country, two systems" and the international community may also have a different impression with regard to the practice of this principle. How can these worries and opinions be quantified as factors to be taken into account when considering the project's economic benefits? Is the Secretary going to put them into his formula?


To publicize the co-location arrangement, the Government puts on television Announcement of Public Interest which chants XRL's merits day after day. But apart from doing this, the Government pays no attention to not only the legal ground but also the economic reasoning of the proposal. Nor does the Government heed the various views made by Members of the legislature. It sees no need to update the legislature with accurate information and readily offers perfunctory excuses to Members. If the Secretary finds the remark that I just made incorrect, would he update us with the latest information immediately? Would he care to give us information about economic benefits and operation method that he talks about all the time, such as how many pairs of long-, medium- and short-haul service trains will depart from a certain station in a day? Where are their destinations? How does the project interface with the "Eight Verticals and Eight Horizontals" layout? If the Government makes a full disclosure, we may come to realize that the majority of long-haul passengers have to change train at Shenzhen North Station or Guangzhou South Station. But as the Government refuses to provide the relevant information to us, we are under the impression that West Kowloon Station is going to provide convenient national railway services under which all trains will originate from there and passengers board in West Kowloon Station can reach all the cities located along the "Eight Verticals and Eight Horizontals" layout without dismounting. Secretary, are these all true? If they are not, are you going to provide an explanation to us? In the last few months, the Government has been conducting an extensive publicity campaign that reaches all corners of Hong Kong. However, when we look at the opinion polls, for instance the one conducted by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies under The Chinese University of Hong Kong in end-August, which solicited people's opinions on the government proposal, we see that more than 30% of the interviewed have all along harboured plenty of queries and worries with regard to implementing the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon Terminus. In view of these queries and worries, is it not the responsibility of the Government to address them? Is it not the responsibility of the Government to consider such voices and opinions? Is it not its responsibility to consider narrowing these differences, so as to prevent social dissention and confrontation from resurfacing over the Government's attitude in the endorsement of the co-location arrangement? Actually, many members of the public precisely worry that the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon will lead to distortion and deformity in the implementation of "one country, two systems". According to the understanding of many Hong Kong people as well as the


1177

international community, the implementation of "one country, two systems" rests on not applying national laws in Hong Kong on issues unrelated to defence or foreign affairs, and within the autonomy of Hong Kong. But the administration of the co-location arrangement has altered and shattered our understanding and concept of "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy". I have asked Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN, and I would like to have him answered this question again if given the chance, whether the Government could promise that the arrangement currently proposed in West Kowloon Terminus is just a one-off case not intending to set a precedent in future. In other words, is the co-location arrangement a special design tailored for the XRL in West Kowloon? However, the Secretary has given me an unambiguous reply that he cannot make any guarantee or promise on behalf of the future government. With such a reply, is the Secretary not actually inviting the public to ponder over the possible fallout which might be brought about by the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon? And such fallout is resultant of the application of Article 20 of the Basic Law. Under the current proposal for the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon, Article 20 of the Basic Law will be invoked so that if the Hong Kong SAR Government willingly marks off part of its land, sees it as a Mainland area on which a Mainland Port Area is set up, national laws can then be introduced to the area which nevertheless is part of Hong Kong soil. In addition, relevant Mainland law enforcement officers are going to have full enforcement power in the area with the exception of six civil law fields. This runs contrary to Hong Kong people's long-held understanding of Article 20 which provides that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may enjoy other powers granted to it by the National People's Congress, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or the Central People's Government." Of course, it has never occurred to us that the surrender of jurisdiction over a certain area within our territory can be seen as other powers granted by the Central Government with the invocation of Article 20. Under such circumstances, how can the public not worry if such an arrangement will deal a blow to "a high degree of autonomy" as understood by us under "one country, two systems"? If such a line of reasoning is valid, and given Rimsky YUEN's refusal to promise on behalf of the SAR Government that the arrangement is a unique case, we do have good reasons to worry. How can we tell which is the next area to be regarded as outside Hong Kong's territory, and subsequently has national laws introduced to it?


In view of these worries, the Secretary should provide explanation and clarification to the Hong Kong people. It is possible that we are just bothering ourselves with self-created worries, like what Mr RAO Geping has said. But the Secretary should also provide an explanation for the sake of the record. He should not just keep blaming us for bothering ourselves with self-created worries over the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon and for failing to understand the noble intentions of other people, without completing this task. He should not do this. As a matter of fact, the Central Government or specifically as General Secretary and President XI Jinping reiterated in his work report delivered on 18 October that "[w]e fully and faithfully implemented the principle of 'one country, two systems' and ensured that the Central Government exercises its overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong and Macao as mandated by China's Constitution and the basic laws of the two special administrative regions … We must ensure both the Central Government's overall jurisdiction over the Hong Kong and Macao special administrative regions and 'a high degree of autonomy' in the two regions." Such remarks, when understood with reference to the current proposal of implementing the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon, the crucial mechanism allowing the assurance of both the Central Government's overall jurisdiction over the Hong Kong and Macao SARs and "a high degree of autonomy" partly lies on the application of Article 20. Therefore, when President XI Jinping mentions the "overall jurisdiction" and the need to "improve the systems and mechanisms for enforcing the basic laws", we really have to pay particular attention to see how the Central Government is planning to implement the systems related to the Basic Law. Therefore, if the SAR Government works with the Central Government this time to introduce a brand new definition and a liberal application of Article 20 of the Basic Law, this Article can also be used to facilitate the intervention of the Central Authorities into Hong Kong affairs when it is deemed necessary in future. As at now, the Democratic Party still has faith in the Basic Law, in "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". Our party also trusts that the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law are solemn promises made to the Hong Kong people and the international community, undertaking that the practice of the "one country, two systems" policy remains intact and undistorted, and various "back doors" will not be opened up easily. Interpretation of the Basic Law is already a "back door". Now, with Article 20, the back door among all back doors, we are


