OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 29 May ...

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2013

12447

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2013 12448

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


12449

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG


DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P. IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN MEMBERS ABSENT: THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P. PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSANG CHUN-WAH, G.B.M., J.P. THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY PROF THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY


12451

THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND TAM CHI-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS MR KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, M.H., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT MR LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL MR ANDY LAU KWOK-CHEONG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


TABLING OF PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure: Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments L.N. No.

Trade Descriptions (Powers Not Exercisable by Communications Authority) Notice .......................

71/2013

Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade Practices) (Amendment)

Ordinance 2012 (Commencement) Notice ............

72/2013 Building (Minor Works) (Amendment) Regulation

2013 ........................................................................

73/2013 Buildings Legislation (Amendment) Ordinance 2012

(Commencement) Notice .......................................

74/2013 Companies (Revision of Financial Statements and Reports)

(Amendment) Regulation 2013 ..............................

75/2013 Companies (Disclosure of Information about Benefits of

Directors) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 ............

76/2013 Companies (Model Articles) Notice .................................. 77/2013 Company Records (Inspection and Provision of Copies)

Regulation ..............................................................

78/2013 Companies (Non-Hong Kong Companies) Regulation ..... 79/2013 Companies (Fees) Regulation ............................................ 80/2013 Public Health and Municipal Services (Fees and Charges)

(Leisure Facilities) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 ........................................................................

81/2013 Public Health and Municipal Services (Fees and Charges)

(Places of Amusement Licences) Regulation ........

82/2013


12453

Places of Public Entertainment (Licences) (Fees) Regulation ...............................................................

83/2013

Public Health and Municipal Services (Fees) (Amendment)

Regulation 2013 ......................................................

84/2013 Food Business (Amendment) Regulation 2013 .................. 85/2013 Frozen Confections (Amendment) Regulation 2013 .......... 86/2013 Milk (Amendment) Regulation 2013.................................. 87/2013 Dutiable Commodities (Liquor Licences) (Fees)

Regulation ...............................................................

88/2013 Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations

(Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2013 ...............

89/2013 Import and Export (General) Regulations (Amendment of

Schedule 7) Notice 2013 ........................................

90/2013 Business Registration Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 2)

Order 2013 ..............................................................

91/2013 Road Traffic (Breath Analysing Instruments, Screening

Devices and Pre-screening Devices) (Amendment) Notice 2013 .............................................................

92/2013

Other Paper

No. 96 ─ Employees Retraining Board Annual Report 2011-12

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.


Handling of Shortfall of Primary One Places 1. MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, the Government revealed early this year that there will be a shortfall of around 1 400 Primary One (P1) places in the North District in the 2013-2014 school year, and the allocation results of the Central Allocation exercise under the Primary One Admission (POA) System for that school year will be released a few days later on 1 June (Saturday). To pacify many worrying parents in the North District, the Secretary for Education has announced on 1 February this year that, by then, the students who have been allocated P1 places in the Tai Po District may apply for re-allocation of P1 places in the North District under a new system (re-allocation mechanism). As to how the authorities will address the wish of the students who have been allocated P1 places in the Tai Po District through the re-allocation mechanism, will the Education Bureau inform this Council:

(a) whether all students of the North District who have been allocated P1 places in schools outside their home district in the POA Central Allocation exercise can be re-allocated P1 places in the North District under the aforesaid re-allocation mechanism; if they cannot, whether the Education Bureau has other measures to help such students gain admission to schools in the North District; of the measures the Education Bureau has put in place to ensure that such students will be admitted to their favourite schools in the North District under the re-allocation mechanism;

(b) of the respective numbers of cross-boundary students applying for

P1 places in the North District, Tai Po, Sha Tin, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun during the Central Allocation stage in this school year, together with the number of such students in each district who were allocated places in schools in other districts due to insufficient school places; and

(c) of the respective numbers of places borrowed from schools in Tai Po

in the past three school years and the current school year to cater for students of other districts ― especially the students in the North District; whether the schools concerned originally had surplus places; whether such a measure of borrowing school places would conversely affect the chances of students of the Tai Po district being


12455

allocated places in their favourite schools in the Tai Po district; what measure does the Education Bureau have to assist students in the Tai Po district in gaining admission to their favourite schools in the Tai Po district?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Would the Member please ask his main question on the basis of the written version submitted. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President,

(a) The existing POA System comprises two stages: "Discretionary Places Admission" stage and "Central Allocation" stage. At the Central Allocation stage, parents may firstly choose up to three schools in or outside the school net in which they reside, and the remaining school choices are restricted to schools in their respective school net.

In the light of the continuous upsurge of cross-boundary students and

their propensity to choose schools in the North District under the POA, the Education Bureau announced on 1 February 2013 to implement the "Special Measures" this year (2013) to facilitate the "return" of P1 students in the North District to their home district for study. Upon the release of this year's POA allocation results, students who reside in the North District and have chosen a school net in the North District during their POA application but have been allocated a P1 place in Tai Po in the Central Allocation stage, and subsequently decided to give up the allocated P1 place with a view to studying in their home district instead, will be arranged a P1 place in the North District. However, these students would not be provided with any choice of schools.

The "Special Measures" mentioned above are not applicable to other

students allocated with a P1 place in Tai Po, including cross-boundary students of the North District. As in the past, students who would like to give up their allocated places due to whatever reasons may approach other schools direct on their own


with effect from 2 July 2013. The North District School Development Section of the Education Bureau will provide assistance to parents as appropriate.

(b) In POA this year, the number of cross-boundary students choosing a

school net in North, Tai Po, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun Districts as their school net during the Central Allocation stage are around 1 230, 270, 290 and 340 respectively. School nets in Sha Tin are not open for selection by cross-boundary students. Among North, Tai Po, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun Districts, only students of the North District amounting to less than 400 have been allocated places in the neighbouring district (Tai Po), and less than 200 of them are residing in the North District.

(c) About 80, 130, 350 and less than 400 P1 places were borrowed from

Tai Po to meet the demand in the North District in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively. No places were borrowed from Sha Tin to other districts.

Under the POA System, the 18 districts in the territory are divided

into 36 school nets. It is unrealistic to expect that the supply of school places would fully meet the demand in individual districts/school nets every year. The demand and supply of school places in individual districts/school nets is subject to year-on-year changes due to various factors, including the number of newly arrived students, redevelopment of public housing estates, development of individual schools, and so on. We have established effective measures to cope with the year-on-year changes in demand and supply of school places. These measures include borrowing places from the neighbouring districts/school nets, using vacant classrooms, converting rooms of other purposes into classrooms, and so on.

The POA System is designed to alleviate the pressure on children of

tender age arising from competition for school places and its adverse effect on pre-primary education. It also aims to provide an orderly and convenient way for parents to seek school admission for their children. We encourage parents to acquaint themselves with the


12457

allocated schools so as to facilitate home-school co-operation in helping students' personal development.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary for Education has not fully answered my main question. In my main question, I ask if there are any measures to ensure that students in the North District who have been allocated places in schools outside their home district will be admitted to schools in the North District. According to the numbers provided by the Government in part (b) of the main reply, there are 1 230 cross-boundary students choosing the North District school net. It is also stated in part (c) of the main reply that 400 places were borrowed from Tai Po, which means that there is still a big shortfall. Can the Secretary tell us the number of estimated additional places in the North District, or how many under-utilized classrooms can be used to deal with P1 students who will be admitted to schools in the North District under the re-allocation mechanism? How many schools in the North District will have P1 classes comprising more than 33 students in each class? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, the numbers set out in part (b) of the main reply actually refer to the numbers of cross-boundary students choosing a school net in North, Tai Po, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun Districts during the Central Allocation stage. The number is 270 for Tai Po, meaning that 270 cross-boundary students have chosen a school net in Tai Po. This number is different from the figures provided in part (c), that is, less than 400 places will be borrowed from Tai Po to meet the demand in the North District. We intend to implement a special measure, hoping that students of the North District who have been allocated places in schools outside their home district can be admitted to schools in the North District. As I have just mentioned, we estimate that the total number of students who meet the requirements for the special measure should be less than 200. We estimate that, in the year 2013-2014, schools in the North District will have 33 places per class, which should be able to satisfy the demand. Certainly, the actual number of students per class will eventually depend on the number of students applying


under the special measure and the actual number of students for school place allocation in mid-September. MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): In light of the heavy demand for primary school places in the North District, I would like to know if the authorities have assessed the pressure to be imposed by the re-allocation mechanism on teachers. Are there enough teachers to cope with the demand? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, we will provide schools in the North District with professional support and additional resources, so that they can continue to adopt the existing teaching strategies. We have reached a consensus with schools in the North District that in the school year 2013-2014, the priority task is to address the increased school places in schools implementing small class teaching. When each P1 class offers 30 places, we will first provide the schools concerned with an additional teaching post of Assistant Primary School Teacher, in order to place schools implementing small class teaching on a par with other schools. When the places in each approved P1 class should be further increased to more than 30, we will provide the schools concerned with additional cash allowance for six years (that is, for those students from P1 to P6), so that the schools can continue to ensure the learning effectiveness of students in the grades concerned. The additional allowances are granted on the basis of each additional place in an approved P1 class with more than 30 students, and the unit cost of each student. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, the issue of inadequate P1 places in the North District has perplexed parents in the North District for many years, and the re-allocation mechanism is only a temporary relief measure without solving the problem at its root. In the long run, more schools should be constructed in the North District as soon as possible, so as to improve the mechanism of school place allocation and streaming. President, I would like to ask if parents wish that their children would be re-allocated school places in the North District under the re-allocation mechanism, and they do not accept the school places allocated to their children in Tai Po, does it mean that they have to give up the school places in Tai Po?


12459

Will the re-allocation mechanism cause administrative confusion to schools in Tai Po? If parents in the North District have already given up the school places in Tai Po, can students in Tai Po apply for these places? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, if parents in the North District have decided not to allow their children to attend P1 in Tai Po and attend school in the North District instead, they have to give up the school places in Tai Po first, and they will then be allocated P1 places in the North District by means of computer-assigned random allocation. Regarding the surplus school places in Tai Po resulted from children not attending P1 in Tai Po; these school places need not be allocated to students in Tai Po because students in Tai Po have already been allocated school places under the allocation mechanism. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered if the re-allocation mechanism will cause administrative confusion to schools in Tai Po. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, concerning the implementation details of the special measure, after the allocation results have been released on 1 June, each student will receive a P1 registration certificate, and students who are eligible for application under this special measure will receive a blue letter attached to his or her registration certificate. We hope that parents will notify us of their decisions from 17 to 19 June and we will notify them of the allocation results on 24 June. The students can then go to the allocated schools in the North District for registration from 26 to 27 June. The whole process will be completed within June and I believe the administrative impacts on schools in Tai Po will be minimized. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, the authorities' reply has evaded a very important principle, and that is, it is a fundamental right for a primary student to attend a school in his home district. The situation this year where students are allocated school places outside their home district and then


re-allocated places in their home district actually reflects that the education authorities have no foresight and have not made important planning. Given that so many problems have recently emerged, can the authorities tell me how they are going to cope with the more serious challenges in the future? I have compiled some statistics. We can see from this statistical chart that the number of cross-boundary students will substantially increase in the next few years. In particular, it is worth noting that the number of kindergarten students has exceeded 7 000 this year. These students will most probably continue to attend P1 in the North District next year. How can we avoid the recurrence of the chaotic phenomenon this year? I am afraid the situation next year will be even more chaotic because it is impossible for schools to be constructed within two years. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, if you have put your supplementary question, please sit down and let the Secretary reply. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): All right. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, the crux of the problem concerning cross-boundary students in the North District does not lie in the Government's lack of planning, but the difficulty in accurately estimating how many cross-boundary students will come to Hong Kong for schooling each year, as this is a matter concerning the choice of the parents of cross-boundary students or the consideration made by the families concerned. We project that the number of cross-boundary students will certainly increase in the coming few years. Even though the Government has stopped allowing Mainland pregnant women to give birth in Hong Kong this year, we believe that, in the next few years up to 2017 or 2018, the challenges of "doubly non-permanent resident children" applying for primary school places will become greater and greater. For this reason, the so-called special measure that we have adopted this year may not be able to fully solve the problems that may arise in the future. To this end, we are actively examining some possible options, hoping that we can reasonably and legitimately give priority to the wishes of students in


12461

the North District. We also wish to significantly reduce the number of local students being forced to attend schools in other districts because of the schooling of cross-boundary students in Hong Kong. We have heard many different options in the course of our contacts with people in the community and many other people. We will certainly consider these options, and we hope that announcements can be made as soon as possible. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, my question is precisely on how to solve the problem, but the Secretary has just said that he was aware of the severity of the problem and solutions should be identified. Yet, he has not specifically told us what solutions are available and what options are being considered. I hope the Secretary would give the public a clear explanation. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can you tell Members what options are being considered? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): Let me give some examples, President. One of the options being considered is whether places in each school net can be first allocated to students in the district. Another option is whether we can form a new school net with the surplus school places in each district which are exclusively for cross-boundary students. We have also considered whether schools adopting the Hong Kong system can be established on the Mainland or in Shenzhen. Yet, each of these options involves many factors for consideration; thus, we have not yet confirmed with a mainstream or principal option. MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, the problem of inadequate supply of P1 places in the North District does not only emerge this year. A few years ago, the school principals in the North District had already warned the


Education Bureau that if the current allocation mechanism remained in force, a large number of students in the North District would have to attend schools in other districts. The re-allocation mechanism has finally been introduced after great efforts have been made. As the Secretary has just said in reply to a Member's question, the re-allocation mechanism can slightly relieve the pressure this year. Given additional classes and staff members, it is hoped that the problem of inadequate supply of P1 places in the North District this year can be alleviated. However, next year or in the year after next, it is estimated that the number of cross-boundary students will only increase but not decrease. As Mr CHAN Hak-kan has mentioned earlier, the ultimate solution is to change the existing allocation mechanism, with the effect of streaming, as well as to speed up the construction of schools in the district. The Secretary has also mentioned some options being considered. The crucial point is whether the Secretary can undertake to announce to parents a mature streaming method before they make school choices for the coming year, so that they no longer need to worry about the allocation of school places in the future? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, this is our target. To facilitate allocation in 2014, we understand that we must explain to parents the 2014 allocation system or method by September this year. Therefore, our target is to provide parents with a more comprehensive and satisfactory option by September this year. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the shortage of P1 places in the North District has caused great public discontent, and some parents have repeatedly petitioned to the Government. Owing to the great dissatisfaction of parents, the Education Bureau is forced to introduce the re-allocation mechanism to satisfy the demands of some parents. Nonetheless, as an Honourable colleague has just said, the mechanism is only a temporary relief which fail to solve the problem at its root. President, under the so-called school net mechanism of the Education Bureau, cross-boundary students can only attend schools in the North District, Tai Po, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun; but some school nets still have many surplus


12463

places. I would like to ask the Secretary, can students attend schools in their home districts? For example, can students living in Shenzhen Bay attend schools in Yuen Long and Tuen Mun? Can students living in Lo Wu attend schools in the North District or Tai Po? If the school nets are defined this way, most students can definitely be allocated places in districts with more school places. Furthermore, could the Government allocate funds to promote these schools in various districts on the Mainland or improve the congestion at the border control points? I hope the Secretary would answer this question. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, if school nets are defined according to different Mainland areas, we need more detailed information, such as the distribution of cross-boundary students in Shenzhen who may come to Hong Kong for schooling, and whether they are going to attend schools in Hong Kong. It may be more difficult to get hold of such information. As regards whether schools will be established on the Mainland, as I have just mentioned, we have to take a lot of factors into consideration; for instance, we should discuss in detail with the Mainland Government …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, the Member is not asking whether schools will be established on the Mainland, but about the distribution of information on schools nets in Hong Kong on the Mainland. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): I am sorry, President. On the distribution of information, the relevant information can now be obtained online. We can further study the distribution of information on the Mainland because we also need to explore how the information can reach the parents concerned. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?


MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, at present, the cross-boundary students …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You only need to repeat your supplementary question. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I understand. The most important point is border crossing, and the Secretary has not told us what complementary measures have been taken. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, we understand that there are border crossing problems. The border crossing points deal with cross-boundary students by means of streaming. We also have discussions with the Security Bureau and the Transport Department each year to find out how to improve the border crossing points and increase their capacity. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent almost 23 minutes on this question. Second question. Handling of Unauthorized Building Works by Buildings Department 2. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, some members of the public have relayed to me that the Chief Executive has yet to give a direct account of the whole story concerning the unauthorized building works (UBWs) in his mansion on Peel Rise (Peel Rise mansion) since such UBWs were uncovered in June last year, when he was about to assume the office of the Chief Executive; and the way in which the Buildings Department (BD) handles this case is different from that for handling the UBWs uncovered in a mansion on York Road (York Road mansion) which belongs to another candidate who stood in the 2012 Chief Executive Election, thus causing members of the public to suspect that the


12465

authorities have been selective in taking law-enforcement actions. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) as it has been reported that the Director of Buildings indicated on 7 May this year that the UBWs in the Peel Rise mansion had been demolished, the underground space had been dealt with, and the space beneath the parking space had also been filled up, and yet the Chief Executive's Office mentioned in reply to press enquiries on the following day that the Chief Executive was still discussing the remedial proposal with the BD in respect of the unlawfully constructed enclosed area of some 200 sq ft on the lower ground floor of the Peel Rise mansion, whether the situation referred to by the Director is the actual situation at present; which of the UBWs in the Peel Rise mansion have yet to be demolished and restored to the original structure;

(b) as the Chief Executive had already indicated at the end of November

last year that he would discuss with the BD the way to handle the unlawfully constructed enclosed area in the Peel Rise mansion mentioned in part (a), whether the BD and the Chief Executive have already reached a consensus in respect of the remedial proposal for the said UBW so far; if they have not, whether it has assessed the causes for this situation, and whether it is attributable to dereliction of duty on the part of BD staff or the property owner being unco-operative in the case; of the number of times the BD has contacted the property owner to discuss the remedial proposal for the said UBW, and what the replies given by the property owner are; and

(c) given that the BD issued summons in February this year to prosecute

the agent of the owner of the York Road mansion and the authorized persons (APs) appointed by her for carrying out unlawful building works, and to prosecute the said APs for misrepresentation, whether the authorities are adopting the same standard in handling the case involving the UBWs in the Peel Rise mansion; if they are not, of the reasons for that?


SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President and Honourable Members, good morning. The Government attaches great importance to building safety. In handling UBWs, the BD has been following the principle of acting in accordance with the law and being impartial to all to take appropriate actions pursuant to the Buildings Ordinance (BO) (Cap. 123) and the prevailing enforcement policy. In respect of each case involving UBWs, the BD will take appropriate enforcement actions in an impartial manner, without making any special arrangements because of the identity of the owner. I would like to take this opportunity to point out to Members once again that the prevailing established procedures of the BD for handling UBW cases involving senior government officials and celebrities is mainly embodied in the carrying out of priority inspection with the objective of ascertaining as soon as possible whether the suspected UBWs exist so as to clear any public concerns. This procedure was introduced in mid-2011. At that time, noting that suspected UBW cases involving senior government officials and celebrities reported by the media had aroused public concerns, the Development Bureau decided that the BD should accord priority to carry out site inspection in respect of this kind of cases so as to clear any public concerns as soon as possible. The BD will impartially carry out post-inspection enforcement procedures including investigation and enforcement in accordance with the BO and the prevailing enforcement policy on UBWs, and will not be particularly stringent or lenient in its enforcement actions because the owner is a senior government official or celebrity. In respect of the UBW case of Houses 4 and 5 of Peel Rise No. 4, the BD has been taking follow-up action in accordance with the abovementioned established procedures for handling UBW cases involving senior Government officials and celebrities. Regarding the unauthorized floor space on the lower ground floor of House 4 of Peel Rise No. 4 mentioned in the question, the owner issued a statement on Friday, 23 November 2012, which included information on that floor space and the sealing up by a brick wall. The BD conducted on-site inspection on the first working day that followed (that is, Monday, 26 November), and immediately requested the AP appointed by the owner to provide information and arrange for the opening up of that wall as soon as possible for detailed inspection. During the BD's site inspection on Thursday, 29 November, an opening had been made in the wall, and BD staff identified that there was an extended floor space of about 30 sq m behind the wall. After inspection and assessment, the BD confirmed that the floor space concerned was


12467

an "actionable" UBW and issued an advisory letter to the owner on Monday, 3 December, advising him to rectify the irregularities as soon as possible. My reply to the three-part question is as follows:

(a) and (b) In respect of the unauthorized floor space on the lower ground floor

of House 4 of Peel Rise No. 4, further to the issue of an advisory letter by the BD on 3 December 2012 advising the owner to rectify the irregularities as soon as possible, the AP appointed by the owner submitted a remedial proposal to the BD on 4 December 2012. The BD studied the proposal in detail and provided comments. Subsequently, the AP has submitted a number of revised proposals having regard to the BD's comments. The BD has also written to the AP for a number of times, copying to the owner, providing comments on the revised proposals and requesting the AP to submit relevant information for consideration. During the vetting process, the BD has arranged a number of meetings with the AP to discuss technical details, mainly including the structural safety of the proposed remedial works and measures to prevent re-use of the void space concerned. According to the latest position, the AP submitted the latest revised proposal in early April this year and supplementary information later. The BD has provided comments on the revised proposal and supplementary information. The BD will continue to follow up with the AP appointed by the owner in accordance with the BO. The owner can only commence the works after the BD has accepted the remedial proposal.

Other "actionable" UBWs under the prevailing enforcement policy in

Houses 4 and 5 have been removed. As regards the unauthorized floor space at the garden level beneath the parking space at House 5, the remedial works has been completed. The space was backfilled with concrete and the access opening was sealed up to make the use of such void space difficult.

(c) The policy and stance all along adopted by the BD in its enforcement

work against UBWs is to require the owner to rectify the


irregularities as soon as possible. Under normal circumstances, unless the BD has obtained concrete information showing that registered persons under the BO are suspected to be involved in the erection of UBWs or that the registered persons knowingly submit misrepresented documents to the BD, the BD will not conduct criminal investigation lightly on whether there have been contraventions to the BO. We must stress that in handling UBW cases involving senior government officials and celebrities (including the York Road and Peel Rise cases mentioned in the question), same as other cases, the BD will impartially determine the required follow-up action in accordance with this established principle. The identity of the owner is not a factor for the BD to consider whether to conduct criminal investigation.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, based on the reply given by the Secretary today, he has apparently reaffirmed that not only has remedial works not been taken at the underground space of the Chief Executive's Peel Rise mansion, even the way of handling has yet to be confirmed. The AP appointed by LEUNG Chun-ying and the BD are exchanging views, and it is still uncertain when the matter will be settled. In that case, may I ask if the Secretary would agree that the remarks made by the Director of Buildings, AU Choi-kai, at the Tuen Mun District Council meeting on 7 May ― I was also present at the meeting ― that the UBWs at the underground space of the Peel Rise mansion had been dealt with are, firstly, untrue and misleading, and secondly, remedial proposals are actually unavailable, and it would only be accurate to say that the UBWs "are being dealt with" but not "have been dealt with"? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, in response to the question about whether the UBWs in Houses 4 and 5 of Peel Rise had been demolished at the Tuen Mun District Council meeting held on 7 May, the Director said right at the beginning that the UBWs had been demolished and the floor space beneath the parking space at House 5 had been filled up. He had not said anything about the remedial works to the unauthorized floor space on the lower ground floor of House 4, and therefore his statement was not misleading. Concerning the remedial works to the underground space in House 4, the AP appointed by the owner had liaised with and submitted proposals to the BD in the


12469

past few months. The BD had provided comments on the proposals, and the two parties had also conducted meetings and site inspections. Therefore, the case is still being dealt with. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. The wordings used by Director AU are "The UBWs beneath the mansion 'have been dealt with'". So, are the words "have been dealt with" inaccurate and untrue? The Secretary has not answered. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I heard that the Secretary has already answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, an answer has been given earlier and I have nothing to add. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, may I ask if the Secretary has listened to the recording of the reply given by Director AU Choi-kai at the Tuen Mun District Council meeting about "the space beneath the mansion has been dealt with", as Mr Albert HO has quoted? As the Secretary has made a reply without listening to the recording, was he being partial to Director AU Choi-kai? President, my supplementary question is very simple. Knowing that the entire community is very concerned about the UBWs found in the Chief Executive's mansion, the Director had answered in a way that implied that some progress seemed to have been made, and concealed the fact that no progress had been made in the past few months, and in addition, the so-called professionals acting on the Chief Executive's behalf had submitted some ridiculous, or in vulgar terms, some "crap" proposals, did he think that the case can be settled by mere exchange of correspondences? Does the Government think that even if the Director is asked to give a reply in his own capacity on public occasions, he can still manipulate the art of double-talk to cover up for the Chief Executive and mislead the public?


SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, although I have not listened to the recording of the reply given by Director AU Choi-kai to a question raised by a member of the Tuen Mun District Council, I have read the detailed written record, and this is the first point. The second point is, it cannot be said that no progress has been made in respect of the underground space beneath House 4, some progress has actually been made. Yet, there is something that I wish to explain to Members. Generally speaking, if remedial works have to be carried out on the unauthorized works of existing buildings, the factors to be taken into consideration are quite varied and complicated, which include the structural capacity of the building concerned, safety and difficulty of the works, as well as the impact on the surrounding environment. Therefore, the formulation of remedial proposals is pretty complicated. The BD would carefully examine the proposals submitted by the AP, and might ask for additional information when necessary. When the BD followed up on the matter, it has not deliberately delayed the process but has handled in the same way as remedial proposals of other UBWs. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I did not ask if it has deliberately delayed …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TO, please repeat the part that you think the Secretary has not answered direct. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Why did the Director only mention, on public occasions, the areas that had been handled, but regarding the areas that have not been handled and the case of public concern, how could he answer in such a way?


12471

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I have already explained in my earlier reply to Mr Albert HO's question. I have nothing to add. MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, in the last part of the Secretary's reply to part (c) of Mr Albert HO's question, he said that when handling these matters, the BD would follow the established principle and remain impartial without considering the identity of the owner. He said so because the main question mentioned the York Road mansion of another candidate of the Chief Executive Election. May I ask why the case of the York Road mansion is still under investigation and cannot be settled through negotiation with the owner, as in the case of the Peel Rise mansion, whose owner is merely required to make rectifications? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I must point out that comparison of different UBWs cases is sometimes inappropriate as each case has to be considered on its own merits. Direct comparison may not be possible in some cases. For the case of UBWs at Nos. 5A and 7 York Road, the BD had carried out an inspection four days after it was first reported by the media. At that time, a number of media reported the information on the construction of the said mansion provided by a construction professional allegedly involved in the construction process. The information includes the photographs and plan of the UBWs under construction. This shows that some people who have statutory obligation under the BO, such as the APs, Registered Structural Engineers or contractors, might have knowingly contravened the requirements of obtaining prior approval and consent of works from the BD by making misrepresentation to the BD. The information available to the BD back then had prompted it to carry out criminal investigation when taking enforcement actions. On the present case of the Peel Rise mansion, the BD has not obtained similar information so far. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?


MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): The Secretary said he would be impartial, but why was his attitude towards the owner of the York Road mansion not as negotiable as the owner of the Peel Rise mansion? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add with regard to the Member's question about the negotiable attitude? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, after the property owner appointed a professional to liaise with the BD for a remedial proposal, the BD will communicate with him in respect of the remedial proposal regardless of whether he is the AP or a professional appointed by the owner. The BD may provide comments and even ask him for information, and the same practice still applies. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, I also want to follow up on the question about being selective in taking law-enforcement actions. The Secretary said that the issue is pretty complicated, but I guess the authorities may also be aware that the identities of the two persons involved are very sensitive, and no one wants to see some people being well-treated but others being ill-treated. President, in part (c) of the main reply, the Secretary has advised when prosecution would be instituted, and that is, when the registered persons are suspected to be involved in the erection of UBWs or have submitted misrepresented documents. While registered persons are referred to in this part, the main question has mentioned the agent of the owner as both of them have been prosecuted in the case of the York Road mansion. Nonetheless, in part (c) of the main reply, there was no mention of the agent of the owner. Should we consider prosecuting the agent of the owner as well if he is relevant to the case? Furthermore, President, there is something which members of the public do not quite understand. Although UBWs were found to exist and the hollow space has been backfilled, the authorities have failed to identify the persons involved in the erection of UBWs or the agent of the owner and thus no prosecution has been instituted, while other people who have been identified were prosecuted.


12473

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I hope Members would understand and allow me to reiterate that government enforcement against UBWs is absolutely impartial and unbiased. With regard to the case mentioned by Ms Emily LAU just now, if information available to the BD on any case shows that certain people are suspected to have breached the law, they would not be missed out when the BD institutes prosecution and consults the Judiciary. As I have said in response to Mr James TIEN's earlier question, for the case of the Peel Rise mansion, we have not obtained any information similar to that of the case of the York Road mansion for the time being. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, I really do not understand …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your supplementary question. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): …… In case UBWs are found, people suspected to be involved would be prosecuted, and the prosecution would not be confined to the registered persons, but the agent of the owner as well. Why were the two cases handled so differently? I think the authorities do owe the public a clear explanation, or else they would be accused of favouring LEUNG Chun-ying. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I think I have already explained. If a person involved in the case is suspected to have breached the law and should be held legally liable under the law, he would not be missed out but would definitely be included in our enforcement action.


DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, recently, a phrase often used by the Secretary in response to public criticisms is "this is not the whole truth". I wish to remind colleagues that we have waited for six months after the incident was uncovered in June 2012, and it was not until November last year that an explanation was given by LEUNG Chun-ying, and the case was then referred to the BD for follow-up. Again, another six months have passed, but the problem has yet to be resolved. I want to ask the Secretary in a more focused and specific manner. In parts (a) and (b) of the main reply, the Secretary pointed out that the BD and the property owner, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, have exchanged correspondences and held a number of meetings. Can he explain or inform us the number of times that the BD has written to him, the number of reply letters received from his agent, as well as the number of meetings that have been conducted between them? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, over the past few months, the BD and the AP of the owner have met to discuss the remedial proposals and conducted site inspections. While the AP has submitted a number of proposals, the BD has provided comments on them and requested him to provide information for six times altogether. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Do these six times refer to exchange of correspondences, meetings or what? President, this is an utterly ineffective approach. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can you provide an accurate figure? DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Yes.


12475

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, what I mean is the AP has submitted remedial proposals for six times altogether. The BD has considered all of them and requested the AP to furnish information as required of the owner. This is what I meant to say. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent more than 23 minutes on this question. Third question. Selection of Chief Executive and Election of Legislative Council by Universal Suffrage 3. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, Article 45 of the Basic Law provides that, in relation to the method for selecting the Chief Executive, "[t]he ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures"; and Article 68 provides that, concerning the method for forming the Legislative Council, "[t]he ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage". In respect of the qualifications required of a person to be the Chief Executive, the Chairman of the Law Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) said when he met some Members of the Legislative Council on 24 March this year that a person who was against the Central Government would not be allowed to become the Chief Executive and that the Chief Executive had to "love the country and Hong Kong". Officials from the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government (CPG) in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) as well as quite a number of members from the pro-establishment camp have quoted this comment of the Chairman for a number of times, and pointed out that persons not meeting the aforesaid qualification requirements are not allowed to become the Chief Executive. On the other hand, some members of the public have demanded that the members of the nominating committee should be elected on a "one person, one vote" basis in 2017; and that in the Legislative Council Election in 2016, the split voting system should be abolished and the number of seats for functional constituencies (FC) be reduced. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


(a) whether the Government has studied if the aforesaid qualification requirements for the Chief Executive have been provided for in the Basic Law, or if such qualification requirements override the Basic Law; if the outcome of the study is in the affirmative, of the legal basis; if the outcome of the study is in the negative, how the Government ensures that the comments relating to the aforesaid qualification requirements will not affect the constitutional reform proposal on election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage to be put forward by the Government according to the provisions in the Basic Law;

(b) whether the aforesaid qualification requirements for the Chief

Executive represent the Government's stance; if so, of the legal basis; if not, whether the Government will, pursuant to the aim of election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage under Article 45 of the Basic Law, put forward a proposal on the election of the members of the nominating committee on a "one person, one vote" basis, when it launches its consultation on the constitutional reform proposal regarding the election of the Chief Executive in 2017; and

(c) whether it represents the Government's stance to adopt the

objectives of abolishing the split voting system and reducing the number of seats for FC when drawing up the method for the Legislative Council Election in 2016; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, our reply to the questions raised by Mr LEONG is as follows:

(a) and (b)

The Government of the HKSAR will launch a comprehensive consultation for the electoral methods of the Chief Executive in 2017 and the Legislative Council in 2016 at an appropriate juncture and initiate the constitutional procedures, strictly in accordance with the


12477

Basic Law and relevant interpretation and decisions of the Standing Committee of the NPC (NPCSC).

The Basic Law stipulates the requirements on the qualifications,

integrity and duties of the Chief Executive in the relevant provisions. For example, Article 44 stipulates that the Chief Executive shall be not less than 40 years of age, with no right of abode in any foreign country and has ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 20 years; Article 47 stipulates that the Chief Executive must be a person of integrity, dedicated to his or her duties. Regarding the Chief Executive's duties, the Basic Law has even more detailed descriptions, for example, Article 43 provides that the Chief Executive shall be accountable to the CPG and the HKSAR; Article 48 mentions that the Chief Executive shall lead the Government of the HKSAR, be responsible for implementation of the Basic Law, implement the directives issued by the CPG in respect of the relevant matters provided for in the Basic Law, conduct, on behalf of the Government of the HKSAR, external affairs and other affairs as authorized by the Central Authorities, and so on. Constitutionally, the Chief Executive, being the head of the HKSAR, has an important status, is elected in the HKSAR and appointed by the CPG, and accountable to the CPG and the HKSAR. It is therefore natural and legitimate for both the CPG and the HKSAR to have higher expectations towards candidates of the Chief Executive.

There have recently been different views and opinions from various

sectors of the community on issues related to constitutional development, in particular the Chief Executive election, such as the composition of the nominating committee, procedures of nomination, the number of candidates to be nominated for the election, the electoral arrangement for one-person-one-vote, and so on. The Government welcomes such rational and pragmatic discussions, as they will help us prepare for the public consultation to be conducted in the future. At this stage, the Government does not have any preconceived proposal. During the public consultation, the Government will listen carefully to the views and specific proposals on the subject from various sectors of the


community. Needless to say, all proposals should be based on the Basic Law and relevant interpretation and decisions of the NPCSC; only on such a basis will it be possible to reach a consensus on constitutional development, to take forward the democracy of Hong Kong, and to implement the target of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive in 2017.

(c) As stipulated in Article 68 of the Basic Law, the Legislative Council

of the HKSAR shall be constituted by election. The method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the HKSAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress, and the ultimate aim is the election of all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. The Government will launch a comprehensive consultation on the electoral method of the Legislative Council in 2016 at an appropriate juncture. At this stage, the Government does not have any preconceived proposal.

MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, I have listened attentively to as well as read carefully the main reply given by the Secretary, and I wonder if he has, in your opinion, answered my question, but you would probably say that it is the official's prerogative to determine how the question should be answered. Nonetheless, President, in all three parts of the main question, I have framed the questions with the word "whether", yet the Secretary dared not even answer "Yes" or "No" to any of these questions, and his main reply is just "non-committal", so to speak. If that can be deemed as a reply to my question, perhaps LEUNG Chun-ying's days are indeed numbered. President, I want to follow up on his reply though I am not optimistic at all. In the Secretary's main reply to parts (a) and (b), and part (c) of the question respectively, a prominent yet awkward expression keeps appearing ― that is, "at an appropriate juncture" ― I think the President also notices those four words, right? I would like to ask the Secretary, what exactly is the time regarded by the LEUNG Chun-ying's Government as "at an appropriate juncture"?


12479

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, regarding Mr LEONG's supplementary question on the exact time for launching a formal consultation, we do not have any specific timetable for the time being, but as the Chief Executive and I myself have pointed out on several occasions, we will reserve sufficient time for conducting consultation in this regard. In fact, we still have about four years before the election of Chief Executive in 2017, and we will make good use of this period of time to carry out the relevant work properly. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, between 2005 and 2007, we discussed many different constitutional reform proposals in the Commission on Strategic Development. In relation to part (c) of Mr Alan LEONG's main question about reducing the number of FC seats, I recall that our then discussion pointed to two directions of development, that is, quality change and quantity change. By quantity change, as stated in the main question, it means, reducing the number of FC seats, while quality change involves reforming the electoral base of FCs. I recall that at that time, even FCs which supported the expeditious implementation of universal suffrage did not agree with the proposal to reduce the number of FC seats. Basically, according to our understanding, no FC was willing to have its seats reduced first. Separately, quality change would follow the direction of first extending the electoral base of FCs, and then gradually requiring FC seats to be returned by universal suffrage as well. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG, please ask your supplementary question. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Hence, I would like to ask the Secretary, regarding part (c) of the main question, firstly, what is your current assessment in respect of quantity change by reducing the number of FC seats, and whether it is different from the assessment made at that time? Secondly, is it very likely that the constitutional reform in 2016 would adopt the direction of quality change?


SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, in accordance with Annex II to the Basic Law, if there is a need to amend the method for forming the Legislative Council, the relevant issues would of course be incorporated as part of the future consultation. Considered from the perspective of Annex II to the Basic Law, the method for forming the Legislative Council mainly involves two questions: firstly, whether there is a need to increase the current number of 70 Members of the Legislative Council; secondly, whether there is a need to change the current 35:35 ratio for Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and Members returned by FCs. On the basis of Annex II to the Basic Law, we will incorporate the above contents when launching the consultation. As regards a "quality change" to the electoral base just described by Dr Priscilla LEUNG, the matter will be handled primarily through local legislation. I believe that after the work in respect of Annex II to the Basic Law has been dealt with, the matter will be dealt with subsequently in the context of consultation on local legislation. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, he has not answered my question about quantity change because part (c) of the main question …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your supplementary question. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): …… is about reducing the number of FC seats; what is the Government's current assessment in this regard, and whether this is still a direction for consideration? SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, in the past and at present, we have all along kept in view the opinions expressed in society about the method for electing the Legislative


12481

Council in 2016, as well as certain suggestions and opinions expressed in society about the number of FC seats. As I just mentioned in the main reply, we envisage that we will receive more views after the consultation is formally launched. We will then collate different views received before formulating our stance. At this stage, the SAR Government does not have any preconceived proposal in this regard. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, just now, the Secretary has not directly answered Mr Alan LEONG's question, and I would like to ask the Secretary his interpretation of the term "a person who is against the Central Government". Given that such comments made by an official of the Central Authorities have aroused extensive concern among Hong Kong people about the qualification required of candidates in the future Chief Executive election, will the Secretary undertake to request a public clarification from the Chairman of the Law Committee of the NPC on what is meant by "a person who was against the Central Government would not be allowed to become the Chief Executive", and whether this point has breached the provisions of the Basic Law? As people now have many different ideas about the meaning of "against", will the Secretary please answer this question? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, now that you have asked your supplementary question, please sit down so that the Secretary can reply. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I think Dr Helena WONG is referring to the speech made by Director QIAO Xiaoyang. After he delivered this speech, I also had the opportunity to respond to it publicly. As I recall, regarding the specific wordings such as "against the Central Government" and "love the country and Hong Kong" as just mentioned by Dr Helena WONG, my response at that time was that I noticed Director QIAO Xiaoyang had mentioned in his speech that his remarks were not intended to have any legal substance because he also admitted that it would require a definition by way of law and hence, it was not what he meant. That is the first point.


Second, personally, my duties include conducting consultation according to the Basic Law and the relevant decisions of the NPCSC, as well as assisting the Chief Executive in submitting the relevant report and presenting the motions to the Legislative Council. We will definitely work on the basis of law, that is, on the basis of the Basic Law and the relevant decisions of the NPCSC, and the motion we present will also be a motion in law. Therefore, in conclusion, we must act in accordance with current laws, and the motion we present is presumably also premised on law only. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, after the commencement of the new-term SAR Government, there are many different demands in society in this regard, for example, what specific arrangements will be made for the elections of the next-term Legislative Council and Chief Executive? People hope that the SAR Government could make an announcement and conduct consultation as soon as possible, but regrettably, the Chief Executive and even the SAR Government have only responded by repeatedly stating that an announcement will be made "when the opportunity is ripe" or "at an appropriate juncture", while stressing that sufficient time will be reserved for discussion and consultation. However, the Government has neither explained specifically what is meant by "when the opportunity is ripe" or "at an appropriate juncture", nor indicated clearly the time needed to conduct adequate consultation. Hence, I would like to ask the Secretary whether he can tell us right now the time, by his own estimation, required for conducting the consultation period for the two elections. In addition, after the expiry of the consultation period, how long does he need to collate and consolidate the views received, and after collation, how long does it take to enact the local legislation? What are the Secretary's estimations in this regard? I hope the Secretary can give specific answers to these questions; otherwise, if he hides behind the excuses such as "when the opportunity is ripe" or "at an appropriate juncture" indefinitely, he can never respond to people's demands. I hope he will give us a detailed reply. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, for general consultations conducted previously, as well as the two consultations on constitutional reform conducted respectively in the past decade, the consultation period lasted about three to four months. As regards


12483

the time needed for the collation of views, it would depend on the number of views received and the degree of difficulty in collating the stances of such views. On the basis of past experiences, we will certainly work to our best and hopefully, the time needed may not necessarily be too long. However, based on the experience in the past decade, the crux invariably lies not with the length of consultation period, but the protracted time it may take to forge a consensus in society by seeking common grounds and bridging gaps of opinions so that the proposal will have the endorsement of two-thirds of Members of the Council. Therefore, I would also like to take this opportunity today to call on Members to act more rationally and pragmatically through tolerance and communication so that the process of forging consensus will not take too long. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered the two parts of my supplementary question. First, while he said that hopefully the time needed to collate views would not be too long, the question I just asked was, even if the time needed was not long, what was the estimated time needed based on past experience, and he has not answered this question.. Secondly, he has not answered on the time needed for enactment of local legislation because as we all know, enactment of local legislation is a lengthy process as consultation and discussion are also required. Hence, I hope the Secretary can tell us the estimated time needed for such work based on his past experience. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, based on past experience from the two constitutional reforms, we had conducted a total of four to six consultations, and the time needed for the subsequent collation of views was about one to two months. Nonetheless, it would depend on the number and contents of views received.


Second, regarding the time needed to enact the local legislation, in the past, particularly when I was still in the Civil Service, it was generally estimated that the whole process would take about three to six months from the tabling of a bill in the Legislative Council, to setting up a Bills Committee for scrutiny, and then finally its enactment. That used to be our general estimation, but today, it is difficult to predict how much time is needed to process a Bill after it was tabled in the Legislative Council. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, you previously said that filibustering would "obstruct" the normal functioning of the Government, for example, Members could not raise questions or monitor the Government. But would anyone think that the Government could be monitored through such questioning? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please ask your supplementary question. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Basically, the Secretary has ignored our questions because we have already raised this subject time and again ― not the procedures, but the Government's stance. The Secretary has refused to answer even the most fundamental question about the Government's stance. Now, my question to the Secretary is: Is it the Government's stance to reduce the number of FC seats in 2016? He can feel free to play the tape. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I cannot answer the last part of Mr CHAN's supplementary question because he asked me to play the tape, but I have not done so. Nonetheless, regarding our stance on the election in 2016, I think I have already stated very clearly in the main reply that the Government does not have any preconceived proposal. After all, I believe that it is unfair for the Government to have any pre-established stance when extensive consultation has yet to be launched.


12485

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, when commenting on QIAO Xiaoyang's remark that the Chief Executive should not act against the Central Government just now, the Secretary said that according to his understanding, QIAO Xiaoyang did not say that was a legal requirement, but he was merely expressing his personal view. As the last step in the five-step mechanism is appointment by the Central Government, I would like to ask the Secretary whether he considers that the implication is actually as follows: Given that the Central Government cannot control whom we would eventually elect, that is why in case the elected person is against the Central Government, they can take into consideration whether this person is against the Central Government during the fifth step of making the appointment, is this the meaning interpreted by the Secretary? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, the fifth step is not appointment by the Central Government, but your supplementary question is still valid. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, the selection of the Chief Executive involves three stages, namely, nomination, election and appointment, and according to the provisions in the Basic Law, the Chief Executive must indeed be appointed by the Central Government eventually. It is stipulated in all relevant documents drafted in accordance with the Basic Law that this appointment is a substantive appointment, and I also notice that Director QIAO Xiaoyang had mentioned in his public speech that the Central Government would make its own judgment in this regard and decide whether the elected person was genuinely against the Central Government, or so to speak, should be appointed. Of course, they will have their own judgment. In the same speech, he also said that the nominating committee and the Hong Kong people would make their own judgment in this regard. On this point, I do not want to make any speculation here about how the Central Government will make its judgment. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, as we all know, QIAO Xiaoyang, Chairman of the Law Committee of the NPC, plays a decisive role in this matter because under the five-step mechanism for constitutional reform, the final step involves the NPC's decision as to whether the relevant proposal should be


approved or not, a step which comes even after endorsement by two-thirds of Members of the Legislative Council and consent given by the Chief Executive. It just shows how decisive his role in this matter is. Hence, there is no way we can remain unconcerned for any remarks made by QIAO Xiaoyang in relation to the future electoral system for the Chief Executive. That is why Mr Alan LEONG has raised this question in order to seek a response from the Secretary. However, although the Secretary has said a heap of words today, he is just reciting the answer and has absolutely said nothing about the two actual requirements of not acting the Central Government and "love the country and Hong Kong". I would like to ask the Secretary whether he is afraid to speak, or he does not have any stance. How come the SAR Government does not have any stance at all in this matter? Next, regarding QIAO Xiaoyang's remark that definitions cannot be made by legal language, is he implying that instead of formulating express legal provisions, a very stringent screening mechanism will be put in place so that people having the right to make nominations can screen out all potential candidates who fail to meet the political requirements stated by QIAO Xiaoyang? Are they working on such a mechanism now so that it will be ready once instruction is given by the Central Government at an appropriate juncture? SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, my answer to Mr Albert HO's supplementary question is: "it is not the case". I would like to add two points. First, I have read the speech made by Director QIAO Xiaoyang very carefully, and I believe Mr Albert HO has also done so. Director QIAO Xiaoyang said (and I quote), "Some people would say that it is very difficult to set specific standards for 'being against the Central Government'. That is indeed the case. No matter it is the standard for 'love the country and Hong Kong' or 'not against the Central Government', it is very difficult to have them defined by legal provisions." (End of quote) I think those words are clearly self-explanatory. The second point I want to add is that regarding the consultation and the motions for constitutional reform to be dealt with, as I have already explained very clearly just now, they will basically be premised on the provisions of the


12487

Basic Law. We will conduct consultation and present the relevant motions to the Legislative Council for consideration and endorsement according to the provisions of the Basic Law. That is our basis and, I believe, our only basis. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent over 23 minutes on this question. Fourth question. Ancillary Facilities for Wholesaling of Chilled Meat and Poultry 4. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): The chilled meat and poultry trade has been operating in Hong Kong for over a decade, and the demand for chilled meat and poultry has been rising continuously in recent years. For example, the daily quantity of imported chilled chicken increased from 80 tonnes in 2008 to 104 tonnes in 2012. Last year, the quantity of imported chilled chicken accounted for 40% of the total quantity of imported chicken, and those of chilled ducks and geese accounted for 90% and 99% respectively of the total quantities of imports of their kinds. On the other hand, chilled food products must be kept under refrigeration at a temperature of 4°C or below under the Food Hygiene Code, and a licence is required under the law for operating a food refrigeration business. As ancillary facilities for the wholesaling of chilled meat and poultry are currently unavailable in Hong Kong, wholesalers can only put chilled meat and poultry into temporary storage in lorries equipped with refrigeration facilities (refrigeration lorries) and in freezers in order to carry out the process of dividing and distributing chilled meat and poultry in the small hours every morning. It has been reported that targeting at such operation mode of "storage prior to distribution", the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) prosecutes wholesalers for committing the offence of running cold stores without licences. Members of the chilled meat and poultry trade have repeatedly written to the Food and Health Bureau, requesting the Government to set up an approved distribution and storage centre for chilled meat and poultry to centralize the management of the business concerned, with a view to reducing food risks. However, no reply has been received from the Government. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether the authorities will consider drawing up and updating relevant legislation and rules to ensure that the whole process of


importing and wholesaling chilled meat and poultry conforms to hygiene standards, in order to enhance food safety and provide legislation and rules for the trade to follow so as to avoid their being prosecuted; and

(b) whether the authorities will consider the request of the trade for

setting up an approved distribution and storage centre and initiate a site selection study?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, ensuring that the food sold in Hong Kong is safe and fit for human consumption is one of the work priorities of the Food and Health Bureau. We are committed to enhancing food safety through a multi-pronged approach. We adopt the "from farm to table" strategy promulgated by the World Health Organization under which surveillance is carried out at source as well as the import, wholesale and retail levels to safeguard public health. To ensure that the chilled poultry sold in Hong Kong is fit for consumption, we consider it essential to properly monitor the handling process that the chilled poultry goes through. My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(a) Under the agreement reached between Hong Kong and the Mainland, all live and fresh food (including chilled poultry) supplied to Hong Kong by the Mainland must be imported through Man Kam To. The chilled poultry and meat has to come from farms and poultry/meat processing plants registered with the relevant Mainland inspection and quarantine authority. Upon arrival at the boundary checkpoint, the chilled poultry and meat must bear animal health certificates issued by the relevant authorities.

All consignments of chilled poultry/meat that may be imported will

be inspected at Man Kam To and then directly transported, in their original packaging, to food factories for processing (including cutting into parts or re-packaging), or to restaurants, markets and fresh provision shops for sale. Traders may, depending on their operational needs, temporarily keep the imported chilled poultry/meat, in their original packaging, at a licensed cold store


12489

before redistributing them to food factories, restaurants or retail outlets. In granting approval for traders to import chilled poultry/meat from the Mainland into Hong Kong, the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) under the FEHD imposes conditions on how the goods vehicles used for transportation should be equipped, requiring that any such vehicle should have an enclosed conveying compartment with refrigerating devices, temperature measuring devices, as well as a temperature gauge affixed outside the vehicle for verification purpose. Besides, the CFS requires that the chilled poultry/meat should be stored at a temperature between 0°C and 4°C throughout the process of transporting the chilled poultry/meat from registered processing establishments in the Mainland to food factories, restaurants and retail outlets in Hong Kong. The temperature should in no circumstances exceed 8°C.

If the business operation of chilled poultry/meat importers involves

the use of food premises as defined under the Food Business Regulation, the importers are required to apply to the FEHD for an appropriate food premises licence, such as a cold store licence, a food factory licence or a fresh provision shop licence, for lawful handling of imported chilled poultry/meat. When considering licence applications, the FEHD will seek advice from the government departments concerned to ensure that the applications are in compliance with various requirements including those relating to land use, building safety, planning, fire safety and hygiene.

The lack of assurance about the state of the hygiene conditions and

facilities in premises without a food business licence is such that storing and processing chilled poultry/meat in these premises presents substantive food safety risk. With a view to safeguarding public health, FEHD staff, acting in accordance with the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance or the Food Business Regulation, will take enforcement actions against any person who operates an unlicensed food business (including cold store business) including confiscating the items concerned.

The existing legislation and control mechanism for regulating chilled

poultry/meat processing are well-established and generally effective.


The FEHD has also formulated clear guidelines for reference by the industry. As such, the Government does not consider it necessary to amend the relevant legislation and control mechanism at present.

(b) Relative to the chilled meat importation business, the live and fresh

food industry is different in terms of development history and business nature. The Administration has set up public wholesale markets for live and fresh food with a view to providing a platform for on-the-spot price negotiation and transaction. As for imports of chilled meat, the transaction details (including volume and price) have already been agreed upon in advance among the parties concerned before the consignment arrives in Hong Kong. Besides, traders may rent a cold store or apply for an appropriate licence for handling the distribution and storage of chilled meat. Under such circumstances, the Government does not have any plan to set up a distribution and storage centre for chilled poultry/meat.

As regards arrangements pertaining to the storage and distribution of

chilled poultry/meat after importation, importers may, as mentioned above, apply to the FEHD for a relevant food business licence according to their operational needs, or rent a cold store in the market place for proper processing of chilled poultry/meat. At present, there are altogether 37 licensed cold stores in the territory. According to information gathered by the FEHD from individual licensed cold store operators, there are large-scale cold stores in the market place which could provide space for traders to store their chilled poultry/meat. Not only do some of these stores operate round the clock, they could well provide sufficient parking spaces. The relevant trade association or individual traders may wish to consider exploring with the cold store operators opportunities for entering into commercial arrangements that meet their long-term needs in terms of storage accommodation.

Enquiries and applications may also be made to the relevant

departments should the trade wish to rent Government land for setting up a distribution and storage centre for chilled meat and poultry.


12491

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has spent some time to give us a detailed reply. But I want to point out that the authorities' present suggestion is unrealistic. During the summer, the temperature often rises to over 30°C and these 30-odd cold stores are normally not located on the ground floor of a building. If an operator parks the refrigeration lorry by the side of the road, opens the door, takes the chilled meat out, takes the lift to transport the meat to the cold store and then takes the lift to transport the divided meat back to the lorry, any meat will turn bad in this process, taking into account the temperature outside. It will only work if the temperature of the whole building, the parking lot and the lift is kept as low as the cold store. I wonder if the Secretary understands the plights of the operators. Therefore, I thank the Secretary for the last sentence in his main reply. If the industry can identify the suitable land and wish to buy or rent the land to set up a distribution and storage centre for chilled poultry, it must apply for the change of land use. If the industry lodges an application to the Development Bureau for this purpose, will the authorities lend them support in terms of the policy so that they can have a better chance of being approved for the change of the land use? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, Mr TIEN, any measures that are legal and conducive to ensuring the safety of food, including chilled poultry, for consumption by the people, especially proposals put forward by the industry, should be encouraged, but I believe the industry also needs to make some investments. Therefore, under the present legislation, the Food and Health Bureau will consider co-ordinating the work of various government departments, or if necessary, consider rendering policy support. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): This question today concerns the midstream operation. However, the Secretary's reply focused on the process before and after the midstream operation, that is, the situations in the cold store and food factory. By midstream operation, we are dealing with the process involving the distribution of meat to food factories, restaurants or markets. Therefore, I would like to ask whether the Secretary recognizes the operational needs of the midstream operation. The licences mentioned by the Secretary are not related to the midstream operation. How can he solve the problems


involving the midstream operation in a pragmatic way? How can it be regulated effectively? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, as far as I understand, the chilled poultry goes through the following process from importation into Hong Kong to being ready for consumption: the chilled poultry comes from farms and poultry/meat processing plants registered with the relevant Mainland inspection and quarantine authority which have set up a quality control system and the poultry must be imported through Man Kam To where inspection is undertaken. Of course, as Ir Dr LO has said, during the process, the poultry may need to be processed, repackaged and put in temporary storage. If further processing or repackaging is not needed, the poultry will be put into temporary storage. If further cutting or repackaging is needed, it will involve one more step. These steps all involve food factories and cold stores mentioned above and they are both available in Hong Kong and there is a mechanism in place for the application of the relevant licences. As regards cold stores, if importers do not have their own stores, there are over 30 cold stores available for their use. We have learned from the industry that importers can store the poultry in cold stores temporarily before distributing the poultry to restaurants, markets and fresh provision shops. Therefore, I believe that there is already a well-established system in place to allow the industry to apply for a licence to set up its own food processing facilities or store the poultry temporarily in the cold stores available in the market. However, if the industry still finds it inconvenient and is interested to find land to build its own cold store for the temporary storage of poultry, as I said in my reply to Mr TIEN, as long as it is willing to invest and find the land, the Food and Health Bureau will offer help in terms of policy co-ordination regarding the change of land use. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, I believe that the greatest concern of the community in recent days is the problem about beef balls containing no beef. Loopholes are sometimes found in the local law-enforcement system and


12493

sensational scandals are reported occasionally. However, this question involves the flow of the entire food supply chain, including the issuance of health certificates by the relevant Mainland authorities as mentioned in the main reply. Secretary, I would like to know if the authorities completely trusted the relevant certificates in the past and considered that it was sufficient to guarantee the food quality. Have the authorities carried out their own inspection on a regular basis and have found problems with the certificates such as forgery? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, under the agreement reached between Hong Kong and the Mainland, all live and fresh food (including chilled poultry) supplied to Hong Kong must be imported through Man Kam To. The chilled poultry, including chickens, ducks and geese, and meat, including chilled pork and beef, has to come from farms and poultry/meat processing plants registered with the relevant Mainland inspection and quarantine authority. Besides, importers have to apply for an import licence from the FEHD before importing such food products into Hong Kong and upon arrival at the boundary checkpoint, the products must bear animal health certificates issued by the relevant authorities. In response to Mr Paul TSE's question whether the authorities trust the relevant certificate, we trust the certificate issued by the quality inspection and quarantine authority of a country but the Hong Kong Government does not rely on this certificate alone. All chilled food products must pass through the specified checkpoint, Man Kam To in this case, and inspected by the responsible officers who will conduct visual examination to check if there are problems with the packaging or there are obvious signs of contamination, and so on. We will also take samples for testing if necessary. Of course, the CFS will also take samples from various food products in the local market for testing on a regular basis. As I always say, the percentage of products with satisfactory test results meets the international standard and we will also report whether the test results of food products are up to par on a regular basis. Mr Paul TSE especially asked whether the authorities have found any forged certificates. I do not have the relevant information on hand. If the


Member does not mind, let me check if relevant information is available. If there is, I will submit it to the Legislative Council. (Appendix I) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question. Withdrawal of Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange Limited's Automated Trading Services Authorization 5. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I declare that I am a securities dealer. My licence number is 146. President, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) announced on 18 May this year that it had received notification from the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange Limited (HKMEx) of its decision to surrender its authorization to provide automated trading services (the authorization) after considering that its trading revenues had been insufficient to support its operating expenses. As authorized automated trading services providers must have sufficient financial resources, the SFC therefore withdrew the HKMEx's authorization with immediate effect pursuant to the relevant rules. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:

(a) when the SFC became aware of the HKMEx not having sufficient financial resources; and

(b) whether, in the past, there were other financial institutions which

had, on their own volition, surrendered their authorizations or licences for conducting securities and futures businesses due to failure to meet the relevant requirements; if so, of the details; as the Chairman of the HKMEx has reportedly said that the HKMEx will complete a rights issue to raise funds in the amount of US$100 million by the end of June for the HKMEx to resume operation, whether a financial institution, for which the SFC has withdrawn the authorization, may have its licence restored automatically without the need to re-apply for the licence; if it may, of the details?


12495

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, on 18 May 2013, the SFC announced that the HKMEx had notified the SFC of its decision to surrender its authorization to provide automated trading services (ATS) after it considered that the trading revenues had not been sufficient to support its operating expenses. An authorized ATS provider must have financial resources sufficient for the proper performance of its functions and obligations. In the circumstances, the SFC had issued a formal notice of withdrawal of the HKMEx's authorization pursuant to section 98 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO). The withdrawal took immediate effect. The SFC issued a press release on this on the same day. On 21 May 2013, the SFC issued a further statement on the withdrawal of HKMEx's ATS authorization, indicating that the SFC had initiated an investigation into suspected irregularities in the financial affairs of the HKMEx, and referred certain matters to the Commercial Crime Bureau of the police as the suspected irregularities are serious ones. The SFC indicated that it would continue its investigation and would co-operate fully with the Commercial Crime Bureau. The two press releases issued by the SFC are attached in Annexes 1 and 2 to this main reply for Members' reference. I understand Mr CHEUNG's concerns over the case in question. However, as the investigations by the SFC and the Commercial Crime Bureau are ongoing, it is not appropriate for me to make any specific comment on the case. That said, having consulted the SFC, I would provide some general information for reference. An ATS provider is someone who provides an electronic platform on which financial products may be traded or cleared. In general, an authorized ATS provider will be required to have sufficient financial resources for the proper performance of its functions and obligations. As to what constitutes sufficient financial resources, the SFC will take into consideration key factors such as the projected expenditure of the ATS operation from time to time, which in turn will be affected by the size and characteristics of the trading platform and the markets traded on the platform. It follows that the financial resources required may change over time as the size and characteristics of the ATS operation changes. According to the SFC, there have been no other cases of authorized ATS providers failing to meet financial requirements so far.


With reference to the case of the HKMEx, Mr CHEUNG has raised in his question as to whether a financial institution, for which the SFC has withdrawn the authorization, may have its licence restored automatically without the need to re-apply for the licence. The SFC has pointed out that it is not appropriate to comment on matters specific to the HKMEx as investigations by the SFC and the Commercial Crime Bureau are still afoot. In general, however, once an ATS authorization is revoked, an application for the same authorization would be treated as a fresh application. The SFC will look at the merits of each application and take into account all relevant factors, including all information in its possession. The same approach is adopted vis-à-vis licensed persons.

Annex 1 HKMEx surrenders its ATS authorization 18 May 2013 The Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange Limited (HKMEx) has notified the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) that it has decided to surrender its authorization to provide automated trading services (ATS) after it considered that the trading revenues have not been sufficient to support its operating expenses(Note 1). An authorized ATS provider must have financial resources sufficient for the proper performance of its functions and obligations. In the circumstances, the SFC has issued a formal notice of withdrawal of HKMEx's ATS authorization(Note 2). The withdrawal takes immediate effect and prohibits the HKMEx from continuing to provide ATS. According to the HKMEx's market exit plan, positions remaining open as at the close of trading on 16 May 2013 will be financially settled at the settlement price determined by the HKMEx and its designated clearinghouse. To ensure that this proceeds in an orderly manner, the HKMEx is required to contact its members as soon as practicable.


12497

The SFC will maintain close contact with the HKMEx to ensure that the final settlement process is conducted in an orderly manner. End Notes: 1. On 26 April 2011, pursuant to section 95(2) of the Securities and Futures

Ordinance (SFO), the SFC authorized HKMEx to provide ATS for the purposes of operating a commodities futures market in Hong Kong.

2. The formal notice of withdrawal was issued pursuant to section 98(1) of the SFO.

Page last updated: 18 May 2013

Annex 2 SFC statement on HKMEx 21 May 2013 The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) issues the following statement in relation to the withdrawal of the authorization of the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange Limited (HKMEx) as an automated trading services (ATS) provider(Note 1). As a result of the recent deterioration in the HKMEx's financial position,

the SFC notified the HKMEx of its intention to withdraw its ATS authorization.

The Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO) requires the SFC to give the HKMEx an opportunity to respond to the SFC's concerns before a withdrawal decision may be made(Note 2). In accordance with this statutory obligation, the SFC provided the HKMEx with time to respond to its concerns. Giving a party procedural fairness is a legal obligation. It is not a sign of any special treatment nor does it mean the SFC was applying a flexible approach in ensuring the HKMEx complied with all relevant obligations.


At the end of this process, the HKMEx was unable to satisfy the SFC that it had complied or could comply with the financial condition attached to its authorization(Note 3).

The SFC proceeded to withdraw the authorization with immediate effect after the HKMEx decided not to contest the SFC's decision and agreed to surrender its authorization. This allowed the HKMEx to prepare for an orderly wind down of open positions(Note 4).

