official record of proceedings wednesday, 6 november … · official record of proceedings...

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2013

1755

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 6 November 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, G.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.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2013 1756

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H. PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N. THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C. THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P. 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.


1757

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


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


1759

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE RIMSKY YUEN KWOK-KEUNG, S.C., J.P. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE PROF THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND TAM CHI-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, M.H., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT MR GODFREY LEUNG KING-KWOK UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Is a quorum present now? Will Members please return to their seats quickly. (Members returned to their seats) 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.

Fugitive Offenders (Czech Republic) Order ...................... 166/2013 Official Administrator's Accounts (Interest) (Amendment)

Rules 2013 ..............................................................

167/2013

Other Papers

No. 20 ─ Prisoners' Education Trust Fund Report by the Trustee for the period from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013

No. 21 ─ Consumer Council

Annual Report 2012-13 No. 22 ─ Occupational Safety and Health Council

Annual Report 2012-2013 No. 23 ─ The Legislative Council Commission

Annual Report 2012-2013 Report No. 2/13-14 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments Report of the Bills Committee on Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013


1761

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question. Measures to Prevent Youth Suicide 1. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, incidents of youth suicide occurred in Hong Kong one after another in the last couple of months since the commencement of the current school year. The number of suicide cases involving young people aged 19 or below in each of the past three years ranged from 21 to 28, which has once again aroused public concern about the mental health of young people. According to the analysis made by the Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong, while the prima facie cause of most cases of youth suicide involves relationship problems, the root causes of their suicidal attempts stem from their families. As such, family members play a critical role in preventing the tragedy of youth suicide. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) regarding the promotion of family-related policies, whether the authorities will formulate, from a family-friendly point of view, relevant measures in the short, medium and long terms, including measures to promote mental health among young people and educate parents on preventing suicides, and so on; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(b) regarding education policies, targeting on the problem of young

people facing immense study pressure but not having sufficient time for rest, as well as the relatively low resilience in some young people, whether the authorities will conduct in-depth studies and analyses for formulating means to strengthen the resilience of young people; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(c) regarding health policies, as some members of the public have

pointed out that the waiting time for adolescent psychiatric treatment service is too long, with the problem being particularly acute in the Prince of Wales Hospital, of the authorities' improvement plan in this respect; furthermore, whether the authorities will enhance


counselling services on the mental health for young people so as to identify problematic cases early and provide appropriate treatment to the young people concerned; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, my reply to Dr Elizabeth QUAT's question is as follows:

(a) Under the "child-centred, family-focused and community-based" direction, the Social Welfare Department (SWD) provides preventive, supportive and remedial family services through the 65 Integrated Family Service Centres (IFSCs). In order to enhance family functions, strengthen family relationships and prevent family problems, the SWD and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) provide a range of educational and promotional family life education programmes. Welfare service units in different districts organize activities such as seminars, talks, groups and exhibitions. The service units will also, according to the needs of individual districts, organize appropriate positive family education to strengthen individual and family resilience and enhance family relationships. The SWD also promotes parent education, such as parent education programmes for enhancing young couples' knowledge in parenting and those for promoting parents' relationship with their teenage children. Besides, the Family Life Education Resource Centre of the SWD assists in promoting family life education through the production of family life education booklets, audio-visual materials and a family life education website.

To strengthen family core values, the Family Council has also

produced a series of multimedia family education materials with positive family messages to enhance family education and impart parenting skills to parents. The materials have been uploaded onto the "Happy Family Info Hub", some of which are broadcast in the IFSCs and 31 maternal and child health centres under the Department of Health (DH).


1763

(b) The current school curricula include learning themes on life education. In the Revised Moral and Civic Education Curriculum Framework published by the Education Bureau in 2008, major expected learning outcomes regarding positive life values are also listed. Schools provide students with diverse learning activities through school-based curriculum and partnership with organizations in the community, and nurture positive values and attitudes through Life-wide Learning and "Other Learning Experiences".

In addition, the Education Bureau has launched the Assessment

Program for Affective and Social Outcomes which allows schools to assess and understand Primary Three to Secondary Six students' performance in related domains, with reference to other school-based data, in order to render appropriate support. The Education Bureau has also actively implemented various developmental projects. Professional teams in primary and secondary schools are set up to render timely counselling to needy students, as well as to implement a variety of preventive and developmental programmes to promote positive life values.

As regards support for teachers, the Education Bureau continues to

organize programmes to enhance teachers' professional development and provides support to schools by developing related learning teaching resources to foster students' positive values and attitudes.

(c) The Hospital Authority (HA) has expanded its multi-disciplinary

team in 2011-2012 to provide children and adolescents with mental health problem with early identification, assessment and treatment. In 2012-2013, the median waiting time for first appointment at child and adolescent psychiatric specialist out-patient clinics (SOPCs) of the HA was about 19 weeks. The HA has put in place a referral and triage system at its SOPCs where patients are treated according to their severity and urgency. Patients with urgent needs, including those with suicidal tendency, will be triaged into priority one cases and followed up immediately. The median waiting time for first appointment at child and adolescent psychiatric SOPCs for priority one cases in 2012-2013 was less than one week.


At present, the Student Health Service Centres (SHSCs) of the DH provide health assessment for primary and secondary students, which includes questionnaire assessment on psychosocial health and behavior, and so on. Students with emotional or behavioural problems or even suicidal tendency will be referred to the HA, the SWD or welfare organizations for follow-up. The SHSCs also organize talks on psychosocial and mental health from time to time, and disseminate information on psychosocial health through pamphlets to students.

As regards outreach services, under the Adolescent Health

Programme of the Student Health Service, a multi-disciplinary team of doctors, nurses, dieticians, social workers and clinical psychologists pays visits to secondary schools to help students establish positive attitudes and thinking through basic life skills training and topical programmes.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong people are shocked and saddened by numerous incidents of youth suicides that occurred since the commencement of the current school year. Many parents are also very much worried about the problem. I am afraid the figures of such incidents are on a rising trend. May I ask the Secretary whether he will consider optimizing the existing measures? Apart from the provision of guidance by social workers in schools, will additional resources be allocated so that community organizations for women, families, youth and new arrivals can provide curricula and counselling support to parents and young people outside the schools in order to enhance young people's resilience and prevent the problem of youth suicide from worsening through these family-friendly community services? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I thank Dr QUAT for her supplementary question. I would like to clarify one point mentioned by Dr QUAT, that is, the youth suicide incidents are on a rising trend. We are certainly concerned about each and every incident. However, if we take a look at the figures over the past three years, we can see that the number of suicides committed by young people under the age of 19 in 2010, 2011 and last year is 32, 20, and 17 respectively. The trend is in fact dropping. But of


1765

course, we cannot take the problem lightly because even one such case is too many. I totally agree that we should exert more efforts in this regard. As I explained in the main reply, apart from the family level, support is provided at various levels including the schools, healthcare, and so on. Let me cite an example. The Honourable Member asked whether additional resources are provided in other aspects. The answer is certainly in the positive. We will exert more efforts to promote positive life values because positive life values, especially resilience, are very important to a person. Apart from the 65 IFSCs which will provide services as I mentioned just now, we have also joined hands with 22 family life education service units under the SWD and 138 Integrated Children and Youth Services Centres (ICYSCs) to promote parent education with a view to disseminating the message to all families. This is family education, which is the first point of our work. Secondly, parent education. We will spare no effort to promote parent education and our work will dovetail with the efforts of the Family Council (FC). I would like to strongly recommend a short film entitled "18 Handy Tips for Parents" produced by the FC. It is really worth watching. You can watch these three-minute drama series on the FC website which bring out those common parent-child relationship problems. Through expert analysis, parents and children will be inspired by the drama to consider the problems and engage in reflection. In doing so, they may establish harmonious family and neighbourhood relationships. This is one segment of our teaching materials. In addition, we will promote life education in schools. As Members may know, we have increased the number of secondary school social workers earlier. There are currently more than 500 social workers in all secondary schools in Hong Kong. In the primary schools, the Education Department will extend the Educational Psychology Service to cover all schools in the next two years. So, all these measures show that we agree with Members' views of enhancing the resources for all these areas. As for women and new arrivals, they are also the service targets of the IFSCs. We will focus on these vulnerable groups and render assistance to them.


PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, I am glad to hear from the Secretary those welfare measures for strengthening the resilience of families. But part (c) of Dr Elizabeth QUAT's main question is about adolescent mental health. She asked how counselling services on mental health for young people can be enhanced to identify problematic cases early. However, the Secretary has not answered this part of the question in part (c) of the main reply. Probably because this is not under the Secretary's portfolio, he has therefore only mentioned some routine work of the DH. The Secretary mentioned "one school social worker for each school" earlier. However, the sector has demanded the implementation of "one nurse for one school" for almost 10 years. The measure of "one nurse for one school" aims at providing services to young people at both preventive and educational levels, thereby addressing adolescent mental health problems in a more effective manner. May I ask the Secretary whether the authorities will promote this measure? As he has mentioned the importance of resilience, apart from families and parents, resilience is also important to young people. Will the Secretary implement the measure "one nurse for one school" in collaboration with the Food and Health Bureau or the HA to educate the young people on how to prevent mental health problems? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I thank Prof LEE for his supplementary question. Definitely, I would relay his valuable views to the relevant Bureau Director. However, I would like to add that I have also given an account in my main reply. At present, outreach services are provided under the Adolescent Health Programme of the Student Health Service of the DH. A multi-disciplinary team of doctors, nurses, dieticians, social workers and clinical psychologists will pay visits to secondary schools to share with students a positive outlook in life and healthy life, and how to face adversities and develop regular living habits through basic life skills training. Topical programmes are also provided with the purpose of establishing positive thinking and attitudes. I also agree that more efforts should be made in this aspect. As for the implementation of "one nurse for one school", it is well-known that there is an acute shortage of nurses. Nevertheless, I think this idea is worthy of relaying to Secretary Dr KO.


1767

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof LEE, has your supplementary question not been answered? PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my question. I would like to ask … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your supplementary question. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): I asked the Secretary whether the measure "one nurse for one school" would be implemented instead of asking whether he would relay this idea to other Directors of Bureau. Further, the Secretary has shifted the focus in answering this question by saying that the DH has provided outreach services. May I ask the Secretary whether he clearly understands why I mentioned the need of implementing the proposal "one nurse for one school"? The purpose is to provide tailor-made support to students in schools. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof LEE, we cannot turn Question Time into a debate. The Secretary has in fact answered your question. Let me ask him whether he has anything to add. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I have nothing to add. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, very often, a person commits suicide on the spur of the moment. I know that in the past there were some services under which prompt counselling and intervention could be provided. This is very important. May I ask the Secretary how often the existing hotline services for people with suicidal intention or tendency are utilized? Can the Secretary provide specific data to show how many people have used such hotline services and how many people have been provided intervention services by the hotlines? In addition, has the effectiveness of the hotline services been assessed? How much publicity effort has been made by the authorities in respect of these hotline services?


SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr HO for his supplementary question. At present, there are three NGOs providing 24-hour suicide prevention hotline services for those who need help. These hotline services are familiar to everyone, including first, the Suicide Prevention Services at 2382 0000; second, the Samaritans at 2896 0000; third, the Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong at 2389 2222; and of course, the 24-hour hotline of the SWD at 2343 2255 which will make referrals if necessary. I do not have any statistics on the aforesaid hotline services on hand. But I can tell Members that the social worker who has received such a telephone call will provide psychological counselling for needy persons. Or a social worker will be assigned to pay a home visit to the client in order to render assistance. These situations, which are very common, form part of their duties. Certainly, social workers will refer urgent cases to the police or seek immediate assistance from the relevant parties. These are remedial in nature and I also agree that the problem should be dealt with at source, which is most crucial. In other words, the resilience of young people should be enhanced as a preventive measure, and this is crucial. Anyway, we will keep in contact with these organizations, some of which have also received government subsidies for setting up hotline services. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, just now I asked the Secretary to provide the number of calls received by these hotlines. If he does not have such data on hand, can he provide them later? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can you provide the figures to Members after the meeting? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I am glad to do so. Definitely, I will provide the data in writing after the meeting. (Appendix I)


1769

MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): We all know that youth suicide is preventable, while remedies can be made for those who have been rescued from suicide attempt. So, for today's oral question, the public officer who answers this question at the meeting can be the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Secretary for Education or Secretary for Food and Health. It will be most desirable if all three of them are present. But in my opinion, the presence of the Secretary for Education is crucial because the Education Bureau is responsible for preventive work. Students under the age of 19 spend the longest hours in school. We can see that the Secretary's replies to the three parts of the main question are very comprehensive, but it is clear that services at each level are not adequate … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, please do not present opinions. MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): May I ask the Secretary or the entire Government whether the three bureaux I mentioned just now will conduct a comprehensive review immediately? In the face the problem of student suicide, what measures will be adopted by the three bureaux in terms of co-operation among them and resource deployment? Will a review be conducted? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHEUNG for his supplementary question. Various Policy Bureaux have been co-ordinating among each other and communication is an ongoing process. So, today I attend the meeting and speak on behalf of the other two Directors of Bureaux, for a lot of information is also provided by the two bureaux. We will definitely not act alone in striving for our objectives. As we all know, causes of suicide are complex, including not only the students' emotional or mental problems, but also family problems. I fully agree that we should address the problem squarely. In fact, the Government has continuously put in resources in recent years in the hope that efforts are made to deal with the problem at source or put remedial measures in place. We will continue to intensify our efforts to render assistance to young people.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): President, I simply asked the Secretary whether a review would be conducted. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your question. MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): I simply asked the Secretary whether a review would be conducted rather than asking whether the three bureaux would hold discussions together. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, the Honourable Member would like to know whether the Government will conduct a review. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, we will review the services in these areas from time to time. I can assure Mr CHEUNG that I will sit down with other Bureau Directors after the meeting to discuss how to make further improvements in this aspect. There is always room for improvement in this area of work. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Many young people committed suicide due to various emotional problems. According to a recent news report, one in every five persons suffers from different degrees of emotional disorder in Hong Kong, with the youngest one being just five years old. And young people in Hong Kong are pessimistic about the future. Those who have political objectives, in particular, often say that Hong Kong is a city of sadness and Hong Kong people are leading a miserable life … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, please raise your supplementary question.


1771

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): If such negative sentiment is constantly imparted … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, please raise your supplementary question. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): … influence will certainly be exerted on the young people who are just like a piece of white paper. Secretary, just now I heard you say that there is some parenting policy, which should target at young children. Secretary, would you consider making publicity efforts with older teenagers as the target of your policy? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Thank you, Dr CHIANG. In fact, the targets of our publicity include people from all walks of life. Parenting means parent education, which refers to education for parents. Our targets include not only younger children but also older teenagers. Therefore, apart from the 65 IFSCs under the SWD, there are 138 ICYSCs. In these centres, a lot of parent education programmes are organized, such as cooking by children with their parents so that they can communicate and collaborate with each other with the purpose of disseminating the message of family harmony. Our efforts are made at different levels, including not only family education, but also programmes for initiation of the young people. Let me talk about the FC again. The FC has produced a number of short films such as the "18 Handy Tips for Parents", "Family Therapy Package" and "Marital Relationship". If the husband and wife in a family do not live in harmony, their children will suffer psychological impact. Therefore, this problem is in fact very complex involving a cobweb of factors. I agree that we have to adopt more than one approach in order to address the problem in a comprehensive manner. Hence, several Policy Bureaux have been working in collaboration with each other for only one purpose, that is, to prevent the problem at source and make remedies if it has occurred. This is our two-pronged approach.


MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): The problem has aroused much public concern because over the past three years, there have been 14 suicide cases in total involving teenagers below 15 years of age. In other words, 14 children below 15 years of age have committed suicide. Yesterday, a Secondary Four boy student jumped from height at Yat Tung Estate, Tung Chung. This has aroused grave public concern. Just now two key points were mentioned, that is, "one school social worker for each school" and the idea of "prevention is better than cure". I would like to ask the Secretary this question. At present, the "one school social worker for each school" policy is implemented in secondary schools only. As for primary schools, different approaches are adopted including purchase of services and hiring social workers on their own, while some do not have any social workers at all. May I ask whether the "one school social worker for each school" policy led by the SWD can be extended to primary schools so that there is one professional social worker and a team supervised by a social worker in every primary school responsible for rendering support to students, thereby realizing the concept of "prevention is better than cure"? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr TANG for his supplementary question. The "one school social worker for each school" policy in all secondary schools is responsible by the SWD, whereas primary schools fall within the purview of the Education Bureau. But this does not mean that the Education Bureau does not provide professional support. In fact, each primary school will receive an allowance for providing all-round student guidance service. The schools can purchase services from NGOs, such as hiring part-time school-based student guidance officers, who may be social workers or officers who have received relevant training. In fact, the Education Bureau have put in resources so that starting from the 2012-2013 school year, all primary schools in the public sector will receive an additional allowance for student guidance service so that the schools can further purchase services or combine the school resources in a flexible manner according to actual needs, thereby achieving a desirable result. I would like to give an account on one point, that is, the Education Bureau will further enhance educational psychology service. This is important because educational psychology service can dovetail with the work of front-line student


1773

guidance officers. According to the Secretary for Education, this service will be extended to all public primary and secondary schools in the whole territory in the 2016-2017 school year. Educational psychology service will be provided by a multi-disciplinary team consisting of discipline teachers, school-based social workers, student guidance officers, primary school guidance officers, class teachers, subject/department heads and educational psychologists. This team will also examine the schools' actual environment in providing counselling services so that the most appropriate assistance will be rendered to primary or secondary school students. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): I would like to seek an elucidation by the Secretary. Will the SWD's policy of "one school social worker for each school" be extended to primary schools? According to social workers in primary schools, this mode has yet to be implemented in primary schools. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, could you answer this question? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, as I mentioned just now, there is division of labour among different departments. At the policy level, we will certainly be happy to provide support. But under the current policy, the "one school social worker for each school" policy is implemented in secondary schools through NGOs, while fundings are provided by the Education Bureau to primary schools which will then be able to purchase services or employ their student guidance officers in a flexible manner. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent 23 minutes on this question. Second question. Use of Brownfield Sites for Residential Development 2. MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): The consultation document published earlier by the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee has


proposed a supply target of 470 000 residential units in the next decade. The Secretary for Transport and Housing subsequently told the media that the target number represented an increase of around 70 000 to 100 000 units when compared to the existing pledge of the Government, but at present there were not sufficient lands for housing construction. On the other hand, in his column "My Blog" published on the Internet in January and April this year, the Secretary for Development proposed that "brownfield sites" (that is, deserted or damaged agricultural and industrial lands) be developed to meet the demand for residential sites. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether the Government keeps the geographic data of all brownfield sites in Hong Kong at present, including data on the quantity, soil behaviour, size, type, distribution by district and the restoration works required; if not, of the reasons for that; whether it has plans to establish a comprehensive database for such data; if it has such a plan, of the implementation timetable;

(b) as it has been reported that some owners of land in rural areas have

used agricultural lands for unauthorized developments, such as car parks, container yards, open storages and waste recycling yards, and so on, resulting in a rapid increase in the area of brownfield sites in the past decade or so, of the number of cases involving such unauthorized developments uncovered by the authorities in the past five years, as well as the number of cases in which the sites were restored to the original conditions after the persons concerned had been advised to do so; and

(c) whether, in order to reduce reliance on reclamation or resumption of

village lands, the Government will formulate a land supply policy under which development of brownfield sites will be accorded priority, including devising a specific policy for the management of brownfield sites, and developing land strategies that accord priority to the revitalization and restoration of land environment, and so on; if it will, of the timetable; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, President and Members. President, under the multi-pronged strategy for land supply, the Government will carefully consider all the options which can increase


1775

land supply. Through the ongoing land use reviews on different types of land, we will identify suitable sites for housing or other development purposes to meet the needs of society as far as practicable. Yet, in the face of land supply shortage, there are not many easy options, and society has to make difficult choices and trade-offs. The Government is stepping up efforts in the various ongoing land use reviews, and has identified a number of sites in various districts throughout the territory which could be considered for conversion to residential use. Upon completion of studies confirming their development feasibility, we will consult the District Council(s) and relevant stakeholders, and convert the suitable sites for residential or other uses that meet the more pressing needs in society as quickly as possible. My reply to Mr Martin LIAO's questions on "brownfield sites" is as follows:

(a) Generally speaking, "brownfield sites" cover many different land uses, such as port back-up land, deserted or damaged agricultural land, industrial uses like workshops, recycling yards, open storage facilities, and so on. Given no clear and standard definition, the Government has not specifically consolidated a unified figure for "brownfield sites" for the whole territory. Nevertheless, the Government has been closely monitoring the land utilization of various types of "brownfield sites" scattered across the territory and currently put into different uses. Also, for areas with more "brownfield sites" and a higher development potential, we will conduct comprehensive planning and engineering studies to examine the situation and development possibility of land therein, including the "brownfield sites".

(b) Under the Town Planning Ordinance (TPO), the Planning Authority

(that is, the Director of Planning) may take enforcement actions against the unauthorized developments under the TPO on land within the Development Permission Areas (DPAs). These actions include the issuance of Enforcement Notice (EN) requiring the parties concerned to discontinue the unauthorized developments, and where necessary, the issuance of Reinstatement Notice (RN) requiring the EN recipients to reinstate the site. In the past five years (that is, from 2008 to 2012), there were 497 and 189 cases involving the


requirement of discontinuing the unauthorized developments and reinstating the sites under the TPO in the "Agriculture" zone covered by DPAs respectively.

(c) As mentioned above, better utilizing "brownfield sites" is one of the

options for land supply. For areas with development potential, we will conduct comprehensive planning and engineering studies to examine whether the land therein (including "brownfield sites") is suitable for development. Our aim is to convert suitable "brownfield sites" to other appropriate land uses, as long as it is feasible in terms of environment, traffic and infrastructure. Examples of such comprehensive planning efforts to optimize the use of "brownfield sites" and rural land currently underway include: the Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area (NDA) Planning and Engineering Study, the Planning and Engineering Study for Housing Sites in Yuen Long South, the Engineering Feasibility Study for Kong Nga Po, as well as the Planning and Engineering Study for Kwu Tung South. The Preliminary Feasibility Study on Developing the New Territories North, to be commenced early next year, will also explore the development potential of the "brownfield sites" and rural land in other areas of New Territories North.

"Brownfield sites" and rural land with a higher development

potential generally require comprehensive planning and supporting infrastructure so as to resolve the constraints in terms of traffic, environment, water and electricity supplies, sewerage, and so on, for optimal use of the land. Besides, these sites usually involve private agricultural land, village houses and squatters, and so on, therein. Clearance, land resumption and compensation will be involved in developing these sites, affecting the local employment and economy to a certain extent. Detailed planning and public engagement are therefore prerequisites. It should also be noted that we cannot rely solely on identifying individual "brownfield sites" scattered across the territory for development. These scattered sites may not be able to meet the development needs in terms of infrastructure, traffic, environment and sewerage, and so on, and it may be not be justified to provide infrastructure specifically for them given the lack of economy of scale.


1777

The development of "brownfield sites" will generally require the consolidation of open storage, port back-up and even noxious industrial facilities, and so on, as appropriate, coupled with the support of suitable infrastructure facilities, buffer areas and landscaping design, as well as improvement in the layout of land uses. Apart from optimizing the land utilization, the damaged rural environment can be reinstated.

All in all, in addition to the above initiatives to develop "brownfield

sites" and other rural land, the Government still needs to continue taking forward the various short-, medium- and long-term land supply measures, so as to meet the development needs of and cater for any future requirements of Hong Kong. We are conducting land use reviews and converting suitable sites to residential or other development uses for increasing the short- and medium-term land supply. At the same time, we are undertaking the various large-scale land supply projects in the longer term, including developing the NDAs, developing new towns, reclamation on an appropriate scale outside the Victoria Harbour, cavern and underground developments, and so on. While we are facing many difficulties, we must continue to adopt the multi-pronged strategy and initiatives so as to meet the housing demand of the Hong Kong community, and the continued development needs of society and the economy. All these initiatives are indispensable, and are of equal importance.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, in the reply given by the Bureau, I cannot find any integrated policy formulated specifically for the development of "brownfield sites". In view of the continual spike in the number of "brownfield sites" in recent years and the fact that reinstating such sites to make them useful entails considerable time and cost, may I ask the Bureau if it would tighten up the procedure for vetting applications for changes in land use in the New Territories and step up law-enforcement actions, so as to alleviate the damage to land in the New Territories? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, on law enforcement, for some time, the Director of Planning has been actively enforcing


the law but of course, the vigour can be increased further. As regards the development of "brownfield sites", in fact, we already have a set of strategies and in the Hung Shui Kiu NDA, Yuen Long South NDA, Kwu Tung South and Kong Nga Po mentioned just now, as well as the North East New Territories discussed recently, and the total area of "brownfield sites" therein already stands at over 300 hectares. Therefore, we are developing "brownfield sites" through integrated and comprehensive planning and engineering studies. MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary pointed out in the main reply just now that the Government has been closely monitoring the land utilization of various types of "brownfield sites" scattered across the territory and examining the development possibility of land therein. May I ask the Secretary if the Government should establish a database if it wants to examine and deal with "brownfield sites" effectively, including carrying out planning on them? It seems that at present, the authorities do not have such a database. In that case, will the Government consider setting up a relevant land database, and how many of such sites are Government land? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, as pointed out in the main reply, we have not set up any separate data base for "brownfield sites" but basically, the examples cited by me just now, that is, the North East New Territories, Hung Shui Kiu, Yuen Long South, Kong Nga Po and Kwu Tung South, and even New Territories North, on which a study will be launched next year, have covered the major "brownfield sites" located in the New Territories. Therefore, we are dealing with the issue of "brownfield sites" through the planning and engineering studies on various NDAs. As I said just now, many "brownfield sites" are mingled with private land, agricultural land and even deserted land, so when dealing with them, it is necessary to look at them in conjunction with other sites. As regards the questions of how many "brownfield sites" are privately owned and how many are Government land, the relevant departments will gain an understanding of the relevant situation when carrying out planning and engineering studies on each NDA to see how many sites are privately owned and how many are Government-owned.


1779

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): What I asked just now was whether or not the Government would consider setting up a separate database. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, will a database be set up? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, since we have embarked on such large-scale tasks, basically, almost all such sites are included, so at this stage, it may not be worthwhile to take a step backwards by setting up a comprehensive database. MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I also understand that at present, it is very difficult for the Government to find land, particularly given that the development of the country parks, agricultural land, green belts, and so on, in the New Territories is not allowed, so what can still be used now is the so-called "brownfield sites". However, according to the explanations given in part (a) of the main reply, "brownfield sites" cover such uses as port back-up land, workshops, and so on, but I think the most likely land use is agricultural land. Part (b) of the main reply points out that from 2008 to 2012, there were 497 and 189 cases involving the requirement of discontinuing the unauthorized developments and reinstating the sites in the "Agriculture" zones respectively. May I ask the Government if it has any information indicating whether or not so far, the authorities can really enforce the law in this regard? Otherwise, it is possible that the 300 hectares of "brownfield sites" mentioned by the Secretary just now have all been converted from agricultural land and the environment has been practically damaged, thus giving the Government another option in its search for land. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Whether "brownfield sites" are mingled with agricultural land or disused industrial land varies from one development area to another. For example, in the North East New Territories, they are mostly mingled with agricultural land but this is not the case in the Hung Shui Kiu NDA.


As regards cases of requiring the discontinuation of unauthorized developments and the reinstatement of the sites over a period of time in the past, I also have some detailed information on hand. It sets out in detail the numbers of cases dealt with between 2008 and 2012. Among the 497 cases of requiring the discontinuation of the unauthorized developments mentioned just now, in 377 cases, the requested items were completed after the receipt of notices. As regards the 189 cases of reinstating the sites, reinstatement was completed in 137 cases. In the past five years, there were 126 cases of prosecution against non-compliance with the notices. MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): Just now, the Secretary said that he would not set up a database for this and according to the main reply, "brownfield sites" cover many different land uses, for example, port back-up land, deserted or damaged agricultural land, industrial uses like workshops, recycling yards, open storage facilities, and so on. In addition, the Secretary also pointed out that there is no clear and standard definition of "brownfield sites". In view of this, may I ask the Government if it would draw up a new definition of the term "brownfield sites" to enable the general public to have a better understanding of its meaning, so that there can be an accurate picture of the number of such sites throughout the territory? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr POON for his question. President, although at present, there is no scientific and precise definition in this regard, in planning, we know that the term "brownfield sites" generally refers to sites for the various purposes mentioned just now. All along, the uses of these sites have gradually been rectified under the various projects mentioned just now and the projects to be implemented in the next decade. Therefore, at the present stage, the authorities will leave it to the professionals in the planning profession to explore the definition of "brownfield sites" within their professional domains. Insofar as the Government is concerned, basically, dealing with them having regard to the present situation as understood by the Government is already adequate. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, the day before yesterday, the Panel on Housing of the Legislative Council held its first meeting of this


1781

Session to discuss the housing construction programme, mainly in relation to public housing. At the meeting, in the paper provided by the Transport and Housing Bureau, it was pointed out that in 2017-2018, the supply of public housing in the New Territories would be nil, so this is indeed a serious warning. For this reason, may I ask the Secretary for Development on this platform if the authorities, in particular, the Development Bureau, will provide "brownfield sites" or other sites suitable for the construction of public housing in 2017-2018, so as to solve this serious problem? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, as Members know, even if the Development Bureau can find suitable sites and hands it over to the Transport and Housing Bureau, so that the Housing Department can use them for housing construction, it would take several years from the time of handing over the sites before the buildings can be completed. Therefore, that no public housing will be completed in the New Territories within this period of time actually reflects the delay of several years caused by the previous-term Government in finding land and forming land in the New Territories. In the future, among the various NDA Programmes mentioned by me just now, 60% of the housing in the North East New Territories NDA will be public housing and the relevant figure for the Hung Shui Kiu NDA will also reach 51%. According to the present consultation on the Long Term Housing Strategy, in the next 10 years, 60% of the housing supply will be public housing. Therefore, after the Development Bureau has found suitable sites, priority will of course be given to meeting this need. In fact, when announcing the Land Sale Programme for the third quarter in June this year, I also allocated to the Housing Department two sites for the construction of subsidized housing. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, what is your point? MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Although the Secretary said that priority would be given to meeting the need for construction of public housing and also pointed out that some sites had been allocated for this purpose, I am not


sure if his reply has already addressed the issue of the supply of public housing in the New Territories being nil in 2017 -2018, so I hope the Secretary can clarify this. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, I heard the Secretary give a very detailed reply just now. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, when discussing land development in the New Territories, the Secretary has encountered a major problem, that is, the Government's policy on agriculture. If the policy on agriculture does not work, this will make it very difficult for the authorities to resume land or develop agricultural land and "brownfield sites". May I ask the Government if it has conducted any study on its policy on agriculture and whether or not it will carry out a public consultation in the near future? If it has, what is the relevant timetable? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I wish to point out to Mr WU Chi-wai that the policy on agriculture falls within the ambit of the Secretary for Food and Health, Dr KO Wing-man, so in this regard, I can only give a response to the best of my knowledge. When carrying out the development programme on the North East New Territories, many Members are very concerned about the farming households affected and raised the issue of helping them resume farming. Earlier on, we raised the issue of helping them undertake a matching exercise and Members also learnt when I was exchanging views with them in the legislature that there was some difficulty in carrying out a matching exercise. Therefore, currently, the Development Bureau and the Food and Health Bureau are collaborating with one another in conducting a study related to the policy on agriculture and arrangements for agricultural resite, and the relevant information is being prepared. I believe that after the information has been prepared and the study completed, and when it is appropriate to consult Members, the Food and Health Bureau will hold discussions with Members.


1783

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, what I asked about is the timetable. Although the Secretary is now conducting a study, I hope he can give us an account of what the timetable is. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, although this is not within the ambit of the Development Bureau, I will relay the Member's request to Secretary Dr KO. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Each question for oral reply is sent to the Government at the earliest opportunity and the Government will decide which official will be appointed to give a reply. If a public officer in attendance cannot answer a supplementary question asked by a Member but the supplementary question is directly relevant to the main question, will the public officer concerned refer it to the relevant department for a reply? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): The policy on agriculture mentioned by Mr WU Chi-wai in his supplementary question is not directly relevant to the main question. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I noticed that when the Secretary gave his explanations on "brownfield sites", he used a term, that is, it is necessary to "consolidate" them as appropriate. In fact, at present, most of the "brownfield sites" are sites used for purposes approved by the Government. If the Government thinks that their use is improper, may I ask the Secretary on what grounds the sites concerned were granted in the first place? Also, may I know what approach the Secretary intends to use in consolidating these "brownfield sites"? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I must point out that with regard to these "brownfield sites", according to the law, the Director of Planning can take enforcement actions in areas covered by the DPAs and this was already explained in the main reply. The legislation provides that no one can carry out or continue with any unauthorized development in DPAs but generally speaking, "existing use" that was in existence before the publication of


the notice of the DPA plan can be allowed to continue according to the existing legislation. As regards consolidating "brownfield sites" for comprehensive development, as I said in the main reply, the issues in five major areas must be taken into account. Firstly, it is necessary to have comprehensive planning and complementary infrastructure; moreover, since other agricultural land and huts are involved, it is necessary to deal with issues relating to clearance, land resumption and compensation. In addition, economy of scale must be achieved in the provision of complementary infrastructure. Moreover, as mentioned by Mr LEUNG just now, no matter if the facilities are for storage or back-up, since they can exist there, that means to some extent, they have economic value and society needs them. It is for this reason that it is necessary for us to consolidate the sites. Take the Hung Shui Kiu NDA as an example, the area of the "brownfield sites" there is about 190 hectares and all of the sites are used for the aforementioned purposes. When rezoning these "brownfield sites", we reserved one third of the sites for the parties concerned to continue with their operation and hope that through this approach, the land can be put to better use. Take container storage as an example, in the future, it is possible that they will not be placed on the ground and piled one on top another, as is the case at present, rather, they will be put into multi-level storage under better management. Therefore, through the approach mentioned just now and coupled with public participation, we hope that the issue of the optimal use of "brownfield sites" can be dealt with properly. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent 23 minutes 44 seconds on this question. Third question. Interim Review of Scheme of Control Agreements and Tariff Review 3. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, regarding the interim review of the Scheme of Control Agreements (SCAs) and the tariff review conducted by the Government with CLP Power Hong Kong Limited (CLP) and The Hongkong Electric Company Limited (HEC) in 2013, will the Government inform this Council:


1785

(a) as it has been reported that the CLP has over-estimated the fuel cost for the first half of this year and has thus overcharged its customers with respect to the fuel clause surcharge, whether the authorities know the total amount of the fuel clause surcharge overcharged by the CLP in the first 10 months of this year; whether the Government will request the CLP to refund to its customers the overcharged amount; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(b) as it has been reported that the CLP has planned to suspend the

construction of offshore wind farms, whether the Government has sought the reasons for the suspension and the latest construction schedule from the CLP; in view of the fact that the two power companies have included certain fixed assets (including the transmission and distribution facilities for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, MTR Shatin to Central Link and Kai Tak Development Area, and so on) in their accounts and the rising price of natural gas, which may result in the rate of tariff increase for the coming year higher than the approved projected basic tariff rate by 5%, whether it has assessed if it is necessary for the Executive Council to request the two power companies to conduct another Development Plan Review for reassessing the rate of tariff increase; if the assessment result is in the affirmative, of the criteria to be adopted by the Executive Council for examining the outcome of the review; if the assessment result is in the negative, the reasons for that; whether there are measures in place to ensure that the two power companies will improve the efficiency and quality of their electricity supply services by 2018; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether it has assessed the feasibility of opening up the electricity market after 2018; and

(c) as some green groups have pointed out that by implementing the

energy saving measures under the SCAs, the CLP and the HEC saved merely 12GWh and 3GWh of electricity respectively in 2011, which accounted for less than 0.04% and 0.03% of the electricity sales of the two power companies in that year and helped little in reducing carbon emission and addressing climate change, whether the authorities have put in place any measure to raise the energy saving targets of the two power companies; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?


SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, electricity supply is an important infrastructure to society and a necessary service in the public's daily life. Electricity tariff also has an impact on the development of industries and businesses in Hong Kong as well as the daily expenses of domestic households. The SAR Government will therefore perform its gate-keeping role stringently under the framework of the SCAs in dealing with any electricity-related investment or tariff review proposals. My reply to Mr SIN Chung-kai's question is as follows:

(a) The Full Cost Recovery Account (FCA) balance as at the end of October 2013 is not available from the CLP at the moment. The FCA balance as at 30 June 2013 was $711 million. The positive FCA balance was mainly due to the lower than anticipated local electricity sales in the first half of 2013, thus enabling the CLP to consume less natural gas from the Second West-East Natural Gas Pipeline which is more costly than the existing gas supply from Yacheng. Furthermore, international coal price has been dropping since early 2013. The fuel expense in coal was thus lower than anticipated. The actual FCA balance by end 2013 is subject to the future fuel market situation and electricity sales.