1179

increasingly worried that the international community and the public in Hong Kong may have lost faith in the implementation of "one country, two systems". Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, "HSR" is an abbreviation for high-speed rail. It carries the characteristics of being speedy, comfortable, safe and environmental friendly … (Mr WU Chi-wai stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Han-pan, please hold on. Mr WU Chi-wai, what is your point? MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Han-pan, please continue with your speech. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, "HSR" stands for high-speed rail. It carries the characteristics of being speedy, comfortable, convenient and safe. The well-known high-speed railway networks in the globe include Japan's Shinkansen, whose trains can hit 270 km to 300 km per hour; the Eurostar developed jointly by the United Kingdom and France, whose trains can travel at a


speed of 300 km per hour; and the TGV of France, with a speed of 320 km per hour. For the HSR of China, whose trains can reach a maximum of 300 km to 350 km per hour, is on a par with the other systems in the world and may even have more development in the future. HSR transportation has already become a global trend. In the future, China will develop HSR together with the Belt and Road initiative. For the long-term development of Hong Kong and the maintenance of Hong Kong's competitiveness, and in view of the increasingly frequent interaction between Hong Kong and the Mainland society on the economic front, it is necessary for Hong Kong to construct an express rail to dovetail with the Mainland and the globe. Besides, through the co-location arrangement, Hong Kong visitors will only need to go through one-stop customs, immigration and quarantine procedures of two territories at West Kowloon Station, without having to go through such procedures again in another Mainland station. This is exactly the crucial point of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail ("XRL") which makes it so significant. Without the co-location arrangement, XRL will be no different from the through train system, only a bit more advanced. Therefore, if we give up the co-location arrangement, we will be throwing $80 billion of project cost down the drain. The co-location arrangement is not something new in foreign countries or in many different cities. However, Members from the opposition camp has been arguing against it endlessly and making use of every trick in the book to confuse the public and demonize the co-location arrangement. In fact, since the construction of XRL, they have been sparing no effort in opposing it hysterically, leaving no stone unturned, and making use of each and every incident to step up their opposition, for example the Choi Yuen Tsuen incident, the process of fund allocation and even the incident of Howard LAM whose legs were punched with staples. The high degree of their opposition makes us think that there is something more behind the move of the opposition camp against this single project. It seems that Members of this camp are afraid that the convenience brought by XRL will be running contrary to their cause of being segregated from others. In terms of ideology, their opposition is already irrational. At the same time, I think they are also scared of the convenience brought by XRL after it is commissioned, by then the public will understand that their opposition in the first place is actually totally unjustified and unnecessary. This situation is similar to the construction of the Mass Transit Railway back then. There was opposition from some people to its construction, but the opposition was reckoned


1181

unnecessary after the commissioning of the project. To those who said that the West Rail was a "white elephant" project back then, they can now see that the compartments of West Rail are always very crowded. Hence, I believe that they are actually scared. Under normal circumstances or a constructive environment, those who oppose the project will usually put forward a better proposal, in the hope that through opposition, their proposal can be accepted and implemented. This is opposition in the constructive sense. However, their proposal of the separate-location arrangement is similar to the present arrangement at Huanggang Port. First of all, passengers will have to go through the customs and other procedures in Hong Kong. After sitting in the train for a while, they will have to get off the train with all their luggage for going through the above procedures again in the Mainland. A political party later proposed conducting the procedures on the train. In fact, is it possible to conduct the procedures in the confining train compartments within only 14 minutes? This proposal is totally impractical indeed. Recently, they have come up with other new proposals like co-location arrangement in the Mainland and separate-location arrangement in Shenzhen. I would like to ask them whether they have consulted the Shenzhen authorities or discussed with the Mainland authorities on these proposals. In our view, these proposals are as impractical as other previous proposals, as at the end, the passengers need to board the train in Hong Kong, then get off at another station and board the train again. They are not considering the issue from the public point of view at all, but are complicating the matter, and their proposals, basically not people-oriented, are causing nuisance to the public. In brief, they are opposing the Government for the sake of opposition. In the amendments today, they say that public views have not been sought on the co-location arrangement, and it is the result of the Administration's intransigence. This comment is not substantiated. In the 2007-2008 Policy Address, the Administration already announced the feasibility study of the co-location arrangement, and the study was confirmed in the following year by the Finance Committee ("FC"). Since 2008, the fourth Legislative Council Session, there were a total of eight questions about the XRL project or the co-location arrangement, five discussions on the XRL project and the co-location arrangement as well as four site visits by the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways, and various discussions conducted by FC and the House Committee.


Since the promulgation of the "Three-step Process" on the co-location arrangement, there was a discussion by the House Committee of the Legislative Council on 3 August, and a further discussion five days later at a joint panel meeting by the Panel on Transport, the Panel on Security and the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services. The Secretary for Justice, the Secretary for Transport and Housing and the Secretary for Security also attended the meeting to answer Members' questions. It is conspicuous that the opposition camp is using public consultation as an excuse, but is actually deploying stalling tactics. We could simply read its mind immediately. This motion on the "Three-step Process" for the debate by the Legislative Council is moved by the Government out of respect for this Council. This is meant to be a gesture to mend rifts, but has turned into a war of filibustering. I believe that the Government is well-intentioned in moving this motion, but it is very unfortunate that the Government is being rejected. The olive branch that it has extended is not only thrown by Members onto the floor, but is further trampled under feet. Moreover, some Members have highlighted in their amendments that this arrangement contravenes the Basic Law and damages the spirit of "one country, two systems". In my opinion, this is a complete distortion of the facts. As clearly mentioned by the Secretary for Justice and a number of Basic Law Committee Members, the co-location arrangement is in line with the Basic Law, and the land within the Hong Kong territory shall be State property. Therefore, when a land site is being demarcated as a Mainland port area, this is basically not an issue of ceding territory, which does not exist at all. And the co-location arrangement will also not weaken Hong Kong's judicial power. As a matter of fact, for the implementation of the co-location arrangement, we have no right to implement it ourselves but shall first have the authorization by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") before we can put in place the co-location arrangement. Under the "Three-step Process" proposed by the Government, local legislative process will be endorsed by NPCSC, thus providing a sound and solid legal foundation to the implementation of the co-location arrangement which can stand against any legal challenge. Hence, the implementation of the arrangement through the "Three-step Process" now adopted by the Government is a proper approach. On the one hand, we can have the endorsement of NPCSC that the co-location arrangement is in line with the Basic Law, while on the other