The process for winding down the HKMEx's trading operations is entirely different from the process that might apply to a troubled broker. The HKMEx did not hold client assets so no circularization was necessary.

The closing of open positions has been smooth and is now complete. The independent clearing house used by the HKMEx, LCH.Clearnet, has commenced the process of returning collateral relating to the HKMEx's market back to clearing members.

Last Wednesday, the SFC initiated an investigation into suspected irregularities in the financial affairs of the HKMEx. In light of the evidence obtained, the SFC referred certain matters to the Commercial Crime Bureau as the suspected irregularities are serious ones. For obvious reasons, it was not appropriate to disclose these matters to the HKMEx or to the public pending further steps in the investigation. Those steps were taken earlier today. The SFC will continue its investigation and will co-operate fully with the Commercial Crime Bureau.

The SFC will not make further comment while investigation continues. End Notes: 1. The withdrawal was made under section 98 of the SFO. 2. Please see section 98(4) of the SFO. 3. The Notice of Authorization for the HKMEx to provide ATS is available on

the SFC's website, and sets out the conditions imposed. 4. Please see the SFC's press release dated 18 May 2013. Page last updated: 21 May 2013


12499

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I asked the Secretary when he became aware of the financial difficulties of the HKMEx in my main question, but he did not answer that part of my question. According to some non-executive directors (NEDs) of the SFC and Executive Council Members, they were aware about the financial problems of the HKMEx as early as a year ago. It was just that the HKMEx always managed to raise sufficient fund at the last minute. Why was the SFC so lenient to the HKMEx and just let it off? Had the SFC fallen asleep or overlooked the situation? If some ordinary securities dealers were involved in this case, the SFC would definitely act stringently and suspend their licences right away. No leniency would be given, not to mention the SFC had allowed the HKMEx one whole year to deal with its financial problems or discuss with it the possible solutions. As the HKMEx was a licensee authorized by the SFC, it must have financial resources sufficient for maintaining service standard as required in its licence and performing its obligations as an exchange. What had the SFC done during the year to ensure the proper discharge of obligations by the HKMEx? Did it discover anyone providing false documents? The SFC required the HKMEx to declare its financial status. Then, why did it allow the HKMEx to solicit new members in the past year when it was actually aware of the financial problems of the HKMEx? Was it appropriate for the SFC to do so? The cornerstone of the financial market is …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, although I cannot hear you clearly, it seems that you have just raised a lot of questions. Please raise your supplementary question clearly. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I will read it out again. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please do not read it out again. You just need to raise a supplementary question. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Fine, I now raise my last supplementary question. The cornerstone of the financial market is the


confidence that everyone will be treated equally before the law. The regulation of financial institutions must be fair, reasonable and transparent …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, you are still not raising your supplementary question. Please stop making comments and just ask your supplementary question. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Alright. I know this case has been referred to the Commercial Crime Bureau for follow-up. But how can we know that the Commercial Crime Bureau and the SFC will not come up with their own version of investigation? When the police ask the SFC for information, will the SFC give its full co-operation? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would suggest that Members should not read out their lengthy speech when asking supplementary questions. Secretary, please answer. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG has asked a number of questions in his supplementary question, reflecting his concern over this case. However, as this case is now investigated by the SFC and the Commercial Crime Bureau, it is not appropriate for me to comment on it. What I can say is that both the SFC and the police will surely investigate this case in a just and fair manner. Mr CHEUNG has just asked whether ATS providers will be treated differently as compared to other market players. I think I have to respond to this question. As ATS providers and other licensees in the securities and futures industry are different in terms of functions and operation modes, they should not be compared directly. For ATS providers, they are market operators instead of intermediaries. Therefore, the regulation of ATS providers focuses on the transaction systems they provide to the market. Also, as ATS providers provide transaction facilities rather than clearing facilities, they will not hold any assets for their clients, and hence, they are subject to different regulation from other


12501

licensees. Different sets of provisions in the SFO are applicable to ATS providers and other licensees. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, as a matter of fact, the Secretary has not answered part (a) of Mr Christopher CHEUNG's main question. Mr CHAN Kam-lam, one of the NEDs of the SFC, had previously come across some confidential information when discharging his duties. Yet, he was bold enough to take the risk of breaching confidentiality and revealed that he had known about the situation of the HKMEx for a year. If the Government now fails to answer …… the NED of the SFC has already confirmed this point. If the Government still fails to answer this question, what kind of offence does it want to be charged? Is the Government trying to conceal this incident or condone someone? President, according to the South China Morning Post, the latest development as at today is that the police have asked the SFC to stop its investigation for fear that it will hinder their investigation. Are there any complicated issues which have not yet been revealed? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TO, please raise your supplementary question clearly. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, my supplementary question is, given that the Government has not yet confirmed when it was aware of this incident, nor has it informed us of the latest development, including the news report that the police may have asked the SFC to stop its investigation, does it mean that there are some complicated issues which have not yet been revealed? Can the Government answer this question in brief to assure us that there will be a just and thorough investigation on this incident? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I think Members should also understand that it is inappropriate for me to comment on this case as it is under investigation. However, we have made it clear from the very beginning that the SFC and the police will conduct a just and fair investigation on this case. They will look into different issues in their joint investigation.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? Please raise your supplementary question clearly. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is, have the police asked the SFC to stop its investigation? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I can just repeat that the police and the SFC are working together in this investigation. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I have, in my hand, a document obtained from the Company Registry (CR). It is a special resolution passed by the HKMEx on 10 January 2013, approving a rights issue in the amount of US$100 million. However, after checking the record, we find that the HKMEx has not yet filed a Return of Allotments, which is commonly known as "Form SC1". In other words, the rights issue has not yet been successfully completed. As the financial problems of the HKMEx had sounded the financial alarm since 10 January 2013 when it had to raise US$100 million, why did the SFC not withdraw its licence until May? Was the law-enforcement action being partial to the HKMEx? Did the SFC ignore this filed document even if it was available for access at the CR since January, proving that the HKMEx was in serious financial trouble? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I would like to thank Mr KWOK for raising this supplementary question and his efforts to study this incident. Regarding this incident, I cannot comment on its particulars today. All I can say is that this incident is under investigation. On this occasion, what we can discuss and what I am going and willing to speak on are the policies relevant to this incident. As regards the discussion of relevant policies, I know the SFC will attend the next meeting of the Panel on Financial Affairs. By then, we may also follow up some policy issues.


12503

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Since this document issued in January had revealed that the HKMEx was in financial trouble, why did the SFC wait until to withdraw its licence? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can you please answer this question? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I have already answered this question. MR ABRAHAM SHEK: As the matter has aroused international market concern, I would like to ask about a policy issue. Could the Secretary please explain the difference between voluntary withdrawal of ATS and termination of ATS? What is the difference? And in this case of voluntary withdrawal, which is where HKMEx is, will the government issue a termination order on the ATS? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY: From what I understand, what has happened, according to the press release issued by the SFC, is that the SFC was concerned about the financial affairs of the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange. On that basis, the SFC was going to take action to terminate the authorization. And it was on that basis that the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange decided to surrender the authorization. As far as the SFC is concerned, the arrangement is basically aimed to allow the market to have the time to clear the trade, and to settle the trade for the interest of protecting the market disciplines and achieving the objective. And of course, if Members have more questions about the nature of the authorization, I am sure the SFC will be very happy to answer their questions at the panel meeting. MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): President, just now, my supplementary question was that, regarding voluntary withdrawal and termination of licence by the SFC, what ……


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Do you want to ask the Secretary the difference between them? MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not given me an explanation. Perhaps, I …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, you have already repeated your supplementary question. Please let the Secretary answer. MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can you please explain to Mr Abraham SHEK the difference between voluntary withdrawal and termination of licence? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I have already answered this question. For what I understand, the SFC has stated the development of this incident in its press release. The SFC agreed to the HKMEx's decision to surrender its authorization as it was in line with the requirement of the SFC. Besides, I have explained in my main reply that any application for the same authorization by an operator will be treated as a fresh application. MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): According to the SFC's press release dated 21 May 2013, which is attached to the main reply, the closing of open positions has been smooth and is now complete. The independent clearing house used by the HKMEx has commenced the process of returning collateral relating to HKMEx's market back to clearing members. From this statement, it seems that the members have not suffered any losses. However, by withdrawing the authorization this time, the SFC has still dealt a blow to the market. In the view of some people, as the HKMEx only engaged in gold and silver trading, there was little room for its survival. My supplementary question is: Will the


12505

SFC consider requiring similar companies to submit a three-year or five-year plan to ensure they can survive before giving them an authorization? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I believe the SFC will consider a wide range of factors before issuing an ATS licence. These factors will certainly include financial resources and risk management as an ATS provider is indeed a trading platform. The SFC will also consider issues like the operational stability of trading platform, transparency and obligations. I am sure the SFC will have requirements in these aspects. Of course, in processing applications, the SFC will consider whether applicants can meet these requirements in their operation. However, I think the SFC will revise its regulatory requirements in view of market changes. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, many people in the financial sector consider the HKMEx incident the largest financial scandal and fraud after the reunification. This incident has aroused much criticism in Hong Kong, and I believe it has caused the concerns of the international community and the Mainland as well. Just now, the Secretary said that this incident was under investigation. I understand that there are many questions which he cannot answer right now. Therefore, President, my supplementary question is: As we all know, Secretary Paul CHAN Mo-po has recently told another lie in saying that when he recommended to reappoint the HKMEx's Chairman Barry CHEUNG Chun-yuen as Chairman of the Urban Renewal Authority, he did not know that Mr CHEUNG and the HKMEx had financial problems. It seems that he is secluded from the world. Worse still, he has tried to absolve himself from responsibility by using the Financial Secretary as a shield again. He said the reappointment was agreed by the Financial Secretary. However, as the saying goes, "one must die if it is the king's order"…… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please ask your supplementary question. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): When the Chief Executive wants to appoint someone, can the Financial Secretary say no? My supplementary question is: Can the Secretary act on our behalf and ask the Chief Executive's Office to do a


comprehensive survey on the Chief Executive, the three Secretaries of Departments, the 12 Directors of Bureaux and all Executive Council Members to find out which of them had actually known about this incident long ago? Were they well aware of the financial problems of Mr Barry CHEUNG and the HKMEx but did not immediately address the issue and follow up on the case? Can the Government provide us with a detailed report to dispel the doubts of all Hong Kong people and give the financial and political sectors a clear account of the whole incident? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I believe that this incident, now under investigation, also involves many other particulars which are widely concerned by the public, but since the incident is now under investigation, it is inappropriate for me to comment on these particulars. Regarding the supplementary question just raised by Dr LAM Tai-fai, if the focus is on the appointment of Mr Barry CHEUNG, Dr LAM may refer to the press release issued by the Development Bureau on behalf of the Government explaining the reasons for Mr CHEUNG's appointment. On this issue, I do not think there are any issues I have to follow up. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): The question is whether any of the three Secretaries of Departments, 12 Directors of Bureaux and Executive Council Members had known long ago about the financial problems of the HKMEx or Mr CHEUNG. That is why I wish to ask the Chief Executive's Office, through the Secretary, to do a comprehensive survey and submit a survey report. My request is indeed very humble and practicable …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have already repeated your supplementary question. Please sit down. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): Yes. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?


12507

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I have already responded to the main point of the supplementary question by saying that the press release has stated the stance of the Government. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent almost 24 minutes on this question. Last question seeking an oral reply. Statutory Minimum Wage Rate as a Criterion for Setting Income Limits for Application for Public Rental Housing 6. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, with effect from 1 May 2013, the statutory minimum wage (SMW) rate has been adjusted upward from $28 per hour to $30. Calculated on the basis that each household member works for nine hours per day and 26 days per month, the monthly household income of $14,040 of a dual-income two-person household earning minimum wages will have exceeded the 2013-2014 Waiting List (WL) income limit for public rental housing (PRH) for two-person households (that is, $13,750). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of households whose applications for allocation of PRH units in each of the past three years had been rejected because their household income had exceeded the prescribed WL income limits as a result of all their household members earning minimum wages;

(b) whether the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) has collected the

following information: among the households on the WL, of the current number of those whose members all earn minimum wages, and the per capita monthly income of these members; if it has, of the details; if not, whether the Government will suggest HA to collect such information; and

(c) given that the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority

(MPFA) has, in the light of the adjustment to the SMW rate, suggested that the minimum level of the relevant income for Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) contributions be increased to


$7,100, whether the authorities will recommend HA to make reference to the practice of MPFA and prescribe the SMW rate as one of the criteria for setting the WL income limits; if they will not, of the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, the HA has put in place a WL system through which low-income families that cannot afford to rent private accommodation may apply for PRH. WL income and asset limits have been set to determine the eligibility of PRH applicants. Details are at Annex A. The limits are reviewed once annually to keep abreast of the latest socio-economic circumstances. My reply to the three parts of the question as raised by Mr KWOK Wai-keung is as follows:

(a) and (b) Currently, the HA does not require applicants to indicate whether

they are receiving the SMW, and therefore does not have the number of cases as requested in the question. I wish to point out that the SMW only stipulates the minimum hourly rate. However, since the actual working hours and other employment arrangements (such as whether rest time is counted in wage assessment, and so on) of each individual is different, even if they are receiving the SMW, their exact wage level and total monthly income may vary among them and be different. The existing practice of the HA is to require PRH applicants and their household members to declare their total monthly income at the time of application and prior to PRH allocation to assess whether PRH applicants and their household members satisfy the WL income limit applicable to the respective household size.

Nonetheless, the HA has taken into account changes in income in the

newly revised WL income limits. The HA's Subsidized Housing Committee (SHC) examined the review mechanism of WL income limits at its meeting on 7 February this year. The existing expenditure-based mechanism has worked well and has provided an


12509

objective assessment of the affordability of households applying for PRH. Changes in income, including the implementation and changes in the SMW, will be reflected in changes in expenditure in the long run. However, in view of the fact that changes in income may not be reflected in a timely manner in the WL income limits before the results of the latest Household Expenditure Survey are updated, the SHC has agreed to refine the mechanism for reviewing the income limits.

Under the refined mechanism, the non-housing cost component is

adjusted by either the change in the Consumer Price Index (A) (excluding the housing cost) or the nominal wage index obtained through the Labour Earnings Survey conducted quarterly by the Census and Statistics Department, whichever is higher. The nominal wage index covers occupational groups at non-managerial/professional levels (for example, technical, clerical, service workers and craftsmen, and so on) who are most likely to be applicants for PRH. Therefore, the change in nominal wage index can help in gauging changes in income of the PRH target group and in reflecting the impact on their income after the introduction of the SMW.

(c) Under the MPF system, MPF contributions of employees are based

on their individual income. However, there is no projection on their household income. As regards whether an applicant's household income satisfies the WL income limit, it is dependent on the applicant's overall household income. Therefore, it is not appropriate to adopt the calculation method for MPF contributions as the criteria for determining the WL income limits.

Under the current policy of PRH allocation, WL income limits are

derived on a household expenditure basis to assess the affordability of applicants. The basis for the relevant policy consideration is different from that of MPF contributions.

After comprehensive assessment, the HA considers that the

enhanced mechanism on the review of WL income limits has taken into account changes in income, including the implementation of the


SMW, while maintaining the well-functioning household expenditure-led review mechanism based on affordability. Using the refined review mechanism, the derived WL income limits for 2013-2014 have increased by an overall average of 6% over the income limits for 2012-2013. The comparison figures are at Annex B.

President, we will continue to conduct annual reviews of the WL

income limits in accordance with the refined mechanism, with a view to responding to the latest socio-economic circumstances and assessing the affordability of households applying for PRH in an objective manner.

Annex A

WL Income and Asset Limits for 2013-2014

Household Size WL Income Limits for

2013-2014(1) WL Asset Limits for

2013-2014(2) 1-Person $8,880 ($9,347) $212,000 2-Person $13,750 ($14,474) $286,000 3-Person $18,310 ($19,274) $374,000 4-Person $22,140 ($23,305) $436,000 5-Person $25,360 ($26,695) $485,000 6-Person $28,400 ($29,895) $524,000 7-Person $31,630 ($33,295) $560,000 8-Person $33,810 ($35,589) $587,000 9-Person $37,850 ($39,842) $648,000

10-Person and above $39,740 ($41,832) $698,000 Notes: (1) Figures in brackets denote the effective income limits should a household be contributing

5% of its income under the MPF Scheme as required by law. (2) Asset limits for elderly households (including both nuclear and non-nuclear households

comprising solely elderly members) are set at two times of the limits for non-elderly applicants.


12511

Annex B

WL Income Limits for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014

Household Size WL Income Limits for

2012-2013(1) WL Income Limits for

2013-2014(1) 1-Person $8,740 ($9,200) $8,880 ($9,347) 2-Person $13,410 ($14,116) $13,750 ($14,474) 3-Person $17,060 ($17,958) $18,310 ($19,274) 4-Person $20,710 ($21,800) $22,140 ($23,305) 5-Person $23,640 ($24,884) $25,360 ($26,695) 6-Person $26,590 ($27,989) $28,400 ($29,895) 7-Person $29,560 ($31,116) $31,630 ($33,295) 8-Person $31,620 ($33,284) $33,810 ($35,589) 9-Person $35,360 ($37,221) $37,850 ($39,842)

10-Person and above $37,150 ($39,105) $39,740 ($41,832) Note: (1) Figures in brackets denote the effective income limits should a household be contributing

5% of its income under the MPF Scheme as required by law. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I think the Secretary has not directly answered my main question, nor has he grasped the relevant figures. The Secretary has emphasized in part (b) of the main reply that the relevant survey has taken changes in income into account, while the existing mechanism for calculating the income limits has worked well and has provided an objective assessment of the affordability of households applying for PRH, but obviously, no assessment has been conducted on the affordability of those who are not eligible to apply for PRH. I would like to stress here that the present minimum wage of $30 per hour is low. Two years ago, we requested to raise it to $33, and now we propose to raise it to $35 to $37. How can a low minimum wage rate facilitate people to support their families? Given that the minimum wage rate is actually low, how come a low-income family with both the husband and wife earning minimum wages is ineligible to apply for PRH? What actually is meant by "affordable


level", and are these low-income families with the husband and wife earning minimum wages the targets of PRH subsidy? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): All along, the HA has set the income limits for PRH applications on the basis of the applicants' affordability. Of course, in assessing their affordability, consideration will also be given to whether they can afford private housing with their income level. Our assessment has been based on household expenditure which is divided into two parts. The first part is the housing cost and the second part is the non-housing cost. Regarding the housing cost, we would first consider the average space of PRH flats allocated by the HA to households of different sizes in the past three years and then make the calculation with reference to the average rent per square foot in private dwellings derived from the survey. Regarding the non-housing cost, we would adopt the average non-housing expenditure of the lower half expenditure group amongst tenant households in the private sector and make adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index (A). A 5% contingency provision would also be included. This has been our practice in the past. However, as I have said in the main reply, the HA reviewed this mechanism in February this year. Considering that change in wages is a highly important factor, we will also make adjustment based on the change in the nominal wage index, depending on which change is higher. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, has your supplementary question not been answered? MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Right, the Secretary has not answered whether he will grasp such information, and when he will be able to grasp it. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Just now your supplementary question did not include this query. If you wish to raise this query, please wait for another turn.


12513

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, was this main reply written by the Secretary? If it was written by him, it really does not tally with his status as a scholar because being a scholar …… I know that when it was announced that the minimum wage would be increased to $30, members of the HA asked at that time whether this factor should be taken into account in considering the income limits for PRH applications. A few members of the HA had already expressed this view, but the officials in the HA did not listen. Now even the MPFA has listened to the various views in society, so it proposes the increase to $7,100 …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, please raise your supplementary question. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, now I would like to ask the Secretary, in the face of such a situation, the HA has obviously got a problem, and the blame rests here, but he should not take responsibility for it, since this would affect his status as a scholar. I would like to ask what remedies the Secretary has. In February this year, he set the level, but two-person households receiving minimum wages are actually unable to wait for PRH. Does the Secretary consider that these people have the financial means, so there is no need to care about them? However, if we look objectively, that is not the case. They are not financially …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, please refrain from making comments. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): I know. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you have asked your question, please sit down and let the Secretary reply. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): My question is, now what solutions does the Secretary have to remedy the wrong decision made by the HA at that time?


SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, coming from the academic field, I certainly would not merely read out the answer drafted for me by the colleagues in the department. I would definitely think by myself. All along, in assessing the applicants' affordability, the HA would not only look at their income but also their expenditure. We would set the household expenditure ― whether it be the housing cost or non-housing cost ― at a level which we regard as reasonable, and determine on this basis the probable income level of households of different sizes. That means if their income is lower than this level, we would consider that it is impossible for them to afford the rents in the private market or rent private housing. Of course, every year when the income limits are reviewed or revised, members of the SHC will hold a lot of discussions because if the limits are set at a higher level, more people will become eligible, and chances of people with lower income will be smaller. Therefore this matter will be discussed every year. Just now Miss CHAN Yuen-han mentioned that in February this year, members of the SHC advised that the issue of the minimum wage should be considered. It is true that the minimum wage will pose an impact, but in considering the issue, we certainly cannot take only one factor into account because after all, we need to ask how consistency can be achieved so that households of different sizes will be considered under consistent criteria. During its consideration, the SHC was of the view that to enhance the mechanism, it was necessary to adopt the change in nominal wage index as the basis for adjustment. Changes in nominal wage index after the implementation of the SMW may actually reflect the impact from the minimum wage. As a result, using the change in nominal wage index as the basis for adjustment should generally reflect the impact brought by the minimum wage. Of course, as mentioned by Miss CHAN or Mr KWOK just now, what if it is a dual-income two-person household receiving minimum wages? The problem is, if this question is further extended to a three-person household in which all the three members are in employment, or a four-person household in which all the four members are in employment, that means a couple together with two family members of working age, how should we make the calculation? This is not a problem which can be solved easily.


12515

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my question directly. Being the HA's Chairman, he …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat the part which you think the Secretary has not answered. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is, while the MPFA has now raised the minimum level of the relevant income for MPF contributions to $7,100, which is a more sensible approach, the reply made by the Secretary just now was still …… he has not answered me whether he is going to take any remedial measures. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, the Secretary has already given an answer. It is only that you are not satisfied with his reply. If Members do not agree with the existing policy reflected in the Secretary's reply, please follow up through other channels. MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, according to paragraph 2 in parts (a) and (b) of the main reply, the HA examined the review mechanism of WL income limits at its meeting on 7 February this year, and then the reply points out that this mechanism is still working well. It is often mentioned in the community, and it has also been mentioned by this Council and me that members of the public have been unhappy that some people whose income reaches $70,000 to $80,000, which is obviously higher than the income limit, have occupied subsidized housing for a long time. Could the Policy Bureau take reasonable action to plug these loopholes and make public information on the transfer of such housing assets, so that there will be reasonable distribution of assets for public use? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, what Mr NG Leung-sing referred to just now should be the policy of reasonable utilization of PRH resources currently implemented by the HA, commonly known as the "well-off tenants policy". Under this policy, if the tenants' income is a certain times higher than the income limit, and the amount of


their assets is equivalent to a certain times of the income limit, the HA will request them to move out. Of course, as I have explained in my replies to some questions in this Council before, there are two pillars in the HA's policy. If the tenants' income exceeds the limit and their assets also exceed the limit prescribed under what is called the "well-off tenants policy", they will have to move away from the PRH. I know there are different views in the Council, and there are different views in the community as well. In fact, during the present discussions of the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee (SC) on the "well-off tenants policy", there are both positive and negative views. The SC will continue to examine the divergent views in this regard and study whether there is any room for enhancement. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, if my memory does not fail me, last month the SC discussed the points system for PRH applications made by non-elderly singletons, during which some members pointed out that this was another queue bound by harsh terms. Singletons on the waiting list wish to get PRH allocation within three years, but basically, it is just a fantasy. Why did I stray that far from the question? Because just now I heard the Secretary say, if two-person households receiving minimum wages need to be considered, then what about three-person, four-person and five-person households? Here I would like to make one point …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, please do not try to point out the problem. Please raise your supplementary question and let the Secretary reply. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Okay, but this is related to the supplementary question. At present, singletons receiving minimum wages are eligible for PRH application, but two-person households receiving minimum wages are not. I would like to ask the Secretary, does he wish to force people to apply for PRH as singletons instead of allowing couples receiving minimum wages to apply for PRH?


12517

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, the situation mentioned by Mr KWOK just now has indeed been brought up by members of the SHC in its discussion before. However, as I have said in my main reply and the previous reply, the HA determines the income limits by affordability, which is calculated by the housing cost and non-housing cost plus a 5% contingency provision. Of course, if an individual applicant's wage exceeds the upper limit, or his overall household income exceeds the upper limit, there will be a problem. Hence, it is never easy to draw the boundary lines. Why did I cite three-person or even four-person households as examples in my illustration earlier? The reason is, if we assume all the members of a household receive full-time income at the SMW rate and use this assumption as the basis, then the whole system will turn out to be entirely different and cease to be a system which determines the limits by expenditure. Just now Miss CHAN Yuen-han also asked about the MPFA. As I have said in the main reply, the MPFA's factor of consideration is the employees' contribution. The purpose is different in the HA, which is to determine the income limits. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered me whether the relevant policy forces people to apply for PRH as singletons? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, there is currently a separate queue for singletons under what is called the Quota and Points System. Furthermore, regarding this queue, the target of maintaining the average waiting time at three years for PRH allocation does not apply. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered one question, for which I am now raising a supplementary question. Will the HA change its principle so that households earning minimum wages may also apply for PRH, rather than making the calculation based on affordability


under its present approach? Will it determine the eligibility criteria for PRH application by income instead, so that people earning minimum wages may also apply for PRH? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, as I have said in the main reply earlier, in determining the income limits or the relevant eligibility criteria for PRH application, the HA must keep abreast of the times and reflect the latest economic situation in society. Nevertheless, whether in the main reply or in reply to other Members' supplementary questions, I have mentioned that all along ― by "all along", I mean over the last two or three decades ― when we calculated the income limits, the calculation would be based on affordability which was calculated by expenditure. Consideration would only be given to expenditure irrespective of income because the level of expenditure could reflect the situation where low-income families in society could not afford the rents for private housing. The introduction of the SMW has indeed brought forth some changes. The SHC has tried to reflect such changes through the change in nominal wage index. As for whether only the SWM should be adopted as the basis, as I have pointed out in the main reply, how to define the number of hours and whether the number of hours adopted by the MPFA is definitely the best are still open to question. Anyway, if the calculation is based on wages, with regard to three-person or four-person households, how many members should we suppose to be in employment? This is also a specific controversial question. Nevertheless, the views reflected by Members today will certainly be heard and further studied by the HA. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not replied. He really has not replied. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your supplementary question.


12519

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is, at present, there is just one criterion, but never mind, I can understand that. However, can there be two criteria, and so long as the applicant can meet one of the criteria, he will be allocated a PRH flat? That is also the case when we work. Suppose there are three criteria. So long as one of the criteria is met, then …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Do you mean that people who are receiving minimum wages will be eligible? Is the other criterion mentioned by you as simple as that? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): That is right. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can consideration be given to including this criterion proposed by the Member? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, here I cannot arbitrarily say anything on behalf of the HA or its SHC, since they must be careful and thorough when they consider any issue. Earlier, I have explained the basis of the existing policy and how the issue was handled when some members of the SHC brought up this factor of the minimum wage early this year. It can be said that the present approach is to try to find a proper balance point. With regard to the non-housing cost, in the past we would only consider the change in the consumer price index. Now we have added another element to look at the change in the overall nominal wage index and adopt the higher one among the two changes as the basis. Of course, this has not specifically settled the question put forward by Mr KWOK, that means the question which arises when both the husband and wife are in employment, yet it actually involves conflicts of different principles. Nonetheless, I understand Members' views. I will take back such views to the HA for further study. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent more than 23 minutes 30 seconds on this question. Oral questions end here.


WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Parking Spaces for Bicycles 7. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the authorities demanded, under the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28), members of the public to remove, before a deadline, their bicycles which were parked inside the designated public parking spaces for bicycles (parking spaces for bicycles) where a traffic sign featuring the letter "P" and a bicycle-shaped figure was erected, or else they would confiscate the bicycles. Some members of the public have pointed out that they are confused as the authorities have not provided any clear guidelines on the requirements for the use of parking spaces for bicycles. They are also of the view that at present, parking spaces for bicycles in various districts are insufficient. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of illegally parked bicycles confiscated by the

authorities in the past three years and, among such bicycles, the number of those which were parked inside parking spaces for bicycles;

(b) of the requirements that must be met for legal parking of bicycles

under the existing legislation, and the reasons for the authorities confiscating the bicycles parked inside parking spaces for bicycles;

(c) whether the Government has publicized the requirements for legal

parking of bicycles among members of the public at present; if it has not, of the reasons for that; if it has, of the details and the relevant expenditure each year, and whether it will step up its efforts in public education;

(d) of a breakdown by District Council (DC) district of the current

number of parking spaces for bicycles throughout the territory; the number of additional parking spaces for bicycles requested by each DC in the past three years, and the number of parking spaces for bicycles newly added to each DC district;

(e) whether it has plans to conduct, in collaboration with the 18 DCs in

the near future, a comprehensive consultation and review in respect


12521

of the issue of insufficient parking spaces for bicycles; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(f) of the progress of the Transport Department (TD)'s trials on the new

"double-deck" parking systems in Fan Ling and Tai Po; whether the systems will be installed throughout the territory with a view to increasing the number of parking spaces for bicycles; if so, of the details and implementation timetable?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to Miss CHAN Yuen-han's question is as follows:

(a) and (b) Under section 8 of the Road Traffic (Parking) Regulations

(Cap. 374C), any person who parks a vehicle in a parking place for a continuous period of more than 24 hours commits an offence. This is also applicable in governing public parking spaces for bicycles. Therefore, a person commits an offence if he parks a bicycle in a public bicycle parking space for a continuous period of more than 24 hours.

The Government has all along been concerned about the illegal

parking of bicycles and prolonged occupation of public bicycle parking spaces by bicycles (including abandoned ones) and other articles. The TD and Lands Department (LandsD) take enforcement actions under their jurisdiction to clear illegally parked bicycles or abandoned articles. The TD may, according to section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), clear bicycles illegally parked at places under its management (such as covered public transport interchanges (PTIs)). The LandsD may, pursuant to section 6(1) of the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28), clear bicycles illegally occupying unleased Government land.

In 2010, 2011 and 2012, the TD confiscated 165, 370 and 329

bicycles respectively at covered PTIs under the Summary Offences


Ordinance. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, the LandsD confiscated 6 651, 7 235 and 6 642 bicycles respectively on unleased Government land under the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance; among the confiscated bicycles, there were 1 365 (year 2010), 2 213 (year 2011) and 1 762 (year 2012) bicycles unlawfully parked at public bicycle parking spaces.

For more complicated and serious situations, departments concerned

such as the relevant District Offices of the Home Affairs Department, LandsD, TD, Hong Kong Police Force (Police) and Food and Environmental Hygiene Department will conduct joint operations to clear illegally placed bicycles and articles. These operations target only prolonged and unlawful parking of bicycles. Members of the public who use bicycle parking spaces properly will not be affected. The clearance operations can effectively release bicycle parking spaces that have been abused for the public to use. Before each operation, the relevant departments will issue notice in advance to the owners concerned and give them enough time to remove their bicycles or articles.

Two days prior to the clearance operation, the TD will close the

public bicycle parking site concerned. Fourteen days before the closure, the TD will issue a notice, informing the public of the date and time of closure of the site. At the same time, the police will post a notice to inform the owners of the bicycles concerned to promptly remove their bicycles. On the day of closure, as the location targeted for clearance is no longer a public bicycle site, bicycles parked there may be considered as illegally occupying unleased Government land. The relevant District Lands Office will attach on each illegally parked bicycle a notice issued under the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance to ask the occupiers/owners to cease occupying the unleased Government land before a specified date (no less than one full day) and take records of all the bicycles attached with such notice. In parallel, the relevant District Lands Office will put up notice at appropriate place to demand the removal of the bicycles concerned by their owners. As such, the owners concerned should be well informed and have enough time to remove their bicycles.


12523

(c) In 2012, the TD launched a one-stop internet-based Cycling Information Centre (CIC) to facilitate public access to information on cycling, including the location of cycle tracks and public bicycle parking spaces. Members of the public may browse the dedicated webpage and obtain information about public bicycle parking facilities. In the legislation section of the CIC, it is clearly stated that parking for more than 24 hours is not allowed under section 8 of the Road Traffic (Parking) Regulations (Cap. 374C).

Besides, the Government has reminded the public to refrain from

prolonged parking of their bicycles via various means, such as meeting with cycling organizations. The Government will continue to step up the publicity and education efforts in this regard. The Government does not have the expenditure breakdown on the publicity of lawful parking of bicycles.

(d) Currently, there are about 42 000 public bicycle parking spaces.

Their distribution in various districts and the information on DCs' requests concerning bicycle parking spaces in the past three years are at Annex.

(e) The Government has been seeking comments from the DCs and

local bodies through various consultative channels, with a view to identifying suitable and feasible locations to provide additional public parking spaces for bicycles.

Over the past three years, the TD installed a total of about 2 000

additional public bicycle parking spaces at major transport hubs and near railway stations in various districts in the New Territories including Tseung Kwan O, Sha Tin, Tai Po, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long.

(f) In collaboration with the Highways Department (HyD), the TD plans

to conduct a pilot scheme on using double-deck bicycle parking rack near the MTR Fanling Station of the East Rail Line (ERL) to increase the number of bicycle parking spaces there. The HyD's contractor is carrying out an on-site mechanical test. The facility is expected to be completed for public use in the latter half of this year.


Subject to the results of the pilot scheme, we plan to conduct another trial on double-deck bicycle parking rack inside the pedestrian subway adjacent to the MTR Tai Po Market Station of the ERL. If the trial results are satisfactory, we will consider extending the installation of these bicycle racks to other districts.

The Government will implement a "bicycle friendly" policy in new

towns and new development areas, and will, under this policy, improve relevant facilities where the geographical and other conditions permit.

Annex

Distribution of bicycle parking spaces in various districts

District Council District

Number of bicycle

parking spaces (as at May 2013)

Request for additional bicycle parking spaces by respective DCs in past three years

Remarks

Central and Western

0 No --

Wan Chai 0 No -- Eastern 17 No -- Southern 0 No -- Kowloon City 0 No -- Sham Shui Po 60 No -- Kwun Tong 0 No -- Kwai Tsing 0 No -- Yau Tsim Mong 51 No -- Wong Tai Sin 0 No -- Islands 5 050 Yes Cheung Chau: The TD

plans to provide 300 to 400 additional bicycle parking spaces near Cheung Chau Pier.


12525

District Council District

Number of bicycle

parking spaces (as at May 2013)

Request for additional bicycle parking spaces by respective DCs in past three years

Remarks

Lamma Island: The Home Affairs Department is planning the construction of a bicycle parking site near Yung Shu Wan Pier to provide about 300 bicycle parking spaces.

North 3 494 No -- Sai Kung 3 836 Yes The application has

been shelved because of the unavailability of proper cycle tracks in the vicinityNote.

Sha Tin 10 620 No -- Tuen Mun 4 170 No -- Tai Po 3 480 No -- Tsuen Wan 170 Yes The application has been

shelved because of the unavailability of proper cycle tracks in the vicinity and geographical constraintsNote.

Yuen Long 11 654 No -- Total 42 602 Note: The DCs concerned have been informed of the development regarding their requests

and have not made further comments. Care and Support Networking Team 8. MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Chinese): President, in reply to the questions raised by Members of this Council in respect of the Estimates of


Expenditure 2013-2014, the authorities indicated that upon review, the performance of the Care and Support Networking Team (CSNT) operating in West Kowloon was considered satisfactory. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the items of services included in and the criteria adopted for the

aforesaid review; (b) of a breakdown, by the criteria referred to in part (a), of the actual

performance of CSNT in the aforesaid review and the relevant statistics;

(c) given that the service contract for CSNT has been extended from

1 July 2012 to 30 June 2015, of the funding allocation and staff establishment for each of the contract years; and

(d) whether the authorities have any plan to provide CSNTs in other

districts? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President,

(a) and (b) The Social Welfare Department (SWD) reviews the

non-governmental organization's (the NGO's) service performance in its operation of the CSNT for marginal groups and its compliance with the service provision standards under the Service Performance Monitoring System, on which a total of eight indicators of service outputs and service outcomes specified in the Funding and Service Agreement (FSA) are mainly based.

The NGO responsible for running the CSNT complied with all the

service performance requirements in the FSA during 2009-2012, and smoothly provided a variety of services to meet the target individuals' needs. In July 2012, considering that the NGO's performance was satisfactory, the SWD extended the service contract for the CSNT to June 2015. The CSNT's yearly performance in terms of actual figures is as follows:


12527

Indicators\Years 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 1 Total number of target

vulnerable individuals newly reached in a year (Agreed level at 400 per year)

465 414 415

2 Total number of target vulnerable individuals successfully referred to other services in a year (Agreed level at 200 per year)

355 310 411

3 Total number of cases handled in a year (Agreed level at 200 per year)

207 290 272

4 Total number of groups organized in a year (Agreed level at 10 per year)

13 10 10

5 Percentage of target vulnerable individuals having their urgent needs met in a year (Agreed level at 80% per year)

99% 100% 99%

6 Percentage of cases reported to have improved network with the community in a year (Agreed level at 80% per year)

96% 93% 96%

7 Percentage of unemployed cases successfully engaged in employment, retraining, and so on, in a year (Agreed level at 35% per year)

42% 37% 45%

8 Percentage of street sleepers successfully accommodated in a year (Agreed level at 50% per year)

78% 75% 75%


(c) The estimate for the CSNT for 2013-2014 is $1.75 million, as compared with the revised estimate of $1.69 million in 2012-2013. The NGO running the CSNT may deploy the provisions and manpower allocated under the Lump Sum Grant Subvention System in a flexible manner to ensure its service quality and to meet the service demand.

(d) The SWD reviews community development services in various

districts in the light of the changing welfare needs, with a view to providing well-suited services to the community. At this point of time, we have no intention to launch similar projects in other districts.

Progress of Construction of Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and Related Immigration Arrangements 9. MR JEFFREY LAM (in Chinese): President, the Transport and Housing Bureau has indicated earlier that the Government has maintained close liaison with the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL), and the on-schedule completion of the Project to construct the Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL Project) and keeping the construction cost within budget have all along been their prime objectives. According to the MTRCL's assessment, these objectives are attainable hitherto. However, it has recently been reported that an internal document of a contractor of the XRL Project has revealed that owing to the increase in costs and change of designs, and so on, some of the works cannot be completed in 2015 as originally planned. It is estimated that the completion date of West Kowloon Terminus will be postponed for 562 days, and the contractor concerned has made a claim to the MTRCL for $1.55 billion to compensate for the expenses arising from the delay in works. Concerning the construction progress of the XRL Project and the related immigration arrangements, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) given that the MTRCL submits a report to the Government on the

construction progress and financial status of the XRL Project every half year, of the date and contents of the latest report submitted by the MTRCL;


12529

(b) how the construction cost and completion date of the XRL Project, based on the latest information submitted to the Government by the MTRCL, compare with those in the original plan; and

(c) given that the authorities have indicated that an inter-disciplinary

task force has been set up to conduct an in-depth study on the relevant arrangements for the co-location of boundary control facilities at the West Kowloon Terminus (WKT), of the present progress and results of the study?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the three parts of Mr Jeffrey LAM's questions is as follows:

(a) The Government has entrusted the design and construction of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) to the MTRCL. All along, the Government has been reporting the progress of the XRL project to the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways of the Legislative Council at a six-month interval. The sixth half-yearly report on the works progress and financial status of the XRL project between 1 July 2012 and 31 December 2012, together with an information paper in response to recent media reports, have been submitted to the Legislative Council earlier and discussed at the Subcommittee's meeting on 24 May 2013.

(b) The XRL project commenced construction in January 2010, with the

target completion date in 2015. The Government has been closely monitoring the implementation of the project to ensure that it will be completed on schedule, within the approved project estimate (of $66.8 billion at money-of-the-day price) and to the required quality of works.

Since commencement of works, the XRL project has been

implemented in an orderly manner. As at end-March 2013, over 70% of the excavation works under the XRL project, including those for the tunnels and the WKT, have been completed. According to the MTRCL's latest assessment, it remains our target to complete the construction of the XRL project in 2015.

In the course of major infrastructural works, it is quite common for

the contractors to encounter situations that are more difficult than


they expected at the time of tendering. Oftentimes, the contractors may submit claims due to various reasons and negotiations with the works agent are required. While any monetary claim has to be substantiated, the final compensation agreed is usually different from the amount claimed. Being a railway station of about 26 m underground, the WKT involves highly complex works that involve numerous interfacing contracts of varying natures, thus requiring thorough co-ordination among all parties concerned.

The contractors have an obligation to complete the works within the

time specified in the contracts. When situations not reasonably expected at the time of tender arise, the contractors may submit claims to the MRTCL in accordance with the relevant contract terms. The MTRCL will carefully scrutinize every claim and the contractors are required to provide sufficient justifications and information to support their claims. Provision has been earmarked in the project funding to cope with unforeseeable situations during construction. According to the current estimation, the project contingencies are adequate to cover the expenses incurred by the claims, causing no overrun in the cost of the XRL project.

We will continue to work closely with all parties concerned to ensure

that the construction of the XRL project will be completed within budget and on time.

(c) As co-location at the WKT of the XRL involves complex legal and

constitutional issues, the Government has been negotiating with the Mainland authorities on customs, immigration and quarantine arrangements for commissioning of the XRL. We will report to the Legislative Council in a timely manner once specific agreement has been reached.

Statistics on Services of Accident and Emergency Departments of Public Hospitals 10. DR LEUNG KA-LAU (in Chinese): President, in connection with the statistics on the services of the accident and emergency (A&E) departments of public hospitals for the year 2012-2013 (or, if such data are not available, statistics from January to December 2012), will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:


12531

(a) a breakdown of the average waiting time of patients by hospitals, A&E triage categories and the following six time slots (set out in a table of the same format as Table 1 for each time slot):

(i) from midnight to 8 am on weekdays; (ii) from 8 am to 4 pm on weekdays; (iii) from 4 pm to midnight on weekdays; (iv) from midnight to 8 am on public holidays; (v) from 8 am to 4 pm on public holidays; and (vi) from 4 pm to midnight on public holidays; Table 1

Cluster Public hospital Category I Category II Category III Category IV Category V (critical) (emergency) (urgent) (semi-urgent) (non-urgent)

Hong Kong East

Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital

Ruttonjee Hospital

St. John Hospital

Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital

Kowloon Central

Queen Elizabeth Hospital

Kowloon East

Tseung Kwan O Hospital

United Christian Hospital

Kowloon West

Caritas Medical Centre

Kwong Wah Hospital

Princess Margaret Hospital

Yan Chai Hospital


Cluster Public hospital Category I Category II Category III Category IV Category V (critical) (emergency) (urgent) (semi-urgent) (non-urgent)

New Territories

East

Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital

North District Hospital

Prince of Wales Hospital

New Territories

West

Pok Oi Hospital

(b) a breakdown of the numbers of attendances by hospitals, A&E triage

categories and the time slots referred to in part (a) (set out in a table of the same format as Table 1 for each time slot);

(c) the average numbers of doctors (broken down further according to

the categories of doctors in Table 2) and nurses working in A&E departments, broken down by hospitals and the time slots referred to in part (a) (set out in a table of the same format as Table 2 for each time slot); Table 2 Time slot: ________ Average number of doctors Average

number of nurses Cluster Public

hospital A&E

specialists

Resident doctors undergoing A&E specialist training

Doctors from other

departments

Hong Kong East


Ruttonjee Hospital

St. John Hospital

…… …… (d) the numbers of part-time doctors and part-time nurses working in

A&E departments, their total numbers of working hours and total remunerations, broken down by hospitals (set out in Table 3); and


12533

Table 3

Cluster Public

hospital

Doctors Nurses

Number

of doctors

Total

number

of working

hours

Total

remuneration

Number

of nurses

Total

number

of working

hours

Total

remuneration

Hong

Kong

East

Pamela

Youde

Nethersole

Eastern

Hospital

Ruttonjee

Hospital

St. John

Hospital

…… ……

(e) a breakdown by hospital of the numbers of doctors and nurses

working in A&E departments who had worked overtime, their total hours of overtime work and total remunerations for overtime work (set out in a table of the same format as Table 3)?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, A&E services are mainly provided at 16 public hospitals under the Hospital Authority (HA). They deliver a high standard of service for critically ill or injured persons who need urgent medical attention. They also provide medical support for victims of disasters. The HA has adopted a triage system which classifies patients attending the A&E departments into five categories according to their clinical conditions so as to ensure that patients with more serious conditions are accorded higher priority in medical treatment. To meet the surging demand for A&E services, the HA has adopted a number of measures to augment healthcare manpower. Such measures include implementing a pilot scheme to recruit additional staff, introducing special honorarium scheme (SHS) to attract doctors to work extra service sessions for A&E departments, recruiting non-local doctors under limited registration, appointing part-time doctors, and strengthening phlebotomist services and clerical support.


The statistical figures pertaining to the A&E services of HA are set out in the tables provided by the Member below.

(a) The overall average waiting time of patients in A&E departments of HA hospitals by triage categories is as follows:

Cluster Hospital

Average waiting time of patients (minutes) (Provisional figures in 2012-2013)

Category I (critical)

Category II (emergency)

Category III (urgent)

Category IV (semi-urgent)

Category V (non-urgent)

Hong Kong East


0 5 15 72 108

Ruttonjee Hospital

0 7 15 45 91

St. John Hospital

0 7 13 20 29

Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital

0 6 21 79 139

Kowloon Central


0 7 27 144 177

Kowloon East


0 5 14 59 63


0 7 20 121 210

Kowloon West


0 7 17 48 50

Kwong Wah Hospital

0 9 21 139 169


0 7 19 110 157

Yan Chai Hospital

0 6 17 93 124

New Territories East


0 6 10 23 24


0 7 20 82 132


0 11 38 134 131

New Territories West

Pok Oi Hospital 0 3 16 84 105 Tuen Mun Hospital

0 3 24 121 135


12535

(i) From midnight to 8 am on weekdays

Cluster Hospital







Hong Kong East


0 5 13 55 82

Ruttonjee Hospital 0 4 8 27 59 St. John Hospital 0 11 12 16 20

Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital

0 5 18 62 117

Kowloon Central


0 7 28 124 137

Kowloon East


0 5 14 48 49


0 7 18 124 187

Kowloon West


0 7 18 54 53

Kwong Wah Hospital

0 7 23 129 128


0 6 17 83 120

Yan Chai Hospital 0 5 16 56 87



0 5 8 13 16


0 5 15 39 73


0 10 33 140 137



0 2 21 96 93

(ii) From 8 am to 4 pm on weekdays

Cluster Hospital







Hong Kong East


0 6 15 77 117


Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital 0 7 22 87 148

Kowloon Central

Queen Elizabeth Hospital 0 7 24 139 185

Kowloon East

Tseung Kwan O Hospital 0 5 14 52 60

United Christian Hospital 0 7 22 116 223


Cluster Hospital







Kowloon West

Caritas Medical Centre 0 8 17 48 51

Kwong Wah Hospital 0 9 21 132 168

Princess Margaret Hospital 0 8 21 123 178




0 7 11 26 26

North District Hospital 0 7 21 93 151

Prince of Wales Hospital 0 12 40 125 118


Pok Oi Hospital 0 4 18 88 108 Tuen Mun Hospital 0 3 26 113 135

(iii) From 4 pm to midnight on weekdays

Cluster Hospital







Hong Kong East


0 6 15 80 118


Hong Kong West


Kowloon Central


Kowloon East



Kowloon West







0 5 10 25 25






12537

(iv) From midnight to 8 am on public holidays

Cluster Hospital







Hong Kong East


0 4 13 51 75


Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital

0 5 19 66 117

Kowloon Central


0 7 30 163 159

Kowloon East


0 5 14 68 55


0 7 19 138 190

Kowloon West


0 7 18 58 56

Kwong Wah Hospital

0 10 24 167 190


0 6 17 89 121




0 6 7 13 15


0 6 16 41 74


0 11 33 137 145



0 4 21 102 103

(v) From 8 am to 4 pm on public holidays

Cluster Hospital







Hong Kong East


0 6 13 52 85


Hong Kong West


Kowloon Central


Kowloon East




Cluster Hospital







Kowloon West







0 5 9 24 22





(vi) From 4 pm to midnight on public holidays

Cluster Hospital







Hong Kong East


0 5 14 77 108


Hong Kong West


Kowloon Central


Kowloon East



Kowloon West







0 5 9 21 23






12539

(b) The breakdown of the total number of attendances of A&E departments of various HA hospitals in 2012-2013 (provisional figures) is as follows：

Cluster Hospital Number of Attendances (Provisional figures in 2012-2013)






Hong Kong East


1 627 2 177 37 600 96 852 9 406

Ruttonjee Hospital

533 1 547 13 790 58 114 7 250

St. John Hospital

43 49 1 546 7 747 1 587

Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital

915 2 138 33 626 85 155 6 759

Kowloon Central


3 908 4 345 93 679 85 358 7 106

Kowloon East


459 910 30 164 86 970 8 800


2 128 4 725 64 812 94 248 13 577

Kowloon West


1 302 1 362 32 164 85 580 16 521

Kwong Wah Hospital

1 752 2 691 55 607 66 513 6 534


1 442 2 601 64 643 70 814 10 809

Yan Chai Hospital

1 371 2 048 39 823 89 479 4 888



407 1 342 21 768 99 686 12 569


786 1 589 38 165 66 482 8 074


1 469 4 708 36 912 110 417 2 854


Pok Oi Hospital 448 2 039 30 312 74 613 19 520 Tuen Mun Hospital

1 009 4 573 65 550 129 738 20 149

Total 19 599 38 844 660 161 1 307 766 156 403


(i) From midnight to 8 am on weekdays







Hong Kong East


326 335 4 465 13 949 967

Ruttonjee Hospital 98 205 1 536 6 324 613 St. John Hospital 17 11 218 881 71

Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital

181 336 4 120 11 408 653

Kowloon Central


723 778 10 772 11 894 855

Kowloon East


93 146 3 731 12 456 937


469 805 9 088 14 492 1 900

Kowloon West


258 238 4 056 11 233 1 503

Kwong Wah Hospital

286 304 6 786 9 173 570


243 422 8 862 10 173 2 051

Yan Chai Hospital 265 373 4 963 13 415 582



87 229 2 767 12 116 1 146


153 251 4 826 10 792 921


311 651 4 644 14 326 308


Pok Oi Hospital 90 284 3 867 10 137 1 598 Tuen Mun Hospital

196 689 8 641 19 518 2 511

Total 3 796 6 057 83 342 182 287 17 186

(ii) From 8 am to 4 pm on weekdays







Hong Kong East


502 770 14 213 35 000 4 485

Ruttonjee Hospital 161 541 5 151 22 660 2 893 St. John Hospital 10 14 543 1 935 386

Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital 292 736 12 450 31 578 3 020

Kowloon Central

Queen Elizabeth Hospital 1 362 1 422 35 297 33 076 3 140

Kowloon East

Tseung Kwan O Hospital 142 323 10 938 31 587 4 256

United Christian Hospital 653 1 665 23 126 35 105 6 420


12541







Kowloon West

Caritas Medical Centre 405 493 11 619 30 991 6 734

Kwong Wah Hospital 628 1 013 20 993 26 503 3 479

Princess Margaret Hospital 475 890 23 500 27 685 5 300

Yan Chai Hospital 420 672 15 110 34 172 2 385



129 446 7 834 39 348 5 981

North District Hospital 242 586 14 199 24 510 3 883

Prince of Wales Hospital 453 1 677 13 674 46 261 1 451


Pok Oi Hospital 145 715 11 116 28 251 10 337 Tuen Mun Hospital 308 1 628 24 558 50 213 9 631

Total 6 327 13 591 244 321 498 875 73 781

(iii) From 4 pm to midnight on weekdays







Hong Kong East


453 654 11 789 28 272 1 894


Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital 251 678 11 000 24 917 1 467

Kowloon Central

Queen Elizabeth Hospital 1 086 1 333 30 334 23 419 1 575

Kowloon East


United Christian Hospital 586 1 316 20 486 26 402 2 457

Kowloon West


Kwong Wah Hospital 512 886 17 577 17 754 1 141





120 407 6 933 29 075 2 730

North District Hospital 222 432 11 791 18 088 1 706

Prince of Wales Hospital 394 1 514 11 625 29 251 541


Pok Oi Hospital 122 651 9 464 21 690 3 948 Tuen Mun Hospital 304 1 435 20 417 35 348 3 875

Total 5 637 11 896 209 066 369 250 32 464


(iv) From midnight to 8 am on public holidays







Hong Kong East


83 72 1 155 3 635 321

Ruttonjee Hospital 27 59 463 1 861 200 St. John Hospital 1 3 67 270 48

Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital

47 65 1 138 3 138 221

Kowloon Central


168 201 2 927 3 190 202

Kowloon East


18 42 1 004 3 121 212


123 221 2 393 3 734 475

Kowloon West


66 48 1 009 2 892 363

Kwong Wah Hospital

72 83 1 728 2 455 161


65 96 2 145 2 561 443




20 66 709 3 057 292


45 63 1 242 2 580 234


68 163 1 348 3 696 81


Pok Oi Hospital 21 76 1 018 2 609 428 Tuen Mun Hospital

59 182 2 175 4 898 678

Total 934 1 525 21 808 47 066 4 520

(v) From 8 am to 4 pm on public holidays







Hong Kong East


137 178 3 050 8 241 1 234


Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital 86 164 2 530 7 575 946

Kowloon Central

Queen Elizabeth Hospital 307 313 7 425 7 734 887

Kowloon East


United Christian Hospital 155 357 5 060 7 824 1 634


12543







Kowloon West


Kwong Wah Hospital 145 198 4 285 6 015 893





29 96 1 840 8 422 1 522

North District Hospital 55 142 3 162 5 526 938

Prince of Wales Hospital 115 354 2 943 9 598 341


Pok Oi Hospital 31 158 2 478 6 341 2 213 Tuen Mun Hospital 81 322 5 140 11 079 2 424

Total 1 555 2 924 52 473 114 550 19 400

(vi) From 4 pm to midnight on public holidays







Hong Kong East


126 168 2 928 7 755 505

Ruttonjee Hospital 40 125 1 061 4 402 517 St. John Hospital 3 3 137 863 208

Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital 58 159 2 388 6 539 452

Kowloon Central

Queen Elizabeth Hospital 262 298 6 924 6 045 447

Kowloon East

Tseung Kwan O Hospital 25 72 2 395 6 685 464

United Christian Hospital 142 361 4 659 6 691 691

Kowloon West


Kwong Wah Hospital 109 207 4 238 4 613 290

Princess Margaret Hospital 82 188 4 837 5 060 422




22 98 1 685 7 668 898

North District Hospital 69 115 2 945 4 986 392

Prince of Wales Hospital 128 349 2 678 7 285 132


Pok Oi Hospital 39 155 2 369 5 585 996 Tuen Mun Hospital 61 317 4 619 8 682 1 030

Total 1 350 2 851 49 151 95 738 9 052


(c) The numbers of doctors and nurses in A&E departments under the HA as at 31 March 2013 are as follows:

Cluster Hospital

Doctors Total number of

doctors

Number of nurses

Specialist in emergency medicine(3)

Non-specialist(4)

Hong Kong East


20 13 33 47

Ruttonjee Hospital 8 9 17 32 St. John Hospital 2 2 4 -

Hong Kong West

Queen Mary Hospital 14 16 30 53

Kowloon Central

Queen Elizabeth Hospital 24 15 39 71

Kowloon East

Tseung Kwan O Hospital 14 6 20 46

United Christian Hospital 17 18 35 78

Kowloon West

Caritas Medical Centre 12 14 26 58

Kwong Wah Hospital 14 13 28 36 Princess Margaret Hospital 13 15 28 51

Yan Chai Hospital 15 11 26 52


Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital 10 12 22 53

North District Hospital 14 5 19 54

Prince of Wales Hospital 14 10 24 81


Pok Oi Hospital 10 12 23 57 Tuen Mun Hospital 16 20 36 85

Total: 410 853 Notes： (1) The manpower figures above are calculated on full-time equivalent basis

including permanent, contract and temporary staff in the HA. (2) Individual figures may not add up to the total number due to rounding. (3) Specialist doctors refer to Consultants, Associate Consultants/Senior

Medical Officers and Residents with fellowship (The source of information on fellowship is the figures published by the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine in December 2012.)

(4) Non-specialist doctors refer to doctors who are yet to receive fellowship

recognized by the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine, including Residents who are receiving specialized training in emergency medicine or any other specialties.


12545

Since the actual shift periods of doctors and nurses in A&E departments vary according to the conditions and operational needs of different hospitals, the HA does not have a breakdown of the numbers of doctors and nurses working in different shift periods.

(d) The distribution of part-time doctors and part-time nurses recruited

to A&E specialty in hospitals under the HA as at 31 March 2013 is as follows:

Cluster Hospital As at 31 March 2013

Number of part-time doctors

Number of part-time nurses

Hong Kong East


0 5

Ruttonjee Hospital 2 4 St. John Hospital 0 0

Hong Kong West Queen Mary Hospital 3 4 Kowloon Central Queen Elizabeth Hospital 3 3

Kowloon East Tseung Kwan O Hospital 0 6 United Christian Hospital 3 7

Kowloon West

Caritas Medical Centre 0 0 Kwong Wah Hospital 6 0 Princess Margaret Hospital 3 1 Yan Chai Hospital 1 0



1 11

North District Hospital 0 13 Prince of Wales Hospital 4 20

New Territories West Pok Oi Hospital 2 5 Tuen Mun Hospital 1 7

Total: 29 86

The expenditure on remuneration for part-time doctors and part-time

nurses recruited to A&E specialty in 2012-2013 is as follows:

Cluster Hospital Remuneration in 2012-2013

($ million) Part-time doctors Part-time nurses

Hong Kong East


- 0.6

Ruttonjee Hospital 1.4 0.3 St. John Hospital - -

Hong Kong West Queen Mary Hospital 0.4 0.6 Kowloon Central Queen Elizabeth Hospital 1.3 0.1


Cluster Hospital Remuneration in 2012-2013

($ million) Part-time doctors Part-time nurses

Kowloon East Tseung Kwan O Hospital - 0.7 United Christian Hospital 0.2 0.5

Kowloon West

Caritas Medical Centre - - Kwong Wah Hospital 2.1 - Princess Margaret Hospital 0.7 0.3 Yan Chai Hospital 0.1 -



0.7 0.5

North District Hospital - 0.8 Prince of Wales Hospital 3.6 1.0

New Territories West Pok Oi Hospital 1.4 0.4 Tuen Mun Hospital 1.2 0.2

Total: 13.1 6.0 Notes: (1) Individual figures may not add up to the total number due to rounding. (2) Remuneration for part-time doctors and part-time nurses working in A&E departments

under the HA varies with ranks, experience and working hours. (3) As the arrangement of part-time employment of doctors and nurses for the A&E specialty

varies with the conditions and operational needs of respective hospitals, the HA is unable to provide the total working hours of part-time doctors and part-time nurses.

(e) In 2012-2013, a total of 316 A&E doctors and 417 A&E nurses worked extra service sessions in A&E departments, and the expenditure on overtime allowance/remuneration for overtime work performed by A&E doctors and nurses in the HA hospitals amounted to about $29 million. The breakdown by hospital is as follows:

Cluster Hospital

Number of staff working extra

service sessions in 2012-2013

Overtime allowance/

remuneration in 2012-2013 ($ million)

Doctors Nurses Doctors Nurses

Hong Kong East


20 26 2.6 0.6

Ruttonjee Hospital 11 20 1.7 0.1 St. John Hospital 4 0 0.1 -

Hong Kong West Queen Mary Hospital 19 40 1.4 0.3 Kowloon Central Queen Elizabeth Hospital 32 41 0.6 1.2

Kowloon East Tseung Kwan O Hospital 19 14 1.0 0.1 United Christian Hospital 28 39 0.5 0.6


12547

Cluster Hospital

Number of staff working extra

service sessions in 2012-2013

Overtime allowance/

remuneration in 2012-2013 ($ million)

Doctors Nurses Doctors Nurses

Kowloon West

Caritas Medical Centre 21 31 2.2 1.0 Kwong Wah Hospital 13 0 1.2 - Princess Margaret Hospital 21 14 0.6 0.2 Yan Chai Hospital 23 20 1.8 0.3



18 27 1.7 0.6

North District Hospital 17 32 0.8 0.4 Prince of Wales Hospital 15 37 1.1 0.8

New Territories West Pok Oi Hospital 19 38 2.1 0.5 Tuen Mun Hospital 36 38 2.8 0.5

Total: 316 417 22.2 7.2

Moreover, the HA has implemented a pilot scheme since February

2013 to recruit additional medical and nursing staff, in order to alleviate the work pressure in A&E departments and improve A&E services. The recruitment targets are permanent and contract full-time medical and nursing staff currently serving in the HA. The scheme is piloted in 12 hospitals. As at the end of April this year, there were a total of 191 doctors and 542 nurses taking part in the scheme, providing 595 consultation periods/sessions (each extra consultation period/session lasts for four hours). Details of the distribution are as follows:

Hospital

Consultation period/session

(As at the end of April 2013)

Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital 12 Queen Elizabeth Hospital 78 Tseung Kwan O Hospital 60 United Christian Hospital 65 Caritas Medical Centre 42 Kwong Wah Hospital 25 Princess Margaret Hospital 11


Hospital

Consultation period/session

(As at the end of April 2013)

Yan Chai Hospital 23 Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital 62 North District Hospital 63 Prince of Wales Hospital 93 Tuen Mun Hospital 61

Total: 595 As the scheme is still on pilot run, the total expenditure on

remuneration is unavailable at this stage.

Retirement of Disciplined Grades Civil Servant 11. MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Chinese): President, under the existing New Pension Scheme or the Civil Service Provident Fund (CSPF) Scheme, the prescribed retirement ages for civil servants of the disciplined grades (disciplined service officers), which are set at 55 or 57 (depending on their ranks), are lower than the normal retirement age of 60 for civil servants of civilian grades. It has been learnt that except for exceptional circumstances, the Government generally does not consider the continued employment of officers beyond the retirement age, and quite a number of retired disciplined service officers continue to work in the private sector. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of disciplined service officers who retired in each of

the past five years, broken down by their ranks and ages at the time of retirement, and whether they were under the New Pension Scheme or CSPF Scheme; and the anticipated number of those who will retire in the coming five years;

(b) given that civil servants who take up post-service outside work

during the final leave, or former civil servants who take up such outside work during the specified restriction periods after retirement, are required to seek and obtain prior permission, of the number of such applications, received by the authorities in the past


12549

five years from retiring/retired disciplined service officers, and the positions of outside work involved in general in such applications;

(c) given that some disciplined service officers are re-employed by their

disciplined services on a contract basis after retirement, of the number of such contract staff at present; and the details of the policy concerned, including the criteria adopted by the authorities for deciding to re-employ such officers; and

(d) whether it has assessed if the stipulation on the retirement ages of

the disciplined service officers has led to succession problems or wastage of experienced staff in the disciplined services; whether the authorities have considered establishing a mechanism to allow those disciplined service officers who meet relevant requirements to apply for extending their retirement age to 60; if they have not, of the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Chinese): President,

(a) According to the information provided by the Treasury, the number of disciplined services staff retired in the past five years from 2008 to 2012, broken down by rank, by age and by retirement benefits schemes they belonged to is shown at Annex.