According to the SCAs, the difference between the actual fuel cost

and fuel charge in a year will be returned to or recovered from the consumers by adjusting the future Fuel Clause Charge to arrive at a balance position. Such an adjustment is reflected in the future tariff. In other words, if there is a positive balance in FCA in 2013, it will be used to offset the tariff increase in 2014. We have to stress that fuel costs are passed through to consumers on the basis of actual spending. The two power companies will not benefit from any positive balances in the FCAs. The relevant arrangements are clear, transparent and effective, and there will be no question of "over-collection" of tariffs.

We also have been closely monitoring the actual fuel expenses of the

two power companies and requesting them to minimize the fuel costs wherever possible. However, the international fuel prices are influenced by various factors and subject to considerable fluctuations. Depending on the users' demand, the fuel


1787

consumption may also differ from the original forecast. There were both positive and negative balances in the actual FCAs of the two power companies in the past. We will continue to carry out regulatory monitoring of the two power companies consistently in accordance with the SCAs and strike a reasonable balance among the energy policy objectives of safety, reliability, reasonable price and environmental-friendliness, with a view to safeguarding the interests of electricity consumers.

(b) Prevailing Development Plans (DPs) of the two power companies

will expire by end 2013. According to the SCAs, the two power companies in general should submit to the Government once every five years the proposed DPs relating to the provision and future expansion of the electricity supply system of the companies and the projected Basic Tariff Rate for the coming five years. We are reviewing the 2014-2018 DPs of the two power companies. They cover revenue and capital budgets, estimated operating expenditure, projected annual Basic Tariff Rate adjustments, and so on, for the coming five years. The specific capital projects and the tariff adjustments for 2014 are included in the scope of DP Review. The review is expected to be completed by the end of this year and we will brief the Legislative Council and the public on the outcome.

Regarding efficiency and quality of service, the two power

companies are obliged to provide efficient and high quality electricity supply service under the current SCAs. The SCAs also set out the performance indices as well as the mechanism for financial incentives and penalties.

On the feasibility of opening up the electricity market after 2018, as

stipulated in the SCAs, before implementing any changes to the regulatory regime, the Government will take into account all relevant factors and discuss with the power companies market readiness and potential future changes to the electricity supply regulatory framework and transition issues before 2016. We are undertaking preparatory work for the electricity market review, including studying and analysing possible models for market liberalization and changes to the regulatory framework.


(c) Over the past five years, the Gross Domestic Product of Hong Kong has increased by 19.6%, while the increase in electricity consumption over the same period was 5.1%. Comparing with 8.1% over the first five years in 2000s, the growth rate of electricity consumption has shown an obvious decelerating trend.

The current SCAs signed between the Government and the two

power companies provide the two power companies with financial incentives in respect of energy saving and energy audits, in order to encourage them to enhance energy efficiency performance. Regarding energy saving, the power companies are eligible for an incentive payment if they achieve specified targets in a particular year. The existing energy saving targets have been drawn up after discussion with the two power companies in the past, striking a balance among various objective considerations including power companies' forecast, market reaction and cost-effectiveness.

We understand that the public are concerned about the energy

efficiency performance of the power companies and have included this as part of the scope of the mid-term review. We are currently carrying out the review with the two power companies. We expect to complete the review by the end of this year and will brief the Legislative Council and the public on the outcome.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, I would like to follow up the response given in part (b) of the main reply concerning the opening up of the electricity market. The Government has only indicated that it will discuss with the power companies market readiness before 2016. It is now 2013, which means that they will have five years to undertake preparatory work before 2018 should they begin to do so now. Certainly, there is sufficient time. However, if we will not be informed of market readiness until 2016, there might be insufficient time for preparatory work to be undertaken. May I ask the Government, besides studies and analyses, whether it will undertake more concrete preparatory work of which we have not been informed?


1789

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr SIN for his question about exploring the feasibility of opening up the electricity market in the future. I believe intensive work will follow, including public consultations to commence at the end of this year on related issues such as the future situation of energy mix in Hong Kong, and such consultations are, to a certain extent, related to the opening up of the market in future. Discussions on energy mix will also be followed by exploration on the opening up of the market. During the period from the end of this year to next year as well as 2015, there will be a series of studies and discussions with stakeholders with the goal of ensuring thorough discussions in the community and mapping out a direction for the future as we move towards 2016 according to the timetable. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your question not been answered? MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, he has not answered my supplementary question. I have read his main reply, but my question is: Besides studies and analyses, what other tasks will the Government undertake? The Secretary has not answered my question, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, Mr SIN, there are basically two aspects. As I pointed out just now, on the one hand, we must conduct objective analyses. Therefore, preparatory work will be undertaken. In the coming two years, objective justifications and analysis results will be obtained through different analyses, including studies conducted jointly by the Government and the stakeholders. Meanwhile, through various public consultations, including the one conducted between the end of this year and early next year on energy mix, which I mentioned just now, and the public consultation to be launched later after the relevant analysis, we will explore this subject jointly with the stakeholders in the community. Therefore, work in these two aspects will be taken forward simultaneously and progressively.


MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, as we all know, the Fuel Clause Surcharge is related to the customers, which means that the overcharged amount will be reviewed during price adjustments. Nevertheless, the constant occurrence of positive and negative balances in the FCAs is not at all satisfactory. Although this is certainly attributed to fluctuations of international fuel prices, I still wish to ask the Secretary this question: Will the Secretary study with the power companies the feasibility of putting in place a mechanism for a more accurate assessment of fuel prices, so as to reduce the rate of fluctuations during tariff adjustments to make the tariff rate more stable? SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Honourable Member for his question on this. I must reiterate that the difference will be returned to or recovered from the consumers. The same principle will apply irrespective of the balances being positive or negative. The relevant arrangements are clear, transparent and proven, and there will be no question of "over-collection" of tariffs. Therefore, no substantial impact will be caused to customers in the long term. Nevertheless, in view of the question raised by the Honourable Member concerning whether the Government can explore with the two power companies the feasibility of setting up a mechanism for enhancements in this regard, I think we can continue to follow up the matter with them. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary indicated in the main reply that the Government was aware of the public concern about the energy efficiency performance of the power companies, but their performance is certainly extremely poor. Are we going to request them to implement energy saving measures of their own accord, which is tantamount to requesting them to make less profit? As a review will be conducted in this regard, may I ask the Secretary if he knows whether other advanced countries which are exerting their utmost to implement energy saving measures will request their power companies to implement such measures of their own accord, as Hong Kong does, or have come up with other more effective solutions?


1791

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms LAU for her supplementary question on energy conservation. First of all, Members should understand that the electricity market is now regulated by the Hong Kong Government in accordance with the SCAs. As this practice is rarely found in the world, a direct comparison cannot be made. Energy conservation and emission reduction measures should involve the entire community, including energy saving achieved by the Government through the enactment of legislation, various initiatives and charters, and studies conducted jointly with the power companies on various fronts. As I mentioned in the main reply just now, over the past five years, the Gross Domestic Product of Hong Kong has increased by 19.6%, but the increase in overall electricity consumption was a mere 5.1%. It is evident that, despite the substantial economic growth, the increase in electricity consumption is relatively small and stable. Hence, overall, Hong Kong has managed to reduce emission to a certain extent. Certainly, Members should also understand that fuel prices will rise. We also hope that efforts can be stepped up in energy conservation and emission reduction. I believe a multi-pronged approach should be adopted to tackle this problem. Under the existing SCAs, we will discuss with the power companies how they can make contribution to emission reduction accordingly. Meanwhile, the Government will collaborate with various stakeholders in implementing energy saving and emission reduction measures on other fronts, so that a multi-pronged approach can be adopted to address the problems jointly. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is very simple. Is there any place in the world which will, for energy saving purposes, request power companies to advise their customers to consume less electricity, though doing so will bring them less revenue? Is the answer zero, which means that Hong Kong is a unique case? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have the information requested by the Member?


SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, Ms LAU, to my understanding, power companies in other parts of the world have different degrees of involvement and incentives in assisting their customers in saving energy and reducing emission by various means. Therefore, my reply to Ms LAU's follow-up question is that power companies in other parts of the world will also engage in, encourage, and assist in energy saving and emission reduction. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, I think the reply given by the Secretary just now is evasive. In particular, I did not know what he was talking about when he replied to the supplementary question raised by Mr SIN Chung-kai regarding the arrangements after 2018. May I ask the Secretary what he has in mind? If he was speaking in an ordinary election forum, he would be asked to present his manifesto. However, he is now involved in the administration of the Government. My question was about the Government's policy and whether the market will be opened up. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE, please raise your supplementary question. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, the reply given by the Secretary is that "the Government will take into account all relevant factors and discuss with the power companies market readiness". Despite the Government's intention to discuss with the power companies, they will definitely say that they are not ready, so does it mean that there is no need to do anything? I would like to ask the Secretary a very simple supplementary question. Regarding the arrangements after 2018, what is the Administration's position and policy, and is there any intention to open up the market or introduce interconnection between the two power companies? Does the Administration have the commitment and policy to at least break the present situation which is basically highly monopolized by the two power companies? SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LEE for his supplementary question. Regarding the comments made by me just now, first of all, we have said that a review of fuel mix will be conducted


1793

between late this year and early next year. This is precisely our first step to explore this issue with the power companies and all stakeholders in the territory. This is the first step since fuel mix is, to a certain extent, related to the opening up of the market in the future. Second, we have a clear timetable. In the coming two years, we will collaborate with not only the two power companies but also various local stakeholders through different channels to enable the community to understand the long-term impact of the opening up of the market on the entire Hong Kong community, including technical analyses, with a view to jointly exploring the impact of the opening up of the market on Hong Kong in various aspects. Therefore, we have already got a clear timetable for the implementation of such work. We will undertake such work progressively. Our first step is to discuss the fuel mix. In the coming two years, we will have a clear timetable and procedure for joint discussion and consideration of the opening up of the market with various parties, including the power companies, stakeholders and Honourable Members. Hence, I have given a clear reply in this regard. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered whether or not the Administration's position and policy is to open up the market. It appears that he has no idea because his standard reply is that discussions will be held. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have raised your supplementary question already. Secretary, the question raised by the Member is: Does the Government have any policy or position regarding the opening up of the market? SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I believe we need to discuss the relevant policy with the community and Members. This is why our current view and proposal is that the Government will analyse some objective data and discuss with the parties concerned the feasibility of opening up the market and the pace in the future on all fronts. The Government has no established stance for the time being.


MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): Usually, public utilities must bear associated responsibilities if they are allowed to operate as a monopoly. In other words, if some remote places in Hong Kong do not have electricity supply, the power companies are obliged to provide them with a stable electricity supply. In Hong Kong, however, some places do not yet have electricity supply. Assuming Po Toi Island and Tung Ping Chau are among these places. My question is: Insofar as the next SCAs are concerned, irrespective of the mid-term review or discussions on more complicated issues such as the one concerning the opening up of the market in the future, will the Government make an undertaking to supply electricity to Hong Kong's remote places where there is no electricity supply a factor to be considered when discussing the SCAs with the two power companies? SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr TANG for the supplementary question. I will discuss with colleagues to follow this up with the power companies. Generally speaking, our policy is to ensure electricity supply in terms of safety, reliability, reasonable price and environmentally-friendliness. However, we can still follow up how due regard can be given to the situation mentioned by Mr TANG under the overall energy policy. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): The interconnection between Hong Kong and Guangdong has become a popular topic recently. Currently, this is basically a special cable between Hong Kong and Daya Bay. Certainly, the interpretation of full interconnection is different. This issue is probably more important and requires further discussion. In this regard, can the Secretary inform this Council of the Bureau's existing position? SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ir Dr LO for the supplementary question. Basically, this supplementary question is related to our subsequent consultations on fuel mix for power generation because, as we all know, there are various ways to examine Hong Kong's future fuel mix, including such issues as the use of more natural gas and less coal, ways to examine the site of nuclear power stations, exploration of cross-boundary interconnection, and so on. I am afraid it will take a while for the relevant detailed information to become available because we will have a


1795

more objective analysis and data in respect of electricity supply in Hong Kong in terms of safety, reliability, reasonable price and environmentally-friendliness by the end of this year, when discussions with the community will be held. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, concerning the issue of energy saving by the power companies, as mentioned by Mr SIN Chung-kai, their annual energy saving ratios stand at only 0.04% and 0.03% respectively. From the angle of energy conservation, this should be welcomed by the public. However, the efficiency achieved by the power companies in energy saving appears to be not high. May I ask the Secretary whether an energy saving ratio will be determined with the two power companies in the future SCAs by, for instance, raising it to 1% or 2%? SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Honourable Member for the supplementary question on energy saving. As I mentioned just now, we understand the community's concern about the energy efficiency performance of the power companies. We have included this topic as part of the scope of the mid-term review, and are currently discussing with the power companies how to review this matter in response to public aspirations, though it will take a while for the detailed outcome of the review to become available. As the consolidated outcome of this review will be submitted to the Legislative Council by the end of this year for its scrutiny with the public, I think that is all I can say for the time being. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent 23 minutes on this question. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, may I ask the Secretary whether matters related to energy saving will be reviewed as well? He has not answered this part. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Secretary already gave a reply just now. If you are not satisfied with his reply, please follow it up on other occasions. Fourth question.


Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 4. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): The main piece of the existing legislation on the prevention of cruelty to animals is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (the Ordinance), under which the maximum penalty for the relevant offences is a fine of HK$200,000 and imprisonment for three years. Officers from various government departments, including police officers, senior veterinary officers, health officers, health inspectors and certain officers from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), have been authorized to enforce the Ordinance. In addition, the police, in collaboration with the AFCD, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong) (SPCA), veterinary associations and animal concern groups, introduced the Animal Watch Scheme (the Scheme) in 2011 to fight against cruelty to animals through a four-pronged approach of education, publicity, intelligence gathering and investigation, and encourage the public to participate in the Scheme. Although, with the introduction of the Scheme, the police received a total of 63 cases of cruelty to animals last year, or three cases fewer than the year before, while the detection rate increased from the 17% to 30% in the same period, incidents of negligence of care or abandonment of pets, or ill-treatment of animals with intention or even brutally torturing them to death, and so on, are still reported in the media from time to time and the situation seems to be worsening. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the number of cases in which animals were not well taken care of or abused due to the closedown of animal breeding grounds or pet shops and the number of animals involved in each case in the past three years; if such data are not available, of the reasons for that;

(b) the specific work that the authorities have carried out in respect of

the four aspects of education, publicity, intelligence gathering and investigation since the introduction of the Scheme, as well as the effectiveness of the work; and

(c) the number of prosecutions instituted under the Ordinance, the

penalties generally imposed by the Court on the convicted persons and the number of animals involved in the cases concerned in the past three years; whether the authorities will consider increasing the maximum penalties for animal cruelty offences to enhance the deterrent effect?


1797

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I wish to remind Members that the expression "蒐集" is not pronounced as gwai2 zaap6 but sau1 zaap6. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): I pronounced it as "gwai2 zaap6". PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It should be pronounced as "sau1 zaap6", not "gwai2 zaap6". MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Not "gwai2 zaap6". All right, thank you. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, currently, a number of government departments and organizations are involved in handling animal cruelty cases. For the purpose of enhancing co-operation among the government departments and organizations concerned, the AFCD, in conjunction with the Hong Kong Police Force, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the SPCA, set up a working group in 2011 to examine the work on handling such cases. The police, in collaboration with the AFCD, the SPCA, veterinary associations and animal concern groups, introduced the Scheme in 2011 to fight against animal cruelty cases through a four-pronged approach covering education, publicity, intelligence gathering and investigation. The Scheme aims at strengthening police efforts in the investigation of such cases. Enhancing co-operation between the police and different organizations and promoting wider public involvement will enable more effective prevention and investigation of animal cruelty cases. My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(a) We note that a recent animal cruelty case was related to the closedown of a pet shop. Experience shows that cases of cruelty to animals or negligence usually do not occur immediately after the closedown of animal breeding premises or pet shops, but a period of time after the operators or their friends have brought the animals home when they find themselves unable to look after the animals. Unnecessary suffering is inflicted as a result. Since such acts of


cruelty are usually caused by a number of factors, such as the financial situation of the animal keepers, the Government cannot provide a breakdown.

(b) Since the introduction of the Animal Watch Scheme, the police, in

collaboration with the AFCD, the SPCA and veterinary associations, has been combating cruelty to animals through the four-pronged approach of education, publicity, intelligence gathering and investigation. I will give an account of the work involved and the overall effectiveness of the Scheme.

Public education is the key to safeguarding and promoting animal

welfare. To this end, the AFCD has established a dedicated team to devise, implement and fortify public education and publicity programmes for promoting care for animals and responsible pet ownership. The relevant activities include producing Announcements in the Public Interest to be broadcast on TV and radio; advertising on such platforms as public transport, magazines and websites; organizing promotional events in shopping arcades; regularly conducting village and community campaigns; holding talks in schools; as well as conducting annual surveys on pet care. The police also promote the Scheme through such channels as the Police Magazine and the Junior Police Call, encouraging front-line units to make good use of platforms like the District Fight Crime Committee to solicit community support for prevention of cruelty to animals and raise public awareness.

On intelligence gathering, for the purpose of strengthening our

intelligence network, the police encourage private veterinarians, animal welfare concern groups and members of the public to report to law-enforcement agencies any suspected activities of cruelty to animals. The Scheme is also supported by two professional veterinary associations, namely the Hong Kong Veterinary Association and China (Hong Kong) Veterinary Association. With a view to strengthening the intelligence network, they also encourage their members to report suspected acts of cruelty to animals or the suspected culprits.


1799

On investigation, for the purpose of strengthening its efforts in the investigation of animal cruelty cases and help front-line officers better understand the multi-agency approach adopted under the Scheme, the police organize seminars as and when appropriate and invites the AFCD and the SPCA staff to share their experience, so that front-line officers are kept abreast of the prevailing trends. In the various training courses run by the Police College, officers are briefed on offences involving cruelty to animals as well as the professional knowledge and skills required for investigating such cases. The police will also introduce an e-learning software to provide police officers with an additional learning platform to ensure that cases of cruelty to animals are handled in a professional, comprehensive and consistent manner. The AFCD and the SPCA staff also provide expert advice to assist the police's investigation into animal cruelty cases.

We can see from some cases that the above measures have started to

yield positive results. In June 2013, the police and the SPCA uncovered an animal cruelty case in Mong Kok with three men and women arrested. Recently in October, the police received a few reports of animal corpses found in Yuen Long. A man was promptly arrested based on the information provided by a citizen who had taken the initiative to supply the leads. Investigation of the two cases is underway pending toxicological examination results. Given that the majority of cases handled by the Government were uncovered because members of the public had taken the initiative to make reports and provide information, the Scheme has proved effective in consolidating collaboration among various parties, strengthening co-operation between the police and the community as well as enhancing public awareness of combating cruelty to animals.

(c) The number of prosecutions instituted under the Ordinance in the

past three years was 11 in 2010, 15 in 2011 and 19 in 2012 respectively, with most of the offenders convicted. The number of convicted cases and the penalties imposed on the persons convicted are set out in Annex. A fine was the most common form of penalty imposed last year. Other forms of penalty included imprisonment and community service order. The Administration does not keep separate statistics on the number of animals involved in these cases.


That takes me to the suggestion that the Government should consider raising the penalties for offences relating to cruelty to animals to enhance the deterrent effect. At present, the maximum penalty under the Ordinance is a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for three years. The level of penalty imposed by the Court is generally higher than what used to be the case before the penalty provisions in the Ordinance were amended in 2006 (the maximum penalty before amendment was a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for six months). The heaviest sentence handed down so far is imprisonment for eight months. We are of the view that there is no need to raise the penalty again for the time being. As I have stressed earlier, public education is the key to safeguarding and promoting animal welfare. We will continue to step up our efforts in publicity and education.

Annex 2010 2011 2012 Number of prosecution cases 11 15 19 Number of cases with conviction 9 13 18 Penalties imposed on the persons convicted (i) Immediate imprisonment 3 1 3 (ii) Community service order 3 3 3 (iii) Probation order 1 1 0 (iv) Bound over/conditional discharge 0 0 0 (v) Fine 0 7 9 (vi) Suspended sentence 1 1 3 (vii) Caution/absolute discharge 0 0 0 (viii) Hospital order 1 0 0 MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, those people who do not keep pets may think that the matters asked about in my oral question are only trivial matters. But for those who keep pets, very often they would regard their pets as members of their families. In some housing estates, pets are not allowed, but these people will put up a fight to the very end. The figures provided by the Secretary show that over the past three years, that is, in 2010, 2011 and 2012, the number of cases with conviction is nine, 13


1801

and 18 respectively. This rate of increase is totally unacceptable because the number of convictions has doubled in two years. This shows that the current situation is entirely out of control. The Secretary says in part (c) of his reply to my main question that in view of the fact that the maximum penalties for related offences have been raised from a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment of six months in 2006 to a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for three years, and that the heaviest sentence handed down so far is imprisonment for eight months, hence there is no need to raise the penalty again. However, no policy has been formulated by the authorities to make the rising number of cases level off or fall. The Secretary has not mentioned why no deterrent effect is achieved after the penalties have been made stiffer. Since the Secretary seems to be unable to do anything, I would ask him to comment on this: Irrespective of what the sentence handed down by the Court is, if the maximum penalties are raised from a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for three years to imprisonment for 10, 20 years or even more, some kind of deterrent effect can be achieved. Why does the Secretary think that this will not achieve any deterrent effect? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, if you have raised your supplementary question, please sit down. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, as Mr TIEN has raised a number of supplementary questions, for the time being I will focus my reply on … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have only heard Mr TIEN raise one question. He asked why deterrent effect could not be achieved. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Yes. I will focus my reply on the penalties. Now the Court can determine a penalty as appropriate according to the circumstances of each case and various factors like the background of the offenders. Ever since the committee has been set up, it has analysed the sentences handed down by the Court on convicted persons and found that ever since the penalties were amended in 2006, the sentences handed


down by the Court have been stiffer than in the past. As I have just said, the heaviest sentence handed down was imprisonment for eight months. The incident took place in September 2012 in Tuen Mun and it was about injuries inflicted on a dog by pouring thinner and setting fire on it. In addition to that, there is a case in which the penalty handed down is a fine of $70,000. As for making the penalties stiffer as suggested by the Member just now, I am sure we can raise the maximum penalties under the Ordinance. But after the penalties are made stiffer, the Court will determine the actual punishment to be meted out according to various factors like the facts of each case and the background of the offender concerned. If we think that the sentence is too light, the Secretary for Justice can lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeal, seeking a review of the sentence. In this regard, we think that there is no need to raise the maximum penalties for the time being. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): My supplementary question asked the Secretary why he thought that there no deterrent effect was achieved even though the penalties had been raised. And his reply is that the Court has not meted out the maximum penalties. He did not respond to the question of why he thought that there was no deterrent effect even though the penalties had been raised. If people know that the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years, then they will be afraid and they will not dare to break the law. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, please sit down after you have raised your question. Secretary, Mr TIEN has raised a question on deterrent effect. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I understand the Member's question. The Member asked me why I have come to this view and say that different persons will have different views. Some people may think that the penalty is not stiff enough. We think that more efforts should be made in publicity and education. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, I do not agree at all to the Secretary's argument. It is because he thinks that after more efforts made, there will be fewer cases of cruelty to animals. I am very disappointed to note that he


1803

is not prepared to set up an animal police and make the penalties under prevention of cruelty to animals law heavier. President, we can note from the Annex to the main reply that among the large number of cruelty to animal cases last year, most of the sentences handed down are only a fine and it could be just a fine of just over $100. But one can also see that many studies overseas have pointed out that there may be psychological problems in those animal abusers and these people may also have other anti-social behaviour. May I ask the Secretary whether the Bureau will consider amending the law to compel people convicted of these offences to receive psychological counselling and enrol in animal care courses in order to reduce the chances of their committing the offences again? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN mentioned persons who are cruel to animals and thought that they may have a certain kind of psychological background. As I have just said, convicted persons may have different backgrounds. Of course, with respect to what the Member has said, I cannot rule out the possibility that some of these people may have some problems in their psychology or personal development. I think, however, that these problems should be dealt with through another channel. In our society, we have mental health services and relevant laws with respect to persons with mental health problems. However, we are talking about cruelty to animals. The personal development and psychology of persons committing a criminal offence are different from each other. So with respect to Mr CHAN's point about legislative amendment to target the psychological motives behind offenders of animal cruelty cases and require these persons to receive psychotherapy or treatment, I would think that these are not necessary. MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, as we read the Annex to the Secretary's main reply, we find that figures over so many years show that the figures of prosecutions instituted and convicted cases are very close and it seems that provided the police will press charges, the offenders will be convicted. And irrespective of the punishment meted out, provided that prosecution is instituted,


the offender will be convicted. From this it can be seen that it is very important that the police discharge their prosecution duty if we want to deal with cruelty to animal cases. However, as we can see it, the reality is many of these cases will attract action by the police only after publicity on the Internet or media reports. I would therefore think that another Director of Bureau should attend this meeting as well and take our questions. In these cruelty to animal cases, many are about animals getting abandoned and it is when they are abandoned that they are likely to be treated cruelly or abused in the streets. May I ask Secretary Dr KO, although under the relevant laws, animal neglect is also an offence and offenders can be convicted, whether the authorities will consider reviewing the laws with particular regard to the abandonment of animals and study how people who abandon animals can be summarily tried and convicted, instead of having to undergo cumbersome procedures? This is because there are really so many people … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss MAK, you have raised your supplementary question, please sit down and let the Secretary give his reply. MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): Okay. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, on the question of abandonment of animals, the AFCD has a team specifically tasked with public education and it formulates and carries out education and publicity plans. A very important message in these plans is to promote the idea of being a responsible pet owner. This includes making an appeal to the citizens that they should think carefully before they buy any pets and that they should care for these pets for as long as they live. Citizens are also advised not to abandon their pets or turn over their pets to the authorities unnecessarily. According to the surveys conducted by the Census and Statistics Department last year, education and publicity work undertaken by the AFCD has achieved some results. We will continue to intensify publicity and education


1805

work. However, if there are animals suspected of having been abandoned, the AFCD will investigate these cases and if there is sufficient evidence, prosecution will be instituted. MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): Recently there was a case about a pet shop owner who rented a flat of 700 sq ft after his shop had closed down to keep 60 cats and dogs there. Then four cats died and he was charged with cruelty to animals. I think the major reason behind this is the inability to look after the animals. As the Secretary has just said, many people find after they have bought the pets that they are unable to look after them, then the pets are abandoned in the streets. This act is regarded as cruelty to animals. My supplementary question is, in such circumstances, if they really find that they are unable to look after the animals, can they donate them to the SPCA or seek help from the AFCD? If there are channels available to help citizens who are unable to look after their pets, I think the number of animals abandoned in the streets can be reduced and this will not lead to cruelty to animals. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, there are such channels. But I think the key lies in the source. This is about what I have just said in reply to a Member's question, that the most important point is to state the case clearly beforehand. That is to say, everyone in this society who wants to adopt or buy a pet are reminded that they should think carefully before they make such a decision and determine if they have the love and ability to look after the pet all through its life. We do have channels to solve this problem presently. If citizens find that they are unable to look after their pets, they can hand them over to the AFCD or the SPCA. But if they want to make a choice between these two options, I think education at source is more important. Therefore, we hope people will not make a rash decision to buy a pet or adopt an animal, and we do not want to see that they will regret later and hand them over. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHUNG, has your supplementary question not been answered?


MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): No. In the case of the pet shop owner which I have just mentioned, those animals were not kept by the owner as pets but they were to be used in business transactions. When a pet shop owner fails in his business and finds that he is unable to look after the dozens of cats, then what can he do? This is not a problem about the source or education as such. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I have also mentioned earlier that if cases like this happen, we do have channels to take care of them. I am only saying that in comparison, I think that it is more important to state the case clearly beforehand. Of course, if it is about running a business and suppose a pet shop cannot be operated with success anymore, the remaining animals in the shop can be given to other people or to the relevant groups or government department. However, we hope that this kind of case can be prevented from happening by all means. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, since those animals which get killed or amputated are cats and dogs, so the Secretary can reply loudly that education and publicity are the most important methods. But if the victims are human beings and those who get killed or have their limbs chopped are humans, and when he still replies that education and publicity are the most important methods, I am sure the citizens will think that he is heartless. Actually, I agree that making the penalties stiffer may not effectively deter the occurrence of abuse or killing of animals, because enforcement action is not possible and no one arrests the offenders. So I hope that the Secretary can make use of this opportunity to tell animal lovers why the Bureau does not lend its support to setting up an animal police? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I have used some time earlier to explain that on the question of setting up an animal police or other suggestions made, I believe the underlying aim is more important. The aim is the wish to strengthen enforcement action. We agree that enforcement action should be enhanced and on dealing with cruelty to animal cases, apart from the vigour of enforcement, the most important point is all-round


1807

concern. As I have explained the Animal Watch Scheme earlier, I will not do so now. But I will explain the issue of enforcement. In terms of enforcement, the police have deployed sufficient manpower for the criminal investigation teams in various police districts according to cruelty to animal cases. The members of these teams have special experience and detection skills. As far as I know, when the police investigate cruelty to animal cases, they will adopt a detective approach. If it is found that the case is one about cruelty to animals ― of course, the persons who first arrive at the scene may not be police officers ― when a policeman, such as a uniformed constable, arrives at the scene and finds from the prima facie evidence there is a possibility of animal abuse, the matter can be regarded as a case of suspected cruelty to animals and it will be referred to policemen responsible for criminal detection. I have just said that the police provide many kinds of internal training for police officers. I am sure this can address public demands for strengthened enforcement action by the police, detection skills and technology, and so on. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 24 minutes on this question. Fifth question. Landfill Extension Proposals 5. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, the Government withdrew the funding proposal for extending the Southeast New Territories Landfill on 26 June this year, and the Finance Committee of this Council passed motions at its meeting held on 12 July this year to adjourn the discussions of the funding proposals for extending the other two landfills. The Chief Secretary for Administration (Chief Secretary) had subsequently undertaken to communicate with the residents affected by landfills, so as to understand their concerns, and she indicated that the Government would strive to re-submit the relevant funding proposals in the first quarter of next year. On the other hand, it has been reported that in August this year, the authorities carried out soil excavation works in the proposed extension area of the West New Territories (WENT) Landfill, but the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) clarified that the authorities had not carried out any works relating to the extension of the landfill ahead of approval. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


(a) of the number of meetings held respectively by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary for the Environment with the residents affected by the landfills since 12 July this year, as well as the dates and details of these meetings; whether they will, from now on, meet the affected residents again before the authorities re-submit the relevant funding proposals; if they will, of the expected number of meetings and the details;

(b) when the authorities granted approval for carrying out the aforesaid

soil excavation works at the WENT Landfill; whether they had consulted the public before granting the approval; if they had, of the details; of the commencement and projected completion dates of the soil excavation works, and whether the authorities will construct the infrastructure required for landfill extension in the borrow area; of the planned land use of the land in the borrow area; whether public consultation on such land use has been conducted; if so, of the details; and

(c) of the details and expenditure of the specific measures implemented

by the authorities to achieve waste reduction at source in the past five years; apart from the public consultation on the charging for solid waste which is currently underway, whether the authorities will, in the next three years, conduct another public consultation on the treatment of municipal solid waste and strengthening waste reduction at source; if they will, of the estimated expenditure involved and the details; whether the authorities will undertake not to submit funding proposals for landfill extension plans before the community has reached a consensus on waste reduction at source?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, my reply to the question raised by Dr KWOK Ka-ki is as follows:

(a) In response to residents' request, since 12 July this year, the Chief Secretary and I have met, on several occasions, with the Chairmen of District Councils (DCs) and the representatives of residents affected by the landfill extension so as to better understand residents' concerns. These meetings include:


1809

(i) On 8 August this year, the Chief Secretary and I went to Ha Pak Nai Village in Yuen Long and Lung Kwu Tan Village in Tuen Mun and met with the representatives of villagers to listen to their views on the operation of the existing WENT Landfill and its extension and to inspect the landfill operation.

(ii) On 6 September this year, at the invitation of the Chairman of

Sai Kung DC, I met and exchanged views with members of Sai Kung DC. I briefed them on the waste management strategy of Hong Kong in the coming 10 years, listened to their views on waste management and understood the local requests and concerns.

In addition, my colleagues and I have also met, on several occasions,

with the Chairmen and members of the DCs concerned as well as the representatives of rural committees and villagers. We listened to their views and discussed improvement proposals and future planning. The Government is consolidating the views received so as to take appropriate follow-up action before re-submitting the extension proposals of the three landfills to the Legislative Council in the first quarter of next year.

(b) Under the contract awarded in 1993, the "borrow area" of the WENT

Landfill is located within the contractual boundary of the existing landfill. The landfill contractor can carry out site formation, excavation and temporary storage of soil within the borrow area according to the actual operational needs. However, no construction of infrastructure nor landfill activities will be carried out. As the landfill has been operational for many years, there is less and less space available for use. To meet the actual operational needs, in early 2012 the contractor began to temporarily store received inert construction material (including soil and rock pieces) in the borrow area as permitted under the contract, for use in the construction of temporary roads, capping in the landfill, and so on, in the future. Under the contractual arrangement, when the existing WENT Landfill is saturated, the contractor must restore the borrow area to its original state before handing it over to the EPD. When the funding for WENT Landfill Extension project is approved in the future, the site concerned will also be included in the Extension.


(c) The Government has drawn up a comprehensive strategy for waste reduction. The current Government unveiled "Hong Kong: Blueprint for Sustainable Use of Resources 2013-2022" (the Blueprint) in May this year to set out comprehensive strategies and waste reduction targets. The key points include a progressive implementation of various mandatory producer responsibility schemes (PRS) and proactive introduction of municipal solid waste charging in Hong Kong. In this connection, we have conducted public consultations on a number of waste management initiatives, which include introducing a PRS on waste electrical and electronic equipment (2010), extending the Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags (PSBs) to cover all local retailers (2011), as well as introducing municipal solid waste charging to facilitate waste reduction (2012) and a PRS on glass beverage bottles (2013).

Currently, the Bill on the extension of the Environmental Levy

Scheme on PSBs is being scrutinized by the Legislative Council. We also plan to submit the legislative proposal on the PRS on waste electrical and electronic equipment and to seek funding for the necessary treatment facilities within this legislative year. As for the PRS on glass beverage bottles, we will soon report the outcome of the consultation exercise to the Legislative Council with recommendations on the way forward. In parallel, at the invitation of the Government, the Sustainable Development Council launched the second phase of the public engagement process on municipal solid waste charging in September 2013. The process is to explore the details of charging and arrive at some reasonable and practicable options for quantity-based charging.

As for the resources put in for waste reduction, apart from source

separation of waste and recycling promoted through the EPD, the Government also actively supports non-profit-making organizations in educational activities and encourages recycling in the community through the Environment and Conservation Fund (ECF). Over the past five years, the EPD spent $14 million (2008-2009), $16 million (2009-2010), $27 million (2010-2011), $28 million (2011-2012) and $30 million (2012-2013) respectively on these areas of work, and the ECF granted $3 million (2008-2009), $65 million(2009-2010),


1811

$68 million (2010-2011), $86 million (2011-2012) and $53 million (2012-2013) respectively to non-profit-making organizations for the promotion of waste reduction and recycling as well as education activities. Since an injection of $5 billion into the ECF in mid-2013, we have planned to put in over $200 million to subsidize environmental protection projects by non-government organizations in the financial year 2013-2014. As waste reduction is our key area of work this year, a greater proportion of fund ($100 million) will be earmarked to support waste- related projects.

In addition, since May this year, we have launched the "Food Wise

Hong Kong Campaign" to disseminate messages on conserving food, reducing food waste and encouraging recycling of resources. Besides, in order to boost the "reduction first" waste management strategy, we plan to set up a community green station in various districts throughout Hong Kong to promote environmental education and support recycling.

Looking ahead, the Environment Bureau will continue to implement

the various measures set out in the Blueprint and launch public consultation on different projects as and when necessary. By then, we will earmark the necessary resources for such efforts as before.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, what the Secretary has said is all lies. First, the Government carried out landfill extension works ahead of approval in defiance of the Legislative Council. We have seen that the Government has spent about $370 million on waste reduction at source over the past five years. During these five years, the total expenditure of the EPD was over $14 billion and the expenditure on landfill extension was over $17.9 billion. The construction of an incinerator, if any, may further incur an expenditure of $14 billion, thus adding up to a total of over $30 billion. The expenditure on waste reduction at source amounted to only $370 million for five years, accounting for less than 1% of the total expenditure. At the meeting of the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council on 12 July, Members, including the pro-establishment Members, requested that the debate be adjourned mainly because of insufficient consultation conducted by the Government. We asked the Secretary for an answer for many times, and all he


could tell us at the meeting was 8 August, and it was criticized by the residents then as the one and only time that they "put on a show". President, we wrote to Chief Secretary Carrie LAM in August. We also wrote to the Secretary on 11 September and 18 September respectively, asking him if he could meet with the affected residents in Tuen Mun on any day ― President, it is "any day" ― in October or November. President, the Secretary replied that he could not have even one day to spare. President, may I ask if it is because the authorities think that they already have enough votes supporting the passage of their proposals in January next year that they refused to meet with the public? If not, let me once again ask the Secretary this through you, President: On which day between now and January next year can he accept the invitation and go to Tuen Mun to meet with all affected residents? SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr KWOK for the supplementary question. As I said earlier on, my colleagues and I have, on various suitable occasions, met with people in the relevant districts, including the Chairmen and members of DCs, as well as representatives of rural committees and villagers. This is what we did in the past, and we will always be prepared to do the same in the future. Having said that, when we received different invitations, we will give consideration to the place, time, purpose of meeting, details of arrangements, and so on, depending on individual circumstances. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): He is indeed very disappointing to us. I now ask him once again … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your supplementary question.