1183

hand, the "Three-step Process" can be completed through local legislative process, during which the Legislative Council and Hong Kong people can understand and discuss the arrangement in an open and transparent manner. This approach totally complies with and shows respect for the Basic Law and the requirement of local legislation, and has a solid legal basis. As we all know, the establishment of the Hong Kong Government and the Legislative Council shall follow the requirements in the Basic Law, while the power of the Basic Law is derived from the National People's Congress and NPCSC. In regard to the implementation of the co-location arrangement, we find that Hong Kong is not entrusted with the power by the Basic Law to implement the arrangement, and thus by invoking the provisions of the Basic Law, we hope that Hong Kong can be entrusted with the power by NPCSC to implement the arrangement. This approach is totally in line with the Basic Law and is respectful of the Basic Law and the established mechanism. In essence, the co-location arrangement is actually considered purely from the angle of passengers and the public, and its only purpose is for the convenience of passengers which can bring economic benefits in the long run. As mentioned by Prof Anthony CHEUNG, the former Secretary for Transport and Housing, the co-location arrangement is a matter of trust. Only if there is clear delineation on the law enforcement areas and authority of the Mainland law enforcement officers under the arrangement, together with proper monitoring and regular reviews, I believe that public queries and concern can be greatly allayed. As a result, XRL can be more expeditiously implemented and be more cost-effective. The opposition camp opposes the arrangement with its tongue in its cheek. Mr WU Chi-wai keeps on querying that XRL is not cost-effective. In fact, I think he is either misleading us whole-heartedly or not familiar with the information concerning our country. If he is not so clear, he can in fact consult Mr Andrew WAN―Is Mr Andrew WAN present here? Is he not coming downstairs to attend the meeting again?―It is because Mr Andrew WAN always organizes HSR tours. During the last summer vacation, he also took HSR to Anhui. Why do I have this poster? A member of the public said that he has signed up for an HSR tour organized by Mr Andrew WAN, but later found out that the gathering time was very early. They need to depart at 6:00 am and then take the train at Shenzhen North Railway Station. In order to take the train there, they need to set off three hours ahead. He found it embarrassing to say to Mr Andrew WAN. He told me that if the co-location arrangement could be


implemented at West Kowloon Station, he would only need to set off one hour before the train departure time, and would have a bit more time to sleep before going to the XRL station leisurely. However, he found it embarrassing to say to Mr Andrew WAN since he has signed up for his tour, and thus asked me to relay this message to Mr Andrew WAN. In fact, the tour participants also hope that the co-location arrangement can be implemented so that they can directly go to their respective destinations from West Kowloon Station. Thus, we should not say that XRL is not cost-effective. The opposition camp has, in fact, organized many HSR tours. After I was given the poster by that member of the public, I browsed the Internet and found that HSR tours were frequently organized by different political parties. They thus put up a show of opposition on the one hand and continue to use the facilities concerned on the other hand. I believe that if West Kowloon Station can be commissioned smoothly together with the implementation of the co-location arrangement next year, they will surely organize more and more tours. I did consider organizing HSR tours, but so far I have not organized any, as I want to start organizing such tours after the implementation of co-location arrangement at West Kowloon Station. Despite so much work and effort, they are still organizing the tours now. In the future when things are so convenient, I will of course organize such tours. Nevertheless, in respect of what Mr WU Chi-wai said earlier, he has been querying and sticking to his view that the co-location arrangement should not be implemented. If that is the case, he should learn from King Gou Jian of Yue who ate nothing but the crops that he planted and wore nothing but the clothes woven by his wife. That means he should have the integrity of instructing all his party members not to organize any HSR or XRL tours in future. Even if they organize these tours, they will not be allowed to use the co-location arrangement at West Kowloon Station, but will have to go all the way to Shenzhen North Railway Station to take the train. If he can do it, I will show him respect. But then I will also have to thank him, as with his spare XRL tickets, we can organize a few more tours. Hence, I hope that while we have a chance to discuss the arrangement, we also have to think from a pragmatic angle. For the pragmatic angle pertaining to XRL, it is from the people's angle. We absolutely agree that the co-location arrangement is in line with legal provisions and has solid legal basis to stand against different kinds of judicial review challenges, and that it is also devised under the premise of respecting the Basic Law and the "one country, two systems". While we think that the co-location arrangement is feasible, we also


1185

believe that the "Three-step Process" has solid legal foundation and is equally feasible. Why do we have to resort to all means to demonize the co-location arrangement? During these days, I have been hearing many reasons of opposition from the opposition camp, but none of them is convincing to me. The camp has also put forward not a few proposals, but how did it come up with those proposals? These are the nondescript proposals poorly thought out during discussions by a group of people who are against the construction of XRL, and they basically cannot be implemented. Why do I say that their proposals cannot be implemented? It is because these people have never discussed their proposals with the Mainland. Even the Government has to spend so much time discussing with the Mainland authorities that this arrangement can be formulated. I do not believe that they can think of a rather comprehensive strategy simply by brainstorming with a group of people who are against the construction of XRL. Therefore, standing on a solid foundation, we firmly support this people-oriented measure of implementing the co-location arrangement in Hong Kong. President, I so submit. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Fellow Hong Kong citizens, the long-awaited co-location arrangement is finally announced, and there is only one last mile to go before completing this long journey. This also marks the beginning of our tackling the challenge of finalizing the implementation details. Ever since I was elected a Member of this Council in the last term, I have repeatedly urged the Government to submit its proposal for the co-location arrangement nearly every month at meetings of panels, subcommittees and radio programmes. In April 2014, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways, I made a site visit with members of the Subcommittee to the West Kowloon Terminus and learned that there was a serious delay in the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") project. Yet, I knew very well that the problem of project delay could definitely be resolved, but the co-location arrangement would remain a hot potato and the most difficult issue to handle. In 2016 and 2017, when the two sessions of the National People's Congress ("NPC") and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference were convened, I submitted a proposal for the implementation of the co-location arrangement in my capacity as a member of the


Standing Committee of NPC ("NPCSC"), suggesting the setting up of a port area of the Mainland at West Kowloon Station of the Hong Kong Section of XRL and the enactment of local legislation for the purpose. At each meeting of the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways over the past three years, I have questioned the Government closely about the time frame for finalizing the co-location arrangement, the relevant operation details, the fare level of XRL. Consequently, this baby that the Government has conceived for eight years was finally born on 25 July. It should first learn how to use the "Three-step Process", which is similar to what I have proposed, and I hope we can bring this baby up to maturity as soon as possible. The Government proposes to invoke Article 20 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may enjoy other powers granted to it by the National People's Congress, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or the Central People's Government." Since the powers concerned are granted to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"), it would be very sensible and reasonable to move a motion to this effect for voting by an agency which represents public opinion in HKSAR, and then seek the approval and endorsement by NPCSC. This is also a very important step in invoking Article 20 of the Basic Law. There are two main reasons why the proposed arrangement has aroused great controversies. Firstly, this is due to the legality issues involved; and secondly, it involves a matter of perception. With regard to the legal issues involved, I consider it best to leave them to the court, because different people, different legal experts and different judges may have different views. As for the matter of perception, I have made reference to the findings of opinion surveys conducted by several academic institutions which have all along been taking a relatively neutral stance, and found that half or over half of the respondents have indicated support for the arrangement proposed by the Government. Hence, the problem is absolutely not as serious as that suggested by our friends from the opposition camp. Some Hong Kong residents who often travel to and from the Mainland have relayed to me their grave concern about the possibility that their freedom of speech and expression and freedom to receive and impart information would be seriously undermined when they are physically present in the Mainland Port Area. Under the arrangement currently proposed, six exceptional cases have