According to the information provided by the Treasury, it is

projected that on average about 1 500 disciplined services staff will retire at the normal/prescribed retirement ages annually from 2013 to 2017.

(b) At present, departing directorate civil servants, during the specified

periods of restriction (namely final leave period, and/or minimum sanitization period and/or control period) as well as non-directorate civil servants retiring on pensionable terms, during their pre-retirement leave period and/or in the first two years of retirement, are required to apply for prior permission if they wish to take up post-service outside work.


From 2008 to 2012, the Administration had approved a total of about 1 200 post-service outside work applications by retired disciplined services civil servants. The nature of the approved outside work varied and the majority of them were in the areas of driving, education, management, office administration/support and security.

(c) According to the statistics provided by the Security Bureau, as at

24 May 2013, there were 115 retired disciplined services officers employed by their respective department as full-time non-civil service contract (NCSC) staff after retirement.

Regarding the employment of NCSC staff, the NCSC Staff Scheme

aims at providing Heads of Departments (HoDs) with a flexible means of employment to respond more promptly to changing operational and service needs which may be time-limited, seasonal or subject to market fluctuations; or which require staff to work less than the conditioned hours; or which require tapping the latest expertise in a particular area; or whether the mode of service delivery is under review or likely to be changed. Under the NCSC Staff Scheme, HoDs have the full discretion and authority to decide on matters relating to the employment of NCSC staff including the appropriate recruitment and selection procedures, having regard to the principle of openness and fairness.

(d) The Administration has put in place a well-established mechanism to

facilitate disciplined services departments in making early planning for succession and taking timely action where necessary. Under the mechanism, Secretary for the Civil Service regularly meets with Permanent Secretary for Security and heads of disciplined services departments to discuss the succession situation in individual departments and grades, with a view to ensuring early identification of any succession problems, advance planning and timely implementation of suitable measures. In the light of the retirement situation of disciplined services staff in the next few years, the Security Bureau and respective disciplined services departments will map out detailed planning and proactively conducting recruitment exercises so as to meet the operational needs and facilitate the


12551

long-term succession planning. In tandem with the succession planning efforts, respective disciplined services departments also provide training and development opportunities for disciplined services staff at all levels so as to enrich their exposure, enable them to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills for the discharge of their responsibilities, and enhance their competence through postings with a view to preparing them for taking up higher responsibilities.

As regards the civil service retirement age, the Civil Service Bureau

is conducting a preliminary study to assess the retirement situation in the Civil Service and look at possible options to address any operational needs identified, with a view to facilitating succession planning in the Civil Service. We are inviting inputs from the bureau/departmental management (including disciplined services departments) and will analyse the data collected taking into account the unique circumstances and features of the civil service system, including succession and operational needs, manpower planning, promotion prospects of serving officers, and so on. We aim to complete the study around end of 2013/early 2014 and would then consider the way forward.

Annex (I) The number of disciplined services officers retired between 2008 and 2012

by rank

Rank at retirement Number of retired officers 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

General Disciplined Services (Commander) ranks or equivalent ranks(1) of police officers

7 17 18 16 19

General Disciplined Services (Officer) grades or Police Inspectors/Superintendent Grade (excluding Chief Superintendent of Police(2))

220 225 260 300 268


Rank at retirement Number of retired officers 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

General Disciplined Services (Rank and File) grades or Junior Police Officer Grade

818 842 911 1 044 1 087

Total 1 045 1 084 1 189 1 360 1 374 Notes: (1) Equivalent ranks of police officers include Commissioner of Police, Deputy

Commissioner of Police, Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Chief Superintendent of Police.

(2) Chief Superintendent of Police is of General Disciplined Services (Commander) rank or

equivalent. See note (1). (II) The number of disciplined services officers retired between 2008 and 2012

by age at retirement

Age at retirement Number of retired officers 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Aged 45 below(3) 30 34 26 33 18 Aged 45 to below 50(4) 177 110 115 133 58 Aged 50 to below 55(4) 328 322 349 474 469 Aged 55 or above(5) 510 618 699 720 829 Total 1 045 1 084 1 189 1 360 1 374

Notes: (3) The main reasons are due to early retirement on invaliding or compulsory retirement. (4) According to pension legislations, disciplined services staff may retire early under

specified circumstances, for example, on health grounds. (5) The normal/prescribed retirement ages for disciplined services staff are 55 or 57,

depending on rank. (III) The number of disciplined services officers retired between 2008 and 2012

by the retirement benefits schemes to which they belonged

Retirement benefits scheme Number of retired officers 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Old Pension Scheme 467 417 456 491 509 New Pension Scheme 577 665 732 869 859 CSPF Scheme 1 2 1 0 6 Total 1 045 1 084 1 189 1 360 1 374


12553

Fire Service Facilities for Outlying Islands, Remote Areas and Typhoon Shelters in New Territories West 12. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): President, in January this year, a fireboat took as long as 40 minutes to arrive at the fire scene after receipt of reports of a fire which broke out and spread to several fishing vessels at the typhoon shelter opposite Sam Shing Estate, Tuen Mun. On 2 May this year, a Number 3 alarm fire broke out in Tai O, Lantau Island, burning down a number of stilted houses, and some residents queried that the fire-fighting efforts had been hindered by the inadequate fire service facilities there. Besides, the fireboat "Elite", which is berthed at Central, had earlier encountered mechanical failure in the course of providing service. Given the aforesaid incidents, quite a number of people in the community have told me that at present on the outlying islands, in remote areas and at typhoon shelters in New Territories West, the fire service facilities are inadequate, roadside fire hydrants are ageing, fireboats are inadequate, and so on. They are worried that when fire breaks out in those areas, it will be difficult to put it out expeditiously. They therefore hope that the authorities will enhance the fire service facilities in such areas. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether the authorities have regularly (i) reviewed if there are

adequate fire service facilities on outlying islands and in remote areas such as Tai O, Tong Fuk and Peng Chau, and (ii) checked if such facilities have ageing problems; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(b) given that the existing Fireboat 7 will be replaced by a new fireboat

at the end of 2014, and the berthing place will be changed from the Hong Kong International Airport to Tuen Mun, whether the authorities will consider procuring an additional fireboat to be berthed at the airport, so as to provide service in the waters near the airport and North Lantau; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(c) whether the authorities will conduct a comprehensive review to see if

the existing marine fire service facilities in the territory are


adequate, and allocate additional resources to procure fire service facilities (for example, fireboats) so as to ensure that there are adequate fire service facilities to cope with fire occurring along the shore or at sea; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, for the two fire incidents mentioned in the question, we provide the relevant information as follows: Regarding the fishing vessel fire which broke out at the typhoon shelter opposite to Sam Shing Estate in Tuen Mun on 19 January 2013, the Fire Services Communication Centre received the fire call at 10.50 am and immediately despatched two fire speedboats and three fireboats, which were nearest to the incident scene, for fire-fighting and rescue operation. The first speedboat arrived at the scene at 11.09 am (that is, 19 minutes(1) after the receipt of the call). It activated the water monitor on the board for fire-fighting and commenced rescue and search operation. In the meantime, a marine police launch and a customs launch equipped with fire-fighting equipment also discharged water to assist in extinguishing the fire. At that time, Fireboat No. 5 was carrying out fire service duties in other parts of its service area. After receiving the fire call, it headed towards the scene immediately and arrived 40 minutes afterwards. Regarding the No. 3 alarm fire which broke out at the stilted houses in Tai O, Lantau Island on 2 May 2013, the Fire Services Department (FSD) deployed a total of 26 fire appliances, five fireboats, two ambulances, and more than 120 fire and ambulance personnel for the fire-fighting and rescue operation. There was no shortage of staff resources. The first batch of fire appliances arrived at the scene three minutes after the receipt of the call, which met the pledged response time. Upon arrival, the fire personnel secured water supply from the nearest fire hydrant (about 10 m from the scene) within a short period of time. The first jet was activated four minutes after the arrival of the fire personnel. The water (1) The concerned fire speedboat took a longer time to arrive at the Tuen Mun Typhoon Shelter than what is

normally required as there were more vessels in the sea than usual.


12555

supply and hydraulic pressure were adequate for fire-fighting and there was no problem with the availability of fire appliances or fire service facilities. My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(a) The FSD conducts detailed risk assessment, taking into account

various factors including population density, land use and number and types of buildings in the adjacent areas, and so on, in determining the location, the establishment of fire personnel as well as the number and types of fire appliances for each fire station. Currently, there are a total of 13 fire stations in the Islands District, 10 of which are located on Lantau Island, including Tung Chung, Chek Lap Kok, Penny's Bay, Discovery Bay, Mui Wo, Cheung Sha, Tai O (Sub-division), Tai O (Old Station) and the two fire stations at the Hong Kong International Airport. The other three fire stations are located on Cheung Chau, Lamma Island and Peng Chau respectively. In addition, there are two rescue boat berths at the Airport and one fireboat station on Cheung Chau.

In light of the geographical features of the offshore islands, some fire

stations such as Peng Chau, Cheung Chau and Lamma fire stations are equipped with mini fire engines and village ambulances to facilitate their travelling on the narrow roads of those islands, and to ensure that the fire personnel can arrive at the incident scene promptly for fire-fighting and rescue operations.

The FSD will, base on the actual circumstances of the Islands

District and the operational needs, request the Water Supplies Department (WSD) to install fire hydrants on the street to provide sufficient and steady water supply for fire-fighting operations. The FSD conducts regular inspections of street fire hydrants and the WSD is responsible for their repair and maintenance. The FSD will also request the provision of additional fire hydrants in light of the actual needs and the changes in the risk assessment (for example, latest district developments). Since 2000, the total number of fire hydrants in the Islands District has increased by 73% from 685 to 1 186. The FSD also arranges regular maintenance of fire


appliances, fireboats and related equipment, and replaces them at appropriate times to ensure their reliability and performance can meet the operational requirements. The FSD considers that the existing fire stations and related facilities for the Islands District are adequate to meet the demand of emergency services of the District. The Department will review the demand of emergency services of various areas from time to time and make appropriate arrangements in the light of district developments to ensure their fire safety.

(b) At present, the marine fire-fighting and rescue services in the waters

around the Airport and North Lantau are mainly provided by the two command boats and various fire speedboats at the Airport as well as Fireboat No. 5 at Tuen Mun. For Fireboat No. 7, its main function is to provide rescue services in large-scale marine incidents. Although currently deployed at the Airport Rescue Boat Berth, Fireboat No. 7 does not have specific service areas. The FSD would deploy it to different areas of Hong Kong waters for fire-fighting and rescue operation according to operational needs. Therefore, when the new Fireboat No. 7 commences operation in end 2014, the change of its berthing place from the Airport to Tuen Mun will not affect the concerned services in the waters near the Airport and North Lantau.

(c) The FSD's fire-fighting and rescue equipment for handling marine

incidents are of similar standards to those used by other advanced cities (for example, New York and Tokyo). The fire stations and fireboat berths are also located at strategic locations in order to achieve optimal operational efficiency. The FSD conducts overall review on its marine fire-fighting and rescue strategies in Hong Kong and the related equipment from time to time, and makes appropriate arrangement in the light of the needs of individual areas or specific periods to ensure the department's ability to deal with marine emergency.

In addition, the FSD replaces and enhances fire services facilities in

a timely manner according to the actual needs. For example, the new Fireboat No. 7, which is under procurement currently, will have


12557

a higher speed power with enhanced fire-fighting and rescue equipment.

The FSD will continue to closely monitor various developments in

Hong Kong waters and assess the fire risk from time to time. When necessary, the FSD will seek resources according to the established procedures for procuring appropriate fire services facilities, so as to ensure prompt and reliable fire-fighting and rescue services for the public.

Statistics Relating to Functional Constituencies 13. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Chinese): President, currently, half of the 70 seats of the Legislative Council are functional constituency (FC) seats. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the following data in each year from 2008 to 2012:

(a) the percentages of the value added of the relevant industries under

various FCs in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (set out in Table 1);

(b) the percentages of the numbers of employees in the relevant

industries under various FCs in the labour force (set out in Table 2); and

(c) the numbers of (i) eligible electors and (ii) registered electors of

various FCs when the final register of electors was published (set out in Table 3)?

Table 1

FCs (excluding Labour, District

Council and Heung Yee Kuk)

Percentage of value added of relevant industries in GDP

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Accountancy Agriculture and Fisheries Architectural, Surveying and Planning




Percentage of value added of relevant industries in GDP

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Catering Commercial (First) Commercial (Second)

Education Engineering Finance Financial Services Health Services Import and Export Industrial (First) Industrial (Second)

Information Technology Insurance Legal Medical Real Estate and Construction

Social Welfare Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication

Textiles and Garment Tourism Transport Wholesale and Retail Table 2



Percentage of the number of employees in the relevant industries

in the labour force 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Accountancy Agriculture and Fisheries ......


12559

Table 3 FCs

(excluding District Council (Second))

(i) Number of eligible electors (ii) Number of registered electors

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Accountancy (i)

(ii) (i) (ii)

(i) (ii)

(i) (ii)

(i) (ii)

Agriculture and Fisheries (i) (ii)

(i) (ii)

(i) (ii)

(i) (ii)

(i) (ii)

...... SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, the information requested by Mr SIN Chung-kai is set out at the three tables enclosed. Table 1 Percentage share of the value added of the relevant industries under

various FCs in the GDP

(Provided by the Census and Statistics Department)

FCs (Excluding Labour, District Council

and Heung Yee Kuk)

Percentage share of the value added of the relevant industries in GDP(1) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012(2)

Agriculture and Fisheries (3) 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% @ Industrial ― First Industrial ― Second Commercial ― First Commercial ― Second Textiles and Garment

(4) 4.4% 4.0% 3.7% 3.4%

Real Estate and Construction (5) 8.2% 8.7% 8.4% 9.0% Import and Export 20.8% 19.6% 19.7% 21.1% Wholesale and Retail 3.8% 3.8% 4.1% 4.8% Transport (6) 6.1% 6.3% 7.9% 6.3% Catering Tourism

(7) 3.3% 3.1% 3.2% 3.5%

Information Technology (8) 3.0% 3.0% 3.2% 3.3% Finance Financial Services Insurance

17.1% 16.2% 16.4% 16.1%


FCs (Excluding Labour, District Council

and Heung Yee Kuk)

Percentage share of the value added of the relevant industries in GDP(1) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012(2)

Accountancy Architectural, Surveying and

Planning Education Engineering Health Services Legal Medical Social Welfare Sports, Performing Arts,

Culture and Publication

(9) 22.2% 23.7% 22.7% 22.2%

Total (10) 89.0% 88.5% 89.4% 89.8% Notes: @ Percentage share less than 0.05%. (1) GDP is compiled by the Census and Statistics Department according to international

statistical standards. The classification adopted in GDP is based on the Hong Kong Standard Industrial Classification Version 2.0 and may not be compatible with the delineation of the FCs.

(2) Figures for 2012 will be released in early 2014. (3) Figures refer to agriculture, forestry and fishing; and mining and quarrying. (4) Figures refer to manufacturing, electricity, gas, and water supply and waste management.

For the water supply sector, it refers to Water Supplies Department. Its contribution to GDP is relatively not significant. The Commercial FCs are involved in many sectors. Their contribution to GDP of Hong Kong is also reflected in the figures of other FCs.

(5) Figures also include Housing Department. (6) Figures refer to transportation, storage, postal and courier services. (7) Figures refer to accommodation and food services, of which accommodation services

cover hotels, guesthouses, boarding houses and other establishments providing short-term accommodation. Tourism is a domain comprising economic activities straddling different services sectors which cover retail trade, accommodation services, food and beverage services, passenger transport services and travel agency, reservation service and related activities, and so on. Apart from accommodation and food services, the shares in GDP in respect of other sectors relating to tourism are reflected in the figures of other relevant FCs.


12561

(8) Figures refer to information and communications. (9) Figures refer to professional and business services, public administration, and social and

personal services. The figures exclude government departments engaged in market activities (for example, HongkongPost). Besides, the figures also exclude publishing activities as the various industries related to publishing activities are classified into the manufacturing and information and communications sectors.

(10) Ownership of premises is treated as an economic activity in the national accounts and is

covered in GDP. Sum of the percentage shares of value added of all the FCs in GDP in the above table is therefore less than 100%.

Table 2 Percentage share of the numbers of employees in the relevant

industries under various FCs in total employment

(Provided by the Census and Statistics Department)

FCs (Excluding Labour, District


Percentage share of the numbers of employees(1) in the relevant industries in total

employment 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012(2)

Agriculture and Fisheries (3) 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Industrial ― First Industrial ―Second Commercial ― First Commercial ― Second Textiles and Garment

(4) 4.5% 4.2% 3.7% 3.6% 3.4%

Real Estate and Construction (5) 10.9% 10.8% 10.8% 11.0% 11.5% Import and Export 15.7% 15.0% 15.0% 14.5% 14.1% Wholesale and Retail 10.2% 10.4% 10.4% 10.3% 10.5% Transport (6) 9.3% 9.2% 9.0% 8.9% 8.8% Catering Tourism

(7) 7.5% 7.3% 7.5% 7.4% 7.4%

Information Technology (8) 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% Finance Financial Services Insurance

5.9% 6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.2%


FCs (Excluding Labour, District


Percentage share of the numbers of employees(1) in the relevant industries in total

employment 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012(2)

Accountancy Architectural, Surveying and

Planning Education Engineering Health Services Legal Medical Social Welfare Sports, Performing Arts,

Culture and Publication

(9) 33.1% 34.1% 34.5% 35.1% 35.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Notes: (1) The numbers of employees refer to the composite employment estimates compiled by the

Census and Statistics Department based on the Hong Kong Standard Industrial Classification Version 2.0. The classification adopted may not be compatible with the delineation of the FCs.

(2) Figures for 2012 are subject to revision later on. (3) Figures refer to agriculture, forestry and fishing; and mining and quarrying. (4) Figures refer to manufacturing, electricity, gas, and water supply and waste management.

For the water supply sector, it refers to Water Supplies Department. The Commercial FCs are involved in many sectors. Their share of employment in total employment is also reflected in the figures of other FCs.

(5) Figures also include Housing Department. (6) Figures refer to transportation, storage, postal and courier services. (7) Figures refer to accommodation and food services, of which accommodation services

cover hotels, guesthouses, boarding houses and other establishments providing short-term accommodation. Tourism is a domain comprising economic activities straddling different services sectors which cover retail trade, accommodation services, food and beverage services, passenger transport services and travel agency, reservation service and related activities, and so on. Apart from accommodation and food services, the shares in total employment in respect of other sectors relating to tourism are reflected in the figures of other relevant FCs.


12563

(8) Figures refer to information and communications. (9) Figures refer to professional and business services, public administration, and social and

personal services. The figures exclude government departments engaged in market activities (for example, HongkongPost). Besides, the figures also exclude publishing activities as the various industries related to publishing activities are classified into the manufacturing and information and communications sectors.

Table 3 The numbers of registered electors of various FCs when the final

register of electors was published

(Provided by the Registration and Electoral Office)

FCs (Excluding District Council

(Second))

Number of registered electors(1)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Heung Yee Kuk 157 155 153 157 147 Labour 596 597 595 626 646 Accountancy 22 276 22 089 21 902 24 641 25 174 Agriculture and Fisheries 159 160 160 159 159 Architectural, Surveying and Planning

6 147 6 117 6 152 6 780 6 781

Catering 8 149 7 996 7 959 7 946 7 797 Commercial (First) 1 040 1 040 1 039 904 927 Commercial (Second) 1 882 1 814 1 764 1 823 1 749 Education 90 693 88 964 88 404 95 787 92 957 Engineering 8 323 8 261 8 250 9 055 9 172 Finance 140 132 130 128 128 Financial Services 580 578 574 568 596 Health Services 36 968 36 491 36 444 39 161 37 556 Import and Export 1 507 1 494 1 486 1 459 1 472 Industrial (First) 715 715 713 617 603 Industrial (Second) 790 805 798 702 829 Information Technology 5 749 5 747 5 749 5 532 6 716 Insurance 144 141 137 137 135 Legal 6 111 6 022 5 989 6 596 6 482 Medical 10 606 10 493 10 476 11 121 10 888 Real Estate and Construction 751 727 728 767 767 Social Welfare 12 519 12 293 12 290 14 172 14 093


FCs (Excluding District Council

(Second))

Number of registered electors(1)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication

2 208 2 215 2 272 2 367 2 586

Textiles and Garment 3 710 3 709 3 684 3 190 3 200 Tourism 1 261 1 236 1 229 1 227 1 319 Transport 178 178 178 201 204 Wholesale and Retail 6 074 5 997 5 959 6 903 7 242 Note: (1) Only the numbers of registered electors are available as some electors may be eligible to

register in more than one FC and there is no way to eliminate the possibility of multiple counting.

Statistics on Household Loans 14. MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Chinese): President, according to the statistics from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), personal loans have been consistently growing faster than the overall economy in recent years, and in the second half of 2012, the rate of household loans (including residential mortgages, credit card advances and personal loans) to the gross domestic product (household debt-to-GDP ratio) rose to a new high of 61%. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the respective annual proportions of the various components of

household loans in Hong Kong and the annual growth rates of household loans (excluding residential mortgages) in the past three years;

(b) the results of a comparison between the household debt-to-GDP

ratio in Hong Kong and the corresponding ratios in other regions in the past three years; and

(c) the growth rate of the total amount of personal loans taken out by

foreign domestic helpers working in Hong Kong and the percentage of such amount in the total amount of personal loans in Hong Kong, in each of the past three years?


12565

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,

(a) According to the statistics from the HKMA, the total outstanding

amount of residential mortgages, credit card advances and other personal loans from authorized institutions (AIs) was HK$1,248.9 billion (or 61% of GDP) at the end of March 2013. The revised total outstanding amount was HK$1,231.8 billion (or 60% of GDP) at the end of 2012. These loans are generally known as "household debts" or "personal indebtedness". These statistics reflect a general picture of household debts in Hong Kong but do not include personal loans from other sources (for example, finance companies which are not AIs).

Excluding residential mortgages, the outstanding amounts of credit

card advances and other personal loans from AIs were HK$96 billion and HK$222.7 billion respectively at the end of March 2013. During the period between 2010 and 2012, these two categories of loans grew by about 15% year-on-year on average. Details are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Household debts in recent years

HK$ billion

(Year-on-year growth %) [% of household debts]

End of 2010

End of 2011

End of 2012

March 2013

Residential mortgages 796.5 (+14%) [76%]

850.2 (+7%) [75%]

914.5 (+8%) [74%]

930.1 -

[74%] Credit card advances 80.1

(+17%) [8%]

91.6 (+14%)

[8%]

105.1 (+15%)

[9%]

96.0 -

[8%] Other personal loans 164.8

(+15%) [16%]

187.3 (+14%) [17%]

212.2 (+13%) [17%]

222.7 -

[18%]


HK$ billion (Year-on-year growth %) [% of household debts]

End of 2010

End of 2011

End of 2012

March 2013

Total household debts 1,041.4 (+14%) [100%]

1,129.1 (+8%) [100%]

1,231.8 (+9%) [100%]

1,248.9 -

[100%] Total household debt-to-GDP ratio 59% 58% 60% 61%

Notes: The above data only cover personal loans from AIs. Sources: HKMA and Census and Statistics Department.

(b) Table 2 shows the ratios of household debt-to-GDP in Hong Kong

and other major jurisdictions over the past three years. However, definitions of "household debts" in different places vary. For example, the above data for Hong Kong include only personal loans from AIs, while those for the United States and Europe cover a broader range, including various financial liabilities and even those of not-for-profit bodies. Besides, we need to take into account the differences in the economic, social and legal systems in these jurisdictions, as well as the varying depths and breadths in their financial services. It is difficult to make a direct comparison among the household debt-to-GDP ratios in Hong Kong and those of other jurisdictions.

Table 2: Household debt-to-GDP ratios in Hong Kong and other major jurisdictions

End of 2010 End of 2011 End of 2012

Euro area(1) 67% 66% 65% France(1) 55% 56% 57% Germany(1) 61% 59% 59% Hong Kong(2) 59% 58% 60% Japan(3) 75% 76% 74%


12567

End of 2010 End of 2011 End of 2012 Singapore(4) 67% 71% 76% United Kingdom(1) 99% 99% 95% United States(5) 94% 89% 86% Notes: (1) In the United Kingdom and the euro area (including Germany and France),

household debts include various types of personal loans taken out by individuals and not-for-profit bodies.

(2) In Hong Kong, household debts include residential mortgages, credit card

advances and other personal loans taken out by individuals. (3) In Japan, household debts include various financial liabilities borne by

individuals. (4) In Singapore, household debts include personal loans taken out by

individuals from local banks. (5) In the United States, household debts include various types of financial

liabilities borne by individuals and not-for-profit bodies. Sources: various central banks and statistics departments.

(c) The Administration does not collect data on personal indebtedness of

foreign domestic helpers working in Hong Kong. Application for Old Age Living Allowance 15. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Chinese): President, some elderly persons have encountered difficulties in applying for Old Age Living Allowance (OALA), including inability to complete the application form for OALA (application form). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) how the Social Welfare Department (SWD) assists those members of

the public who are less competent in reading and writing in filling the application form;

(b) given that an application form must be signed by a witness for it to

be accepted, but some singleton elderly persons are unable to find relatives or friends to be their witnesses, how the SWD handles such situation;


(c) given that some members of the public have indicated that the design of the application form is extremely complicated, the printed letters are too tiny and the space for filling in information is too small, but much and repetitive information is required to be provided, whether the SWD will improve the design of the application form; if it will not, of the reasons for that; and

(d) given that some members of the public have relayed that they are

unable to get through the OALA hotline over a protracted time, whether the SWD will further improve the hotline service; if it will not, of the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Mr WONG Yuk-man is as follows:

(a) If an applicant, including one who is less competent in reading and writing, needs assistance to complete the application form, staff of Social Security Field Units (SSFUs) of the SWD will render assistance as appropriate. An applicant may also call the OALA hotline at 3595 0130 to enquire about the content of the application form and how to fill in the relevant information.

(b) If an applicant is unable to find a person to be his or her witness, he

or she may submit the application form without completing the particulars of the witness. The SWD will contact the applicant for confirmation of the relevant information as necessary.

(c) The application form of Phase 2 ― "Postal Submission" makes

reference to the content and format of "Social Security Allowance Scheme Application Form" and is a simplified version of it. To make it easy for elderly persons to complete the application form, personal data of the applicant (for example, name, Hong Kong Identity Card number, date of birth, the SWD case-file reference, and so on) are pre-printed on the forms. The elderly persons concerned are only required to complete information of their spouses (if applicable), income and asset particulars, and so on.


12569

Elderly persons under Phase 3 ― "New Application" may download the "Social Security Allowance Scheme Application Form" and "Application for Social Security Allowance Guidance Notes" from the SWD's website or collect them from SSFUs. The font size and format of and the information required in the application form are similar to those applicable to applications for Normal Old Age Allowance. The guidance notes will help applicants understand the content of the "Social Security Allowance Scheme Application Form" and facilitate their completion of the form.

(d) Since 19 October 2012, the SWD has set up a hotline 3595 0130 (10

lines) for OALA enquiries, providing services from 8.45 am to 6.00 pm, Monday to Friday. From 7 March 2013 onwards, the number of lines has been increased to 15, with additional staff deployed to handle telephone enquiries on OALA.

From 8 March 2013 onwards, the SWD has further enhanced the

hotline services with a 24-hour OALA Hotline at 3142 2202. This hotline, manned by the 1823 hotline of the Efficiency Unit, assists in responding to general and straight-forward enquiries on OALA.

The SWD will continue to closely monitor the situation on handling

public enquiries on OALA to ensure timely follow up. Monitoring Construction of Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link 16. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, at the special meetings of the Finance Committee of this Council held in the past few years to examine the Government's Estimates of Expenditure, I had raised questions time and again on the works progress of the Project to construct the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL Project), and whether there had been any delays or difficulties unforeseen at the design stage, and so on. The Government replied that it had all along been closely monitoring the works carried out by the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) to ensure that the works of the Project were of good quality, would be completed as scheduled and would not exceed the approved project estimate. The Government also advised that "there have been no signs of cost overrun or major


delay" for the XRL Project. However, it has recently been reported in the press that there have been severe delays in some of the works of the XRL Project, resulting in the delay of the completion date by one and a half year, and a contractor putting forward claims exceeding $1.55 billion for the additional expenses caused by the delays. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) it has assessed if the situation as reported above is consistent with

the authorities' replies to me; if the assessment result is in the affirmative, of the justifications; if the assessment result is in the negative, of the reasons for that, and whether the situation involves MTRCL knowingly not reporting the truth, and ineffective monitoring on the part of the Project Supervision Committee (PSC), which is chaired by the Director of Highways and is tasked with monitoring the XRL project; and

(b) it will require MTRCL to truthfully and comprehensively report on

the latest progress of the XRL Project (including whether there have been delays and/or cost overrun and the relevant causes); of the expected completion date and estimated total expenditure of the XRL Project according to the latest progress; if there is expected delay in the completion date, whether the authorities have assessed the impact of such a situation on the economy of Hong Kong and on the transport in the districts concerned?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to the two parts of Mr Frederick FUNG's questions is as follows: The Government has entrusted the design and construction of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) to the MTRCL. The XRL project commenced construction in January 2010, and all its major contracts for civil works and electrical and mechanical (E&M) works have been awarded. The target completion date is in 2015. As at end March 2013, over 70% of the excavation works under the XRL project, including those for the tunnels and the terminus, have been completed. The excavation works at the southern end of the terminus have reached level B4, and the main structures for the first two underground levels have been completed. According to the


12571

MTRCL's latest assessment, it remains our target to complete the construction of the XRL project in 2015. Given the scale of the XRL project, an inter-departmental PSC, chaired by the Director of Highways, has been established. The PSC holds regular meetings with the MTRCL and the relevant government departments to monitor the implementation and financial status at various levels (including reviewing project progress, and overseeing procurement activities, cost control and contractual claims), and provides the MTRCL with guidance on matters that affect the progress of the XRL project. In addition, the Highways Department has employed an engineering consultant to assist in project monitoring and verification, and the auditing works cover different aspects such as construction safety, technical, system programming, management procedures, works progress, financial status, and so on. The handling of contractual claims by the MTRCL will also be examined. All major contracts for civil engineering and E&M works under the XRL project have been awarded, with a total value of $44.812 billion. As at end March 2013, the cumulative expenditures were $24.418 billion. In the course of infrastructural works, it is quite common for the contractors to encounter situations that are more difficult than expected. If extra time is required or alternative construction methods and machinery have to be employed as a result, the MTRCL will handle the matter in accordance with the contract terms. The overall impact of various options on the project will be carefully assessed, and if considered reasonable, additional payment will be made to the contractors under the relevant contract terms. Provision has been earmarked in the project funding for unforeseeable situations during construction. The contingencies reserved for the XRL project is about $5.4 billion at 2009 prices. The Government has been closely monitoring the implementation of the railway project to ensure that it is completed on schedule, within the approved project estimate and to the required quality of works. We will continue to work closely with all parties concerned to make sure that the construction of the XRL project will be completed within budget and on time.


Expenses on Overseas Visits, Entertainment and Gifts Incurred by Disciplined Services and Acceptance of Gifts by Their Officers 17. MR JAMES TO (in Chinese): President, according to the Government's reply to my question on 15 May this year, expenses on entertainment and overseas visits incurred by the five disciplined services, namely the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), Immigration Department (ImmD), Fire Services Department (FSD), Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) and Correctional Services Department (CSD), in the past five financial years had recorded notable increases. For example, the HKPF's expenses on overseas visits increased by 64% to over $11 million, the expenses on overseas visits of the C&ED and the CSD increased by 66% and 64% respectively, and the ImmD's expenses on entertainment increased by 67%. Regarding the details of overseas visits, entertainment activities and presentation of gifts of these disciplined services as well as the acceptance of gifts by the officers of these disciplined services in the past five financial years, will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the number of overseas visits made by each disciplined service each

year and, among these visits, the respective numbers of those (i) in which its commissioner/director had participated (and set out the visits concerned); (ii) the destinations of which included Mainland cities (and set out the names of those cities and Mainland organizations visited); and (iii) which involved overspending (and set out the reasons for the overspending); the details (including the amounts of expenses, dates, purposes, destinations and names of organizations visited) of the 20 overseas visits incurring the highest amounts of expenses, set out in descending order;

(b) the number of entertainment activities hosted by each disciplined

service each year and, among these activities, the respective numbers of those which (i) were attended by its commissioner/director (and set out the entertainment activities concerned); (ii) were attended by representatives from Mainland organizations/offices of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong (CPG's offices) (and set out the Mainland organizations/CPG's offices concerned); and (iii) involved overspending (and set out the reasons for such overspending); the details (including the names of the activities, amounts of expenses incurred, dates, venues and names of organizations entertained) of the 20 entertainment


12573

activities incurring the highest amounts of expenses, set out in descending order;

(c) the amount of expenditure incurred each year by each disciplined

service for the purchase of gifts (including wooden trophies, crystal displays and stationery) for presentation to others, as well as the percentage of that amount in the "general departmental expenses"; the details (including the types, unit prices and quantities) of the top 10 types of gifts with the highest unit prices, set out in descending order;

(d) the number of gifts (including souvenirs) received each year by the

officers of each disciplined service, the types and methods of disposal of such gifts, as well as the types of such gifts which may be retained by the officers concerned and the approval procedures; the details (including the types, value and quantities) of the 10 types of gifts with the highest value, set out in descending order; and

(e) the number of cases handled by each disciplined service in which its

officers were suspected of contravening the Civil Service Regulations (CSRs) or other government regulations in relation to claiming overseas visit allowances, incurring entertainment expenses, presentation of gifts and receipt of gifts, and among such cases, the number of those which were substantiated and the officers concerned had been subject to disciplinary actions?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, in order to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the Civil Service in discharging their duties, the Administration has put in place a regulatory framework which is applicable to all civil servants, and is reviewed from time to time. Relevant guidelines are updated where necessary. The CSRs set out the principle, regulations and approval procedures pertaining to official entertainment. Heads of Departments (HoDs) have the delegated authority to authorize all expenditure from the departmental entertainment vote. In addition, according to the Government's internal guidelines, the expenses for entertaining guests should not in general exceed $350 per person for lunch and $450 per person for dinner. We have reminded the


disciplined services to exercise economy in official entertainment when entertaining guests. Where there are sufficient justifications for exceeding the expenditure ceilings, the departments are required to consider those applications according to the established mechanism and to document properly the detailed justifications for granting such approvals. To ensure that applications of civil servants for duty visits are prudently handled, applications from HoDs should be approved by their respective Permanent Secretary or Director of Bureau. Applications from officers below HoD level should be approved by Permanent Secretaries/HoDs or by senior officers not below Assistant Director level. In considering such applications, the approving officers should consider various factors, including the purpose of visit, duration, number and frequency of such visits, and the appropriateness of the ranking and number of the officers involved, and so on. As regards offering of souvenirs or gifts, the Government of the current term upholds the principles of honesty and simplicity. It generally does not accept or exchange souvenirs or gifts in functions and activities. If there is a need to go through the protocol for exchanging souvenirs or gifts, appropriate souvenirs or gifts would be procured having regard to the capacity of the guests and the occasions to ensure proper use of public funds. Overseas visits and entertainment activities Officers in the disciplined services (including HoDs) participate in duty visits and entertainment activities on the basis of work or protocol. The rank and number of officers participating in the duty visits will be considered on individual circumstances. In recent years, disciplined services have enhanced liaison and law-enforcement co-operation with the Mainland, other countries and regions, and attendance at international conferences to foster exchanges with government officials and agencies of other places. On another front, heads of disciplined services conduct or participate in duty visits and entertainment activities where necessary with regard to the status of the attending officials or guests of the receiving regions or agencies (for example, heads of enforcement departments in other governments), purpose of the liaison (for example, signing of bilateral agreements) and issues which require exchange of views or discussions (for example, large-scale joint enforcement operations). Expenses incurred by their attendance at such duty visits and entertainment activities shall


12575

be in compliance with the CSRs and other government requirements and guidelines to ensure proper use of public funds. When deciding on the place and scale of entertainment, disciplined services will take into account the status of the guests and the standard of entertainment to see whether they are in line with the operational and protocol needs for the occasion. Such entertainment expenses should be directly related to the discharge of an officer's duties or a necessary part of making or maintaining contacts in his official capacity. It is also necessary to consider the specific number of guests attending the functions or activities and the itineraries of the visitors so as to arrange the most appropriate place of entertainment. The major factor for an increase in expenses incurred by the disciplined services on entertainment activities and duty visits in the past five years was, in addition to inflation, their enhanced communication and exchanges with various sectors having regard to their operational needs. Disciplined services will review their annual estimated expenditures and stringent approval procedures are in place to ensure that applications and approvals for those expenses are subject to established procedures and the expenses incurred are governed by relevant guidelines to ensure the proper use of public funds. Details regarding the five disciplined services are set out below: Apart from inflation, the increase in expenses on entertainment activities and duty visits of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) was attributable to the need to address the escalation of cross-boundary crime activities in recent years, the new crime trends involved (such as online crimes), and a rise in cross-boundary cases in which Hong Kong people or their interests were involved. These call for the need to enhance liaison with the Mainland public security authorities and overseas law-enforcement agencies. In addition, in view of the substantial economic activities of Hong Kong people in the Mainland and other regions, the HKPF saw the need to further reinforce co-operation with relevant law-enforcement agencies. In the past two years, the HKPF signed bilateral agreements, such as memoranda of understanding or statements of intention, on combating cross-boundary crimes and developing police co-operation with law-enforcement agencies of countries such as Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Singapore and Cambodia. At present, the HKPF are negotiating with other countries on similar co-operation agreements, and such negotiations have also led to increased expenses on entertainment activities and overseas visits.


Out of operational needs, officers of the ImmD are required to maintain frequent contact with various local sectors, such as district personalities and the media. In addition, they need to maintain liaison with foreign government officials, foreign representatives stationed in Hong Kong, as well as offices set up by the Central People's Government in HKSAR and relevant Mainland authorities. In view of the increasingly closer ties and interactions between Hong Kong and neighbouring areas, the department has been conducting discussions and exchange of views with them on a wide range of issues, including global illegal immigration activities, bogus marriages, visa-free access for HKSAR passport holders and assistance to Hong Kong residents in distress outside Hong Kong. These lead to an increase in the number of visits to the ImmD and exchanges made by Mainland and overseas officials. Accordingly, there have been more receptions of visiting officials by the ImmD officers in their official capacity. Inflation in recent years is also a factor for the increased expenses on entertainment activities. As regards duty visits, in the event of major incidents involving Hong Kong residents outside Hong Kong, such as the political instability in Thailand, the hostage incident in the Philippines, the snowstorm in Europe and the severe earthquakes in Japan, the ImmD officers had to rush to these places for rendering immediate assistance. As a consequence, the expenses on duty visits rose and dropped at times in recent years. Apart from inflation, the reason for an increase in expenses on entertainment activities in the C&ED was mainly a result of its need to maintain close liaison with relevant parties in order to strengthen enforcement actions and to launch business facilitation initiatives in recent years. The rise in duty visit expenses was mainly attributable to the C&ED's stepping up of international liaison to enhance its enforcement effectiveness and to launch its business facilitation initiatives. Subsequent to the HKPF's crackdown on a case in which a large quantity of cocaine was smuggled from South America to Hong Kong in mid-2011, the C&ED officers, in a bid to specifically combat the drug smuggling problem, immediately visited various countries in South America to discuss co-operative measures against cross-boundary cocaine smuggling activities with the relevant parties. As a result, a smuggling case with a record seizure of cocaine was successfully smashed in 2012. In addition, the C&ED, elected as a member of the World Customs Organization Policy Commission (WCO PC) in 2011, has to attend overseas WCO PC meetings. Furthermore, with the implementation of the Hong Kong Authorized Economic Operator Programme in 2012, the C&ED has commenced negotiations on mutual recognition agreements


12577

with other customs authorities so that local enterprises can enjoy further customs facilitation. Apart from inflation, the major reason for the CSD's increase in expenses on duty visits and entertainment activities was its enhanced exchanges and mutual visits with the correctional services and relevant judicial bodies of other countries and regions, with a view to enhancing its service level and operational efficiency by means of professional exchanges and experience sharing. On the other hand, in order to further promote society-wide acceptance of rehabilitated persons' re-integration into the community and to provide such persons with relevant support, the CSD needs to maintain liaison and collaboration with employers, occupational training bodies, charitable organizations, voluntary groups, educational and local organizations, local communities for greater progress and effectiveness. The major factor for the FSD's increase in expenses on local entertainment activities was, in addition to inflation, its enhanced communication and exchanges with community groups, relevant Mainland and overseas authorities and organizations in fire-fighting, rescue, emergency ambulance service and fire safety. Depending on operational needs, the FSD's expenses on duty visits rose and dropped at times in the past few years. Expenses for the procurement of souvenirs The disciplined services do not maintain a separate account in respect of the expenses for the procurement of souvenirs. Hence we do not have the relevant statistics. Acceptance of souvenirs or gifts The Administration has set out detailed guidelines for civil servants on the acceptance of gifts by virtue of their official position. Advantages offered to an officer by virtue of the officer's official position or on an occasion attended in the officer's official capacity are regarded as advantages to the bureau/department in which the officer works. The general principle is that officers should as far as possible decline to accept gifts offered/presented to them by virtue of their official position. Where this cannot be done owing to protocol reasons or the need to avoid causing great offence or embarrassment, the relevant officer should take it back to his/her department and report to the HoD for a decision on how to


dispose of the gift appropriately. These procedures are applicable to all government departments. The approving authority shall take into consideration various factors in deciding on the disposal of gifts received by virtue of official position which include: the nature and value of the gifts; whether there is any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interests on the acceptance of the gifts; whether the acceptance of the gifts will place the officer, the department or the Government in an obligatory position towards the donor, and so on. Majority of the gifts are used for display purpose or are sent to other organizations (such as charitable organizations). For gifts/souvenirs of low value (for example, pens, calendars, and so on) or items inscribed with the name of the officers attending official functions as officiating guest or the principal representative of their department at the event (for example, souvenir shields, banners, and so on), and which do not exceed $400, the officers can personally retain the gifts. Officers need not apply for approval, but need to complete the relevant declaration form for record. Apart from these items, special permission is required for personal retention of any other gifts received by virtue of official position. If HoD would like to personally retain gifts presented to him by virtue of his official position, he should seek approval from the respective Permanent Secretary. Non-compliant cases In the past five years, no officer of the disciplined services was subject to disciplinary actions for suspected contravention of the CSRs or other government requirements in relation to claiming subsistence allowance for duty visits, reimbursement of entertainment expenses, or offering or receiving gifts. Measures to Optimize Use of Lands in the New Territories 18. MR TONY TSE (in Chinese): President, in his 2013 Policy Address, the Chief Executive put forward a number of measures to increase the supply of housing land in the short to medium-term. One of those measures is that he had "asked the Policy Bureaux to act decisively to optimize the use of land and, where the original intended use is not required anymore, to convert the land for housing development or other uses that meet the more pressing needs in the community as soon as possible". Furthermore, the Financial Secretary is heading the Steering Committee on Land Supply to co-ordinate the overall plans for development and


12579

supply of land in Hong Kong for various uses. On the other hand, according to the information provided by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, there are currently about 3 278 hectares of land zoned for "Agricultural Use" in the territory. Yet, there are comments that many pieces of such agricultural land have been left derelict or illegally converted to other uses (such as building houses). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether, regarding how to optimize the use of lands in the New

Territories (including Lantau Island), Chief Executive has given instructions to various Policy Bureaux and departments concerned to rezone the agricultural lands which are no longer suitable for agricultural activities to other uses, so as to increase the land supply for development; if he has, of the contents of such instructions; if not, the reasons for that;

(b) whether the responsibilities of the Steering Committee on Land

Supply include deliberations on how to optimize the use of lands in the New Territories and implement the relevant measures; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(c) whether it has any plan to set up an inter-departmental committee,

comprising heads or representatives of the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments, dedicated to co-ordinating and organizing efforts for resolving the various issues (for example, planning, building houses, relocation, compensation, transport, ancillary facilities, and so on) which arise in the process of optimizing the use of lands in the New Territories; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(d) whether the authorities will comprehensively review the use of

agricultural lands in the New Territories, with a view to releasing more land for residential developments; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, in his 2013 Policy Address, the Chief Executive has stated that the Government will adopt a multi-pronged approach to provide sufficient land to meet housing, social and economic needs in Hong Kong. Under such premises, we conduct land use


reviews from time to time for all districts, including the rural areas, with a view to achieving optimal land use. We have also been stepping up efforts on various fronts to increase residential land supply and build up a land reserve. In 2001, the Planning Department completed the Review of Rural Land Uses in Northern New Territories. One of its major recommendations was to preserve high-quality agricultural land for the sustainable development of the local agriculture industry, while some agricultural land of lower quality or lower ecological value could be rezoned into other land-use zones, such as "Other Specified Uses" annotated "Rural Use" (OU(Rural Use)) in order to facilitate rural development. Owners of agricultural land within the "OU(Rural Use)" zone can apply to the Town Planning Board for specific rural and recreational uses which could improve the environment of the area concerned and preserve the character of the rural area. In this connection, the Food and Health Bureau advises that it is the Government's existing policy to facilitate agricultural development through the provision of basic infrastructure and technical support, as well as low interest loans to farmers. At the same time, the Government make full use of the Agricultural Development Fund under the Vegetable Marketing Organization to facilitate the further development of local agriculture, enhance the productivity and business viability of the industry, develop modern and environmental-friendly farming technologies with emphasis on preservation of natural resources and the agricultural ecology, thereby helping to produce quality and high-value agricultural products that are safe for consumption. The Government will continue to adopt the above measures for supporting the sustainable development of the local farming industry. The reply to the various parts of the question is follows:

(a) The Government has been monitoring developments in the New

Territories and changes in rural areas. It also conducts timely reviews of land uses in all districts in response to varying circumstances with a view to achieving an optimal use of rural land and striking a balance among environmental, development and social needs. To release the development potential of more land, a series of planning and engineering studies have also been undertaken in order to rezone suitable land within the study areas (including land of "Agriculture" zone) into other land uses, taking into account


12581

feasibility in environmental, transport and infrastructural terms. The Government will also expedite the review of agricultural land in North District and Yuen Long currently used mainly for industrial purposes, temporary storage, or that is deserted, with a view to identifying suitable land for housing development.

In order to increase land supply, the Chief Executive has announced

a series of measures in the 2013 Policy Address, many of which involve planning and development studies of rural land (including agricultural land). The planning and engineering study projects currently being undertaken include the North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study (around 787 hectares), Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area Planning and Engineering Study (around 820 hectares), Tung Chung New Town Extension Study (around 287 hectares), Planning and Engineering Study for Housing Sites in Yuen Long South (around 200 hectares), Engineering Feasibility Study for Kong Nga Po (around 19 hectares) and Planning and Engineering Study for Kwu Tung South (around 19 hectares). Through such planning and engineering studies, suitable land within the study areas (including the "Agriculture" zone suitable for other uses) will be rezoned for the purpose of releasing more sites for housing development.

(b) and (c) Since its establishment in November 2010, the Steering Committee

on Housing Land Supply, chaired by the Financial Secretary, had done extensive work on reviewing existing land uses, exploring new land resources, co-ordinating the work of relevant bureaux and departments, and tackling issues concerning housing sites, with a view to speeding up housing land supply. As announced in the 2013 Policy Address, the Steering Committee on Housing Land Supply has been re-organized into the Steering Committee on Land Supply responsible for co-ordinating the overall plans for development and supply of land in Hong Kong for various uses, including the optimal utilization of land in the New Territories. The abovementioned studies on rural and agricultural land also come under the purview of this Steering Committee.


In addition, the inter-departmental Committee on Planning and Land Development, chaired by the Secretary for Development and with representatives from all relevant bureaux and departments, holds regular discussions on the co-ordination of planning and land development matters, including the development of land in the New Territories. For any co-ordination issues that are beyond the terms of reference of the Committee on Planning and Land Development, they will be referred to the Steering Committee on Land Supply, which will take charge as the co-ordinator and see to it that the work relating to residential land supply can proceed effectively.

As the co-ordination work on planning, development and land

supply are now well handled by the Steering Committee on Land Supply and the Committee on Planning and Land Development, we have no plan to set up another inter-departmental committee specifically responsible for land issues in the New Territories.

(d) Outside the existing built-up areas, country parks, conservation

areas, hills and so on, the New Territories North can be a major source of new land for meeting Hong Kong's long-term needs for housing and other uses. The Government is now examining the further development of areas in the New Territories North, and a feasibility study will be conducted with a view to developing a modern new town there of a similar scale as the Fan Ling/Sheung Shui New Town. We will work in this direction to further unleash the development potential of suitable sites in the New Territories for meeting the long-term housing, social, economic and environmental needs of Hong Kong. In parallel, the Government will continue to actively explore the development potential of Lantau Island, including rural land within the area.

Filibuster on Appropriation Bill 2013 19. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Chinese): President, after the Appropriation Bill 2013 (the Bill) received its Second Reading on 24 April 2013, this Council forthwith went into committee of the whole Council to consider the 710 Committee stage amendments (CSAs) proposed mainly by four Members. These four Members stated unequivocally that the purpose of their proposing a large


12583

number of CSAs was to "filibuster" the Bill and force the Government to accede to their demands. After meeting the Financial Secretary in the afternoon of 10 May, the four Members were determined to continue with their filibuster. All the proceedings on the Bill were finally completed on 21 May. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it has assessed the additional government expenditure

brought about by the filibuster; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(b) whether it has assessed the specific impacts of the filibuster on the

operation of various government departments; if it has, set out in detail the departments affected and the impacts (including those relating to service provision and additional expenses caused, and so on); if not, of the reasons for that;

(c) during the 16-day period between the commencement of the

filibuster and the day on which the Financial Secretary met with the four Members, whether the Government had lobbied these Members and directly explained to them the consequences and impacts if the Bill was not passed by the deadline; if it had, of the details of those official(s) who had undertaken such task, as well as the date(s) and time, venue(s) and format(s) of such meeting(s); if not, the reasons for that;

(d) whether it has assessed the impacts of the filibuster on the

relationship between the executive authorities and the Legislature; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(e) whether the Chief Executive had in person lobbied the Members who

filibustered, and urged them to withdraw some or all of their CSAs; if not, of the reasons for that;

(f) whether it has assessed the extent to which people from various

sectors of the community supported the filibuster, as well as the responses of various political parties/groups to the filibuster; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;


(g) given that the Chief Executive, when attending this Council's Question and Answer Session on 9 May this year, had indicated that the filibuster would bring negative impacts particularly on the needy of society, and also obstruct the Government's implementation of those relief measures put forward in the 2013-2014 Budget, whether the authorities can set out the details of such relief measures and the amounts involved;

(h) given that the Chief Executive, at the aforesaid Question and Answer

Session, had indicated that if the Bill could not be passed in time, it would have inestimable impacts on the finances, people's livelihood and operation of the whole community, whether the Government had, before those Members commenced the filibuster, explained to the public and Members of this Council what "inestimable" impacts the filibuster would have; if it had, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(i) given that the Chief Executive, at the aforesaid Question and Answer

Session, had indicated that if the Bill could not be passed by this Council by 15 May, there would be serious consequences comparable to facing a "fiscal cliff", and the Bill was passed by this Council several days later than the time specified by the Government, of those serious consequences that the Chief Executive had referred to and whether the "fiscal cliff" has occurred;

(j) whether it had approached the President of the Legislative Council

with regard to the four Members' filibustering and requested him to put an end to the filibuster; if it had, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(k) whether it had known in advance that the President of the Legislative

Council was to announce the arrangements for ending the filibuster on the morning of 13 May; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to the question on the Bill is set out in the ensuing paragraphs:


12585

The Financial Secretary introduced the Bill into the Legislative Council on 27 February, seeking funding for the day-to-day operations of the Government and subvented organizations, the provision of welfare services to the public and the implementation of the various initiatives proposed in the Budget. The Legislative Council passed the Vote on Account Resolution on 20 March to provide funding for the Government to carry on its services prior to the passage of the Bill. If the passage of the Bill is not secured by mid-May as scheduled, there would be a funding shortfall for some 60 bureaux/departments at different times in June, and various public services, including medical, education, law enforcement, judicial and other livelihood-related services, would be affected. The total funding made available through the Vote on Account Resolution does not include funding required for new initiatives or individual measures not yet discussed by the Legislative Council. Arising from the delayed passage of the Appropriation Bill, the implementation of the various budget initiatives which require specific approval from the Finance Committee (FC) of the Legislative Council, including the various one-off relief measures and injections for specific funds, would be unduly delayed. Such proposals include granting electricity charges subsidy; paying two months' rent for public housing tenants; providing an extra month's allowance to recipients of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, Old Age Allowance, Old Age Living Allowance and Disability Allowance; as well as making injections to the Language Fund, Community Care Fund and Environment and Conservation Fund. The Appropriation Bill seeks to provide resources for all the public services. The appropriations are the main source of income for over 1 million welfare recipients, hundreds of thousands of staff of subvented organizations and civil servants, and thousands of service providers and their staff. Undue delay in the passage of the Bill will thus impose tremendous pressure on the overall economy, the consumption sentiment as well as individual families, with dire consequences. As a matter of fact, more than 700 CSAs were proposed by individual Members in mid-April, and the Government has made use of various means and channels to explain to all Legislative Council Members (including those who "filibustered") and the general public the necessity of passing the Bill by mid-May and the consequences of delay in the passage due to the filibuster.


The Financial Secretary wrote to the President of the Legislative Council on 18 April, expressing the vital importance of the timely passage of the Bill. On the same day, the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury wrote to the Secretary General of the Legislative Council, setting out the Administration's views on the CSAs. On 19 April, the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury and the Treasury Branch wrote to the Legislative Council Secretariat, respectively explaining the need to ensure passage of the Appropriation Bill by mid-May, as well as analysing the implications of the CSAs. The Financial Secretary wrote to all Legislative Council Members on 9 May, appealing to them to expedite their scrutiny of the Bill and support its passage by mid-May. He also invited the four "filibustering" Members to meet on 10 May but for the three who came, he explained the reasons for denying the two requests raised by them and earnestly requested them not to delay the passage of the Bill, having regard the overall interests of the community. Moreover, the Chief Executive and various Principal Officials have indeed expressed on different occasions that delay in the passage of the Appropriation Bill might have serious impact on the economy, society and international reputation of Hong Kong and the livelihood of Hong Kong people. They urged the Legislative Council to pass the Bill as soon as possible. The Government respects the Legislative Council's powers to scrutinize and approve the Appropriation Bill. Since the introduction of the Bill into the Legislative Council on 27 February and up to 21 May, the Government has rendered full support to the Legislative Council in the scrutiny process by, among other things:

(a) replying to a total of 5 471 initial written questions and 277 supplementary questions (a new record high) raised by Members in the special meetings of the FC;

(b) attending 20 sessions (totalling about 31.5 hours) of special meetings

of the FC; (c) deliberating and analysing the implications of over 700 amendments

and offering views to the Legislative Council; and


12587

(d) attending a total of about 133 hours of the debating and scrutinizing process spanning over a period of 16 days during 24 April to 21 May (a new record high).

To cope with the funding shortfall from June onwards in the event of the failure to pass the Bill in mid-May, all bureaux and departments have been requested to review the cash flow positions for May and June in respect of the 83 heads of expenditure under their control for drawing up contingency measures. The Appropriation Bill was eventually passed on 21 May. The Government will complete the necessary statutory, administrative and accounting processes and provide funds to government departments and public organizations as soon as possible, with a view to minimizing any interruption to the provision of public services. However, there may still be a slight delay in providing the regular subvention payments to organizations like the Hospital Authority and the eight publicly-funded universities which fall due in early June. Regulation of Sale of Hotel Room Units 20. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited (Cheung Kong), based on the reason that "harmony is precious", decided to unwind the sale of all hotel room units at The Apex Horizon (the Sale) after entering into an agreement with the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), in order to avoid the SFC conducting an investigation under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) (the Ordinance) into whether the Sale involved a Collective Investment Scheme (CIS). In addition, there are comments that Cheung Kong unwound the Sale because a Member of this Council had sent a letter to the SFC requesting it to conduct an investigation into whether the Sale constituted a CIS. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) given that Cheung Kong had, for the sake of selling hotel room units,

sought and obtained permission from the Lands Department (LandsD) for splitting The Apex Horizon's land lease, while the Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary for Administration, the Secretary for Development as well as officials from the LandsD and


Buildings Department (BD) had neither stopped the Sale nor indicated that the relevant transactions might contravene the Ordinance, whether such situations had arisen because the Government had never realized that the Sale might involve a CIS; if so, of the reasons for that; if not, when the Government started to examine whether the Sale had contravened the Ordinance;

(b) whether it will review the competence of members of the governing

team of the Government and government officials in interpreting and enforcing various legislation which is applicable to the regulation of developers, in order to avoid similar suspected illegal sale in future; and

(c) whether it knows if the SFC will clarify whether the Sale or similar

selling approaches violate any regulations, and whether it will study if it is necessary to take further legal actions and amend the relevant legislation so as to avoid criticism of inappropriately taking "harmony is precious" approach and "tackling problems with developers in private" as well as to prevent the recurrence of similar disputes in future?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, on the sale of individual hotel room units of The Apex Horizon in Kwai Chung by its developer in mid-February this year, the Government has on different occasions been reminding members of the public to exercise extreme care in considering the offer for sale and to pay attention to the relevant sale and purchase conditions, statutory requirements and lease conditions, including those specifying that the units concerned are for hotel use only, and that they should seek independent legal advice as necessary. At the meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Development on 26 February 2013, the Development Bureau and relevant departments also elaborated on the regulatory regimes for development and operation of hotels in Hong Kong, including controls on possible misuse of hotels for private residential purpose and the follow-up actions taken by the relevant departments under their respective policy areas in respect of the sale of hotel room units of The Apex Horizon by its developer.


12589

My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(a) and (b)

As we have reiterated several times, from the perspective of land lease, the lease governing the lot where The Apex Horizon is situated does not prohibit disposal of undivided shares of and in the lot, but the lessee is required to comply with the lease, including the requirement that the gross floor area (GFA) of the building designated or intended to be used for hotel purposes shall not be less than 21 190 sq m. Insofar as the lease control regime is concerned, the matter at issue is not the sale of hotel room units per se, but whether, following the sale, the concerned hotel room units would in substance be used for hotel purpose such that the relevant hotel GFA requirement under the lease would be complied with. In this regard, the LandsD has been actively following up the situation regarding the hotel operation of The Apex Horizon and enquiring relevant details, with a view to looking into whether the recent sale arrangement would deviate from the expectation for the property to be used as hotel after the sale of individual units, in fulfillment of the relevant lease requirement. If there is any breach of the lease, the LandsD will take appropriate lease enforcement actions, including but not limited to re-entering the property. In addition, the BD has been paying close attention to The Apex Horizon incident. If it is confirmed that the requirement prohibiting change of use of a hotel building to a use other than that of a hotel under the Buildings Ordinance is contravened, the BD would take appropriate law-enforcement action.

On the other hand, in accordance with the Hotel and Guesthouse

Accommodation Ordinance (HAGAO), a hotel or a guesthouse has to be operated under a license or a certificate of exemption, unless it is excluded from the application of the HAGAO by the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Exclusion) Order. A licence will not be granted if the premises intended to be used as a hotel or guesthouse does not meet the requirements on design, structure and fire precautions, health, sanitation, safety and protection of life and property as set out in the Buildings Ordinance and the Fire Services Ordinance. The operation, keeping and management of the hotel or


guesthouse shall also be under the continuous and personal supervision of the licensee. In addition, the licensee shall comply with all conditions as stipulated in the licence. The issue of a hotel or guesthouse licence does not act as a wavier of any terms in any lease or licence granted by the relevant authority, nor does it in any way affect or modify any agreement or covenant relating to any premises or building in which the hotel or guesthouse is situated.

The SFC has also been following up the issue on whether the sale of

hotel room units of The Apex Horizon constituted a CIS in relation to the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO). After looking into the issue, the SFC formed the view that the offer to purchase hotel room units of The Apex Horizon appeared to be an invitation to participate in or to acquire an interest in a CIS as defined in the SFO. According to the SFC's press release on 13 May, the SFC has subsequently informed the relevant parties that it intended to commence proceedings under section 213 "Injunctions and Other Orders" of the SFO in the Court of First Instance to seek orders unwinding the sale and returning all deposit moneys and part payments to purchasers. According to the press release, the SFC has entered into an agreement with the relevant parties to unwind the sale of hotel room units of The Apex Horizon on that day.

(c) The SFC has already made clear in its press release on 13 May about

the arrangement that it entered into with the relevant parties. The SFC also mentioned in its press release that it was investigating whether the offer to purchase hotel room units of The Apex Horizon constituted an offer to acquire an interest in or to participate in a CIS under the SFO. According to the press release, the SFC will continue to monitor the progress by the relevant parties to unwind the sale. We will not comment on whether there is a need to take further action regarding the case.

According to the SFO, a CIS has four relevant elements in general:

(i) it must involve an arrangement in respect of property; (ii) participants do not have day-to-day control over the management of the property even if they have the right to be consulted or to give directions about the management of the property; (iii) the property is managed as a whole by or on behalf of the person operating the


12591

arrangements; and (iv) the purpose of the arrangement is for participants to participate in or receive profits, income or other returns from the acquisition or management of the property. As a matter of fact, the relevant ordinance does not prohibit sale of hotel room units. However, if the sale of hotel room units possesses the abovementioned elements, the relevant project will then need to obtain the SFC's authorization on its marketing materials issued to the public in accordance with the ordinance. The SFC is of view that the part on offers of investments in the SFO has been operating well, and hence has no intention to amend the relevant provisions to clarify its operation.