1813

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I now once again openly invite him to meet with the residents on a day between now and January next year. Can he give us a reply on whether or not he will accept this invitation? Just say "Yes" or "No". SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr KWOK for the follow-up question. As I said just now, each invitation will be taken into consideration subject to the individual circumstances. I think we will consider them individually not only in terms of the time of meeting, but also the detailed arrangements in all aspects. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I have this question for the Secretary. When they met with the Chairmen and members of the DCs, the rural committees and residents, did anyone mention the further reduction of the extension area of the WENT Landfill? What does the Government think about this? SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr TAM for the supplementary question. When we met with the residents or villagers in different districts, they did express views on various matters relating to the landfills, including their size. This is particularly so with the WENT Landfill, as it sounds that the WENT Landfill seems to be the biggest among the three landfill extension proposals. I wish to take this opportunity to do some explaining. First, the funding that we will be seeking for the WENT Landfill Extension is intended for the preliminary preparatory work. Such work can help respond to some of the requests made in the districts, including the concern raised by the Member earlier on. The WENT Landfill Extension project will be carried out in many phases. Therefore, the extension involving some 200 hectares of land will not be carried out in one go. Rather, it will be taken forward according to different needs and requests in society. As such, this is not an overall development project to be carried out in one go.


Regarding the review of the Extension project, given that Lung Kwu Tan Village is in the vicinity of the WENT Landfill and will be the nearest to the landfill after its extension, we propose to look into whether it is possible to increase the green belts between the village and the extended landfill, so that the overall size of the landfill can be adjusted in some measure and more importantly, the provision of more green belts can serve as an environmental buffer. In this connection, we have heard the views of the villagers and we are actively taking follow-up actions with the technical departments to consider how best we can respond to their requests at an appropriate time. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): No. Just now I asked whether there will be an overall reduction in the size of the extension. It seems that the Secretary has not answered this point. He only said that there will be some green belts … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, with regard to the reduction of the extension area, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I would like to tell Mr TAM that overall, we appreciate this request made by some people. As I said earlier, we will review the proposals, including the provision of green belts in places at the edge of the extension area, so that the overall size of the landfill will become smaller. However, I think that we must strike a balance. On the one hand, before landfills can be replaced by incineration facilities, we should consider how the overall landfill capacity in Hong Kong can be maintained for a period of time in the future while reducing at the same time the environmental nuisance caused by the landfills to villagers living nearby. In other words, increasing the green belts can bring multiple benefits, for this can help protect the environment and make slight adjustments to the overall landfill size.


1815

MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, in part (a) of the Secretary's main reply it is mentioned that they met with the relevant organizations or DCs in August and September. I understand that during this period of time, the Secretary also met with Members or relevant organizations and inspected some landfills. But I wish to ask the Secretary whether he or his colleagues will actually pay visits to these districts to get in touch with the residents by, for instance, organizing district consultation forums, so as to listen to the views of the local residents. Not only should he listen to the views of representatives of organizations, he should also listen to the views of residents living near the landfills or in the remote districts, in order to find out what they think about the landfills as a whole or the Government's policy on waste disposal. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Member for her question and suggestion. As I said earlier, we are open-minded, and we will handle and consider the arrangements for each meeting individually. I believe it is most important to better the understanding of members of the community, especially people in the relevant districts, of the landfills and even the overall strategy for waste disposal in Hong Kong. So, we will follow up different cases. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, when seeking support for its landfill extension projects, the Government made undertakings to the public that it would ameliorate the problems concerning the stench, hygiene and environment at the landfills and the surrounding areas and also increase the use of marine transport for waste delivery and combat fly tipping. May I ask the authorities what progress has been made in fulfilling these undertakings? SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr QUAT for the question. On these several issues, during our recent exchanges with the Sai Kung DC and DC members, we have explained in detail the work we have carried out in the district on various fronts. In general, I can talk about a few key points here. First, we have just introduced a pilot scheme on the full enclosure of refuse collection vehicles (RCVs), for which we will seek funding approval from the


Legislative Council later. For all private RCVs which have yet been retrofitted with a metal tailgate cover and a waste water sump tank in order for the vehicles to be fully enclosed, the Government will provide subsidies to owners of such vehicles for purposes of carrying out retrofitting works as soon as possible, because this will not only benefit the areas in the vicinity of the landfills but also provide a more hygienic means of waste delivery in the territory. In the meantime, apart from providing incentives, we will also take forward this measure by legislative means in the hope that all RCVs used to deliver waste to these three landfills and other waste management facilities will be required to be fully enclosed, with a view to stepping up this area of work in the long term. Second, increasing the use of marine transport, this applies not only to the operation of landfills but also the operation of fill banks. Together with the departments of the Environment Bureau and other relevant departments, we will look into ways to increase the use of marine transport for waste delivery, including a review of the fees of refuse transfer stations, and after the fees are lowered, more RCVs are expected to deliver waste to these refuse transfer stations direct, so that waste will be delivered by marine transport more often and the number of trips to individual landfills reduced. Third, the Member mentioned fly tipping earlier on, particularly at places in the vicinity of landfills. There have been cases of illegal waste disposal by RCVs before. We have communicated with the relevant DCs and duly installed close circuit television systems at these places to combat such acts. We will also carry out work jointly with the relevant enforcement agencies. Specific progress has been made in these areas of work. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): In part (b) of the main reply the Secretary mentioned the problem concerning the borrow area of the WENT Landfill. He pointed out that it is located within the contractual boundary of the existing landfill and that inert construction material is stored there but no construction of infrastructure for the landfill will be carried out, and in other words, that area is not a landfill. Can the Secretary tell us the size of this area and the quantity of inert construction material stored there now?


1817

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ir Dr LO for the supplementary question. According to the figures provided by my colleagues, this area measures about 1.2 hectares, and the material being stored there changes from time to time because this area is used for making preparatory work and as temporary storage for material to support the operation of the landfill. This is why the quantity of the material changes from time to time. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Secretary, you talked about the retrofitting of RCVs or other initiatives earlier on, and are these not exactly what you can tell the electors and members of the public? Let me give you one more chance. From now till January, and since you have so many considerations, can you tell me under what circumstances you think you will agree to visit the districts? Is it that you will be willing to attend an assembly only when there are "yes-men" all over the place who support the extension of the landfills? If not, you should think about it and tell us under what circumstances you think you will be willing to meet with the affected residents, especially residents in Tuen Mun. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr KWOK for the question. I believe Members all understand that in communicating with the districts, government officials wish to understand the requests of the districts and at the same time enable the residents or the public to understand the work of the Government. This is communication on the basis of interaction between the two sides. What I am trying to say is, when we receive different invitations, we will consider whether or not we will accept the details of the meeting based on the individual circumstances and arrangements. It has been our practice to cope as far as possible with any appropriate invitation. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Let me ask him once again ― I have actually asked him this ― is it that he will attend an assembly only when all the people there are supportive of him?


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you have asked this question many times already, and the Secretary has given an answer. We have spent all the time allocated to this oral question. Please follow it up through other channels. Last oral question. Planning for Residential Developments 6. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, it is learnt that the Government has recently proposed to review the uses of "Green Belt" sites to identify greenery land for conversion to residential use, and it is also reviewing the development density of existing residential sites so as to increase flat supply. Some community groups consider that the Government does not have a comprehensive plan when identifying sites for residential development, and that it should conduct environmental and ecological impact assessments before planning. Some organizations have also suggested that the Government should first consider using idle government, rural and industrial sites to satisfy the demand for residential sites. In connection with the aforesaid concerns about the sustainable development of Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the detailed information, usage and development time frame of the 400 hectares of idle residential sites currently owned by the Government; if it cannot provide such information, of the reasons for that;

(b) as the authorities have proposed to increase the development

intensity of the sites in Kai Tak Development Area, of the estimated number of additional flats to be provided upon the implementation of the proposal; when the Government will assess the impact of such proposal on the environment and society (including the additional burden on the infrastructure such as traffic and community facilities in the district, as well as the ventilation problem caused by wall effect, and so on), recommend corresponding measures and conduct public consultation, and of the relevant details; and

(c) as I have learnt that the residents affected by the Urban Renewal

Authority's redevelopment project in Kowloon City district strongly requested in-situ rehousing, whether the authorities concerned have any concrete proposal in response to such request (including


1819

whether they will change the land use planning for the Kai Tak Development Area); if they have, of the details; if not, how the authorities concerned will provide in-situ rehousing for the residents, and what compensation proposals they will offer to the residents?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, as mentioned in my reply to the question by Mr Martin LIAO about the development of "brownfield sites" earlier today, basically all the options for increasing land supply have been considered by the Government. In view of the current tight supply of land and housing, we must actively take forward all the initiatives to increase land supply in the short, medium and long term, so as to meet the housing and other development needs of society. When reviewing whether a site is suitable for housing or other developments, or if its development intensity could be further increased, we will thoroughly consider a series of factors, including the location and size of the site, local situation, traffic, environment, ecology, recreational and community facilities, as well as urban design, and so on. We will also consult the relevant District Council(s) and locals as appropriate. Moreover, we will consult the government departments concerned, and make reference to the "Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines" for the standards for the provision of relevant supporting facilities, so as to ensure that the local facilities provided can meet the needs arising from the increased population. My reply to the sub-questions raised by Mr Charles Peter MOK is as follows:

(a) As regards the Government's reply to the Legislative Council about the 400-hectare "vacant government land" in October 2012, the Development Bureau has clarified repeatedly that the figure simply referred to the area of unleased or unallocated Government land in "Residential" or "Commercial/Residential" land use zones as at end June 2012. It is not equivalent to the area of land readily available for developments or the land reserve. The statistics and calculation method of the land concerned, as well as maps showing the geographical distribution of such sites in Hong Kong, were uploaded


onto the website of the Development Bureau in October last year. As shown by the maps, there are a number of sites with irregular shapes, such as empty space between buildings, back lanes and narrow strips of land alongside the existing developments, highways or other amenities, within the land concerned. We will review and assess the sites with potential for residential or other developments therein under the established mechanism, and allocate them for developments when they are ready.

(b) The Chief Executive announced in the 2013 Policy Address that, to

facilitate the transformation of Kowloon East, the Government would review the planning of the sites in the Kai Tak Development Area (KTDA), study the possibility of increasing the office and housing supply, without compromising the land supply from the area in the coming five years, and conduct consultation on the outcome of the study. In this connection, we are studying the possible options for increasing the office and housing supply. The scope of the study includes technical assessments to ensure that the proposals would on one hand adhere to the original planning vision and related urban design concept, and would on the other hand not lead to overloading of the infrastructure (that is, transportation, water supply, stormwater drains and sewerage, and so on) and leisure and community facilities, and so on, or unacceptable environmental impacts including noise, air quality, ventilation and visual aspects. Initial findings of the above study indicate that the development intensity of four housing sites at the North Apron area can be increased by about 20%. Coupled with a slight reduction in the average size of the units, about 1 000 additional flats can be provided. We are proceeding with the consultation on increasing the development intensity and the relevant town planning procedures. Upon completion of the whole study in mid-2014, we will take forward the planning proposals arising from the study via the statutory town planning procedures and consult the District Council concerned, local residents and relevant stakeholders.

(c) To respond to the calls from the public, the Urban Renewal Strategy

promulgated on 24 February 2011 provides that the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) should offer "Flat-for-Flat" (FFF) as an alternative


1821

option to cash compensation and ex gratia payment to domestic owner-occupiers affected by the URA redevelopment projects commenced on or after 24 February 2011. Under the FFF scheme, domestic owner occupiers may opt for either in-situ FFF units in the URA's new development at the original sites or for units at a Kai Tak Development site earmarked for the FFF scheme.

The URA will construct four residential buildings for the FFF

scheme in the KTDA, providing about 500 residential units with saleable area ranging from around 320 sq ft to 670 sq ft. These units are scheduled for completion in 2016. As for in-situ FFF units, the URA will reserve in each of its redevelopment project certain FFF units on designated floors of the new development for owner occupiers to choose from. All eligible owner occupiers can participate in the FFF scheme. According to the estimation of URA, in-situ FFF units will be progressively completed from 2017 onwards.

Besides, eligible tenants affected by redevelopment projects will be

rehoused in a certain number of public rental housing units provided by the Hong Kong Housing Authority or the Hong Kong Housing Society, under their agreements with the URA.

According to the URA, currently there are seven announced and

commenced URA redevelopment projects in Kowloon City, involving about 1 100 households. Of these 1 100 households, about 190 are owner occupiers and about 910 are tenants. The URA will handle and provide assistance to these affected households based on its prevailing compensation and rehousing policies.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, it seems that part (a) of the written reply means to tell us not to be too serious about those 400 hectares of land. In this connection, I think it is impossible for us to ask any further questions about it. Therefore, may I know if the eligible residential tenants mentioned in part (c) of the reply include those in "sub-divided units"? Are they also eligible for in-situ rehousing? In addition, may I ask the Secretary if he would consider the proposal of fine-tuning the layout of the Kai Tak Sports City


put forward by civil society to the Town Planning Board (TPB) to increase the supply of public and subsidized housing, so as to meet the urgent needs of residents affected by redevelopment, including the tenants in "sub-divided units"? Is there any estimate on the number of households living in "sub-divided units" in the affected units? Are tenants living in "sub-divided units" included in the 910 tenants mentioned just now? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the figure includes households living in "sub-divided units". Generally speaking, only older residential buildings with poor living conditions will be included in urban renewal programmes for the purpose of urban renewal, so these households are included. President, as regards one of the adjustment proposals for the KTDA proposed by civil society, I have looked at it but the trouble is we consider the proposal not at all feasible. President, I will talk about a couple of points in gist. First, they proposed that the secondary stadium of the Kai Tak Sports City be relocated to the northern side of the Metro Park, so that the site so made available can be used for the development of public housing. This arrangement would affect the enjoyment of the facilities of the Kai Tak Sports City by the public and its technical feasibility also needs to be ascertained. Second, the adjustment proposal also includes changing some of the places originally earmarked for commercial use in the district to public housing. The tight supply of land is not confined to residential sites alone, rather, the same applies to commercial facilities and office buildings, so at the preliminary stage, we have reservations about the "Kai Tak for the People" proposal. Nevertheless, the revisions under this proposal have been referred to the TPB for action and the TPB, as an independent statutory body, also follows a prescribed procedure in dealing with them. MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, since the sites in the traditional business districts are insufficient, we can see that an increasing number of companies have moved their operations to Kowloon East, and the commercial activities in that district have become more intense as a result. May I ask the Secretary if, even as he increases the number of commercial sites in Kowloon East, he would also make planning for more hotel sites? If he would, at which locations would such sites mainly be found?


1823

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, Kowloon East will be the CBD2 of the future, that is, the second central business district. In urban planning, many sites can be used to build hotels or office buildings, so we will leave it to the market to decide according to the supply and demand situation then. In addition, in the KTDA, we have also reserved quite a lot of sites for commercial development. After the completion of the development in the future, the office floor area in Kowloon East will be double that of Central. Moreover, as we mentioned just now, in reviewing the development density of the entire Kai Tak, not only will we look at residential sites, we will also look at commercial sites. We believe that a certain amount of additional floor areas for offices or hotels can also surely be provided for this purpose. However, at the present stage, since the technical assessment is still ongoing, it is not possible to announce how many square feet there actually will be for the time being. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, in some parts of part (a) of the main reply, it is repeatedly mentioned that a sizeable portion of the about 400 hectares of "vacant government land" cannot be used for development. However, I found that for a long time, the Government has been unable to tell the public how many hectares among these several hundred hectares of land would be left discounting all sites not suitable for development. A reply from the Government can perhaps dispel the doubts of the public more effectively. This is the first point. The second point is: Does the Secretary agree that among all these sites, he can also announce to the public the sites that require further planning ― that is, while some sites can come on stream quite soon, some sites need further planning before they can be used ― so that all of us would know how much land is available for the Government to develop and use? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, as pointed out in the main reply, many sites are narrow and irregular, so it is actually by no means easy to carry out development on them. We have uploaded all the information onto our website. We welcome monitoring by all parties and if there are worthy views for consideration, please tell us and we will surely follow them up. In fact, after examining these sites, we have included five of them in the Land Sale Programme this year. When announcing the Land Sale Programme for the third quarter in June this year, I said that these five sites included in the Land Sale Programme have a total area of 0.83 hectare only and a


total of some 800 units can be built. It can thus be seen that the relevant sites are irregular and narrow, so it is by no means easy to develop them. Given our limited resources, at present, we will still examine them systematically but we will devote our efforts mainly to some large-scale projects, in the hope of achieving better results with the limited resources. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, in fact, I just asked the Secretary if those sites that cannot possibly be used would be discounted and the public be informed of the remainder. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I think I have already answered it. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): When the Secretary was asked about "brownfield sites", he said they could not be calculated and when asked whether or not those 400 hectares of land could be developed, he told us to think about this ourselves. President, some 200 000 people are waiting for public housing and if they hear the Secretary say this, they would realize that they are in a practically hopeless situation. Can the Secretary tell us honestly if it is true that he actually does not have any land in his hands or in mind to offer to the public? This question is about green belts and actually, it has suggested to the Secretary an option. May I ask the Government if it has any actual and specific way to find land in green belts to provide housing to the public? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, sometime ago, I came before the Legislative Council to answer Members' questions about green belts and said that we had completed the first phase of the review and examined which green belts had lost their vegetation or were in disuse. About 57 hectares of land were identified and rezoning is now being carried out. We have also completed the second phase of the review to identify sites in the urban


1825

area or the peripherals of the New Territories which have little conservation value and are closer to well-developed infrastructure, in the hope of finding land in them to carry out development. However, President, before deciding if development is possible, we must carry out technical studies in such areas as infrastructure and sewerage. When everything is ready and we believe that the relevant sites can actually be developed, we will raise such matters with the relevant districts and undergo the town planning procedure. It can be said that the SAR Government is making an all-out effort to identify land and create land, but there is a necessary process to this. In the short and medium terms, we will consider increasing the development density and rezoning land use, as raised by Members just now. Meanwhile, Members can also see that in the past 10 months, with regard to long-term land supply, be it new development areas, reclamation, development of caverns or underground space, we are now working on all of them at full steam. Therefore, I can tell the public that we are fully aware that over 200 000 households are waiting for public housing and we are fully aware of the fact that many people are living in very poor conditions, including "sub-divided units". This is precisely what is urging us on. We have to exert our utmost and employ various methods to find more land in the short and medium terms to meet the housing needs of the people. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I wish to follow up. Regarding the 57 hectares of land in green belts in the first phase of review mentioned by the Secretary just now, what is the earliest opportunity for them to come on stream, particularly for use as public housing and when will buildings be available? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, one of the sites has been successfully rezoned and the rest of the sites will be rezoned in batches in the next few years. As regards the details, allow me to provide additional information in writing after the meeting. (Appendix II) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.


WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Problem of Flies in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long 7. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that some housing estates and villages in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long have recently been swarmed by a large quantity of flies, causing serious nuisance to the residents and business operators in the two districts. Some residents have suspected that the flies came from the West New Territories Landfill (WENT Landfill) in Nim Wan, Tuen Mun, but the authorities have indicated for several times that the source of the flies is yet to be confirmed. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether the authorities have now confirmed the sources of the flies in the aforesaid cases; why the authorities have indicated for several times that it cannot confirm whether the WENT Landfill is the source of the flies; of the method currently adopted by the authorities for tracking down the sources of the flies, as well as the details and effectiveness of the measures to control flies;

(b) of the respective dates, durations, affected areas and sources of flies

each time Tuen Mun and Yuen Long were plagued with the problem of flies in the past five years;

(c) of the number of complaints about problems of flies received by the

authorities in the past five years, together with the names of the housing estates or villages concerned and the dates of the complaints; and

(d) whether the authorities have conducted laboratory tests on the flies

captured to find out if the flies appearing in different districts belong to the same species or come from the same source?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question is as follows:

(a) The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) conducted on 8, 9 and 10 October 2013 respectively on-site


1827

inspections at Leung King Estate Market, Sam Shing Estate Market and Butterfly Estate Market, which were reported to be swarming with flies. Persons-in-charge of the management company of these markets (that is, The Link Management Limited (The Link)) were advised to take measures to keep environmental hygiene and prevent fly infestation, including increasing the frequency of cleansing in market areas and applying fly sprays, keeping the market floor clean as well as washing floor surface and drainage on a regular basis so as to prevent flies from breeding in food waste. The FEHD also requested The Link to remind market traders to cover their food properly, dispose of rubbish in a lidded rubbish bin and always put the lid on. Upon its subsequent reviews conducted at the aforementioned markets between 10 and 12 October 2013, the FEHD found that with the corresponding measures adopted by The Link to prevent fly infestation, the fly problem had been greatly alleviated.

In addition, the FEHD officers carried out inspections and stepped

up control and prevention work against fly infestation at Lung Kwu Tan in Tuen Mun on 8 October 2013, and the areas around Ha Pak Nai Tsuen in Yuen Long on 11, 17 and 18 October respectively. Villagers were also reminded to dispose of household refuse properly and cover all refuse bins tightly for effective prevention of fly infestation. The FEHD has instructed pest control service contractors to increase the frequency of pest control operations as and when required. The FEHD inspected the two said locations again recently and found that the fly problem had been largely resolved.

The FEHD also conducted several inspections (on 8, 11 and

18 October) of the WENT Landfill jointly with the Environmental Protection Department (EPD).

The EPD pointed out that the operation of the WENT Landfill has all

along been subject to stringent contract requirements and environmental legislation. The landfill contractor has also carried out ongoing pest control work in the landfill. As no serious problem of fly infestation has occurred in the landfill recently, there is no evidence that the landfill is the source of the flies.


Nevertheless, the EPD has immediately stepped up inspections in collaboration with the landfill contractor. It has also liaised with the FEHD for implementation of more effective pest control measures, including more frequent pest disinfestation work.

According to the investigation, there is no evidence that the landfill

is the source of the large quantity of flies found lately in various areas of Tuen Mun. Besides, it is noted that no problem of fly infestation has been detected in the neighbouring areas of the WENT Landfill.

(b) and (c)

Over the past five years, the FEHD received complaints about

nuisance of flies in markets at Tin Shing Estate, Tin Shui Estate and Tin Yiu Estate of Tin Shui Wai between June and August 2012. The FEHD found that the problem was eased a few days after the management company of these markets had adopted the FEHD's recommendations for environmental hygiene improvement and fly infestation prevention and cleansed the markets thoroughly.

(d) Recently, the FEHD found house flies (which mainly breed in

general household refuse), blow flies (which mainly breed in rotten vegetables and fruits as well as animal faeces) and flesh flies (which mainly breed in decaying meat) during its investigation in different locations. Places suitable for the breeding of the relevant kinds of flies are also present near the locations where these flies were found. Flies will usually move about and breed in places where they hatched out.

Services Provided to Suicide-prone Persons 8. MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the Suicide Prevention Services (SPS), which provides dedicated services specifically for suicide prevention, received in 2012-2013 more than 34 000 calls for assistance, a record high in recent three years. Meanwhile, the media have recently reported suicide cases from time to time, in which some of the victims


1829

were students still at school. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it has compared the suicide rate of Hong Kong with those of international cities such as New York, London and Tokyo; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(b) if it has compiled statistics on whether the victims in the suicide

cases (including both fatal and attempted cases) in the past three years had requested for assistance from the SPS or other social welfare agencies before committing suicide, and made use of such data as the basis for assessing the effectiveness of suicide prevention efforts or the need to introduce improvement to such efforts; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(c) given that some research results have indicated that study pressure

and relationship problems are two main causes of youth suicide, whether the authorities have any new appropriate measures to prevent youths from committing suicide for such causes; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(d) given that the Social Welfare Department (SWD) commissioned the

Hong Kong Jockey Club Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention of the University of Hong Kong (the Research Centre) in July 2011 to implement a three-year pilot project on community-based intervention to suicide targeted mainly at youths aged 15 to 24, whether the SWD has conducted an interim review of the effectiveness of the project; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to Mr Abraham SHEK's question is as follows:

(a) According to the latest information provided by the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD), the numbers of known suicide deaths and the crude suicide death rates in Hong Kong in the last three years, with breakdown by age groups, are as follows:


Year

Number of known suicide deaths

Crude suicide death rate (Number of known suicide

deaths per 100 000 population)

Persons aged

under 15

Persons aged

15 to 24 Overall

Persons aged

under 15

Persons aged

15 to 24 Overall

2010 6 63 973 0.7 7.2 13.9 2011 6 67 882 0.7 7.7 12.5 2012 2 55 786 0.2 6.3 11.0

We are given to understand that the World Health Organization compiles country-based figures of suicide rates from member states at a five-year interval and that suicide rates of individual cities are unavailable.

(b) Currently, there are three non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

providing suicide prevention hotline services (telephone numbers: 2382 0000 (The SPS 24-hour Suicide Prevention Hotline), 2896 0000 (The Samaritans 24-hour telephone hotline) and 2389 2222 (The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong 24-hour hotline)) on a self-financing basis. The hotline services help their clients get rid of suicidal thoughts and encourage them to accept referrals to appropriate services, including the subvented Suicide Crisis Intervention Centre (SCIC) of the Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong which provides in-depth counselling services for clients and helps them regain the will to live on. The SWD does not have statistics on whether the subjects of suicide cases had sought assistance from the hotline services.

(c) Suicide is a complicated issue caused by multi-faceted factors

including biological, social and psychological factors that interact with one another. Each case has its uniqueness.

The SWD launched the Pilot Project on Child Fatality Review in

February 2008 to identify the relevant trend and promote inter-disciplinary and inter-agency co-operation to prevent avoidable child death cases. The Administration established a standing Child Fatality Review Panel (Review Panel) in 2011. The Review Panel examined the deaths of 238 children aged below 18 who died in


1831

2008 and 2009, of which 26 cases were suicide cases. The common reasons for child suicide cases were schooling problems, family relationship problems and relationship problems involving boyfriends/girlfriends.

The Government has been taking a multi-pronged approach in

tackling the youth suicide problem. On the welfare front, under the "child-centred, family-focused and community-based" direction, the SWD delivers preventive, supportive and remedial family services through the 65 Integrated Family Service Centres (IFSCs). Family life education services are provided through the IFSCs, the 22 Family Life Education Units and two Integrated Service Centres. Parent education is also promoted to help parents better understand the developmental needs of their children, detect any problems faced by their children and seek help from relevant service units where necessary.

The SWD has been implementing the "one school social worker for

each secondary school" scheme to provide support and guidance to students. The SWD also subvents Integrated Children and Youth Services Centres and Outreaching Social Work Teams to provide young people with socialization programmes and holistic supportive services at the neighbourhood level.

Moreover, the SWD has commissioned three NGOs to each launch a

three-year pilot cyber youth outreaching projects since August 2011. Young people who are assessed to be in need of follow-up services will be referred to social services.

The SWD also subvents the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups

to operate the "Youthline" (telephone number: 2777 8899) which offers immediate counselling to youth-at-risk through telephone contacts. To meet the needs of people with suicidal tendency, the SWD provides crisis intervention and intensive counselling services through subventing SCIC of the Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong.

The SWD also provides training for front-line staff, such as social

workers and medical staff, to enhance their understanding of suicide problems so as to facilitate early identification of young people with


suicidal ideations and make referrals for follow-up services as appropriate.

On school curriculum, the curriculum framework of each key

learning area as well as moral and civic education covers topics such as developmental changes, stress management and healthy lifestyles with a view to enhancing students' resilience to adversity. The Education Bureau has also actively implemented various developmental programmes, such as the "Understanding Adolescent Project" in primary schools and the "Enhanced Smart Teen Project" in secondary schools. Participating schools may formulate implementation plans with their students to pursue the training objectives of the programmes so as to transmit positive messages such as healthy lifestyle, life education and serving others.

Moreover, the Education Bureau provides schools with Educational

Psychology Service. Such service is being extended progressively and is expected to cover all public primary and secondary schools by the 2016-2017 school year. The Educational Psychology Service not only provides timely counselling for needy students by multi-disciplinary teams (comprising discipline teachers, school social workers/counsellors, class/subject teachers and educational psychologists), but also organizes a variety of professional training programmes for teachers through cross-sector collaboration with different organizations and provides teaching resources, guidelines and resource packages for schools, so as to deepen teachers' understanding of the relevant topics and help them identify and assist students with suicidal tendency.

The Student Health Service Centres (SHSCs) of the Department of

Health provide health assessment for primary and secondary students including psychosocial health and behavioural questionnaire assessment. Students with emotional or behavioural problems or even suicidal tendency will be referred to the Hospital Authority (HA), the SWD or welfare organizations for follow-up. The SHSCs also organize talks on psychosocial and mental health from time to time, with information on psychosocial health disseminated through pamphlets and uploaded onto the Student Health Service website. Under the Adolescent Health Programme of the Student


1833

Health Service, a multi-disciplinary team of doctors, nurses, dieticians, social workers and clinical psychologists pays visits to secondary schools to help students establish positive attitude and thinking through basic life skills training and topical programmes. Besides, the HA provides relevant specialist services to youths with suicidal tendency. The child and adolescent psychiatric service conducts comprehensive suicidal risk assessments for needy cases and arranges various follow-up services.

(d) With funding support from the Lotteries Fund, the SWD

commissioned the Research Centre to implement a three-year pilot project on community-based prevention of youth suicide (the pilot project) in 2011, mainly targeting at youths aged 15 to 24 living in the North District. By conducting research and running a series of targeted activities on a trial basis, the pilot project aims to reduce cases of suicide and self-harm behaviour in the community. The pilot project analyses information and data obtained from different sources and identifies areas and clusters with higher suicide risks through the application of a Geographic Information System with a view to deriving annual statistics of suicide cases and identifying suicide hot spots in the district and thereby enhancing the preventive work.

The Research Centre has already submitted the first progress report

to the SWD and the Lotteries Fund Advisory Committee, and the pilot project is progressing well. A number of community-based interventions have been launched to provide counselling service for persons who have attempted suicide as well as their family members. A questionnaire survey at the community level has also been conducted to examine the protective and risk factors for youth suicide. The second progress report is nearing completion. The pilot project has effectively set up community-based collaboration platforms to enhance public awareness of suicide prevention and has gained support from various government departments, NGOs and community groups. The Administration will continue to liaise closely with the research team and follow up on the outcome of the pilot project.


Conduct of Body Searches 9. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, Article 28 of the Basic Law prohibits arbitrary or unlawful body searches of the residents of Hong Kong, and Article 3 in Part II (Hong Kong Bill of Rights) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) also provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or degrading treatment. Regarding the conduct of body searches on members of public by government departments (departments), will the Government inform this Council:

(a) which departments are empowered to conduct body searches, and of the legal basis of such authorization (with a breakdown of the details by department);

(b) of the number of body searches conducted by each of the

departments concerned from 2008 to 2012, with a breakdown by type of search (that is, (i) non-removal of clothing, (ii) partial removal of clothing, (iii) complete removal of clothing and (iv) body cavity);

(c) whether the departments concerned have formulated procedures and

law-enforcement guidelines to pay due regard to the dignity of the persons being searched and prevent body searches from becoming a tool to humiliate such persons; if they have, of a breakdown of the relevant details by department; and

(d) whether the departments concerned have set up a mechanism to

handle complaints lodged by persons being body-searched who feel that their dignity has been hurt; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; of the number of such complaints received by the departments concerned in each of the past five years, with a breakdown by department and outcome of handling the complaints?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President,

(a) Law-enforcement agencies (LEAs), including the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), Customs and Excise Department (C&ED), Immigration Department (ImmD), Correctional Services Department


1835

(CSD) and Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), are empowered by the law to conduct body searches in discharging their statutory functions, including detecting crimes and offences and ensuring that detainees, including persons in custody, do not possess any item that would assist them to escape or assist others to do so; injure themselves or others; destroy or dispose of evidence, or commit further crime while in custody. By conducting body searches of detainees, law-enforcement officers fulfil their duties of caring for the detainees and ensuring the safety of others who may come into contact with them.

The legal basis of each LEA for its body searches of arrestees and

detainees is detailed at Annex I. (b) to (d) LEAs have formulated related procedures and guidelines on the

conduct of body searches in order to safeguard and respect the rights of the persons to be searched, as well as to prevent any unnecessary searches. Such procedures and guidelines are in place so that law-enforcement officers, in exercising their power under the law, shall, in the light of the lawful purposes of body searches and the circumstances of individual cases, adopt the principles of "rationality" and "proportionality" in determining the scope of each search.

Before conducting a search, law-enforcement officers shall, as far as

practicable, explain to the person(s) to be searched of their statutory duties, the reasons for and scope of the search, and make a record, which will be scrutinized by a supervisory officer so as to ensure compliance of the search procedures and follow up any cases of violation of the guidelines. Furthermore, body searches of any person(s) shall only be carried out by law-enforcement officers of the same sex.

To ensure that complaints will be processed in a fair and just

manner, all LEAs have their own mechanism to handle complaints lodged by the person(s) being searched. Any concerns about the


search may be raised on the spot to the officer-in-charge of the case or of the detention facilities, who shall, then, inform the detainee(s) of his/her decision, justifications and/or any other actions that have been taken. A record to this end shall be made accordingly. Any person(s) aggrieved by the search may lodge a complaint to the unit set up specifically by the LEA for handling complaints, and the LEA concerned shall carry out an investigation and take appropriate actions in accordance with the established mechanism.

Figures of body searches of arrestees and detainees by each LEA

from 2008 to 2012 as well as the number of complaints received are at Annex II.

Annex I

Legal Basis of each Law-enforcement agency for its Body Searches of Arrestees and Detainees

HKPF Section 50(6) of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) authorizes police officers to conduct body searches of arrestees. C&ED Section 17(A) of the Customs and Excise Service Ordinance (Cap. 342) authorizes C&ED officers to search any persons suspected of having committed specified offences. ImmD Section 56(1) of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115), sections 12(1) and 12(3) of the Immigration Service Ordinance (Cap. 331), and provisions of the Immigration (Treatment of Detainees) Order (Cap. 115E) and Immigration Service (Treatment of Detained Persons) Order (Cap. 331C) authorize immigration officers to search arrestees and detainees.


1837

CSD Rules 9 and 10 of the Prison Rules (Cap. 234A) authorize CSD officers to conduct search on every person in custody upon his admission, and subsequently at such times when the officers in charge deem necessary to prevent persons in custody from possessing contrabands, such as drugs and weapons, and engaging in activities upsetting the order of the institutions. ICAC Section 10C(1)(a) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance (the Ordinance) (Cap. 204) empowers ICAC officers to search any person if it is reasonably suspected that such person is guilty of any of the offences under the purview of ICAC referred to in section 10 of the Ordinance. In addition, paragraph 7 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (Treatment of Detained Persons) Order (Cap. 204A) also stipulates that upon detention of a detainee, he shall be searched thoroughly before being placed in any detention room.

Annex II

Figures of various types of body searches conducted by LEAs against arrestees and detainees from 2008 to 2012

HKPF(1) C&ED(2) ImmD(1) CSD(1) ICAC Non-removal of clothing 180 091 3 043 2 762(4) 177 524(4) 3 353 Partial removal of clothing 37 949 8 336 11 416(4) 8 517(4)(5) 0 Complete removal of clothing 10 146 1 731 1 089(4) 0 Body cavity 0(3) 0(3) 0 6 557(6) 0 Notes: (1) Three LEAs only maintain the breakdown of figures of searches from 2009 onwards. (2) C&ED only maintains statistics on body searches of arrestees and detainees in the course

of its enforcement actions outside boundary control points. (3) In the course of HKPF's and C&ED's investigations of dangerous drugs cases, any body

cavity searches, if deemed necessary, shall be performed by medical officers. HKPF and C&ED do not maintain figures of such searches.


(4) General searches conducted by immigration officers of detainees upon their entering or leaving of the immigration detention centres, and by CSD officers, as part of the routine duties, of persons in custody upon their entering or leaving of the institutions and institution facilities, for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the centres/facilities and the detainees, are not included.

(5) CSD does not maintain separate breakdown of searches by "partial removal of clothing"

and "complete removal of clothing". (6) CSD only maintains figures of body cavity searches from October 2012 onwards.

Number of complaints received by LEAs on body searches conducted against arrestees and detainees from 2008 to 2012

HKPF C&ED ImmD CSD ICAC

Number of complaints Not available(1) 0 2 4 1

Substantiated cases 0 0 0 0 0(2) Notes: (1) The Complaints Against Police Office received a total of 57 reportable complaints by

detainees in respect of detention from 2008 to 2012. However, the number of complaints arising from body searches is not available.