1187

been included to provide that should such cases arise inside the Mainland Port Area, the laws of HKSAR shall still apply and the courts of HKSAR shall have jurisdiction over the cases. This requirement is made to ensure national security while at the same time safeguard the reasonable rights enjoyed by Hong Kong people. I understand that there are certain degrees of differences between the laws and regulations of the Mainland and the laws of Hong Kong, and in order to address the concerns of Hong Kong people, I have written to NPCSC and the Department of Justice in July this year, suggesting the HKSAR Government and the Mainland authorities concerned to jointly examine the possibility of formulating express provisions on ways to deal with unlawful acts relating to speech, expression and the receipt and imparting of information inside the Mainland Port Area. I have to reiterate that what I am referring to are ways to deal with such cases only, and I have also suggested that the practice to be adopted should be consistent with that currently applied to the Mainland section of the Intercity Through Train service. In other words, such acts should be handled with the greatest tolerance and leniency unless they have caused nuisance to other passengers or have posed safety problems. Besides, the authorities concerned can also make reference to the arrangement adopted for trains running between the United Kingdom and France, and specify clearly in the laws the restrictions to be imposed on law enforcement officers from the Mainland. I believe this will greatly enhance the public perception of the co-location arrangement. These are merely my subjective wishes, and I have no idea how much we can do in this respect. If it turns out, however, that we can only stick to the present proposal, a lot of people from the pan-democratic camp are concerned that there will be ambiguity as to what kind of acts inside the Mainland Port Area will constitute a breach of the Mainland laws. Practically speaking, I actually do not quite understand why they should have such a worry. For those who are physically present in the Mainland Port Area, they should either be inbound travellers from the Mainland or outbound passengers to the Mainland. The argument should then be very simple: what they consider will constitute an unlawful act in the Mainland must also be unlawful inside the Mainland Port Area. The laws to be applied in the Mainland Port Area shall have nothing to do with people who have utterly no intention of travelling to the Mainland. Therefore, I consider it most important to draw a clear line, and there should be no problem as long as members of the public know where the line is drawn.


I have been following up on this issue for quite a long time, and have listened to many opposition views and pondered over the justifications put forward very seriously. I wish to take this opportunity to have some rational discussions with fellow Members today. First of all, The Government proposes to set up the Mainland Port Area, within which the Mainland authorities shall enjoy full jurisdiction, with the exception of a few cases. Some legal experts of the pan-democratic camp consider the arrangement unacceptable, and opine that it shall suffice as long as Mainland officers are allowed to carry out their duties under the Mainland laws relating to customs, immigration and quarantine matters ("CIQ related duties") inside the Mainland Port Area. We must first note that by suggesting that only CIQ related duties should be carried out under the Mainland laws inside the Mainland Port Area, these experts agree in principle that it is constitutional to implement the co-location arrangement. They only have divergent views on the extent to which the Mainland laws should be implemented inside the Mainland Port Area, otherwise it would only be logical for them to oppose even the carrying out of CIQ related duties inside that area. Under this premise, there are indeed practical needs to comprehensively implement the Mainland laws inside the Mainland Port Area. Come to think of it, if a fugitive offender flees from the Mainland to the south, takes XRL train to Hong Kong without passing through any control point and attacks other passengers on board the train cars, the criminal offence can only be handled by law enforcement officers of Hong Kong when the Mainland authorities do not have full jurisdiction inside the Mainland Port Area. As no rendition agreement has yet been agreed upon between the Mainland and HKSAR, this will open up a very serious gap and loophole in respect of safeguarding national security. Secondly, as revealed from the amendments moved to the motion, a number of Members of the pan-democratic camp have made the same suggestion of implementing the co-location arrangement in the Mainland by providing immigration facilities at XRL stations located in the Mainland, Futian Station in particular. Take a north bound train as an example. If co-location facilities are provided at Futian Station, passengers heading for Shenzhen North and other destinations will have to leave the train with all of their luggage when they arrive at that station to complete the necessary CIQ clearance procedures, while the train will have to wait at the train platform for all passengers to board the train again. If some of these passengers are held up while completing the CIQ clearance procedures, all passengers will have to wait for them on the train, and should the train wait until they come even though it will take them one hour to complete all


1189

the procedures? How should the case be handled if the train leaves without waiting for them but there are no spare seats for these passengers on the next train? The pan-democrats respond that it is no cause for concern, for Futian Station will be the place of destination for most XRL passengers. According to the Government's forecasts of XRL patronage, the daily patronage from 2015 to 2031 will amount to 150 000 passenger trips, and Futian Station will be the place of destination in only 47 000 of these passenger trips, while passengers of the remaining 103 000 passenger trips will continue their onward journey. In other words, every XRL train will have to wait at the train platform for 70% of its passengers to board the train again, but how can that be possible? How many passengers will be held up while completing the clearance procedures? How long will XRL trains be required to wait? I really cannot figure this out. Therefore, the option is not only considered inconvenient but also utterly not feasible. There is also a suggestion to switch to the separate-location arrangement by providing clearance facilities at a number of destinations, but it involves the provision of additional clearance facilities and a huge investment in manpower, resources and capital. Just imagine, on every XRL train, there are passengers from Hong Kong who have not yet completed the entry clearance procedures and passengers travelling to and from different places of the Mainland, and how can they be properly diverted when the passenger ratio is different on each train? For example, when an XRL train arrives at Shibi Station, how many passengers have to complete the entry clearance procedures there and how many are not required to do so? Management of passenger flow is completely impossible when even the passenger ratio is unknown, and I really do not know if the pan-democrats have ever taken such issues into consideration. As much has already been said, it appears to me that although there are many queries about the co-location arrangement proposed by the Government, there is actually no alternative option which is genuinely feasible. Hence, we should then try to look into the advantages of implementing the co-location arrangement. The co-location arrangement is the core feature of XRL, and if this cannot be put into practice, it will not only undermine the economic benefits of the capital investment of hundreds of billions of dollars but also give rise to a more serious problem of stifling the future development of Hong Kong. Can fellow colleagues of the opposition camp bear the consequences?