Aircraft Noise Mitigating Measures 21. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Chinese): President, in reply to my question at the meeting of this Council on 18 April 2012, the Government indicated that the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) had, since October 1998, implemented a number of aircraft noise mitigating measures to minimize the impact of aircraft noise on the districts near the flight paths. Such measures included: (i) arranging flights departing Hong Kong from 11 pm to 7 am the next day to use the southbound route via the West Lamma Channel, and flights arriving in Hong Kong from midnight to 7 am the next day to land from the waters southwest of the airport, as far as possible so as to avoid aircraft overflying densely populated areas in the early hours; (ii) requiring aircraft approaching from the northeast to adopt the Continuous Descent Approach when landing; (iii) requiring aircraft taking off towards the northeast to follow the noise abatement departure procedures so as to reach a higher altitude within a shorter distance; (iv) allowing only aircraft of a lower noise level (as defined in the Convention on International Civil Aviation) to land and take off in Hong Kong; and (v) requiring all aircraft which could make use of the satellite navigation technology to follow a set of "Radius-to-Fix" turn procedures when taking off towards the northeast and turning south to the West Lamma Channel so as to reduce the noise impact on Ma Wan residents, and so on. However, I have learnt that aircraft noise during the aforesaid hours still causes nuisance to the residents of quite a number of housing estates, making it difficult for them to fall asleep. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


(a) of the monthly data recorded in 2012 and 2013 by various aircraft noise monitoring terminals on aircraft noise levels which reached 70 to 74, 75 to 79, and 80 decibels (dB) or above during the aforesaid hours;

(b) of the types of aircraft with noise levels reaching 80 dB or above last

year, and the names of the airline companies to which such aircraft belonged; and

(c) whether it will further enhance the existing aircraft noise mitigating

measures to reduce the nuisance caused to residents in the districts concerned; if it will, of the details?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, our reply to the various sections of Mr Albert CHAN's question is as follows:

(a) The CAD has 16 noise monitoring terminals. The aircraft noise events recorded by these terminals in 2012 and 2013 (up to March) by month are set out in Annex 1.

(b) The types of aircraft with noise events of 80 dB or above in 2012

and the operating airlines concerned are set out in Annex 2. (c) The CAD has implemented a series of aircraft noise mitigating

measures in accordance with the balanced approach to aircraft noise management promulgated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The measures are comparable to those adopted by other major international airports.

Since February 2012, the CAD has implemented a new set of flight

procedures that aim to allow aircraft which could use satellite-based navigation technology in their flights to adhere closely to the nominal centre line of the flight track when departing to the northeast of the Hong Kong International Airport and making south turn to the West Lamma Channel, thereby keeping the aircraft at a distance away from the areas in the vicinity of the flight paths, and reducing the aircraft noise impact on these areas.


12593

With the advancement of technology in aviation, aircraft engines are quieter than before, and the improvement in the design of airframe has also helped reduce noise significantly. The CAD has been requesting the airlines to introduce newer models of aircraft to replace the older ones, and to deploy quieter aircraft for night time operations. Airlines are taking follow-up actions as appropriate, and are progressively replacing their aircraft fleet with newer models of and relatively quieter aircraft. The CAD will continue to closely monitor the progress made by the airlines in their aircraft fleet replacement and their deployment of quieter aircraft for night time operations, as well as the effectiveness.

Furthermore, the Airport Authority Hong Kong and the CAD will

conduct a detailed study on the feasibility of introducing aircraft noise charges on the basis of the 24-hour operation of the Hong Kong International Airport, and with reference to the guidelines relating to aircraft noise charges issued by the ICAO. The aviation industry and the stakeholders will be consulted accordingly.

Annex 1

Noise Events Recorded by the Noise Monitoring Terminals in 2012 and 2013 (till March) (During 2300 hours to 0700 hours the Next Day)

Noise

Monitoring Terminals

Noise Level (dB)

2012 2013

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

1. Mei Lam Estate, Tai Wai

70 to 74 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 75 to 79 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ≥80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. On Yam Estate, Kwai Chung

70 to 74 4 5 1 2 10 67 4 5 0 9 14 0 0 2 3

75 to 79 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

≥80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Yiu Tung Estate, Shau Kei Wan

70 to 74 0 0 0 13 2 0 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4

75 to 79 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

≥80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Noise Monitoring Terminals

Noise Level (dB)

2012 2013


4. Beverly Height, Cloud View Road, North Point

70 to 74 0 0 0 39 4 0 9 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 6

75 to 79 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

≥80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Fairmont Garden, Conduit Road, Mid-Levels

70 to 74 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

75 to 79 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

≥80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Hong Kong Garden, Tsing Lung Tau

70 to 74 153 163 266 414 290 366 313 549 181 189 296 139 240 127 201

75 to 79 19 13 26 26 17 33 26 20 14 25 45 9 41 19 26

≥80 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 1

7. Sha Lo Wan, Lantau

70 to 74 375 485 342 403 315 343 294 327 376 364 188* 0* 251* 382 378 75 to 79 151 186 72 79 58 49 48 37 67 66 46* 0* 41* 60 82 ≥80 21 21 6 8 1 1 2 0 2 12 4* 0* 7* 11 6

8. Caribbean Coast, Tung Chung

70 to 74 248 221 239 104 81 98 68 44 116 101 156 186 287 159 200 75 to 79 16 11 19 17 10 4 10 7 15 1 9 9 7 10 9 ≥80 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0

9. Ma Wan Marine Control Centre, Ting Kau

70 to 74 6 19 24 179 117 267 218 345 10 30 53 5 13 5 19

75 to 79 1 2 0 9 0 7 6 6 1 2 2 1 1 0 2

≥80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

10. Park Island, Ma Wan

70 to 74 591 487 612 529 490 539 596 579 478 525 586 587 709 421 639 75 to 79 149 138 150 148 91 118 89 93 163 129 146 118 164 73 106 ≥80 14 7 10 12 9 8 7 2 9 12 28 15 20 13 16

11. Tai Lam Chung Tsuen

70 to 74 22 11 21 14 4 1 7 2 6 12 16 13 18 14 8 75 to 79 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 ≥80 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

12. Greenview Court, Yau Kom Tam, Tsuen Wan

70 to 74 0 2 0 24 12 53 40 89 1 16 9 0 0 0 5

75 to 79 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

≥80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13. Cheung Hang Estate, Tsing Yi

70 to 74 7 13 1 10 30 144 90 138 1 30 23 0 0 3 10

75 to 79 0 0 0 1 3 10 3 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 1

≥80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14. Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot, Sunny Bay

70 to 74 470 433 442 501 454 222 336 249 439 427 368 517 625 348 547

75 to 79 44 32 30 51 30 15 35 16 33 33 24 35 36 23 31

≥80 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1


12595

Noise Monitoring Terminals

Noise Level (dB)

2012 2013


15. Mount Butler Road, Jardine's Lookout

70 to 74 1 1 3 29 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

75 to 79 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

≥80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16. Mount Haven, Liu To Road, Tsing Yi

70 to 74 4 2 1 2 15 21 54 50 4 17 7 0 0 1 8

75 to 79 0 0 0 1 3 6 42 5 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

≥80 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Note: * No noise data was collected between 20 November 2012 and 3 January 2013 at the noise monitoring

terminal at Sha Lo Wan, Lantau, due to equipment outage.

Annex 2

Aircraft Types with Noise Events Exceeding 80 dB Recorded and Their Operating Airlines

(From 1 January to 31 December 2012) (During 2300 hours to 0700 hours the Next Day)

Airlines Aircraft Type

ACG Air Cargo Germany Boeing B747-400

Aerologic Boeing B747-400 Boeing B777-200LR

AHK Air Hong Kong Airbus A300-600 Boeing B727-200 Boeing B747-400

Air Busan Boeing B737-400 Air China Cargo Boeing B747-400

Air France Boeing B747-400 Boeing B777-300ER

Air India Boeing B777-300ER All Nippon Airways Boeing B767-300 Airbridge Cargo Airline Boeing B747-400

Asiana Airlines Airbus A330-300 Boeing B747-400


Airlines Aircraft Type Atlas Air Boeing B747-400

British Airways Boeing B747-400 Boeing B777-200 Boeing B777-300ER

Cargolux Airlines International Boeing B747-400 Boeing B747-8

Cargolux Italia Boeing B747-400

Cathay Pacific Airways

Airbus A330-300 Airbus A340-300 Boeing B747-400 Boeing B747-8 Boeing B777-300 Boeing B777-300ER

Cebu Pacific Air Airbus A320

China Airlines Airbus A330-300 Boeing B747-400

China Cargo Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Close Joint-Stock Company Aircompany Polet Ilyushin IL-96 Donghai Airlines Boeing B737-300

Emirates Airline

Airbus A380-800 Boeing B747-400 Boeing B777-200LR Boeing B777-300ER

EVA Airways Airbus A330-200 Boeing B747-400 McDonnell Douglas MD-11

Federal Express Boeing B777-200LR Finnair Airbus A340-300

Hong Kong Airlines Airbus A330-200 Boeing B737-800

Hong Kong Dragon Airlines Airbus A320 Airbus A321 Airbus A330-300

Kalitta Air Boeing B747-200 Boeing B747-400

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Boeing B747-400 K Mile Boeing B727-200


12597

Airlines Aircraft Type

Korean Air Airbus A380-800 Boeing B737-900 Boeing B747-400

Lufthansa Cargo McDonnell Douglas MD-11

Lufthansa German Airlines Airbus A340-600 Boeing B747-400

Malaysia Airlines Airbus A330-200 Nippon Cargo Airlines Boeing B747-400 Peach Aviation Airbus A320 Polar Air Cargo Boeing B747-400

Qantas Airways Airbus A330-300 Boeing B747-400

Qatar Airways Airbus A330-200 Boeing B777-200LR

Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing B747-400 SF Airlines Boeing B737-300 Singapore Airlines Boeing B777-300ER Singapore Airlines Cargo Boeing B747-400 South African Airways Airbus A340-300 Southern Air Boeing B777-200LR Swiss International Air Lines Airbus A340-300 Tiger Airways Singapore Airbus A320 TNT Airways Boeing B747-400 Transmile Air Services Boeing B727-200

Turkish Airlines Airbus A330-200 Boeing B777-300ER

United Airlines Boeing B737-800

UPS Parcel Delivery Services Boeing B747-400 McDonnell Douglas MD-11

Virgin Atlantic Airways Airbus A340-600 Yangtze River Express Airlines Boeing B737-300 Improvement to Bus Services 22. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Chinese): President, the Chief Executive mentioned in the 2013 Policy Address that the Government would review bus


services, rationalize bus routing, enhance feeder service and improve interchange arrangements. Also, in a paper submitted to this Council on 18 January this year, the Transport and Housing Bureau mentioned that the Transport Department (TD) and the franchised bus companies would try out an "Area Approach" in reviewing and rationalizing bus services, and set up Bus-Bus Interchanges (BBIs) similar to the newly opened Tuen Mun Road BBI. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) it has formulated a detailed timetable for commencing discussions

with the three franchised bus companies and the various District Councils (DCs) on using an "Area Approach" in formulating bus route rationalization plans and the relevant implementation arrangements; if it has, of the timetable and the details of the work concerned; if not, the reasons for that;

(b) it has prepared a list of feasible sites for providing new BBIs; if it

has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (c) it will consider converting certain large-scale bus termini (for

example, Cheung On Bus Terminus at Tsing Yi) into area-based BBIs; if it will, of the details of the relevant plans; if not, the reasons for that; and

(d) it has any plan to make reference to the practices of other places (for

example, Taiwan) and require franchised bus companies to set up Estimated Bus Arrival Time systems to enable passengers to check the bus arrival time via announcing devices set up at BBIs or mobile phone applications, as well as consider including such a requirement in the franchise agreements to be signed with bus companies in future; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, bus route rationalization is one of the policy priorities mentioned by the Chief Executive in his Policy Address delivered in January this year. It helps minimize wastage due to duplication of resources and enhance the efficiency of the bus network. Apart from easing traffic congestion, this helps improve air quality and alleviate the pressure for fare increase.


12599

My reply to the various parts of Dr KWOK Ka-ki's question is as follows:

(a) Rationalization of bus services is an ongoing task of the TD. As an annual exercise, franchised bus companies submit their route development programmes (RDPs) comprising service adjustment proposals to the TD. To meet passenger demand, these may include proposals to introduce new routes, improve frequency and extend operating hours, as well as to reduce frequency, truncate routes, and cancel or amalgamate routes, and so on. In adjusting bus service, the TD will take into account factors such as changes in population and passenger demand, infrastructural development as well as the established guidelines on service rationalization. Each year, the TD will consult the 18 DCs on the proposals under their respective RDPs. The consultation for the 2013-2014 RDPs has commenced in early 2013 and is expected to be completed by mid year.

In addition to the ongoing annual RDP exercise for each district, the

TD and franchised bus companies are vigorously rationalizing bus routes through an "area approach". Under the area approach, the TD will consider the transport service package for a district/area in a holistic manner instead of by individual routes. This makes the bus service rationalization proposals more beneficial to the district/area concerned from the traffic and environment angles in overall terms. In parallel, to encourage more passengers to use BBI schemes, the TD and bus companies will explore providing enhanced interchange facilities at major locations, and introducing new BBI schemes or improving existing ones, with a view to offering additional route choices and more attractive BBI concessions.

As a start, the area approach will be applied to North District for

rationalizing bus routes. The TD and bus companies are consulting the North DC on the details for implementation around summer holiday this year. They are also actively exploring bus route rationalization proposals under the area approach for other districts/areas, with a view to conducting phased consultation and implementation in various districts/areas from the latter half of 2013 onwards.


Separately, the travelling pattern of passengers will change in the wake of the commissioning of new railways. The TD will assess the impact of new railways on other public transport modes, and devise a public transport reorganization plan to better cater for the travelling needs of commuters and improve the operational efficiency of the public transport network. Currently, the TD is preparing the public transport reorganization plan in connection with the commissioning of the West Island Line and the South Island Line (East) scheduled for 2014 and 2015 respectively. The plan mainly includes proposals to reorganize franchised bus and green minibus services. The TD expects to consult the relevant DCs and the affected public transport operators and trades starting from the second half of this year.

(b) and (c) To tie in with the rollout of bus route rationalization plans and to

facilitate and encourage passengers to use BBI schemes, the Administration has been actively exploring and identifying suitable sites for the set up of new BBIs. For example, the BBI located on Tuen Mun Road (Kowloon-bound) in Siu Lam, Tuen Mun, was officially commissioned last December; the BBI located on Tuen Mun Road (Tuen Mun-bound) in Tai Lam Kok, Tuen Mun, is expected to be open for public use around July this year. We are also examining the set up of new BBIs at toll plazas of tunnels (such as the bus stops at Tsing Sha Control Area), and will consult the DCs concerned in a timely manner.

Meanwhile, the TD and bus companies will explore the provision of

district-based BBIs at existing bus termini or public transport interchanges (PTIs) as appropriate. For example, to tie in with the area approach in rationalizing bus routes serving North District, the Administration will introduce new BBI schemes at Sheung Shui Station PTI and Wah Ming Bus Terminus in Fan Ling to facilitate commuters from different sub-areas of North District to travel to various destinations.

(d) The TD always encourages bus companies to enhance their service

efficiency and provide passengers with timely service information by using information technology. At present, the Citybus Limited


12601

(Franchise for Airport and North Lantau Bus Network) (hereinafter referred as "Citybus (Franchise 2)") is providing real-time bus arrival information on all its airport routes through its company website. In addition, the Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited (KMB) has introduced the Estimated Bus Arrival Time system at the BBI on Tuen Mun Road (Kowloon-bound) upon its commissioning in end 2012. Passengers are informed of the estimated bus arrival time of five external routes via the display panels at the said BBI. As the system is still in trial use, the KMB will continue to monitor its operational accuracy and consider extending its application to other locations and routes when the technology becomes mature. The Long Win Bus Company Limited (LW) has also indicated that a trial to provide real-time bus arrival time will be launched in mid-2013.

When processing the new franchises for the New World First Bus

Services Limited, LW and Citybus (Franchise 2) last year, the Administration updated the relevant clause in the franchises for enhancing the regulatory power of the Commissioner for Transport (Commissioner) over the type, form and manner of information to be provided by the bus companies to passengers. The amended franchise clause specifically requires the franchised bus company concerned to provide service information on its website as requested by the Commissioner. Also, these bus companies have committed to provide passenger information and an enquiry system via Internet and smart phone applications, and agreed to further enhance such information and systems if necessary in future. The Administration plans to introduce similar clauses and commitments for the other three franchises expiring in 2016-2017.

Taking into account factors such as the operability, reliability and

cost-effectiveness of applying the technology concerned in different operating situations, we will consider whether it is necessary to require bus companies, through the franchise or other means, to provide passengers with estimated bus arrival time vide announcing devices at BBIs or mobile phone applications. In the meantime, we will continue to encourage bus companies to further enhance their arrangements in providing information to the passengers having regard to commuters' needs and technical feasibility.


MOTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Motions. Proposed resolution under the Road Traffic Ordinance and the Road Traffic (Driving-offence Points) Ordinance. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon the Secretary for Transport and Housing to speak and move the motion. PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE ROAD TRAFFIC ORDINANCE AND THE ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING-OFFENCE POINTS) ORDINANCE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed to introduce technical amendments to the Schedule to the Road Traffic (Driving-offence Points) Ordinance (Cap. 375) and Schedule 11 to the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374), so as to accord with the amendments made to the four pieces of subsidiary legislation that took effect on 20 July 2012. The four pieces of subsidiary legislation are the Eastern Harbour Crossing Road Tunnel By-laws (Cap. 215E), the Tate's Cairn Tunnel By-laws (Cap. 393B), the Western Harbour Crossing Bylaw (Cap. 436D) and the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road Bylaw (Cap. 474C). Section 4 of the Road Traffic (Driving-offence Points) Ordinance specifies that if a person is convicted of an offence listed in the Schedule (scheduled offence) or becomes liable to a fixed penalty in respect of a scheduled offence, he shall incur the corresponding number of driving-offence points (DOPs). As speeding or contravention of certain road markings in the tunnel areas has direct impact on road safety, such offences are included under the DOP system as scheduled offences to deter motorists from committing them. The scheduled offences include traffic offences under the bylaws of the four "Build-Operate-Transfer" (BOT) tunnels (tunnel bylaws). (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)


12603

The four BOT tunnels are the Eastern Harbour Crossing Road Tunnel, Tate's Cairn Tunnel, Western Harbour Crossing (WHC) and Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road (known as "Route 3"). The franchisees of these tunnels have earlier proposed amendments to their respective bylaws, which were passed by the Legislative Council in July 2012. The amendments to the tunnel bylaws aimed at standardizing the signage for autotoll lanes at these tunnels and tallying with the signage adopted at all government tunnels, as well as aligning these bylaws with the government tunnel regulations or the other BOT tunnel bylaws. In the amendment exercise, apart from standardizing the texts of the provisions on compliance with traffic signs, light signals and road markings in the tunnel areas of the four tunnels, the references of the provisions have also been changed correspondingly. However, references (including texts and section numbers) to the provisions of the tunnel bylaws in the Schedule to Cap. 375 have not been amended in the same amendment exercise, which has resulted in inconsistencies in the references to these traffic offences between the Schedule to Cap. 375 and the amended tunnel bylaws. The abovementioned inconsistency does not affect the enforcement of the four tunnel bylaws. Tunnel companies can still penalize traffic offenders according to the relevant provisions in the tunnel bylaws. However, to enable the incurrence of DOPs against persons who are convicted of traffic offences under the amended tunnel bylaws, the Schedule to Cap. 375 has to be amended to align the references (including texts and section numbers) of the BOT tunnel related traffic offences mentioned therein to tally with the amended tunnel bylaws. Apart from the above amendments to the Schedule to Cap. 375, we also propose to add to the Schedule new scheduled offences. In order to align with the restriction imposed by section 40 of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374), the amended WHC Bylaw and Route 3 Bylaw stipulate that the maximum speed limit for buses, medium goods vehicles, heavy goods vehicles as well as motor cycles, motor tricycles, private cars or light goods vehicles driven by a person holding a probationary driving licence is 70 kilometres an hour (km/h), even if the prescribed speed limit for the tunnel exceeds 70 km/h. We are of the view that the relevant offences should be included in the Schedule to Cap. 375 such that DOPs would be incurred against drivers of buses, medium goods vehicles,


heavy goods vehicles as well as persons holding a probationary driving licence who drive motor cycles, motor tricycles, private cars or light goods vehicles upon their conviction of driving at a speed exceeding 70 km/h at WHC and Route 3. Schedule 11 to the Road Traffic Ordinance includes the references of a number of scheduled offences in the Schedule to Cap. 375. In view of the proposed amendments to the Schedule to Cap. 375 mentioned above, it is necessary to update the references to the relevant scheduled offences in Schedule 11 to Cap. 374 correspondingly. Deputy President, the Subcommittee set up by the Legislative Council has completed its security of the Resolution. During the scrutiny of the Resolution by the Subcommittee, we have explained to the Subcommittee that the proposed amendments in the Resolution are technical in nature and serve mainly to rectify the references of certain scheduled offences in the Schedule to Cap. 375 to tally with the relevant offences under the four amended tunnel bylaws, and hoped that the Resolution could be passed as soon as possible. I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the expeditious scrutiny and their support for the Administration to submit the Resolution to the Legislative Council for approval. Subject to the approval of the motion by the Legislative Council, the Resolution will be published in the Gazette on 31 May 2013 and come into operation on the same day. Deputy President, I appeal to Members to support this motion. I beg to move. The Secretary for Transport and Housing moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that ― (a) the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374) be amended as set out

in Schedule 1; (b) the Road Traffic (Driving-offence Points) Ordinance

(Cap. 375) be amended as set out in Schedule 2; (c) subject to paragraph (d), this Resolution is to come into

operation on the day on which it is published in the Gazette; and


12605

(d) section 1(2), (4), (7), (9), (11) and (13) of Schedule 1 and section 1(3), (4), (8), (9), (14), (15), (20) and (21) of Schedule 2 are to come into operation on a day to be appointed by the Secretary for Transport and Housing by notice published in the Gazette.

Schedule 1 [para. (a)]

Amendments to Road Traffic Ordinance

1. Schedule 11 amended (offences specified for the purposes of section 72A) (1) Schedule 11, after “28,” ― Add “28A, 28D,”. (2) Schedule 11 ― Repeal “29, 32,”. (3) Schedule 11, after “33,” ― Add “33A, 33D,”. (4) Schedule 11 ― Repeal “34,”. (5) Schedule 11 ― Repeal “37,”. (6) Schedule 11, before “38,” ― Add “37A, 37D, 37G, 37J, 37K,”. (7) Schedule 11 ― Repeal “38,”. (8) Schedule 11 ― Repeal “41,”. (9) Schedule 11 ― Repeal “42,”.


(10) Schedule 11, after “47,” ― Add “49A, 49D, 49G, 49J, 49K,”. (11) Schedule 11 ― Repeal “50,”. (12) Schedule 11 ― Repeal “53,”. (13) Schedule 11 ― Repeal “54,”.

Schedule 2 [para. (b)]

Amendments to Road Traffic (Driving-offence Points) Ordinance

1. Schedule amended

(1) The Schedule, after item 28 ― Add

“28A By-law 10(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a prescribed traffic sign by more than 15 kilometres an hour, other than where item 28B or 28C applies

3

28B By-law 10(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a prescribed traffic sign by more than 30 kilometres an hour, other than where item 28C applies

5

28C By-law 10(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a prescribed traffic sign by more than 45 kilometres an hour

10


12607

28D By-law 10(2)

Crossing continuous double white lines or a continuous white line with a broken white line of the type shown in Figure No. 501 or 502 in Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374 sub. leg. G)

3”.

(2) The Schedule, before item 29, column 2 ― Add

“Eastern Harbour Crossing Road Tunnel By-laws (Cap. 215 sub. leg. E) as it was in force immediately before 20 July 2012”.

(3) The Schedule, before item 29, column 2 ― Repeal

“Eastern Harbour Crossing Road Tunnel By-laws (Cap. 215 sub. leg. E) as it was in force immediately before 20 July 2012”.

(4) The Schedule ― Repeal items 29, 30, 31 and 32. (5) The Schedule, after item 33 ― Add

“33A By-law 10(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a prescribed traffic sign by more than 15 kilometres an hour, other than where item 33B or 33C applies

3

33B By-law 10(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a prescribed traffic sign by more than 30 kilometres an hour, other than where item 33C applies

5

33C By-law 10(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a prescribed traffic sign by more than 45 kilometres an hour

10”.


(6) The Schedule ― Renumber item 37 as item 33D. (7) The Schedule, before item 34, column 2 ― Add

“Tate's Cairn Tunnel By-laws (Cap. 393 sub. leg. B) as it was in force immediately before 20 July 2012”.

(8) The Schedule, before item 34, column 2 ― Repeal

“Tate's Cairn Tunnel By-laws (Cap. 393 sub. leg. B) as it was in force immediately before 20 July 2012”.

(9) The Schedule ― Repeal items 34, 35 and 36. (10) The Schedule, before item 38 ― Add

“37A Section 7(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a speed limit sign by more than 15 kilometres an hour, other than where item 37B or 37C applies

3

37B Section 7(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a speed limit sign by more than 30 kilometres an hour, other than where item 37C applies

5

37C Section 7(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a speed limit sign by more than 45 kilometres an hour

10

37D Section 7(2)(b)(i)

Driving a bus, medium goods vehicle or heavy goods vehicle in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 15 kilometres an hour, other than where item 37E or 37F applies

3


12609

37E Section 7(2)(b)(i)

Driving a bus, medium goods vehicle or heavy goods vehicle in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 30 kilometres an hour, other than where item 37F applies

5

37F Section 7(2)(b)(i)

Driving a bus, medium goods vehicle or heavy goods vehicle in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 45 kilometres an hour

10

37G Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

Driving a motor cycle, motor tricycle, private car or light goods vehicle and under a probationary driving licence in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 15 kilometres an hour, other than where item 37H or 37I applies

3

37H Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

Driving a motor cycle, motor tricycle, private car or light goods vehicle and under a probationary driving licence in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 30 kilometres an hour, other than where item 37I applies

5

37I Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

Driving a motor cycle, motor tricycle, private car or light goods vehicle and under a probationary driving licence in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 45 kilometres an hour

10”.


(11) The Schedule ― Renumber item 41 as item 37J. (12) The Schedule, after item 37J ― Add

“37K Section 10(2)

Crossing a continuous white line with a broken white line of the type shown in Figure No. 502 in Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374 sub. leg. G)

3”.

(13) The Schedule, after item 37K, column 2 ― Add

“Western Harbour Crossing Bylaw (Cap. 436 sub. leg. D) as it was in force immediately before 20 July 2012”.

(14) The Schedule, after item 37K, column 2 ― Repeal

“Western Harbour Crossing Bylaw (Cap. 436 sub. leg. D) as it was in force immediately before 20 July 2012”.

(15) The Schedule ― Repeal items 38, 39, 40 and 42. (16) The Schedule, before item 50 ― Add

“49A Section 7(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a speed limit sign by more than 15 kilometres an hour, other than where item 49B or 49C applies

3

49B Section 7(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a speed limit sign by more than 30 kilometres an hour, other than where item 49C applies

5

49C Section 7(1)

Driving in excess of the speed limit indicated by a speed limit sign by more than 45 kilometres an hour

10


12611

49D Section 7(2)(b)(i)

Driving a bus, medium goods vehicle or heavy goods vehicle in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 15 kilometres an hour, other than where item 49E or 49F applies

3

49E Section 7(2)(b)(i)

Driving a bus, medium goods vehicle or heavy goods vehicle in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 30 kilometres an hour, other than where item 49F applies

5

49F Section 7(2)(b)(i)

Driving a bus, medium goods vehicle or heavy goods vehicle in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 45 kilometres an hour

10

49G Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

Driving a motor cycle, motor tricycle, private car or light goods vehicle and under a probationary driving licence in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 15 kilometres an hour, other than where item 49H or 49I applies

3

49H Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

Driving a motor cycle, motor tricycle, private car or light goods vehicle and under a probationary driving licence in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 30 kilometres an hour, other than where item 49I applies

5


49I Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

Driving a motor cycle, motor tricycle, private car or light goods vehicle and under a probationary driving licence in excess of the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit by more than 45 kilometres an hour

10”.

(17) The Schedule ― Renumber item 53 as item 49J. (18) The Schedule, after item 49J ― Add

“49K Section 10(2)

Crossing a continuous white line with a broken white line of the type shown in Figure No. 502 in Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374 sub. leg. G)

3”.

(19) The Schedule, after item 49K, column 2 ― Add “Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road

Bylaw (Cap. 474 sub. leg. C) as it was in force immediately before 20 July 2012”.

(20) The Schedule, after item 49K, column 2 ― Repeal “Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road

Bylaw (Cap. 474 sub. leg. C) as it was in force immediately before 20 July 2012”.

(21) The Schedule ― Repeal items 50, 51, 52 and 54."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Transport and Housing be passed.


12613

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Proposed Resolution under the Road Traffic Ordinance (RTO) (Cap. 374) and the Road Traffic (Driving-offence Points) Ordinance (DPO) (Cap. 375), I report on the deliberations of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee has held one meeting to scrutinize the Resolution moved by the Administration under the abovementioned two ordinances. The driving-offence point (DOP) system is a measure designed to enhance road safety. It aims primarily at deterring habitual traffic offenders and improving driving standards in order to reduce traffic accidents and casualties. Section 4 of the DPO provides that, where a person is convicted of an offence specified in the Schedule to the DPO or becomes liable to a fixed penalty in respect of an offence specified in the Schedule, the person shall incur the appropriate number of driving-offence points as set out opposite that offence in the Schedule. The Resolution moved by the Administration aims to introduce technical amendments to Schedule 11 to the RTO and the Schedule to the DPO, so that the item numbers of certain driving offences in the Schedule will correspond to those of related offences provided in the four BOT tunnel bylaws amended in July 2012, and to align the bylaws with the government tunnel regulations or other BOT tunnel bylaws. Certain provisions of the bylaws (including provisions which concern speed limits and requirement to obey road markings) were renumbered. As the existing Schedule to the DPO refers to those provisions by their old numbering, the Administration has proposed to amend the Schedule to update the references to those provisions in the Schedule. The Subcommittee acknowledges the need to amend the Schedules and urges the Administration to expeditiously complete the relevant work. Also, members have expressed concern over the circumstances leading to the current inconsistencies and the resultant impact on the enforcement of relevant legislation. The Subcommittee noted that the Administration had already reviewed the current mechanism to avoid future recurrence of inconsistencies in legislative updating exercises. The Subcommittee also noted that tunnel companies could still penalize traffic offenders according to the relevant provisions in the tunnel bylaws. The Administration has indicated that they are currently unable to incur any DOPs for speeding vehicles in the EHC only, but not in other BOT and government tunnels. At present, there have been nine speeding cases in total after the legislative


amendments were made to the four BOT tunnel bylaws on 20 July 2012 that the DOP system could not be applied as court judgment have already be made. There would be no additional case if the Legislative Council could make the proposed technical amendments to Schedule 11 to the RTO and the Schedule to the DPO by the end of May 2013. The Subcommittee has taken the opportunity to urge the Administration to implement measures to ensure that the speed detecting devices used by different BOT tunnels are up to standard and certified because information collected or captured by the said devices may form part of the evidence when the relevant provisions are enforced. Hence, the Administration or law-enforcement bodies might be challenged by the public if the said devices are not functioning properly at the material time. The Subcommittee is in support of the Resolution and would not propose any amendment to it. Deputy President, next, I will relay the views of the transport sector on the matter. Today, both the transport sector and the Liberal Party are in support of the Resolution moved by the Administration. As the technical amendments proposed in the Resolution have been explained in my earlier report, I am not going to repeat. The industry and the Liberal Party do not have any special views, but I only want to express some views on the amendments concerning driving-offence points to offences. Being a road user, we should have zero tolerance for behaviour that threatens road safety. We are of the view that the Government should further vigorously combat traffic offenders so as to achieve the deterrent effect. For motorists who have contravened certain traffic offences, DOPs would be incurred in addition to the prescribed punishments. Once they have accumulated a certain number of DOPs, they will be required to attend the driving improvement course, or disqualified for a certain period of time. The system has been implemented for 30 years and the number of motorists who have accumulated 15 points or more has been declining in recent years, dropping from 2 660 in 2010 to 1 966 in 2012, representing a decrease of 25%. We can therefore see that the DOP system does have deterrent effect.


12615

Of the traffic offences, speeding is one of the major causes of serious traffic accidents. Therefore, speeding has been defined as a serious offence and its punishment has been increased to enhance the deterrent effect. But still, more than 180 000 fixed penalty tickets for speeding have been issued by the police in each of the past few years. Thus, we can see that there is still room for improvement in respect of speeding. Given the serious consequences of speeding, no tolerance should be made to the relevant offence. The present amendment of the relevant ordinances stems from the legislative amendments made in July 2012 in respect of the four BOT tunnels, namely the Eastern Harbour Crossing Road Tunnel (EHC), the Tate's Cairn Tunnel, the Western Harbour Crossing and the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road, aiming to align the relevant ordinances with the various government tunnel regulations. However, due to the negligence of the government department concerned, which has not comprehensively reviewed all the related laws, inconsistencies exist and offenders of speeding in the tunnel areas could therefore escape from the incurrence of DOPs. According to the authorities, after amendments were made to the BOT tunnel bylaws in July 2012, there have been only nine speeding cases found guilty by the Court. Although the motorists were found guilty by the Court, inconsistencies in the relevant laws have rendered the Court unable to incur DOPs against the offenders according to the DOP system and could only impose a fine on them. All the nine cases where DOPs were not incurred happened inside the EHC. As the Administration has explained at a Subcommittee meeting, as the relevant chapters of the Eastern Harbour Crossing Road Tunnel By-laws have been broken down into a more detailed form than the other three tunnel bylaws, the Court failed to incur DOPs against the speeding offenders according to the original RTO and DPO. If appropriate amendments are not expeditiously made to correct the deficiencies and plug the loophole, not only will this lead to unequal punishment, but will also condone speeding offences in the EHC. Therefore, the transport sector and the Liberal Party consider it necessary to expeditiously make amendments to align the four amended BOT tunnel bylaws with the corresponding provisions of the existing road traffic laws, and make them more specific so as to avoid unequal punishment or disputes. In so doing, motorists contravening traffic offences in the EHC will also be incurred DOPs and


penalized accordingly. The Administration should draw reference from this incident and exercise great care, so as to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents where the inconsistencies in ordinances have provided a leeway for the offenders to escape from being penalized. Deputy President, I so submit. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Transport and Housing to reply. This debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am very grateful to Mr Frankie YICK for his speech just now. In fact, the cases quoted by Mr YICK have been highlighted at the meeting of the Subcommittee to examine this Resolution. First of all, I want to state that the present amendment stems from the fact that consequential amendments have not been made to the offences specified in the Schedule to Cap. 375 after the four tunnel bylaws were amended in July 2012, such that references to offences are inconsistent with the amended tunnel bylaws. Although the resultant impact is not great so far, I very much agree with Mr YICK that rectifications should be made as soon as possible. We have also urged the responsible staff of the relevant department to exercise great care in the future so as to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents. Mr YICK just now said that we should adopt an attitude of zero tolerance towards traffic offences, which is also the stance of the Government. The recently published Director of Audit's Report has also set out some recommendations and observations relating to road safety, and attached great importance to driving offences. Likewise, the Government (be it the Transport Department or the police) has also attached great importance to driving offences.


12617

Thus, the DOP system is a very important mechanism and should definitely be maintained. Speeding is still a problem of grave concern. This is why we have contemplated to enhance the arrangements for speed detection, which include the purchase of advanced devices. It is hoped that when the relevant committee submitted the request for funding for the purchase of the necessary new devices in the future, the Legislative Council will support it. Deputy President, I hope that the Legislative Council will support this Resolution. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Transport and Housing be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed. MEMBERS' MOTIONS DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions. Three motions with no legislative effect. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee: that is, the movers of motions each may speak, including reply, for up to 15 minutes; movers of the second and third motions have another five minutes to speak on the amendments; the movers of amendments to a motion each may speak for up to 10 minutes; and other Members each may speak for up to seven minutes. I am obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First Member's motion: The 4 June incident. Members who wish to speak in the debate on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon Mr Albert HO to speak and move the motion. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a point of order. A quorum is not present. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert HO, please speak. (Originally scheduled to be dealt with at the last Council meeting) THE 4 JUNE INCIDENT MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move the motion as set out on the Agenda. This year marks the 24th anniversary of the 4 June incident, and in line with the tradition, I propose this motion again to seek a vindication of the 4 June incident. The pro-democracy movement in 1989 is a protest movement of the Chinese people to strive for democracy and freedom, oppose graft and corruption, as well as fight against Chinese Communist Party (CCP) autocracy. Under the dictatorship of DENG Xiaoping, the CCP had turned down Secretary General ZHAO Ziyang's proposal to resolve the contradictions by talking to the students on the basis of democracy and rule of law. In the end, the bloody crackdown by the "DENG, LI and YANG syndicate" marked the end of the 1989 pro-democracy


12619

movement. This is not only a shameful chapter in the history of China and of human civilization, but also an opportunity missed by China to move towards democracy, the rule of law and constitutional government. As a result, in the absence of democratic supervision, the existing government is increasingly plagued by graft and corruption. During the 1989 pro-democracy movement, Hong Kong people were constantly updated of the development through the live news broadcasts on television and the extensive coverage of newspapers every day. By witnessing how the Mainland democrats struggled for democracy day after day, we had the feeling of being personally involved at the scene. For people like Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Ms Claudia MO in this Chamber who were in Beijing at that time, witnessing the numerous tragedies, I do not think they would forget what had happened. Instead, many touching scenes are still so vivid in their mind. Regardless of whether Hong Kong people look at the incident out of patriotism, a sense of justice or humanitarian concern, they would stand by the Chinese public, who represents justice. This is why during the period from May to June 1989, many Hong Kong people had devoted themselves to this widespread social movement in support of Beijing's democratic movement. Many renowned people and organizations, including LEUNG Chun-ying, had co-signed an advertisement to oppose LI Peng's declaration of the martial law. Also, hundreds of reputed local singers had gathered at the Happy Valley Racecourse to perform at the "Concert for Democracy in China" to raise funds for the pro-democracy movement. On 20 May 1989 when typhoon signal No. 8 was hoisted in Hong Kong, more than 50 000 people braved the strong winds and rain to march to the Xinhua News Agency office and stage a protest rally. Thereafter, at least three large-scale processions of more than 1 million participants had been staged to show support for the 1989 pro-democracy movement, which had set the historical record. Over the past 24 years, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance) has organized the candlelight vigil in commemoration of the 4 June incident at the Victoria Park year after year. People who attended the candlelight vigil held on 4 June every year, be they Hong Kong residents or Mainland compatriots, or people of Chinese or foreign nationalities, actually share the same love for China, a spirit of humanitarianism and a sense of righteous concern. They gather to say no to those in power and uphold the truth of history. In fact, the staging of the 4 June rallies for more


than two decades have set another record in the history of human civilization. No other regular gathering organized on an annual basis can attract so many participants for such an extended period of time. This year, I believe many pro-establishment Members will, as usual, adopt an indifferent attitude towards this motion to vindicate the 4 June incident and are not prepared to take part in the discussion. I trust that this is either because they do not have justification, or they are well aware that justice is on our side. Many Members have remained silent because they are speechless. Perhaps some people believe the 4 June incident will be vindicated some day, but just not today, and so they do not have the courage or sense of justice to speak out what they believe will happen or is going to happen. In the past, some pro-establishment Members had from time to time put forward the so-called theory of economic development, arguing that if the CCP had not decisively suppressed the pro-democracy movement back then, China would not have enjoyed over two decades of stability, not to mention the vibrant economic development today. However, they have not noticed or deliberately covered their eyes so as not to see the reality behind the so-called economic prosperity. Firstly, graft and corruption have eroded the entire Chinese Communist regime. For example, when the "18th National Congress" was due to convene, Prof LIN Zhe, a renowned expert of CCP's Central School who always makes anti-corruption speeches, stated publicly that Mainland China has 1.18 million "naked officials" whose family members, including children, have all settled abroad, bringing with them their properties. In other words, they stay alone in the country to work as officials. She queried how trustworthy these officials were. She has also provided another set of figures to highlight that over the past 30 years, a total of 4 000 senior officials were believed to have fled from Mainland China and backpacked properties which worth a total of RMB 400 billion yuan. This means that each of them has taken away RMB 100 million yuan. Members may also notice the rise of "princelings", "princesslings", "gangs of the queen" and "gangs of the concubines" throughout China nowadays. These people have controlled major enterprises and have amassed substantial wealth by colluding with the government, and it can be said that they are as wealthy as emperors. On the contrary, poverty has deprived many people of a decent home or an opportunity to receive education, and has also deprived many


12621

patients of an opportunity to be rescued or receive medical treatment. This is the misery of the poor people behind the "wealthy" China. The second reality is, as many Mainland officials have said, "Failure to clean up corruption, the nation will fall; but if all-out effort is made to clean up corruption, the Party will fall." Therefore, in order to safeguard the privilege and assets of the powerful and wealthy people, the CCP has been reluctant to thoroughly clean up corruption. Instead, it has suppressed people's basic rights on the pretext of maintaining stability. Many dissidents who have spoken out for the people were suppressed and trampled on. As we can see, famous dissidents such as LIU Xiaobo and GAO Zhisheng were imprisoned; LI Wangyang, a 1989 pro-democracy activist, was being "suicided", and CHEN Guangzheng, the bare-footed lawyer who boldly speaks his mind, was forced to exile abroad. Many others renowned dissidents, such as AI Weiwei and HU Jia, are often threatened, disturbed and even kept under house arrest. Nowadays, Mainland China is not only corrupt, but literary inquisition and white terror have become more intensified than the time during the Manchurian dynasty, the warlord period in early Republic of China and the Kuomintang era. General Secretary XI Jinping unveiled his "China dream" after he took office, and many people wanted to know what this "China dream" was about. He even went further to disclose the "dream of constitutionalism". But does the word "constitutionalism" refer to the restriction of public right and the safeguard of human right as commonly understood by us? On the other hand, it was noted that the CCP has recently disseminated a message, the "seven speak-nots", to all high schools, banning students' discussion of seven subjects, namely universal values, freedom of the press, civil society, citizen rights, CCP's past mistakes, the privileged capitalist class and judicial independence. As illustrated by the "seven speak-nots", the "China dream" is actually the dream of the CCP to perpetuate one-party rule in China forever. Against such background, does our country truly belong to the people? Will our country maintain long-term stability? Will people enjoy freedom and happiness? Or, will people become slaves who can at best have their stomach filled under one-party dictatorship? This year, there is a strange phenomenon. While the pro-establishment Members have followed the established practice and refrained from actively participating in the discussion on the 4 June incident, and as usual, they have not attacked in a high-profile manner our justifications in support of today's motion, and they even dared not call on people to boycott the 4 June activities, a group of


people who called themselves the "localists" or "autonomists" have, on the other hand, called on members of the public not to attend any 4 June activities on the ground that this is a matter concerning the people in China but not the people of Hong Kong. They opined that Hong Kong people should only love Hong Kong, and should avoid being pulled into the vortex of China's disputes. Deputy President, I certainly understand that a person's sense of national identity, or whether he loves the country or which country he loves is a personal matter concerning his ethics and sense of value. No one can be forced to love his country or even his family. Yet, I want to stress that the 4 June incident is not just a matter concerning the Chinese people, it is also a major issue of right and wrong; every global citizen, who has a sense of justice and conscience, who embraces or adheres to certain universal values, should render his support. We should not cast aside our common goal of unswervingly seeking vindication of the 1989 pro-democracy movement simply because we are upset by or disagreed with the slogan proposed by the Alliance this time. If we close our eyes and let our actions be dominated by emotions, we will be doing precisely what the CCP has wanted to do but dare not do so all these years. This is so saddening. Therefore, I hope that we can cast aside minor differences and hold fast to the common belief by meeting at the Victoria Park on the night of 4 June. Mr Albert HO moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That this Council urges that: the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Albert HO be passed. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): The 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated. The activities held every year to commemorate the 4 June incident are indeed the best lesson on human rights, as well as on history and civic education. We do not need to implement the brainwashing national education to change our way of thinking. As Members can see, public officials who should be sitting


12623

right opposite to me are all absent. Not only are they physically absent, their conscience have also gone missing. It turns out that before one joined the SAR Government, he must discard his conscience; before one joined the Government, he must bury his feeling for the 4 June incident so deep that no one would find out how he feels, and he should even refrain from silent mourning for fear of being found out. If this is considered as "love the country and Hong Kong", then forget it. We absolutely do not want to have such a Government and such public officials who have castrated their own functions, brainwashed themselves and reformed their thoughts. I was a Year Three student of The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) in 1989, and I had braved the strong winds and rain with other students to learn about the daily development of the student movement. Some students even flew to Beijing in person to help deliver the necessary items and brought messages back to Hong Kong. I had worked with students from CUHK's Students' Union and the Student Press to organize a community engagement team, which conscientiously compiled and consolidated information that we know about China's history, politics and society for sharing with other students on a daily basis. Moreover, we had walked into the community and organized sharing and testimony sessions in different community centres and schools. There were also students who went on a hunger strike outside the Xinhua News Agency office. I am so glad that the torch of the 4 June commemorative activities has been passed among students. This year, the June Fourth Memorial Museum has moved to the City University of Hong Kong. I would like to call on members of the public and people from around the world who support democracy to establish a permanent museum. This move would not be possible without generous donations. Deputy President, without justice, how can we have peace? Poland of Eastern Europe also held its election on 4 June 1989, and my friends there had celebrated and enjoyed the freedom of electioneering and election on that day. It is precisely the stark contrast between the Polish election and the military crackdown in Beijing that has driven me to pursue, up till now, the research and study of the downfall of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the Communist world.


Many public officials of the SAR Government have profound knowledge in both Chinese and Western cultures, and a number of them even come from the academic field, taking up important position. How come their conscience has been seared? In fact, a politician is no different from an ordinary person, with self-cultivation as the cornerstone. In 1989, our students in Beijing edited a cassette tape known as the "1989 Pro-democracy Movement ― Qinghua University Propaganda Brigade Voices", which was subsequently published by the Students' Union of CUHK. This cassette tape recorded the voices, heartfelt words and songs of the students, and has kept me company for 24 years. Although a certain part of the cassette can no longer be played, I still keep it. One of the songs is called "千不該萬不該" ("You Shouldn't Have Done This"). Let me read out the lyrics so that Members can hear the aspiration of the students:

"You shouldn't have neglected the hunger strike that you saw. It doesn't matter if you turned a blind eye to the students, but you shouldn't have sent the troops there. You shouldn't have done this. You shouldn't have remained in power. It doesn't matter if you refused to step down, because people will definitely kick you out one day.".

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Banning the 4 June commemorative activities is tantamount to asking me to negate the rest of my life. I am confident that many people of my generation do share the same feeling. To many people, the 4 June incident is a very personal experience and a mental journey. I completed the journalism course in university and started to work as a journalist in 1979. In the same year, DENG Xiaoping announced the Four Modernization program and led China onto the road of reform and opening up. Ten years after 1979, that is, in 1989, I had worked as a journalist for a decade. In that year, we experienced the 4 June incident, also known as the "Tiananmen Square massacre". But nowadays, the media would not use words such as "massacre", even for the western newspapers, "massacre" is a taboo word. At that time, even Wen Wei Po …… Wen Wei Po had reacted the most vigorously by leaving its editorial column blank, with only four Chinese characters which mean "deep grief and profound agony".


12625

Earlier, Mr Albert HO mentioned about me and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan in his speech. I arrived at Beijing on 4 June 1989 and I was a journalist of Agence France-Press (AFP) back then. On 5 or 6 June, my colleagues in AFP's head office in Jianguomen, Beijing, saw the People's Liberation Army shooting, and they even said there were snipers. We were so afraid that we all went into hiding. The Filipino cameraman then rang up the Embassy of the Philippines, and other Canadian, French and American colleagues also phoned their respective embassies. I rang up the British Embassy and no help was offered; the only advice was "keep your head down and good luck". Since we were employees of the AFP, the French Embassy sent a fleet of vehicles to our hiding place and drove us away from the danger zone. At a later stage, even AFP's editor and boss in Hong Kong could stand no more and ordered me to return to Hong Kong. Nearly all countries were ready to evacuate their nationals, but no outbound flights were available. I travelled to Beijing on my Home Return Permit and naturally entered the Mainland as a Chinese, but in the end I left on a chartered flight arranged by the Italian Embassy as there were some vacant seats. Mr HO just now mentioned me and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, but actually we had not met each other in Beijing during the 4 June incident. At that time, our chartered flight had been delayed time and again and was not allowed to take off. According to the captain, the Beijing Public Security had specifically named a Hong Kong passenger called LEE Cheuk-yan, and wanted to remove him from the plane. I was pretty worried though I had no idea who LEE Cheuk-yan was back then. What happened thereafter was clear to all as the news had already become history. The so-called "localists" said that all the events leading to the 4 June incident had no relevance to Hong Kong, but this is absolutely not true. Mr Albert HO has already given an account of the series of events that happened back then when he proposed the motion. To me, I think I started to identify myself as a Hong Kong citizen at that time. I was a journalist and travelled to the Mainland to cover news in the capacity of a Chinese. When I was in danger, however, I was rescued by the French. When I had to evacuate, I was given a seat in a chartered flight arranged by the Italians, who brought me back to Hong Kong. When I returned to this British colony, I had a feeling that I returned to civilization. To many people, the impact of the 4 June incident cannot be described in a word. If what had happened can be compiled into a book, it would be the best


history textbook, detailing how 1 million people took to the streets and gathered in front of the then Xinhua News Agency office when Typhoon Signal No. 8 was hoisted, as well as how an unknown number of Hong Kong people who uprooted themselves and settled abroad in the aftermath of the 4 June incident. There is a view that the call for the vindication of the 4 June incident is meaningless as the Beijing Government has never given a response over the years. It is therefore a mere waste of public money. Deputy President, this is a matter concerning universal values. Someone once cast doubt on me. I said I do not oppose Putonghua and I am a qualified Putonghua teacher, but the fact that Putonghua is the language of the ruler, and this language of the ruler is presented in simplified Chinese characters. How can we bear this. There is a comment that we should not say "The 4 June incident be vindicated" because the word "vindicate" is commonly used by the Communist Party. Nonetheless, language is conventional after all. If the young generation has a newer and better term, please tell me. It can be "the rectification of history", "the love for 4 June incident" or "4 June incident be not forgotten", so that we can do away with the word "vindicate". We should not refuse to commemorate the 4 June incident simply because the word "vindicate", deemed as a "Mainlandized" term, is used. This is absolutely not a balanced remark. Thank you. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, when the 4 June incident took place 24 years ago, I had just started working for two years in London. I recall that all through the three months from April to July, I joined the rally held in front of the local Chinese Embassy every night after work and attended various processions and demonstrations organized by local political parties and groupings every weekend to show our support for Mainland students. On retrospect, as just mentioned by Ms Claudia MO, the 4 June incident had indeed left an utterly shocking impact on people in our generation. My road to politics also started with the 4 June incident. Recently, my nine-year-old son asked me what the 4 June incident was about. In fact, I can explain in some simple words: The 4 June incident is about


12627

the Chinese Government, for the sake of preserving stability and protecting its totalitarian regime and on the premise that "stability should override everything", deployed its army to suppress a group of students who strived for democracy and fought against dictatorship as well as corruption and graft. Here, allow me to quote some remarks from MAO Zedong. In Volume III of the Selected Works of MAO Zedong on coalition government, there is a passage as follows, "Wherever we go, we must unite with the people, take root and blossom among them. Wherever our comrades go, they must build good relations with the masses, be concerned for them and help them overcome their difficulties. We must unite with the masses; the more of the masses we unite with, the better."1 In the same article, there is another passage on relations between the army and the people as follows (and I quote), "Every comrade must be helped to understand that as long as we rely on the people, believe firmly in the inexhaustible creative power of the masses and hence trust and identify ourselves with them," ― mind you, the army should identify themselves with the people and not inflict harm on the people ― "we can surmount any difficulty, and no enemy can crush us while we can crush any enemy."2 Communist China's suppression of unarmed civilians by the military's armed forces is an out-and-out blatant contravention of the words of MAO Zedong. Just now, many Honourable colleagues have given some views. They said that as the Chinese society becomes affluent as a result of rapid economic growth in the Mainland over the past 24 years, there is a theory in the community that the move to suppress the student movement at that time was for creating prosperity and stability in China in these 20-odd years. I can refute this groundless theory, or empty assumption in effect, with two examples. Let me give an example. After the Second World War, the economy of Germany had also risen rapidly, benefiting various countries in Europe. As such, can the atrocities of Nazi Germany during the Second World War be forgiven? If I mention this theory to some Jewish friends, they would certainly disagree with such a view because there is no relation at all between economic growth and the wrongdoings.

1 <http://ebooks.gutenberg.us/Wordtheque/en/aaabmuj.txt> 2 <http://ebooks.gutenberg.us/Wordtheque/en/aaabmuj.txt>


The other point I would like to mention is that, had the Chinese Government accepted the demands of the students and embarked on a major reform of its economic system, I am sure China's economic development over the past 20-odd years would have been even better, and it could have become the world's strongest, and not the second strongest, economic power. Can anyone dispute this view of mine? Earlier, there were press reports about university lecturers in Beijing and Shanghai receiving instructions from the higher authority about the "seven to-speak subjects and seven speak-not subjects" in class, which has just been briefly mentioned by Mr Albert HO. Here, I want to elaborate slightly further. The list of "seven to-speak subjects and seven speak-not subjects" are as follows: "Speak not about universal values, speak about Chinese characteristics; Speak not about freedom of the press, speak about the Party still controls the media; Speak not about civil society, speak about social management innovation; Speak not about civic rights, speak about harmony in society; Speak not about past mistakes committed by the Party, uphold the ideologies of MAO and DENG; Speak not about elite cronyism, speak about the China Dream; Speak not about judicial independence, speak about the handling of cases by the Politics and Law Commission." The above list of "seven to-speak subjects and seven speak-not subjects" illustrates exactly the seven core issues facing the Chinese society today, and brings out the question of why, given China's status as a strong economic power, is the current Chinese regime still afraid of these universal values. What kind of mentality is this? In fact, the "seven to-speak subjects and seven speak-not subjects" are not cast-iron rules as I recently noted that the ruling party suggested that the Politics and Law Commission might be reformed so that it no longer handled the cases. In addition, regarding this so-called rule of "speak not about the past mistakes committed by the Party", many past mistakes had in fact been made by the Party, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and the Chinese Communist regime had already admitted those mistakes. But when it comes to the 4 June incident, why can't it face the people and admit its mistakes honestly? The vindication of the 4 June incident gives the Chinese Government an opportunity to stop its distortion of universal values through acknowledging its own mistakes; this is also a turning point for people in this country to get back on the right track, and for our nation to embark on a new journey.


12629

In a nutshell, the spirit of the 4 June incident is persevering in establishing a system of democracy, fighting for social justice and upholding civic rights. This spirit is critical in Hong Kong society nowadays. In seeing many cases involving political prosecution and suppression of the media, we are worried whether Hong Kong's freedom of expression, assembly and the press have been narrowed down gradually, while the spate of corruption scandals has also impacted directly on the governance of the HKSAR Government. We are concerned whether the unspoken rule of "personal relationships overrides rules and regulations" in the Mainland's bureaucratic system would also apply in Hong Kong's bureaucratic system. In Hong Kong, we can still freely mourn for the victims of 4 June incident, commemorate the incident and demand the incident be vindicated. Hence, we should carefully guard the core values of Hong Kong and strive to uphold freedom, fairness and openness in society. That is the best embodiment of the spirit of the 4 June incident. Thank you, Deputy President. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, whenever the motion on the 4 June incident is debated in this Council, there would be rows of empty seats in the Chamber, in particular, all Members of the royalist camp would, so to speak, retreat. Even though the summoning bell has been rung, only their bodies, but not their souls have returned, for they have lost their humanities. Hence, it is meaningless for people without any humanity to sit in this Chamber. We have been discussing the 4 June incident for 24 years. In the past 24 years, the facts of this history have been recounted again and again in our discussions. All these facts were about bloodshed and violence. The tyrannical government brutally murdered its people by deploying the army ― claimed to be the people's army ― to use tanks to roll over hundreds of civilians, and stabled young patriotic students to death with bayonets. These are historical facts written in blood. I think every righteous citizen will find such cruel history infuriating and condemnable. The 4 June incident started off with the mourning of HU Yaobang, followed by the commemoration of the May Fourth Movement, and then culminated in the magnificent nation-wide patriotic pro-democracy movement against corruption and graft. It was clearly stated in the New May Fourth Manifesto of the Autonomous Student Union of Universities and Colleges in Beijing that the students gathered not only to commemorate the monumental day but more importantly, to carry forward the May Fourth spirit of science and


democracy. Their goals ― that is, the goals of the patriotic pro-democracy movement ― were democracy, science, freedom, human rights and rule by law ― the ideals that hundreds of thousands of university students shared in the struggle. The Hunger Strike Manifesto declared by the students on 13 May 1989 further illustrated the then social problems, and it says, "our country is in a critical state: prices are soaring, official profiteering is rampant, power is concentrated in the hands of the few, and the bureaucracy is corrupt". That was the discontent and strong condemnation expressed by all Chinese people at that time against the government, society and the state with their blood and tears. Meanwhile, various activities such as hunger strike and processions were conducted by the students to achieve the goals of democracy and freedom. Students who went on the hunger strike stated that, "Democracy is the highest survival emotion of life, and freedom is the endowed human rights by birth", and they were willing to attain them by giving up their young lives. The May 17 Declaration issued subsequently also denounced the dictatorship of the individual. Then, on 2 June, the Four Gentlemen who went on hunger strike also stated explicitly that they had resorted to legal, non-violent, rational and peaceful means to fight for freedom, democracy and human rights. All these are ironclad facts of history. In any discussion about the goals and spirit of the 4 June incident, these points must be explained clearly and explicitly without any uncertainty. Many Members of the pro-democracy camp who spoke just now, including Mr Albert HO, the mover of this motion, have mentioned criticisms from "localists" against the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance). The major criticism of "localists" against the Alliance is not whether we should commemorate the 4 June incident, but the absurd slogan proposed by the Alliance for this year's rally. The slogan proposed by the Alliance is "Love the country, love the people; Hong Kong spirit". The Alliance aims to support patriotic democratic movements of China, and commemorate the 4 June incident. Supporting patriotic democratic movements of China per se is not a localist movement; instead, it is about rendering support for the magnificent patriotic democratic movements in the Mainland. We can say that the movement is about universal value, or democracy, or rule of law.


12631

It is crystal clear from various declarations I read out just now, from the New May Fourth Manifesto to the Hunger Strike Manifesto of students, the Hunger Strike Manifesto of the Four Gentlemen, and so on, the furore of the people then, the furore of the Chinese people, was the corrupt government. The same situation also applies to Hong Kong now, the public are discontent with the corrupt Chief Executive, the corrupt Government. That is not a Hong Kong movement; it is not about "Love the country, love the people; Hong Kong spirit". In this book commemorating the 4 June student movement, nothing has ever been mentioned about "Love the country, love the people; Hong Kong spirit". Therefore, we should not be entangled by matters which have no actual relationship with localism in Hong Kong. I have been supporting the 4 June incident over the past 20-odd years. I had taken part in planning and organizing many activities of the Alliance back then, and I was responsible for organizing the One-hundred-day Memorial of the 4 June incident at that time. Hence, regarding the 4 June incident, the position of Hong Kong is to support the patriotic democratic movement of China, and the Alliance should only play a supporting role. The movement should not be distorted as an opposition localist movement of Hong Kong, or a localist movement. Of course, whether individual persons are willing to support patriotic democratic movement of China, it is a totally different matter. Personally, I have been supporting this cause for years, and I will still render my support today. We commemorate the 4 June incident because we need to awaken the indifferent people ― including the royalists if they still have a sense of shame or humanity ― and we hope to awaken the young generation. Over the past 24 years, the Alliance has successfully awakened the young generations of Hong Kong to rise against corruption and graft, authoritarian rule, suppression by military forces, and the government which slaughtered its people. Hence, we should not dismiss the Alliance's achievement in this respect. We must continue with our education work, and participate in this support movement, so as to ensure that people will no longer be suppressed and manipulated by authoritarian rule. Our commemoration of the 4 June incident also serves another purpose of setting the record straight for history. We hope to "ascertain who should be held


responsible and end one-party dictatorship". Hence, we will commemorate the 4 June incident so long as the Communist regime exists; we must overthrow this authoritarian regime, we must overthrow this autocratic government which is not supported by the people. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the slogan for the 4 June rally this year is "Love the country, love the people; Hong Kong spirit. Vindication of June 4; Never Give Up". The slogan "Love the country, love the people" has aroused some controversies earlier, but in my view, the 4 June incident originated from the students' and the people's love of the country and its citizens, it shall remain the same today as it was in the beginning, right until its vindication! The bloody massacre at Tiananmen Square in Beijing 24 years ago is something we do not want to remember, but dare not forget. After the death of HU Yaobang, the former General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in the spring of 1989, mourning activities of students triggered off a student movement in Tiananmen Square, Beijing which lasted over two months. Students, workers and members of the general public took to the streets and staged hunger strike with loud cries for democracy, freedom, rule of law, anti-corruption and anti-official profiteering. Their action manifested their love of the country and the people; the 4 June incident was originated from the love of the country and its people. At that time, many Hong Kong people were deeply touched by this movement and started to reflect on their own identity, the fate of Hong Kong as well as the future of China. In 1989, 1 million Hong Kong people took to the streets under Typhoon Signal No. 8 to voice their support for their compatriots in the Mainland, fostering the tie between Hong Kong people and their compatriots in the Mainland. Is that not the spirit of Hong Kong in our hope for democracy, freedom and rule of law in China, as well as our fight against corruption and official profiteering? Or is the spirit of Hong Kong merely about the hope for democracy, freedom and rule of law in Hong Kong, but not anywhere else in the world, or having no regard at all about the absence of such values in other parts of the world? Some so-called "localists" ask Hong Kong people to forget about the 4 June incident and concentrate on the progress of democratization of Hong


12633

Kong, and some even initiate a boycott of the candlelight vigil. I read from today's newspapers that Teacher WANG Fandi should have come to Hong Kong yesterday as a judge in a local pipa competition. However, as his son WANG Nan was a victim in the 4 June incident, and his wife, Ms ZHANG Xianling, was a member of the Tiananmen Mothers, given the extremely sensitive nature of the 4 June incident, they were barred from coming to Hong Kong by the Chinese Communist authorities. In her response to the appeal of the "localists", Ms ZHANG Xianling said that one must first ascertain whether the advice is kind-intended or malicious. She pointed out that there are actually two types of people who want to distant themselves from the democratic movement of China. Firstly, members of the "Fifty Cent Party" who are very often bribed by the CCP to sabotage the candlelight vigil organized by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance), and secondly, people who suffer from an identity crisis due to the conflicts between Hong Kong and the Mainland. Ms ZHANG was right in her observation. Mainlanders' snapping up of infant milk formulas in Hong Kong has affected the livelihood of the general public, and the origin of the buying spree is the institutional problems in the Mainland. If we forget the 4 June incident, the same fate will fall on us some day, because without democratic development in the Mainland, Hong Kong will never enjoy everlasting democracy. Indeed, the process of democratic development in Hong Kong and the Mainland are inextricably linked and mutually dependent. Regarding the malicious provocation, Ms ZHANG reminded us that the CCP is adept in using such tactics to create division. People belonging to the "Fifty Cent Party" are mobilized to obstruct the force of progress and incite righteous people by creating illusions. In her view, people in the Mainland have experienced various movements, and they are aware of these tactics, but Hong Kong people do not have such experience. In no uncertain terms, Ms ZHANG summed up the significance of attending the candlelight vigil in the Victoria Park as follows, "How can one say that the candlelight vigil has no effect? What has immediate effect, should one stage a revolution with guns? Should one counter violence with violence? The power of the candlelight vigil is not evident right away, yet the candle light in the Victoria Park is the guiding light in the road to democracy in China. The greater


the number of participants, the brighter the light, and the road to democracy will become broader and smoother. For the Tiananmen Mothers, the candlelight vigil is of immense significance." Deputy President, I concur with Ms ZHANG Xianling's remarks and hence, I have mentioned them in my speech today so that they can be put on record as part of history. The spirit of the 4 June incident is to love the country and its people, and the candle lights in the Victoria Park will be passed on from generation to generation. Although 24 years have passed, the Communist China is still suppressing patriotic students and citizens. It has not only failed to properly safeguard democracy and freedom, but also seeks to tighten its grip on democratic universal suffrage in Hong Kong on the pretext of anti-corruption. Yet, the truth is that vices of corruption and graft in the Mainland have been introduced into Hong Kong. The 1989 pro-democracy movement did not end in 1989, and the 4 June incident is just the beginning of the end. We steadfastly strive for the vindication of the 4 June incident, while hoping that China will embark on the road to true democracy and eradicate corruption and official profiteering so that the people can enjoy a bountiful life. The 4 June incident originated from the students' and the people's love of the country and its citizens, it shall remain the same today as it was in the beginning, right until its vindication! See you in the Victoria Park on the night of 4 June! MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): The bloody massacre which took place on 4 June 1989 originated from Beijing students fighting against corruption and official profiteering and the ruling regime suppressing the voices of criticisms. The prelude to the tragedy was the students' mourning of an official, believed to be relatively honest and upright, on the day of the Ching Ming Festival. In fact, the students were not mourning for HU Yaobang, but for widespread corruption and graft in China, as well as people's deplorable plight under the exploitation of corrupt officials. At that time, under the remittance system of banks, all the hard-earned money of workers, who left their homes in rural areas to work in cities, had been swindled. After workers had deposited money in banks, the money became mere numbers which could not be withdrawn by workers in their


12635

hometown. The workers were exploited. The students and the working class had long been aware of the prevalence of graft and corruption. They realized the relationship of exploitation through power, as well as the problem of poverty caused by power and corruption. A handful of people in power could exploit the fruits of labour of the majority. Therefore, the students and the workers requested for reforms, and they demanded for the fifth modernization, as they were aware that opening up the economy without political reform would only give rise to even greater social conflicts. That was the student movement fighting against corruption and striving for democracy which took place 24 years ago in Beijing. At that time, Hong Kong people were very anxious. Apart from being driven by our conscience, we were also living under the shadow of the handover of sovereignty, and we also hoped that China would be a democratic country. At that time, Hong Kong people shared with Beijing students the aspirations for a democratic China, hoping that through institutional reforms in China, freedom and human rights in Hong Kong could be maintained after 1997. However, corruption that prevailed in China then has now become increasingly common in Hong Kong now, with the threat looming closer and closer over us. As we can see, cases of deferred benefits provided to LEUNG Chin-man, the lavish hospitability received by Donald TSANG, the graft and entertainment of Timothy TONG, the former Commissioner for the Independent Commission Against Corruption, as well as the latest financial scandals surrounding Barry CHEUNG. Were those cases not condoned by senior government officials? The person in power has no probity and integrity, some Members of the Executive Council are involved in "sub-divided units" and property speculation, and some Members of the Legislative Council become wealthy through speculation of shop premises and residential properties. If those in power are not corruption-free, how can the Government be clean? Hong Kong has now reached a critical point. Poverty caused by the monopoly of power has given rise to public furore; police suppression has led to louder voice of public criticism; and more severe criticism has resulted in greater police suppression. Hence, today, we should learn from history and help the young generation understand the cause of the 4 June incident in 1989. We should help them understand that corruption cannot be stamped out without a democratic system, and that Hong Kong should be more united to fight against corruption and strive for universal suffrage, so as to achieve the goal of eliminating the wealth gap through peaceful and rational constitutional reform.