(2) Investigation of that only case is ongoing. Measures to Prevent Government Officers from Abusing Their Office and Causing Nuisance to Media Organizations 10. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that upon receipt of a fire hazard complaint from members of the public earlier on, the Fire Services Department (FSD) sent officers to the building where a media organization is situated to conduct inspection and check its automatic sprinkler system inside the server room. Although the FSD subsequently found that the system was in order, the inspection had caused nuisance to the media organization. Quite a number of members of the community have relayed their concern to me that officers of certain government departments may abuse their office and cause nuisance to the media organizations which had made negative reports on the departments concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


1839

(a) of the number of fire hazard complaint cases found to be unsubstantiated after inspection by the FSD in each of the past three years; among them, of the number of cases involving premises of media organizations;

(b) whether the FSD conducts inspections only after prima facie

evidence regarding complaints from members of the public has been established; if so, of the procedures for establishing prima facie evidence; if not, the reasons for that; and

(c) whether the authorities have measures in place to prevent officers of

government departments from abusing their office and causing nuisance to the media organizations concerned out of personal grudges or negative media reports on the departments; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, with the mission of "serving to save", the FSD protects the lives and properties of the public from fire or other calamities. To this end, the FSD gives advice on fire protection measures and fire hazards to the public, building owners and occupiers of premises, and so on, and educates the public to raise their fire safety awareness. It also inspects the means of escapes and fire service installations and equipment (FSIs), and so on, in buildings and premises. With the efforts of the FSD and the co-operation of the public, the number of fires in Hong Kong in the past five years decreased by about 25% from around 8 200 in 2008 to some 6 100 in 2012. The number of fires at Alarm No. 3 or above decreased by about 28% from 18 in 2008 to 13 in 2012. One of the major duties of the FSD is to abate fire hazards, which includes taking appropriate follow-up actions upon receipt of fire hazard complaints in order to minimize the risk of fire and protect the lives and properties of the public. The Administration's reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:


(a) In each of the past three years (that is, from 2010 to 2012), the FSD received a total of 9 971, 11 746 and 10 922 complaints about fire hazards respectively.

With regard to the number of unsubstantiated complaints, the FSD

has put in place a new computer system since April 2012 to facilitate the processing and recording of information and statistics relating to fire safety work. According to records in the system, among the 14 378 fire hazard complaint cases received between 1 May 2012 and 31 May 2013, 7 509 cases were found substantiated and 6 648 cases were found unsubstantiated upon investigation. The remaining 221 cases could not be pursued due to insufficient information and the investigations had to be ceased. As complaint records before May 2012 have not been fully entered into the computer system yet, the FSD could not provide the breakdown of such statistics. Also, the FSD does not maintain figures of complaint cases involving premises of media organizations specifically.

(b) Complaints about fire hazards usually involve obstructions to means

of escape of buildings, problems concerning FSIs and locked exits in buildings as well as excessive storage of dangerous goods, and so on. Protection of lives and properties of the public is the FSD's primary concern in the handling of these complaints. Upon receipt of a complaint about fire hazard, the FSD will, with regard to the type of the complaint, direct the case to the responsible unit for follow-up actions in accordance with the established mechanism. If the information provided by the complainant contains specific matter and address for follow-up, an investigation will be conducted to ensure fire safety of the concerned building or premises regardless of whether the complaint is anonymous or not.

If the information provided by the complainant is insufficient or

unclear (for example, detailed address is not given or the content of the fire hazard complaint is unclear), the FSD will first approach the complainant through the means of contact provided in order to obtain more details before arranging an inspection. In case the FSD is unable to contact the complainant or obtain specific information


1841

from the complainant, then the case will be considered non-actionable and the department will cease the investigation accordingly.

The department will deploy fire services officers to conduct an

on-site inspection in accordance with the established practice. On consideration of judicial justice, the fire services officers will not inform the persons being complained before conducting the inspection. In the course of the investigation, if the responsible person of the premises is unable to make suitable arrangement for the inspection (for example, the premises have been locked and the key has to be obtained from other sources, and so on), the department would, in light of the circumstances of individual cases (for example, the degree of urgency and seriousness of the related fire hazards), exercise its discretion (for example, to conduct an inspection again after the key to the premises have been obtained).

(c) Government departments have to act in accordance with relevant

laws and procedures when carrying out law-enforcement actions. In the handling of complaints about fire hazards, the prime consideration of the FSD is the protection of lives and properties of the public. In addition, the FSD shall handle the complaints in accordance with the Fire Services Ordinance (Cap. 95) or other relevant legislations and the established mechanism to ensure that all complaints about fire hazards will be handled in a non-discriminatory and impartial manner regardless of the types of premises and persons involved, thereby safeguarding the fire safety of the public and the concerned premises. In case fire services officers are suspected of not adhering to relevant regulations and the established mechanism, the FSD shall initiate investigations in accordance with the established procedures and take follow-up actions accordingly.

Child Care Services 11. MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Chinese): President, the Steering Committee on Population Policy has expressed support for the enhancement of


child care services, and the Commission on Poverty has also suggested establishing additional standalone child care centres (CCCs) in districts with keen demand for such services to support low-income families. However, it has recently been reported in the press that at present, places for formal child care services are in acute shortage. There are only 676 places provided by subsidized CCCs for children aged below 2, but the number of children of the same age exceeds 100 000. The numbers of children waiting for services provided by individual CCCs range from 100 to nearly 400, with the highest over-subscription rate standing at 4.5 times. A survey conducted by a social service agency has revealed that, due to the lack of suitable child care services, quite a number of women who need to take care of their young children are forced to give up their jobs, and when their children are admitted to whole-day kindergartens, it is not easy for them to return to work since they have left the work force for too long. I have also learnt that quite a number of couples have hesitation about giving birth to children due to the lack of whole-day CCC services in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) in respect of subsidized, non-profit-making and private CCCs and kindergartens cum CCCs in each of the past three financial years (years), of the respective (i) numbers of approved places and (ii) actual numbers of places for services provided by, (iii) the quarterly numbers of children waiting for such places, (iv) the total annual numbers of children waiting for such places, (v) the average waiting time, (vi) the numbers and percentages of children subsidized by the "Kindergarten and Child Care Centre Fee Remission Scheme", and (vii) among those subsidized cases, the numbers and percentages of children whose parents are both working (set out by year in tables of the same format as Table 1);

Table 1 Year: CCCs Kindergartens cum CCCs

Subsidized Non-profit-making Private Subsidized Non-profit-

making Private

Number of approved places

Number of actual places

Quarterly number of children waiting for such places

(i) First quarter (ii) Second quarter (iii) Third quarter (iv) Fourth quarter


1843

CCCs Kindergartens cum CCCs

Subsidized Non-profit-making Private Subsidized Non-profit-

making Private

Total annual number of children waiting for such places

Average waiting time Number of children subsidized by the Kindergarten and Child Care Centre Fee Remission Scheme (and percentage)

Number and percentage of subsidized children whose parents are both working

(b) of the respective numbers of (i) places for services provided for

children by whole-day and half-day subsidized, non-profit-making and private CCCs and Kindergartens cum CCCs and (ii) the places utilized in each of the past three financial years, with a breakdown by administrative district under the Social Welfare Department (SWD) and age group (aged below 2 and 2 to 3) (set out by year in tables of the same format as Table 2);

Table 2 Year: Age group:

Adminis- trative district under

the SWD

Subsidized Non-profit-making Private

Whole-day Half-day Whole-day Half-day Whole-day Half-day

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Central/ Western/ Southern and Islands

Eastern/ Wan Chai

Kowloon City/ Yau Tsim Mong

Sham Shui Po

Kwun Tong

Wong Tai Sin/ Sai Kung

Sha Tin Tai Po/ North


Age group:

Adminis- trative district under

the SWD

Subsidized Non-profit-making Private

Whole-day Half-day Whole-day Half-day Whole-day Half-day

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Number of

places

Number of

places utilized

Yuen Long

Tsuen Wan/ Kwai Tsing

Tuen Mun

Total

(c) of the respective numbers of places and the respective average

utilization rates of CCC extended hours service, occasional child care service and mutual help CCCs in each of the past three financial years, and set out the figures by administrative district under the SWD in Table 3;

Table 3 Year: CCC extended

hours service Occasional child

care service Mutual help child

care centres Administrative district under the SWD

Number of

places

Average utilization

rate

Number of

places

Average utilization

rate

Number of

places

Average utilization

rate Central/ Western/ Southern and Islands

Eastern/ Wan Chai

Kowloon City/ Yau Tsim Mong

Sham Shui Po Kwun Tong Wong Tai Sin/ Sai Kung

Sha Tin Tai Po/North Yuen Long Tsuen Wan/ Kwai Tsing

Tuen Mun Total


1845

(d) the respective numbers of beneficiaries under the Neighbouring Support Child Care Project and home-based child carers participating in the Project for the year 2012-2013, with a breakdown by District Council (DC) district set out in Table 4;

Table 4

Number of beneficiaries under the Neighbouring Support Child Care Project for the year 2012-2013

Number of home-based child cares

participating in the Project

Age Below 3 3 to below 6 6 or above

Total DC district

Home- based child care

service


service

Centre- based care

group service


service and

centre- based group service


service

Centre-based care

group service


service and

centre- based group service

Central and Western

Wan Chai

Eastern --- Total

Note: Irrespective of the number of times that a beneficiary uses the services, the same beneficiary is counted as one person in that year.

(e) of the respective population of children aged between 0 to 6 in the

next decade (set out by year, DC district and age group in tables of the same format as Table 5); and

Table 5 Year:

DC district

Age

Below 1 1 to below 2

2 to below 3

3 to below 4

4 to below 5 5 to 6

Central and Western

Wan Chai Eastern --- Total


(f) whether the Government will increase the numbers of places for services provided by subsidized CCCs and Kindergartens cum CCCs to the level of that in 1997; if it will, of the details; if it will not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che's question is as follows:

(a) The numbers of approved places and actual places of subsidized, non-profit-making and private CCCs and Kindergarten-cum-CCCs (KG-cum-CCCs) in each of the past three financial years; and the numbers and percentages of children subsidized by the "Kindergarten and Child Care Centre Fee Remission Scheme", and among the subsidized cases, the numbers and percentages of children whose parents are both working are set out in Table 1. There is no waiting list for subsidized standalone whole-day CCCs and KG-cum-CCCs.

(b) There are around 27 000 day child care service quotas, including

subsidized standalone CCCs for children below the age of three, non-profit-making and private CCCs and KG-cum-CCCs. Subsidized CCCs provide a total of 690 whole-day care service quotas, and do not provide any half-day care service. The numbers of places for whole-day care service provided by subsidized CCCs and the numbers of places utilized in each of the past three financial years, with a breakdown by administrative district under the SWD and age group (aged below 2 and 2 to 3) are set out in Table 2.1.

At present, non-profit-making/private CCCs provide half-day care

service to children below the age of three(1). The numbers of places for half-day care service provided by non-profit-making/private CCCs in each of the past three financial years, with a breakdown by administrative district under the SWD and age group (aged below 2 and 2 to 3) are set out in Table 2.2. The SWD does not have figures of the actual service utilization of non-profit-making/private CCCs.

(1) Except in Eastern/Wan Chai whereby non-profit-making/private CCCs provide 43 places for whole-day

care service in 2012-2013.


1847

KG-cum-CCCs services are provided by private organizations. The numbers of places for whole-day and half-day care service provided by KG-cum-CCCs and the numbers of places utilized in each of the past three financial years, with a breakdown by administrative district under the SWD and age group (aged below 2 and 2 to 3) are set out in Tables 2.3 and 2.4.

(c) The respective numbers of places and the respective average

utilization rates of CCC extended hours service, occasional child care service and mutual help child care centers in each of the past three years, with a breakdown by administrative district under the SWD are set out in Tables 3.1 to 3.3.

(d) The respective numbers of beneficiaries under the Neightbourhood

Support Child Care Project (NSCCP) and home-based child carers participating in the NSCCP for the year 2012-2013, with a breakdown by DC district are set out in Table 4.

(e) Convened by the Planning Department, the inter-departmental

Working Group on Population Distribution Projections produces projections of population distribution by geographical area on a need basis. The latest projected numbers of children for the age group 0 to 6 for years 2014 to 2021 are set out in Table 5. The Working Group has no breakdown of the projected numbers by age within this age group.

(f) The SWD has all along been providing subventions to

non-governmental organizations to provide a variety of child care services, including standalone CCCs service, KG-cum-CCCs service, extended hours service and occasional child care service, and so on. In general, there are still unused quotas for various child care services. The SWD will continue to closely monitor the demand for child care services and, subject to funding availability, consider adjusting resource allocation and increasing the number of places and relevant subsidy when the need arises. These include considering setting up additional standalone CCCs in districts with keen demand or providing additional CCC places through in-situ expansion in existing centres, subject to compliance with relevant requirements under the Child Care Services Ordinance.


To further meet the service needs of families, the Government has actively promoted and developed non-institutional care service other than standalone CCCs, for example NSCCP, in order to provide more flexible and convenient services to parents. Under NSCCP, service operators have the flexibility to provide additional home-based child care places on top of the minimum requirement set by the SWD to meet the actual service demand. The SWD will continue to monitor the operation of various services and ensure that the services meet community demand.

Table 1: The numbers of approved places and actual places of subsidized,

non-profit-making and private CCCs and KG-cum-CCCs in each of the past three financial years; and the numbers and percentages of children subsidized by the "Kindergarten and Child Care Centre Fee Remission Scheme", and among the subsidized cases, the numbers and percentages of children whose parents are both working

Year 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

CCCs KG-cum- CCCs(1) CCCs KG-cum-

CCCs CCCs KG-cum- CCCs

Subsidized Non-profit-

making/ Private

Subsidized/ Non-profit-

making/ Private


making/ Private


making/ Private


making/ Private


making/ Private

Number of approved places 690 2 271 22 304 690 2 350 22 716 690 2 265 23 589

Number of actual places 678 N/A(2) 15 991 684 N/A 17 351 689 N/A 18 220

Number of children subsidized by the KG and CCC Fee Remission Scheme (and percentage)(3)

384 (56.6%) 0 2 579

(16.1%) 381

(55.7%) 0 2 682 (15.5%)

314 (45.6%) 0 2 503

(13.7%)

Number of subsidized children who fall under Category I of the Social Needs (and percentage)(4)

266 (69.3%) 0 1 351

(52.4%) 263

(69.0%) 0 1 380 (51.5%)

220 (70.1%) 0 1 210

(48.3%)

Notes: (1) KG-cum-CCC includes non-profit-making and private ones, and CCCs previously subsidized by the SWD. Figures are provided as

at September of that school year. (2) The SWD does not have the figures of the actual service utilization of non-profit-making/private CCCs. (3) Number of children subsidized by the KG and CCC Remission Scheme is shown as at 31 August of that year. (4) Category I of the Social Needs refers to cases whereby parents of the children are both employed, with one engaged in full-time

employment (that is, having to work 120 hours per month or more) while the other having to work 104 hours per month or more. As a result, children cannot receive proper care at home.


1849

Table 2.1: The numbers of places for whole-day care service provided by subsidized CCCs and the numbers of places utilized in each of the past three financial years

Whole-day care service provided by subsidized CCCs Age Below 2 2 to 3 Year 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Administrative district

under the SWD

Number of places

Number of places utilized

Number of places


Number of places


Number of places


Number of places


Number of places


Central/Western/Southern and Islands

40 38 40 40 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastern/ Wan Chai 96 96 96 94 96 95 0 0 0

Kowloon City/ Yau Tsim Mong 144 144 144 144 144 144 0 0 0

Sham Shui Po 48 47 48 48 48 48 14 14 14 14 14 14 Kwun Tong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 Wong Tai Sin/ Sai Kung 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sha Tin 70 66 70 67 70 69 0 0 0 Tai Po/North 48 48 48 48 48 48 0 0 0 Yuen Long 64 64 64 64 64 64 0 0 0 Tsuen Wan/ Kwai Tsing 102 102 102 102 102 102 0 0 0

Tuen Mun 64 59 64 63 64 64 0 0 0 Total 676 664 676 670 676 675 14 14 14 14 14 14

Table 2.2: The numbers of places for half-day care service provided by

non-profit-making/private CCCs in each of the past three financial years

Half-day care service provided by non-profit-making/private CCCs Age Below 2 2 to 3

Administrative district under the SWD 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Central/Western/ Southern and Islands 0 0 0 302 302 260

Eastern/Wan Chai 0 0 0 140 182 350 Kowloon City/ Yau Tsim Mong 36 36 36 1 036 1 064 1 048

Sham Shui Po 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kwun Tong 0 0 0 216 216 216 Wong Tai Sin/ Sai Kung 0 0 0 42 42 42

Sha Tin 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tai Po/North 24 24 0 214 214 0 Yuen Long 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tsuen Wan/ Kwai Tsing 0 0 0 196 196 196

Tuen Mun 0 0 0 65 74 74 Total 60 60 36 2 211 2 290 2 186


Table 2.3: The numbers of places for whole-day care service provided by KG-cum-CCCs and the numbers of places utilized in each of the past three financial years

Whole-day care service provided by KG-cum-CCCs Age Below 2 2 to 3

Year(1) Sept 2010 Sept 2011 Sept 2012 Sept 2010 Sept 2011 Sept 2012 Administrative

district under the SWD

Number of places


Number of places


Number of places


Number of places


Number of places


Number of places



30 22 30 25 30 24 791 397 839 485 891 470

Eastern/ Wan Chai 68 36 68 34 68 36 624 428 645 494 602 465

Kowloon City/ Yau Tsim Mong 32 21 32 26 44 29 892 784 916 788 946 854

Sham Shui Po 16 15 16 16 16 16 390 311 368 294 400 354 Kwun Tong 72 49 72 48 72 52 510 412 519 445 550 481 Wong Tai Sin/ Sai Kung 65 64 67 64 67 65 1 011 669 991 671 1 008 754

Sha Tin 0 0 0 0 0 0 553 427 556 438 552 483 Tai Po/North 12 12 12 12 12 12 812 425 639 402 588 398 Yuen Long 20 20 20 20 20 20 466 351 461 390 477 450 Tsuen Wan/ Kwai Tsing 24 14 24 13 24 24 604 488 659 559 660 574

Tuen Mun 0 0 0 0 0 0 569 348 463 352 505 356 Total 339 253 341 258 353 278 7 222 5 040 7 056 5 318 7 179 5 639 Note: (1) Figures are provided as at September of that school year. Some KG-cum-CCCs provide services of different days and hours every

week. The services quotas may thus be used by more than one child.

Table 2.4: The numbers of places for half-day care service provided by

KG-cum-CCCs and the numbers of places utilized in each of the past three financial years

Half-day care service provided by KG-cum-CCCs Age Below 2 2 to 3 Year Sept 2010 Sept 2011 Sept 2012 Sept 2010 Sept 2011 Sept 2012

Administrative district

under the SWD

Number of places


Number of places


Number of places


Number of places


Number of places


Number of places



42 54 84 80 116 59 2 016 1 055 2 104 1 233 2 424 1 288

Eastern/ Wan Chai 254 339 254 306 254 110 2 767 2 008 2 589 2 065 2 104 1 656

Kowloon City/ Yau Tsim Mong 190 296 190 304 190 215 2 101 1 823 2 330 1 998 2 807 2 539

Sham Shui Po 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 185 328 263 323 286 Kwun Tong 0 0 0 0 0 0 796 644 836 716 822 719 Wong Tai Sin/ Sai Kung 2 2 8 10 8 9 1 479 869 1 748 1 049 1 727 1 157

Sha Tin 16 0 16 0 16 0 1 177 911 1 224 964 1 329 1 165 Tai Po/North 8 7 8 8 8 0 928 482 874 559 1026 695 Yuen Long 24 16 24 16 24 16 635 480 670 567 636 601 Tsuen Wan/ Kwai Tsing 16 0 16 8 16 6 1 367 1 101 1 397 1 159 1 456 1 239

Tuen Mun 0 0 0 0 0 0 695 426 619 470 771 543 Total 552 714 600 732 632 415 14 191 9 984 14 719 11 043 15 425 11 888


1851

Table 3.1: The numbers of places and the respective average utilization rates of Extended hours service, Occasional child care service and Mutual help child care centers in 2010-2011

Administrative district under the

SWD

Extended hours service Occasional child care service(1)

Mutual help child care centres(2)

Number of places

Average utilization rate (%)

Number of places


Number of places



Eastern/Wan Chai 152 70 39 60 0 0 Kowloon City/ Yau Tsim Mong 124 71 60 54 14 3


Sha Tin 82 77 38 57 0 0 Tai Po/North 124 75 49 58 14 less than 1 Yuen Long 70 75 40 53 42 3 Tsuen Wan/ Kwai Tsing 138 74 71 62 14 15

Tuen Mun 78 99 41 48 28 less than 1 Total 1 230 80 545 59 300 8 Notes: (1) Included 51 places of value-added occasional child care service, that is, the additional places provided by

the relevant CCCs/KG-cum-CCCs without the provision of additional recurrent funding. (2) MHCCCs is a self-financing service which aims to facilitate parents of young children to provide mutual

child care services based on the concept of neighbourhood mutual support. With the implementation of NSCCP which adopts the same concept of neighbourhood mutual support similar to MHCCCs, together with the home-based child care service under NSCCP which is more flexible and can better cater for the needs of the parents, the service utilization rate of MHCCCs has turned low in the past few years. In order to make better use of resources, some MHCCCs are being revamped for other welfare services to meet local needs, for example, providing supportive services for families and child development or for children with special learning needs.

Table 3.2: The numbers of places and the respective average utilization rates

of Extended hours service, Occasional child care service and Mutual help child care centers in 2011-2012


SWD

Extended hours service Occasional child care service

Mutual help child care centres

Number of places


Number of places


Number of places



Eastern/Wan Chai 152 92 31 56 0 0



SWD



Number of places


Number of places


Number of places


Kowloon City/ Yau Tsim Mong 124 67 47 50 14 less than 1



Tuen Mun 78 96 31 70 14 less than 1 Total 1 230 84 434(3) 62 314 7 Note: (3) Since the implementation of the pilot NSCCP in October 2008, the utilization rate of occasional child care

service has been low. The SWD reviewed the demand for occasional child care service in September 2011 and reduced the number of such places for better use of resources. Service operators can utilize the funding support saved from the reduced number of places and the additional resources provided for organizing family support activities for the parents and carers served by the service units so as to facilitate proper care of children and convey the message of "not leaving children unattended at home".

Table 3.3: The numbers of places and the respective average utilization rates

of Extended hours service, Occasional child care service and Mutual help child care centers in 2012-2013


SWD



Number of places


Number of places


Number of places



Eastern/Wan Chai 152 72 31 56 0 0 Kowloon City/ Yau Tsim Mong 124 74 47 65 14 less than 1

Sham Shui Po 76 114(4) 25 77 37 20 Kwun Tong 122 82 49 85 56 8 Wong Tai Sin/ Sai Kung 140 92 55 70 14 17



1853


SWD



Number of places


Number of places


Number of places


Tuen Mun 78 84 31 79 14 less than 1 Total 1 230 81 434 71 314 8 Note: (4) For more effective and better use of the places, most of the centers may arrange children with occasional

service needs to take up the places originally reserved for children with continuous service needs on certain days when the places are unused, thus resulting in the utilization rate exceeding 100%.

Table 4: The numbers of beneficiaries under NSCCP and home-based child

carers participating in the NSCCP in 2012-2013 Number of beneficiaries under NSCCP in 2012-2013(1)

Number of home- based

child cares participating

in NSCCP (as at June

2013)

Age Below 3 3 to below 6 6 or above

Total DC district


service


service

Centre- based care

group service

Home- based

child care service

and centre- based

care group service


service

Centre- based care

group service

Home- based

child care service

and centre- based

care group service

Central/ Western 94 0 34 2 0 0 0 130 41 Wan Chai 85 1 102 1 1 6 0 196 38 Eastern 134 0 158 2 0 18 1 313 76 Southern 79 46 68 11 2 18 0 224 64 Yau Tsim Mong 418 140 288 107 11 60 10 1 034 129 Sham Shui Po 468 133 366 34 12 15 0 1 028 86 Kowloon City 308 22 189 16 10 58 0 603 318 Wong Tai Sin 305 219 101 19 0 62 0 706 149 Kwun Tong 383 103 196 30 2 29 2 745 60 Kwai Tsing 188 344 67 28 31 11 3 672 82 Tsuen Wan 177 1 134 1 0 10 0 323 38 Tuen Mun 350 98 320 50 19 118 11 966 64 Yuen Long 444 202 274 69 28 12 1 1 030 62 North 142 9 151 1 0 31 0 334 56 Tai Po 268 4 201 10 4 17 0 504 85 Sha Tin 305 0 141 0 0 1 0 447 90 Sai Kung 328 1 247 2 2 51 0 631 64 Islands 195 0 209 0 0 43 0 447 144 Total 4 671 1 323 3 246 383 122 560 28 10 333 1 646

Note: (1) The figures of service utilization are calculated based on the number of children using the services in a

certain month. The same child is only counted once in each month.


Table 5: Projected number of children aged 0-6 by DC district from 2014 to 2012 (as at mid-year)(1)

DC District 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Central and Western 16 500 16 600 16 600 16 300 15 900 14 700 14 500 14 600

Wan Chai 9 100 9 300 9 100 9 000 8 800 8 100 8 000 8 100 Eastern 29 300 29 400 29 000 28 600 27 700 26 200 25 700 25 600 Southern 12 200 12 000 11 600 11 200 10 700 10 300 10 200 10 500 Yau Tsim Mong 23 100 23 900 24 000 24 000 23 800 22 200 21 600 21 800 Sham Shui Po 22 000 22 300 22 800 22 700 23 000 23 200 23 200 23 500 Kowloon City 24 100 24 400 24 000 23 500 22 800 21 400 20 900 21 400 Wong Tai Sin 16 500 16 500 16 300 16 300 15 800 15 400 15 400 15 400 Kwun Tong 29 600 28 500 29 200 30 100 28 900 27 100 25 900 24 900 Kwai Tsing 21 700 21 700 20 700 19 800 18 700 17 900 17 400 17 000 Tsuen Wan 18 600 18 800 18 600 18 100 17 500 16 400 15 900 15 800 Tuen Mun 26 700 27 500 27 700 28 600 29 200 28 200 27 700 27 900 Yuen Long 32 500 33 600 35 700 36 000 36 300 35 300 35 200 35 900 North 16 400 17 100 17 400 17 400 17 500 17 000 17 000 17 200 Tai Po 15 500 16 400 17 300 18 100 18 600 18 400 18 600 19 200 Sha Tin 32 200 33 900 36 500 36 700 36 200 35 900 35 400 35 200 Sai Kung 25 800 26 000 25 700 25 400 24 800 24 200 24 100 24 700 Islands 9 100 9 000 8 700 9 300 9 000 9 700 9 500 9 300 Hong Kong Island 67 100 67 300 66 400 65 000 63 100 59 300 58 300 58 900

Kowloon 115 300 115 600 116 300 116 600 114 100 109 300 107 100 106 900 New Territories 198 400 204 000 208 400 209 400 207 800 203 000 200 900 202 200 Land Total 380 800 387 000 391 000 391 000 385 000 371 600 366 300 367 900

Note: (1) Exclude marine population.

Measures to Improve MPF Scheme 12. MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Chinese): President, the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) engaged a consultant to study on the trustees of mandatory provident fund (MPF) and administration costs of MPF. The relevant report was published last year, recommending a number of measures to improve the MPF system, including promotion of computerization in the relevant processing to reduce costs and streamline the workflow, assisting the industry to consolidate their MPF schemes and assisting MPF scheme members to consolidate their accounts. On the other hand, information from the MPFA reveals that there were 4.52 million MPF personal accounts in August 2013 and the number of MPF scheme members holding four or more accounts exceeded


1855

180 000, representing respectively a 84% rise and a three-fold increase from those of six years ago, while the weighted average fund expense ratio of MPF (expense ratio) dropped from 2.1% in 2008 to 1.72% in September this year. It is estimated in the report that upon implementation of the aforesaid measures, the expense ratio may fall to 1.12% by 2018. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) how the authorities will encourage and assist MPF scheme members next year to consolidate their MPF accounts; whether the authorities will study the introduction of the policy of "one lifelong account" to stipulate that every MPF scheme member may, at any one time, open only one MPF account so as to avoid the situation of holding several accounts resulting from the change of employment; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(b) whether the authorities have conducted a review of the Employee

Choice Arrangement (ECA) implemented last year (including ways to encourage MPF scheme members to transfer the accrued benefits derived from their contributions to the MPF schemes operated by the trustees selected by them) and enhance the channels for dissemination of information concerning funds with lower expense ratio (such as index funds) to facilitate the public to make appropriate choices; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(c) given the diverse views in the community regarding the imposition of

a cap on the expense ratio, whether the authorities have studied feasible and effective measures (such as promotion of computerization in the relevant processing to streamline the workflow and reduce costs) to tackle issues such as the complex workflow of MPF and duplication of resources; if they have, of the study progress; if not, the reasons for that?

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

(a) Consolidating personal accounts allows scheme members to better manage their MPF investment and helps reduce the administrative


cost of trustees, thereby expanding the scope of fee reduction. To simplify the consolidation procedures, the MPFA has developed a new form specially designed for consolidating personal accounts. Scheme members can now consolidate all of their personal accounts simply by completing one single form. Starting from late September this year, the MPFA has sent letters in batches to scheme members with four or more personal accounts (around 180 000 members in total) to encourage account consolidation. Attached with these letters are the abovementioned application form specially designed for account consolidation, a new leaflet on the steps of account consolidation and points to note, and a list of all trustees with their hotline numbers and addresses. The form for consolidating personal accounts has been uploaded to the MPFA website for use by scheme members.

Meanwhile, the MPFA has launched a series of publicity

programmes through various channels, including newspapers, online platforms, the electronic media, and outreach activities at district level, to raise scheme members' awareness of the benefits of account consolidation and enhance their understanding of related procedures, and to assist them in making consolidation arrangements. The MPFA understands that scheme members have responded positively to the campaign of account consolidation ― over 1 000 applications for account consolidation have been received by trustees within one month after the launch of the exercise.

In addition, to contain the proliferation of new personal accounts,

trustees have, as requested by the MPFA, included the MPFA's reminder and a leaflet in the letters sent to departing employees, reminding them to manage their MPF benefits and to consider consolidating their personal accounts.

The MPFA will review these arrangements and their effectiveness in

the first half of next year (that is, six months after the implementation of the campaign), and seek views from various parties for formulating related strategies.

(b) The ECA not only gives employees more freedom in choosing MPF

funds, but also facilitates market competition and exerts pressure on


1857

trustees to reduce fees. According to the MPFA's information, as at 1 November 2013, a total of 145 MPF funds have reduced fees following the launch of the ECA on 1 November 2012, with reductions ranging from one basis point to 80 basis points, that is, from 0.6% to 44%. Apart from employees who have applied to transfer to other schemes, those who stay with their original schemes have also enjoyed a fee reduction generally.

The ECA aims to give employees greater autonomy in choosing

MPF schemes. In selecting MPF schemes, an employee should carefully consider factors such as his/her age, his/her risk tolerance level, the risk level and performance of funds, and the service quality of the trustees. They should not transfer their benefits just for jumping on the bandwagon. The MPFA has included this message in its ECA publicity materials. As the ECA has been implemented for one year, the MPFA will review its operation and explore ways to simplify transfer procedures and the transfer application form, making it easier for scheme members to transfer to another MPF scheme if they plan to do so.

With regard to the fees and charges of funds, the MPFA has urged

trustees to offer low-fee funds in each scheme and to step up the promotion of these funds. By now, at least one low-fee fund, other than MPF Conservative Funds, have been made available under most MPF schemes. The MPFA has also provided on its webpage a Low Fee Fund List for the easy reference of scheme members. As at 1 November 2013, there were 141 low-fee funds on the list.

(c) The MPF System is an important part of the retirement protection

system. Considering that MPF fees will have a cumulative compound effect on employees' MPF accrued benefits, the Government considers it necessary to take decisive measures to facilitate further reduction in MPF fees. After discussion with the Government, the MPFA is now studying a number of specific reform measures, including the proposal of launching "core funds" with a fee control element. We look forward to the early completion of these studies, whereupon a public consultation on the proposals can commence.


Meanwhile, the MPFA will continue to roll out measures to reduce trustees' administrative costs, including the launch of an electronic payment and clearing system in mid-2014. The system will allow electronic transfer of accrued benefits among trustees in accordance with scheme members' instructions. It will also reduce certain unnecessary procedures and increase the scope of fee reduction by trustees.

Medical Services Provided by Public Hospitals of New Territories East Cluster 13. MR JAMES TIEN (in Chinese): President, according to media reports, the waiting time of new cases for specialist out-patient (SOP) services on gynaecology in the New Territories East (NTE) Cluster of the Hospital Authority (HA) is as long as 127 weeks (that is, almost two and a half years), which is the longest among all hospital clusters. Besides, the waiting time of new cases for SOP services on ophthalmology of the NTE Cluster even stands at 160 weeks (that is, about three years). Moreover, in March this year, some semi-urgent patients at the accident and emergency (A&E) department of the Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) of the NTE Cluster in Sha Tin needed to wait for more than 12 hours before they were treated. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:

(a) the average waiting time of new cases for various SOP services provided by the public hospitals of the NTE Cluster since April 2013 (set out in the table below);

Name of hospital SOP service Average waiting time

of new cases

(b) the respective waiting time for the services of various A&E

departments in the NTE Cluster since April 2013 (set out in table form); whether the HA has reviewed the latest situation of the waiting time for A&E services in the NTE Cluster so as to implement improvement measures; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;


1859

(c) given that the HA launched, on a pilot basis, a cross-cluster referral arrangement for SOP services in August 2012, the total number of patients that the NTE Cluster has referred to other clusters for medical treatment so far and, among them, the respective percentages of the number of patients of various specialties in the total numbers of patients of the specialties concerned in the NTE Cluster (set out by specialty and cluster in table form); the criteria adopted by the HA for deciding the specialties for which such a cross-cluster referral arrangement should be implemented on a pilot basis;

(d) if the HA has assessed the effectiveness of the cross-cluster referral

arrangement mentioned in part (c), including the resultant reduction in the waiting time for various specialist services, and whether it has plans to extend such arrangement; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(e) if the authorities have assessed the impact of the trend of the rising

number of cross-boundary children coming to study or live in Hong Kong on local medical services (particularly on the services of the public hospitals of the NTE Cluster), and accordingly conducted a comprehensive review of the staffing and resource allocation of the public hospitals of the NTE Cluster; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the HA has implemented a triage system for all new SOP cases to ensure that patients with urgent conditions requiring early intervention are treated with priority. Under the current triage system, new cases are usually first screened by a nurse and then by a specialist doctor of the relevant specialty for classification into priority 1 (urgent), priority 2 (semi-urgent) and routine categories. The HA's target is to maintain the median waiting time for cases under priority 1 and priority 2 within two weeks and eight weeks respectively. The HA has all along been able to keep this performance pledge so far. As regards A&E services, the HA has adopted a triage system which classifies patients attending the A&E departments into five categories according to their clinical conditions, namely critical (Category I), emergency (Category II),


urgent (Category III), semi-urgent (Category IV) and non-urgent (Category V), so as to ensure that patients with more serious conditions are accorded higher priority in medical treatment. In 2012-2013, the average waiting time for patients triaged as critical and emergency was 0 minute and 17 minutes respectively. All patients triaged as critical and 97% of patients triaged as emergency were treated within the time stated in the HA's performance pledge for the two categories, that is, immediately and 15 minutes. This shows that the majority of patients with pressing medical needs were able to receive timely medical treatment. My reply to the various parts of the questions is as follows:

(a) The waiting time for new cases of SOP clinics in the New Territories East (NTE) Cluster(1) by priority set according to patients' conditions from April to September 2013 (provisional figures) is set out in the following table:

Specialty Median Waiting Time for New Cases (weeks)

Priority 1 (urgent)

Priority 2 (semi-urgent) Routine categories

Ear, Nose and Throat <1 3 54

Gynaecology <1 5 50 Medicine <1 5 62 Ophthalmology <1 4 45 Orthopaedics and Traumatology <1 5 110

Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine

<1 5 26

Psychiatry 1 4 34 Surgery <1 5 27

(b) The average waiting time in A&E departments of the NTE Cluster

from April to September 2013 (provisional figures) is set out in the following table:

(1) As there is co-ordination among clinics for the same specialty within clusters, the waiting time for SOP

services is thus reported by cluster (not by hospital).


1861

Hospitals Average waiting time (minute)

Category I: critical

Category II: emergency

Category III: urgent

Category IV: semi-urgent

Category V: non-urgent

Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital

0 7 11 26 28

North District Hospital

0 7 23 102 157

Prince of Wales Hospital

0 11 48 156 158

In tandem with community development, the population of NTE

(including Sha Tin, Tai Po and North District) has increased from 1.2 million in 2007 to 1.25 million in 2013 and there is a particular surge in the proportion of elderly population. Moreover, there is a cross-boundary demand for medical services. Hence, hospitals in the NTE Cluster are under a certain level of pressure. Apart from meeting the increasing demand of NTE including Sha Tin for its A&E services and facing the pressure of ageing patients, the PWH also needs to fulfil its role as a university teaching hospital and a referral centre for major trauma involving more complicated cases.

The PWH has kept the utilization of its A&E service under close

watch and has taken a number of short-term and long-term measures to strengthen its healthcare manpower. In addition to deploying doctors from other hospitals or departments (such as the Department of Family Medicine), part-time doctors have been recruited and support has been sought from doctors who are willing to work extra shifts or sessions through the Special Honorarium Scheme. Continuous active efforts are also made to recruit full-time doctors, including overseas doctors. As for nursing manpower, the PWH recruited five additional nurses for its A&E department in August 2013 and increased the number of day beds for medical ambulatory care to 30 in a bid to relieve the work pressure of front-line staff and divert non-emergency cases of acute wards.