The median monthly personal income for Hong Kong people has been increasing at a very slow pace over the past 20 years. The monthly median income for college graduates 20 years ago was $11,000, and the amount has only increased by $800 (7%) to $11,800 in 2016. However, the Composite Consumer Price Index of Hong Kong during the same period has risen by 25%, and we can thus see very clearly whether there is an improvement in the quality of life of our people. With regard to the current development of industries in Hong Kong, we have the necessary seeds (talents) and greenhouses (development measures), but have drifted into a state of stagnation when it comes to the provision of suitable soil (markets) for these seeds to germinate and blossom everywhere. Without suitable markets, how can we make optimum use of the talents and development measures available and bake a big "cake" for Hong Kong? As highlighted in the National 13th Five-Year Plan, our GDP growth in the next five years will largely hinge on the development of technology and innovation industry, and in the past few years, the technological development of Alibaba, Taobao, Tencent WeChat, Alipay, Tencent QQ, and so on, must have put Hong Kong people to shame. President, it is indeed very easy now to differentiate who are Mainlanders and who are Hong Kong people among travellers bound for the Mainland, and we can simply tell by the method of payment they use, that is, whether they are paying with cash or with their smartphone. Hong Kong should not remain stagnant, we must give full play to the advantages of XRL and bake a big "cake", and in this connection, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area ("Bay Area") is a market with the greatest potential. Therefore, when our counterparts are playing and having fun on the soccer field, it is no use for Hong Kong to remain an onlooker and we must participate in the game. As for how Hong Kong can be linked up to the Bay Area, the Roundtable has suggested that the Government should enhance the personal income taxation mechanism for cross-border workers. For Hong Kong people who work across the border and take same-day return trips to and from Guangdong, Macao and the Bay Area with no place of residence in these places, if half-day income can be used as the basis for calculation, most of them will be eligible for tax assessment in Hong Kong since their salary will not exceed the threshold, and the amount of the tax payable will thus be largely reduced. As the tax rate applicable in the Mainland and in Hong Kong is 33% and 16% respectively, representing a marked difference of 17%, a lot of young people want me to voice out their aspirations here in this Council.


1191

Secondly, a monthly pass fee must definitely be introduced for XRL, and if a 40% discount is offered, the monthly fare expense to Shenzhen will be around $1,000 only. The amount of expense can also be reduced because under the Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme recently proposed by the Secretary, a fare subsidy of $300 will be provided to long distance commuters, who will then be able to travel to work by XRL every day at a monthly expense of only about $1,000. Is this just an empty talk or an opportunity that will arise when there is a change in the actual environment? Fellow citizens may actually judge for themselves. When it takes us 12 minutes now to travel to Tsuen Wan on West Rail from Austin Station, the travelling time from West Kowloon Station to Shenzhen will only be 14 minutes upon commissioning of XRL, and there is no need for me to elaborate the change to be brought about by XRL any further. Therefore, the co-location arrangement of XRL will not only slightly improve clearance efficiency but also bring about changes in the work mode and mentality of a lot of young people. The conclusion I wish to draw is: I support the motion moved by the Government on the co-location arrangement, and do not agree with the opposition views that this is the beginning of ceding our territory and undermining our powers. I am convinced that the proposed arrangement is the only option that can give full play to the advantages of XRL in providing convenient, speedy and frequent train services, without compromising the high degree of autonomy of the HKSAR Government on the whole. This is in line with the principle underlying the making of a huge investment of hundreds of billions of dollars. Finally, the message I would like to convey to fellow citizens who are watching the live broadcast of the meeting is: "Everything is ready now, let us take the final step and endorse the co-location arrangement to take forward the XRL project". President, I so submit. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, in recent years, many countries in the world are actively engaging in the development of high-speed rail. First, the passenger capacity of high-speed rail is high. Second, it is cheaper than air transport and can help improve mobility. Moreover, it is also an environmentally-friendly transport system. In view of this major trend, in the Medium- and Long-Term Railway Network Plan issued in 2016, the National Development and Reform Commission also expanded the 2008 trunk routes of high-speed rail from "four vertical and four horizontal" to "eight vertical and

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2016-07/01/content_25925793.htm

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/07/china-will-expand-to-eight-vertical-and.html

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/fc/fc/minutes/sfc_rpt.pdf


eight horizontal". It is estimated that the total length of the high-speed rail network in China will be 38 000 km by 2025, which is the longest in the world. If we do not want to be marginalized, we should connect ourselves to this massive rail network in order to enhance our linkage with the Mainland with a view to promoting the long-term development of Hong Kong. For that reason, the direction of constructing the Hong Kong Section of the Express Rail Link ("XRL") in order to act in concert with the new development strategy of high-speed rail in the Mainland is absolutely correct. When the Hong Kong Section is commissioned, the travel time from Hong Kong to Guangzhou will be significantly reduced from the current 3 hours to around 50 minutes in the future. The travel time from Hong Kong to Shanghai will be shortened by half from the current 19 hours to 7 to 8 hours; and the travel time from Hong Kong to Beijing will be shortened from about 24 hours at present to 9 to 10 hours. The travel time between Hong Kong and Mainland will be greatly shortened. Besides attracting visitors' spending, it can also promote trade ties between the two places and create huge business opportunities. As the XRL will stopover at Futian Station, Shenzhen, some people suggest that a co-location scheme should be established there. We are not going to discuss whether or not Futian has enough room for setting up the clearance facilities, but if we are to implement a co-location scheme at Futian Station, 14 minutes after travellers have boarded the train at West Kowloon Station, they will need to bring along their young and old folks as well as their luggage when they alight the train and go to queue up at the security check point to go through entry formalities, and then they have to take the luggage with them and board the train at the platform after going through the security and entry formalities. The fact that they have to get on and off the train will waste a lot of time and effort when compared with the proposal of completing all the clearance formalities before boarding the train. The total travel time will increase as they have to board and alight the train for clearance purpose in the middle of the journey. Besides, as passengers have to alight the train and queue up for customs clearance in the middle of the journey, it will be more difficult for them to have a better grasp of the travel time, and the swiftness and convenience of the XRL will be seriously diminished, or it will even be reduced to the same as ordinary railway travel. Hong Kong's Shenzhen Bay Port was commissioned in 2007. It also adopts a co-location arrangement which has been implemented for about 10 years till now. The Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong ("SAR") is