The background of the student movement calling for anti-corruption and democracy in 1989 is purely of local characteristics, as in the case of Hong Kong today. The local history and culture should also include how to build up Hong Kong people's identity and develop a civic society. People used to be apolitical and dared not take to the streets; they would even hide their faces behind the camera when being interviewed by television station. The Shek Kip Mei national flag incident in the 1950s had instigated riots and the bombings in 1967 made Hong Kong people frightened of joining rallies and demonstrations. But such fear was dissipated on 4 June 1989 when 1 million people took part in peaceful demonstrations. People marched along the Island Easter Corridor and then turned back. One million people engaged in civil disobedience, and 1 million people occupied the Island Eastern Corridor. A procession is essentially an act of occupation, just that this term was not used at that time. The 4 June incident in 1989 had also liberated Hong Kong people from their apolitical mentality. The money-minded Hong Kong people organized the concert "Democratic Songs for China" in a venue in Happy Valley where "horse racing as usual" was advocated. Anita MUI devoted wholeheartedly in support of the democratic movement, and today, the torch is passed onto Anthony WONG and Denise HO as they join in the campaign to strive for equal rights. The shock that shook people in one generation and their involvement has attracted the participation of people in the next few generations. On 1 July 2003, Hong Kong people were no longer afraid of peaceful mass assembly and they took to the streets. We were no longer hitch hikers on the road to democracy; instead, we took to the streets and voiced out our local civic rights through the most creative means of expression. The 1 July march in 2003 had affected people of the post 80s generation. People like CHAN King-fai and CHU Hoi-dick had stepped forward to protect the local landmarks which had a lasting memory. They took actions to preserve the Star Ferry pier, oppose the demolition of the Queen's pier and defend Tsoi Yuen Tsuen, in the hope of preserving the history of urban and rural areas of Hong Kong and allowing the ecology of rural areas to evolve gradually and not being distorted violently. The 1 July march in 2003 had also affected people of the younger generation such as Joshua WONG and Ivan LAM who led the rally against the national education subject participated by 120 000 people. We saw a photograph of a three-year-old child taking part in the rally. He is Hong Kong's future.


12637

The development of civic society can be traced to the same origin. The 4 June incident in 1989 is the origin, which has become our responsibility. Hong Kong people can be proud of two things all over China: firstly, our clean government; secondly, the candlelight vigil held in the Victoria Park every year to commemorate the 4 June incident in 1989. Throughout the darkest moments, the candle light lit by Hong Kong people has given us hope and strength to wait for dawn. All along, Hong Kong has built up its identity through mutual support during difficult times, and we have never shut the door narrow-mindedly. I hope everybody will attend the candlelight vigil in the Victoria Park on the night of 4 June this year, so that we can do our part as a person and as a Hong Kong citizen, and let the candle light lead our conscience. MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the scene of 180 000 candle lights in Victoria Park last year is still very vivid in my mind, and one year has passed. For the Chinese people, 4 June is the saddest day. Countless people who witnessed the incident in 1989 all shared the same feelings: they grieved for China, they denounced the massacre and they were proud of the students. In the candlelight vigil last year, the number of participants reached a record high of 180 000. I was one of the participants, and in seeing the attendance of many young people who were born after 1989, I was delighted, because our efforts over the years in passing on the torch, commemorating the 4 June incident, vindicating the 1989 pro-democracy movement, and ascertaining the responsibility for the massacre are gradually bearing fruit. At the same time, I also see a breakthrough point in respect of civic education in Hong Kong after the brainwashing strategy of the Education Bureau had been turned down. As a matter of fact, 15 years after the reunification, social injustice, violations of human rights and infringement of freedom in the Mainland, as well as the SAR Government's indifference to the people's rights and suppression on the democratic development in Hong Kong, have been observed by the people of Hong Kong and had a lasting impression. With the passage of time, among the democracy activists in the 4 June incident, some are still in exile, unable to return home to reunite with their families; some are under house arrest by the Communist Party of China (CPC), they belong to the lower strata of society, subjected to suppression and reasonable monitoring; and some, like Prof FANG Lizhi who passed away last year, had


deep regrets for being unable to see the vindication of the incident. I belong to the older generation who had witnessed the 4 June massacre. People of my generation always believe that we will be able to see in our lifetime the redress of the injustice done to those people killed. Scenes of the brutal crackdown and tanks crushing unarmed civilians remain clear and distinct in my mind, and the sound of shooting still rings in my ears. Now that 24 years have passed, our hearts have not changed with the passage of time. In the candlelight vigils in the past two years, I saw the younger generation coming forward to take over the baton. The efforts of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China and the perseverance of the Hong Kong people over the past 20 odd years have borne fruit in passing on the torch from one generation to the next. From the success attained in the anti-national education movement this year, many young people became aware of the need to learn history, to care about society and respect human rights. People still have aspirations and justice still prevails. Let us not talk about incidents that happened long ago, the recent cases of LIU Xiaobo, LI Wangyang, CHEN Guangcheng and even ZHANG Anni, a 10-year-old daughter of the democracy activist ZHANG Lin, the youngest prisoner of conscience in China, have reminded us time and again that if the CPC government does not face up to this incident in history, there will not be genuine democracy and freedom in China; and tragedies caused by anarchy, injustice and violence will recur again and again, and society will continue to be plagued by corruption. A post-secondary student told me, "Although I had not personally experienced the 4 June incident, I know how to be a person with a conscience. What people of our generation should do is to safeguard the defense line of justice and conscience, learn about history and learn about the truth." In the past 24 years, the autocratic regime has continued its relentless efforts to weaken the Hong Kong people's perseverance in vindicating the 4 June incident. The education authorities in Hong Kong have also made deliberate efforts to make us forget about this democratic movement, and prevent the new generation from learning the true facts. In retrospection, our campaign for the vindication of the 4 June incident has been subjected to internal and external attacks. The road is difficult, but people have not stopped despite the powerful regime's suppression, neither have they been crushed. The flame of their aspiration for the vindication of the 4 June incident has not been extinguished under the pressure of the autocratic regime. It is my conviction that the flame of democracy will be passed on. As a matter of fact, the continuous participation of young people is the beacon of our future.


12639

Deputy President, today many of our children have stepped into society and lead an independent life. However, for parents of the deceased in the Tiananmen Square, they are yet to get justice. As a parent, my feeling is particularly strong, and so is my sorrow. We are talking about a group of unarmed young people who took to the streets in a non-violent manner for a selfless cause of promoting social changes and getting rid of corrupt officials, what crime did they commit? In return, however, they were crushed by tanks and shot by guns. Countless young and patriotic people who could have a bright future were massacred. We are not stone-hearted, who can offer comforts to these parents? However, no kind words were given to these poor parents, worse still, they have been persecuted by the Government for 24 years. How can anyone with a conscience not be moved; how can they refrain from denouncing the brutality and heartlessness of the CPC regime. Deputy President, we persevere in "fighting for the vindication of the 1989 pro-democracy movement and pursuing the accountability for the 4 June massacre" because we want our country to face up to its mistakes, make peace with its people, practice democracy and rebuild its legitimacy. Only in so doing can China become a rich and strong country and its people have a prosperous and comfortable life. My fellow people of Hong Kong, see you on 4 June in Victoria Park. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, many Members have talked about what they did in 1989. In 1989, I was a graduate student at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. When the Communist Party of China (CPC) declared the curfew, I joined many church members in sending a joint petition to the then Secretary General, Mr ZHAO Ziyang, urging him to engage in dialogue with the students. However, the situation deteriorated rapidly which ended with a military crackdown and violent evacuation of students from the Tiananmen Square. We all remember that in May or June 1989, many people took to the streets despite No. 8 typhoon signal was hoisted, they braved the wind and rain in support of the students in the Mainland. People who study social movements in Hong Kong can well remember that during May and June that year, over 1 million people took to the streets in Hong Kong on three occasions in support of the students who strived for democracy in the Mainland. That was unprecedented in Hong Kong.


Was this a local movement? People can play with words, but the fact was that many people in Hong Kong watched what happened in Beijing on television and through other means of broadcast. The democratic movement was not only restricted to Beijing. After the 4 June incident, I went to the United States to pursue my graduate studies and my first assignment was about Chinese politics. I examined how this movement in 1989 rolled out in more than 300 cities in China. Therefore, it was by no means a small movement that was confined to Beijing alone. The movement that took place in a few hundred cities in China was all led by students. They had only one goal, which was to rectify the many problems arisen over the years in the wake of the reform and opening up. These problems include the economy, inflation, people's livelihood, teachers' wages, corruption and profiteering by officials. In the end, people realized that in order to resolve these problems for sustainable development of the opening up and reform policy, the only way out was to introduce political reform. The incident started with students gathering in Tiananmen Square to mourn the death of Mr HU Yaobang, and as they started discussing issues about the country, it eventually developed into a super mass movement. Deputy President, we discuss history here today because we have to face up to the history and the truth. If people cannot face up to the history, there is little hope that China will become rich and powerful or there will be genuine harmony in China. This year, just like the past, we move the motion to seek vindication of the 4 June incident again. Let us imagine that if Mr SZETO Wah were still with us today in this Chamber or listening to our debate, how he would respond or feel. The motion for the vindication of the 4 June incident is again moved in this Council as what we did in the past 23 years, but this year, we are suddenly under attack from the leftist and the rightist. I suddenly remember something that Mr DENG Xiaoping said, "It is most important to guard against the leftists but it is also important to guard against the rightists." The 4 June motion this year seems to be under the attack from both the ultra-leftism and ultra-rightism. As we have expected, no government officials is present at this debate and Members from the pro-establishment camp have all disappeared. Only a few of us remain here. We need to face the so-called patriotism of the pro-establishment camp and we will continue to hear them say that only those who love our country and love Hong Kong are qualified to run in the election for the Chief Executive. What is patriotism? According to the interpretation of the pro-establishment camp and the leftists in Hong Kong, patriotism has been


12641

distorted as submissiveness, that is, before the CPC are willing to conduct a thorough investigation about the 4 June incident and offer their apologies, they will not dare to take any positions. Out of the concern about the business and political future, those who joined in signing the letter to denounce the dictatorial government then are now silent about the vindication of the 4 June incident. Can this be regarded as burying their conscience? Deputy President, I think that this kind of patriotism is truly the same as submissiveness. "The tail of the tiger cannot be touched" and so it is better not to say anything any more but seek for personal interests. Deputy President, some doctors in a hospital of the Liberation Army responsible for treating the people hurt during the crackdown by the Liberation Army found, after examining their wounds, that these people were not hit by ordinary bullets but bullets that would explode inside the body, bullets that were forbidden in the international community. These doctors were unable to treat them as their wounds were incurable. For years, what we want to do is to get to the bottom of the matter and find out the truth. The parents of the student who sacrificed their lives then have never given up after so many years. These Tiananmen Mothers searched the gravestones to find out who died in that period, in the hope that the truth about the 4 June incident will be revealed to all of us some day. This year, a group of people claim that they will promote the local movement and they advocate complete severance from China. I strongly oppose this kind of ultra-rightism. The slogan of "Love the country, love the people; Hong Kong spirit" is not anything new. The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China had introduced a white T-shirt with red words 24 years ago and I still have one in my wardrobe at home. Why did this group of people who participated in the democratic movement in that year did not protest then but suddenly say there are problems with this slogan today? Deputy President, in my view, love the country, love Hong Kong and love democracy are not mutually exclusive. Love democracy and vindicate the 4 June incident should be the core content of Hong Kong people's idea of love the country and love Hong Kong. Deputy President, I speak in support of the motion moved by Mr Albert HO "Vindication of June 4; Never give up". MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in a twinkle, 24 years has gone by and now we are about to commemorate the 24th anniversary of the


massacre in Beijing. We seek the accountability of the 4 June massacre, the end of the one-party dictatorship and the establishment of a democratic China. Some people may say that now it is even harder to achieve these goals than before. Just now many Members, including Mr Albert HO, mentioned that the higher echelons of the Communist Party of China (CPC) had delivered an order to all tertiary education institutions forbidding them to mention seven subject matters, which is outrageous. Deputy President, it is very fortunate that "one country, two systems" is adopted in Hong Kong and people here are not affected by the ban imposed by the Central Authorities on the discussion of freedom, democracy and justice. However, Deputy President, the Central Authorities have not only imposed the ban on mentioning seven subject matters, but also delivered "16 provisions" to step up the ideological work among the teaching staff of universities. According to the Xinhua News Agency, the Party committees from the Organization Department, Publicity Department and Education Department of the CPC Central Committee have issued a paper, stating that because a small number of young teachers in the tertiary education institutes are confused in their political beliefs and have vague concepts and ideals, the Central Authorities request various tertiary education institutions to arrange their young teachers to learn about the basic theories of the Party and adhere to the correct political direction, so that their words and deeds would not jeopardize the country's interests and detrimental to the healthy development of students. What would the Central People's Government do? They assess the thoughts and beliefs of these young teachers on a regular basis, that is to say, to re-educate them and also instruct these teachers to take the initiative to participate in the students' ideological and political education. If teachers do not comply, they will not be promoted. Deputy President, perhaps for a short period of time, people thought that XI Jinping would initiate political reforms, but after seeing wave after wave of such tactics, we may be disillusioned that China will ever undergo any reform. However, we should not be disillusioned. I have noticed that a poll conducted by the People's Forum of China Daily Online found that 80% of the respondents disagreed to one-party totalitarian rule. Hence the people's wish cannot be withheld.


12643

Deputy President, I am a member of the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group. Twenty-four years ago, the students who remained in Tiananmen Square put forward seven requests and one of them was that the leaders of the country should disclose their annual salary and other income, as well as that of their family members. Mr Albert HO has mentioned that many officials had fled China, taking with them hundreds of billions of dollars. Deputy President, in the campaign to request high-ranking government officials in the Mainland to disclose their properties, the human rights lawyers have played a very important role. In 2008, after the implementation of the Regulation of the People's Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information, many human rights lawyers, when handling cases about torts involving the Government, applied to the authorities requesting the Government to disclose its information and data on various aspects. Sometimes they request the Party Secretaries of cities to disclose the amount of tax that they pay or request the Government to disclose the record of expenses incurred in the construction of certain buildings. Their applications have seldom been granted. They would then apply for an administrative review requesting the Government to answer why it has rejected their applications. Of course, all these applications and lawsuits will eventually be rejected by court. However, the significance of these lawsuits brought by the human rights lawyers is to make the Chinese citizens realize that they can pressurize the Government through such lawsuits, demanding it to be accountable to the people. Through these lawsuits, the courageous human rights lawyers can accumulate the experience and knowledge, thereby helping them to spread the legal knowledge to the general public in the country. The human rights lawyers also compile teaching materials and hold trainings, making the Chinese people more aware of how to safeguard their rights and monitor the Government through legal actions. We, the Concern Group, fully support these courageous lawyers. Deputy President, you may have read about the recent campaign for the public disclosure of properties. Some people, bearing the risk of being arrested, have taken to the streets, just like what we do in Hong Kong, made speeches, displayed banners, demanding government officials to disclose their finances. In April and May this year, 13 persons were detained and three of them were charged with the crime of "inciting subversion of state power". Deputy President, have you heard that demanding high officials and corrupt officials to disclose their properties will subvert the state power? However, it does not


matter as I believe that their aspirations will get the support, in words and in deeds, of people in Hong Kong and in other places. On 4 June, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance) will hold a candlelight vigil in the Victoria Park. I call upon all Hong Kong citizens and others, foreigners and Mainlanders, to come together to fill up the Victoria Park. The Park can accommodate 200 000, 300 000 and 400 000 people. Please come to fill it to capacity. We, the Democratic Party, will spare no efforts in helping the Alliance to raise funds for the construction of a museum in commemoration of the 4 June incident. Therefore, fellow citizens of Hong Kong, go to the Victoria Park, and also donate as much as you can. Your attendance and donation can tell the CPC that the time has come for China to undergo democratic reform expeditiously. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Honourable colleagues, where were you 24 years ago? How did you feel about the 4 June incident at that time? When you saw tanks and People's Liberation Army massacring the people, when you saw images of Beijing citizens carrying victims drenched in blood on their bicycles to hospital, when you saw pictures of mutilated bodies lying on the streets, and when you received such messages, how did you feel? I will never forget the day 3 June 1989. I was 24 years old 24 years ago and I was working in Massachusetts, the United States. When the massacre took place in Tiananmen Square between the night on 3 June and early morning on 4 June Beijing time, it was daytime on 3 June in the United States. I did not go to work on that day as I had a bad cold, I felt dizzy and stayed at home falling asleep. I remember clearly that I suddenly received a phone call from an old schoolmate, telling me about the massacre in Beijing. I suddenly woke up from my sleep, turned on the television to watch the news report on CNN. Back in 1989, the Internet was not so common as today. But since the mid-1980s, I had joined the news group on the Internet that discussed about the news in China and Hong Kong. Before and after the 4 June massacre, I joined some other volunteer network citizens to input the press reports all over the world on the democratic movement in China into the computer. Through the email


12645

news services, such as the China News Digest, that is, services available before the emergence of the Internet browser, we were able to disseminate these articles to tens of thousands of Chinese people and even to people all over the world, sharing with them the messages about the 4 June incident and the democratic movement. Back then, we made video tape copies of the news reports of various television stations to preserve the historic evidence. Fortunately we had done so, though we had never expected that today, those historic images could be preserved, spread and shared on the Internet through YouTube, Facebook, and so on, and they even spread to Mainland China now. Twenty years ago, television was the dominating media, and fortunately many historic images were thus preserved. Today, through the Internet, these images can be disseminated. With the advancement in new technologies, people of one generation after another, especially the young people, will not forget about the 4 June incident. As I was not in Hong Kong that year, I could not share the collective memory of marching in torrential rain with a million other Hong Kong people to show our support for the democratic movement, as told by many colleagues. But in the past two decades, no matter I was in Boston, San Francisco or Hong Kong, I always attended the commemorative activities of the 4 June incident. The T-shirt I am wearing now is over 20 years old. I bought it in the United States by mail from the Chinese students association. Over the years, the 4 June "Massacre" has become the 4 June "Incident", and many people have made compromises, either out of their own interest, or for feeling better, or even out of fear of the regime. They have found a reason: the massacre was carried out for the well-being of the country; the pro-democratic students were to blame for the incident or the political storm; or the massacre was carried out to maintain the stability and development of the whole country. I absolutely cannot accept turning an immoral action into a good cause because these are sophistry, lies and audacity of the rulers and even desecration of justice. In the past 24 years, we have mourned the victims in the 4 June incident and sought the vindication of the incident. Some people would say that our demand for the vindication of the 4 June incident implies that we accept the rulers. We should demand the accountability of the 4 June massacre and oppose the regime instead. I agree to that but I think we should refrain from disputing to avoid internal friction. As a matter of fact, in the 24 years after the 4 June incident, the economic development in China has been a bubble built on


selfishness and utilitarianism. No changes whatsoever have been made in its political development, and corruption is rampant. If someone thinks that a country that needs to spend enormous amounts of money to maintain its stability can have lasting order and political stability, he is no doubt dreaming a "China dream". I insist on seeking vindication of the 4 June incident and demanding the accountability of the massacre, just like those who have insisted on mourning for the victims in the 4 June incident for the past 24 years. On the contrary, for those who trim their sails to the wind and succumb to power and insist on abstaining from voting, voting against this motion or keeping silent, it is my conviction that history will eventually prove that these people have forsaken justice and picked the wrong side. Deputy President, in Psalms it reads, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." However, if we ask for justice in China today, we have gone to the wrong place. In China there are only power, sophistry and corruption. Those who side with the evildoing rulers think that they do so for the sake of the reality and out of their practical needs. However, it is also written in Psalms, "Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven." For those of us who believe in God, we think that God is just and in the end, evildoers shall be eliminated. For those who do not believe in God, most of them still believe that the evildoers will be punished by the heavens eventually. Deputy President, I was 24 before 1989 and after the 4 June incident, I have passed another 24 years. It is my conviction that the day when the 4 June incident is vindicated is coming. Today, I have the chance to give this speech in the Legislative Council. It reminds me of Uncle Wah whom I met 24 years ago and it was him who led me onto this path. Uncle Wah's only advice to us as mentees was to be a good man. Therefore, I make these remarks based on my fundamental moral courage and sense of justice as a person. If we even compromise on this, according to my standard at least, we are not worthy of being a human being. We will meet on 4 June at Victoria Park. People of Hong Kong, I hope that all of you will come forward. I will see you on 4 June.


12647

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Hong Kong is the only piece of Chinese soil on which commemoration of the 4 June incident will be held every year, and this Council will also conduct a debate on the 4 June incident every year. However, the so-called "debate" is actually delivery of speeches from only one side, since the Honourable colleagues in the pro-establishment camp will never express their feelings. Deputy President, this is the eighth year that I speak in a motion debate on the 4 June incident in this Council. In the past, there were times when I felt unbearable indignation, and there were times when I was speechless with sobs. Yet today, I only feel immensely helpless with a presentiment that despite our reluctance, we will have to accept our fate. The Honourable colleagues in the pro-establishment camp told me to look forward and not to dwell on something which happened 24 years ago. Deputy President, I have looked forward, but what I could see is that no one has learnt the lesson which was taught 24 years ago. As I could see, on 1 July next year, something similar to the suppression of the 4 June incident may take place in Hong Kong. We may not see the People's Liberation Army drive tanks straight into Central and kill anyone they meet, but a large-scale suppression, I am afraid, is unavoidable. Why do we Chinese people always have to go down this road? I have asked myself, why did the 4 June incident take place? We can all spell out the historical facts, but what is the meaning behind such facts? Deputy President, I only remember that the 4 June incident started with students' and workers' commemoration of HU Yaobang. It was originally a peaceful activity to express their aspirations, but on 26 April, the People's Daily branded the activity a "turmoil", instigating more people to take to the streets and more people to go to Beijing. On 18 May, the student representatives went to the Great Hall of the People on the side of Tiananmen Square, knelt down on the floor and begged to see LI Peng. Although they were eventually received by LI Peng, the meeting ended on a sour note owing to LI Peng's tough attitude. On 19 May, the late ZHAO Ziyang and WEN Jiabao, who had now retired, arrived at Tiananmen in midnight in the hope of resolving this fight. They said to the students, "Cease your hunger strike. We will not do anything in reprisal afterwards." With these words still ringing in our ears, LI Peng declared martial law in the capital in the small hours the same night, driving the Central Government, students and the public to a tragic end with no point of return.


Deputy President, the message from the incident is very simple. People's aspirations will not be contained by mere suppression, and power does not always stand with reason. Those in power may get a moment of stability, but they will lose when they are being judged in history. Today, Hong Kong people's aspirations are actually not much different from those cherished by the students in Tiananmen in Beijing. We also demand democracy and fight against corruption. However, now we have noted that in one term after another, the Special Administrative Region Government has become more and more corrupt, freedom of speech is subject to more and more suppression, while democracy has gone farther and farther away. Deputy President, I do not advocate confrontation, and I do not support radical behaviour either, but what else can we do today? Perhaps the Honourable colleagues in the pro-establishment camp could stand up and tell me and Hong Kong people what else we can do today. If they can say it out, we will certainly try our best to do it; if they cannot do so, I hope they can be accountable to their own conscience. Thank you, Deputy President. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, commemoration of the 4 June incident has taken root on our land. The motion on the 4 June incident is an annual expression of political stance. The pan-democrats perform the ritual every year, while the royalists dodge it year after year. It has already become a routine gesture and model response. However, such division has also led to a lazy mindset. Having considered themselves as the embodiment of justice for a long period, the pan-democrats have always marginalized internal disagreements. As the oppression of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the masses in Hong Kong becomes increasingly severe and internal disagreements become stronger, they have no idea how to respond except to demonize them. The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance) has almost monopolized the whole commemoration of the 4 June incident held in Hong Kong. The formulaic procedure of its vigil and the centralization of power inside the Alliance have already drawn criticisms from a lot of participants. Ten years ago, when I wished to go onto the stage in the


12649

vigil to appeal to the public to take to the streets to "topple TUNG" and oppose the introduction of legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law, I had to beg sorely the seniors in the Alliance led by SZETO Wah and bargain with them repeatedly in order to get their "gracious approval". Local consciousness has emerged since last year, and the Alliance drew up the puzzling slogan of "Love the country, love the people; Hong Kong spirit" which had evoked a tide of adverse comments. Then CHIN Wan posted an article on Facebook which says, "Commemoration of the 4 June incident must go into the community. The Alliance must draw a clear line between itself and the democratic camp. Otherwise, Hong Kong people should not participate in the vigil on 4 June". A stone tossed into the water has raised a thousand ripples. However, criticisms and responses have often been degenerated to giving vent to sentiments, and the obsolete moral judgment still applies, that is, "attendance in the candlelight vigil is a distinction between humans and beasts". Today, we need to examine deeply into the issues of the commemoration of the 4 June incident. Since the airwaves era, I have strongly advocated abandoning the use of the word "vindication". Firstly, "vindication" implies recognition of the CCP's legal ruling status. Secondly, people with some knowledge of the CCP's history will understand that "vindication" and "reform of the political system" are not necessarily related. In 1978, DENG Xiaoping took advantage of the people's wish to vindicate the 5 April Tiananmen Incident to defeat the "yes-men", but after he had seized power, he turned his back and suppressed the Xidan Democracy Wall. There is the chance that such a historical event will recur in the future. As for the new slogan of "Love the country, love the people; Hong Kong spirit", after the 1989 pro-democracy movement, there was a similar slogan in Hong Kong ― "If China has no democracy, Hong Kong will have no future" ― and after the 4 June incident, it became a defeatist statement which said, "If China has no democracy, Hong Kong will have no democracy either". During the pro-democracy movement, Hong Kong people had a rather complicated mental state …… right now we are discussing the motion on the vindication of the 4 June incident. The Honourable colleagues in the pan-democratic camp should find it very serious, but I do not know what Dr Helena WONG is laughing at. What are you laughing at? Is it very funny? We are discussing the vindication of the 4 June incident here. What are you laughing at?


DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): You could let me respond to that. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You may respond through other channels. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Let me borrow HUNG Ho-fung's words on Facebook: "4 June 1989 was an important landmark in the establishment of Hong Kong people's subject identity, though it concurrently had the contradictory effects of stimulating Hong Kong's subject consciousness (that means disillusion with the "liberal CCP") and suppressing such subject consciousness (that means tying up democratization in Hong Kong with democratization on the Mainland)." On the other hand, for many Hong Kong people, that was the point of awakening their sense of identity as "Chinese people". However, after the 4 June tragedy, it became an endless misery of "unrequited love". Looking back 24 years later, the 4 June tragedy marked the CCP's failure to grasp the last golden opportunity to mend its way. The so-called "reform within the CCP system" is just a fantasy. In addition, since DENG Xiaoping's inspection in the south in 1992, the whole country only has eyes on money. Corruption is entirely out of control, and the quality of the masses on the Mainland is as low as it can get. Judging from this, even the "civilized China" is gradually dying out in the north of the Shenzhen River. The CCP continues to occupy China by foul means. Competing with a political regime which has monopolized "love for the country" by showing "we love the country more", and cherishing unrequited love for a country which does not deserve our love, will be futile. Every year I will attend the candlelight vigil for only two reasons: first, all beings grieve for their fellows' misfortunes; second, I wish to denounce the "butcher" regime through attending the vigil, in the hope that Hong Kong people will not forget the definite relationship between the 4 June tragedy and the "butcher" regime. Now some people have queried whether the number of people attending the candlelight vigil would actually scare the Community Party, I think they have


12651

really set the focus wrong. If the Alliance is willing to make the memorial activities completely local and leave out the theme about love for the country, the Community Party will be more scared. However, requesting them to mend their way, I am afraid, is like expecting the Democratic Party to apologize to the public for betraying the voters three years ago, on which no high hopes can be placed. I hope that people who decide to boycott the candlelight vigil of the Alliance can organize activities on their own to commemorate the 4 June incident with local perspectives. They should not boycott the so-called "memorial activities". The civic society in Hong Kong is a forgotten "casualty". The 1989 pro-democracy movement had awakened the idealistic sentiment of many Hong Kong people, but the following suppression had shattered their ideals and made most Hong Kong people more cynical. Owing to the time constraint, I cannot finish delivering this speech. The 4 June tragedy is a humanitarian disaster. By the standard of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, it is a "crime against humanity". From this angle, we demand the Communist Party to take responsibility (The buzzer sounded) …… DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, your speaking time is up. Please sit down. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, 24 years have passed since the 1989 democracy movement. I can still recall that on the very night 24 years ago, I was on duty in hospital. Without any idea and not being psychologically prepared, I saw on television scenes of the clearance of Tiananmen Square: tanks were moving into the square and many people were rushed to hospitals. On that night, medical staff in Beijing hospitals tried to rescue the injured in tears. They had never thought that the army of their own nation, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), would use machine guns to shoot unarmed civilians, and resort to the use of tanks. Today, when we talk about the disputes of the "localists" or other disputes, I would like to remind Members that we commemorate the 4 June incident because we, as human beings ― regardless of whether we are Chinese ― have


conscience, and we all know that unarmed civilians should not be treated that way. As Chinese, we are particularly saddened. In the 1989 democracy movement 24 years ago, why did university students or fresh graduates come forward? They did so for expressing their discontents with official profiteering and corruption. At that time, China was at the initial stage of reform and opening up, some "early birds" had a taste of wealth, but the whereabouts of money was unknown. Some people with approval rights earned huge amounts of money through their connections; party members reaped enormous profits by utilizing their connections. This was also the case with members of the PLA. However, what is the situation of China 24 years later? The situation is even worse than that of 24 years ago. Corruption is more rampant, and the money involved was in the hundreds of millions, rather than tens or hundreds of thousands. State leaders scramble to send their wives and children to the United States, Britain or Europe. The state has not changed. Members may think that the students had bled for nothing, but despite their bleeding for nothing, still no people on the Mainland today are capable of vindicating or commemorating the 4 June incident. I will not blame the new generation, because the young generation of China, born after 1989, grew up in a closed and authoritarian state. Members all know that the 4 June incident and the 1989 democracy movement must not be mentioned on the Mainland. Certainly, many people know how to "surpass the firewall" to search for information, but many of the young generation on the Mainland are kept in the dark. Among a number of people who may have their voices heard, we have Ms ZHANG Xianling. She is the family member of a victim of the 1989 democracy movement, and also a member of the Tiananmen Mothers. Members may remember that she once came to Hong Kong, carrying with her a helmet. The helmet belonged to her son, WANG Nan, was shot dead when taking photos of the 4 June incident in Beijing on that day. The helmet was displayed by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democracy Movements of China (the Alliance). Ms ZHANG also noted the different disputes in Hong Kong, including the "localists" disagreeing to commemorate the 1989 democracy movement, and she made a thought-provoking remark: "Hong Kong is the only


12653

Chinese society which still commemorates the 4 June incident on a large scale", and "hundreds of thousands of people still go to the Victoria Park to commemorate the 4 June incident every year". (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) Certainly, the 4 June incident is not an event of the individuals or of the Alliance. However, in the past 20 years or so, the Alliance has insisted on vindicating and commemorating the 4 June incident, despite the great difficulties and suppression. I would like to salute to the Alliance for its dedication over the years. Many people opine that the slogan of the Alliance this year "love the country, love the people" ear-jarring. In fact, how ear-jarring is the slogan? It is exactly because people love the country that they come forward to bash it. Twenty four years ago, those young people would not have come forward if they did not love the country. President, you may probably know that going abroad was the best option at that time. In fact, many students would not consider returning to the country after arriving in the United States, as they had to earn a living. The situation now is certainly different, many people of the affluent second generation who study in Britain or the United States drive luxury cars. Because students still had a ray of hope on their country; they still held the commemorative activities in Tiananmen Square though they were wounded. I believe that many Hong Kong people also love the country, and so they insist on vindicating the 4 June incident and ending one-party authoritarian rule. This is the only hope for the Chinese, and the common wish of tens of millions of Chinese. I hope that more people would go to the Victoria Park this year to continue to fight for the victims. I cannot go to the Victoria Park this year, because I have to go to New York in the United States. But in New York, I will, as always, commemorate the victims of the 4 June incident. I so submit. Thank you, President.


DR JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, it has been 24 years since the 4 June incident happened. This is a historical fact. For more than two decades, whether in the Legislative Council before the unification or the current Legislative Council, a motion would be proposed to talk about this incident. No matter whether this is a debate like you said or an exposition of the fact like we said, such a situation has lasted some 20 years. I guess a number of Honourable colleagues here have probably presented their speaking notes more than 20 times ― there may be some additions or deletions ― but they have presented it more than 20 times. This year, we conduct another debate on the 4 June incident, bringing up this historical fact again. There are some different voices which ask, do we actually love Hong Kong as locals, or do we love the country, the party and the people? There are different disputes over different opinions, but one thing will never change. Regardless of the approach we adopt to ponder on the 4 June incident, no matter whether we mourn for the dead or critically challenge the Chinese Communist political regime, we have to tell ourselves this fact: we have kept bringing up the 4 June incident for some 20 years. An important point is, we wish to keep reminding ourselves that we have got to know what is meant by the spirit of the 4 June incident. The spirit of the 4 June incident is that some 20 years ago, a group of Chinese students, workers and pro-democracy activists paid the price with their lives and blood to remind those in power that the country needed freedom, needed democracy and needed to fight corruption. I believe every country needs such a spirit. Nowadays, we can still talk about this subject in Hong Kong. I have just learnt from the newspaper that some Mainland students in Hong Kong have expressed their thanks to Hong Kong people because they think Hong Kong people have no need to do such things, but we have persevered so that in the past two decades or so, Mainlanders have had the chance to learn that some people outside the Mainland have continued to relay that the country really needs democracy, freedom and the implementation of anti-corruption measures. Yet why are they unable to do so in the Mainland? It may be the political regime or the prohibition which has silenced them with fear, or, having regard to their own interests, they do not want to talk about it. However, given that nowadays, we still have such a good platform and a good role to play in Hong Kong, I believe that irrespective of what slogan we chant, what approach we adopt and what words we put, no matter whether


12655

commemoration or criticism is carried out in radical or mild and moderate manners, in terms of moral, commitment and responsibility, we definitely have to continue to let Chinese people and the Chinese Government know that this country needs democracy, freedom and the implementation of anti-corruption measures. Only then will its people be truly the people of "strong China". Spending money to buy things here and there will not make them people of a strong nation. This is totally irrelevant. President, regarding this debate on the 4 June incident, during a chat in our lunch earlier, we have discussed whether the debate will end before five o'clock. As I look at the clock, it probably will not go all the way to five o'clock. Maybe it will already end at half-past four because after people on this side have spoken, no one on the other side will particularly wish to speak. It is the same every year. Nevertheless, I believe a very important point is that regardless of our approach, we seek to keep reminding our country that the spirit of the 4 June incident should not be forgotten. We should not only participate in the candlelight vigil on 4 June, we should not only mourn for those members of the public and students who sacrificed their lives and paid the price with their blood 24 years ago, we also have to keep reminding ourselves that these three elements are essential. Hence, I hope that today, we will have the chance to spell out here what we really have got to say, telling this country, telling our political regime what we must do. Moreover, it is likely that this year, this motion cannot be passed either, but I hope ― I do not know if I will still have the chance, or for how many more years I will have such a chance, and I do not know what will happen in future, but at least I can cast my vote in support for three more years here ― that even up to 2016, 2017 or 2020, the Legislative Council will continue to bring up a motion every year on the 4 June incident, urging that the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the pro-democracy movement be vindicated until everyone in our country can enjoy freedom and democracy and anti-corruption measures are put into practice. Thank you, President. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, with the inauguration of the new leadership in China, would it usher in a new chapter with new leaders? Or would it continue in the same old vein and turn its back on political reform?


If the Chinese Communist Government does not come to terms with the past and heal the wounds, how can it right the past wrongs? Traditional Chinese wisdom has it that "past experience, if not forgotten, is a guide for the future". Could the new leaders possibly not understand that? President, as 4 June is just around the corner, would the authorities, as ever, continue to opt for abusive silencing, control tightening and house-arresting of dissidents? Or would they muster the courage to make a case for justice, to heal the wounds of the 4 June incident and blaze a trail for political reform? The decision should be made right now. Does stability preservation prevail over everything, even if it violates the law and the constitution? Or would they choose to reconcile with the public and patch up the wounds to embark on a new journey? Hong Kong people may still have hopes on the new leaders, or else they may have long come to despair. Having nothing to hope for is even more sobering. Amid a constantly changing political environment in Hong Kong, the people in power play the art of double-talk, create friend-and-foe conflicts, make appointments by favouritism, resulting in the bad purging the good, turning every place red, disrupting law and order, and deliberately generating social rifts. However, no matter how Hong Kong has changed, we cannot deny that, 24 years have passed, and each year in the candlelight vigil, tens of thousands of candles still light up to bear witness that Hong Kong people would not and dare not forget the incident. Students' selfless contribution and the bloody massacre in Beijing that year are still vivid in people's mind. As I still remember, the newly-installed President XI Jinping talked about his "China dream" at the closing of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in March. He stressed that "China dream is, at its root, the people's dream, it must rely on the people to be achieved, and it must continue to benefit the people. It is necessary to listen at all times to what the public say, to respond to public expectation, to ensure members of the public have equal right to participate and develop, and to uphold social justice." President, could these remarks ignite our hopes? Or would he still say one thing and do the other? Would the authorities really safeguard our rights and uphold social justice? Or would stability preservation prevail over everything, even if it violates the law and the constitution and deprive people of civil rights? President, I think the people have become numb to all these beautiful words churned out by the leaders. Former Premier WEN Jiabao once said ― he is a distinguished orator using beautiful words, with vivid facial expression


12657

showing worries for the country and the people. The fight-till-death spirit he demonstrated while clamouring for political reform has left a deep impression on the public. But unfortunately, the Government has been reshuffled now. May I ask Premier WEN where has the political reform gone? Over the years, there has not been a democratic system. The absolute powers have been subject to no checks and balances. People's wills have been neglected. These fundamental problems have never been put into the reform agenda. At the end of the day, those beautiful words repeatedly churned out by Premier WEN cannot be translated into reality. Did Premier WEN's remarks on the so-called reform merely serve to muddle through and confuse the public? Or some conservative factions were all too powerful, rendering him not able to work things out? Or was it the case that Premier WEN only wanted to act as a prima facie Premier of the people, attempting to mask the rotten system and corruption with an open and reformative image? President, likewise, how would President XI's remarks on "China dream" and his call for upholding social justice end up eventually? President, both you and I cannot deny that official corruption, collusion between business and the Government, and abuse of power happen all the time on the Mainland, from cadres at the lowest level to officials at the centre of power. Why is it the case? To resolve problems and achieve long-term peace and stability, can we rely on President XI's fine words, similar to that churned out by Premier WEN, on his action and his corrupt-free conducts? Or do we have to rely on a systemic reform so as to establish a democratic system that can be truly monitored by people? The answer is crystal clear. President, the 4 June incident is fast approaching its 24th anniversary. Our motion urges "the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated". Are we drawing near towards it? President, I believe that the vindication of the 4 June incident and the healing of such wounds will pave the way for initiating political reform. Political reform is integral to China's continuous development. Although China has strived to develop its economy in recent years to improve people's livelihood, rapid economic development has stirred up confusion in people's values. Economic development prevails over everything. Corruption and abuse of power happens all the time. There is uneven distribution of wealth between the rich and the poor. The judiciary serves as a political tool. Fairness and justice cannot be done. Extensive growth has seriously damaged the environment. All these


cannot steer us towards sustainable development. Stability preservation, so to speak, can only be achieved temporarily. Public disappointment and grievances will only grow stronger. Therefore, I have stressed over the years that the vindication of the 4 June incident can serve as a turning point for reform. Facing squarely with this historical trauma and righting the past wrongs can exactly pave the way for China's democratic reform. While we have to develop the economy to improve people's livelihood, it is also necessary to strive to establish a democratic system, uphold the rule of law, champion fairness and justice, care for the disadvantaged, show leniency to dissidents, and protect the ecological environment. These are the essential elements for building a truly stable and harmonious society. Only then will China achieve genuine long-term peace and stability. MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, it has been 24 years since the 4 June incident happened. Over the years, a motion debate relating to this incident would be conducted in the Legislative Council every year, and this year is no exception. The Liberal Party will continue to speak and vote on this motion to reiterate our stance as before. I believe many Chinese people will agree that the 4 June incident was a tragedy, and every Chinese who loves his country will certainly hope that no similar incident will ever occur again. Nevertheless, regarding the ins and outs of the whole incident, as well as why it ended up in bloodshed, the Liberal Party always believes that history will pass a fair judgment. In the meanwhile, the Liberal Party considers that at present, it is most important to look forward, hoping that the country will have better and better development in the future. As a matter of fact, in the recent 20 years, seizing the opportunity of reform and opening up, the country has improved a lot. It has made substantial progress in various aspects, and its international status has become increasingly high. In particular, led by the last generation of leaders such as HU Jintao and WEN Jiabao in the past decade, China's economy took off and experienced the golden decade. With its gross domestic product, that means GDP, currently over RMB 50,000 billion yuan, China has become the second largest economy in the world. Compared with 10 years ago, its GDP has tripled, thereby substantially raising the people's living standard. Although the economic growth in these two years will slow down to less than 8%, which is about 7.5%, this growth is far higher than that in many European and American countries. According to


12659

Premier LI Keqiang's estimation, if the annual growth can be maintained at 7%, China's GDP will double in 2020. Besides, during these 10 to 20 years, the Mainland has attained remarkable achievements in infrastructure, scientific research, space technology and military strength, which demonstrate continuous increase in China's integrated strength and make the whole world see China and Chinese people in a new light. In March this year, the transition of leadership in the country was completed smoothly. XI Jinping took over from HU Jintao as China's President, while LI Keqiang took over from WEN Jiabao as Premier of the State Council, thereby officially commencing the "Xi-Li era". Many people hold great expectations of the new generation of leaders. In fact, as soon as the new leaders had assumed office, they brought forth a new style of governance. They advocate simplicity, strictly control the "three public consumptions", dedicate great efforts to combat corruption and have introduced various drastic reforms. President XI has further put forward the ideal of China dream, encouraging the people to unite together to build up a strong nation and fully develop a moderately prosperous society. We are confident that led by the new generation of leaders, the country will definitely make persistent efforts to pursue better development. The Liberal Party also understands that 24 years after the occurrence of the 4 June incident, many Hong Kong people still keep it in their mind, and this is natural. At the same time, we are of the view that whatever reforms the country implements, the prerequisite is to have a stable political and economic environment, as well as a harmonious society as the basis. Only then will society become more democratic and prosperous. The Liberal Party will, after speaking some 20 times in such a debate, continue to abstain as before. President, I so submit. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, this year, the slogan put forward by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China for the 4 June incident is "Love the country, love the people; Hong Kong spirit. Vindication of June 4; Never give up ". The controversy aroused by this statement, in my opinion, carries some rather weird thoughts. In Hong Kong, for the compatriots who died in the 4 June incident, students who lost their lives, and pro-democracy activists and members of the


public who participated in the event, we have, through persistent commemorations and rallies, condemned the Communist Party for its cold-blooded suppression of the opposing voices in the 4 June incident in 1989. That is because the fight for democracy and the right to live in a society with freedom and justice is a universal value. It is a goal which everyone should pursue. Some people may say, Hong Kong should mind its own business. How does the Mainland business have anything to do with us? I recall that when I was young, my parents often mailed parcels to their relatives and friends on the Mainland. I remember that in my childhood, every time we had the chance to go to the Mainland to visit our relatives, we would put on loads of clothes. What was the reason? Of course it was because of the ties of blood. As our living conditions in Hong Kong had improved, we wished to provide relief to our relatives and friends on the Mainland. In fact, this is the tie which has made us inseparable from our country, the Mainland China. Let us ask ourselves frankly, there are countless places in the world which are faced with high-handed suppressions, but how many of such places can arouse our sympathy and make us speak up for such a universal value? How come we are less concerned with what have happened in many other places, yet we attach particular importance to the progress of democratization on the land of China, as well as the protection of human rights and freedom on this piece of land? The reason is that Hong Kong is inseparable from China. Whether it be the blood relationship or inspiration from history, or our background of being born of the same root, or even the comment that in modern history in this century, Hong Kong was an important cradle of transformation for the whole China, from these perspectives, I consider that the discussion in Hong Kong over the concepts such as "love the country, love Hong Kong" and "love the country, love the people" can never be reduced to a single view uttered by the pro-establishment camp. Let us take a look. In these 10 to 20 years, whenever the pan-democrats criticized the political regime in China, the cold-blooded practice of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the act of the Chinese Communist regime in trampling on human rights, they would be labelled as opposing China on every front. What the pan-democratic camp opposes is the oppression of people by the Chinese Communist regime, which neglected the people's rights for the sake of bureaucratic interests and even freely trampled on those rights which are


12661

conferred on the people by the constitution. Everyone in Hong Kong and everyone who has Chinese blood in his veins should strive for change. It is because we wish to see a rich and powerful China where human rights, freedom, the rule of law and the rights protected by the constitution are observed, so that people may live without fears. For this reason, we have participated in the memorial activities in Victoria Park for 24 years and denounced through our commemorations and rallies the cold-blooded suppression committed by the Chinese Communist regime on that day. Of course, each fellow who has participated in the rallies in Victoria Park may have countless different reasons, but what we all try to protect is a specific core theme, that is, our wish that we can live in Hong Kong without fear, and that human rights, freedom and the rule of law can be further demonstrated and develop in this place. There is room for such development to influence the Mainland. In what way will the Mainland be influenced? The retention of records of this episode in history has already achieved significant effects. Just imagine, had we not held the commemorations persistently for 24 years, this episode in history would have faded out with the CCP's efforts to wipe it away. It would be unlike today, when we can keep relaying this episode in history to the next generation and all people in China, telling them that in Hong Kong, on this piece of land under one country, we will still strive and fight for democratization in China. Many people will say that the great strides made by China in economic development can serve as counter-evidence that the cold-blooded suppression was a reasonable act back then. Can it be put this way? Owing to the Government's lack of reflection, owing to the Communist Party's cold-blooded suppression, costly expenses have to be made on stability perseverance so as to defend its ruling authority. That includes sacrificing the people's cultural literacy, sacrificing the social environment, giving rise to "tainted foods" and "tofu-dreg" construction works, and all kinds of collusions in the bureaucracy.(The buzzer sounded) …… These are unforgivable …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, your speaking time is up.


MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): See you in Victoria Park on 4 June. Thank you everyone. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I was a Secondary Five student in 1989 and I was taking the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination at the time of the 1989 Student Movement. In the brink of an eye, 24 years have passed and I would like to share with you three stories today. The first story. Several years ago, I taught public speaking skills at The Open University of Hong Kong. A female student chose to speak on the topic "From June 'doo' to 4 June" at an examination. I found the subject really odd and I did not know what June "doo" referred to. This student was a new immigrant from the Mainland, and she had been in Hong Kong for a few years. It was very difficult for her generation to have access to information on 4 June on the Mainland, thus she did not know much about the 4 June incident. She said that the Mainland television broadcasters would relay the television programmes in Hong Kong, but whenever the news or current affairs programmes mentioned 4 June, they would hear the sound "doo". That was the meaning of "June 'doo'". A pot of flower or a scenic scene would appear on the television screen, followed by the broadcast of government propaganda films. People like her were denied of access to information on 4 June. She told me that she was delighted after she had migrated to Hong Kong as she could watch television, read newspapers and watch YouTube videos online to find out more about 4 June, and she was thrilled that she could participate in the candlelight vigil at the Victoria Park. I remember I gave this student an "A" for her performance. I would like to share this story with people who attended the candlelight vigils on 4 June in the past but are hesitant to attend the candlelight vigil on 4 June this year because they dislike certain slogans or because of some remarks made by local forces. The second story happened in 2006. I was still working at a radio station and there was a one-hour live programme for joint broadcast with the Radio Guangdong from Monday to Friday. In the morning of 4 June that year, the Radio Guangdong producer gave me a call: Slow Beat, the numbers "six" and "four" could not be mentioned in the programme today. That sounded really ridiculous to me, and I asked him did that mean we could not talk about people aged 64, we could not mention people born in 1964 or we could not say that the relative humidity was 64%. He told me that was the case. For this reason, I created a clock without the numbers "six" and "four", and uploaded it on Weibo.


12663

I successfully uploaded the clock because it did not comprise the numbers "six" and "four". The most ridiculous thing was that he had a slip of the tongue and mentioned the two numbers. Later, I learnt that the senior management of the radio station did not order that the words "six" and "four" could not be mentioned in the programme; it was the producer who had such order because he was scared. This reminded me of the saying that, "the Master is not awful, the lackeys are not awful, the most awful are the lackeys of the lackeys". I would like to share this second story with Legislative Council Members who intend to vote against the motion or abstain from voting today. The third story happened in June 2010. I recall that I just opened a Weibo account and I wrote a microblog post around 4 June. Early in the morning on 4 June, I was chatting on Weibo with Director LU Chuan who produced "Nanjing! Nanjing!". He wrote on Weibo: "Offering three sticks of incense to alert myself: The ability to remember should not be lost, it is the only strength to keep us awake. I feel a little better after writing these words. These words serve as a reminder of our youth and our passion". I replied to Director LU Chuan: "Hoping that a movie with this title would be produced one day". Director LU Chuan replied: "Definitely! This is one of my dreams". However, our dialogue on Weibo soon disappeared. There was such a message: "In order to maintain a good atmosphere on Weibo, please do not discuss and forward inappropriate topics. Thank you for your understanding and care". I would like to share this third story with some friends who are still in the entertainment industry. I hope that they would not, for fear that their business and development in the entertainment field, as well as their performance opportunities on the Mainland may be affected, be reluctant to admit that they had once made certain remarks guided by their conscience. Members of the entertainment field are artists, not hypocrites. I attend the candlelight vigil on 4 June each year but I wish that I could go there hand in hand with my boyfriend. It is a pity that my wish has not come true because my former boyfriend had similar ideas as the Liberal Party or the DAB. I hope there would be a chance in the future. For those attending the 4 June vigil and the July 1 march, the focus is not the sponsoring organization. For example, the Civil Human Rights Front and I may have different views on many issues, and I may not entirely agree with the annual theme; but I participate in the march each year because the focus is not the organization but the people. The protagonists are the 4 June victims and the protagonists of the assembly at the Victoria Park are Hong Kong people. The 4 June vigils have been held


many years, and we only need to ask ourselves one question: what would you feel if the news report on 5 June reported that only a few hundred people or even dozens of people gathered at the Victoria Park? I definitely respect people's choices, but I hope that those friends who have attended the 4 June vigil each year in the past would continue to support this activity this year. The 4 June incident should not be forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement should be vindicated. See you next Tuesday evening at the Victoria Park. MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the fact that the community has different views on different issues exemplifies the value of the freedom of speech. I hope we can adopt an attitude of mutual respect and tolerance when dealing with various issues, and that we would try our best to remain rational and objective. The same applies to the discussions about the June 4 incident. I had, together with many Hong Kong people, undergone the period in 1989. Regarding the 4 June incident that happened in Tiananmen, after a lapse of some 20 years, we are still at a stage of trying to put together pieces of historical incidents. Many crucial details of this incident are still pending clarification. Personally, I think the 4 June incident is definitely unfortunate, but many people and I do not know much about the incident, and we do not know the truth. As professionals, we have to make objective judgments about this incident; if we rely on bits and pieces of information to build up a picture, and even attempt to draw a conclusion, I believe that is incorrect and not neutral. President, I believe both Hong Kong people and Mainlanders would like the country and Hong Kong to be strong and fine. Many people agree that anti-corruption was one of the causes leading to the incident years ago. At that time, students and people on the Mainland had the aspiration that the country would clean up corruption. I think that is very meaningful and conducive to national development. Hence, what we should do and what we should concern about is to follow up the anti-corruption demands, as well as fight for and urge the Mainland to actively resolve the corruption problem and build a clean government. President, Hong Kong is a free and clean society and Hong Kong people have a sense of justice, and there are many things that we should be proud of. I hope we would continue to uphold these principles, and that everyone in Hong


12665

Kong will make efforts, so that these things that we are proud of, especially integrity would be maintained. Integrity is the cornerstone of social harmony and prosperity, which has all along been pursued by many countries and regions (including the Mainland). Hence, it is imperative that we should play this role well, and work together to promote the development of our society. I so submit, President. MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, just like many Hong Kong people, I consider the 4 June incident an unforgettable event. We cannot forget the surging democratic movement initiated by residents and students in Beijing in 1989, which eventually resulted in bloodshed because of the suppression by tanks and the People's Liberation Army of the Chinese Communist Party. Since I came to know about the world, 1989 was the year I shed the most tears. Hong Kong people have remained steadfast in commemorating the 4 June incident because we cannot forget the 4 June massacre that shocked the world. The 4 June massacre took place almost 24 years ago, and Mainland China is now called a rising power, as though a country which enjoys economic development does not need moral legitimacy. Hong Kong people cannot forget those students and people in Beijing who, with pure patriotic feelings, pursued democracy in a peaceful manner. President, some students sitting the college entrance examination in Beijing issued a hunger strike statement on 13 May 1989. The contents of the statement are as follows: "Our country is in a critical state: prices are soaring, official profiteering is rampant, power is concentrated in the hands of the few, and the bureaucracy is corrupt, many people of integrity and ambition are in exile overseas, social order is deteriorating day by day …… Democracy is the highest survival emotion of life. Freedom is the endowed human rights by birth. But we have to achieve them with the exchange of our young lives. Could this be the pride of Chinese people? Hunger strike is the last resort …… We are fighting for life with the spirit of death …… We don't want to die. We want to live well, because we are at the most beautiful age of our lifetime …… We want to study hard, because our Motherland is still so poor and we can't just die like this and leave her behind. Death is definitely not our desire …… We have only one request, please do not forget that death is absolutely not our desire! Because


democracy is not just an issue concerning a handful if people, or can it be achieved by only one generation." President, in Hong Kong, we can still enjoy the unique air of freedom within the Chinese territory. We should not forget the 4 June incident and we must preserve our memory to fulfil our moral responsibilities as witnesses. Only the victims and their families have the right to forget because they may not bear to live in great pains. The 4 June incident should not be forgotten; Hong Kong people should use their collective memories to resist strong power, and to remember or forget the 4 June incident is a choice of right or wrong. President, the 4 June incident enlightened me politically and changed my life because I decided to participate in politics after the incident. The 4 June incident promoted the political awakening of a whole generation of Hong Kong people. The 4 June incident was not only a single democratic movement in support of the students in Beijing; it was the most thorough democratic education for this generation of Hong Kong people, which closely linked up Hong Kong people's confidence in the future and China's democratic process. The corruption problems in China today are even more serious than that in 1989, and the Chinese people today are even subjected to greater pressure. Therefore, President, I put on this blood-stained shirt today to represent the continued struggle for the democratic demands of the people and students in Beijing. The pro-establishment camp, the royalists and the governments, especially the Beijing Government, should address squarely the bloody massacre in history. The 4 June incident must be vindicated and the authoritarian Chinese Communist "butcher" regime must be cast aside. The 4 June incident should not be forgotten; the responsibility for the massacre be ascertained, and one-party dictatorship be ended! PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, many Hong Kong people wish year after all that the suppressed 1989 pro-democracy movement will be vindicated. For this reason, tens of thousands of people gather in the Victoria Park on 4 June each year to express their dissatisfaction, without fear of wind and


12667

rain. This situation has happened in each of the past 24 years, and Members in this Council have debates on motions on the vindication of the 4 June incident each year when 4 June draws near. Undoubtedly, every Member may have different views in consideration of their concept; some may wish to seek justice for those martyrs who died during the pro-democracy movement while some others may wish to speak up for those who have been imprisoned, monitored, or forced into exile because of their participation in the pro-democracy movement to fight for democracy in China. All of them yearn for the vindication of the 4 June incident, hoping that democracy will be upheld in China at an early date. President, I would like to give one reason, which has become more pressing because of the situation in recent years. Since the 1989 pro-democracy movement, 24 years have passed, yet no advancement has been made with regard to the development of democracy in China; even worse, graft and corruption have become more rampant. Thus, many people who once wished to fight for democracy in China at the time of the 1989 pro-democracy movement have started to feel disappointed. They have gradually become indifferent, and they even refuse to understand more about Mainland China. Some of them have the mentality that "well water should not intrude into river water", hoping that the Mainland would not intervene in Hong Kong affairs. President, I consider this point of view unhealthy. If more and more people become indifferent to the Mainland, in particular, indifferent to those in power and the development of the regime, showing no concern or even showing signs of resistance, I am worried that this kind of thinking will develop into a kind of blockade mentality, which may obstruct the exchanges between people in the two places. President, no matter what the relationship between China and Hong Kong is, we must not bury ourselves in the sand, and refrain from having close or intimate communication. If we seal off ourselves, thinking that we can get away from, stop or resist Beijing's intervention in Hong Kong, this would be unwise and unrealistic. In my opinion, to implement democracy and freedom in Hong Kong, we can only stay positive in the face of China's democratic reform. The significance of vindicating the 1989 pro-democracy movement does not only involve seeking a fair evaluation of a historical event, more important still, it is an unresolved incident affecting us today and in the future. If we can forget the 1989 pro-democracy movement today, we may forget the May Fourth Movement tomorrow; and we may even forget China one day. So, I sincerely hope that the younger generation in Hong Kong would try to understand more about China,


thereby promoting the realization of democracy in China, of which they will be proud. President, some people have recently said that the democratization of China may not necessarily promote the democratic development in Hong Kong. I do not understand this idea and I do not think it makes sense. Regardless of whether we are willing or not, the most important point in China-Hong Kong relations today is that the constitutional development of Hong Kong has been suppressed by the Chinese Government. As QIAO Xiaoyang pointed out not long ago, our Chief Executive to be elected in the future should love the country. No matter how we interpret "love the country", he has made such a request, which would impose obstacles and limitations on our selection of the Chief Executive. This precisely reflected China's suppression of the constitutional development of Hong Kong. If we wish that the SAR Government would be accountable to the public, we must strive for the Chinese Government to be equally accountable to the people; if we wish that there would be a democratic system in Hong Kong, we must also strive for a democratic system in China; otherwise, no progress will be made in Hong Kong in terms of democratic development. A slogan recently proposed by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China has been widely criticized, and some have even criticized that it organizes certain activities each year as a ritual. Nevertheless, I wish to point out, regardless of the slogans and the activities organized, it is most important to pool together our strength and light up the candles of conscience, so as to tell the Chinese Government and people all over the world that we do not only wish to seek justice for those who had sacrificed themselves, most importantly, we wish that Chinese people and Hong Kong people will live and work in peace and contentment under a democratic system, and they will enjoy the core values recognized by the world (The buzzer sounded) …… which include human rights, freedom, democracy and the rule of law. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, this is the first time for me to officially speak in this Chamber on the 4 June incident since I have become a Member. The Legislative Council of Hong Kong is the only place in China


12669

where Members can publicly and fearlessly discuss the subject on the vindication of the 4 June incident. For this reason, as a Hong Kong resident and Legislative Council Member, I should feel very happy and proud. When I was taking the elevator down to the Chamber just now, I told Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung that I was a bit nervous because I realized that in this Legislative Council Chamber, Members can publicly and fearlessly discuss such an important topic. "Long Hair" told me that I should not be nervous, just take a deep breath and speak out my feelings. After a lapse of 24 years, the economic situation has improved, but the society is becoming increasingly unfair, and the corruption problem is getting worse. While the economic situation has improved, people's rights have not been improved; while the economic situation has improved, the rule of law has not been improved and is even getting worse. Twenty-four years ago, in the face of authoritarian rule, political autocracy, bureaucratic corruption and the deteriorating human rights, a group of students asked the Central Government to implement political reforms and give them freedom of the press and of expression. However, 24 years later, problems such as political autocracy, bureaucratic corruption, deteriorating human rights and inconspicuous rule of law still exist. Despite the lessons of the 4 June incident 24 years ago, the country has still not woken up, and it is still going the wrong way in respect of political democracy, opening up and reform. True, the country leads the world in terms of economic development; how about the other problems, the situation remained the same as that depicted in the Tiananmen Square 24 years ago. After the leaders of the new-term Central Government have assumed office, they repeatedly stated that the country should be administered according to the law, and the rule of law should be upheld. Unfortunately, some of my friends in the legal profession have been suppressed and badly treated when they perform legal duties on the Mainland, which made the legal profession in Hong Kong really worried. Let me give some examples. CHENG Hai, a lawyer in Anhui, was maliciously beaten by a dozen armed policemen after he had asked in a court in Dalian the reasons for the delay in handling a case; and he is now in critical condition. A Beijing lawyer, WANG Quanzhang, who collected evidence for a court case in Jingjiang, Jiangsu, has been detained by court until now for serious violation of court order. A Shenzhen lawyer, JIANG Yuanmin, who assisted a farmer who lost the land in defending his rights, was charged with disturbing public order and he has been in criminal detention until now. Mr JIANG is in


poor health, but the authorities have not provided him with any treatment or examination. A female Beijing lawyer, CUI Jianan, reported that the Vice Mayor, CHEN Gang, was suspected of fraud involving the funds for housing repair, and she was charged with disturbing public order and was detained. Her freedom was restricted for more than 10 hours, and she was even injected with an unknown liquid which caused a heart attack, and she was in critical condition. A Beijing lawyer, DING Jiaxi, who asked officials to make public their property and defended the right to equal education, was summoned by armed police for the suspected criminal offence of unlawful assembly, and he has not yet been released. Seven other lawyers, including GUO Haiyue, JIANG Tianyong, ZHANG Keke, TANG Jitian, TANG Tianhao, LIANG Xiaojun and LIN Qilei, attempted to visit the most vicious prison in Sichuan, but they were assaulted by some unidentified persons. These lawyers were later detained by the local police station for obstructing official business. Some other lawyers including WANG Cheng, WEN Haibo, LI Heping and YANG Huiwen, who rushed to Sichuan to support those lawyers, were also detained. WANG Cheng, WEN Haibo and YANG Huiwen were released after 12 hours' inquiry while LI Heping was detained by the authorities for spreading specious information. President, the above examples involve Mainland legal professionals who were suppressed for performing legal duties. President, 24 years ago, the Central Government shot unarmed students; 24 years later, we still see today that it is arbitrarily depriving unarmed civilians of freedom, and suppressing Mainland human rights lawyers performing legal duties. Is the country administered according to the law? Is that the rule of law? President, we cannot buy moral integrity with money, and we cannot buy human rights and the rule of law with economic prosperity. As we have observed, the problems today are the same as those faced by the students concerned years ago. Hence, we still have the same wish that the 4 June incident would be vindicated. Thank you, President. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I will join the 4 June vigil this year. Whenever I am in town on 4 June, I always join the vigil because, in my heart, it is a very important event. Being a man with a conscience, I want to be present in the 4 June vigil to express my views. To many people, the 4 June incident is a tragedy. In the words of the pro-establishment camp, it was a sad historical incident reflecting the unrest in China. It has been 24 years since the 4 June incident. Some people query


12671

whether they should join the vigil this year as they think attending the vigil imply recognizing the ruling regime, which will render the vindication meaningless. To me, the answer is simple: attending the vigil is a response to the call of my conscience. The 4 June incident is a cardinal issue of right and wrong. When the 4 June incident happened in 1989, I was not in Hong Kong. I was in America, and I watched the incident at Tiananmen Square on television. Of course, I could not see everything which had happened at that time, nor had I seen the shooting scenes. However, I saw scenes of people lying in blood and blazing fire. The situation was very critical. As many international media and Hong Kong media happened to be on the spot, what had happened were iron-clad facts which could not be denied. The incident was initiated by a group of students with a pure motive. Seeing that the country was affected by corruption and official profiteering, they reacted with the hope that the country would progress. The pro-establishment camp also agreed to fight against corruption. They were aware of the problems as well. When students witnessed the corruption of their country, they wished it could become more open and move towards democracy and liberty. This student movement was indeed a continuation of the May Fourth Movement, which advocated democracy and science. It arose out of a pure motive, and it was a force to push the country forward. As the discussions and the ideas brought out in this movement received a widespread support, it reflected how serious the problem of corruption was. This movement started from a simple motive but gained increasing support over time. Hundreds of thousands of people eventually gathered and became a strong force. But how did the rulers of this country respond to the people? There is plenty of evidence showing that they responded by suppressing the unarmed students, people and workers with guns and tanks. In the face of this cardinal issue of right and wrong, the pro-establishment camp's remark on this incident is equivocal. In 2011, Mrs Cherry TSE LING Kit Ching, Permanent Secretary for Education, said that the 4 June incident was gravel in the long river of history and this was understandable. As for Anthony CHEUNG Bing-leung ― who was once believed to be the next Secretary for Education but is now the Secretary for Transport and Housing ― he took to the streets to show his support to the students at Tiananmen Square in 1989. In 2004, he even wrote an article to condemn the Communist Party for making no progress after the 4 June incident as it kept suppressing dissident views and


democracy by authoritative means. When he later acted as the President of The Hong Kong Institute of Education, he still said that the 4 June incident was part of the history and must not be shunned. He hoped that the Central Government and the people could make an attempt to heal the wound of the 4 June incident. In 2009, he maintained that the 4 June incident must be vindicated. However, his attitude has changed since he became a Director of Bureau last year. Last July, he refused to answer whether he still supported the vindication of the 4 June incident. He said that the 4 June incident was a tragedy which deeply hurt the country, but not all of the relevant facts were known at the moment. He was trying to use a trivial matter to cover this cardinal issue of right and wrong. Of course, the most well-known comments were from LEUNG Chun-ying. On 5 June 1989, LEUNG Chun-ying put up an advertisement in Wen Wei Po, saying "I want to express my deepest sorrow for those patriotic compatriots in Beijing who have died a heroic death. I strongly condemn the Communist leadership for bloodily suppressing and massacring the Chinese people. I salute to all the members of Wen Wei Po." However, when he received an interview from the South China Morning Post on 8 June 2012, his response was "I have never said that I was not moved". It seems he loves to say things like "I have never said that I did not bla bla bla". He similar remarks included "I have never said that I did not have any unauthorized building works" and "I have never said that I was not moved". President, when students of The Chinese University of Hong Kong asked him about his views on the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to LIU Xiaobo, he answered by questioning why it was not awarded to DENG Xiaoping. The SAR Government is rotten from top to bottom. It has bowed to power. Therefore, we will surely join the 4 June vigil. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): According to Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure, please …… no, we are not in the Committee stage now. The headcount should be done according to Rule 17(2).