Other contingency measures include increasing the A&E Nurse Clinic sessions from two days a week to seven days a week, subject to the manpower situation. Non-emergency and mild trauma cases will be treated by nurse specialists so that doctors could attend to patients in critical condition. In-patient wards have also speeded up the workflow of discharge and transfer to rehabilitation hospitals, and added beds where necessary, with a view to vacating beds and admitting A&E patients as soon as possible to further relieve the pressure on the department.

(c) The HA provides different kinds of public healthcare services

throughout the territory to give patients convenient access to these services according to their needs. In general, the HA encourages patients to seek medical treatment from SOP clinics of the hospital cluster to which their districts of residence belong so as to facilitate the follow-up treatment of any of their conditions and the provision of community support.

To manage the waiting time of SOP services (particularly for routine

cases) in an effective manner, the HA has established a centrally co-ordinated mechanism to enhance cross-cluster collaboration and launched a pilot run of cross-cluster referrals. The mechanism provides suitable patients in clusters of longer waiting time with an option to seek medical treatment in clusters of shorter waiting time. In choosing specialties for the pilot run, the HA mainly considers the conditions (such as those with shorter treatment duration) and appropriateness of the patients concerned (such as those with greater mobility).

The pilot run of cross-cluster referral arrangement started in the Ear,

Nose and Throat departments of the Kowloon East Cluster and the Kowloon Central Cluster in August 2012. In April 2013, the arrangement was extended to referral of suitable new gynaecological cases in the NTE Cluster to the Hong Kong East Cluster. As at 30 September 2013, about 142 patients in the NTE Cluster have benefited from the arrangement. The HA further extended the service in October 2013 by referring new ophthalmic cases in the NTE Cluster to the Hong Kong West Cluster.


1863

(d) Regarding the cross-cluster referral services in the NTE Cluster, the waiting time of gynaecological patients accepting the referral arrangement has been reduced from over 100 weeks to 20-odd weeks. As for ophthalmology, the HA has yet to compile statistics about the changes in waiting time because the pilot run of cross-cluster referral only started in October 2013.

The HA will consider extending the scope of cross-cluster referral

arrangement under the centrally co-ordinated matching system in the light of the needs as well as suitability of the diseases and patients. In the long run, the HA will identify service areas in various specialties and clusters which are under greater pressure and exercise more effective management of waiting time through resources allocation according to the HA's annual plan and other appropriate measures.

(e) The HA has conducted surveys on the demand for healthcare

services from cross-boundary children who are eligible persons. According to its latest estimation, there are some 151 000 children who were in Hong Kong born to Mainland women and are now living in the vicinity of Guangdong Province. This figure is projected to increase to 187 000 in 2017.

To cater for the needs of cross-boundary children and cope with the

overall demand for paediatric services, the HA has been implementing various measures and programmes to keep pace with service requirements. In recent years, targeted resources were allocated to enhance the paediatric services of the NTE Cluster, including recruitment of additional healthcare staff and procurement of medical equipment in 2013-2014, setting up of a paediatric day ward with 10 beds in the Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital and establishment of a day case unit with eight beds in the Children's Cancer Centre of the PWH for patients to undergo procedures such as chemotherapy, blood transfusion and antibiotic injection. Additional healthcare staff have been recruited and medical equipment procured to cope with such service development. As regards in-patient service, an additional neonatal intensive care unit bed and three more children high dependency beds with breathing apparatus were provided in the PWH in 2012-2013.


The need to cope with the service requirements of cross-boundary children and overall demand for paediatric services are understandably not limited to NTE. As such, the HA has added a total of 10 neonatal intensive care beds in the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Kwong Wah Hospital, Queen Elizabeth Hospital and Tuen Mun Hospital in recent years. Services of paediatric intensive care and high dependency units have also been enhanced in the Queen Mary Hospital. To enhance the quality of paediatric services, the Duchess of Kent Children's Hospital will provide three additional beds for the provision of inter-disciplinary care for children who have to rely on respiratory equipment. Pharmacy support services have also been introduced in paediatric wards of various clusters to ensure the quality and safety of medication.

In the long term, the HA will continue to monitor the situation and

make appropriate service planning and manpower deployment in order to meet service needs.

Regulation of Post Secondary Colleges Under Post Secondary Colleges Ordinance 14. DR HELENA WONG (in Chinese): President, some people from the education sector have relayed to me that although the Chief Executive of the previous term proposed in 2009 the development of education services, the Post Secondary Colleges Ordinance (Cap. 320) (the Ordinance) is outdated and unable to keep pace with the rapid development of post secondary education. They have pointed out that all along there are no specific guidelines and restraints regarding the composition and membership structure of the supreme governing bodies and executive bodies (that is, boards of governors and college councils) of self-financing post secondary colleges under the Ordinance, resulting in a lack of transparency and effective monitoring of the decision-making processes of the relevant bodies, and thus affecting the quality of teaching. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the existing number and the names of the self-financing post secondary colleges registered under the Ordinance in Hong Kong; apart from the Ordinance, whether there are specific guidelines to


1865

regulate the governance structures of such post secondary colleges and their composition; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(b) whether it knows the following information regarding the boards of

governors and college councils of the various post secondary colleges mentioned in part (a):

(i) composition; (ii) number of members; (iii) list of external members; (iv) list of internal members; (v) the respective percentages of the numbers of external and

internal members in the total numbers of members in the board of governors and college council;

(vi) members' tenure of office; (vii) whether members are elected; (viii) whether there are members who are representatives of

students and teaching staff and those who are directly appointed by the Government; and

(ix) composition of the committees formed under the board of

governors and college council as well as the methods for selecting and appointing members of the committees;

(c) of the definitions of "supreme governing body" and "executive body"

in the Post Secondary Colleges Regulations (Cap. 320, sub. leg. A) (the Regulations);

(d) of the functions, responsibilities and authority of the different

governing bodies of post secondary colleges; the division of responsibilities between such governing bodies and the management


of the colleges, including which of them shall be responsible for making decisions and performing duties relating to the daily operation of the colleges;

(e) of the mechanism put in place by the Government to ensure

compliance with the Ordinance by members of the supreme governing bodies appointed by various self-financing post secondary colleges, and the plans or measures put in place by the Education Bureau to exercise effective monitoring in order to ensure good governance and teaching quality of these colleges;

(f) how the authorities ensure that the academic autonomy of post

secondary colleges will not be interfered with; and (g) given that the Government provides self-financing post secondary

colleges with various kinds of loans and research funds, and so on, to support their development, of the role of the Government in monitoring and supporting the various self-financing post secondary colleges; when problems relating to the governance or administration of the colleges arise, of the criteria adopted by the Government for determining whether it should intervene to conciliate and handle the relevant problems?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the Ordinance and the Regulations were first enacted in 1960 to govern the registration and operation of post secondary colleges and their consequent exemption from the provisions of the Education Ordinance (Cap. 279). Since some of the requirements are already out of date, the Government, after a review and consultations, submitted a paper to the Legislative Council Panel on Education at its meeting on 14 January 2013 to propose technical amendments to the Ordinance and the Regulations.

(a) At present, there are six institutions registered under the Ordinance, namely the Caritas Institute of Higher Education, the Centennial College, the Chu Hai College of Higher Education, the Hang Seng Management College, the Hong Kong Shue Yan University and the Tung Wah College.


1867

According to the requirement set out in section 4(m) of the Ordinance, a college registered under the Ordinance shall have the legal status as a corporation. The governance framework of the corporation and its composition shall be subject to the relevant legislation.

(b) A college registered under the Ordinance shall be subject to

section 2(b) of the Regulations in the composition of its Board of Governors and College Council. The Board of Governors shall consist of not less than 10 members nor more than 40, and the College Council not less than 10 members nor more than 25. According to the information provided by institutions, members of the Board of Governors are normally appointed by the sponsoring body, while the College Council would comprise members appointed by the Board of Governors, ex-officio members, and appointed or elected representatives of academic staff and/or students, and so on.

Section 2(a) of the Regulations also stipulates that a college shall set

up an Academic Board to regulate the academic affairs of the college, subject to the financial control of the College Council. A Faculty Board for each faculty in the college shall also be set up with the dean of each faculty acting as chairman of the board of that faculty. The Faculty Board for each faculty shall be responsible to the Academic Board for the teaching and general organization of the programmes assigned to that faculty, reporting thereon from time to time to the Academic Board.

The size of membership and member's tenure of office of the Board

of Governors and College Council of colleges registered under the Ordinance, their number of internal and external members with percentage, as well as the participation of student and academic staff representatives, and so on, are set out in Annex. According to section 3 of the Ordinance, the Education Bureau has kept the register of the members of the Boards of Governors and the College Councils of colleges registered under the Ordinance.

(c) and (d) Section 2(a) of the Regulations stipulates that the Board of

Governors shall be the supreme governing body of a college, while a


College Council shall be the executive body of the college administering the property and managing the general affairs of the college, subject to the directions of the Board of Governors. According to the information provided by institutions, overall speaking, the Board of Directors steers the course for the development of the college and makes decisions on major issues about college governance. As for the College Council, it manages the everyday matters of the college by following the directions set by the Board of Governors.

The Academic Board is responsible for regulating the academic

affairs of the College. A Faculty Board is set up for each faculty in the college to oversee the teaching and general organization of courses assigned to that faculty. For daily operation, the president and the academic and administrative staff of the college shall discharge the relevant duties.

(e) The Government attaches great importance to the quality of post

secondary education. All colleges providing post secondary programmes are subject to the regulation of relevant ordinances. Colleges registered under the Ordinance should meet every registration requirement prescribed therein. Furthermore, to facilitate the enforcement of the Ordinance and monitoring of colleges, the Education Bureau keeps a record for each college about its registration, as well as the registers of its members of Board of Governors, members of College Council and teaching staff. As regards quality assurance, the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications, as a statutory body, is playing important role in the quality assurance of institutions and programmes.

The Permanent Secretary for Education may reject or revoke the

registration of any post secondary college if it does not meet the registration requirements under the Ordinance.

(f) and (g) Post secondary institutions in Hong Kong enjoy a high degree of

autonomy in academic development and administration. Under the


1869

framework of quality assurance, operational and programme-related arrangements are determined by the mission and objectives of the sponsoring body and the institution, the demand for programmes, as well as long-term development considerations, and so on. The Government exercises regulation and supervision in accordance with relevant ordinances to ensure that the operation of all institutions meets the necessary requirements.

The Government promotes the sustainable and healthy development

of the self-financing post secondary sector through various support measures, including the Land Grant Scheme, Start-up Loan Scheme and Self-financing Post-secondary Education Fund, and so on. Each support measure has established an independent committee to oversee the approval of applications. The Government will also monitor the progress of related projects.

Annex

Information on Boards of Governors and College Councils of Colleges registered under the Ordinance

College(1)

Boards of Governors

and College Councils

Size of member-

ship(2)

Number of

internal members

(%)

Number of

external members

(%)

Tenure of office for members

Student represent-

tative(3)

Academic staff

represent-tative(3)

Caritas Institute of Higher Education <http://www.cihe.edu.hk>

Board of Governors

15 1

(7%) 14

(93%) Normally two years

No Yes

College Council

19 6

(32%) 13


Yes Yes

Centennial College <http://www.centennialcollege.hku.hk>

Board of Governors

13 1

(8%) 12

(92%) Normally two to three years

No Yes

College Council

16 1

(6%) 15

(94%) Normally two to three years

No Yes

Chu Hai College of Higher Education <http://www.chuhai.edu.hk>

Board of Governors

11 3

(27%) 8


No Yes

College Council

15 15

(100%) -

Normally two years

Yes Yes

Hang Seng Management College <http://www.hsmc.edu.hk>

Board of Governors

10 - 10

(100%) Normally three years

No No

College Council

10 3

(30%) 7


No Yes


College(1)

Boards of Governors

and College Councils

Size of member-

ship(2)

Number of

internal members

(%)

Number of

external members

(%)

Tenure of office for members

Student represent-

tative(3)

Academic staff

represent-tative(3)

Hong Kong Shue Yan University <http://www.hksyu.edu>

Board of Governors

16 4

(25%) 12


No Yes

College Council

15 8

(53%) 7


No Yes

Tung Wah College <http://www.twc.edu.hk>

Board of Governors

16 2

(12%) 14

(88%)

Normally one year for academic staff representative and two years for other members

No Yes

College Council

16 4

(25%) 12

(75%)

Normally one year for academic staff and student representatives and three years for other members

Yes Yes

Notes: (1) Detailed information on the composition of the Board of Governors and the College Council may be found

at the college websites. (2) None of the colleges registered under the Ordinance has any government-appointed member. (3) To enhance transparency, apart from the Board of Governors and College Council, most institutions have

set up committees so as to provide channels for teaching staff and students to participate in school administration. For example, committees are established under the Academic Board, including the Student Affairs Committee, Academic Committee and Quality Assurance Committee, and so on, with participation of teaching staff representatives and/or student members.

Occupational Safety for Front-line Healthcare Personnel 15. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): President, quite a number of front-line healthcare personnel have relayed to me that the problem of public hospital staff encountering work injury accidents or being diagnosed as suffering from work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) has worsened in recent years. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:

(a) the respective numbers of cases of public hospital staff (i) encountering work injury accidents and (ii) being diagnosed as


1871

suffering from work-related MSDs in each of the past three years, and set out the relevant figures in the table below;

(i) Work injury accidents

Year 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Allied health professional

Supporting staff Others

(ii) Diagnosed as suffering from work-related MSDs

Year 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Allied health professional

Supporting staff Others

(b) whether the Hospital Authority (HA) has assessed (i) if the figures in

the reply to part (a) have reflected a serious problem of work injury accidents, and (ii) the causes of work injury accidents; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(c) whether the HA has taken measures to improve the work procedures

and environment for its staff, with a view to reducing work injury accidents; if it has, of the details of the measures and the effectiveness indicators; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the HA has all along attached importance to the occupational safety and health of its staff. Apart from establishing an occupational safety management system, the HA has implemented progressively a series of occupational safety and health policies and measures, including formulating safety guidelines, preventive and control measures, and undertaking periodic risk assessments, inspections and reviews. HA staff can report injuries or incidents at work through an electronic system. The system not only facilitates staff reporting injuries at work, but also helps department heads and occupational safety and health officers access the relevant information as early as possible for timely investigation and formulation of improvement and preventive measures.


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

(a) The number of work injury cases in the HA's hospitals for the past three years is as follows:

No. of work injury accidents 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Healthcare and allied health professionals(1) 1 618 1 407 1 395

Care-related support staff 1 210 1 090 1 106 Others(2) 974 806 774 Total 3 802 3 303 3 275 Notes: (1) Healthcare and allied health professionals include doctors, nurses and

allied health professionals. (2) Others include administrative staff and other supporting staff.

The HA does not maintain statistics on cases relating to work-related MSDs.

(b) and (c)

The number of work injury accidents in the HA has been decreasing

over the past few years from 3 802 in 2010-2011 to 3 303 in 2011-2012 and further to 3 275 in 2012-2013, marking a decrease of about 14% in total.

The HA will continue to implement improvement measures and

initiatives, taking into consideration causes of work injuries and the findings of the occupational safety and health related risk assessment. Recent improvement measures to address the three major types of work injury in the HA, that is, manual handling operations, sharps or needle pricks and workplace violence are as follows:

Manual Handling Operations The HA has introduced electrically-operated beds in recent years to improve the working environment by reducing the manual work in


1873

operating hospital beds. A safe lifting and handling programme was launched to encourage staff to transfer patients and materials with handling aids/equipment. Training in manual handling operations was enhanced. Staff with relevant manual handling tasks are required to attend induction training upon appointment and refresher courses during employment. Sharps or needle pricks The HA has all along endeavoured to enhance the safe use of medical needles or sharps. Measures implemented include introducing needleless apparatus or medical needles or sharps with safety devices as well as developing guidelines and measures on the disposal of medical sharps so that staff in different posts can work and handle used medical needles or sharps safely. Established mechanism is also in place in the HA for the reporting, treatment and investigation of needle-prick injuries. The mechanism allows injured staff to be followed up and treated in a timely manner. Infection control teams of the hospitals will also be able to obtain the relevant information more expeditiously to formulate further preventive measures and enhancing the guidelines. In addition, the infection control teams of the hospitals will organize regular training courses for hospital staff so as to refresh and update their knowledge of safety precautions. Workplace violence The HA makes every endeavour to promote policies and measures to prevent workplace violence. It enhances staff's awareness, knowledge and self-management techniques on the handling and prevention of workplace violence through a series of training courses and publicity work. The HA will continue to improve its occupational safety and health policies and measures having regard to the causes of work injuries and the findings of risk assessments so as to provide a safe working environment for staff.


Safety of Clothes-drying Racks in Public Housing Estates 16. MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that earlier on, a tenant in Lok Wah North Estate, Ngau Tau Kok, fell to death when using the pole-socket type clothes-drying racks (commonly known as the "three joss sticks" clothes-drying racks) to dry clothes, arousing anew queries about the safety of such facilities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) given that the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) has implemented a scheme since 1 June 2004 to provide subsidy for households living in public housing estates to replace their pole-socket type clothes-drying racks, of the respective numbers of applications received and approved under the scheme as at October this year; and the current amount of subsidy provided for each household under the scheme;

(b) given that the then Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands

mentioned in his reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council on 28 April 2004 that a total of 518 560 flats in 146 public housing estates were provided with pole-socket type clothes-drying racks in that year, of the latest figures in this regard;

(c) given that while the then Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands

indicated in his reply to the aforesaid question that the design [of the pole-socket type clothes-drying racks] was generally safe with proper use, incidents involving tenants falling from heights when using such facilities still occurred subsequently, whether the HA will reassess the safety of such facilities; and

(d) given that fatality was resulted in each of the accidents involving

pole-socket type clothes-drying racks, whether the HA has plans to replace free of charge the pole-socket type clothes-drying racks with clothes-drying racks which better conform with safety standards for households living in public housing estates, and make it mandatory for households to accept the arrangement; if not, what new measures the HA has, apart from stepping up publicity and posting notices, to prevent recurrence of incidents of tenants falling from heights when using such facilities?


1875

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, over the years, the HA keeps improving the construction and safety standards, introduces new facilities and improves layouts to enhance the quality and safety of public rental housing (PRH) units so as to cater for the changing needs of residents. As far as resources and the fabric of existing buildings permit, the HA will continue taking steps to upgrade existing PRH units to improve the living environment of PRH residents. My reply to the four-part question asked by Mr Christopher CHUNG is as follows:

(a) The HA launched a subsidy scheme in 2004-2005 to grant a one-off subsidy to existing PRH tenants who wish to replace the pole holder facility with laundry racks. Under the subsidy scheme, each household was only required to pay $200 for the installation of laundry racks. At that time, about 10% of the households with pole holder facilities applied for the scheme and have completed the replacement works. The subsidy scheme came to an end in 2005. Apart from this scheme, for PRH households consisting solely of elderly people, the HA provides free installation of laundry racks to replace pole holder facilities.

In addition, estates which are 40 years old are covered by the

Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme (CSIP). Those that completed the CSIP and are selected for inclusion in the Estate Improvement Programme (EIP), the HA will consider replacing all the pole holder facilities with laundry racks free of charge. Under the EIP, estates with laundry racks replacement works completed or still in progress include Ping Shek Estate, Choi Hung Estate and Wo Lok Estate.

(b) Currently, there are still 128 PRH estates with some 430 000 PRH

flats (excluding Tenants Purchase Scheme Estates) using pole holder facilities for clothes drying.

(c) and (d)

As far as resources permit, the HA has been adopting proactive and

pragmatic measures to enhance the living standard of residents. It


will continue to arrange for the replacement of the pole holder facilities under the EIP.

At the same time, tenants may, taking into account their own

circumstances, approach Estate Offices of the Housing Department at any time to apply for the installation of laundry racks with cord pulleys to replace pole holder facilities at their own cost.

Furthermore, we will step up publicity on the proper use of laundry

facilities in PRH estates so as to strengthen tenants' awareness of the safe use of these facilities.

Monitoring Acceptance by Healthcare Personnel of Advantages Offered by Pharmaceutical Manufacturers 17. DR LAU WONG-FAT (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the Mainland authorities have conducted investigations into the alleged use of means such as hospitality, and so on, by foreign-funded pharmaceutical manufacturers to entice healthcare personnel into prescribing to patients pharmaceuticals made by the pharmaceutical manufacturers concerned. It has also been reported that some healthcare personnel on the Mainland accepted money from milk powder companies for distributing their formula products to new-born babies so that the babies will get used to taking the formula products of such brands. Some members of the public have relayed to me their concern about the aforesaid situation happening in local healthcare institutions. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it has monitored if the healthcare personnel of public and private healthcare institutions in Hong Kong have accepted hospitality offered by pharmaceutical manufacturers and have made decisions in favour of such pharmaceutical manufacturers in using and procuring pharmaceuticals; and

(b) given the report that some local healthcare institutions provide only

specific formula products to new-born babies, whether the relevant government departments have monitored if the healthcare personnel of public and private healthcare institutions provide, in accordance


1877

with the principle of fairness, formula products of different brands for parents of new-born babies to choose?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President,

(a) The drug procurement process of the Government is governed by the Stores and Procurement Regulations (Regulations) issued by the Financial Secretary under the Public Finance Ordinance (Cap. 2). The Regulations set out the criteria of fair treatment of suppliers and producers. The principles underlying the procurement system of the Government are consistent with the spirit and objectives of the Agreement on Government Procurement of the World Trade Organization (WTO GPA). The WTO GPA aims at ensuring open and fair competition among domestic and foreign suppliers and service providers. To this end, the WTO GPA prescribes a set of requirements regarding non-discriminatory treatment of goods, services and service suppliers, qualifications of suppliers in submitting tenders, tender procedures, tender specifications and appeal procedures. The procurement procedures (including the procurement of pharmaceutical products) of the Hospital Authority (HA) should, along with those of the government departments, also comply with the WTO GPA. To avoid conflict of interest, all public officers (including HA staff) participating in the procurement work have to declare whether there is a conflict of interest. They have to comply with the relevant guidelines for civil servants or internal guidelines for the HA. Moreover, they are subject to the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201). Government officers and HA staff have to strictly comply with the above regulations in the process of drug procurement.

For the private healthcare sector, the Department of Health (DH)

registers those private hospitals, nursing homes and maternity homes that fulfil the requirements for accommodation, staffing and equipment according to the Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Maternity Homes Registration Ordinance (Cap. 165). The Code of Practice issued by the DH for this purpose requires the licensee and the Board of Directors of these healthcare establishments to ensure that the daily operation adheres to the provisions of relevant legislations,


including the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201) in order to maintain good governance.

(b) Regarding the provision of milk powder for new-born babies, the

DH is committed to promoting, supporting and maintaining the best way to feed the children, especially breastfeeding. In this regard, the DH has, through different channels, actively promoted and supported breastfeeding. It has also provided the public with comprehensive, objective and reliable information to enable parents to make an informed decision in feeding their children. And the HA has also been actively encouraging breastfeeding. To promote and encourage breastfeeding among post-natal women, hospitals under the HA will only provide milk powder for babies with health or other special considerations during their stay in the hospitals.

As regards the provision of milk powder under the above special

circumstances, the HA has stopped using sponsored supplies of milk formula from milk powder suppliers since April 2010 and has purchased milk powder through open tender instead. Requirements of the purchase, pricing, assessment criteria and obligations to comply with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes of the World Health Organization are stated in the tender documents. All tenders are evaluated by the Tender Evaluation Committee on a fair and equitable basis. Having regard to the recommendations of the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative launched by the United Nations Children's Fund, the HA purchases milk formula at a price no less than the wholesale price and does not buy milk formula simply based on the lowest bid.

At present, the HA purchases seven different brands of powdered

formula through open tender and provides them in turn (switches to a different brand once every four months) for babies in need in the eight public hospitals with obstetric services (namely the Kwong Wah Hospital, the Princess Margaret Hospital, the Prince of Wales Hospital, the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, the Queen Mary Hospital, the Tuen Mun Hospital and the United Christian Hospital). Public hospitals will not distribute free milk powder to mothers and babies upon their discharge.


1879

Provision of New Residential Flats in 2013-2014 18. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, the Budget of this financial year (this year) stated that (i) the Government's aim in land supply for private housing is to maintain on average the provision of land for building about 20 000 residential units (units) each year, (ii) 46 residential sites would be included in the Land Sale Programme (LSP) for this year, providing about 13 600 units in total, and (iii) all the major sources of land supply for private housing together (including Government's LSP, railway property development projects, projects of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA), and lease modifications/land exchanges or other private developments) would provide land for building some 25 800 units this year. However, according to the announced LSP, the Government's land sale in the first three quarters of this year can produce only about 8 200 units in total, reaching merely 60% of the full-year target of 13 600 units. In addition, it has been reported in the press that in the first three quarters of this year, the land put up by the Government for sale plus other sources of supply taken together can produce only about 8 900 units in total, which is well below the target of 25 800 units mentioned in the Budget. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether the authorities expect that they can put up for sale in the fourth quarter all the rest of 46 residential sites planned to be sold this year; if not, of the reasons for that; among them, of the number of sites that are in the process of applying to the Town Planning Board for rezoning, as well as the expected date of completion of the process; of the latest estimate on the number of units to be produced by the Government's land sale this year;

(b) of the respective numbers of units that can be produced by other

major sources of land supply for private housing this year, apart from the Government's LSP; of the respective numbers of units to be produced by the land supply so far this year and units forecast to be produced by the full-year land supply; whether there will be a gap between the current full-year forecast and the 25 800 units mentioned in the Budget; if so, of the reasons for that; and

(c) whether the authorities have assessed if the number of units to be

produced by land sold this year was miscalculated or exaggerated in the first place; whether the authorities have assessed if the untrue


targets and estimates for housing supply will have an impact on the market and raise doubts among members of the public about the Government's ability to solve the problem?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, to ensure the healthy and steady development of the residential property market, the Government announced in the 2010 Policy Address that in the next 10 years, on average land needs to be made available annually for some 20 000 private residential flats. The sources of private housing land include the Government's LSP, railway property development projects, redevelopment projects of the URA, projects subject to lease modification/land exchange and private redevelopment projects not subject to lease modification/land exchange. The Government also pointed out that the relevant figure is not a fixed target of housing land supply. The aim is to build up a sufficiently large land reserve over a period of time to ensure stable land supply for the market. Among the various sources of private housing land mentioned above, except the LSP which is fully led by the Government, the land provided by other projects depends on the implementation progress of relevant organizations, corporations and land owners. When the Government announced the 2013-2014 LSP on 28 February 2013, the estimated land supply for 25 800 units was a consolidated forecast from the above various sources of private housing land supply at the time. Except the Government's LSP, the estimated flat numbers from railway property development projects and redevelopment projects of the URA were provided by relevant organizations at the time, while the estimated flat numbers from projects subject to lease modification/land exchange and private redevelopment projects not subject to lease modification/land exchange were based on the average figures in the past 10 years. As regards the LSP which is fully led by the Government, the Government has been putting up government sites for sale in a very proactive manner. Starting from 2013-2014, the Government has abolished the Application Mechanism to fully take the lead in selling government sites. It also announces LSPs in advance on a quarterly basis, providing transparency and certainty for the market. I reply to the three parts of the question as follows:


1881

(a) The 2013-2014 LSP announced by the Government in February 2013 included 46 residential sites capable of producing about 13 600 flats. In June 2013, the Government announced that three sites in Shek Mun, Sha Tin would be excluded from the 2013-2014 LSP and designated for public housing purpose, while six new residential sites would be added to the 2013-2014 LSP. After adjustment, the 2013-2014 LSP has a total of 49 residential sites, capable of producing about 13 300 flats.

In the first three quarters of 2013-2014, a total of 24 residential sites

have been sold/will be put up for sale, capable of producing about 8 200 flats, equivalent to the total number of flats that could be built on the land sold by the Government in the whole year of 2012-2013. This demonstrates the Government's determination to increase the land supply for private housing. Excluding the 24 residential sites already sold/to be put up for sale in the first three quarters of 2013-2014, there are 25 residential sites left in the 2013-2014 LSP. The Government will announce the LSP for the fourth quarter of 2013-2014 in due course.

Subject to the progress of statutory or other procedures concerning

individual sites, the Government plans to sell all the residential sites in the 2013-2014 LSP, and depending on market situation and the progress of site search, add sites ready for sale to the LSP in a timely manner, with a view to increasing housing land supply to the greatest extent.

There are altogether 22 sites in the 2013-2014 LSP that are subject to

statutory planning procedures of amending the relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs) for rezoning or revising development parameters. As at end October 2013, 16 of these sites had completed/commenced the statutory planning procedures; two sites designated for public housing purpose; four sites pending the commencement of such procedures. In general, the statutory planning procedures involved in the rezoning of land use have to be conducted and completed within the time limit specified in the Town Planning Ordinance, but the actual time taken to complete such procedures for each site varies with specific circumstances. The departments concerned have accorded priority to dealing with the


relevant work in order to expedite the completion of such procedures.

(b) and (c) Railway property development projects have always been one of the

important sources of private housing land supply. The West Rail property development project at Long Ping Station (South), capable of producing about 720 units, was tendered out in June 2013. We are working with the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) on revising the scheme of the West Rail property development project at Yuen Long Station, which is planned for tendering in 2013-2014. In addition, the MTRCL indicated in August 2013 that, subject to market conditions, it planned to re-tender the property development projects at Tai Wai Station and Tin Shui Wai Light Rail Terminus, and tender the LOHAS Park Package 4 project within this financial year. It is estimated that these four railway property development projects are capable of producing about 7 880 units.

The projects planned to be tendered by the URA in 2013-2014 are

expected to provide about 1 800 units. The progress of tendering these projects is affected by a couple of factors, including whether land can be resumed as scheduled. The URA is reviewing the tendering progress of each project and will invite tenders for the projects as soon as they are ready.

As projects subject to lease modification/land exchange and private

redevelopment projects not subject to lease modification/land exchange are market-driven, it is inappropriate to predict the annual situation based on figures of individual quarters. The Government will, at the time of announcing the 2014-2015 LSP, account for the 2013-2014 private housing land supply from various sources.

As mentioned above, the forecast of 25 800 flats from the private

housing land supply of various sources as stated in the 2013-2014 Budget is not a fixed target of housing land supply, but an estimated number of private residential flats that could be produced by the housing land forecast to be available for supply to the market for private residential development in the relevant year. The actual supply of housing land depends on the progress of relevant statutory


1883

or other procedures, government land sale results, project tendering programmes of MTRCL and URA and the tendering results, and developers' initiative to carry out lease modification/land exchange and redevelopment projects. These are inevitably affected by market factors.

Housing is the livelihood issue which is of prime concern for most in

the community. Decent housing is the foundation of a stable society. Tackling the housing issue is one of the priority tasks of the Government. The Government's resolve to increase residential land supply remains firm. The relevant departments are adopting a multi-pronged strategy to increase land supply in the short, medium and long term, through the continued and systematic implementation of a series of measures, including the optimal use of developed land as far as practicable and creating new land for development.

Coverage of Insurance Taken Out for Aided Schools 19. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Chinese): President, in his reply to my question on 23 October this year, the Secretary for Education advised that among the 2 988 cases of Group Personal Accident Insurance under the Block Insurance Policy (BIP) reported to the insurers by schools in the past five years after an accident happened to a student, only six cases were indemnified. Quite a number of parents and educators have relayed to me that they are dissatisfied with the Secretary for Education's response which has evaded the issue that both the coverage and the sum insured under the BIP currently taken out by the Government for aided schools are inadequate, as well as the issue of school children not being provided with due protection, and so on. They have also pointed out that, regarding those parents whose children suffer from accidental injury or death while participating in school activities, the Secretary for Education did not respond to the question of how these parents, who cannot afford the legal costs involved and who are ineligible for legal aid, may strive for due legal protection for their children through legal procedure. Also, quite a number of parents have indicated that they had written to the Secretary for Education to make enquiries or lodge complaints about the aforesaid issues but did not receive any reply. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


(a) of the per capita insured amount, compensation limits, coverage and clauses of making claims for students and staff in kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools under the "Employees' Compensation Insurance", the "Public Liability Insurance" and the "Group Personal Accident Insurance" respectively in the past five years;

(b) given that in the past five years, only a few cases were indemnified

among the claims involving the accidental death or permanent disablement of students participating in school activities, whether the Education Bureau will consider taking out insurance with wider coverage so as to provide students with due protection; if so, of the time for implementation and the new coverage; if not, the reasons for that;

(c) regarding claims made under the "Employees' Compensation

Insurance", the "Public Liability Insurance" and the "Group Personal Accident Insurance", of the unit within the Education Bureau to which the parents concerned and/or school staff may approach to make enquiries, as well as the contact information; whether the Education Bureau will assist them in making claims; if so, of the means of assistance; if not, the reasons for that;

(d) given that 2 982 cases of Group Personal Accident Insurance

reported to the insurers were not indemnified in the past five years, whether the Government has provided other forms of assistance to the students and parents concerned; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(e) whether the Education Bureau referred any claim under the Group

Personal Accident Insurance to the Legal Aid Department for follow-up actions in the past five years; if so, of the number of referrals; if not, the reasons for that;

(f) given that the Secretary for Education has advised that the

Education Bureau has been pointing out through various channels (including school circulars and the Education Bureau webpage) that the "Group Personal Accident Insurance" under the BIP should not be regarded as comprehensive personal insurance coverage for


1885

students, and that parents who wish to arrange comprehensive personal insurance coverage for their children (such as life insurance, personal accident insurance, medical insurance, critical illness insurance, and so on) may acquire it separately at their own costs from any insurance company, and yet quite a number of parents have told me that schools have never issued such circulars, whether the authorities know the names of the schools which informed parents of the relevant issues through circulars in the past five years, and of the dates when such circulars were issued; if no schools have ever issued such circulars, the reasons for that; and

(g) whether the Education Bureau has measures to assist those parents

who cannot afford the legal costs involved and who are ineligible for legal aid to strive for due compensation through legal procedure; if it has, of the measures; if not, whether the Education Bureau will provide other means of legal support to such parents?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the BIP taken out by the Government for aided secondary and primary schools comprises three parts, namely the Employees' Compensation Insurance, Public Liability Insurance and Group Personal Accident Insurance. The Employees' Compensation Insurance and Public Liability Insurance cover all aided schools while the Group Personal Accident Insurance covers all the students of aided and government schools. In the event of an accident, the insured (schools and students/parents) is only required to submit duly completed claim forms together with supporting documents for the insurer to follow up their cases.

(a) The premium for the BIP is calculated on a block basis. We do not have figures on the per capita insured amount. The coverage and maximum indemnity limits of the various types of insurance are set out below:

Insurance Coverage Maximum Indemnity Limit

Public Liability Insurance

Legal liability of the school for accidental injury to any person or accidental loss of or damage to any property

$100 million per any one occurrence


Insurance Coverage Maximum Indemnity Limit

Employees' Compensation Insurance

Legal liability of the school as an employer which relates to death or injury by accident or disease sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of his/her employment

$100 million per any one event for each school

Group Personal Accident Insurance

Accidental death or permanent disablement sustained by students participating in any school activities

Up to $100,000 per student according to scale of disablement

All kindergartens are privately run and not covered under the BIP. We do not have any information regarding their insurance policy.

(b) The Group Personal Accident Insurance under the BIP is a kind of

additional protection for students. The indemnity is given to students when they suffer from accidental death or permanent disablement while participating in school activities. Nevertheless, a student who suffers from accidental injury while participating in any school activities may claim compensation through the Public Liability Insurance. We have no plan to extend the current insurance coverage. In fact, in line with the principles of effective use of public money and prudent financial management, we have made proper use of resources and provided schools with the BIP in order to offer appropriate protection for their daily operation.

(c) Any person (such as a student, parent or staff member) may claim

against a school for accidental injury and/or accidental loss of or damage to any property arising out of the daily operation of the school. Upon receiving the claim, the school will immediately report the case to the insurer who will then follow up and attend to the matter direct. Individuals who have any enquiry about claim matters under the BIP may approach the insurer, China Taiping Insurance (HK) Company Limited, direct. The Company has also


1887

set up a hotline to handle related enquiries. For general enquiries about the BIP, individuals may approach the respective Regional Education Office of which their schools are located. Besides, we have uploaded the aforesaid contact information and claim forms onto our webpage for easy access by the public.

(d) The Group Personal Accident Insurance is applicable to students

who suffer from accidental death or permanent disablement while participating in any school activities. It will not be indemnified if the case does not belong to this category. A student who suffers from accidental injury while participating in any school activities may claim compensation through the Public Liability Insurance.

(e) Students who suffer from accidental death or permanent disablement

while participating in school activities will be indemnified under the Group Personal Accident Insurance as long as their cases are supported by their attending registered medical doctors. No proof of negligence is necessary nor are legal proceedings required. In this connection, there is no need for the Education Bureau to refer any such claims to the Legal Aid Department for follow-up actions.