1193

authorized by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to exercise jurisdiction over the Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port according to the laws of the SAR. Since the control points of Hong Kong and the Mainland are just 50 m away from each other, passengers could reach one control point from the other by walking a little more than 10 seconds. Passengers are able to complete Hong Kong and Mainland boundary clearance procedures in one go, thus saving the time for alighting and boarding the vehicle again. Members of the public who have used the Shenzhen Bay Port are think highly of the convenience and speed of the co-location arrangement at the Shenzhen Bay Port. The major difference of the co-location scheme at West Kowloon Station and that at Shenzhen Bay Port is that the former is to be executed on Hong Kong soil while the latter is executed on Mainland soil. But some people are concerned about the establishment of a Mainland port area within West Kowloon Station for the implementation of the co-location arrangement, particularly the legal issue concerning how Mainland law enforcement personnel enforce Mainland laws in West Kowloon Station. With regards to the co-location scheme of the Hong Kong section of the XRL, the Liberal Party conducted a questionnaire from 2nd to 7th August this year. The findings of the survey show that of the 1 262 respondents, about 70% considered that the co-location arrangement was of utmost importance to maximizing the efficiency of XRL. Over 60% of respondents agreed that the Hong Kong section of the XRL should adopt the Shenzhen Bay co-location model, which would allow Mainland checkpoint personnel to conduct Mainland immigration clearance, customs clearance and quarantine clearance and enforce the relevant criminal laws in Hong Kong territory. Moreover, about 60% of respondents agreed that if the Hong Kong Section of XRL could align with the co-location arrangement, it would bring more new opportunities of economic development for Hong Kong on top of bringing transport convenience to the relevant section. As to whether the present government proposal on the co-location scheme would cause perceived negative impact on "one country, two systems", views were divided, as both have exceeded about 40%. Nevertheless, recently people from the opposition camp have denied that. According to them, their recent survey showed that more and more people were opposed to the Government's proposal. For that reason, the Liberal Party conducted the same survey by telephone during the period between 23rd and 29th October. Of the 1 821 respondents, the support rating in other questions was more or less the same.


But as to whether the co-location arrangement would cause negative impact on "one country, two systems", the recent survey showed a support rating of 52.4%, which was 11% higher than the survey conducted in August. It is believed that people are having a better understanding in the co-location arrangement after months of discussion. When respondents were asked if they still accepted the co-location arrangement at the Hong Kong Section of XRL if it would cause negative impact on "one country, two systems", similarly, more than 30% respondents said they accepted the arrangement. It can be seen that the majority of the public supported the Government's co-location arrangement. China as the world's second largest economic entity maintains a 6.5% increase in gross domestic product even though the economic development has slowed down a bit. In view of China's strong momentum of economic development, Hong Kong should seize the opportunity. The Hong Kong Section of the XRL will connect to the more than 30 000 km high-speed rail network in China, and this could strengthen the transport connection between Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta Region, and other major cities on the Mainland. It can significantly shorten the travel time between Hong Kong and these Mainland cities. Through the boosting of passenger flow, the cake can be made bigger. The four major pillar industries of Hong Kong, such as tourism, financial services, trading and logistics and professional services would benefit and enjoy sustained development consequently. The Liberal Party looks forward to the commissioning of the XRL at the soonest possible time, and we support the SAR Government's adoption of the "Three-step Process", so as to enable the smooth implementation of the co-location scheme, and maximize the transport, social and economic benefits of the XRL. With these remarks, President, I support the Government's original motion. MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, the SAR Government submitted the "Motion on taking forward the follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link" to the Legislative Council, and this Council will debate this motion today. According to the information provided by the SAR Government, the construction of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") will complete next year. It is anticipated that XRL will then formally commission services. Recent opinion polls and feedbacks


1195

from people of different echelons show that the public in general support the construction of XRL, but some people, including some Members in this Council, describe the co-location arrangement of XRL as a "cession of land", or an act of betrayal that undermines the principle of "one country, two systems" and a "high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong, and disturbs the relationship between the Central Authorities and the local government under "one country, two systems". President, first, I wish to point out that Hong Kong is within the territory of the People's Republic of China. It is a place over which China exercises its sovereignty. The co-location arrangement can provide a better and faster means for local residents visiting the Mainland for tour or business, as well as Chinese and foreign travellers passing through Hong Kong, to go to the Mainland. Moreover, the XRL Hong Kong Section is part of the high-speed rail network that spreads across the country. This national rail network is built not for serving Hong Kong's internal transport needs, but for serving diplomatic and national defence purposes of the whole country. Implementing the co-location arrangement in Hong Kong is worth our support because it has a positive bearing on Hong Kong in integrating into the Greater China Economic Circle. It is lawful, reasonable and fair that China, as the sovereign country, sets up a control point in Hong Kong, and the SAR Government should work with the Mainland in accordance with the law. If the logic of the people who regard this as a "cession of land" is tenable, may I ask whether establishing the Hong Kong SAR in Hong Kong should be interpreted as the Chinese Government having ceded the land here to Hong Kong people? Various consulates here in Hong Kong are regarded as being in the territory of their governments, and the consular officers are immune from our jurisdiction in the relevant aspects. Does this mean that the SAR Government has ceded the land to the United States or the United Kingdom Consulate? Moreover, Hong Kong is within the territory of China. How come in the present case under discussion, the sovereign country has to seek the agreement of the local government which only administers this place? President, Hong Kong is a place of free speech. Members in this Chamber can even enjoy the privilege of having immunity from legal proceedings for what they say. But the co-location arrangement, which will involve setting up a Mainland Port Area in the West Kowloon area of Hong Kong, is a solemn issue concerning the manifestation of sovereignty. It is not an economic or livelihood issue, and it is not even about the right to rule.