12673

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, do you wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): No problem, I can speak first. President, Mr Tony TSE said that he did not know who was right and who was wrong in the 4 June incident. What a ridiculous comment! Was he born during the regime of the Nazi Germany? If one says that he needs not pay attention to any past incidents as he does not know the cause and effect, then the existence of history is utterly unnecessary. What is the crux of this incident? The right-or-wrong judgment of an incident of worldwide concern hinges on who demands for investigation and who bans the investigation. Ever since the 4 June incident in 1989, the Communist Government has banned all Internet searches for "4 June" and disallowed people to comment on and investigate into this incident. DING Zilin, who lost her son in the 4 June incident, contacted the families of other victims and collated every piece of information they had. Hundreds of people joined together to sue the Government, but their case was not accepted. Meanwhile, if anyone posts relevant articles online on the date of 4 June, he or she will mostly be detained. President, I hope Mr Tony TSE will buy a newly published book called A Tiananmen Journal by FENG Congde. CHEN Shaoya, Associate Professor of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, had also published a book to give a detailed account of the incident. He is still in the Mainland now. Mr TSE, I will send these books to your office. Please do not give the same comments again next year. I would rather you say that it was right to kill the students after reading these books. There is another book published by the Stanford University in 1992. The author had surveyed the death toll on the day of the 4 June incident by collecting data from the hospitals in Beijing, and found that a total of 478 people died in 11


hospitals. Based on this figure, it was derived that the death toll in all 124 hospitals in Beijing should be 2 800. Buddy, as you study science, you can derive the death toll. For us, the focus is whether those victims should have died. President, it is most interesting to note that, while many people will normally respond to this incident by saying "I do not know", "I am not certain" or "I have not paid attention", LEUNG Chun-ying acted differently. LEUNG Chun-ying published an advertisement on 5 June 1989. Please note that the advertisement was published immediately after the 4 June incident on 5 June. He began by saying "I want to express my deepest sorrow for those patriotic compatriots in Beijing who have died a heroic death", and it was followed by "I strongly condemn the Communist leadership for bloodily suppressing and massacring the Chinese people" and "I salute to all the members of Wen Wei Po". Well, I have to explain this advertisement in brief. LEUNG Chun-ying gave his salute to Wen Wei Po because it left the editorial section blank on the day of the 4 June incident to express their grief. Mr Tony TSE, LEUNG Chun-ying is the incumbent Chief Executive, and he certainly knows all the relevant facts. Of course, he is free to say that DENG Xiaoping should be awarded certain prize. President, speaking of prizes, I purposely wear this T-shirt today with the face of Mr LIU Xiaobo, whom LEUNG Chun-ying said should not be awarded the prize. Mr Tony TSE and other pro-establishment Members, the 4 June incident is not yet over. Although I may not agree to everything done by Mr LIU Xiaobo, I think it was justified for him to persuade the students to end their hunger strike and not to sacrifice their lives for this undeserving government. It was only that the students insisted on the hunger strike. On the night of 4 June, Mr LIU Xiaobo was also at the Square. He was there with the students to negotiate a withdrawal plan. Taiwan singer HOU Dejian was also there at that time. These facts are well-known as they were all written in memoirs. Because of this incident, Mr LIU Xiaobo was sentenced to imprisonment for four years. In 1996, he published the 10 October Declaration to persuade the Kuomintang to make peace with the Communist Party. He was then ordered to serve three years of re-education through labour. What happened afterwards was known to all of us. He drafted the Charter 08 in 2008 to call on the


12675

Communist Government to practise democracy. Yet, when Mr LIU Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, LEUNG Chun-ying surprisingly said that the prize should be awarded to DENG Xiaoping. I do not know what prizes should be awarded to DENG Xiaoping, but Mr LIU Xiaobo is still suffering because of the 4 June incident. In my experience of imprisonment, he should be having his meal now. After that, he will go to sleep or go back to his ward to read. How can we say that the 4 June incident has come to an end? President, there is also the LI Wangyang incident. You should know about it. At more of less this time last year, during his interview with the Cable TV Hong Kong, he said, "I would rather be beheaded than turning my head. I will not stop fighting for ending the one-party dictatorship and vindicating the 4 June incident." He was also a victim of the 4 June incident. He was the Chairman of the branch of the Workers Autonomous Federation in Shaoyang, Hunan Province. He had been put in jail for 12 years since 1989. He became blind and disabled during his 12 years of imprisonment. After he was released, he wished to look into the incident. Last year, after he revealed his tragic experience and asked the people to fight for the vindication of the 4 June incident, he was being "suicided". In Hong Kong, 25 000 people was moved by his death and took to the streets. Can you guys remember that and do you have a conscience? President, time flies whenever we discuss these issues. In the past, you had also voiced your discontent and asked the Government not to suppress the students. That was Mr Jasper TSANG Yok-sing, the former principal of the Pui Kiu Middle School. President, I earnestly ask the people to join this year's 4 June vigil. We should not just mourn for the victims; we should also mourn for their unfulfilled ambitions and their efforts to fight for democracy. I would like to appeal to more people to join the 4 June vigil. On 4 June of this year, do show up and pack the Victoria Park! MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, in 1990, which was two years after the 4 June incident, I went back to school to teach. At that time, there were only Form One and Form Two students in my school. We, the teachers, thought that we should do something for the 4 June incident; therefore, we held a writing competition to commemorate it.


Although our students were young attending Form One or Two, their response was overwhelming. We compiled their works into a collection. In this collection, what was the most common title? It was "Wouldn't remember? Daren't forget!". I think all of us are familiar with this saying. I do not expect that they, being young Form One or Two students, would react in such a way as if they had experienced many vicissitudes of life. When we are pre-occupied in our daily life, we may not want to think about this incident. When we are busy handling our work in the Legislative Council or at other workplaces, we may not think about this incident either. However, every year, as we enter into the months of May or June, the weather always reminds us of our experiences long ago. Today, I still remember the outrage of our secondary and primary teachers at that time. Many students should also remember how their teachers told them about this incident in tears at weekly assemblies or in daily classes. At that time, we had a strong feeling. In early May, a thrill of excitement was in the air in Hong Kong. It was because some moving historical events which we had learned in modern history, such as the May Fourth Movement, seemed to have emerged suddenly. All those historical events seemed to have come to life. When the army was about to march into the city in late May, the whole community in Hong Kong was in deep worries. Though Beijing was so far away from Hong Kong, the two places were suddenly strongly bonded. In a short period of two months, the historical and geographical distances seemed to have disappeared, and all of us seemed to have been pulled together into a tiny space. In this tiny space, we watched the television day and night each day, focusing on the development of this incident. What was our feeling at that time? I think everyone of us here had got a strong and profound feeling of love ― a love for our compatriots. However, this kind of love later developed into a strong sense of hatred because the military suppression had brought us a deep wound. When we reviewed the whole incident, we could not help asking why something like that could have happened. In the student movement, there was a pursuit of values. We were pursuing democracy, freedom, basic human rights and self-value. When we thought that all those were within reach, the movement was suppressed. It had inflicted a deep wound on us, though we only notice it later. The wound seemed to have pulled us away from our dream.


12677

While each of us has our own feeling, our entire nation and country should review this incident. Should we hold the attitude of "Wouldn't remember? Daren't forget!"? Or should we hold other attitudes? Our decision will impact on the destiny of the whole nation. I really envy South Korea. When South Korea was under autocratic rule, its economy prospered. Right now, its economy is even more prosperous. What is the key? The key is that they have faced the Gwangju incident squarely and healed the wound in their history. Their people can then live in harmony and create a new atmosphere together. We may also look at the case of Taiwan. After they had healed the wound of the 28 February incident, they entered into a new stage as shown in their presidential election a few years ago. As long as we are willing to face up to our history, we will have the ability to heal the wound in history. Otherwise, we will be like Japan, a country which fails to face up to their crimes. Up till now, its neighbouring places, such as Hong Kong, still do not trust it. In contrast, Germany has faced up to their history and provided all possible remedies. Its present achievement and status are closely-related to its courage to face up to history. When we look at China's economic achievement in recent years, we cannot but agree that Chinese people are great. I am now reading a book called DENG Xiaoping and the Transformation of China, written by Ezra Feivel VOGEL. This book illustrated the establishment of the opening-up and reform system after the Cultural Revolution and its impressive achievement. While the Chinese people can create a miracle in economic reform, can we create a miracle in political reform as well? Please do not tell me that we cannot achieve anything more than an economic miracle. The Chinese people should be able to create a greater miracle in the future for the well-being of our next generation. Right now, the new generation of leaders has a remote relation with the 4 June incident. I think we are getter closer to the vindication of the 4 June incident. We do not know when this will happen but, in my view, the vindication is within sight. It is only when we can face up to our history and vindicate the 4 June incident that our nation can have hopes. Here, I would like to ask all our teachers, grown-up students, as well as my old students who were in Form One or Two when they wrote "Wouldn't remember? Daren't forget!", to review and face up to this history at the candlelight vigil on 4 June to bring hopes to our nation. Thank you.


MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, regarding the 4 June incident, we do not want to remember because the scenes were tragic. Yet, we dare not forget the 4 June incident because if a country or a nation does not have the courage to face history and learn from it, and if we cannot lay down the burden that may be not so glorious in history, we will not be able to move forward. President, not long ago, there was a video clip widely circulated on the Internet. In the video, the Mainland Government widely publicized the ideas of respect and tolerance in an activity to commemorate the May Fourth Movement. When students were asked by reporters about the May Fourth spirit, they replied that it was the spirit of respect and tolerance. President, what about democracy and science? They have been completely forgotten. On 13 May, there was a press report on a young female visitor from the Mainland who, after visiting the June Fourth Memorial Museum in Hong Kong, lashed out at her teachers for cheating her in the past two decades or so, and she could finally nail their lies. President, from these two cases, we learn that Hong Kong must utilize its specific role, cherish the freedom of speech it can still enjoy, so as to continue to open up a window for Chinese people to learn about the 4 June incident. If we do nothing to remind or teach our next generation what had happened in the 4 June incident, I am afraid that after this generation of people have gone, the 4 June incident will be totally forgotten, or it will be turned into an incident that symbolizes respect and tolerance. President, if the younger generations are ignorant about history, we should be held responsible because every one of us in this generation has the duty to tell the next generation what we have seen and learnt. Every year, some people will ask me what purpose does it serve to move a motion on the 4 June incident and debate on it, knowing that the motion will be negatived; and what purpose does it serve to hold a march and a candlelight vigil every year. In my view, as we are the generation who had witnessed the 4 June incident, we are obliged to remind the people not to forget this historical event and tell the next generation about what had happened. Of course, it is most encouraging to know that many young people in the Mainland are keen to know about the truth of this incident. The Mainland Government does not dare to face the public demand for the facts of the 4 June incident. All it cares is to maintain stability and keep people's mouth shut, stopping them from talking about the truth of the 4 June incident. Therefore, there are indeed many Mainlanders, particularly young people, joining us in the 4 June candlelight vigil every year. They wish to learn from Hong


12679

Kong, a place which enjoys freedom, the historical facts of the 4 June incident and mourn for the martyrs openly. This is a role that Hong Kong should take pride in. President, this year, the 4 June candlelight vigil may have some special meanings for us. In the 4 June incident, the students and the masses at Tiananmen Square were fighting for democracy, freedom and anti-corruption. This year, when we join the vigil, we may associate this incident with the situation of Hong Kong. In terms of democracy …… when we are getting close to 2017, the year in which universal suffrage will be allowed in Hong Kong as promised by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, we hear people making comments like "an election with a pre-selection is still an election by universal suffrage", "it is an international practice to have a pre-selection" and "the presence of functional constituencies is not in conflict with the implementation of universal suffrage". Speaking of freedom, cases of deferred and selective political prosecutions have happened one after another in Hong Kong. A case in point is the prosecution against Miss Melody CHAN Yuk-fung, a volunteer of the Occupy Central movement, two years after her participation in a protest. The Commissioner of Police explained this arrest by coining new terms like "low-profile arrest" and "low-profile enforcement". In fact, by joining the vigil, we may be actually fighting for our own freedom. In respect of anti-corruption, we have cases involving Donald TSANG and Rafael HUI, and the recent case of Timothy TONG. Do you have a feeling of déjà vu? President, year after year, on the night of the 4 June vigil, we see countless people in black on MTR trains and trams. Twenty-four years have passed, but they insist on vindicating the 4 June incident and paying their tribute openly. It has already become part of the local values of Hong Kong. The 4 June vigil, the Victoria Park, we will be there rain or shine. I hope everybody will come and join us. I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, there have been a lot of discussions about the recognition of identity this year. Are we Chinese or Hong


Kongers? Let us leave this question open for the time being, and let me cite the remark which Mr Charles Peter MOK quoted from "Uncle Wah" earlier: "First of all, we have to behave like a person." In order to behave like a person, how should we, regardless of our identity, look at the 4 June incident in 1989? How should we look at the cold-blooded atrocities of the Chinese Communist regime which used tanks to run over people's bodies and shot its people? As a person, shall we use memory to counteract forgetfulness so that the 4 June incident will not be forgotten, and shall we use candlelight to counteract the cold-blooded regime? What is cold-blooded? It is the cold-blooded regime which still refuses to vindicate the 4 June incident. What else is cold-blooded? It is the remark of those people who defended that China would not have achieved the current economic development if it had not carried out the massacre back then. This is completely cold-blooded. We must protest against such cold-blooded remarks and regime, and denounce the butcher regime. Some people say that, after all, this happened more than two decades ago. But I want to tell them that the butcher regime is not only denounced for its cold-blooded atrocities committed 24 years ago, but also for its ongoing atrocities. Crackdown similar to that on 4 June 1989 is still underway in China. LIU Xiaobo was imprisoned for 11 years because of his 08 Charter. His wife, LIU Xia, has been kept under house arrest for more than two years and was not allowed to go out. I am really very concerned about her mental condition for she is on the verge of collapse. How come a regime does not let go of a dissident's wife? May I ask what kind of regime is this? After GAO Zhisheng disappeared, he is now imprisoned again and is forced to be separated from his family. LI Wangyang was being "suicided" because he had vowed to fight for democracy and would have no regret even if he had to lose his head. Today, I just learnt that ZHANG Xianling, who intended to accompany his husband to Hong Kong to attend an academic function, was prohibited from coming to Hong Kong. As 4 June is approaching, Mainland human rights activists have either been "invited to have tea or go travelling", if not imprisoned. All of them have been suppressed. Suppressions are common. Originally, I was very grateful to Mr Tony TSE because at least he is willing to speak, which is better than other colleagues. However, he just said that the truth of the 4 June incident has yet to be pieced together. But the fact is that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is actually piecing the truth together every day, and that is the truth of suppression, which can be seen every day.


12681

As Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has said earlier, the word following "June" was often muted. If the CCP is so confident that the way of handling the 4 June incident is so right, why did it not praise the martial law troops every year? The truth is already in our heart and the Chinese Communist regime is also well aware that bloody violence is the truth, which is indisputable. What is more, looking at the biography of Mr Tony TSE, we can see that he is a member of the National Committee of Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) representing a certain district. As a CPPCC member, why did he not boldly seek the truth from the CCP if he really wants to know? All National People's Congress deputies and CPPCC members now present at the meeting who think that the truth has yet to be revealed should approach the CCP and get to the bottom of the incident. But will they do so? I therefore call on Hong Kong people to form the largest unified force by joining the 4 June candlelight vigil and light up the candle of conscience. We wish to see unity not division among Hong Kong people. I understand that the current division is caused by our proposed slogan "Love the country, love the people". And yet, the proposed slogan actually aims to challenge the kind of "love the country" advocated by the Chinese Communist regime. We wish to return to the original meaning of "love the country", which refers to the aspiration of a group of nationals to establish democracy in pursuit of universal values, and this justifies the need to vindicate the 4 June incident and ascertain the responsibility for the massacre. This is crystal clear. The slogan "love the country" definitely does not mean love the CCP. Rather, it means challenging the CCP. Why couldn't we challenge it altogether? Some people indicated that they do not want to be a Chinese. Nonetheless, we are Hong Kong people, and all of us, including our children, have to live in this non-independent city. So long as Hong Kong cannot become independent, we have to face this country. I can only wish that we can all live with dignity in this country. So can the 1.3 billion compatriots. To this end, we must make China embrace democracy, freedom and the universal values. Today, we do not struggle purely for the people of China, but also for Hong Kong people. If Hong Kong people have to survive and lead better lives, we must drive China to change because, after all, Hong Kong is not an independent country. The slogan proposed for this year seems to have turned "love the country" into revolting dirty words, which is really beyond my expectation. Nonetheless, I do hope that Hong Kong people would behave like a person and denounce the butcher regime. I am certainly not a patriot and to me, the universal values are of paramount importance. To be truly patriotic, we should


disseminate universal values throughout China, and this is the common goal that we are fighting for altogether. I hope that Hong Kong people will fill up the Victoria Park with us on 4 June, light up the candle of conscience,(The buzzer sounded) …… pose the greatest challenge to the Communist regime and denounce the butcher regime. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE, your speaking time is up. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, since we have a number of newcomers this year, more testimonial remarks were made in this debate. From the speeches given by Ms Claudia MO, who was close to the scene at the "centre of the storm", and Mr Kenneth LEUNG, who was in the United States but has a China heart, we have heard some pretty emotional and touching remarks. President, the business and burden of different generations vary. For my generation, not many deep memories have left except for Typhoon Wanda and the 1967 riots. My childhood had gone in a blink of an eye. Young people nowadays have probably witnessed more major events, and the 4 June incident is an once-in-a-lifetime major event for me and many other Hong Kong people. A frequently-heard remark suddenly came up to my mind. The grown-ups always criticize the young people, who have not experienced any war or disaster, for being too green and naïve, and only care about personal enjoyment but not any miseries in the world. This reminds me of the late state leaders such as Mr DENG Xiaoping, who lived in the generation of war and had experienced various struggles after the establishment of new China in the post-war era, such as "three ups and downs" and the "cowshed disaster". How did they feel in the face of the numerous problems and unfortunate events experienced during the Cultural Revolution? Did they simply shy away like the Chinese expression "a burnt child dreads the fire" or adopt an attitude of "once bitten, twice shy"? Had this led to the making of wrong judgments by certain leaders which were subsequently found to be wrong with hindsight after objective analysis? Were


12683

these arbitrary or even wrong judgments attributable to, inter alia, their personal experiences? All countries have one or more shameful incidents in history. Similar to the 4 June incident of Chinese people, the British had experienced the Bloody Sunday incident which took place on 30 January 1972. It is also known as the "Bogside Massacre", in which some unarmed civilians protested in a place called Bogside, and were likewise shot by the troops. In the end, 26 people died. The investigation of the incident had dragged on for years and it was not until 2010 that the long-awaited Saville Report was published after two commissions of inquiry had been formally appointed by the British Government. The Report had put the truth on record and forced the then and incumbent Prime Minister CAMERON to make a formal apology to his nationals and the victims in September 2011, as well as make compensation. President, countries as civilized and advanced as the United Kingdom needs as long as 38 or even 39 years to reveal the truth as well as make apology and compensation to the victims. As for the 4 June incident, many colleagues, Hong Kong people and I certainly hope that the truth will expeditiously be revealed without having to wait more than 30 years. As some colleagues have said earlier, only by so doing can our nation truly lay down the burden and move forward. We do hope that this day will come. Nonetheless, we must understand that under the principle of "one country, two systems", some motions may not get their way through in this Council, which is an official unit under the establishment. An example which I often used is, a subsidiary company rarely condemns its parent company for any policy or administrative mistakes. Likewise, a lower court would not criticize or condemn a higher court for making mistakes in its officially published judgments. While people are absolutely free to express their personal views, we are duty-bound to make appropriate judgment according to our conscience. It has been my established practice not to support the passage of motions to either condemn the Central Government, or urge or prompt it to take certain actions. Under the principle of "one country two systems", we must properly exercise self-restraint in some cases, and I am afraid this is the truth that we should face. President, apart from indicating my voting intention, I also hope that the Government, the Central Government in particular, will not adopt an ostrich approach but will genuinely and properly move forward with respect to the 4 June incident. I understand that it is not a small government but a country with a


large population, thus every move it makes or every corner its turns must be carefully considered. And yet, in order to enable Hong Kong and China to move forward in parallel, we have no choice but to courageously march on after properly taking into account the political considerations. Only this is the genuine road of revival which China and Chinese people could or should take. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert HO, you may now reply and you have one minute 42 seconds. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, only three Members from the pro-establishment camp have spoken today. I believe the majority of them having nothing to say, and prefer to remain silent than to speak contrary to their conscience or give shameful speeches. From the speeches given by those three colleagues, I notice that they have different stances and thoughts. Mr James TIEN has all along considered that development is pivotal and the nation is having good progress in its economic development. Should it not decisively suppress the students back then, it would not have attained today's achievements. I guess this is what he meant. He has nonetheless totally neglected the injustice caused by the suppressions back then, and completely disregarded the bloody massacre, the deprivation of human rights and the present corrupt state of affairs. How can such remarks responsibly highlight the current problems faced by the country? The second speaker is Mr Tony TSE. He tried to find excuses for not pursuing the truth and even negating the incident, saying that he did not know what had actually happened. This is nonetheless a dishonest remark and other colleagues have spoken a lot on this. In fact, if he opens his eyes to read more and asks more, he will learn the truth. There is no way that we can negate the incident simply by saying we "do not know". The third speaker is Mr Paul TSE. His speech seems apologetic as he admitted that the leaders had made impaired judgment. He then went further to


12685

say that the senior cannot criticize the junior. Sorry, he cannot (The buzzer sounded) …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, your speaking time is up. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): …… shirk his duty to speak his conscience. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Albert HO be passed. 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 Cyd HO rose to claim a division. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes. 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 Albert HO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr Dennis KWOK voted for the motion.


Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok and Mr Martin LIAO voted against the motion. Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE abstained. Geographical Constituencies: Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr Helena WONG voted for the motion. Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion. Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN and Miss Alice MAK abstained. THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote. THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 27 were present, eight were in favour of the motion, six against it and 13 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 17 were in favour of the motion, six against it and five abstained. 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.


12687

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second motion: Democratic procedures for the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017. Members who wish to speak in the debate on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon Mr Alan LEONG to speak and move the motion. DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE BY UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE IN 2017 MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed in the Agenda, be passed. President, after hearing Secretary Raymond TAM's reply to my oral question this morning, I am quite troubled. The SAR Government has all along claimed that it will conduct a consultation at an appropriate juncture …… (Some Members talking) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. Mr Alan LEONG, please continue. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): In respect of the Chief Executive election and the Legislative Council election in 2016, the LEUNG Chun-ying government has actually no intention of initiating any work, not even the consultation. President, you must know that according to the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) in 2007, the five-step mechanism of constitutional reform begins with the Chief Executive submitting a report to the NPCSC. However, when the person who is supposed to submit the report has no intention of conceiving how to prepare the report or collecting views for that purpose, it is quite disturbing. Hong Kong cannot accept that the two elections in 2016 and 2017 will make no headway because if that happens, Hong Kong will continue to sink and


the Chief Executive will continue to have difficulties in every move he makes in governing Hong Kong, as in the case of today. President, the community has been seriously torn apart in recent years, with a widening rift, and public views are polarized. If Hong Kong's deep-rooted conflicts cannot be resolved, the governance problem will aggravate and the Government will have even more difficulties in implementing its policies. What are the deep-rooted conflicts in Hong Kong? When State leaders meet with the Chief Executive of the HKSAR Government, they very often mention about deep-rooted conflicts. For example, the former Premier WEN Jiabao pointed out that the deep-rooted conflicts included commodity prices, housing, poverty, and so on, but he did not point out the origin of these problems and how to resolve them. Some may think that as long as the people's livelihood is taken care of, it does not matter whether there is universal suffrage. However, what are the factors that contribute to the soaring prices? Take last year as an example, the rent of private commercial buildings had increased by 13%. The shopping malls under The Link REIT are closely related to the lives of the grassroots, but the rent had increased by 9.1% per square foot on average when compared to the rate in 2011-2012. With surging rents, how can commodity prices not follow suit? In respect of housing, the prices of second-hand properties rose by 24% last year, ranking the first in the world. In respect of the poverty problem, in 2012, the number of millionaires in Hong Kong recorded a 10-year high and among these people, 32% made their fortune by speculating on properties. At the same time however, the Gini Co-efficient reached 0.537, a record high in 40 years. The poor have no means to speculate on properties and hence cannot escape poverty. All these illustrate that a large portion of the income of Hong Kong people's hard work is handed over to property developers. How can deep-rooted conflicts between the grassroots and hegemonic property developers be avoided? If a handful of people control most of Hong Kong's resources and the election system is designed to suit their needs, such as the small circle election of the Chief Executive, the functional constituencies as well as the system of separate voting in the Legislative Council, they can continue to step up their rent-seeking behaviour by benefiting themselves at the costs of others, these deep-rooted conflicts will never be eliminated. Actually LEUNG Chun-ying was well aware of these problems; otherwise he would not have portrayed himself


12689

as the vigorous opponent of property hegemony and saviour of the grassroots. However, after he was elected, his election pledges have vanished into thin air. In my view, there are two reasons for that. First, at present only 1 200 people have the right to vote in the election of the Chief Executive. Since the grassroots did not have the right to vote, if the Chief Executive candidate, LEUNG Chun-ying could deceive some grass-roots people into supporting him in opinion polls, he could win in the election. He did not have to be accountable to these people after the election as they were not his electors. Second, the Chief Executive has no legitimacy. As he has the power but not the votes, it is hard for him to introduce policies that benefit the people to counter the effect of the aforementioned deep-rooted conflicts. The present situation in Hong Kong is the result of the conflicting agenda between the economic policy and the social policy, and both policies cannot be developed concurrently. Recently, many people, including the President himself, have been discussing the role of the Executive Council after the reunification and that is the crux of the problem. During the colonial rule, if the agenda of the economic policy could not keep pace with that of the social policy, the problem could be resolved through the Governor and the Executive Council. At that time, all Members of the Executive Council were people of great competence, such as the "taipan" of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, the President of the University of Hong Kong, and so on who could, by their own means, tactfully stop businessmen from profiteering through the economic policies and requested them to act with conscience. Or in respect of the agenda of social policies, they could resolve the problems by building public housing or increasing the channels to take on board public views such as through District Offices and District Officers. However, this system can no longer function now. Hong Kong of today is different from what it was during the colonial rule. The greatest change is that we become increasingly reliant on the Mainland economically. What we now import from the Mainland, in terms of people or goods, is different from the time during the colonial era. Hong Kong also has to face with the issue of globalization. Under the five-star red flag, people of Hong Kong naturally wish that the HKSAR can be its own master instead of being treated like "second class citizens". Do we really want Hong Kong to shift from being a British colony to being a Chinese colony? Certainly not. However, the


biggest problem at present is that our entire political system cannot catch up with the forward development of Hong Kong. President, you may have watched the award-winning movie "LINCOLN". I wonder if you remember there was one scene where President LINCOLN's emancipation of black slaves was being challenged. I remember he said, to the effect that he had signed the Emancipation Proclamation one and a half years before he campaigned for re-election. He also doubted if he was wrong in emancipating slaves at that time, so he allowed his people to consider for a period of time. After more than a year, the people still voted for him when he campaigned for re-election. President, this is a valid proof of what I have said, that is, if the Chief Executive cannot win Hong Kong people's full mandate through election, he can hardly govern them. After he was re-elected, President LINCOLN continued to amend the constitution. Given that he won the re-election with the abolition of the slave system as his platform, even if there were still disputes, he still had the "teeth" to carry on. I want to tell the Chief Executive that this is what he lacks most. Does he have the "teeth"? When facing the hegemony, if he is prepared to introduce certain social policies conducive for the grassroots, either in respect of the taxation system, land and housing planning, medical care system or the education system, even though these policies may affect parties with vested interests, he can still issue a policy agenda and then engage in meaningful and solid debates with people with different positions and mentality. After debates on political platforms, the Chief Executive who wins Hong Kong people's mandate through a "one person, one vote" election will know where his position is. Even if rent-seekers enjoying hegemonic privileges or with vested interests query the policies formulated by the Chief Executive, the Chief Executive can tell them that his platform has already been drawn, and that he will implement the universal retirement protection, 15-year free education, and he will also examine how to improve the public health care system and how to better plan the use of the land. If there were such a system, the Chief Executive could, through his political platform and the debates held during the election campaign, win the support of the majority of Hong Kong people to embark on resolving some of the controversial social issues. Only on this foundation can Hong Kong stride forward; otherwise any proposal to resolve the deep-rooted conflicts will only be empty talks, and we will continue to be plagued by the deep-rooted conflicts and there is no way out.


12691

President, it is on these grounds that I propose this motion debate today. Irrespective of how various sectors interpret the so-called "democratic procedures for nomination", I very much hope that the SAR Government will, when formulating the proposals on the election of the Chief Executive in 2017, ensure that the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote are universal and equal, without any "screening" or "pre-selection" through a nominating committee. If the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 makes no headway, it will be a serious misfortune for Hong Kong and it is unacceptable. I end my speech for now and I will respond later after listening to my colleagues' speeches. I so submit. Mr Alan LEONG moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That QIAO Xiaoyang, Chairman of the Law Committee under the National People's Congress, made a speech on 24 March this year, indicating that regarding the election of the Chief Executive of the HKSAR by universal suffrage, 'the issue that requires a consensus is essentially about the democratic procedures for nomination'; in this connection, this Council urges the SAR Government to ensure that, irrespective of how various sectors interpret the so-called 'democratic procedures for nomination', when formulating the proposals on the election of the Chief Executive in 2017, the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote are universal and equal, without any 'screening' or 'pre-selection' through a nominating committee."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Alan LEONG be passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr Michael TIEN and Ms Cyd HO wish to move amendments to this motion, while Mr LEE Cheuk-yan wishes to move an amendment to Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the amendments.


I will call upon these Members to speak following the above order; but they may not move amendments at this stage. MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) is the highest authority to formulate and interpret the Basic Law. When formulating proposals on the election of the Chief Executive, the SAR Government must act in accordance with the Basic Law and conform to the decision and interpretation of the NPCSC. This is a manifestation of the constitutional right of the Central Authorities and a full reflection that the SAR Government respects the constitution and performs its duties according to law. Therefore, I move this amendment and I also declare my opposition to the original motion proposed by Mr Alan LEONG and the amendments moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Cyd HO and also Mr LEE Cheuk-yan because the original motion and various amendments ignore the constitutional status of the Basic Law and the NPCSC, and even seek to confine the nomination procedures to the general international standard where "universality and equality" apply. It is wrong to do so. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) considers that while we can make reference to the system of universal suffrage or the international standard of Western countries, the applicable principles and constitutional basis of the constitutional development and universal suffrage system of Hong Kong have to base on the Basic Law and the relevant decision of the NPCSC. According to the judgment of the Courts in the United Kingdom or other European countries on constitutional issues, each country can adopt different practices in the light of its political and historical factors in discharging its duties in respect of the international conventions. It can thus be concluded that while reference can be drawn from international conventions in formulating the universal suffrage proposals of Hong Kong, the ultimate legal basis of the legislation and the proposal must be based on the Basic Law and the relevant decision of the NPCSC. On the other hand, during the discussion on the proposals for the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, apart from the legal basis, issues involving the nomination procedures and nomination right have also aroused extensive concerns. The recent comments made by the Chairman of the Law Committee under the National People's Congress had provided a clear explanation. No matter how the provision in the Basic Law about "nomination


12693

by a nominating committee" is interpreted, the provision cannot be interpreted as the nomination by individual members of the committee. According to the explanation given by Mr QIAO, the nominating committee was in practice an organization and hence the committee's nomination of the Chief Executive candidates was a kind of nomination by an organization. According to the saying in Hong Kong, the nomination is made by a committee. If we interpret the right of nomination as the right of nomination by individuals, whether by the general public or by electors of the nomination committee, the nomination cannot be regarded as a nomination by an organization, and hence does not comply with Article 45 of the Basic Law concerning the nomination by a nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures. Besides, we have to consider some proposals very carefully. For example, substituting the "nomination by a nominating committee" with the joint endorsement by a certain number of electors is in fact substituting the nomination by an organization with the nomination by individuals, which does not comply with Article 45 of the Basic Law and the decision of the NPCSC. On the other hand, the right to make nomination by the nominating committee stipulated by the Basic Law should not be wrongly interpreted as the verification right. This approach is tantamount to simplifying the right to make nomination by the nominating committee as undertaking the simple task of verifying the qualifications of the candidates and handling relevant paper work, which also violates the provision of the Basic Law on the right to make nomination by the nominating committee. Lastly, I must point out here that Mr QIAO Xiaoyang, when introducing and explaining the NPCSC's decision about Hong Kong's constitutional development and the issues relating to universal suffrage, summarized the relevant decision by making five "clarifications", namely, the universal suffrage timetable, appropriate amendments conforming to the principle of gradual and orderly progress might be made to the two elections in 2012, a report was to be submitted to the National People's Congress before the implementation of universal suffrage, the nominating committee might be formed with reference to the current provisions regarding the Election Committee, and if the two electoral methods could not amended, the original methods would still be applicable. As we can see, among these five "clarifications", there is no mention of the principle regarding the right to make nomination, let alone the proposal that the election of the Chief Executive should only adhere to the "principle of universality and


equality". Therefore, in my view, the request that the Government should, when formulating the proposal for universal suffrage, interpret the decision of the NPCSC as conforming to the "principle of universality and equality" is unreasonable and has distorted the NPCSC's decision. Hence I move the amendment today, in the hope that Members would know clearly that the DAB hopes that the criteria for formulating the methods of the future elections, especially that of the Chief Executive, should be based on the Basic Law and the NPCSC's relevant decision. The DAB supports the amendment moved by Mr Michael TIEN. The DAB agrees that ample time should be allowed for various sectors to hold more extensive discussions and consultation on the issues concerning the specific composition of the nominating committee, the democratic procedures for nomination, and the number of candidates for the office of the Chief Executive. We also consider it appropriate for the SAR Government to begin the consultation exercise on constitutional reform early next year. I so submit. Thank you, President. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, today, in the opening speech of Mr Alan LEONG in moving the motion, he mentioned the speech made by QIAO Xiaoyang, Chairman of the Law Committee under the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on 24 March this year. Formally speaking, QIAO Xiaoyang spoke at a closed forum between him and the pro-establishment Members, and his speech should not have any legal effect. When does a speech made in such a private party become an "imperial edict"? I absolutely loathe such kind of action taken by the Communist Party of China (CPC), as well as the politicians and media in Hong Kong trying to fathom the leadership's thoughts and then abruptly dancing to their beats. In respect of the controversy about the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, it involves three aspects. First, the method to strive for election by universal suffrage; second, the representativeness of the nominating committee; and third, the issue of the so-called "people who confront the Central Authorities cannot be the Chief Executive". These three issues involve our understanding of the proper origin of the sovereign rights.


12695

First, Prof Benny TAI, who initiated the Occupy Central movement, published an article "The Goal and Opportunities of the Occupy Central Movement" on 23 February. In the article, he said that the Action was not "to challenge the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China under the leadership of CPC over Hong Kong," rather "it is hoped that the Beijing Government will honour its promise of allowing the Chief Executive and all Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to be elected by universal suffrage, as stipulated in the Basic Law and the relevant decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC)." Prof Benny TAI had shown his goodwill by concurring with what Mr IP Kwok-him has said earlier. Given that he had recognized the decision of the NPCSC, what else can we say? However, while recognizing the decision of the NPCSC, he asks the Central Authorities to honour its promise, right? However, despite his so-called goodwill, he has been criticized by political commentators of the leftist newspapers, stating that the Occupy Central movement challenges the CPC's sovereignty and confront with the CPC. The proper sovereignty should come from the people and reside in the people. This concept is only the ABC in political science. I have raised this point so many times that they have become cliché. Nobody listens to me. President, you may have noticed this point. Let me quote an article published in Xinhua Daily, that is, the official mouthpiece of the CPC, on 27 September 1945, which reads, "The right track of democracy is to return the ruling power to the people unreservedly". I want to use this editorial as an introduction to slap these lackeys or lackeys of lackeys, including QIAO Xiaoyang, on their face. Let me just quote one paragraph, "In a democratic country, sovereignty should be in the hands of the people, which is a justified course of action. If a country claims to be democratic but its sovereignty is not in the hands of the people, it is definitely not on the right track, it can only be deemed as an anomaly and hence, it is not a democratic country. What does it mean by sovereignty residing in the people? According to Dr SUN Yat-sen's principle of people's rights, people have the powers to elect and recall the government, and they also have the powers of legislative initiation and referendum. Only when a country has given its people with these four powers that it can be deemed as meeting the basic requirements of a democratic country. If people are not vested with these powers, the requirements are not met, and the democratic development of this country has not been accomplished."


Another paragraph reads, "Without ending the party rule and implementing universal suffrage, how can democratization be realized? Please get on to the right track of democracy and return the people's power and right to the people." This article is extracted from the Xinhua Daily, the mouthpiece of CPC, published in 1945 in Chongqing. Recently, in questioning Timothy TONG, I asked him about the CPPCC. President, as you have also been a member of the CPPCC, I wonder if you remember this name, the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. There are people who are appointed members of the CPPCC, yet they do not know the full name of this organization or its function, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan of your party is one of these people. She is a bigger embarrassment as she does not even know what the five stars on the Chinese flag stand for, but she has been a member of the CPPCC for several terms. Fortunately, the President can keep a tight rein on them. Since you are a member of the Communist Party, you must know the answer, right? These were the words of the Chongqing Xinhua Daily: "Without ending the party rule and implementing universal suffrage, how can democratization be realized? Please get on to the right track of democracy and return the people's power and right to the people." Was the requirement clear? It could not be clearer. The sovereignty and ruling power are two separate things. The sovereignty belongs to the people while the ruling power belongs to the government but the government's ruling power needs the people's mandate. How dare you talk about sovereignty in front of me? Second, sovereignty is inalienable, as said by ROUSSEAU. But in practical political reality, it is hard to prevent this situation and that is also a fact. However, what status does Hong Kong have? In recent years, the democrats in Hong Kong almost 100% accept the legitimacy of the CPC's sovereignty over China. They never dare to deny the legitimacy of the CPC regime which practices one-party dictatorship and they dare not refute the claim that the CPC is the State and has sovereignty over China. If the democrats do not get away from such restraints and do not deny the legitimacy of this regime, how can they talk about democracy? They are just turning round and round within the parameters or within the framework of the Basic Law, as mentioned by Mr IP Kwok-him, demanding the Chinese authorities to honour their promise. What is the point? Nothing can be achieved. To strive for universal suffrage, should one engage in protests and petitions against the authorities, or engage in self-empowerment and


12697

self-fulfillment? What meaning does it serve to petition and protest to a government that relies on violence, interests, blood relationship and collusion of money and power to maintain its power, a government that has no reasonable sovereignty and legitimacy? Regarding the last aspect, it is the representativeness of the nominating committee. I handle every motion debate seriously and will always write an article on the subject matter. I have also written a long article on this subject matter. My original intention is to upload the article on the Internet, not to read it aloud here. Therefore I will just make brief comments. Concerning the representativeness of the nominating committee, why must there be a nominating committee? From the train of thoughts of "sovereignty residing in the people", when did the people of Hong Kong exercise their power of legislation to nominate the Chief Executive candidates by a nominating committee? Have the people of Hong Kong authorized such a requirement? Even during the formulation of the Basic Law, did the people of Hong Kong have a say? Whether there should be a nominating committee to nominate the Chief Executive candidates is completely an internal affair of Hong Kong. But in this regard, you will surely disagree, will you not? There are numerous problems with the so-called nominating committee and I can list a few:

(a) The nominating committee can easily change its political preference

and there is no law requiring the committee members to vote according to the political platform;

(b) There is a time gap between the formation of the nominating

committee and the time to make the nomination, during which if electors change their preference, they cannot influence the members of the nominating committee;

(c) If the nomination period of the Chief Executive candidates is after

the formation of the nominating committee, electors do not have the essential information about who will run in the Chief Executive election when they elect members of the nominating committee, and hence, they cannot make any judgment;


(d) As members of the nominating committee are limited in number, the CPC and plutocrats can easily use their political resources to control these members and affect their nomination preference;

(e) Even if members of the nominating committee are returned by one

person, one vote, the composition of the committee may still be controlled by the demarcation of functional or geographic constituencies, making it susceptible to the influence of the Administration, which will lead to unfairness.

Obviously, it is only deceitful to say that as long as the nominating committee complies with the principles of universal suffrage, there should not be any concern about screening. In mid-May, the so-called "Alliance for Occupy Central" proposed that Mr Albert HO should resign to trigger a referendum. Later, it was said that in order to avoid spending public money, electronic voting throughout the territory would be adopted instead. Another saying was that a proposal decided by referendum "would not be too radical and stand a good chance for negotiation with the Central Authorities". Then, what is their point of occupying Central? Why not resort to negotiation? Why do they organize the Occupy Central movement? They might resort to negotiation. To Occupy Central is to break the law, to engage in civil disobedience, to paralyse Central, causing the authorities to deploy the Liberation Army, thus attracting the international attention. Now the so-called "martyrs" have no intention to go to jail. Let us, who have been sentenced to prison, show you how to be martyrs, and we have not won the moral aura yet. I have recently advocated a slogan which has all alone been my political advocacy, that is, localism, democracy and anti-Communism. Concerning these three topics, I will elaborate on them in future. Without localism, democracy and anti-Communism, I can tell you that there is no way that universal suffrage will be realized and all you can do is to go round and round within the parameters of the Basic Law and waste our time. Therefore, we propose to formulate a constitution by all people and enter into a new covenant. Our position has not changed, since my launching of the "five geographical constituencies referendum" up till today. The CPC is not a legal regime and its sovereignty over Hong Kong is also illegal. End of my speech.


12699

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I have a very simple wish, that is, the constitutional reform will move forward instead of staying put. A consensus is forged by mutual understanding rather than by mutual rejection and criticism. Progress is made when all people stride forward in the same direction rather than each going their own separate ways and hindering one another. At present, the community is filled with slogan-like comments, simplifying the complicated issue of constitutional reform into genuine universal suffrage, bogus universal suffrage and international standards, and so on. People are so confused that they cannot hold a meaningful discussion on the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Let us not forget that Hong Kong is not an independent political entity and constitutional reform must be conducted under the framework of the Basic Law. This is the reality that we must accept under the "one country" principle. To bring the democratic development forward, one must be pragmatic and rational, not indulging in any unrealistic fancies. For example, the Basic Law stipulates a nominating committee and I must point out that where there is a nominating committee, there will be screening unless we do not comply with the Basic Law, and then there is no need for a nominating committee. However, if we do not even have the Basic Law, what will Hong Kong become? When discussing the constitutional reform, we must consider the unique political and historic background of Hong Kong; otherwise we will only be at a standstill and get nowhere in the course of democratization. We must be realistic in our discussion about the formation of the nominating committee and the nomination procedures of the Chief Executive candidates. Building consensus in society is the most meaningful step in taking the democratic development forward. I believe that there are three premises concerning the reform of the selection method for the Chief Executive which I have already pointed out in my amendment and now I will expound again. First, I believe that the Central Authorities, like most people of Hong Kong, wish that Hong Kong can implement the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, rather than having the democratization remaining stagnant. I have a deep conviction of that. Second, Hong Kong is not an independent political entity. We must recognize the constitutional status of the Basic Law and respect the results of the Sino-British negotiations in the past, and hence the election of the Chief


Executive by universal suffrage must be carried out under the framework of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law. Third, the Chief Executive candidates must not confront the Central Authorities. I hope the people of Hong Kong will not over-interpret this point. Having communicated with the Central Authorities on many occasions, I understand that the premise for the election of the Chief Executive is actually "river water not interfering with well water". It is no doubt that our country and Hong Kong are practicing two systems but we cannot confront the principle of one country. The current constitution of our country stipulates that the country is under the rule of one party and the Central Authorities cannot accept that the Chief Executive of Hong Kong would topple the country's political system. This has nothing to do with the views of Hong Kong people about the LI Wangyang incident, the tofu-dreg works projects and even the 4 June incident. I have also openly voiced my dissatisfaction about the handling of the LI Wangyang incident, but I do not believe I would fail to meet the premises of candidacy for the Chief Executive because of that. In my view, the spectrum of the pan-democratic camp is also quite wide and not every pan-democrat is absolutely against the political system of our country. Therefore, overgeneralization is not appropriate. The requirement of "love the country, love Hong Kong" is just a kind of sentiment, which cannot be measured in any way. After all, the election of the Chief Executive is the collective decision of the nominating committee and the people of Hong Kong. The premise listed out by the Central Authorities is not a legal requirement. However, we must not forget that the final procedure in the election of the Chief Executive is the appointment by the Central Authorities. I believe that when it comes to this stage, the abovementioned condition will be a very important factor for consideration. The second premise that I adhere to is that since Article 45 of the Basic Law already stipulates that the Chief Executive is to be selected by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee, no matter how this is interpreted, there must be a nominating committee, which is a political reality. There are views in the community that if a person receives the nomination of a certain number of electors, he should be qualified to stand for election. However, a large number of people do not necessarily mean that they have extensive representativeness. According to the documents of the United Nations Electoral Assistance Team, the definition of representativeness is that the


12701

composition of a society can be appropriately reflected, so that the interests of the majority and the minority can be balanced and protected to avoid despotism imposed by the majority of people. A nomination made by a particular sector of people does not meet the criterion of balanced participation, and the reality may be the dominance of the labour sector. I believe that the Basic Law does not conflict with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) as far as the major principles are concerned. The idea of the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote being universal and equal is in fact embraced in Article 39 of the Basic Law. Since the Basic Law has already provided a comprehensive framework for the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, our discussion should concentrate on studying in depth how to ensure the nominating committee has broad representativeness. Many Members and scholars believe that the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage must conform to the international standard, but what is the international standard? Some people think that the design of the election system must be in line with the international conventions, especially the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote, stipulated in Article 25 of the Covenant, as well as the principle of universal and equal suffrage and each vote carries the same weight. As a matter of fact, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has explained Article 25 of the Covenant and stated in item 4 of its General Comment No. 25 that countries are allowed to set reasonable limits on citizens' right to stand for election, such as the age and place of birth of the candidates. The Constitution of the United States of America also provides that a candidate for the President must be born in the United States or have been a citizen of the United States for at least 14 years, an indication that the right to stand for election is not absolutely equal among all citizens of the United States. I reiterate that international conventions also allow the countries to set reasonable limits on the right to stand for election. Would we consider it unreasonable for a sovereign state to ban someone who wishes to topple its political system from becoming the top official of its local administrative region? Let me discuss the weight of vote mentioned in the Covenant. The weight of vote is not the sole factor for consideration in the design of a democratic system as macroscopic and overall interest also have to be taken into account. For example, North Dakota in the United States only has a population of 700 000


while the population of California is 38 million. However, both states have two seats in the Senate, implying that the votes in the two states carry different weight. This reflects that the prime concern of people who designed the system at that time was to maintain the balance among states rather than each vote carrying the same weight. As a matter of fact, the drafting of the Covenant was drawn with reference to the Constitution of the United States and the Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen (Declaration on the rights of the man and citizens in English) of France. The main purpose is to lay down a framework for safeguarding the citizens' right to participate in politics and state affairs rather than a set of detailed execution guidelines for the design of the democratic system. As regards Article 25 of the Covenant, no restriction is imposed on the election system to be adopted by a country; instead the purpose is to ensure the system adopted will not violate the Covenant. Now, I will talk about what is meant by broad representativeness and balanced participation. If we adopt the 2012 Election Committee (EC) of the Chief Executive as the basis to form the 2017 nominating committee, it is true that some functional constituencies (FC) are not appropriate. For example, the Agriculture and Fisheries FC has 60 EC members, making up 5% of all EC members, but the output of this industry only accounts for less than 1.4% of our GDP and people engaged in this industry make up only 0.1% of the labour population. Therefore, we can consider making adjustment. At the same time, the sectors of Financial Services and Finance have employed 230 000 workers, who make up 6% of the entire labour population, and their output accounts for 16% of our GDP. However, the number of FC members for these two FCs is 36, representing only 2% of all EC members. Upward adjustment can also be considered. As regards the electorate, there are 159 electors in the Agriculture and Fisheries FC, only 721 in the Financial Services FC and 10 000 in the Medical FC. Therefore, I believe that there is a need to increase the number of electors in many FCs, but in extending the electorates, we need to consider how to determine the eligibility of the electors. Just like the Finance FC, not all people working in that sector are eligible. For example, there is no reason to let bank tellers represent that FC because the electors should have professional knowledge of that industry.


12703

Therefore, finally in my amendment, I mention that a public consultation exercise should be conducted expeditiously as this provides a genuine channel for the general public to express their views and reach a consensus on the points I mentioned above. At the same time, we also need to consult the relevant industries on how to reform the composition of the various FCs. The constitutional reform has a significant impact and any mishandling will lead to social division, and may even be manipulated by a small number of people to stir up trouble. The Government should put forward a proposal as soon as possible (The buzzer sounded) …… I so submit. MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, in the motion debate on the 4 June incident just concluded, we mentioned many problems, such as corruption, the long-standing bureaucratic malpractices, abuse of power, and so on, making a country or a place unable to have good governance. That is exactly what is happening in Hong Kong right now. Hence, it is all the more necessary for us to put in place a transparent and fair political system which allows the Government to be accountable to the people and eradicate corruption. Since 1997, disputes have never ceased in Hong Kong. Recently, it has been uncovered that a senior official has engaged in corrupt practices and has not been monitored, and lower rank officials (such as the staff of the Marine Department) have performed their duties in a perfunctory manner. These cases have deeply plagued many civil servants who are devoted and aspire to serve the community. All in all, the underlying reason is that we do not have a system to check against senior officials responsible for policy making. People may say, can we just get a replacement? So far, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has three Chief Executives. TUNG Chee-hwa, the first Chief Executive, came from the business sector; Donald TSANG, the second Chief Executive, came from the Civil Service, and now, we have LEUNG Chun-ying, the liar. Each Chief Executive was worse than his predecessor. The popularity ratings of the two former Chief Executives were as high as 70% when they assumed office, but when Mr TUNG stepped down due to his inept governance over the SARS pandemic and financial turmoil, his popularity rating was less than 30%. When Donald TSANG left office, his popularity was likewise some 20% because his policies had always been partial to


the business sector, which resulted in the widening wealth gap, as well as the subsequent revelation of his corrupt acts in accepting lavish hospitality. Nonetheless, the above two Chief Executives had enjoyed a honeymoon period with Hong Kong citizens. As people once had certain expectation of their governance and administration, they were able to implement a number of policies smoothly at the initial stage. However, since the third Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, his popularity rating has remained low all along. According to the latest poll, the disapproval rate of the Chief Executive is over 50%, while his approval rate is less than 30%. When will our suffering be over during his five-year term? In face of such an impasse, Hong Kong has all the more reasons to make early preparations for the Chief Executive election in 2017, and we should proactively demand for an election that voters can have a genuine choice. But if the Central Government and the SAR Government play dirty by pre-selecting two or three candidates, and then ask Hong Kong people to pick one out of this pack of "rotten oranges", the existing political impasse will just persist. President, as you said during an interview with the media, the antagonism would escalate if both sides kept on arguing. Should this be the destiny of Hong Kong? I, for one, do not believe in destiny. We should not accept destiny which is merely a "butterfly effect" ― the culmination of numerous causes and consequences, numerous words and deeds of different people, as well as numerous remote causes and immediate causes. We have been striving for democracy in the past. We do not succeed this year, and we may not succeed next year. But if we have not fought for it in the past, or if we give up today, genuine universal suffrage may not necessarily take place in 2017 because democracy and universal suffrage will not fall from the sky. The closer we get to 2017, the greater is our concern about the nominating procedure. Will there be an element of screening or manipulation in the so-called nominating procedure? Will candidates have to undergo various checking and vetting before their names can finally appear on the ballot paper? These are questions we are concerned about. The Central Government is also very concerned about this matter because if it is not committed to implementing universal suffrage, it should come clean right now, so as to manage the expectation of Hong Kong people for democratic elections, and make us accept a nominating procedure with screening. However, I must point out here that it


12705

should not be so. As we all know, we have lived through such abject governance for 15 years, and many disputes have been created over the years. If the election in 2017 is still a bogus election, with "one person, one vote" an empty pledge without giving electors a genuine choice, the disputes will just persist. Hence, I support the original motion proposed by Mr Alan LEONG for the simple reason that election is about "giving people a choice", and a genuine choice lies with people also having the right to nominate candidates. It has already been stated clearly in the relevant international covenant over the past 20-odd years that universal and equal suffrage is not only about the right to vote, but also the right to be elected, that is, the right to stand for election. If the future constitutional reform proposal is so designed that people with different political views are barred from taking part in the election, it is not a genuine election. Indeed, certain basic qualification requirements can be imposed on the candidates, for example, a candidate must reach a particular age, or a candidate's nationality must be made public so as to ensure his allegiance to the place, and so on. All these qualification requirements are deemed reasonable. Take the example of presidential election in the United States. One of the eligibility requirements to be a candidate for the office of President of the United States is that he must be born in the native land of the United States of America. That is why the fact that Barrack OBAMA was born in Hawaii had been a controversy for so long. He could only continue his governance in stability after he produced his birth certificate. All the above qualification requirements can be deemed reasonable. However, according to the reports of the Human Rights Committee on some countries, as these countries had prevented persons with different or opposing political views from taking part in elections through screening, they had violated the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Turning back to our recent discussions, Mr QIAO Xiaoyang was the first to say that "the Chief Executive to be elected must love the country and Hong Kong". In fact, the requirement to love the country and Hong Kong is not unreasonable, but we demand for an objective definition, so as to be incorporated into the laws. Most important of all, the judgment should not be based on subjective views, otherwise this requirement will become a screening tool. However, Mr QIAO Xiaoyang quickly spoke again, indicating that no objective definition would be provided or stated in the legislation.


Without legal stipulation, it should not form part of the qualification requirements, or else the "goal post" can be moved wilfully to vet the candidates. As a result, this requirement will become a tool to bar persons with different political views from standing for election. Why do I propose my amendments? The objective of my amendments is to promote people's right to make direct nominations, such that any person, if jointly endorsed by 50 000 electors and upon verification of status by the nominating committee, can be a candidate for the office of the Chief Executive. This arrangement is perfectly in line with the Basic Law because the nominating committee has been provided in the Basic Law, and the candidate will submit his nomination jointly endorsed by members of the public to the nominating committee for verification. Just now, Mr IP Kwok-him said that the nominating committee is acting as an entity. Even as such, I think my proposal is feasible and in line with the requirement because we are not asking individual members, say, 200 or 300 members of the nominating committee to carry out the verification. They, as a whole and as an entity, should perform this duty of verifying the identity of persons jointly endorsing the nomination by ascertaining whether they are qualified electors, and then making a collective decision that respects people's wish. Why do I require the joint endorsement of 50 000 electors? Actually, 50 000 electors is roughly 3% of the number of voters as there are 3.46 million registered electors in Hong Kong. Given that the number of voters in the last election was 1.8 million, 3% is roughly 55 000 electors. In fact, any person who is nominated by 50 000 electors will definitely get his election deposit back, and he must be a serious and sincere candidate. Some people may ask what should be done in case many candidates have been nominated by members of the public. This is no big deal because two rounds, or even more than two rounds of voting can be held, but all members of the public must be allowed to vote in the primary election. We can make reference to the electoral system of France. In case there is any screening or primary election, it must definitely be held on the basis of "one person, one vote". President, as you have said, without a genuine election, everything is still a mere formality. If a bogus election is to be held, people will step forward and boycott the bogus election in 2017 by casting invalid votes. If the number of


12707

invalid votes is greater than the number of votes received by the elected candidate, the Chief Executive elect will lose face completely and his future governance will be just as difficult as it is now. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, rumours are now getting around in the community about "Plan B", which is exciting for everybody. The so-called "Plan B" means the stepping down of LEUNG Chun-ying. However, such excitement is actually mingled with utter sadness. The reason is that even though we know that LEUNG Chun-ying may be kicked out and replaced, honestly, the person to replace LEUNG Chun-ying under the so-called "Plan B" would still be selected by the coterie election and preordained by the Central Authorities. Although Hong Kong people are overjoyed to hear the news, such joy is mixed with a tinge of sadness. We already feel very miserable and helpless, yet under such intense agony, we can only console ourselves by the thought of having someone to replace LEUNG Chun-ying; that would still be better than letting LEUNG Chun-ying remain in power. What really is our aspiration? Not the current "Plan B", but the other "Plan B" which we have been waiting for from the time of TUNG Chee-hwa and Donald TSANG to LEUNG Chun-ying. The current "Plan B" is not what we really want; the "Plan B" we really want is to elect the Chief Executive through bona fide universal suffrage, that is, a "Plan B" with genuine universal suffrage. That is what we really want. Every Chief Executive we have in the past is selected through coterie elections; they lack credibility, legality and people's mandate. Given their lack of legality and people's mandate, people at large in Hong Kong do not identify with their governance. Moreover, a whole host of questions have arisen due to their collusion with a small coterie as they were all selected by coterie elections. What is the composition of Hong Kong's small coterie? Although in the eyes of many people, the coterie comprises various industries and sectors, in a nutshell, the so-called "small coterie" is a group in Hong Kong formed by spokespersons for the Central Authorities and the industrial and commercial sectors of Hong Kong, as well as their appendages. This group is ultimately a capitalist consortium of collusion which seeks to gain power in Hong Kong by appeasing the Central Authorities.