(f) It is our practice to issue circulars on various education policies and

measures to schools. Schools will disseminate related information to parents through different channels having regard to their school-based situations and needs. We have not collected data on such school-based arrangements. If necessary, we will remind schools to inform parents of the arrangement of the BIP through appropriate channels. In addition, we have placed a brief guide to and explanatory notes of the BIP on our webpage for easy access by the public (Path: Home > Students and Parents Related > Safety Matters > Safety of Students). In fact, to protect the interest of students, schools would in general report to the insurer as soon as possible when there is an accident causing injury or death to students.

(g) Regarding legal support, apart from the legal aid services provided

by the Legal Aid Department, members of the public, including parents of the students, may consider seeking advice on legal matters or proceedings through the Free Legal Advice Scheme administered


by the Duty Lawyer Service or the Two-year Pilot Scheme to Provide Legal Advice for Litigants in Person run by the Home Affairs Bureau.

Planning for Kai Tak Development Area 20. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, the Chief Executive announced in his 2013 Policy Address that the Government would review planning of the sites in the Kai Tak Development Area (KTDA), explore the possibility of increasing office and housing supply, and conduct a consultation on the outcome of the review in due course. The Town Planning Board (TPB) is currently processing applications for relaxing the planning restrictions on several sites in the KTDA, and will convene a meeting in the middle of this month to consider such applications. It has been reported that the Government will also adjust upwards the development parameters of the remaining 21 sites in the KTDA. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the scope of the review on the planning of the sites in the KTDA as proposed in the 2013 Policy Address; the anticipated time to complete the review and consult the public on its outcome; whether it will propose to convert the originally planned facilities, such as divisional police stations, into residential use; the factors based on which the Government will decide how the development parameters of the sites in the KTDA will be adjusted; the details of the sites on which review has been completed, including the following information in respect of each of the sites involved: (i) area, (ii) location, (iii) type (residential/commercial/others, and so on), (iv) estimated additional floor area brought by the relaxation of planning restrictions on the site, and (v) anticipated date by which the application for relaxation of planning restrictions on the site would be submitted to the TPB;

(b) given that the Planning Department (PlanD) has submitted to the

TPB applications for relaxing the planning restrictions on four sites in the KTDA, whether the PlanD will submit to the TPB for consideration in future similar applications in respect of the remaining sites in the KTDA in a bundle to avoid the TPB from


1889

overlooking the cumulative impacts of applications involving other sites in the KTDA when considering individual applications;

(c) as the authorities indicated in reply to my question on the Estimates

of Expenditure 2013-2014 in April this year that the Stage 2 public consultation on the environmentally friendly linkage system for the KTDA, which was originally scheduled to be held in end of last year/early this year, would be launched in the middle of this year, of the reasons why the consultation exercise has not yet been launched to date, and whether such reasons include the need to integrate with the relevant review on land development; of the anticipated time to launch the consultation; and

(d) of the progress of the advanced work for facilities in the KTDA

whose construction works have not yet been implemented, including the sports complex, Kowloon East Regional Police Headquarters and Operational Base, a special school, a public library and Kai Tak Avenue Park, and so on; whether any advanced work, which had already been underway, required modifications or suspension because of the review of the planning of the sites in the KTDA?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, since the announcement of the 2013 Policy Address, the community has put forward many comments and proposals on how the Government can increase supply of housing land. For instance, there is a proposal to review the development areas with approved plan, such as Kai Tak Development Area (KTDA), with a view to increasing supply of housing flats. To meet the public aspiration for more housing land and facilitate the transformation of Kowloon East into another central business district, we are studying various possible options for increasing the development intensity of the KTDA. My reply to the four parts of Mr WU's question is as follows:

(a) The Chief Executive announced in the 2013 Policy Address that, to facilitate the transformation of Kowloon East, the Government would review the planning of the sites in the KTDA, study the possibility of increasing office and housing supply without


compromising the land supply from the area in the coming five years, and conduct consultation on the outcome of the study. In this connection, we are studying the possible options for increasing the office and housing supply. The scope of the study includes technical assessments to ensure that the proposals would on one hand adhere to the original planning vision and related urban design concept, and would on the other hand not lead to overloading of the infrastructures (transportation, water supply, stormwater drains and sewerage, and so on) and leisure and community facilities, and so on, or unacceptable environmental impacts including noise, air quality, ventilation and visual aspects.

The Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) has

completed the first stage of the study and recommended that the development restrictions for four residential sites (that is, Sites 1I1、1I2、1I3 and 1G1(B)) in the Grid Neighbourhood at the North Apron area can be slightly relaxed. The area of these sites measure 8 800 sq m, 9 300 sq m, 10 100 sq m and 5 700 sq m respectively. The CEDD has submitted a planning application for a proposed minor relaxation of the maximum plot ratio and building height restrictions from 4.5 to 5.5 and from 100 m above Principal Datum (mPD) to 120 mPD respectively for the Sites 1I1, 1I2 and 1I3 to the TPB on 4 October 2013. As for residential Site 1G1(B), the Housing Department (HD) has also applied for a proposed minor relaxation of the maximum plot ratio, building height and site coverage restrictions from 5 to 6, from 80 mPD to 100 mPD and from 40% to 50% respectively on 9 October 2013. Subject to the TPB's approval, these proposals can provide an additional 33 900 sq m domestic gross floor area, which would amount to an increase of about 22% over the original planning of these four residential sites. The CEDD and the HD are conducting consultation on the above applications.

The whole study is scheduled for completion by mid-2014. We

will propose planning amendments for other suitable sites in the KTDA, and take forward and consult the public on these proposals in accordance with the statutory town planning procedures.


1891

(b) In the study on increasing the development intensity of the four residential sites (that is, Sites 1I1、1I2、1I3 and 1G1(B)) in the Grid Neighbourhood, the CEDD has taken into account the development proposals, both committed and under planning in the surrounding areas to ensure that the minor relaxation of the development restrictions will not lead to unacceptable cumulative impact on the infrastructure provisions and the environment. For other proposals on increasing the development intensity of the sites in the KTDA, the CEDD will conduct the relevant cumulative impact assessments including impacts on traffic, environment, and leisure and community facilities, and so on, consult relevant government departments and make reference to the standards for the provision of community facilities as specified in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines to ensure that the community facilities required in the district will not be affected. As mentioned in part (a) above, we will submit applications for other sites to the TPB in due course.

(c) The Stage 2 public consultation exercise for Connecting Kowloon

East ― Environmentally Friendly Linkage System (EFLS) formally commenced on 28 October 2013. Its main objective is to sum up and respond to the public views and suggestions received in the Stage 1 public consultation, and to seek the views and suggestions of the public on a proposed detailed feasibility study to address various key issues before committing to the implementation of the EFLS. The consultation period will end on 4 February 2014. Detailed information for the Stage 2 public consultation exercise can be downloaded from the EFLS webpage <http://www.ktd.gov.hk/efls>.

(d) Individual facilities in the development area for which construction

works have yet to start are at the planning or design stage. In examining the possible options for increasing the overall development intensity of the sites in the KTDA, we will follow the principle of not compromising the land supply from the area in the coming five years and will not affect those leisure and community facilities with ongoing preparatory work.


MTR Fare Adjustment and Fare Concessions 21. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Chinese): President, on 30 June this year, the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) adjusted MTR fares upwards by 2.7%. There is a carry forward of an unspent sum of around $200 million committed from the 2012 fare concessions scheme of the MTRCL. Under the new Fare Adjustment Mechanism (FAM), the fare concession account will also receive an additional $150 million under the Profit Sharing Mechanism as well as $13 million under the Service Performance Arrangement this year. A total amount of $363 million will be shared with passengers through extending the "10% Same Day Second Trip Discount" Scheme for nine months. Besides, the MTRCL will also offer new fare promotions, for example, the "MTR City Saver" (City Saver) Scheme and the "Monthly Pass Extra" Scheme. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it knows the total amount that the MTRCL has shared with passengers through the "10% Same Day Second Trip Discount" Scheme since 30 June this year, the average weekly amount shared, the total number of beneficiaries and the daily average number of beneficiaries;

(b) as there are comments that the total amount that the MTRCL had

shared with passengers through fare concessions last year was not satisfactory, whether the Government has any mechanism to regularly review the progress of the implementation of various concession schemes by the MTRCL and the effectiveness of the schemes; if it has, of the details; whether it knows the progress of the MTRCL sharing the sum in the fare concession account with passengers through various concession schemes this year, and if the MTRCL will offer new fare concessions again this year;

(c) as there have been instances of Octopus fares being higher than the

corresponding Single Journey Ticket fares after each MTR fare increase since 2010, and the authorities have explained that if the Single Journey Ticket fares are adjusted to a level higher than the Octopus fares in one go, the rate of increase may be so high that the public will find it unacceptable, and the MTRCL thus plans to


1893

narrow the gap between the two types of fare gradually in the coming years, whether it knows the details of the plan and the implementation schedule;

(d) whether it knows the sales figures of the various kinds of monthly

passes launched by the MTRCL this year; (e) as some members of the public have relayed that the various monthly

pass concessions offered by the MTRCL at present are so fragmented with too many combinations that members of the public need to make efforts to make comparisons, and in response to my request made in connection with the consolidation of various monthly pass concessions, the MTRCL stated that new types of tickets are part of the results of the whole review of the FAM, whether new types of tickets cannot be launched until the next review of the FAM (that is, five years later);

(f) given that holders of City Savers are entitled to 40 MTR rides within

30 days in the urban area (that is, the average fare per ride needs to exceed $10 for the ticket holder to enjoy a concession), whether it knows when City Saver will be introduced, and the number of fare combinations with fares currently exceeding $10 (set out the details in tabulated form); and

(g) as some members of the public have pointed out that they need to

pay more in fare for their MTR rides by using monthly passes than by using other tickets, whether it knows the number of fare combinations with such a situation at present (set out the details in tabulated form)?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government has reviewed the FAM with the MTRCL in accordance with the Operating Agreement signed by both parties in 2007. Following the announcement of the review outcome in April, the new FAM took effect from June this year.


The Government has reported the details of the new FAM and related arrangements to the Panel on Transport of the Legislative Council on 19 April 2013. In gist, the new FAM and related arrangements serve two major purposes. They are:

(1) reviewing the existing fare adjustment formula and expanding the scope of consideration under the mechanism by incorporating factors such as the MTRCL's profitability and service performance as well as public affordability; and

(2) relieving the fare burden on medium and long-distance passengers

living in remote areas. By introducing various measures and arrangements, the new FAM addresses the needs of different groups of passengers. These measures include:

(1) retaining the direct-drive FAM formula, but with the calculation of

the Productivity Factor (PF) value being subject to a new, objective and transparent methodology. Under the calculation of the new formula, the PF value is increased from the original 0.1% to 0.6%. As such, the fare increase rate for 2013 is reduced from the original +3.2% to +2.7%;

(2) setting an affordability cap which links with the Median Monthly

Household Income; (3) introducing a "profit sharing" mechanism ; and (4) putting in place a "service performance" arrangement whereby a fine

will be imposed for unsatisfactory performance. The above four measures benefit all passengers. The sum collected from the "profit-sharing" mechanism and "service performance" arrangement will benefit passengers through the "10% Same Day Second Trip Discount" scheme. Also, the MTRCL will launch three new types of tickets, namely the "MTR City Saver", "Tung Chung ― Nam Cheong Monthly Pass Extra"(1) and "Monthly

(1) Holders of the original "Monthly Pass" have to pay full fare for the onward domestic journeys reaching

stations not covered by the pass. "Monthly Pass Extra" provides an additional 25% fare discount for these onward domestic journeys.


1895

Pass Extra"(1) to provide more fare concessions to frequent medium and long-distance passengers under the new arrangement. The new FAM and related arrangements enable the MTRCL to maintain its financial prudence as a listed company while fulfilling its corporate social responsibility. Furthermore, the new FAM addresses reasonable aspirations of the community and allows the public to share the success of the company. Our reply to the various parts of Mr TANG Ka-piu's question is as follows:

(a) and (b)

According to the MTRCL, the sum for the "10% Same Day Second Trip Discount" scheme in 2013-2014 (with effect from 1 July 2013) amounts to about $363 million and it comes from two sources. $150 million and $13 million are funded respectively from the "profit-sharing" mechanism and "service performance" arrangement under the new FAM. The rest are funded by the unspent sum of around $200 million committed from the 2012 fare concession scheme.

The MTRCL offered a fare concession of about $170 million in total

under the "10% Same Day Second Trip Discount" scheme from July to October 2013. Calculating on the basis of altogether 17 weeks in the period concerned, an average weekly concession of about $10 million has been made, benefiting about 1.6 million passenger trips per day on average.

It is expected that the total sum under the "10% Same Day Second

Trip Discount" scheme in 2013-2014 will be fully utilized in nine months (that is, until April 2014). The Government will closely monitoring the implementation of concession schemes. The MTRCL will also review the effectiveness of various fare promotions and introduce different concession schemes in view of the market situation. Upon completion of various concession schemes, the MTRCL will submit to the Government the utilization data of the promotions.


(c) In calculating individual fares, the MTRCL has all along applied the following guiding principles:

(i) adjustments to Octopus fares are in units of 10 cents; and (ii) adjustments to Single Journey Ticket fares are in units of

50 cents (as MTR Ticket Issuing Machines accept coins with value of 50 cents, $1, $2, $5 and $10).

The MTRCL advised that due to the differences in the units of adjustment to Octopus fares and Single Journey Ticket fares, the percentage increase of some Single Journey Ticket fares (most of which are Elderly or Child Concessionary Single Journey Tickets) would be quite high with a 50 cents adjustment when the above principles are applied in the calculation of individual fares. Thus, the MTRCL often decided not to adjust these Single Journey Ticket fares. However, such arrangement has created a phenomenon that some Octopus fares are higher than the corresponding Single Journey Ticket fares. If the Single Journey Ticket fares are adjusted to a level higher than the Octopus fares in one go, the increase rate may be too high. As such, the MTRCL can only adjust the fares suitably in response to the outcome of the fare adjustment in each year. The Government has urged the MTRCL to address the situation as soon as possible. Subsequent to the 2013 fare adjustment, the number of cases in which Single Journey Ticket fares are slightly lower than their corresponding Octopus fares has been reduced by 65% from 596 to 206 in heavy rail and 47% from 1 276 to 672 in Light Rail. The MTRCL plans to address these cases in the coming few years, with a view that Octopus fares would not be higher than the corresponding Single Journey Ticket fares eventually. As the fare adjustment rates under the FAM in each year are not foreseeable, the implementation timetable is to make continuous efforts to remove the situation gradually every year.


1897

(d) Monthly Passes are sold on a monthly basis. The latest sales figures of various Monthly Pass Extra (that is, October 2013) are tabulated below:

Monthly Pass Extra Sales Figures

Sheung Shui ― Tsim Sha Tsui East About 21 000 Tuen Mun ― Nam Cheong About 43 000 Tuen Mun ― Hung Hom About 36 000

Tung Chung ― Hong Kong About 6 000 Tung Chung ― Nam Cheong About 6 000

(e) and (g) The MTRCL has been from time to time introducing different

concession schemes in response to the market situation, with a view to attracting patronage from various passenger groups. Passengers may choose the most suitable fare concessions taking into account their individual travel patterns. After implementation of these schemes, the MTRCL will review their effectiveness from now and then. It will also take into account of the outcome of the review of the FAM as well as its financial prudence as a listed company when considering introduction of new fare concession schemes. As such, the MTRCL does not necessary have to wait for the next review of the FAM before launching new fare concession schemes.

The MTRCL's Monthly Pass Extra mainly target frequent medium

and long-distance passengers residing in more remote areas or commuters who need to ride on specific MTR lines regularly.

Apart from the unlimited rides between stations within the

designated areas in valid month, Monthly Pass Extra holders can enjoy an additional 25% discount off the fares for domestic trips (except East Rail Line First Class Premium) outside the designated areas covered by the monthly passes. Subject to their individual travel patterns, ticket holders normally enjoy higher discounts for longer journeys and more rides. Some examples are set out in Annex 1. Therefore, the MTRCL cannot provide fare combinations whereby using tickets other than Monthly Pass Extra can enjoy more favourable fare concessions. In fact, passengers taking shorter and


fewer rides may consider using the "10% Same Day Second Trip Discount" scheme to enjoy fare discounts. Passengers may choose the ticket types or concession schemes that best fit their own travel patterns.

(f) Users of the MTR City Saver can travel 40 trips between any two

stations within the designated urban area in 30 days at a price of $400. The designated area includes all stations on Tsuen Wan Line, Island Line, Kwun Tong Line and Tseung Kwan O Line, as well as the urban stations of Tung Chung Line, East Rail Line and West Rail Line (please refer to Annex 2). The MTR City Saver will also cover stations of all future local railway lines located in the urban area, including West Island Line, South Island Line (East) and Kwun Tong Line Extension.

As part of the outcome of the review of the FAM announced by the

Government in April 2013, the MTRCL will launch the MTR City Saver scheme not later than the second quarter of 2014. Among the existing fares of applicable rail lines, about 40% of Adult Octopus fares (for a total of 1 148 trip combinations) exceed $10. Passengers may approach the MTRCL's Customer Service Centres for enquiries in future. With the gradual commissioning of new urban rail lines in the coming few years, the number of applicable fare combinations will increase. The MTRCL will launch promotions accordingly.

Annex 1

Some examples of fare combinations under the Monthly Pass Extra scheme Holders of Monthly Pass Extra will enjoy an additional 25% discount off the fares for domestic trips (except for East Rail Line First Class Premium) outside the designated areas covered by the monthly passes. Some selected common journeys showing the fare discounts to passengers using the Monthly Pass Extra are set out below:


1899

Based on 50 trips per month

Based on 40 trips per month

Octopus Fare

Monthly Pass

Extra(1)

Fare Savings for each

trip(2)

Monthly Pass

Extra(1)

Fare Savings for each

trip(2) Tung Chung ― Hong Kong Monthly Pass Extra Tung Chung ― Causeway Bay $20.3 $15.0 $5.3

(26%) $17.8 $2.5 (12%)

Tung Chung ― Quarry Bay $23.4 $15.9 $7.5

(32%) $18.7 $4.7 (20%)

Tung Chung ― Nam Cheong Monthly Pass Extra Tung Chung ― Sha Tin $20.3 $12.4 $7.9

(39%) $14.2 $6.1 (30%)

Tung Chung ― Tsuen Wan West

$16.8 $10.9 $5.9 (35%) $12.7 $4.1

(24%)

Tuen Mun ― Nam Cheong Monthly Pass Extra Tuen Mun ― Central $24.6 $17.1 $7.5

(30%) $19.4 $5.2 (21%)

Yuen Long ― Kowloon Bay $20.9 $14.6 $6.3

(30%) $16.9 $4.0 (19%)

Tuen Mun ― Hung Hom Monthly Pass Extra Tuen Mun ― Kwun Tong $20.9 $15.8 $5.1

(24%) $18.5 $2.4 (11%)

Tin Shui Wai ― Tung Chung $26.2 $20.3 $5.9

(23%) $23.0 $3.2 (12%)

Sheung Shui ― East Tsim Sha Tsui Monthly Pass Extra Sheung Shui ― Central $18.4 $15.2 $3.2

(17%) $17.4 $1.0 (5%)

Fanling ― Quarry Bay $20.5 $16.7 $3.8

(19%) $18.9 $1.6 (8%)

Notes: (1) The interchange discount, the Fare Saver discount and the "10% Same Day Second Trip

Discount" scheme also apply to Pass journeys when travelling beyond designated stations (except for East Rail Line First Class Premium).

(2) The Monthly Passes allow unlimited rides within a calendar month, hence the more the

uses, the higher the fare savings per trip.


Annex 2

Stations covered by the MTR City Saver scheme


1901

Usage of Restored Landfills 22. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that there are 13 restored landfills in Hong Kong at present, but only a few of them have been converted for recreational purpose or into community sitting-out facilities and are open for use by the public. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of restored landfills at present which have not yet been converted for recreational purpose or into community sitting-out facilities, or in fact are not yet open for use by the public although they are shown, on the website of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), as being used for recreational purpose or having been converted into sitting-out facilities; and the respective areas of the land concerned in those landfills;

(b) of the restored landfills with only part of the area currently

providing recreational or sitting-out facilities, and the respective remaining areas in those landfills;

(c) of the reasons why the authorities have not yet converted all or most

of the areas of the landfills into recreational or sitting-out facilities for use by the public although such landfills have been restored for years;

(d) whether it has plans to expedite the conversion of restored landfills

into recreational or sitting-out facilities; if it has, of the details of the plans and the anticipated dates of opening for use by the public; if not, the reasons for that; and

(e) whether the Government will set up a dedicated fund to expedite the

aforesaid works for the provision of recreational or sitting-out facilities; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?


SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, our reply to the question raised by Mr TAM Yiu-chung is as follows: The EPD will continue the aftercare of landfills when the landfilling operation is completed. The landfill aftercare works mainly involve the maintenance of capping layer and management of the landfill gas and leachate systems at the landfill site so as to ensure compliance with safety and environmental standards. For the protection of these facilities, restored landfills are in general suitable for recreational uses or passive amenities but not for large-scale construction or industrial activities. In addition, there are slopes within restored landfills affecting the area available for such preferable uses. There are currently 13 restored landfills. Part of the landfill at Siu Lang Shui has been designated as a "Site of Special Scientific Interest" due to the butterfly over-wintering phenomenon; the others are mostly zoned as "Open Space", "Green Belt" or for recreational or related uses. Our restored landfills have been developed gradually into recreational grounds, sports facilities, parks and for other recreational purposes for public use.

(a) to (d) The areas available for development, land use zoning and current

status of the 13 restored landfills are summarized in the table below:

Restored landfill

[District]

Land use zoning

Landfill area [flat

area available

for afteruse]* (hectare)

Current status Remarks

Sai Tso Wan (Kwun Tong District)

Open Space/ Green Belt

9 [2] - The landfill has been developed as Sai Tso Wan Recreation Ground and open for public use since April 2004.

Jordan Valley (Kwun Tong District)

Open Space 11 [5] - The landfill has been developed as Jordan Valley Park and open for public use since August 2010.


1903

Restored landfill

[District]

Land use zoning

Landfill area [flat

area available



Ngau Chi Wan (Wong Tai Sin District)

Open Space 8 [4] - The landfill has been developed as Ngau Chi Wan Park and open for public use since September 2010.

Ma Tso Lung (North District)

Government/Institution/ Community

2 [1] - Since 2000, the landfill has been handed over to the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (TWGH) for recreational uses and the public may participate in the activities organized by TWGH.

Siu Lang Shui (Tuen Mun District)

Site of Special Scientific Interest/ Green Belt/ a small portion for Government/Institution/ Community

12 [1] - The "Site of Special Scientific Interest" in the landfill is a place for butterfly over-wintering phenomenon; it should be conserved as far as possible.

- The whole landfill is not suitable for development.

Gin Drinkers Bay [Kwai Tsing District]

Open Space 29 [7] - The Hong Kong Cycling Association has been granted a land licence for the development of a BMX park on the lower platform [with about 2 hectares of flat area] with funding from the Hong Kong Jockey Club. Commissioned in October 2009, it has


Restored landfill

[District]

Land use zoning

Landfill area [flat

area available



served as the venue for the BMX events of the East Asian Games 2009 as well as other international events.

- The Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) is planning to develop Kwai Chung Park at the remaining area [with about 5 hectares of flat land] of the landfill site.

Tseung Kwan O Stage I [Sai Kung District]

Recreation 68 [10] - The cycle track cum pedestrian footpath along the waterfront of the landfill and the Tseung Kwan O Sitting Out Area cum Pet Garden [with about 1 hectare of flat area in total] were open for public use in June 2012 and June 2013 respectively.

- The remaining area of the landfill site [with about 9 hectares of flat area] is available for the development of recreational facilities. Some organizations have proposed to develop a football training centre and a baseball training pitch at the site. Detailed plans are under preparation.


1905

Restored landfill

[District]

Land use zoning

Landfill area [flat

area available



Tseung Kwan O Stage II and III [Sai Kung District]

Open Space 42 [2] - Since 2004, the HK Air Cadet Corps has been using the upper platform [with about 0.5 hectares of flat area] as a model aeroplane training field.

- A local university has proposed to develop an "Eco-Garden" for scientific research and environmental education on the middle and lower platforms [with about 1.5 hectares of flat area].

- The landfill mainly comprises slopes

Shuen Wan (Tai Po District)

Other Specified Uses "Golf Course"

55 [15] - Most of the site [with about 15 hectares of flat area] is currently used for a temporary golf driving range for public use.

Pillar Point Valley (Tuen Mun District)

Green Belt 38 [6] - The Hong Kong Shooting Association (HKSA) has been granted a land licence for the development of a shooting range on the top platform [with about 6 hectares of flat area]. According to HKSA, preparation work is in progress.

- The top platform is adjacent to the Tsing Shan Firing Range


Restored landfill

[District]

Land use zoning

Landfill area [flat

area available



Ngau Tam Mei (Yuen Long District)

Green Belt 2 [1] - The landfill [with about 1 hectare of flat area] may be developed for suitable and compatible uses.

- Due to the narrow passageway leading to the landfill, it is more suitable for the landfill to maintain its current land use, that is, as Green Belt within the district.

Ma Yau Tong Central (Kwun Tong District)

Open Space/ Green Belt

11 [1] - The landfill [with about 1 hectare of flat area] may be developed for suitable and compatible uses.

- The LCSD has reserved the site for Lam Tim Park (Phase II). However, various recreational facilities, such as Lam Tin Park (Phase I) and Lam Tin Service Reservoir Playground, are currently available for use by residents in the vicinity. With the consent of Kwun Tong District Council, the LCSD has developed part of the site [with about 0.1 hectare of flat area] as a sitting out area which has been open for public use since January 2011.

- The landfill mainly comprises slopes.


1907

Restored landfill

[District]

Land use zoning

Landfill area [flat

area available



Ma Yau Tong West (Kwun Tong District)

Open space/ Green Belt

6 [1] - The landfill [with about 1 hectare of flat area] may be developed for suitable and compatible uses.

- The LCSD has reserved the site for open space purposes. However, various recreational facilities, such as Hiu Ming Street Playground and Hiu Kwong Street Playground, are currently available for use by residents in the vicinity. With the consent of Kwun Tong District Council, the LCSD has developed part of the site [with about 0.1 hectare of flat area] as a sitting out area which has been open for public use since September 2011.

- The landfill mainly comprises slopes.

Note: * [flat area available for afteruse] means the net area after excluding the area of slopes, land

occupied by restoration facilities and land use specified in the "Remarks" column.

(e) All along, we will develop recreational facilities at suitable and

available restored landfills through our public works programme. In addition, we will consider various feasible means to expedite the development; for example, we would allow eligible non-profit making organizations to develop and use the restored landfills for recreational purposes through the grant of land licences. We will continue to expedite the development of restored landfills for recreational purposes through different options.


BILLS Second Reading of Bills Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bills. We now resume the Second Reading debate on the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013. MERCHANT SHIPPING (SEAFARERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2013 Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 24 April 2013 PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Chairman of the Bills Committee to study the above Bill will address this Council on the Report of the Bills Committee. MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013, I now submit the Report of the Bills Committee and report on the highlights of the work of the Bills Committee. The main objectives of the Bill are to amend the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) Ordinance to implement a comprehensive set of the global standards as set out in the Maritime Labour Convention (the Convention) for protecting seafarers' rights to decent employment. These standards cover many areas, inter alia, conditions of employment, hours of work and rest, on-board accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering, medical care, and so on. The Bills Committee has held four meetings to discuss with the Administration and received views from the public. The Bills Committee supports the proposals made by the Administration. In the course of deliberations, Members have discussed with the Administration the policies and standing practice of implementing international agreements in Hong Kong by way of local legislation. Members noted that the


1909

Administration has adopted the approach of transforming the texts of the Convention for its implementation in Hong Kong. The Administration has advised that this approach is suitable for cases where an international agreement simply requires parties to achieve certain results (for example, to prohibit certain activities or promote certain principles) without prescribing the implementation details and the parties are left to design their own regulatory framework to implement the agreement. The Administration has pointed out that the Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation already set out the standards on some of the subject matters covered by the Convention. When implementing the Convention, the relevant provisions will be updated to reflect the requirements of the Convention. New subsidiary legislation and provisions will also be added to implement requirements on the subject matters which are not covered in current legislation. (The PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair) Members note that the Bill proposes to provide for the adoption of the "direct reference approach" in the subsidiary legislation under the Ordinance. Under this approach, the subsidiary legislation under the Ordinance may refer directly to a provision of an international agreement so that the provision can be applied to Hong Kong. At first, some Members thought that the use of this approach might deprive this Council of the power to scrutinize the relevant provisions. The Administration has explained as the technical requirements in these international agreements, including the Convention, will be updated from time to time, so the adoption of the direct reference approach would facilitate the timely implementation of international standards by Hong Kong. The Administration assured Members that any subsidiary legislation which seeks to adopt the direct reference approach for the implementation of international agreements must be submitted to the Council for scrutiny. If Members have any comments on the adoption of the direct reference approach in the provisions of the subsidiary legislation, they may raise their comments during the vetting stage. As to the contents of the Bill, Members noted that the Administration proposed to define "seafarer" as "a person who works on board a ship in any


capacity but does not include certain specified persons such as pilots, shipowners and the representatives, and so on. Some Members thought that the proposed definition may include persons whose work is performed on board a ship but does not in any way relate to the normal operation of the ship, for example, a carer employed by a passenger, a tourist guide employed by a tourist group, and so on. Some Members found that the definition is not sufficiently clear and may cause uncertainty in interpretation. In response to Members' view, the Administration has agreed to revise the proposed definition of "seafarer" so that it includes not only seamen, but also entertainers, casino workers, and so on, on a cruise liner. But it will not catch a person whose work does not relate to the ship, for example, a carer employed by a passenger, or a tour guide of a tour group. Some Members are concerned about the details of the legislative programme of the Administration to implement the requirements as set out in the Convention. The Administration has advised that apart from updating the relevant provisions under the Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation, it will also amend a number of subsidiary legislation under the Ordinance after the passage of the Bill. A new regulation will also will enacted to include the detailed requirements as set out in the Convention. Members have made use of this opportunity to deliberate on the Bill to discuss various requirements which the Administration intends to include in the new regulation, such as on-board medical care, medical certification, hours of work and rest, seafarers' employment agreements and on-board complaint procedures. Members have expressed their views to the Administration and the details of the deliberations made are found in the Report. The Bills Committee will not move any Committee stage amendments to the Bill. The Administration will propose amendments on the above definition of "seafarer" and drafting. The Bills Committee supports the above amendments and the resumption of the Second Reading of the Bill. Thank you, Deputy President. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak to welcome the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013 and the related


1911

amendments. The attitude displayed by the Government should be affirmed. However, with respect to the various measures to enhance the protection for the working conditions and benefits of seafarers as specified in the Maritime Labour Convention (Convention) in 2006, we would ask why this cannot be made faster and that it can only be passed at the end of 2013. In any case, we think that the passage of this law will be helpful to setting up minimum standards in the working conditions of seafarers and protecting their right to decent employment. We also hope that the Transport and Housing Bureau or the Administration should go in the direction of legislating on the Convention, although it is not required. What should be done is to foster discussions in the sector, the trade unions and in this Council on realization of the spirit of the Convention. Such discussions should include those on the right to collective bargaining as well. With respect to discussions held and the advice sought from the trade unions, I have some comments to make. On the issue of hours of work and rest, the amendment proposed was originally based on the standard on working hours as specified in the Convention, that is, eight hours daily. This was to be regarded as a standard for enacting legislation. But after comments made by Members and discussions held, the Government agreed to use the minimum hours of rest as the standard for legislation, taking into account the operational arrangement on board. We consider that will tally better with the operational arrangement on board and the relatively irregular working hours, thus assuring the minimum rest hours for seafarers. Moreover, with respect to the qualifications of seafarers, Cap. 478 of the Laws of Hong Kong used to set the age ceiling of new entrants to the trade at 35 years. The Hong Kong Seamen's Union (the Union) has always advocated lifting this restriction so that more people of younger or mature age can join the trade. We can also see that the amendment exercise this time around has accepted the Union's view and abolished the age ceiling. We welcome this move. However, as I have just said, we can see that the Government will legislate only on matters required by the Convention. However, for measures which it is only suggested that the parties to the Convention, be they states, regions or cities, should implement, we hope that the Hong Kong Government can take a further step forward. This includes the right to collective bargaining which we have just mentioned. However, representatives of the Government refused to incorporate collective bargaining into the Bill on the ground that the Convention has not


specified that state parties must legislate on collective bargaining. This move by the Government shows that it has not been proactive. About legislation on collective bargaining, we consider that this is a matter which will have to be dealt with and introduced sooner or later. In fact, the seafarer trade can be regarded as having the conditions or basis for legislation on collective bargaining in terms of the relevant laws, characteristics of the trade and its particular culture. We do not understand why the Government does not use this trade as the testing ground and starting point for legislation on collective bargaining. On the contrary, the Government uses the pretext of the absence of a consensus in society to refuse to study the issue. This makes us feel that the Government is only trying to avoid making mistakes by doing less work. On the qualifications of seafarers, although as we have just affirmed the lifting of the age limit for entrants to the trade, in terms of encouraging people to enter the trade, there is actually another restriction in the existing law, and we consider this restriction baffling and it must be dealt with. This is the restriction that only permanent residents of Hong Kong who have resided here for seven years can be registered as seafarers. The Union has received complaints from people who came to Hong Kong on single-entry permits, saying that they were barred from entering the trade because they had not resided in Hong Kong for seven years. These people were in an even more embarrassing position because they were usually in their thirties and after they had lived here for seven years and become permanent residents, they would be more than 35 years old. Now the age ceiling of 35 years will be lifted, but in order to encourage those people who have seafaring experience before coming to Hong Kong to join the trade here, I would also hope that the SAR Government can study ― although the Bill will be passed this time ― how people who come here on single-entry permits but have not lived here for seven full years can join the trade. This is especially true when we know that the seafaring trade is international in nature and there is no reason for us to restrict people who have not gained permanent resident status from entering the trade. There are two more issues of concern for the Union. First, although a clarification is made by the Government, I would still hope that the Government can give an assurance, and that is, the minimum notice period of no less than seven days for termination of an employment agreement as stipulated in the Convention. Originally, there was no such requirement. But now a notice period is added. This should be good protection and it is basic protection, too. But under section 91 of the existing Ordinance, that is, Cap. 478, if a seafarer's


1913

employment agreement is terminated prematurely, then the seafarer is entitled to an unemployment indemnity equivalent to a maximum of two months' wages. But many workers or the Union are worried that in future when there are two provisions at the same time, that is, the indemnity equivalent to two months' wages, and the requirement of a minimum notice period of seven days, there may be confusion in the calculation of compensation. I hope that the Bureau, the Marine Department (MD) and the Labour Department can give an assurance to the Union and seafarers to the effect that even when the new law comes into force, seafarers can continue to enjoy the original benefits of an indemnity equivalent to a maximum of two months' wages and also they will not be deducted seven days' wage for no justifiable reason. Another issue is retirement protection, although retirement protection is only a suggestion made in the Convention and no recommendation is made on enactment of legislation, certain seamen whom we have met say that under Cap. 478, for those who engage in short routes, such as on those vessels plying between Hong Kong and Macao or Hong Kong and Mainland cities, they have in fact not asked for retirement protection and the provident fund system, or voluntary and mandatory contributions under the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System, is adopted by shipping companies, that is, the employers, in accordance with their own conditions. The result is that the seafarers have to face different systems and confused situations. Recently, we have received a complaint about the MPF from a group of staff employed by the Hong Kong International Airport Ferry Terminal Service Ltd. The company operates ferries serving cities in the Pearl River Delta. I hope that the authorities will talk with the Mandatory Provident Fund Authority to help these seamen come to an agreement with the trade on retirement protection. Besides, the Convention states that if seamen want to make any complaint, regardless of whether this is a complaint between seamen or from a seaman to the master or the shipping company, the complaint mechanism offered by the MD can be used. Although this practice was already in use before the signing of the Convention or enactment of local legislation, the role played by the MD should be further enhanced. We welcome this move and we have great expectations for it. However, we doubt if the MD has got enough manpower, expertise and experience to handle this kind of disputes related to seafarers or complaints which seafarers may lodge regarding the rights conferred on them by the Convention. Does the MD have the ability or enough manpower to handle these? This is a great concern to us. For the seafarers, they may have to face a situation and that


is, the vessel concerned may only berth for a few days or weeks and if the MD should follow up according to its normal speed, the vessel may have already set sail. How should situations like these be handled? I hope the Secretary can work out with the MD a complaint handling mechanism and a set of procedures which are creditable and trust inspiring. These can make us believe that the MD can play its role, enforce local legislation and render assistance to seamen in dealing with their complaints. Our doubts cast on the MD's abilities do reflect a problem. Despite the remarkable figures associated with the development of the maritime industry, we are not sure about the soft power of the industry, that is, whether it has enough talents. Seamen are a kind of talent as well. If they advance in their professional career, they can become the masters of international ocean-going vessels. This is a very high qualification recognized by the international community. Do we have enough talents of this kind? Figures from the Hong Kong Maritime Industry Council show that during the past decade, the number of Hong Kong-registered vessels surged greatly, from 758 in 2000 to 2 193 in 2012. The total tonnage of these vessels rose from 16.23 million tonnes in 2000 to 78.85 million tonnes in 2012. This is growth in tonnage by four times in 10 years. During the year 2002-2003 and in the financial tsunami of 2008, the economic performance of Hong Kong was poor. But figures in this respect still went on rising and the income for the industry rose from $30.4 billion in 2003 to $91.3 billion in 2011. I am not in the maritime industry, but I do care about, given such remarkable figures and immense income, whether the workers of Hong Kong or Hong Kong people can enter the industry and share the results of such growth. I wish to share with Members some more figures. Of the 4 700 registered seafarers in Hong Kong, only 149 are local seafarers. That means, despite the remarkable business of the industry and the high professional and social status of masters and chief engineers, the proportion of Hong Kong people in these occupations is very low and there are only some 100 people. When the prospects of the industry are so bright, the people of Hong Kong cannot take part in the industry. Of course, there are many reasons for this. There is the so-called culture related to people working as sailors. During the past 20 to 30 years when the economy was growing, people might not want to join the industry. But what we are talking about is the ocean-going maritime industry, and it is not a