I wish to remind Members that New Territories was leased to the United Kingdom in 1898 under an unequal treaty. At that time, the Qing government set up a yamen and special soldier passageways for immigration and clearance purposes in the Kowloon Walled City because New Territories was a piece of leased land in those years and its sovereignty still belonged to China. But today, the so-called pan-democrats have blown up their ego into monumental proportion, much worse than the people under the British colonial rule. I thus sincerely urge Council Members not to apply a "small Hong Kong" mentality on everything. We have to learn to think with China in our heart. We should try to empathize with those Greater China supporters when we perceive problems. Is it good or bad to the future of Hong Kong if the XRL Hong Kong Section does not practice the co-location arrangement? Before our reunification with China, some people asked for returning our sovereignty in exchange for the right to govern, and some were against Chinese military forces stationing in Hong Kong. What happened in the end? The right to govern, which is a by-product of sovereignty, cannot be exchanged for sovereignty. The station of the People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong is to manifest the sovereignty China exercises over Hong Kong. And we should view the co-location arrangement the same way. President, as the representative of Heung Yee Kuk in the New Territories and 800 000 indigenous New Territories residents now living overseas, I resolutely support the co-location proposal. I so submit. MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, Mr Michael TIEN has just said that he has waited for eight years. In fact, this makes me wonder what the scene will be when we have to handle the issue of co-location in the Chamber of the Legislative Council. We have said earlier that the issue can date back to 2009. As mentioned by a Member just now, this issue has something to do with Choi Yuen Tsuen. Of course it does. The Government forcefully demolished Choi Yuen Tsuen to the ground at that time for the construction of the Express Rail Link ("XRL"). At last, it decided to build the XRL terminus in West Kowloon and demolished Choi Yuen Tsuen amid fierce controversies. Time passes. Today, I know many villagers from Choi Yuen Tsuen are paying attention to the motion debate on co-location in the Legislative Council. A look back at the event of 2009 will just show how inauspicious this is. It was the Chinese New Year period, and a representative for the Government drew a


1197

divination stick for Hong Kong in the Che Kung Temple. The divination stick reads like this: "The Qin Emperor built the Great Wall in vain, misfortune comes and goes of one's own making." So, what kind of impact has the "Great Wall" mentioned in the divination brought us? In 2017, finally we feel the impact, which manifests itself as some never-ending cost overruns and incessant controversies. Again, the Government repeats the same points to us, claiming that what is done is done, that there is no way we can get back the public money spent on the project. Moreover, according to them, now that the construction of XRL is soon coming to an end, XRL will not play to the strength of its efficiency and travel will be bothersome if co-location is not carried out. Therefore, will Members please make some concessions and connive at the sacrifice of "one country, two systems" safeguarded by us for years. Then somebody says that the place in question is merely an underground port area where it is like renting a place in our territory to the Mainland, as if we simply rent a house back to the landlord after he claims that he has insufficient space. But this is a wrong analogy. The success of such a tiny place like Hong Kong over the years is the result of the hard work of generations before us. We have a unique position indeed. Why is "one country, two systems" implemented in Hong Kong? It is because we have some very unique spirits. We Hong Kong people have some very unique spirits which renders it possible to separate the two places by a boundary. However, the subject of our discussion today is the underground area in West Kowloon … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, do you have a mobile phone in your pocket? MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): No, President. My mobile phone is on the table. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please put it aside lest it will interrupt the microphone. (Mr KWONG Chun-yu put the mobile phone aside)


MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Can I continue with my speech? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please go on. MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Alright, I will continue speaking then. I have just mentioned the underground area in West Kowloon. In the future if the people make an emergency call after entering West Kowloon Station, the call will be diverted to Mainland public security authorities. But then the Government tells us that it will be fine, urging us to rest easy, and that the opposition camp should not make excessive conjecture. That said, if we do not point out the problems again today, we will simply repeat the errors in 2009 because Eva CHENG said the same at that time in 2009. The moment when the previous Legislative Council passed the funding application for XRL, I was among the crowds outside the former Legislative Council building, a group of Choi Yuen Tsuen villagers sitting behind me. Leading a peaceful life in the rural areas, the elderly villagers did not mind having XRL built. They just wanted to ask why must XRL become a knife chopping Hong Kong apart, driving them away from their homes where they had been living for decades? They still have not found an answer today. On top of issues of convenience and efficiency, the question we should rather ask today is how things will be arranged under the entire project. This is in fact the question we have been asking since 2010. I can perhaps leave the cost overruns aside first, as we have been bringing this issue up time and again. In fact, the endless cost overruns in the XRL project have squandered an enormous amount of public money. If we spend this sum on livelihood issues and on handing out "fruit grants", the amount is enough for 30 years. So why do we have to spend Hong Kong people's money on this XRL which sparked off such heated debates at first? Then, the Government tells us again today that the construction of XRL is already done, and the rail's efficiency will be hugely jeopardized if the co-location arrangement does not go ahead. I of course understand this too. In the very beginning, we reminded already that XRL might not recover the cost. The Government claimed previously that we would be able to have cost recovery after 50 years, yet this does not seem to be the case now and the authorities no longer mention this anymore. Although I have sent a letter to the


1199

Secretary, the Secretary still refuses to give an account for the train schedule, building plans and detailed arrangements, etc. Likewise, we get no reply at all from the Bureau to our requests for information on issues relating to XRL within the territory of Hong Kong. The current proposal just emerges suddenly from nowhere without any signs in advance. In fact, the so-called "Three-step Process" should be called the "Fierce-step Process" as they simply wish to bulldoze any items they wish to pass in no time without caring about anything else. They just want to complete the construction of XRL and disregard all other proposals without consultation. Some people suggest that they do not mean to reject the commissioning of XRL, and all they want is to ask the Government to consider carrying out co-location in Shenzhen or Futian. Is this practicable? If the Government claims that it intends to follow the Shenzhen Bay model, co-location should be set up in Shenzhen instead of West Kowloon then. However, the Government dismisses this as well, and moves a non-binding motion in the Legislative Council for debate with a complete absence of public consultation. Even more ridiculously, the Government withdrew the agenda item on Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2017 for the meeting last week, and we have yet to hold Carrie LAM accountable for this. After all, we are now discussing the co-location arrangement at the time of 2017. I am really worried that if we look back from 2027 in future, what kind of picture will we see then? We can try to look back at 2009 when the Government argued that XRL would be great and efficient, that it would not break the line of "one country, two systems", that there would be ample room for discussion on co-location, that the problems cited by us would never happen and that the construction would not go over budget. Nevertheless, all these problems have appeared one by one, and co-location turns out to be a hoax. The minutes of the discussion in 2009 are in black and white, yet all the promises made by officials and Eva CHENG before are gone today. Today, the officials are present in the Legislative Council again, reciting the rhetoric. Can we trust them anymore? What kind of laws will apply in West Kowloon underground in the future? Suppose we ask the Government to list all possible situations in the future when things may turn awkward or contradictory, I believe it is absolute not easy to handle those situations. I cite a simple example. If we need to build a certain building at the terminus underground in the future, and the Mainland authorities lay down some