Of course, LEUNG Chun-ying has come into power probably because he represents different capitalist consortia. But the truth is that from TUNG Chee-hwa and Donald TSANG to LEUNG Chun-ying, they have all along allowed the capitalist consortia in Hong Kong to ride on the back of Hong Kong people, such that our resources have been exploited and forcibly taken away until there is nothing left for members of the public. Not only have workers and wage earners been exploited totally, but middle-class people who purchase properties have also been exploited totally. Society as a whole can barely survive under the capitalist monopoly. We strive for universal suffrage which is in fact more than a fight for a particular value. We also demand for impartiality, fairness and justice, hoping that allocation of social resources can become more reasonable. The pro-establishment camp always ask us to stop talking about universal suffrage and concentrate on people's livelihood, because 90% of Hong Kong people are concerned about livelihood. They are basically misleading Hong Kong people. Hong Kong people are indeed concerned about livelihood, but it is exactly because of our concern for people's livelihood that we are concerned about democracy. The constitutional system as a whole is taking advantage of the people and their livelihood; and as a result, people are subjected to exploitation and deprived of a fair share. That is a livelihood issue, as well as a democracy issue. Hence, the fight for democracy and the fight for people's livelihood are two sides of the same coin. We hope that people will no longer be exploited by big consortia which collude with the Government formed through coterie elections, and people will no longer have to toil like slaves for big consortia. What will the future hold? People used to think that universal suffrage will be implemented in 2017, but the Chinese Communist regime is acting hostile now, and QIAO Xiaoyang had come out to speak once again. I now understand why LEUNG Chun-ying is so reluctant to commence consultation because his work is simple enough. Leave everything to be dealt with by "Grandpa" and the Central Authorities, he only needs to wait. Therefore, when people asked him after the announcement of the Policy Address why he did not conduct consultation, he replied that consultation would be conducted "at an appropriate juncture" ― we would rather hope that he can just "turn off the key"3. 3 In Cantonese, the term "適時" (sik1si4) (at an appropriate juncture) sounds the same as the term "熄匙"

(sik1si4) (turn off the key).


12709

He often says that consultation would be conducted at an appropriate juncture, but what does he mean by "at an appropriate juncture"? He will only conduct consultation when the Central Authorities have taken control by steamrolling public opinion. The situation is perfectly clear now. The Central Authorities have already acted by sending QIAO Xiaoyang to talk about the qualification requirements of candidates standing for the Chief Executive election, that is, they must love the country and Hong Kong, and they must not confront the Central Authorities. All these requirements are imposed arbitrarily on Hong Kong people. Mr Michael TIEN has just appealed to the people to be pragmatic and rational, we always stress the importance of being pragmatic and rational. First of all, I consider the present situation not rational at all. We are fighting for universal suffrage, and it naturally follows that we demand for bona fide universal suffrage. If a rational person eats a beef ball made with pork, would he say that the beef ball is delicious and has the taste of beef? Is that the so-called "pragmatic" attitude? A rational person will definitely say that the meat ball is not beef ball, and he will point out clearly that he wants to eat beef ball, not pork ball. Will Mr Michael TIEN let his grandchildren drink fake powdered formula? If he neither wants nor allows his grandchildren to drink fake powdered formula, may I ask him to be slightly more pragmatic and rational, and let his grandchildren drink fake powdered formula, is that alright? It is not alright. Therefore, I consider that we must have bona fide universal suffrage after all. My proposed amendment to Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment today is mainly intended to bring out one point, that is, Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment suggests that the relevant proposals must comply with the Basic Law, while my amendment points out that the decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) must also comply with the Basic Law. However, that is not the case with the decisions made by the NPCSC because it has vetoed dual universal suffrage twice. Furthermore, the mechanism for constitutional reform only involved three steps originally, but the NPCSC had built on it illegally and turned it into a "five-step" mechanism with the requirement that regardless of whether amendments are to be made or not, the approval of the NPCSC must be obtained. All these requirements were built illegally by the NPCSC. As the decisions of the NPCSC do not comply with the Basic Law, we oppose them.


Lastly, I would like to point out that we will abstain from voting on Mr WONG Yuk-man's amendment, primarily because we consider that political parties should also be allowed to make nominations, and nominations do not necessarily have to be jointly endorsed by citizens. We insist that (The buzzer sounded) …… PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE, your speaking time is up. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): …… nominations can be made by political parties. Thank you, President. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, strictly adhering to the Basic Law and the relevant interpretation and decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) to promote the constitutional development of Hong Kong and implement the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 is the common wish of the Central Authorities, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government and also the people of Hong Kong, and it is also an important policy objective of the Government in this term. Article 45 of the Basic Law stipulates, "The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." Besides, after the NPCSC adopted in December 2007 the "Decision on Issues Relating to the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive of the HKSAR and for Forming the Legislative Council of the HKSAR in the Year 2012 and on Issues Relating to Universal Suffrage" (the Decision), the specific timetable for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage was set down, that is, the Chief Executive can be selected by universal suffrage in 2017. Recently, many people in society have expressed their views on the principles of and specific methods for the selection of the Chief Executive by


12711

universal suffrage in 2017. I would like to take this chance today to review the old materials so as to learn some new insights. I will expound in detail on the design and principle of the political system in Hong Kong. I hope that this background information will be useful to Members here and also the various sectors in society when they focus on the discussion of the relevant subjects in the future. The political system of the HKSAR is established on the basis of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China (the Constitution) and the Basic Law. The NPCSC decided to establish the HKSAR in accordance with Article 31 and Article 62(13) of the Constitution and prescribed the political system practiced in HKSAR by means of the Basic Law. The Preamble of the Basic Law stipulates (I quote), "Upholding national unity and territorial integrity, maintaining the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, and taking account of its history and realities, the People's Republic of China has decided that upon China's resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be established in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, and that under the principle of 'one country, two systems', the socialist system and policies will not be practiced in Hong Kong." (End of quote) The Preamble also states (I quote), "In accordance with the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the National People's Congress hereby enacts the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, prescribing the systems to be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, in order to ensure the implementation of the basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong." (End of quote) President, it is clear from the Preamble of the Basic Law that the systems practised in the HKSAR, including the political system, are prescribed in the Constitution and the Basic Law. The development of Hong Kong's political system involves the relation between the Central Authorities and the HKSAR and must be carried out within the parameter of the Basic Law. Concerning HKSAR's constitutional status, Article 12 of the Basic Law clearly provides (I quote), "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall


enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government." (End of quote) Our country adopts the unitary state structure and the HKSAR is a district administrative region under this structure. All powers exercised by the HKSAR are derived by way of authorization by the Central Authorities, and there are no "residual powers". Given the aforementioned constitutional status of the HKSAR, the Central Authorities have the constitutional powers and responsibilities to determine the model of the political system of the HKSAR. In submitting the Basic Law (Draft) of the HKSAR of the People's Republic of China and related documents at the Third Session of the Seventh NPC on 28 March 1990, Mr JI Pengfei, the former Chairman of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law, explained, "The political structure of the HKSAR should accord with the principle of 'One Country, Two Systems' and aim to maintain stability and prosperity in Hong Kong in line with its legal status and actual situation. To this end, consideration must be given to the interests of the different sectors of society and the structure must facilitate the development of the capitalist economy in the Region. While the part of the existing political structure proven to be effective will be maintained, a democratic system that suits Hong Kong's reality should gradually be introduced." (End of quote) President, from Chairman JI Pengfei's explanation we can summarize the design of the political system of Hong Kong in four major principles, namely, (1) meeting the interests of different sectors of society; (2) facilitating the development of the capitalist economy; (3) having a gradual and orderly progress; and (4) conforming to the actual situation in Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, the success of Hong Kong is the fruit of the various sectors of society, and various trades and industries irrespective their ranks and positions, each performing its own functions while combining its efforts together in all these years. The design of the HKSAR's political system has always based on the above major principles since the reunification and progressed towards democratization gradually in an orderly manner. The Interpretation by the NPCSC of Article 7 of Annex I and Article III of Annex II to the Basic Law of the HKSAR of the People's Republic of China in


12713

2004 laid down the five-step mechanism for constitutional reform and then in December 2007, the NPCSC made the Decision. In 2010, the Legislative Council passed the constitutional reform package by a two-thirds majority of all Members and the package received the consent of the Chief Executive and was approved by the NPCSC for the record. The five-step mechanism for constitutional reform was passed for the first time in the history of Hong Kong, increasing the democratic element in the elections of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in the year 2012 and moving Hong Kong's democratization forward. The Decision made by the NPCSC in 2007 set down a specific timetable for the elections of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. The Decision also stipulates that the nominating committee may be formed with reference to the current provisions regarding the Election Committee in Annex I to the Basic Law. As the composition of the Election Committee includes the four major sectors, it has extensive representativeness and is able to meet the interests of different sectors of society. President, I have noticed that recently people in society have begun to express their views and discuss the methods for and principles of the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 and the specific proposals concerned. The HKSAR Government welcomes any rational, tolerant and pragmatic discussions and these discussions will be useful in our preparation for the engagement in the official consultation exercise. However, I have to stress that the HKSAR Government does not have a specific proposal on the methods for selecting the Chief Executive and we will continue to listen carefully to the views of different sectors. I will respond further to Members' speeches later on. President, I so submit. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I wonder if you ever have this kind of experience: Somebody promised to give you something, but afterwards, he acted as if nothing had happened and kept delaying; when you asked him time and again to honour his promise, he just intended to give you something else to drop the case. If you have such experience, what will you do?


President, each citizen of Hong Kong is the "creditor" in this case now. Mr Alan LEONG mentioned in his original motion the speech made by QIAO Xiaoyang, Chairman of the Law Committee under the National People's Congress (NPC), in March this year. QIAO only relayed his messages through Members of the pro-establishment camp, and he did not, and dared not, speak to all Hong Kong people directly, or communicate his messages to all Members of the Legislative Council solemnly; the way he relayed his messages has made Hong Kong people apprehensive. But apart from being apprehensive, we still listen to the words of the Central Authorities in a very rational manner. In the motion, Mr Alan LEONG quoted the statement of Director QIAO Xiaoyang as follows, "regarding the election of the Chief Executive of the HKSAR by universal suffrage, 'the issue that requires a consensus is essentially about the democratic procedures for nomination'". Then what is meant by "democratic procedures"? President, I think people in general find the term "democratic procedures" very abstract, but anything that is "democratic" should be good, right? Regardless of whether it is the Democratic Party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, and so on, they are all very "democratic", right? There is a popular saying that the Chinese Communist Party is definitely not against democratic elections so long as the outcome is within expectation. Hence, how can the Central Authorities give effect to this "Central style" of universal suffrage? This is really a "Central style" universal suffrage, because we do not have universal values and are forbidden to talk about such values. It turns out that in order to foretell and control the final outcome within one's acceptability, the best way is to exercise "access control". If the Central Authorities do not want to see any particular person in the race or win the race, the best way is to deny his access. That is really an excellent tactic, much better than manipulating the election through various means subsequently. In that case, it does not matter what electoral method is adopted because it is just a "heads I win, tails you lose" game under this strictly "Central style" election. As a matter of fact, the Central Authorities already have the power of final screening, that is, if the elected Chief Executive is not to their liking, the Central Authorities can always refuse to endorse him and demand for a re-election. Of course, it is not good to make this move and may trigger off a political crisis.


12715

For safety's sake ― or one can name this an alternative stability preservation measure ― the Central Authorities will naturally opt for pre-screening, and, the earlier, the better. Why do we need to familiarize ourselves with the requirements and principles of universal suffrage stipulated in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? It is obvious to all that this kind of election is not fair, and is not bona fide universal suffrage. Later, interpreters of the "Central style" election, I mean interpreters from the pro-establishment camp, would come forward one after another to offer explanation, saying that the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong by universal suffrage only has to comply with the requirements of the Basic Law, but does not have to comply with the guidelines of the United Nations. Suddenly, we find that Hong Kong is located in Mars, not on Earth. In his amendment to the original motion, Mr IP Kwok-him proposes to delete the part about "the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote are universal and equal, without any 'screening' or 'pre-selection' through a nominating committee", and substitute with "the Basic Law and the relevant decisions of the Standing Committee of NPC on the issue of universal suffrage are complied with". Please note the words "relevant decisions", which simply means, as we are told by colleagues of the pro-establishment camp, the decision of "Grandpa" in the Central Authorities is final, and the decisions of the Standing Committee of NPC (NPCSC) are final. In other words, the NPCSC could and will wilfully make any decisions it likes at any time. The deleted by Mr IP Kwok-him about "the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote are universal and equal" will definitely go missing, while the so-called "screening" and "pre-selection" will apply definitely. In a forum organized by the Alliance for True Democracy, I explained about democratic election, the process was simple, even primary students knew how to vote and elect their class prefect, and there was neither any screening nor pre-selection involved. Suddenly, a member of the Caring Hong Kong Power came forward and corrected me loudly ― in fact, he was not correcting me, but making a statement. He said that in the primary school he studied, the class prefect was not elected, but appointed by the teacher. I said to him sympathetically that I really felt sorry for him if he had studied in such a primary school.


Originally, Hong Kong people thought that the Basic Law had promised them with "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and universal suffrage, but the truth is that we were no better than the students of the primary school attended by that person from the Caring Hong Kong Power, because we have to accept appointment and screening. My only hope is that all Hong Kong people will persevere in the fight for dual universal suffrage and true democracy. An American writer, James BOVARD, once said that, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." because if that is the case, we all know what will be served for dinner. Now Hong Kong people are bound for the dinner plate because as we all know, there is one "wolf" in Hong Kong, and Beijing is the other "wolf" ― these two wolves are now deciding how to eat Hong Kong people. President, I support the original motion proposed by Mr Alan LEONG, as well as the amendment proposed by Ms Cyd HO about the making of nomination "if jointly endorsed by no less than 50 000 registered electors" because under these proposals, the rights to make nomination and to stand for election are universal and equal, and it is immediately understandable to all. I also support the amendment proposed by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan. But I will vote against amendments which delete the reference to "universal and equal". President, I so submit. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Last night, a young person asked me, after the 4 June incident in 1989, it was evident that those in power had massacred their own people, why then did Hong Kong people still accept the reunification? I told him that following the 4 June incident in 1989, it was too late for any changes. The Sino-British negotiation had declared the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to be established would enjoy "a high degree of autonomy". At the time, many people still felt unsettled. They uprooted themselves, cut the tie between their past and Hong Kong and emigrated elsewhere. Of the stories that followed, some had a happy ending, but some families were broken and torn apart. All of that was attributed to emigration. At that time, while some believed with reservation, some were convinced that Hong Kong would enjoy "a high degree of autonomy". I am not sure whether President Donald


12717

TSANG …… I got it wrong, it should be President Jasper TSANG, my apology. I will talk about Donald TSANG later on. After the 4 June incident in 1989, we have been fighting for "a high degree of autonomy". Chris PATTEN was sent by the British Government to Hong Kong to be the Governor because he was defeated in election in his hometown at that time. During his five years' governance in Hong Kong between 1992 and 1997, Chris PATTEN confided to journalists that his only mission was to enhance Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy, hoping to attain "the highest degree of autonomy", since he knew in his heart that it was impossible for Hong Kong to have autonomy. Today, we are still fighting for "the highest degree of autonomy" for Hong Kong, but our high degree of autonomy has been dwarfed time and again. Whom does QIAO Xiaoyang speak for? During his casual chat with the pro-establishment camp, he conveyed a message to the community that the Chief Executive candidates to be elected by universal suffrage must love the country. Has China loved its people? I highly doubt about it. According to my observation, and as known by all, LIU Xiaobo and AI Weiwei are the Chinese nationals who love China deeply. What did QIAO mean by saying "love the country"? The Communist Party practices one-party dictatorship. To them, love the country equates to love the party, and then they accuse Hong Kong people of opposing the Central Authorities. I refuse to call it the "Central Authorities", I call it "Beijing" instead. Is the fact that Hong Kong people attending the 4 June candlelight vigil tantamount to resisting the so-called "Central Authorities"? The former Chief Executive TUNG Chee-hwa was well-intentioned. Given his business background and noble upbringing, he would not take bribes. Though a kind person for sure, Mr TUNG still had to take orders from Beijing. Why did Anson CHAN resign then? Why did she not remain in the post of the Chief Secretary for Administration, but go all the way to earn her international reputation as "the conscience of Hong Kong"? From all these, Members should learn what is going on. Then, Donald TSANG took up the post in a hurry. He is a typical Hong Konger who plays smart. I had written a press article long ago, predicting his disgraceful departure. Eventually, newspapers ran headline stories on how he


coveted petty favours. Today, thanks to the press, there are stories on Timothy TONG who, in his five-year term of office, had the harbouring of Donald TSANG. Many people surnamed TSANG are involved, of course, it has nothing to do with the TSANGs. As for incumbent LEUNG Chun-ying, I once hoped to believe his sincerity in alleviating poverty. The wealth gap in Hong Kong is really alarming. On the day when the red rainstorm signal was hoisted, there was a clip of an elderly sick woman bending down to pick up corrugated paper and then crossing the road. On the other hand, there are rich people who live extravagantly in Hong Kong. According to the Gini Coefficient, the wealth gap of Hong Kong is among the world's worst. Under the reign of LEUNG Chun-ying, I have yet to see any "fiscal cliff". The Government should stop telling lies! In Hong Kong, there is a "trust cliff". He has been telling lies with his eyes wide open. LEUNG Chun-ying claims that Hong Kong can enjoy freedom of the press. On an occasion of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, he signed a document to ensure the freedom of the press. Yet, in a blink of an eye, he issued a lawyer's letter in his personal capacity to Mr Joseph LIAN, an academic working for the press. How dare LEUNG intimidate others in this way? He even claimed that he had the freedom to issue a lawyer's letter. Some pro-establishment Members also resorted to sophistry, saying that LEUNG Chun-ying also had his personal freedom. President Jasper TSANG, you are the President in this Council, you would not suddenly say that you have the freedom of speech and then criticize me arbitrarily, right? One should act according to his status. He has to weigh whether what he does matches with his status. In Hong Kong, the authorities always talk about the integration between China and Hong Kong, and then play trick on it. Do not assume that a robust economy will definitely benefit Hong Kong. At present, even the largest conglomerates begin to feel the pinch, hoping to force other network operators to surrender a third of their 3G spectra for auction. It is definitely a good thing to introduce competition in a free market, that is the spirit of capitalism! However, which party will participate in the auction? It is China Mobile. When the Hong Kong's economy turns red in future, I would really like to see how the Government is going to talk about the economy.


12719

In a civilized society, economy and politics have to complement each other. May Members please note clearly that our electoral system has to be developed unequivocally. Thank you. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, just now when I listened to Secretary Raymond TAM delivering his speech, I can really sense his hardship. Secretary, your title is Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, and you should be responsible for promoting the constitutional development of Hong Kong, and discharge your duties as stated in the Basic Law, so as to ensure the implementation of a democratic constitutional system in Hong Kong. Yet, you keep talking nonsense here, talking about democratic procedures and compliance with the Basic Law. What you have said can be summarized as "crying up wine but selling vinegar". It is clearly stipulated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law that universal and equal elections will be introduced in Hong Kong, and the Chief Executive is to be selected by election. This has been enshrined in the Basic Law and the international covenant, an important document endorsed by two countries. No room is allowed for lackeys, who spoke earlier, to make their own interpretation, such as deleting the wordings "the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote are universal and equal without any screening" and so on. How can we have democratic procedures without these elements? For something as simple as that, anyone can give an answer. By universal suffrage, it means setting a minimum threshold, so that voters can make a decision. Just now, many Members have voiced their views, including Michael TIEN, the boss. He said that he respected members of the public, everyone should be equal, and public views are important, hence consultation should be conducted earlier. However, he cited an example which I consider ridiculous. He mentioned that for the finance or banking sector, he could not accept the fact that a bank teller had the right to make a decision or represent the sector concerned. Only David LI or representatives from Bank of China and the like might be competent to do so. How come the value of a member of the public or a bank teller is lower than that of a banker? What rationale is this? Yet, the Government still tolerates and condones this kind of reasoning.


I see that the Secretary has another difficulty, that is, he does not know what to say, because every time we ask his boss LEUNG Chun-ying about the proposal or when a consultation will be conducted …… In his maiden Policy Address of the current-term Government, LEUNG Chun-ying made it clear that no consultation would be conducted this year. When we asked him again if some actions would be taken or would consultation be conducted, he said no and then kept his mouth shut. Nevertheless, many people then came forward to speak. Apart from QIAO Xiaoyang, the list also included ZHANG Xiaoming, Elsie LEUNG and Maria TAM. He might be apologetic for this. I recall when a journalist asked him in a banquet, "Chief Executive Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, do you need to consult QIAO Xiaoyang before making any announcement?" He denied with a stern face, and said "rubbish". I am not sure whether rubbish applies to the Government, he himself or some other people. Yet, he apparently has not discharged his duty as a principal official or Chief Executive. In the eyes of the public, he is absolutely irresponsible. The Basic Law has clearly provided for democratic procedures, without any screening or pre-selection. I note that in the amendments proposed by Members, including Mr Michael TIEN, it is suggested that the Chief Executive elected must not confront the Central Authorities. Where in the Basic Law is it stipulated that the person concerned must not confront the Central Authorities? What does "must not confront the Central Authorities" mean? People may make critical remarks. Every country or government should welcome the views of its people. Making comments does not mean confrontation. We have neither guns nor weapons of any kind, and we will not infringe on sovereignty. We respect the Basic Law. We only want to safeguard two things, namely "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". While it is mentioned in the Basic Law that foreign and defense affairs are under the purview of the Central Authorities, one cannot go so far as to turn the harbourfront area into a military base. Yet, we fully understand that Hong Kong people hope that the Chief Executive can ensure good governance for the society. If the system were good, the three Chief Executives would not have performed so badly. Since the incumbent third Chief Executive took office, the society has been in chaos, and public grievances are seething. Even the simplest livelihood issues cannot be resolved. Yesterday, the press reported on the figures of "sub-divided units". There are problems concerning the long waiting list for public rental housing, the provision of additional housing units, long-term retirement protection and so on. All these issues are actually


12721

problems at a lower level. We only want the Chief Executive to respond to the needs of the public, but this can only be achieved through an election that is fair, impartial, universal and equal. A coterie election involves too many vested interests and relations. Those in the commercial, real estate, banking and insurance sectors, to name a few, should not be offended, so one is somehow caught in the middle. We cannot condone such a system. We call for the introduction in 2017 of an election that is genuinely universal and equal without any screening. I so submit. Thank you, President. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, Honourable colleagues, let us review what the original motion is about. The original motion proposed by Mr Alan LEONG is simple. It only asks Members to make their stances known on whether the upcoming Chief Executive election in 2017 should not include screening and pre-selection through the so-called "democratic procedures". If Members buy his view, please vote for the motion. However, if you think otherwise and believe that screening and pre-selection have to take place, you would surely object to Mr Alan LEONG's motion. If that is the case, please state it clearly, rather than make a detour by talking about violation, the promises made or any point of caution. What is the point of saying all that? My question is simple: Do Members want screening and pre-selection? President, I am against screening and pre-selection. What is democracy? Who have the say concerning democracy? If the democracy now under discussion is not the democratic centralism under the Marxist-Leninist model, voters are certainly the ones who have the say under a democratic and universal suffrage election system. Voters are paramount, so they are the ones to make a judgment. As for who is acceptable to the Central Authorities or who is not; or who is acceptable to Beijing and who is not, just let the voters decide. The spirit of democracy is as simple as that. Under the spirit of democracy, voters cast their votes on a "one person, one vote" basis. The idea of "one person, one vote", as Honourable colleagues from the pro-establishment camp always say, means that all people, whether rich men like LI Ka-shing or poor people who may need to rent "sub-divided units" from Paul CHAN, have one vote alike. However, if a mechanism allows for screening and pre-selection,


it will pose a big problem. That means that some people, for no reason at all, can make a selection first, before the casting of votes by the public. Hence, such people enjoy political privilege, which may be bestowed through different constitutional or legal setups. Such privilege is in stark contrast with the essential value of democracy and universal suffrage. As an academic dedicated to the study of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe, I note that it is by no means difficult to conduct screening and pre-selection. There is no new thing under the sun. During the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union or other Eastern European countries, there were records on pre-selection and screening. Through an electoral mechanism with bizarrely high thresholds, some people were first screened out. Fearing that there were still too many candidates, another around of election was conducted to screen out candidates who were unacceptable. Hence, screening can also be done in two rounds. First admit someone as candidates, and then kick out those from a certain group which are considered unacceptable. Finally, there is a list of acceptable candidates. This kind of election, where the number of candidates exceeds the number of seats, appears to be civilized, avant-garde and groundbreaking, but it is a fake election. If such practice is adopted, the spirit of democracy will be completely sabotaged. The vote in the hand of a voter is actually against the spirit and value of democracy. What we aspire is a universal and equal election without pre-selection and screening. We call for genuine universal suffrage, a democratic electoral system that really belongs to Hong Kong people. We neither want to rely on others, nor have someone to always tell us what to do, which is unnecessary. For persons or regimes that stand upright, if they have worry and fear towards people, they must have done something undesirable, or something that they want to evade. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair) With so many restrictions imposed on thoughts and behaviour, with hands tied and mouth shut on certain issues, the Secretary must have a hard time. The reply given by the Secretary to Mr Alan LEONG's question this morning exactly shows that those on the official payroll have to speak with reservation and qualm. They can only say that the issue has to be approached in a pragmatic, rationale


12723

and tolerating manner. Judging from what he said, I definitely agree with him. Who would not support discussing the issue of constitutional development in a pragmatic, rationale and tolerating manner? If the Secretary is faithful to what he says, an opportunity will soon arise for him to put his words into action. Secretary Raymond TAM, the deliberation day to be held at The University of Hong Kong on 9 June is a good chance for you to get involved, to listen and observe how participants put rationality, tolerance and pragmatism into practice in discussing our constitutional development. You should take the initiative to attend and take part in that activity. If you fear your status will cause embarrassment, you may just join as an observer. In 1999, I introduced an opinion poll in the form of deliberation on the basis of the same principle and rationale. This is going to be applied on the deliberation day on 9 June, or other territory-wide deliberation day that may he held. You should actually draw reference from this activity. This is not some high-sounding, hard-to-digest theory. Instead, any person or responsible public officer true to his belief should be able to put it into practice in person. Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the original motion proposed by Mr Alan LEONG to say no to screening and call for genuine universal suffrage. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): The motion proposed by Mr Alan LEONG calls for the implementation of genuine universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election in 2017, such that Hong Kong people can take part in it in a universal and equal manner without any screening or pre-selection. Deputy President, as you are aware, people from the pro-democracy camp and the Alliance for True Democracy are, under the leadership of Prof Joseph CHENG, deliberating on some matters. The motion proposed by Mr LEONG at this time can reflect some of the views raised in our deliberation. I note that some amendments are really ridiculous, deleting the content concerning people's rights to make nomination and stand for election. What does that mean? If that is really the case, how can it be a genuine election? In March this year, the SAR Government attended a hearing conducted by United Nations Human Rights Committee. The Committee had, in its conclusion and recommendations,


clearly stated that the SAR Government had to expeditiously set out detailed plans on how the Chief Executive was going to be elected through universal suffrage in 2017. The plans concerned must cover people's rights to stand for election and to vote. Therefore, in my opinion, in formulating the package on universal suffrage, apart from complying with the Basic Law, it should also comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which I think is not impossible. Hence, the SAR Government must do so in order to meet the expectations and goals the international community and the United Nations have for Hong Kong in this regard. That is why we will not support any amendment which deletes the content regarding people's rights to make nomination and to stand for election and so on, which I think is really ridiculous. Deputy President, concerning screening, we do not need to look too far away. Do you know a presidential election will be held in Iran next month? The number of presidential hopefuls is as many as more than 700, but screening takes place for the election. A Guardian Council, believed to be composed of elders of the religion sect that local people belong to, has conducted the screening. Do you know how many candidates are left after the screening? The answer is eight. Even the former president is among those who are screened out simply because he is aged 70 or so. The candidates have been screened out for multifarious reasons. It is ridiculous that even a former president has been screened out. When I talked about this with journalists outside the Chamber, some of them lamented whether Hong Kong would one day be even worse than Iran. If so, will Hong Kong become a laughing stock? Hence, we will not support any proposal that would turn Hong Kong into that state. Despite the respect we have for Iran, we have higher respect for places which respect their people's right to stand for election. Therefore, in our view, it is possible to draw up a proposal that conforms to both the Basic Law and international covenant on human rights. I do not agree with most of Mr Michael TIEN's remarks, but I do agree with his point that the proposal concerned should be put forward as soon as possible. There should not be any dissent about this point. Most people believe that efforts should be made expeditiously, since time is running out. Nevertheless, the Chairperson of his party, Mrs Regina IP, has suggested, in a newspaper article, that the package can be devised in parts. This means dealing with one part first, and the remaining part can be handled later. Yet, how much time do we have now? The Chief Executive election is no doubt


12725

important, but the Legislative Council election has to be held in September 2016. If the latter is singled out, when will the discussion take place? The question is that universal suffrage alone is not enough to solve Hong Kong's problems. Universal suffrage is of course important. However, recently there is a saying that the Central Government is extremely worried about the current situation of Hong Kong, but is at a loss of what should be done. Even if the present Chief Executive is replaced, will the new Chief Executive work wonder? Apart from universal suffrage, party politics is another problem Hong Kong has to face. If the Central Government says no to party politics, and so does the pro-establishment camp, how then is the Chief Executive elected going to govern? He should have his own team. Moreover, party politics has continuity, which was absent in the day when TUNG Chee-hwa was ousted, or the day when Donald TSANG screwed the thing up. There is a political party at the helm. The Chief Executive, regardless of what he has achieved, may not seek re-election, but the political party concerned must have a way to go and be accountable to the community. As long as there is a party and a team, there will be potential candidates. That is unlike what is going to happen when LEUNG Chun-ying steps down. Will Carrie LAM, Anthony CHEUNG or someone else be the one to succeed him in a hurry? How can things be done like that? Therefore, the problem is not related to universal suffrage, despite the importance of universal suffrage. Some even suggest that after the implementation of universal suffrage, the Executive Council may also be restructured for the formation of a cabinet. This will happen for sure. However, even if we still do not have universal suffrage today, we still need to understand the importance of party politics. Party politics enables a group of people with the same ideology to rule as a unit, and it can also demonstrate to the public that joining a political party may one day lead to power, thus encouraging more people to join political party. In contrast, those currently not from the "LEUNG's fans club" will end up having nothing at all. Nevertheless, the "LEUNG's fans club" is now in shatters. What should we do then? Hence, I hope that the SAR Government can understand where the current stalemate lies. The stepping down of LEUNG Chun-ying is not the solution to the problem. What the 7 million or so Hong Kong people aspire is a way to go. If their aspiration in this respect is snubbed, what explanation can be given to Hong Kong people? I so submit.


MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, by coincidence, I speak immediately after Ms Emily LAU, and the point she mentioned towards the end of her speech is in fact the same as the view held all along by Mr Jasper TSANG, President of this Council, and the Liberal Party, that is, whether the existing arrangement of electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage ― or not yet considered to be universal suffrage for the time being ― is the crux to effective governance in Hong Kong now? Different views are held by various political parties and groupings. The Liberal Party considers that the current problem lies with the shortcomings in the entire mode of governance, regardless of whether the Chief Executive is elected by universal suffrage on a "one person, one vote" basis or by the current method. We totally concur with the point about party politics raised by Ms LAU just now. As the first step, should a coalition government formed by the pro-establishment camp to assist the Chief Executive in administration, or should the Chief Executive co-operate with the pan-democratic right from the outset? We are open-minded on this issue. In fact, as we now see, the Chief Executive's governance is so difficult because ― as Ms LAU pointed out ― after the election of each Chief Executive, a reshuffling would occur every five or 10 years with a new governing team formed by three Secretaries of Departments and 10-odd Directors of Bureaux. Moreover, the Directors of Bureaux have not worked together before and they may have different ideals. For example, a Director of Bureau may have his own professional views on a particular policy, but when working as an entire team, his views may be different from other Directors of Bureaux. If the Chief Executive's governing team must be formed entirely by Directors of Bureaux sharing his ideals, party politics must be involved definitely. Why do we think success can be attained in the Mainland? Although some Members may disagree for they consider one-party dictatorship a bane, the advantage of one-party dictatorship is that the policies can be relatively consistent, no matter who is the General Secretary or the Premier. For example, policies in the Mainland regarding foreign relations, the economy and domestic demand will have sustainability and continuity. But policies in Hong Kong lack sustainability and continuity, so much so that the public sometimes find them confusing. No matter who is the head, what can he do if Government policies cannot be implemented? Another point that I want to mention is the role played by civil servants, including their compatibility with incumbent principal officials in the Government. I am referring to civil servants holding the D8 posts of Permanent Secretaries. Most often, if some incidents have occurred, the Permanent


12727

Secretaries will not come forward to offer any explanation; instead, the Secretaries, the Under Secretaries or the Political Assistants are responsible for giving an explanation, which actually presents great difficulty. Hence, regarding the overall operation, we consider that the Central Authorities may have to give more thoughts about the election process of the Chief Executive, and even the concept of "one person, one vote". Why do I not say that the SAR Government should give more thoughts to the matter? Because we all know that the initiative does not in fact rest with the SAR Government. Deputy President, as you know, I have, in my capacity as a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), raised this question at the meeting of the CPPCC National Committee, that is, as Hong Kong is a special administrative region under the principle of "one country, two systems", why can't some local political parties other than the Communist Party be accepted? If a cross-party alliance can be formed to assist the Chief Executive in administration by working together on matters of concern to Hong Kong people in respect of the economy, people's livelihood and other areas, it can actually enhance the effectiveness of governance. Deputy President, given the time constraint, let us return to the democratic procedures stated in Mr Alan LEONG's motion. Of the various proposals, the Liberal Party of course hopes that the election of the Chief Executive will be implemented in 2017. Regarding the four aspects raised by Director QIAO Xiaoyang, do we still have some scope to work on? This is a point supported by the Liberal Party. Hence, regarding the first issue about whether there should be any pre-selection or screening, we prefer that there should be no pre-selection or screening. However, I must caution that in case the Central Authorities eventually decide to screen the nominations, do we want to end up staying put as in the case in 2012, or do we want to make some improvement to the system, so that the several million Hong Kong people can finally have the opportunity to select by themselves the Chief Executive among the candidates, though they may not be their preferred choice? At least, there is a chance to select. Why do we consider it beneficial if this can be achieved in the first step? Because no matter who the candidates are, regardless of whether they come from the pro-establishment or pan-democratic camp, they must have their own stand on issues of public concern, for example, the Lehman Brothers minibond incident. If there are several candidates from the pro-establishment camp, even though they have votes in their hands, they must state their own stand. Issues such as


standard working hours and poverty alleviation must be handled regardless of who the candidates are. Members of the public can select the Chief Executive by considering the candidates' performance throughout the election campaign. Whoever aspires to be the Chief Executive must listen to public opinion, no matter he is from the pro-establishment camp or the pan-democratic camp. It is claimed that candidates from the pan-democratic camp will be screened out. No matter what, it is still better than the current stand-still electoral method of selection by 1 200 persons. In the last election, we all see what happened when the Chief Executive was elected by 1 200 persons. In the last election, the then candidate, Henry TANG, had all along got more votes than the other candidate, LEUNG Chun-ying, but the situation reversed in just one week before the election, as several hundred votes switched to the other side in one go. Many people did not concur with this development. Therefore, in our view, no matter which method is adopted, constitutional development must not stay put again. Regarding the Legislative Council election in 2016, if the electorate base of the functional constituencies (FCs) can be expanded as the first step, we would definitely render our support. As regards what will happen eventually for the Legislative Council election in 2020, will the current view held by me and Mr IP Kwok-him be adopted? In our view, the same "one person, two votes" model in the "super District Council" election would be adopted, whereby each citizen can cast one vote in FC election, and the other in direct elections; although the FCs would still have the right to make nominations, the right to vote is held by the citizens, as such the candidate of the FC election would also become aware of certain issues of general public concern. Due to time constraint, Deputy President, I end my speech here and hope we can proceed towards greater democratization than 2012 in a gradual and orderly manner. Thank you, Deputy President. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Basic Law clearly provides that the Chief Executive will be elected by universal suffrage in 2017. With regard to the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, our point of contention has been raised by Mr Alan LEONG in his motion that there should not be any screening in the nomination of candidates for the Chief Executive election, which I support totally.


12729

Just now, Mr IP Kwok-him mentioned in his speech that he cannot accept any proposal for the election of the Chief Executive without a nominating committee for he considers that the candidates must be nominated by the nominating committee. He also opposes the idea that the nominating committee is only vested with the power of verification, and citing the view of Chinese officials, he stated that the nominating committee may be formed with reference to the current Election Committee (EC) which elected the Chief Executive. Deputy President, I do not agree with certain views expressed by Mr IP Kwok-him. Regarding the formation of the nominating committee, there is no detailed explanation in the Basic Law. Article 45 of the Basic Law only provides for the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage on a "one person, one vote" basis "upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures". The matter for our discussion is the meaning of "a broadly representative nominating committee", that is, even if we must have a nominating committee, how can it be broadly representative, and then what democratic procedures are involved. According to my understanding of today's motion proposed by Mr Alan LEONG, he highlighted the point that democratic procedures must not involve an element of pre-screening which eliminates some candidates whom somebody do not want to see in the final candidate list. As such, the candidates eliminated will be deprived of their right to stand for election. In addition, Mr Alan LEONG also mentioned the question of whether the right to make nomination should be as universal and equal as possible. In this connection, Mr IP Kwok-him cited the view of Chinese officials, that is, reference can be made to the current EC which elected the Chief Executive. However, a similar oral question was raised in this Council's question time earlier today, and we asked the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs how the Government interpreted the views expressed by Chinese officials, for example, the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and QIAO Xiaoyang, on certain matters not provided for in the Basic Law. The Secretary did not give a direct response, and he merely replied that the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage must be implemented in accordance with the Basic Law. Deputy President, given that the Secretary also said that we should abide by the Basic Law, I do not understand why Mr IP Kwok-him said that we must be


bound by QIAO Xiaoyang's remarks and restrict the formation of the nominating committee. According to Mr IP Kwok-him, the nomination procedures for the future election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage should base on the practice now adopted by the EC, perhaps with minor amendments, but major amendments are not permitted. It can only be so if the current EC is widely recognized, flawless and supported by many Hong Kong people who acknowledge that it is genuinely broadly representative; however, as Mr IP should know, many people have criticized and are dissatisfied with the formation of the current EC because firstly, it contravened the principle of equal right for all to make nomination in the Chief Executive election, and secondly, this so-called broadly representative EC was in fact biased towards the pro-establishment camp. Can pan-democrats join the contest? So far, we see that they can still participate but with great difficulties. But this arrangement is far from ideal because the Basic Law clearly stipulates that the nominating committee is genuinely broadly representative, whereas we cannot see how the current EC is broadly representative at all. First, it is highly elitist. Although the EC is composed of various sectors, they are only classified by professions, and with only 1 200 EC members, just a small handful of people can take part. Hence, if we hope that in future election of the Chief Executive, people with different political views are allowed to take part in the nomination procedures, we must not let our hands be tied so early as regards the formation of the nominating committee, and we should consider how best the nominating committee can become genuinely acceptable and broadly representative. Regarding the formation of the nominating committee, many different views have been expressed, including the suggestion that nominations can be made by political parties or Members of the Legislative Council, or the proposal made by Ms Cyd HO, that is, any person who is jointly nominated by a certain percentage of electors can become a candidate; I also received some suggestions that EC members can be picked through a scientific random sampling of all qualified electors in the register; there is another suggestion that the EC be formed by elections on a "one person, one vote" basis. At this stage, as there is absolutely no provision in the Basic Law prohibiting such suggestions, why should we tie our own hands now and strictly act according to the views of QIAO Xiaoyang? If QIAO Xiaoyang proposes other views tomorrow, will Mr IP Kwok-him also change his views?


12731

Deputy President, I consider that in order to address the conflicts of constitutional development in Hong Kong and implement the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage as provided in the Basic Law, we should adopt a broad-minded attitude and seek a consensus which must allow people with different political views to participate in the Chief Executive election. To this end, I think consideration can be given to the use of diverse modes of nomination so as to accommodate all candidates for the office of the Chief Executive, including those nominated by the nominating committee, the formation of the nominating committee with members drawn from the elector register, or even candidates jointly endorsed by electors and verified by the nominating committee. The purpose of providing different channels of nomination is to ensure that persons with different political views can become candidates, and the public can elect the Chief Executive on a "one person, one vote" basis. Thank you, Deputy President. MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Hong Kong is a society ruled by law where everyone respects the law and act in accordance with law, and this is something Hong Kong people are proud of all along. Speaking of the election of the Chief Executive, it must undoubtedly proceed in accordance with Article 45 of the Basic Law which states that, "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government. The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." All law-abiding citizens will agree that under China's unitary state structure, the power of appointment of the Chief Executive by the Central Government is substantive. Hence, the requirements that the Chief Executive must love the country and Hong Kong, and must be accepted by the Central Government are both natural and necessary. In accordance with the above provision, candidates for the office of the Chief Executive must be nominated by a broadly representative nominating committee. Therefore, any suggestion that excludes a nominating committee is obviously a breach against the Basic Law.


We absolutely cannot support any amendment with this kind of suggestion because Members cannot break the law knowingly. The Basic Law stipulates a broadly representative nominating committee. According to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on 26 April 2004, "broadly representative", so to speak, can be interpreted as "the balanced participation of all sectors and groups of the society"; while the Decision of the NPCSC in December 2007 also provides that, "The nominating committee may be formed with reference to the current provisions regarding the Election Committee (EC) in Annex I to the Hong Kong Basic Law." Specifically, it can be fully attained by the four sectors of the current EC. Indeed, the current EC covers various trades and industries, and includes different sectors in society; if the nominating committee must also be elected by all Hong Kong citizens on a "one person, one vote" basis, it would be tantamount to holding two direct elections. As stated in Article 45 of the Basic Law, the election of the Chief Executive shall proceed in the light of the actual situation in Hong Kong and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. As I pointed out earlier in a media interview, corporate votes are exactly the actual situation in Hong Kong now. As Hong Kong is a business city, most company owners are conversant with and have made contribution to their own trades. As leaders, they should share the same belief as other members in their companies, like a reporter would not write an article against the wish of his editor. As to the question of whether the electorate base of the EC should be expanded, adjustments can be made on many sectors according to the existing Qualifications Framework, as well as the number of EC members according to the increase of industries, on the fundamental basis of keeping in line with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. Regarding the Occupy Central movement engineered by certain members of the community recently to fight for their particular demands for universal suffrage, such action which only concentrates on their own demands without any room for compromise has intensified the atmosphere in society, which is neither conducive to the launching of discussion on political reform, nor beneficial to the promotion of constitutional development in Hong Kong; not to mention that Occupy Central is by nature a movement that flouts the law knowingly, which most law-abiding citizens would not support. During the past two weeks, various trade associations, community societies and members of the community have expressed their views and worries about the negative impact of the Occupy


12733

Central movement. I have also consulted the banking industry's views on politicizing the financial centre of Hong Kong. They consider that this movement will not only sabotage the originally sound financial and business environment of Hong Kong, but also affect the normal operation of their clients in various trades of the industrial and commercial sectors, seriously undermining social order and stability in Hong Kong. Assessed from the long-term perspective, this will create far-reaching adverse impact on Hong Kong's international image which is critical in terms of foreign investment and credit rating. According to the findings of an opinion survey on Occupy Central sponsored by Ming Pao and conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, over half (51%) of the people are "quite against" or "very against" this Occupy Central movement, while 25% of the people support it. It shows that this movement is only self-serving and violates the democratic basis of majority rule. Therefore, in order to take forward future constitutional development pragmatically and effectively, I urge Honorable colleagues in this Chamber not to lose touch with reality such that Hong Kong will make no headway, and they should put aside their prejudices, so as to rationally explore and discuss the matter of constitutional development in a thoughtful, reasoned, lawful and diverse manner. Deputy President, I so submit. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in the course of Hong Kong's transformation from a British colony to a special administrative region of China, many political, economic and legal changes have taken place. These changes are not totally resulted from the reunification, but attributed to the changing of the times of society as a whole. From having no democracy at all in the beginning, we now come to a stage with limited democracy and will proceed towards the direction of development as stipulated in the Basic Law, that is, the ultimate goal of electing the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive of Hong Kong by universal suffrage. Hence, there is no dispute as regards the direction and the goal, and the remaining issues are how to achieve this goal, when to implement and how to accord with the actual situation in Hong Kong. Hopefully, the process would be smooth, without affecting the existing advantages of Hong Kong.


Deputy President, the Basic Law is a very special law. In law, its tradition can be traced to both common law and Chinese law; in politics, it is an instrument of compromise between the Chinese and the British, and even the then international forces, under their political and economic struggle. Hence, the Basic Law is like a half-breed, with some provisions taking after her British mother and some provisions taking after her Chinese father. As the child grows up, she would be fully exposed to the impact of cultural conflicts between the two countries. In fact, whether this child can grow up happily hinges on whether her parents with totally different political and economic backgrounds can embrace their differences through mutual understanding and love. Without this mentality of reciprocity, the child would have a miserable time growing up. Regarding the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, both sides are actually just stating their own stances. For example, Members of the pan-democratic camp basically demand that the Chief Executive election in 2017 must be held according to the international standards of universality and equality, and that there should not be any "pre-selection", or so on, through the nominating committee. In fact, we can see clearly that the ultimate goal of the pan-democratic camp is that persons they support can at least become candidates; but there is no such provision in Article 45 of the Basic Law. Article 45 of the Basic Law mainly stipulates that our Chief Executive must ultimately be elected by universal suffrage, whereas the composition of the nominating committee must be broadly representative, and the Chief Executive is to be selected through democratic procedures. Therefore, regarding the international standards of universality and equality, such concepts have actually not been mentioned in Article 45 of the Basic Law. Take another example of the Central Authorities. Early this year, the Central Authorities stated through Director QIAO Xiaoyang its commitment to elect the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, while pointing out explicitly that persons confronting the Central Authorities should not become the Chief Executive, and the Chief Executive must love the country and Hong Kong, as well as stressing that the Chief Executive election in 2017 must be strictly in accordance with the Basic Law and the decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). The unspoken message is that the Central Authorities must also ensure that only the person they find acceptable will be appointed as the Chief Executive.


12735

With regard to the constitutional reform, the atmosphere is utterly not conducive to negotiations right from the start, especially with the presence of other elements such as the Occupy Central movement which seeks to paralyse Central. I think the Central Authorities will find this movement offensive. I can merely point out from my limited experience of participating in negotiations on projects between Hong Kong and the Mainland that such movement is indeed utterly not conducive to negotiations, but the opposite effect will be resulted instead. We very much hope to dissuade them from taking it forward, but if they refuse to heed the well-intended advice, they will get a raw deal. Yet, it is not only a raw deal for those who participate in the demonstrations or the movement; the whole negotiation on constitutional reform may get a raw deal as well. Therefore, as I see it, these actions are initiated by academics seemingly up in the clouds who know nothing about China's development or the current situation, or the movement is merely a manifestation of their self-satisfying notion. Worse still, they even encourage inexperienced young people or minors to participate in these actions which are very likely to be illegal. I consider that they, as teachers, should protect the students, rather than asking them to take risks and challenge the law. They are indeed very irresponsible. Moreover, there might be a case for the movement if it can bring some positive effect, but if it cannot bring any positive effect or may even become a stumbling block in the political negotiations, I will reiterate my call and hope for this group of academics to think again. After all, they take these actions because they want the constitutional reform to be successful. Looking back to Hong Kong now, our bargaining chip is absolutely not as strong as in 1984. What we should do is to convince the other side as much as possible in our own way that we have a sound proposal, and democracy is good rather than poisonous. Nonetheless, today when negotiations have yet to start, many Hong Kong citizens and even the Central Authorities may have already witnessed the negative side of democracy, for example, actions of filibustering and paralysing Central which ignore the livelihood of other people and impose their own ideas onto others arbitrarily. In fact, all these are negative aspects of democracy, which have become a cause of concern about democracy for many people. Having said all these things, I hope Members should understand that the art of compromise is invariably involved in the constitutional reform. As we can


see, many Chinese characteristics can be found in Article 45 (1) of the Basic Law, for example, the provision that the Chief Executive shall be elected by election or through consultations ― note the use of the term "consultations" at that time ― and "be appointed by the Central People's Government", as well as the references to " actual situation" and "gradual and orderly progress ". I hope our discussion should focus on the term "broadly representative" ― for me, it means more than the difference between the central and the local. In fact, considered against the expressions of "actual situation" and "gradual and orderly progress", why did the NPCSC's decision specify that reference be made to the four sectors including industrial, commercial and financial sectors; the professions; labour and religious sectors, or former political figures, and so on, with regard to the term "broadly representative"? I think the underlying consideration is that Hong Kong's current advantages must be preserved and not undermined in the course of constitutional reform. I know we all want to attain universal suffrage in one go ideally, but suggestions about pulling everything down and starting from scratch, or even doing away with the nominating committee will not help in taking forward the constitutional reform. I hope we can act in the spirit of give-and-take or compromise, so that universal suffrage can actually be attained in 2017 to bring constitutional reform one step forward. Thank you, Deputy President. MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, "this is a red herring" is an English idiom meaning a logical fallacy that misleads or distracts from the issue. The constitutional reform has at least two red herrings: the first one is that the elected Chief Executive must love the country and Hong Kong, and the second is that nominations must be made by an entity or an organization. Deputy President, why do I say they are two red herrings? The first requirement that the elected Chief Executive must love the country and Hong Kong is just like the statement "The Pope is Catholic". Just think, when a country holds an election for the head of a local government, will the people naturally elect a candidate who loves the place or the country? Yes, they will definitely do so, and there is no question about it. The question is: Who will decide whether that person loves the place or the country?


12737

Deputy President, if the answer is that only Beijing can decide whether a person loves the country and Hong Kong, or even that only the nominating committee can decide whether a person loves the country or Hong Kong, it would be a different matter because that is entirely against the basic principle of democracy. If the answer is that electors, through their votes in an election, will decide whether a person loves the country and Hong Kong, that is perfectly alright, Deputy President, because in all democratic countries, electors will make the decision through such procedure. The factors they consider can be very different, perhaps they think a particular candidate is very good-looking or tall, or perhaps they would consider if a certain candidate really loves the country and the place. Hence, it is a red herring to say that the elected Chief Executive must love the country and Hong Kong. Deputy President, the second red herring, or logical fallacy that distracts from the issue, is the requirement that nominations must be made by an entity or an organization, or the nominating committee. Deputy President, it is likewise a statement that "The Pope is Catholic". If that is provided in the Basic Law, nominations for the office of the Chief Executive would of course be made by the nominating committee before any amendment is made to the Basic Law. That is the duty of the nominating committee. The question is: How does this nominating committee make its nominations? If the nominating committee is only a nominating committee in name but an Election Committee (EC) in substance, that is also misleading. If the proposal is to specify in the internal rules and regulations of the nominating committee that if any person is nominated by, say, 100, 150 or 200 members, the nominating committee will nominate the said person in its name as a candidate in the Chief Executive election for voting by Hong Kong people, that is perfectly alright; or the nominating committee can even provide that it will also accept any person nominated by, say, 10 000 or 100 000 persons, as a candidate to be recommended by the nominating committee, that is also perfectly alright. But if the nominating committee exists in name only but not in substance, or it is a nominating committee in name but an EC in substance, that is just a lie. Deputy President, so much about the two red herrings, I now turn to the garoupa. What then are the real issues? In fact, there are only two real issues. First, as provided under Article 45 of the Basic Law, there must be a broadly representative nominating committee; second, the procedures for nomination must be in accordance with democratic procedures. Deputy President, it is worth noting that the provision is about making nominations in accordance with


democratic procedures, rather than holding elections in accordance with democratic procedures. Deputy President, the first issue we need to focus our discussion on is whether we have a broadly representative nominating committee. If merely changing the name of the EC can be said to accord with Article 45 of the Basic Law, please spare me the lie. Since the reunification, all Hong Kong people consider that the EC is part of the coterie election, and even with its name changed, the nominations are still coterie nominations. So how can one say that it is broadly representative? Therefore, the first issue to be dealt with is whether we have a broadly representative nominating committee; if not, there is no need to say anything further. What is meant by "broadly representative"? I consider it alright to adopt the classification of the four sectors, but it is most important that members from these four sectors are genuinely representative, and by being "representative", I do not agree that employers are necessarily "representative" because we cannot equate being employers with being representative. Deputy President, it is similar to the case that you ― although you are also not an employer ― cannot represent me because you do not have such representativeness. Deputy President, the second issue is about the meaning of democratic procedures. In fact, it is meaningless to argue about this point because the provision is about making nominations in accordance with democratic procedures. One cannot change the text of the Basic Law to mean making nominations after screening or pre-selection in accordance with democratic procedures. Deputy President, that is for fooling kids. Nomination is nomination, and election is election, which are two completely different concepts. When making nominations, one needs not endorse the nominees necessarily, but he must consider them worth recommending to others for voting, whilst in elections, one must consider a particular candidate worth electing and supporting before he casts his vote for the said candidate. Hence, these two concepts should be clearly differentiated and must never be muddled together. If anyone insists that these concepts, which are clearly understood by all to be different, are to be muddled together, the result would be like a beef ball without beef, and the nominating committee is not a nominating committee. Deputy President, it is a bogus nominating committee. We will definitely reject anything that is bogus. Although some people say that nowadays in this world


12739

or in this corner of the world, everything is bogus except bogus US dollar bills which are real. Deputy President, the pro-democracy camp will not accept anything bogus. We will not settle for a bogus nominating committee or bogus nominating procedures. Thank you, Deputy President. MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, there is no denying that although the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) enjoys "a high degree of autonomy" under the Basic Law, it remains a local administrative region of China. That is also why Hong Kong has realized the special relationship between the Central Government and the SAR under "one country, two systems". According to Article 45 of the Basic Law, the method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the SAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures. On the question of universal suffrage, the decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) at the end of 2007 (the Decision) clearly specified that the Chief Executive may be elected by universal suffrage in 2017, which has set the framework of implementing universal suffrage in Hong Kong. Given that the framework of electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage has been set, the outstanding issues to be dealt with would include: how nominations are to be made through the nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures, and whether a restriction is to be imposed on the number of nominees? I think we should jointly explore ways to provide a larger pool of suitable candidates for the office of the Chief Executive within the framework. The Decision also specified that the Chief Executive will only activate the procedures for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 at an appropriate time prior to the selection of the Chief Executive of the SAR by universal suffrage. At present, some people in the community request the Chief Executive to activate the procedures for universal suffrage as soon as possible. But many Hong Kong people and I share the view that before launching public consultation, the Government should first explore the ways and means to collect


the views and suggestions from various parties now, so as to make the consultation exercise constructive. Moreover, apart from clearly specifying that the Chief Executive may be elected by universal suffrage in 2017, the Decision adopted by the NPCSC in 2007 clearly specified that all Members of the Legislative Council may be elected by universal suffrage in 2020. In this regard, the abolition or retention of the functional constituencies (FCs) will be one of the foci of discussion on the universal suffrage for the Legislative Council. I personally consider that the FCs have their value of existence. Members of the Legislative Council returned by the FCs will not only consider various subject matters from the perspective of Hong Kong's overall interest, they will usually give more consideration from the perspective of economic and industrial development, in the hope of promoting economic advancement, so that more resources would be created to support the provision of more benefits by the SAR Government in order to benefit the general public. Deputy President, I think a balance has to be maintained between public demands and constitutional requirements in order to promote the healthy development of Hong Kong's political system. We can only hold constructive discussions on this basis, so as to ensure Hong Kong's stable development in the long run. Deputy President, I so submit. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Dr Priscilla LEUNG just mentioned that it is the hope of the pan-democratic camp to have the Chief Executive election in 2017 held in accordance with international standards. But notwithstanding compliance with international standards, she said the crux of this matter is still that we must respect the Basic Law. Deputy President, actually, I find it very difficult to respect the Basic Law because first and foremost, I consider that the Basic Law had not been endorsed by Hong Kong people on the basis of "one person, one vote" at that time; it was just something forced upon Hong Kong people by the Central Government. Therefore, I find it very difficult to respect it. Nevertheless, in reality, we all know that the local legislation for the Chief Executive election to be enacted in the future must accord with the principles of


12741

the Basic Law. Hence, we cannot possibly disregard the Basic Law because if we disregard the Basic Law, the enactment of local legislation cannot proceed. Hence, under such a dilemma, we must, albeit unwillingly, concern ourselves with the relevant contents of the Basic Law. Regarding the election of the Chief Executive of the SAR, Article 45 of the Basic Law provides as follows, "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government." Just now, Dr Priscilla LEUNG even said that, "You see, the Basic Law even provides for the selection of the Chief Executive through consultations." To me, it is no big deal to have such a provision, are they bold enough to adopt "consultations" now? I do not think so. I think not even the pro-establishment camp would dare advocate a U-turn now by suggesting the mode of "consultations". That is impossible even if such a provision is provided for in the Basic Law. Hence, even though Dr Priscilla LEUNG stressed that the Basic Law has provided for the mode of "consultations", so what? Does it mean they really dare take a U-turn? Moreover, Article 45(2) of the Basic Law specifies that, "The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." Deputy President, what I want to say is that, let us first leave the method for forming the nominating committee aside and focus on the most important point, that is, "The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a …… nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." This point is critical. What is meant by "in accordance with democratic procedures"? As I see it, the crux lies in how to realize this point. Would democratic procedures include the election of the Chief Executive upon nomination by the nominating committee through various means such as "screening", and so on? I do not think so. In fact, the proposal made by Ms Cyd HO in her amendment is actually quite similar to our view, the Neighbourhood and Workers Service Centre (NWSC). Both Ms HO and the NWSC share the view that if any person eligible to stand for the election is jointly endorsed by a certain number or certain


percentage of eligible electors in Hong Kong ― 50 000 electors in her proposal ― he would, upon verification by the nominating committee of such endorsement, become a candidate for the office of the Chief Executive to be elected by Hong Kong citizens on a "one person, one vote" basis. Actually, I think this proposal can also fit into the democratic procedures stated in Article 45 of the Basic Law. Deputy President, why do I say so? Because under a democratic system, every elector in fact has the rights to make nomination, to vote and to stand for election, this is an essential feature as well as an important cornerstone of democracy. Hence, if we really want to act in accordance with the Basic Law, the above proposal would be a truly democratic procedure because it can give electors in Hong Kong the opportunity to exercise their civic rights. This is the most important point. Therefore, it would be a breach of democratic procedures if this component is missing. This is the first point. The second point is, it would be more ideal if the nominating committee can be more broadly representative by having more members returned through democratic procedures. Why is that so? The reason is that as the nominating committee is responsible for verifying the endorsement of electors, the democratic procedures can be better realized when its members are returned through democratic procedures. However, it does not mean that members of the nominating committee ― notwithstanding their broad representativeness ― can undertake a certain degree of "screening" or "pre-selection" and would still be regarded as acting in accordance with democratic procedures. The reason is that there is no provision for "pre-selection" or "screening" in Article 45 of the Basic Law. Some people may say that other countries also have similar arrangements. As I see it, as the political systems in different countries or places are totally different, we cannot rigidly copy from others and introduce "screening" merely because they also conduct "screening". Lest we forget, the election committees in other countries or places are not formed this way. People should not justify this course of action with sophistry and rhetoric. The course of action just fails to embody the true spirit of democracy. Hence, I think Secretary Raymond TAM should ponder carefully whether or not this arrangement should be adopted. So much for our views on the mechanism for electing the Chief Executive. Now, I would like to respond to the reply given by Secretary Raymond TAM to my question this morning. He stated that consultation would be launched in due course, but how long is the consultation period as cited by him? The answer is


12743

indeed frightening. The truth is that only a three-month consultation would be held. I think this case is really unprecedented. Why? Because we all hope that the ultimate electoral system could be formulated this time, yet the Government only intends to conduct such a short consultation, which is unacceptable. Moreover, the Secretary indicated that it would take one to two months to collate the views collected during the consultation. Indeed, I cannot recall any previous case in which this kind of work could be completed so quickly unless the Government has already made up its mind, that is, the Government has already worked out its baseline and assumptions. In that case, the consultation needs not take as long as two to three months; instead, the whole exercise can be completed in just two to three weeks. In my view, the prime consideration is to formulate the mechanism for ultimate universal suffrage, why can't the Government allow a longer consultation period to facilitate more thorough exchanges of views so that an ideal system can be achieved ultimately? Deputy President, I so submit. MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in his famous book, On Democracy, political scientist Robert DAHL has the following to say about the so-called "pseudo-democracies": "A cobra does not become a dove because its owner says so. No matter what a country's leaders and propagandist may claim, we are entitled to judge a country to be a democracy only if it possesses all of the political institutions that are necessary to democracy." Deputy President, an electoral system with "screening" ― no matter what a high-sounding name it is given, such as the specious name of a "Hong Kong-style" democratic system ― will never be a democratic system generally accepted by the people. Regarding the Chief Executive election in 2017, the Alliance for True Democracy (ATD) announces its "Seven-point consensus" as follows: (1) The Chief Executive shall be elected by universal suffrage on a "one person, one vote" basis; (2) There should be no "screening" in the nominating process; (3) The nominating committee shall be formed by election on a "one person, one vote" basis; (4) Any person nominated by one eighth of the members of the nominating committee shall become a candidate for the election; (5) Any person jointly endorsed by a certain percentage of electors can also become a candidate for the election; (6) A two-round electoral system shall be adopted; and (7) The Chief Executive may have political affiliation. Honestly, the ATD has accepted the nominating committee out of respect for the Basic Law, which is


already a major concession indeed. Our aim is to promote democratization in Hong Kong and improve the long-standing problem with the Government's lack of credibility, so that it can grasp the pulse of society in the future and formulate social policies in accordance with the actual situation in order to genuinely improve people's livelihood and bring true stability to society. Regrettably, when the Government was at its wits' end evading the persistent questions from society about when and how consultation for the universal suffrage of the Chief Executive in 2017 would be conducted, QIAO Xiaoyang was instructed by the Central Authorities to float the hawkish proposal that anyone who confronts the Central Government should be precluded, which places the Central Authorities and the SAR Government in a confronting position before public opinion. Finally, the skepticism held by the people over the past decade or so about whether the Chief Executive will really be elected by universal suffrage in 2017 has been proved right ― it is just one big scam. The Basic Law has become null and void, making Hong Kong an international laughing stock. Some people liken the Chief Executive election proposal of Hong Kong to an Iran-style universal suffrage. In other words, the casting of votes by people is just a farce orchestrated through the multi-level apportion of the pro-establishment camp in domestic China under the gun barrels. Last week, Mr NG Leung-sing, the Member representing the financial sector and an NPC deputy, told reporters that members of the nominating committee should not be elected by all electors in the territory as many different trades and industries have already been included in the current Election Committee. Moreover, he made the ridiculous statement that, "To a certain extent, the employers can also represent the general electors." Former Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, LU Ping, also threatened Hong Kong people by saying that if the Chief Executive confronts China, Hong Kong will be done for without the Mainland as her hinterland. Fanny LAW, a member of the Executive Council and a local NPC deputy, also "cautioned" the people that Hong Kong is just an administrative region of China, and the Chief Executive election must be held in accordance with the Basic Law. She even said that Hong Kong needs not comply with the guidelines and standards laid down under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations. As we can see, the task of the pro-establishment camp today is really daunting. Utterly at its wits' end, some people tried to distort the picture by saying that "the employers can represent the employees", while some resorted to threats like a thug who warned his proteges that trouble-makers could never make a living in


12745

his territory, and some even said that Hong Kong, as a global city, can disregard certain basic international guidelines and standards. It has been 18 years after the reunification, and the people finally realize that they cannot rely on LEUNG Chun-ying or Members of the Legislative Council, let alone some huge favours bestowed by the Central Government. Prof XIE Tao, former Vice-president of Renmin University of China, once pointed out that the Chinese Government could not be relied on in respect of promoting democratization. According to him, when it comes to whether a system is good or not, it is not an issue of theory, but practice. The Chinese system could not prevent 500 000 people from being labelled as "rightists", or stop the insanity during the People's Commune and the Great Leap Forward. The Chinese system also did not make any resistance to the abolishment of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the suspension of parliamentary activities during the Cultural Revolution. Prof XIE opined that only democratic socialism is the orthodox of Marxism, and only democratic socialism can save China. Does the Chinese Government hear this call? Deputy President, the civilian movement of Occupy Central with Love and Peace has begun. It is a bottom-up mass movement to promote the democratic process for the universal suffrage of the Chief Executive in 2017. I call on the Government not to misinterpret public sentiment, but seriously consider the "Seven-point consensus" formulated by the ATD and launch public consultation expeditiously to engage the people in territory-wide discussion on the democratic process for the universal suffrage of the Chief Executive. Deputy President, I so submit. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, talking about filibustyering, the decisions about Hong Kong's constitutional reform and universal suffrage have been filibustered away jointly by tycoons in vested-interest groups of Hong Kong and the Chinese Communist Party. As such, the basic rights of Hong Kong people, as well as their electoral rights underpinned by universal values have been stalled year after year. Hence, those who are against filibustering should oppose this kind of filibustering which deprives the right to universal suffrage of Hong Kong people, and condemn the kind of filibustering as shameless and unscrupulous.