1915

sunset industry or a low value-added industry with meagre wages. But why are so few people joining the industry? We have to examine whether enough efforts are made in training local people. The admission ceiling of the Nautical Training School is 60 persons. But why are the graduates every year remain at somewhere between 35 and 38 in number? Why? We are not saying that the training quota of 60 is too low. We are just saying that why such a small number as only 30 to 40 persons are admitted and there are only about 30 graduates every year who can become cadets on board vessels. In addition, the Union also proposes that besides enhancing the relevant training and increasing the places, can some incentive be given to the shipping companies and shipowners so that they can take on more cadets in their manpower establishment. Apart from receiving training, the cadets should be allowed to have an internship on board the ships for a period of 18 to 24 months. It is obvious, however, that not much is done by the Government. So we suggest that something should be done through the registration fee for vessels or tax concessions in order to encourage the industry, shipowners and shipping companies to do more and offer more cadet openings. The situation on the deck may be better, but the situation in the engine room is much worse. The Union has told us that students admitted to the mechanical engineering programmes of the universities here have not been told that they can work their way up to become chief engineers of vessels. In some of these post-secondary institutions, as the teachers have not been in the maritime industry, they would think that the seafaring trade is the last option and will not give any information to the students in this respect. Since there is no educational institution or programme specifically tasked with promoting engineering work on ships and there are no matching facilities in the system, no wonder it is hard to attract young people with the abilities and interest to join the industry. Since the relevant law is now amended to enhance the protection given to seafarers and since we can see such remarkable figures from the business performance of the maritime industry, should we not consider training up more local talents? This will pre-empt the situation of having to import foreign workers when the MD wants to hire talents with ocean-going experience. It is a great mockery indeed. I therefore hope that the Government can listen to the


views from me and the Union. We hope that as the Bill is passed into law, the maritime industry in Hong Kong, irrespective of whether it is the local ferry trade or the ocean-going trade, can put in more efforts so that everyone in Hong Kong can share the economic results of the development of that industry. Thank you. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Hong Kong is an international maritime centre and it is actually duty-bound to implement maritime standards and requirements set by international organizations and keeping abreast with international developments. Therefore, the Liberal Party supports the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013 introduced by the Government in order to put into practice the Maritime Labour Convention (Convention) formulated by United Nation's International Labour Organization (ILO) in 2006. The objective of the Convention is to enhance the protection of seafarers' rights in 14 areas such as conditions of employment, hours of work and hours of rest, on-board accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering, medical care, and so on. I have sought the views of the Hong Kong Shipowners Association on the Amendment Bill. As its representative said when attending a public hearing of this Council on the Bill, the Association supports the amendments and hopes that these amendments can be put into practice early to enable the amendments to tally with the Convention ratified by the ILO in 2006 which came into force on 20 August 2013. Although the Government has stated that should a situation arise where the Convention has come into force but the Bill is not yet passed, it will empower authorized institutions to issue temporary certificates of compliance with the Convention to vessels. But insofar as the shipowners are concerned, they do not hope that their vessels may be inspected when they visit the waters of state parties to the Convention because this will force the vessel concerned to be stranded in these waters and hence affect the journey. According to the maritime statistics issued by the Danish Shipowners' Association in May 2013, the tonnage of Hong Kong-registered ships ranks the fourth in the world. As at September 2013, the total tonnage of Hong Kong-registered ships is 84.8 million tonnes, or five times that of 10 years ago; and the number of vessels is 2 304, or three times that of 10 years ago. In recent years with the emergence of Mainland shipowners, many Mainland shipowners


1917

choose to register their vessels in Hong Kong for the reason that the management quality of Hong Kong-registered ships is recognized internationally. According to records, the percentage of Hong Kong-registered fleet detained for inspection is only 0.85% ― one of the best in performance and far lower than the global average of 4.59%. Therefore, in order not to shatter this excellent record, the Liberal Party hopes that the Bill can come into force soon to prevent Hong Kong-registered ships from being detained unnecessarily, thus affecting the reputation and operation of ships registered in Hong Kong. As seamen have to sail on the seas around the world and they have little competitiveness in the job market, it is hard to attract young people to join the trade. I therefore hope that once the Convention is implemented here, and as international standards are set for the working and living conditions of seamen, the protection given to them can be enhanced and more young people attracted to join the seafaring career, hence easing the shortage of seamen. The problem of lack of new blood in the seafaring trade does not happen only recently. The trade has repeatedly informed the Government of the problem, but no solution is found for the problem of manpower shortage. The Government has all along been concerned about the problem of talents in the maritime industry and introduced a training scheme in seafaring and an incentive scheme for ship repairs and maintenance. But the effect of these moves is not strong enough. There is a manpower shortage in the maritime industry. In the case of pilots, there are only 106 licensed pilots and they have to provide about 5 000 times of pilot service each month. The Government has relaxed the requirements for pilots after their retirement. In the past, licensed pilots who reach the retirement age of 65 can serve up to the age of 68 after passing a physical checkup and tests in mental health and vision. But the grade in which they are permitted to serve will be lower. After the amendment, pilots who have been approved of an extension of their employment may keep the licence of their original grade. In addition, the mandatory pilot requirement for vessels with a tonnage of less than 3 000 tonnes entering and leaving container terminals is lifted. Many people have the wrong impression that the career prospects in the maritime industry are not as good as other service industries. But I wish to make use of this opportunity to clarify the case. It is true that one has to undergo a long time of training from a seaman to a holder of a master's licence,


and the life is bard on board a ship, but once a person has become an experienced maritime professional, he can have good career prospects and openings. In the maritime industry, there are many positions which require the candidates to have professional qualifications and seafaring experience. This is true for positions related to a fleet of vessels or harbour management. In general, a certain amount of seafaring experience is required. Such positions include pilots which I have just mentioned, as well as certain on-shore positions related to the maritime industry, such as ship inspectors or nautical training officers. After the marine disaster off the Lamma Island last October, the MD has enhanced its inspection of ships. But as there is a shortage of ship inspectors, the amount of time taken to inspect a ship has increased greatly. This affects the operation of the industry. This ardent demand for maritime talents is not just seen in Hong Kong. With the continued growth of the maritime trade in the world, and the increase in size of ocean-going vessels, even the basin in the Kwai Chung container terminals and the depth of channels used by ships as they enter Hong Kong would have to be dredged from 15 m deep to 17 m. This is to cater for the needs of the new-generation ocean-going ships. The talents required will also be increased. This ardent demand for talents in the maritime industry across the world proves that the prospects for those who enter the industry are good. To cope with the express support shown by the State in its Twelfth Five-Year Plan to consolidate Hong Kong's position and elevate it to become an international maritime centre, the Financial Secretary suggested injecting a sum of $100 million to set up a training fund for maritime and aviation transport. Apart from continuing with and expanding all relevant schemes and scholarships, other new incentives will be introduced to attract young people to undertake related technical training and enrol in professional degree courses. This will enable them to join the maritime industry and help build up a talents pool with vitality and competitiveness for the industry. If we were to maintain the development of the local maritime industry, we must ensure that there is a steady and sufficient supply of talents. I hope that these proposals can be implemented soon to ease the manpower shortage in the industry. We should note, however, that in this amendment exercise, the restrictions on the recruitment of seafarers are relaxed and recruitment is no longer undertaken by shipping companies alone. In future when seafarers'


1919

organizations are granted an approval by the MD, they can recruit seafarers for Hong Kong-registered ships. I hope that as the recruitment of seafarers can be made through different channels, the number of seafarers in Hong Kong can increase faster and hence drive the sustainable development of the maritime industry here. Deputy President, I so submit. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak on this motion because of our position to defend the rights of workers. The Chairman of the Bills Committee, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, represents the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and today Members from the FTU have come to the defence of the Bill and this is their responsibility. But so far I cannot see any other Member representing the labour sector speak on the motion. I have some comments to make on this. Of course, I do not mean to take any advantage of the FTU. Mr TANG Ka-piu has mentioned the right to collective bargaining just now. I regret very much to hear it. The Government refuses to incorporate the right to collective bargaining into the scope of the Bill and we are very disappointed with it. About the right to collective bargaining, the FTU says that it regrets and it would be better if it is included in the Bill. But the Government does not care about it. Why do you people not insist on this position and fight with the Government? Past experience makes us feel very unhappy. I do not wish to invoke things of the past. On the position of the FTU in the past with respect to the right to collective bargaining, Members would be very clear if they look up the records. I hope that what was wrong can be rectified now. As Mr Albert HO used to oppose the referendum in the five constituencies, now he says that he is willing to resign, then trigger off a referendum and universal suffrage. We will certainly lend him our support. It does not matter because if one can realize his past wrongs, he can make amends in future. The right to collective bargaining is vitally significant in labour rights. Now it is the best time because a convention is already there and if the Government is to implement it and amend the law, it should take this opportunity and add it to the Bill. To put it in less than polite


terms, our Government is unscrupulous to the extreme and it is always putting up all kinds of show. So this right to collective bargaining is very important to protecting the rights of the workers. We all understand it. I hope friends from the FTU can adhere to this position. It is alright if mistakes were made in the past, what should be done now is to correct them. In order to implement the United Nations International Labour Organization's Maritime Labour Convention (the Convention) of 2006, the Government introduces the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013 which is mainly about certain technical amendments. As for provisions on protecting the rights of seafarers, they will be added to the new Regulation and that is, the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Maritime Labour Convention) Regulation. Now we can see a problem and earlier on some Members have pointed this out as well. There is at present a serious shortage of seamen. Mr WONG Kwok-kin has been in the trade for so many years and he is well-experienced. He knows that the situation is really bad in this trade. There are not enough training courses as well. One can just take a look at the number of trainees admitted by the seafarers training school here. It only admits a few dozen each year and it is really miserable. I remember when I was young I used to have football games with students of the Hong Kong Sea School in Stanley. As we played the game, the scene was overwhelming. Looking at the students of the Sea School, we hoped that we could be as strong as them. Back in those days we were very thin and weak, and we admired those students of the Sea School very much. Now the school only admits a few dozen students each year. How are we going to solve the problem of manpower shortage? How can we make more young people want to take up this job or receive this kind of training? Mr Frankie YICK has talked about the training fund for maritime and aviation transport set up by the Government. Frankly, this is only empty talk, lip-service. We should ask the Government to give us the data and tell us how much this fund has spent on such training and how many people are trained. You tell it to disclose all these figures. Secretary, tell us about the figures later. This is another example of empty talk. Funds are often set up and these are all empty talks, only meant to pacify us. Some people say that the number of workers in the trade is not enough and so this fund is set up. This is nothing more than empty talk. There is no serious attempt to enhance training or do


1921

anything to improve this trade, right? As in the case of issuing TV licences, the Government says that if one more licence is issued, it will lead to the closure of a TV station. In this way the Government only cares about whether companies will close down and we can never see what it is doing for the trade as a whole. This will affect the economy and other domains as well. So if the Convention is to be implemented through local legislation, it can give more protection to the seamen and this will have an advantage of attracting more young people to join the trade because they know that they can have better protection. As a matter of fact, one need only look at the relevant law to find that it is unfair to workers in other trades. Mr WONG Kwok-kin, please look at it and make a comparison. As regards the working and living conditions of seafarers and the main requirements, many of them are exactly what we have been fighting for over the years. For example, the standard working hours are eight hours a day and a rest day for every week and 12 days of public holidays every year. There should be recreational facilities, amenities and services as appropriate to be provided on board to the seafarers to meet their special demands. This is because life on board a ship can be very boring and the seamen live on a ship and so they have special needs and certain amenities should be provided for them. In this connection, Members should not think about anything indecent. The fact is, wage earners in Hong Kong are working so hard that they have to toil under extremely long working hours. You may argue that they are doing this because they have to earn a living and they cannot help but work long hours for money. But actually we should not look at the issue in this way. The kind of protection given to seafarers under this Bill should be extended to include workers in other trades. In other trades, can we find wage earners not required to work hard and for more than 10 hours a day? Moreover, to give the matter its fair deal, we can see that the Bill has really enhanced the protection given to seamen, even to the extent of preventing them from being exploited by their superiors and employers. We find, for example, in the Bill that the Government may detain ships of the employers until the recovery of expenses in repatriating seafarers for which the seafarers' employers are liable; and also, a seafarer may complain to the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office directly without first lodging the complaint to the master. We agree with these points. But as I have said earlier, the right to collective bargaining reminds me of the great seamen's strike in 1922. I am sure Mr WONG


Kwok-kin knows this incident very well. Apart from political factors, it was also because both employers and employees failed to open any negotiations on the subject of a salary increase that in the end a massive strike of seamen broke out. I am not going to talk about the political factors here because these are not related to the topic under discussion now. Buddy, when employers and employees confront each other, the only result is a strike. Right? What else can be done? But workers should not end a strike after they have been staging it for some time. The recent case of the strike in the container terminals is a classic example. Collective bargaining has an important role to play in labour relations, and what is the reason given by the Government? It used to say something like this: there is no clear consensus reached among sectors across the community. Secretary, this reason was put up during the talks on the right to collective bargaining. The so-called "sectors across the community" in fact means one sector, namely, the business sector which holds the opposing view. It is as simple as this. This talk about sectors across the community is in fact adultery of public opinion. The Government always puts up the pretext that no consensus has been reached among sectors across the community. We have been given this argument for decades. This talk about all sectors across the community only refers to one sector, and that is, the business sector. Or it may be the sector to which Frankie YICK belongs? When there is only one sector, how can other sectors oppose? How will the labour sector which is the main stakeholder oppose it? This right to collective bargaining is meant to protect the rights of workers, so the labour sector cannot possibly oppose it. We can leave this sector out. This right to collective bargaining is proposed by them. And so there is only one sector which will oppose it, and that is, the business sector. Hong Kong is a society which puts emphasis on business. When capitalism is supposed to remain here unchanged for 50 years, we have to look at the face of these zaibatsus. I do not think we can ever achieve this simply because of this reason. The Government might as well say: It is because the zaibatsus here oppose it and since Hong Kong is a capitalist society, we cannot afford to ignore the opposition from the zaibatsus. Does the Government dare to say this? But this is really its subtext. But what it is doing is not this and it is labelling other people, framing them up, committing adultery of the public opinion, saying things like "sectors across the community", and so on. It really makes me sick.


1923

Is there any concrete evidence? Are there any concrete findings from surveys? If there are, then it is only the business sector which stands in opposition. And it is saying: All along we respect the right to collective bargaining and we are committed to promoting a voluntary consultative mechanism between employers or employer organizations and workers' organizations. What in fact does it mean? It says that this is a voluntary consultative mechanism, but it also says that it promotes a voluntary consultative mechanism between employees and employers, workers' organizations and employers' organizations. But I tell you, this mechanism will never appear. You can ask people from the trade unions, how difficult it is to act on a voluntary basis. This position is really self-contradictory. I wish to point out another thing, which is about subsidiary legislation. The approach of direct reference is proposed. That is to say, the direct reference approach is adopted in local legislation to refer to provisions in international agreements so that these provisions can be applied to Hong Kong. I think the Government must explain the specific problems in this respect, including the situation when changes are made to an international agreement and if this direct reference approach is adopted, will the Government inform this Council of the changes? Will the Council be requested to pass the provisions? I think the Government must answer these questions. I believe Members will realize how great the risk can be if this approach is adopted. If direct reference is made to provisions in international agreements, that is to say, these provisions will be applied to Hong Kong without going through any confirmation, a problem may arise and that is, we may lose the initiative to enact laws locally in certain aspects. If this approach of direct reference is adopted on every occasion, then where is our initiative of enacting laws in Hong Kong? A situation may arise where we will be led by these international agreements. I think this is a real worry that we should address. The Government must give serious thoughts to this direct reference approach. There must be specific explanations, right? Is there a need to submit legislative proposals to this Council? It looks that it would not be necessary. But this practice is problematic. After the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Maritime Labour Convention) Regulation has come into force, the MD should enhance its inspection to see whether the Regulation is effectively implemented. This is because the element of discipline will often come into working on board a ship and if things like discipline and obedience are emphasized in the work of seafarers, there may be


certain requirements which will tend to protect them. Hence some disputes may arise, especially in certain grey areas. Or in the case seafarers are aggrieved, they may not dare to voice their grievances because they are oppressed. Such things may happen. The seafarers may come under the pressure exerted from other people on board the ship and they are forbidden to cause trouble. Do such things happen? I am sure Mr WONG Kwok-kin knows about them very well. The Government or the MD should therefore enhance its examination of the relevant Regulation to see if it is effectively implemented. I hope the Secretary can urge the MD to do this after the passage of this Bill and its coming into force. We do not want to see what happened in the marine disaster for which the Director of Marine does not have to step down ― though we must admit that the incident was far more serious. But this would be a problem if after the passage of this new law, nothing is done to check if the law is effectively implemented. With these remarks, Deputy President, I support this Amendment Bill. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak on behalf of the Labour Party in support of the passage of the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013. Sailing is a hard life and in the past, many people became sailors because they could not find a job here. And so they had to leave their homes and work on board a ship. Life on a ship is not easy. I have a family member who was in this trade. He was not in the rank and file but in the management. I have heard him tell stories about his life at sea and so I happen to know something about the seafarer trade. The objective of this Bill is to implement the Maritime Labour Convention in 2006. There are many details in the Convention which aim at improving the life of seafarers on board, such as setting a standard for their hours of rest and improving their recreational life, food and catering and health. Therefore, we will support the Bill undoubtedly.


1925

However, a certain part of the Bill will affect law drafting in future. The Bill proposes to adopt the direct reference approach such that when subsidiary legislation is to be enacted under the relevant laws, direct reference can be made to provisions in international agreements in the subsidiary legislation. We know that the Chinese text of the relevant international agreement (including circulars from the United Nations) comes from the Central Government. The kind of law drafting language used by the Central Government is certainly different from that used in a common law jurisdiction like Hong Kong. For example, the words "specify" and "designate" in Hong Kong laws used to be translated as "指明". But now one of them is translated as "指認". When we ask the Department of Justice what the reasons are, the Department of Justice cannot give a reply, other than saying that the word "指認" has the meaning of affirmation by authorities in the upper echelons and a top-down implication. There may be a more plausible answer to the example I have just cited. But we are afraid that if the direct reference approach is adopted, notions which are not at all consistent with "powers and functions" and "terms of reference" at common law may be introduced to Chinese law drafting in Hong Kong which is after all, a common law jurisdiction. Deputy President, I have to emphasize here that when implementing international conventions and international agreements, and fulfilling international obligations, as well as incorporating the relevant provisions into local law, the authorities must bear in mind that the objective is to put into practice policies and the spirit of international obligations, instead of simply transferring the text from one language to another. If we fall into this trap of a linguistic transfer, it is very likely that concepts in law drafting from other legal systems will be mixed up with the Chinese law drafting in the common law system as practised in Hong Kong. Hence Members should always be vigilant of such situations. Deputy President, some Members have just talked about the right to collective bargaining. It is unfortunate that this right is not yet legislated. I have heard Members from the FTU talk on many occasions about their view on the right to collective bargaining. I also hope that the Labour Party shares the view of the FTU on the issue. However, there are really differences between us. I hope that Honourable colleagues from the FTU can persuade its members to


accept the view on the right to collective bargaining held by the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions. We should join hands and work together to achieve a higher goal. Thank you, Deputy President. 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 will call upon the Secretary for Transport and Housing to speak in reply. After the Secretary has spoken, the debate will come to a close. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in April 2013 I introduced the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013 to the Legislative Council. The Bills Committee to study to above Bill is chaired by Mr WONG Kwok-kin. The Bills Committee has held four meetings to deliberate on the Bill and receive views from the sector and other related stakeholders. In this connection, I am very grateful to the Bills Committee for the valuable opinions given during its deliberations, including opinions on issues like protection on hours of work and hours of rest, as well as on other issues. I am also grateful to the Bills Committee for supporting the resumption of the Second Reading of the Bill. I wish to thank the four Members who have spoken earlier. They have put forward views on the Bill and reminded us of many aspects in relation to the implementation of the new requirements. Several Members have talked about the issue of the right to collective bargaining. This is certainly a much bigger issue that covers negotiations between employers and employees and also the question of whether laws should be enacted on it. Since we are only talking about the situation of seafarers, I will not supplement the views expressed on this. But I must say that I have heard and understand these views.


1927

The objective of the Bill is to amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) Ordinance (Cap. 478) in order to comply with the requirements under the Maritime Labour Convention 2006. The Convention as ratified by the International Labour Organization sets out a set of comprehensive and global standards on the working and living conditions of seafarers on board ocean-going ships with a view to protecting the right to decent employment of seafarers. The Convention came into force in August this year. In order to align the legislation with the Convention, the Bill mainly seeks to amend the definition of "seafarers" as well as certain provisions of a technical nature. We also propose to add empowering provisions to permit the adoption of direct reference approach in formulating subsidiary legislation, such that reference is made in the local legislation directly to provisions in the Convention applicable to Hong Kong, in order to put into practice the latest international requirements. In general the Bills Committee supports the legislative proposals made by the Government. On the definition of "seafarers", the Bills Committee agrees with the Administration in adding Annex 1A to the Ordinance to specify certain persons, despite their working on board a ship, will not be regarded as seafarers. These persons include pilots working on board, shipowners and officers from enforcement agencies performing their duties. We accept the views of the Bills Committee and will propose Committee stage amendments later to clearly define "seafarers" as "a person who works on board a ship in any capacity on the business of the ship, but does not include a person specified in Schedule 1A." The amendment will make it clear that the definition includes not only seamen, but also people employed to provide different kinds of services for passengers on a cruise liner (for example, entertainers, casino workers, and so on). On the other hand, it will not catch a person whose work does not relate to the ship (for example, a tour guide employed by a travel agency to take care of a tourist group travelling on the ship). The Bills Committee has also agreed that the Secretary for Transport and Housing may by notice in the Gazette amend Schedule 1A after seeking the advice of the Seafarers' Advisory Board. About the direct reference approach to be used in making subsidiary legislation, there are precedents in local laws, such as the Merchant Shipping (Safety) Ordinance (Cap. 369) and Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of


Pollution) Ordinance (Cap. 413). In a number of overseas jurisdictions such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the direct reference approach is also adopted to implement the requirements of international agreements. During the scrutiny of this Bill, we have explained in detail to the Bills Committee that the Administration will consider a number of factors when deciding whether or not to adopt the direct reference approach. We will not take an across-the-board approach. These factors to be considered include: First, whether the requirements in the provisions of the international agreement concerned are clear and specific enough to be capable of being given direct effect; second, whether the international agreement provisions are easily accessible and read to facilitate understanding of relevant requirements by those required to comply with these provisions; third, whether the international agreement topics mainly concern a specific group of people, and whether such group of people are familiar with the requirements of the international agreement concerned; fourth, whether relevant requirements are applicable to all party states to the agreement and whether the adoption of the direct reference approach is conducive to achieving uniformity in implementation of the relevant requirements; and fifth, this actually addresses the concern expressed by Ms Cyd HO and that is, whether the terminology of the international agreement provisions is compatible with local legislation. When drafting the subsidiary legislation, we will examine all the requirements in the Convention carefully to ensure that the direct reference approach is suitable for use in these requirements before any legislative proposal is introduced to the Legislative Council. We will explain the rationale behind these proposals. Therefore, in response to the query from Mr WONG Yuk-man, we will certainly come to this Council for this purpose. If Members have any comments on any piece of subsidiary legislation in which the use of direct reference approach is suggested, they may raise them during scrutiny of the subsidiary legislation concerned. Another important amendment proposed by this Bill is to permit seafarers' organizations to apply to the Marine Department (MD) for an approval to provide recruitment and placement services of Hong Kong seafarers for Hong Kong-registered ships. In addition, the Bill also proposes certain miscellaneous proposals of a technical nature such as cancelling the existing requirement that persons aged 35 or above cannot apply to the MD for registration as a seafarer, as well as permitting the seafarers to complain directly to the Superintendent of the


1929

Marine Department on any matters on board the ship without having to go through the master. I repeat, there is no need to lodge a complaint through the master. Deputy President, after detailed discussions, the Bills Committee has agreed to all the amendments to the Bill, as well as the three Committee stage amendments proposed by the Administration after taking into account the views of the Bills Committee. Apart from the amendment to the definition of "seafarer" mentioned earlier, the other two amendments are only of a technical nature, specifically because of difference in meaning caused by translation and typographical errors. When I move these amendments later on, I will elaborate on the details. Deputy President, certain Members have expressed concern about seafarers and the problems in manpower and training for seafarers working on ocean liners. As Members have said, there is a problem of not enough new blood entering the trade and there seems to be some restrictions in attracting young people to join the trade. On our part, in the Budget introduced by the Financial Secretary at the beginning of this year, it was decided that a sum of $100 million will be set aside to establish a maritime and aviation training fund. This fund has not yet been established and so there are no figures in response to questions asked by Mr WONG Yuk-man. But we will seek the support of the Economic Development Commission in terms of policy and we will apply for funding from the Finance Committee. We hope that this fund can serve as a basis for promoting the development of maritime or aviation industries where there is a shortage of manpower and talents. We hope that the trades, the related post-secondary institutions and training agencies can co-operate and promote this training of talents. It is because as an international shipping centre and a port of call which is placed in the front ranks of the world, we do have a great demand for talents. Mr TANG Ka-piu mentioned ocean-going ships and the fact that there are only a small number of local seafarers. This is true. So we should work hard to promote the development of this trade. Mr TANG Ka-piu also expressed his concern in his speech for the situation that non-permanent residents who have not lived here for seven full years cannot be registered as seafarers. He asks when and how these persons can be registered. This issue touches on the existing immigration policy and related


laws. The MD has begun discussions with the Immigration Department and we hope to consult the trade when we have come up with a specific proposal for implementation. In addition, Mr TANG is also concerned about the minimum notice period for termination of an employment agreement for seafarers. I would like to stress that in the new subsidiary legislation and pursuant to the requirements of the Convention, the notice period for both parties on the termination of an employment agreement is no less than seven days. This requirement will not affect the existing provisions on unemployment indemnity. Deputy President, after the passage of the Bill by this Council, pursuant to the powers vested by the Ordinance in the Secretary for Transport and Housing, I will make and amend the related subsidiary legislation to put into practice all specific requirements of the Convention and set up a mechanism on certification, inspection and implementation, to ensure that Hong Kong-registered ocean-going ships and ocean-going ships in Hong Kong waters will comply with the requirements of the Convention. As far as we know, the Central Government is engaging in preparatory work to implement the Convention. The SAR Government has notified the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong that we are carrying out the enactment of local legislation for the implementation of the Convention. After all legislative procedures are finished, we will report to the Central Government and request that the Convention be applied to Hong Kong. We will make arrangements such that after the Convention is adopted in Hong Kong, it will come into force together with the relevant subsidiary legislation. We have heard the views of Members in this respect and we will do our best to take forward all related work. Deputy President, it is of vital importance that the Convention should be implemented because it can enhance the working and living conditions of seafarers on board Hong Kong-registered ocean-going ships, thereby consolidating our position as an international shipping centre and one of the places with the largest tonnage of ships registered in the world. I hope Members can support the passage of this Bill as well as the amendments I shall move at the Committee stage. Thank you, Deputy President.


1931

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013 be read the Second time. 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 Members present. I declare the motion passed. CLERK (in Cantonese): Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013. Council went into Committee. Committee Stage DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in committee. MERCHANT SHIPPING (SEAFARERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2013 DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers)(Amendment) Bill 2013. CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1, 2, 5 to 10 and 12 to 84.


DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 1, 2, 5 to 10 and 12 to 84 stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed. CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 3, 4 and 11. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I move that clauses 3, 4 and 11 of the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers)(Amendment) Bill 2013 be amended, as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The amendment to clause 3 seeks to ensure that the definition of "passenger" in the Chinese text can accurately reflect the meaning in the English text. We propose to amend the wordings of paragraph (a) of the definition from "因擔任各種職位以處理船上事務而受僱在船上工作或任事的人；" to "受僱或受聘在該船上擔任任何職務以處理該船上的事務的人；". The amendment to clause 4 seeks to change the wordings in the definition of "seafarer" by adding "on the business of the ship" after "any capacity". As I said in the resumed Second Reading debate, the amendment seeks to respond to the views of the Bills Committee by clearly defining the meaning of "seafarer"


1933

that it does not include a person who works on board a ship but that person's work does not relate to the ship. The amendment to clause 11 seeks to correct a typo in the proposed section 12(2)(a) by changing "section 15(3)" to "section 15" in that section. The Bills Committee has examined and given its support to these three amendments. I implore Members to support and pass the amendments. Thank you, Deputy Chairman. Proposed amendments Clause 3 (See Annex I) Clause 4 (See Annex I) Clause 11 (See Annex I) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Transport and Housing be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the amendments passed.


CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 3, 4 and 11 as amended. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 3, 4 and 11 as amended stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed. CLERK (in Cantonese): Schedules 1 and 2. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That Schedules 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised)


1935

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now resumes. Council then resumed. Third Reading of Bills DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Third Reading. MERCHANT SHIPPING (SEAFARERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2013 SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013 has passed through the Committee with amendments. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013 be read the Third time and do pass. Does any Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. 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. CLERK (in Cantonese): Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Bill 2013. MOTIONS DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Motions. Proposed resolution under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance to amend the Arbitration (Appointment of Arbitrators and Mediators and Decision on Number of Arbitrators) Rules. Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon the Secretary for Justice to speak and move the motion. PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 34(2) OF THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the motion as set out in the paper delivered to Members be passed. The motion proposes amendments to the Arbitration (Appointment of Arbitrators and Mediators and Decision on Number of Arbitrators) Rules (the Rules). This set of Rules was made by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) under section 13(3) of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609), which came into effect on 1 June 2011, with the prior approval of the Chief


1937

Justice. The Rules are an adaptation of the existing Arbitration (Appointment of Arbitrators and Umpires) Rules (Cap. 341, sub. leg. B). This set of Rules is intended to facilitate the HKIAC's performance of the following functions, namely:

(1) the default appointment by the HKIAC of an arbitrator under section 24 of the new Arbitration Ordinance;

(2) the decision by the HKIAC on the number of arbitrators under

section 23(3) of the new Arbitration Ordinance; and (3) the default appointment by the HKIAC of a mediator under

section 32(1) of the new Arbitration Ordinance. The Rules were tabled at the Legislative Council on 3 July 2013. A subcommittee was subsequently formed by the House Committee to scrutinize the Rules. At the meeting of the Subcommittee held on 18 September 2013, the HKIAC's representative agreed that certain amendments proposed by the Legal Adviser to the Subcommittee should be made to the Rules. These amendments have the support of the Subcommittee. Most of these proposed amendments relate to the drafting aspects of both the English and Chinese texts of the Rules and have no impact on the substance of the provisions in question. The Administration has no objection to these proposed amendments. In the circumstances, I move this motion to propose the amendments agreed between the HKIAC and the Subcommittee. I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the efforts made by Mr Dennis KWOK, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, and other Members of the Subcommittee. Deputy President, I move that the motion be passed. Thank you.


The Secretary for Justice moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the Arbitration (Appointment of Arbitrators and Mediators and Decision on Number of Arbitrators) Rules, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 115 of 2013 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 3 July 2013, be amended as set out in the Schedule.

Schedule

Amendments to Arbitration (Appointment of

Arbitrators and Decision on Number of Arbitrators) Rules

1. Rule 4 amended (appointments to Appointment Advisory Board) Rule 4(2), Chinese text ― Repeal "任期屆滿後" Substitute "離任之日起計".

2. Rule 6 amended (procedure for requesting for

appointment of arbitrator) Rule 6(2)(c), Chinese text ― Repeal "證明" Substitute "核證".

3. Rule 8 amended (procedure for seeking decision on

number of arbitrators) Rule 8(2)(c), Chinese text ― Repeal "證明" Substitute "核證".


1939

4. Rule 10 amended (procedure for applying for appointment of mediator) Rule 10(2)(c), Chinese text ― Repeal "證明" Substitute "核證".

5. Rule 13 amended (fees)

(1) Rule 13(2) ― Repeal "charge, for the exercise of any of the functions

referred to in subrule (1), a fee (determined fee) of an amount"

Substitute "from time to time vary the fee referred to in

subrule (1), and the fee so varied (determined fee) must be a fee".

(2) Rule 13(2)(b), after "functions" ― Add "referred to in subrule (1)".

6. Rule 15 amended (transitional)

Rule 15 ― Repeal "has continued to have effect by virtue of section 4 of

Schedule 3 to the Ordinance" Substitute "was in force immediately before the repeal"."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Justice be passed. MR DENNIS KWOK: Deputy President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Arbitration (Appointment of Arbitrators and Mediators and


Decision on Number of Arbitrators) Rules (the Subcommittee), I report on the main deliberations of the Subcommittee.

The Arbitration (Appointment of Arbitrators and Mediators and Decision on Number of Arbitrators) Rules (the Rules) are made under section 13(3) of the Arbitration Ordinance to repeal the Arbitration (Appointment of Arbitrators and Umpires) Rules and substitute them with a new set of rules to make provisions to facilitate the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) to perform its statutory functions, namely making the appointment of arbitrator(s) and decision on the number of arbitrators for parties to an arbitration.

The Subcommittee has held one meeting to discuss with the Administration and receive views from the relevant stakeholders.

Members generally support the Rules. Members note that stakeholders including the two legal professional bodies generally support the Rules, and organizations such as the HKIAC have urged for their early implementation.

The Subcommittee notes that in the course of an arbitration, parties to arbitration may apply for the appointment of a mediator by the HKIAC to expedite the settlement of the dispute. The Subcommittee is concerned about the protection of the interests of parties to arbitration when a mediator so appointed is subsequently appointed as an arbitrator for the same case. The HKIAC has advised that whenever mediation is adopted, the parties undertake that the mediation must proceed in accordance with the Mediation Rules and that failure by any mediators to abide by the Mediation Rules will lead to serious consequences, such as disqualification of the mediator concerned.

Some members question the need for rule 13(2) of the Rules which empowers the HKIAC to increase its fee from time to time up to a ceiling of $15,000 without requiring the new fee to be subject to scrutiny by the Council or published in the Gazette. The Subcommittee notes that the HKIAC has not been able to locate any example from existing legislative provisions which similarly allow fees or charges specified in primary or subsidiary legislation to be varied administratively without requiring the new amounts to be subject to positive or negative vetting by the Council or published in the Gazette. The HKIAC has advised that the policy intent of rule 13(2) is not to tailor a fee each time the HKIAC exercises its statutory functions but rather to review the costs periodically to ensure that the HKIAC is not making a significant loss in the overall


1941

performance of its statutory functions. The HKIAC does not foresee the need to raise the $15,000 ceiling of the fees in the near future. If there is a need to further raise the $15,000 ceiling, the HKIAC will publish a new set of rules/amendments for scrutiny by the Council.

In the course of deliberation, members have expressed concern that Hong Kong is losing out to its main competitor Singapore as the premium Asian international dispute resolution centre. The Subcommittee is of the view that the Hong Kong arbitration sector deserves more support and the Hong Kong Government has not put in adequate, not nearly enough, resources and effort into promoting our arbitration capabilities and institutions. To be fair to the Secretary for Justice, I know that they have been working hard, but I simply require much more political will on the part of the Government to do more to promote and to push Hong Kong as the premium Asian international dispute resolution centre. To tie in with the Government's policy to promote Hong Kong as a legal and arbitration service centre in the Asia-Pacific region, we urge the Administration to provide more support to the arbitration sector and to institutions such as the HKIAC.

The Administration will move amendments to rule 13(2) of the Rules to better reflect the policy intent of that rule, and to certain provisions of the Rules to improve their drafting. Members of the Subcommittee agree to the Administration's amendments.

Deputy President, the above is my report on the Subcommittee's work. I shall now express my personal views on the Rules.

In fact, I have already done so earlier and reiterated the importance of supporting and promoting Hong Kong's international arbitration services and capabilities, which will not only benefit the Hong Kong legal profession but also the Hong Kong public.

Deputy President, I so submit. Thank you. 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 Justice to reply. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr Dennis KWOK for his speech on Hong Kong as an international arbitration cetnre. We in the Department of Justice have been very concerned about this issue all along. My colleagues and I will exert our utmost to entrench the position of Hong Kong as an international arbitration centre in the Asia-Pacific Region. In this regard, I hope that we can work together with Legislative Council Members, including Mr Dennis KWOK, the two legal professional bodies, and the relevant arbitration organizations in Hong Kong to achieve our objective in future. Thank you, Deputy President. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Justice 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. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Proposed resolution under the District Councils Ordinance to approve the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013.