requirements regarding the construction, such as invoking the National Security Law of the People's Republic of China ("National Security Law") to require that the building be constructed in a certain way, should we follow the National Security Law or the Building Management Ordinance when carrying out the underground project in West Kowloon then? Actually many situations can arise. Though the area will be regarded as under the Mainland's jurisdiction, and should therefore be managed by the Mainland authorities, the area still lies geographically within Hong Kong's territory. Moreover, the Government also states that it is fighting for us in relation to various matters, such as striving for having 999 emergency calls in the Mainland area diverted to public security authorities. What a marvellous idea it is! I truly have to thank the Government for following this issue up. If Hong Kong people's concern can be resolved this easily, of course co-location will be totally fine then, as claimed by the Government today. But then, how can we explain all these that happen today if in 2027 we turn back to look at today's situation? I believe no one will find this explicable. Most importantly, say if we really try to discuss implementing the co-location arrangement in Shenzhen, we can look at the figure before us today. According to the Government's figures in 2015, 83% of XRL passengers will make short-haul travels to Shenzhen or Guangzhou. The percentage will be as high as 83%. To put it simply, how much impact will it bring us if the co-location facilities are moved to Shenzhen? Given that 83% of the passengers will only take short-haul trips, why does the Government insist on adopting this proposal to circumvent the Basic Law, the most important document in Hong Kong? If they can make use of Article 20 of the Basic Law and sign a cooperation agreement in order to bypass the Basic Law itself, then after the underground area in West Kowloon today, what is the next place to be? In fact, President, our worries are not pointless. While we deliberate the arrangement for the XRL terminus today, we will probably have to deliberate the arrangement for other places a few years later. One piece of land today, another piece tomorrow, I honestly cannot find the right word to describe this except the word "cession". Perhaps you will say that it is alright to do so today as you do it all for efficiency. If so, will the officials provide us with some information about train schedule, so that we recognize how important XRL is? Members have raised some very detailed questions earlier, such as when will we be able to recover the cost if co-location is really enforced in West Kowloon? How much


1201

have we spent by now? By utilizing public money like this, how can we fulfil our responsibilities to those people sacrificed for this rail then? I still vividly remember the expressions on their faces on that day. They did not understand how fast the supposed XRL would be. We had such bitter controversies at the time, arguing if there were other sites apart from West Kowloon? I can recall the help from scholars at that time. They listed seven alternative proposals in hope of having a discussion with the Government. The Government ignored them, however. Everything was premeditated after all. Between 2010 and 2017, the Government concealed all the information, displaying nothing about the proposal until one or two months ago. In fact, not only the pro-democracy Members but also the pro-establishment Members are serious about this. Mr Michael TIEN has said very well just now, claiming that he is nervous as the project has been bragged about for a long time. How come they can just symbolically ask for a passage in the Legislative Council after everything is finalized? They purport to give an impression that a public consultation has been completed while in fact they have done nothing more than trying to get the Council's endorsement. Putting the final voting results aside, I really wish Members can ask themselves if this is really right? Frankly I am not even talking about those sorts of conspiracy theories, though they claim that the opposition camp is exaggerating the problems. We are not even intending to discuss the problems now. The thing I want to bring up is: while the proposal, arrangements and building plans relating to the XRL terminus are more or less finalized, and perhaps the very last step remaining is the mounting of the station name on the walls, the authorities have never willing to provide the Council with any information for Members' consideration. The Legislative Council only gets the information now when the project has effectively no way back and Members can at most vent their discontent briefly, before they have to proceed to vote. The people will then be regarded as having issued their mandate after the voting in the Council. If the Government has not done any consultation in the community regarding co-location, it is never possible to ensure that, after 5 or 10 years, no one in Hong Kong will wonder why we endorse such an arrangement today. Who will be responsible for answering such a query in the future? The officials today probably will have retired then, or have joined the private sector as non-executive directors. It will be difficult to call them back. As our decision today will have a considerable bearing on generations to come, do you all believe that this is really absolutely fine? We can by no means predict what will happen


underneath West Kowloon. How are we going to deal with the different kinds of issues in relation to the site, ranging from obeying the law, insurance arrangements, emergency service to any unfortunate events of terrorist attack? The Government claims that they already have a complete set of measures in dealing with all these. But then what is the role of Hong Kong? There are endless possibilities, but the problem is we are still not given sufficient information. That said, we are asked to discuss whether co-location can be adopted in West Kowloon with such an inadequate amount of information, I bet we will again be incriminated by the Government in doing this injustice. A few years afterwards, we will find that the situation in future will be different from the one we imagine today. So, what can we do then? Who is going to be held accountable by that time? In the end, the question is whether XRL must terminate at West Kowloon? Shall we insist on bulldozing the proposal no matter how much public money it will cost? This question indeed brings us back to the time of 2009. Why do I have to quote the divination stick which reads: "The Qin Emperor built the Great Wall in vain"? Before this the stick indeed contains two more sentences in the divination: "Your Majesty needs to be alert no longer, soldiers from Hell before you are demons altogether." Che Kung's divination has been accurate, and I guess no one will dare to challenge the prophecy. Comparing the events in 2009 and the divination stick which is the 27th stick if I remember correctly, the stick tells a rather bad omen. Looking back at the situation today, should we halt before it is too late? Can we do something or find a way to enable the commissioning of XRL, as in the case of all the efforts made by members of the community and by legislators? Is a terminus in Futian really out of the question? Not at all, as spaces were reserved in Futian already. Some say that we have not consulted the Shenzhen side. If so, consult them then. Discuss with them in a bid to formulate a proposal without blurring the boundary of "one country, two systems" which has been upheld for so many years. Why do we not try? President, we have been discussing this topic for a long time so far, without any idea as to when the motion will be put to the vote. Nevertheless, the Government is still only trying to secure enough votes for getting the "mandate", a "mandate" exists only in its belief. With such a "mandate", the Government can openly announce that Hong Kong people generally support the co-location arrangement. This is merely the beginning. We are gravely concerned that once there is a precedent, they will use the loophole and extend their reach


1203

boundlessly, turning the co-location arrangement into a hoax. After deceiving Hong Kong people successfully for the first time, there will surely be a second time, and so on. So, President, I simply hope the Bureau can think twice in this regard.h I so submit. Thank you, President. SUSPENSION OF MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9:00 am tomorrow. Suspended accordingly at 7:53 pm.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 1 ...

Documents

Transcript of OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 1 ...