The so-called "strong nation" claims that it places great emphasis on honour and reputation, yet Beijing is a government full of lies, it does not only lie to the Chinese people about how much the Chinese Communist Party loves the people, but the entire regime is also corrupt. Most of the trusted aides and family members of all leaders in the Central Authorities have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia or New Zealand; while they claim they love the country, their family members love other countries most. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) Therefore, we can see that the Communist Party has been ruling the country with lies after lies, and cheating the Chinese people for several decades. On the issue of universal suffrage, it has also been cheating Hong Kong people for over 20 years from the enactment of the Basic Law to reunification, and it has been almost 16 years since the reunification. Initially, the date set for dual universal suffrage was 2007 and 2008, and back then, even the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) and the Liberal Party in the royalist camp also supported implementing dual universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008; yet the date was subsequently postponed to 2012. To date, dual universal suffrage has yet to be implemented until 2020. What else are these acts if they are not acts of deceit? In this Chamber, such acts of deceit are even supported by various major political parties in the royalist camp as they speak speciously and indignantly about Hong Kong having democratic universal suffrage soon. We should have implemented dual universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008. Hence, Hong Kong people will just keep on being cheated by lies in any further discussion about the matter. Therefore, President, I think any further discussion by Hong Kong people will simply be meaningless and inconclusive. Over the past two decades, we have heard too many lies as the liars have already become so shameless that they just keep on misleading Hong Kong people with repeated lies. I have asked my assistant to prepare a chronology of important political decisions in Hong Kong over the past 20 to 30 years including the dates when district administration was implemented, the proposals on representative government discussed, the Basic Law formulated, as well as the implementation of dual universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 announced. There are as many as 40-odd critical dates in this chronology. While other political entities which underwent the return of sovereignty or independence could achieve full universal


12747

suffrage after three to five critical dates, universal suffrage in Hong Kong is still a distant dream after it has been stalled for two to three decades. Therefore, having come this far, I think we should no longer rely on the so-called consultation or negotiation, or beg for mercy from the Hong Kong Communist regime to bestow the favour of universal suffrage upon Hong Kong people. We should no longer entertain such an extravagant hope. If we stake our hope on the totalitarian regime of the Chinese Communist Party to grant democratic rights to Hong Kong under "one country, two systems"…… That was the undertaking made by DENG Xiaoping at that time; perhaps we had to find DENG Xiaoping in the afterworld before we could have the right to universal suffrage. If DENG Xiaoping rose from his grave, he would definitely reprimand all the current leaders and the royalist camp for their bullshit because DENG had once said that Hong Kong people could enjoy democracy under "one country, two systems". But even Margaret THATCHER had passed away and some matters could no longer be proved. Hence, Hong Kong people must fight for democracy through the Occupy Central movement which is, in the words of Ta Kung Po and Wen Wei Po, Hong Kong's Jasmine Revolution. If we want to have the right to universal suffrage, that is, genuine electoral right of the people, we must rely on Hong Kong's Jasmine Revolution. I do not know if Benny TAI really has such courage ― particularly after the pan-democratic camp has watered down his plan for Occupy Central ― and conviction to truly launch Hong Kong's Jasmine Revolution? If Hong Kong people do not truly awaken; if we do not strive with our blood and sweat, risk putting ourselves behind bars, or fight to break the bondage with determination, Hong Kong will never enjoy the right to democratic elections. Some people suggest setting the date of 1 July next year for the Occupy Central movement, but I appeal for all that we must proceed with Occupy Central on 1 July this year, not just occupy, but also paralyse Central with all sorts of means such as using our bodies or cars, if we have them. Earlier, when we were protesting outside the Government House, a wheelchair bound disabled person said, "On 1 July, I will use my wheelchair to block the pedestrian walkway so that nobody can pass through. I will do my part in paralysing Central until we have democracy." That is the determination shown by a wheelchair bound person. I call on all Hong Kong citizens determined to fight for democracy to drive their cars to Central ― not on 1 July, but on 2 July ― from 8 am to 10 am on 2 July,


and switch on the hazard warning lights, which will definitely paralyse the entire Central area. Hence, if Hong Kong people have the determination, please step forward and have no fear of prosecution, arrest or losing our freedom temporarily. Our temporary loss of freedom will bring real freedom in exchange. Without democracy, we are just slaves to this system. Therefore, now is the time for awakening, the time to fight against the system, the time to break free, the time for revolution. Hong Kong's Jasmine Revolution will blossom on 1 July this year! MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, universal suffrage in Hong Kong, whether it be the Chief Executive or Legislative Council election, was a dream which I began to cherish 30 years ago. Back then, when we discussed the reunification and the formulation of the Basic Law, community groups (including me) strived to have a timetable and road map of universal suffrage provided in the Basic Law. Of course, as we know, after the formulation of the Basic Law, there was the objective, but no timetable was available. We have persistently strived for it for 30 years. Hong Kong people, including those in our generation, all wish to see that the Chief Executive can be elected by "one person, one vote" and all Members of the Legislative Council be elected by "one person, one vote" in Hong Kong. While the controversy has persisted, I consider that there are three most important points which will serve as the cornerstones of our future planning for the election of Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017. Firstly, the Basic Law has explicitly provided that Hong Kong people may elect the Chief Executive and Legislative Council Members by universal suffrage. Secondly, the relevant decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) in 2007 has clearly stated that the Chief Executive may be elected by universal suffrage in 2017, and after that, Legislative Council Members may be elected by universal suffrage. Thirdly, it is mentioned in the Basic Law that we should abide by the basic standard for universal suffrage which are internationally recognized. Of course, legislation will have to be introduced to make this valid. The Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood and I have joined the Alliance for True Democracy. The Alliance for True


12749

Democracy has recently announced seven principles which Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che has basically explained earlier. After the announcement of the seven principles, I had a debate in a television programme with the anchor and Mr LEW Mon-hung. They pointed out that some of the principles had violated the Basic Law or the NPCSC's decision. However, after our discussion in the television programme, they finally accepted my explanation and considered that there was no violation. Basically, where does the biggest problem lie? First, they pointed out that according to the NPCSC's decision, consideration may be given to the annex to the Basic Law concerning the method for the selection of the Chief Executive, which the seven principles of the Alliance for True Democracy ― Members may refer to the speech made by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che just now, so I am not going to repeat ― did not seem to follow. My explanation is that "consideration may be given" can also be interpreted as "consideration may not be given". Similarly, during our discussion on the Basic Law back then, it was said that laws enacted or amended in Hong Kong shall be reported to the NPCSC for the record, and the interpretation of reporting for record is that it may or may not be put on record: Do not think that laws passed by the Legislative Council will definitely be put on record. The same theory applies here. Second, regarding the nominating committee, the Alliance for True Democracy has mentioned in the second of its seven main points that it cannot accept any pre-selection and screening mechanism in the official nomination process. They pointed out, "You said there cannot be any screening and pre-selection mechanism, but if a nominating committee is put in place, is that not a screening and pre-selection mechanism? In my view, this mainly depends on how the nominating committee is formed, as well as in what way the screening and pre-selection are conducted during the course of election. How will the formation of the nominating committee turn out to be a distinction between true universal suffrage and fake universal suffrage? If the nominating committee is selected by some 3.5 million voters from the four sectors defined by the Basic Law, that will serve as the basis of universal suffrage. Under the basis of universal suffrage, if there is a fair and reasonable mechanism for the nomination of candidates, I will not regard this as screening or pre-selection. For example, the Alliance for True Democracy proposes that a person who is nominated by one eighth of the members of the nominating committee will become a candidate. This is determined by the number of people rather than any political reason such


as love for the country and no confrontations with the Central Authorities. From the viewpoint of the Alliance of True Democracy, this condition is acceptable. The second condition involves the classification of the four sectors. Is the classification of the four sectors against the practice of universal suffrage? No. Actually the number of people in the four sectors may increase. Even the elections in the present functional constituencies use corporate votes instead of personal votes. If we do not adopt the election method of functional constituencies in the future, and instead, we classify some 3.5 million voters into four sectors by the key elements of the respective sectors, we will still be able to have the nominating committee selected by way of "one person, one vote". Regarding the number of members of the nominating committee, we will not require the number of members from each sector to be the same. The number of members in the nominating committee from sectors with a bigger electorate should be correspondingly bigger, whereas the number of members from sectors with a smaller electorate should be correspondingly smaller. This also complies with the principle of being equal and universal. Besides, the fifth point talks about nomination via joint signatures by a set proportion of voters, which will then be verified and endorsed by the nominating committee. They said that this did not seem to meet the standard. I do not think so. If the nominating committee itself is formed by universal suffrage, and the nominating committee accepts nomination by a set proportion of voters for a certain person to be a candidate, the most important point is the consent of the nominating committee. If the nominating committee consents to a certain system after voting, that system is a legitimate system. This does not violate the NPCSC's decision or the Basic Law. President, many people in the pro-establishment camp or those who follow the instructions of the Central Authorities said that the nominating committee should not be selected by voters in the whole territory. That it "should not" be so is just your opinion. If it "should" be so, would it violate the Basic Law or the NPCSC's decision in 2007? As a matter of fact, the broadest approach is to have all the voters cast their votes, while the narrowest approach is to have you make the decision by yourself and order people to do this and that. From my point of view, to meet the basic international standard for universal suffrage, the right thing to do is certainly to adopt the broadest numbers and approach. Speaking of love the country and love Hong Kong with no confrontations with the Central Authorities, President, as we have noted from elections in the United


12751

Kingdom and the United States, there were a lot of competitions and confrontations in the elections of both political parties, especially in local elections. In both the American states and British county councils, there were two parties contending with each other, and very often, the party in opposition would win in the local elections.(The buzzer sounded) …… Thank you, President. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, all people, regardless of which political party or grouping they belong to, be they the grassroots, the middle class or the rich, be they young or elderly, I believe all of them wish that one day, universal suffrage will take place in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, the specific operation and election method should be determined through extensive consultation and discussion. Prior to the initiation of this incubation process, it is inappropriate for us to make too many conspiratorial speculations and hypothesis. Since the Basic Law has already stipulated a nomination procedure for the selection of the Chief Executive, I believe that so long as the method is formulated in accordance with the Basic Law, universal suffrage can be implemented. President, as the Government is acting in slow motion, no proposal has been made. Since a proposal is not in place, the discussion today of the selection method is just a waste of time, it is simply futile. On the contrary, I consider it necessary to put forward certain principles and stance. Secretary, first of all, we should not convert Hong Kong into an international political arena, and we should not allow foreign power to intervene in Hong Kong's affairs. President, the political development of Hong Kong is our own business, we should deal with the matter by ourselves, and no foreign countries should get involved. Over the last century, China had experienced many ups and downs, and had been invaded by foreign powers. At present, China is implementing the reform and opening up policy, its economy has taken off and China has just been rising to prominence in the international arena. The reunification of Hong Kong in 1997 enabled the unification of sovereignty. For that reason, Hong Kong is of specific and great significance to China, from both the perspectives of history or national sentiment. President, since the reunification, there have been all sorts of rumours which I believe you have also heard of, that is, some foreign powers were trying to obstruct the development of China by intervening in Hong Kong affairs. In


particular, in the past decade or so, our Motherland is emerging abruptly and is getting stronger and stronger; the United States even put forward the so-called China threat theory, with a view to preventing our Motherland from surpassing them. Therefore, from the perspective of strategic safety, China's concern about Hong Kong being used by others is comprehensible. President, many people worry that foreign powers are either palpably or unnoticeably attempting to use the democratic election of Hong Kong as a means to contend with China, thus impeding the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. Hong Kong, being a member of the State, will attract worldwide attention in its move towards universal suffrage in the course of democratization. Therefore, we should be extremely cautious in order to prevent foreign powers from taking this chance to intervene in our own affairs. President, harmony in the family is the basis for success in any undertaking. I do hope that the selection method of the Chief Executive in 2017 can be discussed by us as a family in a harmonious manner. We should not allow foreign powers making irresponsible remarks or telling us what should be done. President, for example, if someone intervenes in your family matter, I believe you would find this unacceptable and repulsive. President, another principle or stance is that those who advocate occupying Central should stay cool and think twice. I understand that we all long for universal suffrage, and in fact we can discuss through various means. We can sit down and talk, we can stand up and talk, but we should not squat down or lie down in Central to hold the discussion, for this will only drive everyone into a corner and no discussion can then be held. People who advocate occupying Central know perfectly well that such act is unlawful, but they still do so to paralyse Central. Of course, I know that their aim is to pursue the universal value, namely democracy. However, breaking the law blatantly makes no sense at all. The stability of Hong Kong is not easy to come by, we cannot afford any chaos. President, I have mentioned that due to the Government's slow motion, we still do not have a chance to discuss the options on universal suffrage. Even so, one does not have to take the most radical approach to express his stance and bargain before the commencement of the discussion. If people insist on occupying Central, our society will be polarized. If our society is divided, it is actually harder to gain consensus. If our society is unstable, it will be harder to


12753

gain progress in constitutional reform, or it will even backtrack. What purpose does that serve? None of us wish that would happen. I believe all those who advocate occupying Central love Hong Kong. Nevertheless, there are many ways to express one's affection, but we should not take it to the extreme and take radical actions; otherwise, love hurts. I sincerely hope that friends who advocate occupying Central will think twice and take the interest of the community at large into consideration by taking rational and peaceful means to express their aspirations. To threaten the Central Government by holding Central as a hostage is simply unrealistic, illegal and irrational. Must one really have to take on this road of "nothing good"? In my view, the Chief Executive and the Government should start a direct dialogue with people who advocate occupying Central as soon as possible with a view to resolving the difference by means of communication instead of a stand-off. Do not act after a chaotic situation has arisen. History tells us that it will be too late to pick up the pieces. President, in fact I do not quite understand, that is, to promote democracy seems to be the duty of the Government, but does the Government act like an ostrich by not approaching the Occupy Central advocates, and not announcing the consultation timetable? Of course I know that constitutional reform is a political hot potato, but the Government should not be overcautious and allow the Occupy Central movement to gain momentum. What is the ultimate aim of the Government by not handling the issue and allowing the Central Government and the democratic camp to engage in a dialogue in the air? President, I sincerely hope the Chief Executive will grasp this opportunity to do a good job in constitutional reform, so as to allow Hong Kong to stride a step forward and attain a milestone in democratic progress. President, I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, Dr LAM Tai-fai said in the last sentence of his speech that he hoped the Chief Executive would launch the consultation on constitutional reform expeditiously, but by the time the


consultation is launched, I do not know whether the Chief Executive would still be the one he has just mentioned, or whether the one sitting opposite to us would take up the post. President, the title of today's motion is "Democratic procedures for the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017", the most important element is "universal suffrage" and "democracy". The original motion of Mr Alan LEONG only contains 10 lines, and the essence is contained in four lines, that is, "when formulating the proposals on the election of the Chief Executive in 2017, the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote are universal and equal, without any 'screening' or 'pre-selection' through a nominating committee". Today, the amendments proposed by two Members (including Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr Michael TIEN) have deleted the most important four lines. Although I do not agree with them for deleting "without any 'screening' or 'pre-selection' through a nominating committee", I can understand the rationale, for they consider that screening or pre-selection should be put in place. Nevertheless, what I do not understand is why they deleted "the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote are universal and equal". If these three rights are deleted, it is tantamount to having beef balls without beef, it is basically not a universal suffrage. According to Mrs Regina IP, it does not matter if there is no beef in beef balls as long as it is tasty, and maybe some better meat is used, right? Today, Mr Alan LEONG proposes that when formulating the proposals on the election of the Chief Executive in 2017, the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote should be universal and equal. Many people would say this is tantamount to saying that mothers are women, fathers are men. I believe the main reason for triggering this motion is the remark made by QIAO Xiaoyang that the Chief Executive had to "love the country and love Hong Kong". Many people spoke after QIAO Xiaoyang had made this remark. For example, LEUNG Chun-ying, Elsie LEUNG and Fanny LAW pointed out that requiring the Chief Executive to love the country and Hong Kong is perfectly justifiable, as students are taught to be patriotic under the national education. All such remarks indicate that the pledges of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) in 2007 on the dual elections by universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020 are phony; the annexes of the Basic Law are nothing but lies. How can we ensure the Chief Executive meets the "loves the country and love Hong Kong" requirement in the mind of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? The simplest way is to control the right to make nomination within the


12755

nominating committee. Recently when the media interview Fanny LAW, she pointed out that it would be impossible to have a nominating committee selected by "one person, one vote". According to her interpretation, the term "broadly representative" as stipulated in the Basic Law referred to the so-called four sectors adopted in the existing Election Committee. In view of that, the key word of the entire scam is "universal suffrage", what she said cannot be considered universal suffrage at all. There is a saying that one should not merely talk about theory, but should also consider practicability; one should not merely talk about ideals, one should also be pragmatic. Let us look at the reality then. The election method stipulated by the Basic Law is a big failure having regard to the actual results of the governance. Regarding the concept of the political system in the Basic Law, a wrong judgment was made in the early stage. In the mind of the CCP, by proposing a dubious framework which maintains the capitalism economy and lifestyle but moving out the democratic element could achieve a successful governance of Hong Kong while maintaining Hong Kong's economic benefits provided to CCP. Today, it proves that this is merely a dubious fantasy. In fact, Mr JI Pengfei, Chairman of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law, had already pointed out the view when submitting the Basic Law (Draft) to the NPC in 1990. He said "The political structure of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region should accord with the principle of 'one country, two systems' and aim to maintain stability and prosperity in Hong Kong in line with its legal status and actual situation. To this end, consideration must be given to the interests of the different sectors of society and the structure must facilitate the development of the capitalist economy in the Region. While the part of the existing political structure proven to be effective will be maintained, a democratic system that suits Hong Kong's reality should gradually be introduced.". By extending the way of thinking to the pledge made by the Standing Committee of the NPC of dual elections by universal suffrage, the political undertone has never been changed; it is a premeditated plan to sail under false colours. The people of Hong Kong are destined to eat beef-less beef balls. The so-called "broadly representative" nominating committee in Annex I of the Basic Law in fact represents the four sectors of the Election Committee in the small-circle election. It can be said that it revives in a new guise; it is not broadly representative, just like the distorted functional constituencies of the Legislative Council. Since we find the functional constituencies unacceptable,


how can we accept this nominating committee, and how can we have genuine universal suffrage? What about the political reality? It is a big failure. Democracy is not granted to Hong Kong to set up a government and a legislature with popular mandate. Economic development is at a standstill, and the livelihood of the people has not been improved. The society is plagued with problems, resulted in having more controversial political issues, and great dissatisfaction of the Central Authorities. People are more concerned about various injustices, and have greater resistance. At present, while some people are fighting for universal suffrage within the framework, some are trying every possible way to fight for more room within the framework, and some others consider that the framework should be removed. These are the three approaches adopted. Should the Basic Law override everything? Is it impossible to amend the Basic Law? As the dual elections by universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 can be modified, why can't the Basic Law be amended? The stance of the People Power is very clear. In our view, the political structure of Hong Kong should undergo a fundamental reform to implement the dual elections by universal suffrage. We should not wait for the original timetable, we should amend the Basic Law, we should implement dual elections by universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council by "one person, one vote" without nomination and screening. We demand for a genuine universal suffrage, the right to make nomination by the people, a nomination mechanism jointly endorsed by the people or voters, and eventually the election of the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". We need beef balls with genuine beef, we cannot accept an election mechanism which either lacks the democratic element or lacks one of the three rights, that is, the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote. I so submit. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, today as we discuss Mr Alan LEONG's original motion, let me take the chance to share with you an important historical development of how basic human rights, values and standards were established by international laws.


12757

As we can clearly see from the history of Second World War, a government of extreme nationalism had committed acts of brutality or even atrocity such as genocide to a specific ethnic group. In order to prevent the recurrence of such human tragedies, the international world reached a consensus at that time, that is, to put individuals under the protection of the international community. In order to achieve this goal, the United Nations established the Commission on Human Rights and drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under the principles of devising a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. The Declaration was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Article 21 of the Declaration is about election, the contents are enumerated as follows: "(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country; and (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." Subsequently, the United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966 which further stipulated various specific standards on human rights and freedoms, and stipulated that all states parties were under a responsibility to strive for the implementation of the rights by taking all necessary measures. Of course, Members should know well that Hong Kong is one of the state parties to the two Covenants. The rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote mentioned by Mr Alan LEONG in his original motion should be universal and equal, as nominees should not subject to any screening at all. In fact, all such rights are provided under Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as General Comment No. 25 of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. As such, the principles and standards proposed by Mr Alan LEONG are not made out of nothing, but are consensus reached by many countries and state members of the United Nations after careful deliberations. More important still, we should never forget the tragic history of the Second World War. These principles and standards are conclusions drawn by human beings after revealing


the painful experience accumulated in the course of development. To take part in a universal and equal election process is not only a fundamental human right; it is also the political and moral obligation should be undertaken by a responsible government. Jean-Jacques ROUSSEAU said in the Social Contract that "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Under the historical backdrop of the French revolution, what ROUSSEAU meant was that "even man is born free, but the existence of autocracy will impose various chains on the people, and that will prevent people from enjoying the freedom they deserve". Today, some people seem intending to build an election system which is neither universal nor equal, and which allows a political screening process. Are they trying to create autocracy for Hong Kong people, and to impose chains to the freedoms and rights of Hong Kong people? In fact, I can envisage that Mr Alan LEONG's original motion will very likely be negatived by the pro-establishment camp, but in the course of considering how your votes will be made, I hope Members should take into account the painful experience in history which I have mentioned in my speech, and also another famous saying by ROUSSEAU, "Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they." President, I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, we do not need to go so far as to talk about world wars and ROUSSEAU because our present objective is to narrow down our differences as far as possible, which is a practical and practicable direction. Otherwise, if we keep talking like some Honourable colleagues, who said quite romantically that we need not pay attention to the Basic Law, as we can overturn it and start all over again, in that case, I am afraid we will have to spend 10 or eight more years to amend the Basic Law before we can move forward. Another point I would like to mention is, of course, the proposal put forward by Mr Martin LEE earlier. He excused himself by saying he was dozing off, claiming that it was brought up when he had not taken a nap, but in


12759

fact, this approach was probably worked out by him after careful and thorough consideration. As far as I understand it, he is a seasoned practitioner in the legal sector. In respect of his mentality and manners in dealing with cases, very often, even if he followed the other party's tactics and approach, he would still win the case in the end. That means even if he concurred with what the other party said, he could still win the case in the end. That is a brilliant skill in the legal field. What Mr Martin LEE thought and did at that time, I believe, was exactly based on this point: "I do not need to argue too much with you. I will use the approach put by you, but I can still break through your mechanism." That is why he made such a proposal. His proposal was absolutely not any idle talk. On the contrary, I believe this was a very smart approach worked out by him after careful consideration and thorough calculation. Besides, this might be the approach which he found the most time-saving and also the most favourable for candidates in the pan-democratic camp supported by him to have the chance to enter the race. Nevertheless, under extensive pressure, he immediately withdrew his remark, but even though the remark has been withdrawn, members of the public will probably still consider whether this should serve as the bottom line. President, based on the Basic Law or the comments expressed by Mr QIAO Xiaoyang earlier which are likely to represent the preliminary view of the Central Authorities, or if we simply deduce from certain words or logics, in theory, it is possible that we are subject to certain restrictions to a greater or lesser extent, and there are indeed places where we can seek more room and flexibility. As I have just mentioned, it is probably not a realistic and practicable approach to overturn the Basic Law. If, as proposed by Ms Cyd HO just now ― some Honourable colleagues have also mentioned it a number of times ― regardless of the number of people, as long as someone qualified has obtained enough joint signatures by voters, he will be regarded as having been nominated as a candidate upon verification by the nominating committee, will that turn out to be exactly like what Mr Ronny TONG has said earlier, that is, a false nomination mechanism? That means the nominating committee does not really exercise its right to make nomination. Instead, it merely conducts verification like a rubber stamp. Even the definition made by Mr Ronny TONG himself, I am afraid, may not necessarily comply with what is called the nomination procedure. As for places where there is actual room or still room for us to seek improvement, I believe there are two. The first one is the nominating committee with broad representation. The decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on 29 December 2007 is a legally binding decision


which points out that the nominating committee "may" ("可" in Chinese) draw reference from the practice of the Election Committee (EC) previously adopted by us. The word "may" is indeed up to interpretation. Does it actually mean "may" in law? Or does it mean "should" or "must"? In this regard, there may still be some room for argument; otherwise, if it means "must", I am afraid we will even lose this room. Nevertheless, I believe this is something we may try to fight for. The second one concerns the nomination procedure. Of course, according to Mr QIAO Xiaoyang's interpretation, since the approach of nomination under this nomination procedure is institutional and unlike our previous approach in the EC under which nomination could be made by individual members, it turns out that to a greater or lesser extent …… if we go by this view, of course there are also arguable points. However, if it cannot be changed, I guess we will have to take a look again at how the relevant procedure has established this systematic or institutional nomination mechanism. Just now a number of Honourable colleagues mentioned the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the rights they actually touched upon are the right of election and the right to vote. In fact, if we take a closer look, the word "nomination" is hidden in the whole preamble, which states that no one shall be stopped from participating in elections or voting owing to the factors mentioned in the ICCPR. President, what factors are included? These include the factors provided in Article 2 of the ICCPR, such as race, sex, language used, religion, personal political stance or origin, and one of the factors is quite special, which is birth or status. This is rather interesting. As we know very well, no matter how long someone has been an American citizen, if he was not born in the United States, he will not be eligible to stand for the presidential election. That is why OBAMA's place of birth had aroused much controversy at that time. The question as to whether he was really born in Hawaii had led to lots of rumours and conjectures in the community. Hence, this point alone might have already contravened the relevant provisions. Of course, we still have plenty of opportunities to make further studies. However, I would like to use the remaining 30 seconds to point out that at this point, the Government really cannot continue to turn a blind eye or delay the consultation. Even if the Government will indeed refrain from conducting official consultation, it should expeditiously carry out more exchanges and dissemination of information in respect of the debates in the community, as well


12761

as the general and background knowledge that we should have. This will make our future consultation more meaningful. Otherwise, if we stop moving forward and just keep arguing whether we should overturn the Basic Law or do a lot of things which completely ignore the existing mechanism, I am afraid the consultation conducted by us in the future will not bring any actual benefit either, and there may be more disputes than anything else. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, why do I deliver my speech so late? Because I want to see what the royalists would say. The royalists have one advantage, that is, they may refrain from speaking. So I would definitely lose if I contend with them. Simply put, any international standard is actually superfluous. What is the crux of the matter? It is whether Hong Kong people are capable of seeking universal suffrage as they wish. President, I have just heard Mr Paul TSE say that the nominating committee will make nomination in accordance with democratic procedures. A very interesting point is, can the majority of the nominating committee, regardless of the number of people, decide who may get their nomination and who may not? President, I have heard you say that if that is the case, they would be sinners of a thousand generations. There are indeed many sinners of a thousand generations. For instance, it has been some 20 years since the 4 June incident. Those who made the decision back then are also sinners of a thousand generations. How could they do such things? I really feel frightened. What actually is the crux of the matter? Let us first put aside the right to be elected and the right to elect. Of course these two are related to the right to make nomination because they are all linked up during the process. What does the Communist Party say now? It has added a number of conditions for nomination. Some are empty and some are real, for example, love the country and love Hong Kong, or do not confront the Chinese Communist Party. The nominating committee which originates from the Election Committee will vote in accordance with democratic procedures on the basis of these principles which Hong Kong people are unable to discuss, debate and endorse. Such a sham is quite obvious.


I think the Democratic Party really has no room to retreat. If it takes any step backwards, it will be digging its own grave. Why? It is very simple. Before the election or at the nomination stage, they will certainly be asked whether they support legislating for Article 23 of the Basic Law. If they reply that it does not seem very good, they will be accused of not loving the country because Article 23 is a provision in the Basic Law which the Chinese Communist Government considers necessary. The "one country" under the principle of "one country, two systems" is manifested here. This question alone is loaded with tricks. Hence, if the nominating committee does not become the same as the Election Committee, there will be no way out. The Central Government has put forward such conditions. Then they may impose the conditions on the nominating committee members. As such, the Democratic Party will lose for sure. The situation is just like this motion debate. Will this motion ever have the chance of being passed tonight? This mechanism is in fact a big shame. Now the royalists tell us to work in such a way, and in the future they will take control. By then, regardless of the number of nominations, as long as they say that those people do not comply with the spirit put forward by the Central Authorities, in that they love neither the country nor Hong Kong, and they also object to the leadership of the Communist Party, will they still have the chance to be nominated? It is very easy to say that they do not meet the conditions. Simply ask: Have you ever attended the vigil on 4 June? Will you attend it in the future? Do you think the 4 June massacre was right? No one will say the 4 June massacre was right unless they are beasts. Buddy, as such, they will readily fall into the trap. When nominations are made in accordance with democratic procedures, the Democratic Party will certainly have no part to play. Thus, Members, discussion is just a waste of time. If the Communist Party does not make any concession on the right to make nomination, everything they say is rubbish. In Hong Kong, everyone should be the same. That means whether it be I, LEUNG Kwok-hung, or Jasper TSANG, provided that we can get the nomination from a certain number of voters, say, 100 000 votes, 200 000 votes or 300 000 votes, we should then have the right to stand for election. Otherwise, everything is just a waste of time. Raymond TAM knows it. That is why he has now folded his arms, since folding arms means denying, an indication that something is not allowed. Secretary Raymond TAM, why are you so nervous? It is merely a show.


12763

Hence, why is there the need for the Occupy Central movement? It is because this issue has reached a deadlock. As long as the Communist Party does not make concession on the right to make nomination, it is impossible for the pan-democratic camp to yield. For the pan-democratic camp, there is only one way to go, which is to continue to fight, and this is a long road of fighting. Will Central be occupied only once? No kidding. Today we have discussed the 4 June incident. Do you know how long the students had occupied Beijing? Let us not count the period from HU Yaobang's death in mid-April to 19 May because occupation had not yet taken place at that time. Ever since LI Peng declared martial law in parts of Beijing on 19 May, Beijing people and their supporters had occupied Beijing. They did not want to die. They also wanted the meeting of the National People's Congress (NPC) to be held in June and hoped that one third of the deputies to the NPC would vote to solve the problem. President, Honourable colleagues, there is no need to have any fantasy. So long as the Communist Party does not revise the restrictions on the right to make nomination, we cannot but fight until the end. I consider that Members of the Legislative Council should, acting as the vanguard, take the lead to breach the law and engage in civil disobedience. Besides this, there is no other alternative. We should first rehearse the occupation of Central on 1 July this year. Remember, come forward on 1 July! PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, actually a universal and equal election should not be so complicated. It is also natural that the rights to stand for election, to be elected and to vote are included. These are the basic elements which should also be understood by those who are not highly educated. The Basic Law stipulates that a nominating committee must be established for the selection of the Chief Executive. Although we must set up this nominating committee, does it mean that the selection of the Chief Executive need not be universal and equal? I do not think this is the spirit of the Basic Law. The Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong will move toward democratization and have election by universal suffrage eventually. Our country also advocates the progress toward democratization.


Hong Kong has strived for democracy for so many years and the road is so long. We have experienced many campaigns after the reunification. The Legislative Council finally voted down the constitutional reform package in 2005 and the Central Government subsequently promised that Hong Kong could elect the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council by universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020 respectively. This is a promise given by the Central Government to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and people of Hong Kong. We have strived for many years. The State knows that the systems of the Mainland and Hong Kong are diametrically different and Hong Kong is far ahead of the Mainland in the course of democratic development. The Central Government understands this and also knows the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. Besides, as the current semi-democratic system is neither fish nor fowl, and we cannot have party politics. Hence, it is tremendously difficult to make every step forward in our constitutional development. The performance of the three Chief Executives so far is obvious to all. The first Chief Executive was forced to step down on the pretext of leg pain. How many disasters had we undergone in the past? How many problems had arisen due to collusion between the Government and the business sector? Owing to the problems caused by the legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law and the Government's close-mindedness and backwardness in handling the SARS outbreak, half a million people took to the streets. Afterwards, Directors of Bureaux appointed by TUNG Chee-hwa under the accountability system stepped down one after another, and finally TUNG Chee-hwa had to step down as well under the excuse of leg pain. Donald TSANG is another example of failure. Today, there is a press article titled "Two Greedies of Our Time", that is, Donald TSANG and Timothy TONG. How many people miss Donald TSANG after he left office? Regarding the incumbent Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, his popularity began to slide soon after he assumed office and it keeps sliding. Today, the press reported about his frequent visits outside Hong Kong. In less than a year between 1 July last year when he assumed office and the end of May this year, he had made eight visits ― not to overseas places but to the Mainland. In this month alone, he has received eight Mainland officials. Who does our Chief Executive report to? He does not report to the people of Hong Kong but to the Mainland government. This Chief Executive, elected by a small circle of people, is named Mr "689", by some colleagues. He was elected the leader of Hong Kong by a small circle of less than 1 200 people. How can someone taking up such a high position and having so much power be elected by so few people? As he has no legitimacy, the only way he can secure his position is to


12765

rely on the Mainland in the north because he was handpicked by the Chinese Government. Under such a system, will he truly face the people of Hong Kong and be accountable to them? President, regarding his performance in almost a year after his assumption to office, we can see that there is no improvement in respect of politics, economy or people's livelihood when compared to the pledges made in his election manifesto. Concerning the housing issue which he accords top priority, or in respect of other areas such as education, medical care, social welfare and so on, which area does not have problems? How many promises has he made? How many promises have been honoured with improvement made? That is the problem and it is a structural problem. He knows it does not matter whether he can tackle the problems or not. Whether he can survive the five years in office does not depend on his ability to honour his promises but on whether the Central Government will back him up. It is obvious to all that this system has rotten to the core. The Executive Council Members appointed by him has fallen one by one. The Directors of Bureaux whom he appointed are also stepping down one after another. This system is not working. However, we still have to hold fast onto this system and try to play with words in order to nominate a few more persons like LEUNG Chun-ying as the Chief Executive candidates. This just does not work. Since the Central Government has made the promise, will the Administration please seriously honour the promise? Otherwise, Hong Kong people who are educated and have international experience will not be led by the nose and our younger generation has also grown impatient. It is under these circumstances that the Occupy Central movement has aroused such heated discussions and become the only hope of the people. Please do not force the people of Hong Kong to resort to (The buzzer sounded) …… civil disobedience. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, the subject of the motion moved by Mr Alan LEONG today is about the democratic procedures for the elections of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council; this subject is no more than a platitude. Every time this subject is brought up, Members always talk about acting within the parameter of the Basic Law and giving regard to the views of


the Central Government. They always stress that many foreign forces are interfering in the internal affairs of Hong Kong and the Central Government does not want to see Hong Kong become the bridgehead of foreign forces, as that will stir up troubles in Hong Kong and also cause trouble to China in respect of its internal affairs. Do they have any justification to support this kind of saying? Will the repeated description eventually turn out to be the true facts? If so, will it be fair to the Hong Kong people and society? The SAR Government and the Central Government always say that the people of Hong Kong must join hands in building up and improving the community, so as to boost the economic development and they do not wish to see society in chaos. What are those words directing at? What we are talking about is the governance of Hong Kong. How come our three Chief Executives all had governance problem while they were in office? They were elected by their friends from the pro-establishment camp, a limited number of members of Election Committee and those well trusted by the Central Government. Though TUNG Chee-hwa, who had well-established social network, could summon many people whom we somehow trusted to help him with the governance, problems still arose. Donald TSANG, who came from the Civil Service, could also solicit help from many people with the governance, yet he also had problems. As regards LEUNG Chun-ying, I think had he foreseen the plight he is now in, he would have wished that the last Chief Executive election was conducted in a "one person, one vote" manner. If he won the election through "one person, one vote", he could act boldly in implementing policies. The problem is that he does not have such condition and chance. Our colleagues from the pro-establishment camp always say that if a democrat were elected, things would go haywire because they would bring chaos to Hong Kong. Please show us some proof. As the saying goes, we never know what the others think deep down. With LEUNG Chun-ying as the Chief Executive, do you think he will truly meet everyone's aspirations? Right now, it is now the Central Government which assures us and asks us to support him. It also asks us not to topple him down. If the Chief Executive of Hong Kong needs "Grandpa" to back him up in order to remain in office, Hong Kong has truly sunk very low. What can we do? How can there be harmony with this kind of governance? We have to face many controversial problems today and people always talk about the tremendous difficulties the Government is facing in its governance.


12767

The Government wants to build houses, but there is no land; the Government wants to reclaim land, but it gets no support; the Government wants to deal with the landfill problem, it wants to build incinerators to dispose the waste, but it gets no support. Why is it so? That is because the policies put forward by the Chief Executive have not been decided through a legitimate process and anyone can throw obstacles in his way. In economic science, it is often said everyone is a rent-seeker, and we do not have to blame it on welfarism or populism. As a matter of fact, the collusion between government and business is also a form of rent-seeking behaviour. The question is how can this kind of behaviour be curbed or how the impact can be minimized. Over a few hundred years of governance, the democratic system is proven to be feasible. Though it is not the best way, at least it can reduce social conflicts effectively. If we do not take this path or use some nondescript method instead, the governance of the Chief Executive or the whole government will be in a dire situation in the end. Why should it be so? The Basic Law only provides for a broadly representative nominating committee. Under the requirement for a broadly representative nominating committee, we can still elect the members of the committee through "one person, one vote". Of course, we are still far from that step because the SAR Government has not figured out how to work things out, it is even not willing to conduct consultation, so that we can express our view. It only keeps saying it will start the work at an appropriate juncture. But when is the appropriate juncture? When answering Mr Alan LEONG's question this morning, Secretary Raymond TAM said that there was still four years before 2017 and we had ample time. He seemed to have forgotten that the Legislative Council election is to be held in 2016. Although the election of the Legislative Council has no direct relation with that of the Chief Executive, it involves the election of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage in 2020. We have, in fact, little time left. From our past experience, it takes three years to conduct a normal consultation and complete all the five steps. He can of course say it does not matter as the work can be compressed. He can preset all the answers and everyone only needs to vote for or against it. If he really said so, he has no intention of solving the problem.


Many colleagues have just asked why people should act radically to Occupy Central. As Dr LAM Tai-fai has said, the aim of the Occupy Central movement is to get the Government to come out and discuss with the public what to do next. If the Government keeps evading the discussion, they should not blame the desperate pan-democrats for employing every means to fight for a chance for discussion. If the Administration does not even want to discuss the issue, it should blame us for doing it our way. In fact, even if we want to discuss, what should we do? Will the Administration please give us the direction and a chance to do so? Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am the last few to speak because I have been listening very carefully to the arugments of other Members, in particular the pan-democratic Members, about this subject matter. However, after listening to the arguments of several pan-democratic Members, I am quite disappointed. Just now, Members have put forward various arguments, such as "the incompetence the three Chief Executives". They are just seizing on the chance to put over their ideas as usual. There is also the theory of "the omnipotence of universal suffrage". It seems that universal suffrage can solve all problems and make everyone happy. Many countries are returned by universal suffrage, I wonder if they all have no problems. It does not seem to be the case. There are also the theories of "overthrowing the regime by revolution" or "anti-Communism" which I do not think would have too much market in Hong Kong. There is also the "debt recovery theory", and I find the metaphor neither fish nor fowl. Some other people compare Hong Kong to Iran, which I find to be total nonsense. Hong Kong attaches great importance to the rule of law and every policy formulated has a legal basis. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) has already announced in 2007 that the Chief Executive can be elected by universal suffrage in 2017 and the Legislative Council in 2020. The two elections by universal suffrage are to be implemented in accordance with Annex I and Annex II to the Basic Law, under the constitutional requirements set down by NPCSC, by various sectors in Hong Kong through their efforts to reach


12769

a consensus on the specific arrangements and details of how to implement the universal suffrage. Regrettably, the pan-democrats have recently launched the Occupy Central movement, as mentioned by several Members, to strive for the election by universal suffrage. They encourage people to paralyse Central, the financial and trading hub of Hong Kong, through illegal means. This act of ruining Hong Kong's foundation of the rule of law, using the overall interests of the whole Hong Kong society as chips, and betting on the personal safety of the public and the future of the participants, is, in the eyes of those who have a sense of judgment, a means of struggle put up by the pan-democrats under the pretence of campaigning for universal suffrage, and it is by no means the right way to forge a social consensus to strive for universal suffrage. Here I would like to quote the judgment handed down by Mr Joseph TO, Magistrate of the Eastern Magistrate Court, last Tuesday on the illegal assembly case involving Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr Albert CHAN, which reads, "Even for those who have a strong view on social issues, if they violate the law, they also have to bear the criminal liability. No one is above the law; otherwise, there is no way that the core value of Hong Kong can be safeguarded." (End of quote) I hope that those who intend to join the Occupy Central movement should stop and think twice before taking any action. The pan-democrats have established the Alliance for True Democracy (ATD) earlier and put forward the so-called "Seven points of consensus" in respect of the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 according to their standard. They regard any packages or proposals concerning the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 different from the seven points, that is, anything not complying with their demand, as "bogus universal suffrage". However, I have to reiterate that it is only through the Basic Law that Hong Kong is endowed with the right to implement the election by universal suffrage. Therefore, the only criterion determining whether any package on universal suffrage is "genuine" or "bogus" is whether it complies with Article 45 of and Annex I to the Basic Law and the requirements set down by NPCSC in 2007 on the implementation of election by universal suffrage. This is also the point that Mr IP Kwok-him of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong stresses in his amendment. In respect of the seven points of


consensus put forward by the ATD, the last two are about the two rounds of voting system and the political affiliation of the Chief Executive. These two points may be explored further because neither the Basic Law nor the NPCSC has made any decision regarding the constitutional requirements on these two issues. But apart from those two, we think that the remaining five points all violate and disregard the constitutional requirements stipulated by the Basic Law. For example, the Point 5 proposes that if a participant of the election is nominated by a certain percentage of electors and is verified and confirmed by the nominating committee, he can automatically become a candidate. This completely disregards the function of the nominating committee and violates the constitutional requirement of Article 45 of the Basic Law. Point 4 proposes that a participant of the election receiving the nomination by one eighth of the members of the nominating committee can also become a candidate. This deviates significantly from the requirement of Article 45 of the Basic Law concerning the nomination in accordance with democratic procedures as "democratic procedures" should mean literally a collective decision made by the entire nominating committee. The procedure of selecting someone or recommending someone cannot be regarded as properly done with the participation of only a certain number of members of the nominating committee. Moreover, Point 3 demands the nominating committee be returned through "one person, one vote". In fact, during the drafting of the Basic Law, the Basic Law Drafting Committee carefully studied this issue and realized that when the Chief Executive was elected by universal suffrage, the "one person, one vote" method would be employed. Hence, during the nomination, we should let the nominating committee make the nomination in the light of the interests of all social sectors. This was proposed by JI Pengfei, the former Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, who considered that the nominating committee should be composed of representatives of various social sectors to achieve the goal of balanced participation. Because of the time constraint, I cannot possibly point out all the improprieties involved one by one. Some people opine that the scope of the definition of "love the country and love Hong Kong" is very wide. However, Chairman QIAO Xiaoyang has said that as long as the people do not confront the Central Government and attempt to topple it, they have the chance of participating in the election campaign.


12771

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, apart from 1997, the year of the reunification, I have worked in the Legislative Council for 15 years now. Over all these years, I have worked with Mr TAM Yiu-chung and I have found that he has made much progress in one aspect, that is, he is following closely the path of the Central Authorities and accept whatever the Central Authorities say to be right. Therefore, although we have talked about many theories, they are no match with his one theory, the "whatever theory", that is, whatever the Central Authorities say must be right and this has always been his characteristic. He has made some interpretations of the Basic Law today, claiming that the many proposals put forward by the Alliance for True Democracy are against the Annexes to the Basic Law. I wonder what the basis of his claims is and on what authority he thinks he can make the interpretation. If he proclaims himself to be the authority at the outset and determines what is wrong and what is against the decision, what do we have to study and consult to forge a consensus acceptable to the people of Hong Kong? I have great doubt about this. Besides, his opinions on many things are very rigid, for example, he said that if someone who has secured the nomination of a certain number of electors can be accepted after the nomination has been verified and confirmed by the nominating committee; and this arrangement can be established by rules. The nominating committee needs to respect the common wish of a certain number of electors to jointly nominate a candidate. Why should it not be so? The legislative is also enacted by people. Second, why must a democratic procedure always involve voting, like what he explained? If there must be a voting in the way he describes, there will surely be a pre-selection, and when there is a pre-selection, what kind of nominating procedure will it be? It is downright an election. We must understand that the concept of democratic procedure must be interpreted according to the provisions of the Basic Law as well as the many fundamental principles drawn at that time. We all know that the guiding principle of the Basic Law is that things have to be taken in a gradual and orderly manner. How to put this principle into practice? There are two points. First, for example, in the election of the Legislative Council, there is an increasing number of directly elected seats as compared to functional constituency seats. This is the first direction of development of the democratization process. The


second point is very clear, which is the nominating procedure. If our goal is to have gradual and orderly progress, the nominating procedure should not go backwards, and the same applies to voting. The number of electors has increased from 800 to 1 200. In future, may be over 3 million people of Hong Kong have the right to vote, and this is deemed as a progressive direction of development. Similarly, there is no reason to tighten the requirements of nomination. The two nominating procedures by the nominating committee in 2007 and 2012 should be relaxed, so as to allow many people holding different political views the chance to participate or even really get nominated. Yet, you tell me, "Sorry, according to the Basic Law, our nomination procedure will be tightened in the future and there will be a pre-election". This is a violation of the principle of gradual and orderly progress. How can it be considered a democratic procedure? Therefore, I hope that Mr TAM Yiu-chung will understand the major principles and general directions correctly and do not hold the attitude that everything must be tightened. I do not like to criticize my colleagues, but very often people do say that when people of a lower rank is responsible for gate-keeping, the standard will be tighter because they have the mentality of a vassal and a lackey and even if they have the chance to relax the standards, they prefer to leave it to their master to decide as they think that they are not in the position to do so. I truly hope that Members who are the elected representatives of the people would not have this kind of mentality, the mentality of a vassal. They would tighten the restriction when incidents happen. No matter under what circumstances, they would say no first and then leave it to their master to make the decision. This kind of mentality is absolutely undesirable. I remember during the constitutional reform in 2010, before the Central Authorities finally confirmed that the revised package proposed by the Democratic Party complied with the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), among those Members who are here today who had voted against it, had any of them said it complied with the decision of the NPCSC? Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, the DAB and Mr CHAN Kam-lam all said it went against the decision of NPCSC and it was a violation in three major areas, that is, the Basic Law, the decision of the NPCSC and also the public view. However, what happened in the end? When the Central Authorities announced that it complied with those three aspects, they all fell in


12773

and said they supported the package. Why was it so? Could they not think independently? Of course, it is not fair to criticize them because at that time some other authoritative representatives, including HAO Tiechuan of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government, Prof Albert CHEN (both members of the Basic Law Committee) and also Ms Maria TAM said it was a violation. However, we were very surprised that when everyone said it was a violation, the Central Authorities said the Democratic Party's revised package was compliant and so all of a sudden everyone was like under the order to change their positions and fell in with the view of the Central Authorities and said that it was compliant. President, I think that we are all elected by the people of Hong Kong and every vote they cast represents their trust in us and their hope that we will strive for their well-being. I also believe that the people of Hong Kong know the advantage of a democratic system, even though democracy is not a panacea. But we know that the common wish of the people Hong Kong in all these years is the implementation of dual universal suffrage. I ask Members to speak their conscience and not to act like a house slave in all matters and suppress even this. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alan LEONG, you may now speak on the amendments. The speaking time limit is five minutes. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, today I move this motion on the "Democratic procedures for the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017" all because I see that LEUNG Chun-ying has done nothing; as he has done nothing, we can only save ourselves by doing something as soon as possible. That is why I hope that through moving this motion in this Council officially, the community will start focusing on the discussion regarding the direction and contents of the election of the Chief Executive in 2017. President, you may have noticed that the Alliance for True Democracy (ATD) published on 8 May the "2017 Chief Executive Election ― Initial Views


for Consultation", putting forward seven points of consensus. It surprised me somewhat when I heard Mr TAM Yiu-chung say just now that Point 4 was not right. However, as far as I remember, Mr QIAO seemed to have said that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress had made the decision that the nominating committee could model after the Election Committee in its establishment and the provision of nomination by one eighth of the members that we are talking here is the same as the Election Committee. As Mr Albert HO has just said, there should not be retrogression from the situation in 2007 and 2012. I do not understand why it is so. For example, Point 1 of the consensus proposed by the ATD is "election of the Chief Executive in 2017 through 'one person, one vote' and that the election system should ensure the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote are universal and equal". After a round of debate, I believe that this point has been more clearly explained as the debate progresses. From various perspectives, the convergence of the three rights seems to be an important principle determining whether the election is truly an election by universal suffrage. President, it is on this basis that I will not support any amendment that proposes to delete the phrase "to ensure that …… the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote are universal and equal, without any 'screening' or 'pre-selection'" mainly because it goes against the seven points of consensus published by the ATD on 8 May. I wish to talk about Mr Michael TIEN's amendment concerning the proposal to expeditiously launch a public consultation, to that I strongly agree, for as a matter of fact, if a public consultation is not launched as soon as possible to form a platform so that the public can focus on discussing the election of the Chief Executive in 2017, we cannot avoid going back to square one. President, the objective fact now is that we can hardly get the pan-democratic Members in this Council to support any reform package, if we are unable to gauge the quantified public views. Hence the consultation must be conducted as soon as possible. Finally, I wish to talk about Mr WONG Yuk-man's amendment. Point 3 of the ATD's seven points of consensus mentions that we demand the nominating committee responsible for nominating the candidates for the Chief Executive to be formed by election through "one person, one vote" while Point 5 mentions that a candidate can through the joint endorsement of electors and after verification by the nominating committee have his eligibility to run in the election confirmed.


12775

The two can proceed in parallel. However, Mr WONG Yuk-man proposes that there must be the joint endorsement by citizens or electors. As the endorsements by the two are not completely the same, we will abstain from voting when the question on this amendment is put. I so submit. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, as over 30 Members have spoken on Mr Alan LEONG's motion and the amendments put forward by several other Members, I will only highlight a few points when I make my conclusion here. Many Members, including the democratic Members have, of course, talked about the advantage of electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Comparing with the situation in a period of time in the past particularly, I believe the advantage of electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage is a matter of course. As in the first paragraph of my opening speech, I already said that this is the policy objective of the Government in this term and also the aspiration of the Central Authorities, the HKSAR Government and the general public. However, to make this happen, it takes more than mere debates. We must work together. There are three important factors and I will stress the gist of them. To achieve the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, the foremost point is that the consultation and execution work must adhere strictly to the Basic Law and the relevant decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). In my opening speech, I have especially talked about what the Chairman of the Basic Law Drafting Committee, Mr JI Pengfei, said when the Basic Law was passed. He mentioned four principles underlying the design of our political structure. Let me repeat those principles, namely, (i) meeting the interests of different sectors of society; (ii) facilitating the development of the capitalist economy; (iii) gradual and orderly progress; and (iv) conforming to the actual situation. I wish that in the future discussions everyone will focus on the Basic Law, the decisions of the NPCSC and also the aforementioned principles. Regarding the second important factor, after listening to the speeches of some Members, I have to emphasize here that when carrying out our work in the days to come, we have to understand the role, powers and duties of the Central Authorities in respect of the development of our political system. In my opening speech, I have already expounded them in great detail which I will not repeat


here. However, I can cite two very simple examples to illustrate the constitutional role of the Central Authorities. For example, according to Annex I to the Basic Law, the package of constitutional reform and the election method of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage must be approved by the NPCSC. There are three steps to be followed in the selection of the Chief Executive, that is, nomination, election and appointment. The Chief Executive is to be appointed by the Central People's Government, that is, by the State Council. Hence, apparently, the Central Authorities do have their constitutional role, powers and duties. Therefore, I hope that Members will try to better understand the views of the Central Authorities on the development our political system in their discussion in future, as only by understanding the Central Authorities' points of view can we get a clear picture of their constitutional role. I believe that in the course of completing the five steps for the implementation of the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, this is a factor that we must attend to. The third important factor is that we must understand that the Legislative Council has the power to determine the development of the political system as under the Basic Law, any proposal must be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of all Members of the Legislative Council. Therefore, some day in future, the Government will submit the motion to amend the Annex I to the Basic Law for the Legislative Council to discuss and approve. I hope that on that day, Members will lay down the interests of their own political parties or groupings and with the overall interest of Hong Kong in mind, strive to achieve the goal of electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage as the next step of the development of the political system. By seeking common grounds while reserving differences, they can forge a consensus to realize the common wish of all people in Hong Kong together. President, I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him, please move your amendment to the motion now. MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Alan LEONG's motion be amended.


12777

Mr IP Kwok-him moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add ", on the issue of constitutional development in Hong Kong," after "That"; to add "('NPC')" after "National People's Congress"; and to delete "the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote are universal and equal, without any 'screening' or 'pre-selection' through a nominating committee" immediately before the full stop and substitute with "the Basic Law and the relevant decisions of the Standing Committee of NPC on the issue of universal suffrage are complied with"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr IP Kwok-him to Mr Alan LEONG's motion, be passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, please move an amendment to Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment. (Mr LEE Cheuk-yan was absent) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since Mr LEE Cheuk-yan is absent, I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr IP Kwok-him be passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): 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 Cyd HO rose to claim a division.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes. 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 …… (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up) MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I pressed the wrong button. I did not intend to vote for it. I intend to vote against it. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You can try pressing the "Yes" button. Is that all right? (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung pressed the button again to vote) MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It is all right now. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Are there other queries? (No one indicated to have queries) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed. Functional Constituencies: Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP


12779

Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment. Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against the amendment. Geographical Constituencies: Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the amendment. Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment. THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote. THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 21 were in favour of the amendment and nine against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 31 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 17 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 amendment was negatived.


MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Democratic procedures for the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017" or any amendment thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed. I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Democratic procedures for the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017" or any amendment thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.


12781

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, you may now move your amendment. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Alan LEONG's motion be amended. Mr WONG Yuk-man moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To delete "QIAO Xiaoyang, Chairman of the Law Committee under the National People's Congress, made a speech on 24 March this year, indicating that regarding the election of the Chief Executive of the HKSAR by universal suffrage, 'the issue that requires a consensus is essentially about the democratic procedures for nomination'; in this connection," after "That"; to delete ", irrespective of how various sectors interpret the so-called 'democratic procedures for nomination'," after "ensure that"; to add "all" after "to vote are"; to add "the nominations must be jointly endorsed by citizens or electors" after "and equal,"; and to add ", and ultimately the Chief Executive is elected on a 'one person, one vote' basis" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man to Mr Alan LEONG's motion, be passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. 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) Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute. 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 Kenneth LEUNG voted for the amendment. Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment. Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr POON Siu-ping abstained. Geographical Constituencies: Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment. Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.


12783

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr Helena WONG abstained. THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote. THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, one was in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and nine abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 31 were present, five were in favour of the amendment, 13 against it and 12 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, you may move your amendment. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Alan LEONG's motion be amended. Mr Michael TIEN moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add "('NPC')" after "National People's Congress"; to delete "'the issue that requires a consensus is essentially about the democratic procedures for nomination'" after "HKSAR by universal suffrage," and substitute with "the Central Government holds three 'unswerving' stances: the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage will be implemented in 2017, the Chief Executive so elected must not confront the Central Authorities, and the universal suffrage must be in compliance with the Basic Law and the decisions of the Standing Committee of NPC"; to delete "ensure that, irrespective of how various sectors interpret the so-called 'democratic procedures for nomination', when formulating" after "SAR Government to" and substitute with "formulate on these premises"; and to delete "the rights to make nomination, to stand for election and to vote are universal and equal, without any 'screening' or 'pre-selection' through a nominating committee" immediately before the full stop and substitute with "and expeditiously launch public consultation, allowing ample time for various


sectors to hold extensive discussions and strive to reach a consensus on the issues concerned such as the specific composition of the nominating committee, democratic procedures for nomination, the number of candidates for the office of the Chief Executive, etc"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Michael TIEN to Mr Alan LEONG's motion, be passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. 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) Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute. 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: Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP


12785

Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment. Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against the amendment. Geographical Constituencies: Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the amendment. Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment. THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote. THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 21 were in favour of the amendment and nine against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 31 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 17 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 amendment was negatived. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO, you may move your amendment.


MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Alan LEONG's motion be amended. Ms Cyd HO moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add "; and to allow any person eligible to stand for the election, if jointly endorsed by no less than 50 000 registered electors and upon verification by the nominating committee, to be a candidate for the office of the Chief Executive" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Ms Cyd HO to Mr Alan LEONG's motion, be passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. 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 Cyd HO rose to claim a division. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute. 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.


12787

Functional Constituencies: Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the amendment. Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment. Mr POON Siu-ping abstained. Geographical Constituencies: Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment. Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment. Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen abstained. THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote. THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, nine were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical


constituencies through direct elections, 32 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and three abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alan LEONG, you still have one minute 58 seconds for your reply. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, my motion today will very likely be negatived. However, it does not matter because we have started the discussion on the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 today. This discussion is very important, why? President, two things are very clear. First, if the election system is back to square one by 2017, it is an unacceptable option because from the recent development, we know that Hong Kong is at the brink where governance can no longer be effective. If we do not give our Chief Executive the "shoulder", "backbone" and "teeth", whoever is elected the Chief Executive in 2017 will be unable to rule Hong Kong. Therefore, the only way out is to give the opportunity to different candidates, allowing them to compete in the election in the light of their visions and governance strategies. Therefore, I hope that everyone can concentrate on this discussion. Another point that is very clear is that I believe that neither the SAR Government nor the Beijing Government should attempt to secure votes for a candidate secretly because it is just impossible to do so. The 2016 and 2017 constitutional reform packages must undergo the process of debate and public discussion and be established on the basis of scientific and quantifiable public opinions; only then will society be able to pool sufficient power to support a certain package. Therefore, although my motion is negatived today, this is a good start. It allows everyone to concentrate on discussing how to deal with the Chief Executive election in 2017 so that society can forge a consensus as soon as possible and quantify the support as an indicator of whether people will vote for or against it. I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Alan LEONG be passed.


12789

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): 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) Mr CHAN Kam-lam rose to claim a division. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute. 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 Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the motion. Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion. Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr POON Siu-ping and Mr TANG Ka-piu abstained.


Geographical Constituencies: Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr Helena WONG voted for the motion. Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion. Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE and Miss Alice MAK abstained. THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote. THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, nine were in favour of the motion, 17 against it and four abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 32 were present, 17 were in favour of the motion, 11 against it and three abstained. 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. SUSPENSION OF MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend this meeting until 2.30 pm tomorrow. Suspended accordingly at sixteen minutes to Ten o'clock.


A1

Appendix I

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Food and Health to Mr Paul TSE's supplementary question to Question 4 As regards suspected false health certificates, under the Imported Game, Meat and Poultry Regulations (Cap. 132AK), any person who imports game, meat or poultry without health certificates issued by the Mainland inspection and quarantine authorities or without the approval of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) prior to import commits an offence. Staff of the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) under the FEHD will inspect all consignments of chilled meat/poultry imported from the Mainland via Man Kam To and the accompanying health certificates which certify that they are fit for human consumption. If the health certificates are found to be dubious, staff of the CFS will hold the imported food in question for checking. They will liaise with the relevant inspection and quarantine authorities in the Mainland and obtain confirmation that the certificates are in order before releasing the food concerned. If any importer is found to be using a false health certificate, the CFS will report the case to the Police. In the past three years, the CFS has not identified any false health certificate.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 29 May ...

Documents

Transcript of OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 29 May ...