1943

Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs to speak and move the motion. PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE DISTRICT COUNCILS ORDINANCE SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013 (the Order) be approved as printed on the Agenda. The purpose of this piece of subsidiary legislation is to increase the number of elected seats of nine District Councils (DCs) by 19, starting from the fifth-term DCs which will commence operation on 1 January, 2016. The proposed increase in the number of elected seats is based on the forecast of the population in Hong Kong by mid-2015 (that is, 7 311 300), the continued application of a population quota of about 17 000 residents to one DC elected seat, the abolition of DC appointed seats from the fifth-term DCs onwards, and the increasingly important role that DCs are expected to play in district administration. Our specific recommendation is to increase the number of elected seats by one for the Tsuen Wan and North DCs respectively; by two for the Sham Shui Po, Kowloon City, Kwun Tong, Yau Tsim Mong and Sha Tin DCs respectively; by three for the Sai Kung DC; and by four for the Yuen Long DC. The Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau consulted the Legislative Council Panel on Constitutional Affairs and the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the 18 DCs on the proposal in May this year, and obtained their general support. The Chief Executive in Council made the Order at the Executive Council meeting on 25 June 2013. The House Committee of the Legislative Council examined the Order at its meeting on 5 July and decided that there was a need to form a Subcommittee on Subsidiary Legislation to scrutinize the Order. The Subcommittee on Subsidiary Legislation has completed the scrutiny after holding two meetings.


I wish to take this opportunity to thank Mr IP Kwok-him, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Subsidiary Legislation and other Subcommittee members for their efforts. I understand that during the discussion, the Subcommittee has suggested the Administration to consider whether the circumstances in Tung Chung warrant the provision of one more elected seat for Islands DC. I would like to make a brief response to this issue. According to the population projections provided by the authorities, the projected population for the Islands District in mid-2015 is 148 700. According to the methodology adopted in reviewing the number of elected seats in all DCs, the number of elected seats of Islands DC shall be 8.6l, that is, a maximum of nine seats. However, taking into consideration that the operations of the DCs will be affected after the abolition of the DC appointed seats and the more important role that the DCs are expected to assume in district administration, and so on, the Administration has decided to maintain the existing number of elected seats of Islands DC at 10. The same arrangement is also applicable to four other DCs. The Administration considers that the current proposal is put forward on the basis of objective data and reasonable considerations. As for the projected increase in population brought about by the completion of new residential developments in Tung Chung, they will be dealt with in the context of the next review exercise for the DC ordinary election because the completion and in-take period for most of the developments will be beyond mid-2015. Deputy President, subject to the approval of the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013 by the Legislative Council today, the Electoral Affairs Commission will make recommendations for the demarcation of constituency boundaries for the 2015 DC Election next year having regard to the revised number of DC elected seats. The Registration and Electoral Office will also make preparation for the conduct of the 2015 DC ordinary election in accordance with the revised number of DC elected seats. I implore Members to approve the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013 to implement the increase of 19 elected seats for the fifth-term DCs. Thank you, Deputy President.


1945

The Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013, made by the Chief Executive in Council on 25 June 2013, be approved."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs be passed. MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I now make a report in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013. The Subcommittee has held two meetings with the Administration and received the views of the public and organizations. The District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013 seeks to increase 19 elected seats for nine District Councils (DCs) as from the fifth-term DCs commencing on 1 January 2016. Members did not raise any objection to the recommendation of increasing the number of elected seats, but the Subcommittee noted that no additional elected seats were proposed for the Islands DC. Some members expressed concern about the rapid growth in the population of Tung Chung over the past few years, pointing out that the population in Tung Chung North already exceeded the population quota by more than 25% and a few large-scale housing estates would be completed in Tung Chung before the second half of 2014. These members considered that given the rapid rise in the population of Tung Chung North and Tung Chung South, the incumbent DC members serving the areas had to cope with a very heavy workload. This, coupled with the major infrastructure developments in Tung Chung in the next few years, which might give rise to some concerns in the districts, would further add to the workload of the DC members. Therefore, members requested the Administration to consider increasing the number of elected seats for Tung Chung. However, the Administration considered that the current proposal was put forward on the basis of objective data and reasonable considerations and finally, the Administration did not take on board members' proposal. I heard the Secretary explain this point earlier on.


Moreover, some members expressed concern that the large size of the DC constituency area T01 (Lantau) had posed immense difficulties to the incumbent DC member of this constituency in serving his constituents. Some members considered that the T01 constituency should be delineated into two constituencies. The Administration considered that the issue would fall within the scope of the delineation of DC constituency areas and recommended that the proposal be sent to the Electoral Affairs Commission direct for consideration. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) The Subcommittee did not propose any amendment to this Order on the amendment of Schedule. The following are my personal views. President, I am speaking on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB). The DAB supports the passage of the Order. President, time flies, and we are already half way through the four-year term of the fourth-term DCs. Today, this Order on the amendment of Schedule is tabled before this Council for passage, with a view to increasing 19 elected seats for nine DCs to cope with the demographical changes. It also means that the preparatory work for the fifth-term DC Election will start to be carried out in a gradual and orderly manner. As an integral part of the system of representative assemblies, DCs can best sense the public sentiments and are tasked to keep tabs on the public pulse and gather public opinions. But as the saying goes, effective tools are the prerequisites to success. It is necessary and essential to provide conditions conducive to the work of the DCs in order for DC members to maintain close ties with residents in the districts and understand their needs. It is a very important and essential need of DC members to set up members' offices and employ assistants to work for them in order to provide the necessary services to the public. I understand that the Home Affairs Bureau officially announced last Friday that consideration would be given to adjusting the operating expenses of DC members' offices. Subject to the approval of the recommendations made in the results of the review by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, the adjusted rate of operating expenses reimbursement will come into effect from 1 January next year. The adjustment proposed this time around, which is an


1947

increase of 34%, is considered relatively reasonable. Although the increase seems to be quite substantial, we all know that DC members are currently provided with a very low level of funding to meet the operating expenses incurred in their operation and services. Insofar as their current operating expenses are concerned, DC members face great difficulties in hiring assistants of a better quality or finding suitable premises for their offices, especially in view of the ever rising rent level. Most DC members whose offices are located in private buildings are facing great hardships because of the surge in rental. Such being the case, many DC members have to subsidize their expenses with their monthly remuneration. DC members have actually reflected this situation on various occasions and we all feel helpless about it. Now that we are finally seeing light at the end of the tunnel after waiting for such a long time as this long-expected adjustment is achieved. The Home Affairs Bureau has finally heeded good advice, and even though it is the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs who is in the Chamber now, I must get this off my chest and particularly make this point clear, especially as we have seen that the Government has broken some so-called conventions in making an adjustment during the term. Another focus of the Subcommittee during its discussion, which is certainly a cliché, is the population quota of each seat. Should the number of seats be increased or decreased according to the population of a DC? In fact, we have made comparisons and discussed it this time around. In the last term, the population quota of each DC seat was 17 275 residents whereas that in the current term has been slightly adjusted to 17 282 residents. The DAB supports that adjustments should be made accordingly in the light of demographic changes in an area. This, we support. In this connection, with regard to the increase in the number of elected DC seats as proposed in the Order, we can see that the proposal is consistent with the reality of growth in population and will not bring significant changes to the delineation of constituency areas in DC elections which will otherwise undermine the community cohesion already built up. In the course of our scrutiny of this Order, the Government provided information on the 26 constituency areas which deviated from the "plus or minus 25%" criteria among the 412 constituency areas in the fourth-term DCs. There are 12 constituency areas which have exceeded the quota and 14 constituency areas which have fallen short of the quota. Those constituencies which have fallen short of the quota are mainly in the New Territories and in particular, four are in the Islands. As for the reason of such deviation, Members can easily


imagine and infer that it has a great deal to do with the geographical factor, and I think Members can more readily accept this objective reality. However, of the 12 constituency areas which have exceeded the quota, seven have exceeded the limit by over 30%, and Po Tat in Kwun Tong even exceeded it by 43.2%. I am most concerned about this because it means that the service targets of this area will exceed the limit by more than 8 000 residents. This will put heavy pressure on the DC member. I hope that the Administration will display a forward-looking vision and prevent this situation by all means. If this happens due to unpredictable circumstances, I urge the Government to seriously consider providing some substantive support. In fact, in the course of our discussions on this Order, the problems of Tung Chung have surfaced. President, during our discussions, some Members questioned that the electorate of each DC seat is too small, which has made DC members myopic, and they, therefore, considered it necessary to expand the electorate to enhance the representativeness of DC members. On the view of some Members that the existing "single seat, single vote" system should be changed, the DAB takes exception to it. The DAB considers that the current population quota is appropriate as it enables DC members to maintain close ties with the residents in their constituencies and keep tabs on the demands of the residents in a constituency area. For this reason, the DAB considers that the existing population quota should be maintained. Certainly, the Islands DC does have special geographical factors and there are practical difficulties to require its compliance with a rigid population quota. In this connection, the Bureau has undertaken to conduct a review in this regard, which the DAB welcomes. With these remarks, President, I support the passage of the Order on behalf of the DAB. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the motion proposed by the Secretary on the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013. President, we in the Democratic Party do not have strong views on the authorities' proposal to increase 19 DC seats, but the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr IP Kwok-him, has pointed out some problems earlier on. With regard to the issues relating to the entire DC system


1949

which were raised at the meetings, we consider that the Government should review them very carefully. President, DCs are a very important venue for nurturing political talents for Hong Kong. This is why such issues as what duties and powers DCs have, by how many people a DC member is returned, and also how DCs carry out their work are very important. Insofar as this Order is concerned, I think the Government's approach is actually most inappropriate in hastily telling us that the review is completed and proposing such slight amendments. As we have said on many occasions before, a more extensive review of DCs is warranted. Concerning the duties and functions of DCs, after a number of Members supported the scrapping of the two Municipal Councils back in 2000, the authorities said then that some powers would be given to the DCs, but this undertaking, like a gust of wind, has vanished into thin air. This is why DC members always say that they play a consultative role in that they are consulted when there is a need and when there is not, nobody will take note of them. President, I think this is very bad, and how can this prepare for the constitutional development of Hong Kong? In view of this, we very much hope that the authorities will practically conduct a review of the overall operation, electoral system as well as duties and functions of DCs. President, I heard that Members of the DAB oppose this, because they said that the current population quota of 17 000 for each seat is more than sufficient. President, 17 000 people are, in fact, a very small number. This is why I have been saying that the vision of DC members should not just remain at the bus stop in front of their doors … the DAB has slandered me, saying that I have criticized DC members for being incompetent. I do not mean to insult DC members, but I think that their vision should not be that narrow. DC members would often argue with each other over a pedestrian crossing. We have proposed that several small constituencies can be merged to become a bigger constituency and then the proportional representation system be implemented. I heard Mr IP Kwok-him explain the reason of his opposition just now. The reason is to maintain close ties, because he believes that close ties can be maintained with an electorate of 17 000 people but it would be impossible to do so with 50 000 or 60 000 people. President, I have no idea why the DAB would come to this view. Take the New Territories East constituency to which I belong as an example. Although we have over a million constituents, we have tried our best to maintain close ties with them. So, even though the DAB


opposes this idea today, I still hope that the authorities can, for the sake of Hong Kong, consider expanding the constituencies of DC members, so that they will develop a broader vision or perspective and show concern for more other things, rather than just focusing on the streets in their constituencies. They should look at many more streets and many more housing estates, taking an overall perspective in their consideration. Who would like to have a refuse collection point right in front of their homes? But the garbage must be placed somewhere anyway and so, can everyone just sit down and talk about it? President, we attach great importance to this. Moreover, the Secretary said that he would move another motion under another ordinance subject to the passage of this motion today. At the meeting of the House Committee the other day, we urged him not to do this for the time being. President, what started this is that Eastern DC is too big and the Secretary wants to transfer two seats to Wan Chai DC, thinking that this will resolve the problem, but is this not a hasty move to make? At present, Eastern DC has 37 elected members whereas Wan Chai DC has 11. If two seats are transferred to Wan Chai DC … Some people said that this is meant to create an opportunity for Ms Jennifer CHOW to be elected as Chairman, and this has been reported in the press. Many things have actually been negotiated and agreed. Let them elect whoever they want to be the Chairman. But the question is: Can the problem be resolved by transferring two seats from Eastern DC to Wan Chai DC? President, if we read the report, we will find that there are 37 seats in Eastern DC, 35 seats in Kwun Tong DC, 36 seats in Sha Tin DC, 11 seats in Wan Chai DC, 10 seats in Islands DC, and 17 in Tsuen Wan DC. Why is there such a big difference in the number of seats? The authorities actually consider this unsatisfactory too. So, should a comprehensive review be conducted, so that there will not be such a big difference in the number of seats? I hope that the Secretary will not just submit a motion to the Legislative Council to propose the transfer of two seats, thinking that the problem will then be resolved. Moreover, President, we also hope that the DCs can truly be returned fully by direct elections. The authorities have already procrastinated for too long in agreeing to abolish the appointed seats only now. But for those ex officio seats, the authorities still resolutely insist on maintaining them. However, those ex officio seats are not returned by direct elections, and these DC members are not elected by the people. We hope that the authorities will also consider the abolition of ex officio DC seats in the New Territories.


1951

The Secretary said that the Government will proceed with the delineation of constituencies early next year subject to the passage of this amendment order today. As you may know, President, in all places in the world where elections are held, the delineation of constituencies is a very sensitive and important issue. The authorities suggested back in those years that a Judge be made responsible for it, which we did consider fair and impartial but now, we feel more and more strongly that things do not turn out to be in quite the way as we perceived back then. President, as we discussed at the meetings, how can the Judge know what factors there are in a district? In the last term, the authorities told us the practice adopted by the Government and that is, the District Officer of the district would discuss it with the Judge or the Commission, providing an analysis of the situation in the district and giving advice before a decision would be taken on how the constituencies should be delineated. As we all know, particularly given the very small size of a constituency with only 17 000 people, a slight move will create a significant impact. Therefore, we hope that the authorities will carefully make observations on how this can be done openly, fairly and impartially. I did ask at that time whether the information used by the District Officers in analysing the situation of the districts with the Judge or the Commission could be made public. We considered that all parties and groupings and also all the people should know how the District Officers analysed the situation with the Judge, but the authorities rejected our request. President, this is worrisome. I, therefore, raised this issue once again at the meetings of the Subcommittee because the authorities should know that it is most imperative to ensure that the entire electoral system is impartial, fair, open and credible. I have heard in the districts that some people feel concerned that when the authorities put forward proposals on the delineation of constituencies next year, they would split up certain constituencies and as a result, the candidates of some parties and groupings may suffer a total defeat. Some people may say that this is alarmist talk, but the authorities must understand that the delineation of constituencies is a highly sensitive issue that needs to be handled with care. Because if a community is split up for no reason, it would not only affect the integrity of the community but worse still, if the authorities purposely take this step, they would give the community the impression that they intend to suppress the candidates of a certain party or grouping, and I believe this would open a can of worms.


People used to say that this Commission is chaired by a Judge and his decisions should be indisputable. If we really think that the decisions are fair and impartial, we will certainly accept them, but President, if we feel that we have no idea by whom those very unfair proposals are made, or we think that they are seriously suppressing certain people, it would be very difficult for us to sit idly by and remain indifferent. As we all know, the democratic camp is the majority outside this Council but we become the minority when we are in this Council, and there are even fewer of us in the DCs. In spite of this, I think the authorities must make the utmost effort to ensure fairness and impartiality of the electoral system in order to attract more people to stand in the elections. President, if the candidates of a certain party or grouping are so awesome as to win every election, it goes to show that they are awesome. But if the electoral system is grossly defective and unfair, more Hong Kong people would be unwilling to take part in elections. Right, what is the big deal even if they take all the seats? As I have said, LAU Kong-wah, head of delegation, told the United Nations at meetings of the United Nations that the Government might not be able to identity land for constructing buildings because it would be necessary to consult the DCs. President, who in the DCs are standing in the way of the authorities? I hope that the Secretary has heard our views. Mr IP said earlier that the Secretary had proposed to adjust the reimbursement rate for the operating expenses of DCs members in setting up district offices. This, we agree. We hope that the public can carefully keep watch on this, for these expenses are paid on a reimbursement basis, which means that the expenses are reimbursed only after they are spent. Nevertheless, I would like to draw the attention of the authorities to the problems encountered in finding premises for offices. President, it is often very difficult to find places in the districts to set up offices, because the rent is exorbitant. We have asked the authorities for many times whether they can reserve spaces in public housing estates or Home Ownership Scheme estates where they can exert an influence and lease them to DC members of the district for them to set up offices, irrespective of who the winning candidates are. Some DC members who have to rent their offices in private buildings are in an even more miserable situation. The authorities should observe how the DC members carry out their work and provide assistance to them when they run into difficulties. Certainly, it is most important to enhance the duties and functions of DC members, so that they will truly have the powers and responsibilities to handle the district affairs whether in relation to recreation and culture or of other natures. Once they are given such powers and


1953

responsibilities, members of the public will approach them and hold them accountable when they run into troubles. Furthermore, DC members should be given powers in terms of finance and appointment of personnel, and only in this way can more training be provided to DC members to enable them to put in greater efforts for Hong Kong in the future. Therefore, President, we support the proposal made by the Secretary today of slightly increasing the reimbursement rate of the operating expenses of DC members. That said, the entire DC system is riddled with problems. We call on the DAB or other people to seriously think about how improvements can be made, rather than making no effort to nurture political talents over the years, just as you, President, has said, and if that is the case, how can it be of any help to Hong Kong? I so submit. MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, this approach proposed in the amendment, which suggests the use of a rigid procedure based on the population quota to increase or reduce the number of seats and the re-delineation of constituencies, has precisely reflected that the current policies and measures are fossilized. This, coupled with the existing "single seat, single vote" electoral system, has indeed reflected some shortcomings. An actual example is the constituency area T01 (Lantau) mentioned by Mr IP Kwok-him earlier on. In the delineation of constituencies, the Government has ignored the geographical features and characteristics of social groups in the area and created a constituency once the population reaches the population quota of 17 000 residents and meets the requirement of a 25% margin. As a result, what kind of a constituency has Lantau become? Apart from such densely populated areas as the Discovery Bay and Tung Chung, all the other areas on Lantau belong to the same constituency. When we received views from deputations, we asked the DC member of this constituency how much he spends on gas for transport purposes per month as he needs to drive to and fro these areas to get in touch with his constituents. We found that his monthly expense on gas is as much as over $4,000. This DC member is really too pitiable as his transport expense accounts for a large proportion of the monthly accountable expenses of his office. Therefore, we must not be so inflexible by creating one constituency so long as the population quota is reached and the 25% margin requirement is met. We must take into account other factors such as


geographical features and characteristics of social groups, and then handle it with logic and common sense. But much to our regret, the Government is still going to apply the formula based on the population quota under a "single seat, single vote" system in carrying out the delineation of constituencies. This will indeed cause great difficulties to the DCs and DC members. The "single seat, single vote" system is an electoral mode that seeks to foster the relationship between DC members and their constituents. There is indeed a very strong link between DC members and their constituents, because smaller constituencies will make it easier for DC members to disseminate information to the electors and listen to their views. However, the size of DC constituencies is indeed too small in Hong Kong as there are only a few streets or five or six blocks of public housing in each constituency. With such a small constituency, delay can be caused by opposition from just a few dozen people in the district to the taking forwards of any issue relating to public interest. But the DC member concerned can actually do nothing about it because as he might win by a small margin of a hundred votes or so, even though there is opposition only from a few dozen people, he still has to consider their views. However, this will put great constraints on the DC member, the DC and the issue itself. For the 19 seats to be added under the current proposal, if they will be allocated to some new areas or new housing estates, implementation may be easy and should not give rise to any problem. However, we found that in some old districts such as Sham Shui Po, Kowloon City and Kwun Tong which are already densely populated, two new constituencies will be created, and in some other districts, even more than two constituencies will be created. When the demarcation of constituencies in the old districts has basically been established, the creation of two or even three additional seats will inevitably affect the overall situation in that the delineation of constituencies in other districts will be affected. With such a rigid procedure for delineation of constituencies, coupled with the fact that the Government may need to re-delineate certain constituencies in each election, the electors will certainly feel confused, not knowing who will be the DC members in their districts in this term or the next. This will, in fact, undermine the relationship between the electors and DC members. The Government always think that the public should know the electoral system quite well since it has been implemented for many years, but this is actually not the case. In fact, since the 1991 Legislative Council Election, many members of the public still do not know that Hong Kong Island and Ap Lei Chau belong to one major constituency, thinking that there are four constituencies.


1955

Therefore, the electoral system, including the delineation of constituencies, should actually attach importance to stability, and the proportional representation system can precisely achieve this objective. It is because when there are demographic changes in a major constituency, only the number of seats of that major constituency, such as Eastern DC or Yau Tsim Mong DC, will be increased under the proportional representation system, without incurring the need for re-delineation of the smaller constituencies. Another merit of the proportional representation system is that when dealing with community facilities which are necessary in the communities but not welcome by the residents, DC members will have greater latitude to make consideration in the public interest. These community facilities include columbarium facilities which have to do with the natural course of life and waste disposal facilities that we all need, and especially as many waste recycling and transfer measures will be implemented later, more heated arguments are set to arise in DCs. Therefore, if the proportional representation system is implemented and when everyone knows that there must be these facilities in each district, the political party with a majority of seats in the DC concerned can deal with these issues a la a ruling party. President, I believe the greatest challenge to any political person is how to face the situation of pleasing one side but offending another when taking forward the development of some necessary facilities. Every policy will benefit certain people whereas some other people may be adversely affected by it. This is why there are always people supporting and opposing a policy. In meeting this challenge, a good political person will precisely have the ability to explain to all the people, whether they are positively or negatively affected, why it is necessary to do such a thing, so that people whose interests are injured will put aside their temporary gains or loss and support a policy which will benefit the interest of society as a whole in the long term. Therefore, President, if the proportional representation system is implemented in DCs, consideration can be given to matters from a wider perspective and in a longer term, and political persons will be given greater room in considering the overall planning of a district. Only in that way can DCs become a venue where political talents can be trained up more effectively. Thank you, President.


MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, today, we discuss the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013, which is mainly about increasing the number of elected seats according to changes in population. This proposal offers no cause for criticism, and given the realistic conditions currently, it is a task that must be undertaken. Therefore, I do not have any strong objection to the content of the motion. When the Secretary spoke earlier, he said that the authorities not only aimed at increasing the number of seats according to population changes, but also wished that measures of district administration could be implemented in a more forceful and effective manner, so that DCs and DC members would play a stronger role. I do not agree with this point at all, for the number of DC members is not a determining factor of the successful achievement of the above goal. We all know that irrespective of the number of members comprising a council, it will be meaningless if it has no decision-making power. Despite the participation of another 100 persons in the discussion, the outcome will be the same if the discussion is shallow and the decision cannot be implemented. Neither will there be significant changes, nor will society stand to benefit. Therefore, if we were to enable the specific and effective implementation of district administration today, a mere change in the number of seats of DC members would be insufficient, and the key lies in changing the powers vested in DCs. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair) I have been a DC member for many years since 1985, and I think few DC members have such a long tenure comparable to mine. I am not trying to brag about my long service here but only to emphasize that I have seen the changes in DCs over the years and its actual operation. The major problem with DCs lies in its terms of reference. Though the functions of DCs include six items, four out of them include the phrase "to advise". In other words, only two items involve substantive powers. One is the power to assign the use of funds allocated to DCs by the Government, and the other is to allocate funds for use by district organizations. The DCs only have power in these two areas but no other. Even in respect of community facilities and the environment of the community, DCs can at most give advice. After that, the Government may choose whether or not to heed the advice to its preference. What is the meaning of doing so


1957

then? It is indeed meaningless. It is a mere gesture showing that it is trying to let elected members handle the administration of a district. But in actuality, it is sheer empty talk and a superficial gesture. In fact, do DC members and DCs have any opportunity to implement district measures or facilities truly according to the desire of DCs? The chance is slim. However, if the Government agrees with the measures, they will definitely be implemented. Yet, it will be meaningless. If DCs can do things only agreed by the Government, what is the point of setting up DCs? It is pointless. Worse still, more often than not, DCs will be done injustices by the Government. When the Government is reluctant to take certain action, fearing that it may draw public criticisms, it will then consult the DC. If the DC also disagrees with the action, the Government will use the unwillingness of the DC, but not that of the Government, as an excuse for inaction. The Government will shift all the blame to DC members and say that the Government is not to blame. This phenomenon is common. I believe many colleagues in the Chamber who are also DC members often come across this phenomenon. Let me quote the case of municipal management as an example. When the Government arrests hawkers, it will tell the hawkers that the Government does not want to arrest them but that DC members want the Government to do so and the Government cannot but arrest them. DCs and DCs members are often used as a shield by the Government. When the situation is undesirable, the Government will play up the role of DCs. Yet in good times, the Government will give no acknowledgement to DCs and simply state that the relevant initiatives were made by the Government. In other words, the Government will claim the credit when achievement is made and shift the blame to DCs and DC members when nothing is achieved. Such practice is pointless. How can DCs perform its role in district administration under such circumstances? They can do nothing. On the contrary, we notice that the then Urban Council and Regional Council were given substantive powers. The two Municipal Councils were empowered to enact legislation and formulate policies, whereas the Government would facilitate the two Municipal Councils in implementing the policies and legislation. It was an entirely different case then, for the Government could not claim any credit or shirk the responsibility against such background. Such concern was totally out of the question. Besides, we notice from the past that certain social problems were handled in a better manner when the then Regional Council and Urban Council were in operation. Take the operation of markets as


an example. I notice that during the era of the then Regional Council and the then Urban Council, markets were better managed than they are now under the management of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. Back then, the two Municipal Councils enjoyed greater flexibility, and their Members would listen to the views of traders and formulate policies according to the needs of traders, and thus the operation of markets was excellent. All these issues are district affairs. Had the authorities devolved the power in district affairs to DCs, DCs would have played a very different role in district administration. Regrettably, the role of DCs to date can at best be called an advisory framework of the Government, and to put it rudely, it is just a shield at the Government's disposal. This is meaningless. But if it is meaningless, why do so many people still take part in the operation of DCs? It is because some people are eager to find the opportunity to engage in politics via DCs, hoping this will enhance their knowledge and competence in administration and handling public administration affairs. For this reason, the public are encouraged to participate in the work of DCs. But in my view, it is meaningless. Many colleagues are also DC members, what have they learnt in DCs? They have only learnt that it makes no difference whether or not they express their views. The meetings are held in a perfunctory manner. The Government may not necessarily listen to their views. It may choose arbitrarily whether or not to heed their views. It is evident that it does not have much help in enhancing the capability in handling public administration affairs. Earlier on, Ms Emily LAU kept stating that she hoped the ability of DC members would be enhanced via this channel, but is this the actual case? I cannot say that it is of no help, but the extent is very limited. It is entirely different in the case of the then Regional Council and Urban Council. In addition to the broad horizons, another very important point is that they would shoulder the responsibility. Since they were responsible for making the decisions, they would have to respond to the blame or criticisms from society and the public on their decisions. They had to consider how to explain their cases, and they could not just do it perfunctorily, which had definitely enhanced their competence. This is the most important point. Therefore, I think the increase in the number of members purely based on the change in population in the motion today is no more than a routine, which does not merit any discussion. It makes no difference whether or not we speak


1959

up. However, I would like to take this opportunity to tell the Secretary again that in view of his recognition of the need to enhance the role of DCs in district administration, will a large-scale review be conducted? What kind of review is it? It has to review afresh the effectiveness of the role of DCs in district administration. The review should examine whether the reduction of DC constituencies, as mentioned by a colleague earlier, will broaden the horizons and enhance the decision-making ability of DC members, particularly the decision-making ability in handling community and district affairs, thereby enhancing the role they play in public administration. If these important concerns are not addressed, it will be meaningless. Besides, Deputy President, the important concept put forth in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, as well as in the Basic Law, is that a democratic system will ultimately be implemented in Hong Kong. Under the democratic system, we are entitled to universal suffrage, and the councils should have the decision-making power. If the councils do not have decision-making power, they will only be confined to the advisory level. If that is the case, it should not be called DCs but district advisory committees. I often make this comment, for only by doing so will the name truly reflects the nature of the organization. The Government should not deceive people. The role played by DCs gives people the impression that DCs can implement the resolutions they passed on public affairs after discussion, but this is not the actual case. The resolutions passed will only be used for offering advice to the Government, and it is left to the Government to decide whether or not to heed the advice. If so, what achievement can DCs make? Therefore, if the Government is unwilling to change the substantive powers of DCs, it might as well rename the DCs. They should no longer be called councils but advisory committees. Since the Government already has a lot of advisory committees, it does not matter that a few more are added to the list. These advisory committees may play different roles. For instance, it may be an advisory committee on housing responsible for the discussion on housing issues, or a district advisory committee responsible for consultation on district affairs. The number of committees is not a concern. Whether or not additional advisory committees are set up does not really matter. In that case, the Government may simply set up a district advisory committee. Lest it would give the public the false impression that DC members may do something for them, but indeed, members cannot be of any help, and this has often prompted the public to blame DC members. It is really unnecessary.


Deputy President, regarding the discussion today on increasing the number of DC members in constituencies, I do not have any strong objection. However, I urge the Secretary to review the framework and operation of DCs as a whole in future, particularly in relation to its powers, so that DCs can truly fulfil the functions of a council and have actual decision-making power. Only by doing so will the change be meaningful. Thank you, President. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my speech is broadly in line with the general direction proposed by the several pan-democratic Members who spoke earlier, so I have no intention to repeat their views in a tedious manner. As an academic, however, I would like to point out that a clear consensus was already reached a long time ago in the academic sector in Hong Kong on DCs or district administration in respect of their functions, reform, vision and ways of governance, and this consensus is open to all, too. The last reform should be in the year 2006, when Mrs Carrie LAM, the incumbent Chief Secretary for Administration, was the executor and gate-keeper. A number of substantial reform proposals were put forward by us, too. First, regarding the electoral method, the amendment this time around seeks to increase the number of seats in the light of population growth according to the existing practice. This is a mathematical equation, but it has never really taken into account the functions of DCs, their position in the constitutional framework, the presence or otherwise of a clear check-and-balance relationship with the executive, their relationship with constituents, and their representativeness. All these issues have simply not been dealt with in this amendment, nor is it capable of doing so. In spite of this, in the Subcommittee responsible for the scrutiny of the relevant amendment, Members did mention the framework and functions of DCs, the role of District Officers, the honorarium for DC members, and the proposals and direction of future reform. This once again reflects that there is already a consensus among Members of this Council, those who also serve as DC members, the academic sector and Hong Kong society that a fresh comprehensive and systematic review should be conducted following the one in 2006. Secretary Raymond TAM may say that such work should be dealt with by Secretary TSANG Tak-sing, just like the remark made by Secretary Paul CHAN this morning to pass the buck to the Secretary for Food and Health, so he has no


1961

idea of how to answer the question. After hearing these views today, I hope Secretary Raymond TAM will stop thinking that the matter is already settled, and there is no need to care about us anymore. During Question Time just now, even President Jasper TSANG bade Secretary Paul CHAN to go back and discuss with his colleagues how to follow up these issues. I hope Secretary Raymond TAM will not act in this manner. I hope he can examine with Secretary TSANG Tak-sing and his so-called accountability team ways to deal with all these issues which have already existed for a long time. Deputy President, as an academic, I had taught some DC members in my teaching career. In a Master of Public Administration programme, I had also taught some students who had once stood in or were preparing to stand in elections. In the course of discussion, it was very frustrating to find that we were all committed to serving Hong Kong. Irrespective of us being in the pro-establishment camp or pan-democracy camp, we all regarded it as the ladder of taking part in politics for the sake of serving Hong Kong. My students began at the district level in the hope of joining the DCs before considering further steps to administer Hong Kong to make it a better place, with a view to implementing "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong in a democratic manner". After joining the DCs, they found that they were subject to many constraints in dealing with a great deal of matters. Certainly, the small size of some constituencies is an issue. This point has been mentioned by some colleagues, too. Hence, it is not the case that there are no other solutions to the delineation of DC constituencies and electoral methods. Insofar as the proportional representation system is concerned, the academic sector has frequently raised the question of how to upgrade the vision of DC members through reform of the electoral method from focusing merely on a few blocks of buildings, an entire housing estate or half of it, or 17 000 people or 25% of the residents to a broader level of taking a holistic look at the constituency as a whole. This problem is not unique to Hong Kong. To a certain extent, our system is a handover from the "single seat, single vote" system practicised in the United Kingdom. The same goes for the British Parliament and their councils at the regional level. However, many institutional reforms have been carried out in the United Kingdom since 1997 for the introduction of the proportional representation system from the perspective of district governance or administration. Let us take a look at the United Kingdom. We can see that reforms to the Borough Councils in Scotland, the Wales and Northern Ireland are


all heading towards the proportional representation system. It is hoped that through encouraging the development of political parties and the formulation of manifestos, strategies and directions regarding district administration, candidates and even council members will be given incentives to deal with regional issues with a regional vision, rather than merely looking at their extremely small constituencies with only one objective, namely seeking a re-election. We can see that the problems in Hong Kong are similar to those faced by the United Kingdom. In view of these problems, the United Kingdom is pursuing the development of the proportional representation system. Regarding the resolution this time around, during our discussions at meetings, I once pointed out that it was actually very difficult to delineate certain places or districts. How can we revise their numbers from three to two, three to four, or two to three? How can we deal with the situation on Lantau? I have also proposed some options similar to the proportional representation system which can make delineation easier for the Bureau. Currently, the population of some districts is on a constant rise. For instance, despite the continued population growth in Tung Chung North, its population size is not big enough for the delineation of an additional constituency. As a result, people are suffering. If the proportional representation system can be adopted by, for instance, allocating three seats to the district but allowing each person or constituent to cast one vote, it will cater to the demand for services in the district because there will be more DC members to provide assistance, and the system can exercise more flexibility. Nevertheless, if this method is confined to only certain constituencies in Tung Chung North or North Lantau, whereas other constituencies can only adopt the "single seat, single vote" system, the Government will definitely tell us that it cannot do so because this is a very complicated issue and the public will find it very confusing. I am certainly aware of this point. I raised this idea at that time because I wished to push the Government to really consider and take stock of the problems brought about by the existing electoral system, in furtherance of the consensus reached among colleagues and the academic sector. Deputy President, I have mentioned repeatedly other problems related to the governance of DCs, including the lack of an independent secretariat. As with the independent secretariat set up to assist the Legislative Council in monitoring the Government in the interest of this Council and the public, an independent secretariat is crucial to the development of DCs. Certainly, this brings the issue of resources. However, if we are really committed to and sincere with the development of district administration and governance, I believe


1963

an independent secretariat is crucial to all DCs. This is also what we hope to see, as mentioned by both pro-establishment and pro-democracy Members, too. More importantly, insofar as DCs' advisory function is concerned, as pointed out by colleagues just now, the so-called advisory framework is poor because there is a strong feeling that it is at the Government's disposal. Certainly, I believe not every DC member shares this idea. However, as a member of the Legislative Council, I have recently found when serving some districts that many colleagues who are also DC members are quite miserable. Although the Government will go to consult them, there is not enough time for discussion, and the documents and information accessible to them are limited. Furthermore, they are given just a short briefing because of inadequate time. One example is the Graham Street/Bailey Street (H18) Project, an urban renewal project. Very often, the situation of the DC members of the district concerned and the Central and Western DC is very miserable because, in many cases, they are not clearly told in advance but, when something happens, they have to hop to all places like a fire brigade. Is there any respect for DCs, DC members and people living there? The answer is certainly in the negative. In this regard, it appears that DC members and DCs at the forefront of serving the districts should be given adequate time to gain some idea of the brewing of some district issues, direction of discussions, results of the relevant projects, foreseeable problems and challenges, so that the problems can be addressed at an early stage. This is always better than waiting for something to happen before putting out or probably fanning a fire. Will this not make it more difficult for the matter to be resolved? Another very important issue which has become a great concern to me recently is the application for the rezoning of a 0.3 hectare waterfront site in Central for the construction of a pier for the People's Liberation Army. The DC has all along been involved in the entire Central waterfront reclamation project or the planning of the site. In fact, the Government has submitted many plans and conducted one or two rounds of basic consultation to introduce the design of the waterfront promenade or the pier. However, we have not heard of this very important message until this year. For DCs and many organizations and professionals who have participated in the planning of the waterfront, including me, and according to what I have heard so far, the news that an application for rezoning of this site will be submitted shortly is really unexpected. From the very beginning, DC members involved in the discussions have been told that a


150 m long waterfront promenade will be set aside for the construction of pier facilities. However, they have never been told that it will turn from part of a site entirely for leisure purposes into a military site and restricted zone. There is really nothing DC members can say when they are confronted by questions about the site. They also feel a bit aggrieved because they have to confess that, despite being consulted, they have no impression at all. Is it not a big mockery of DCs or DC members? Deputy President, I have recently encountered some cases about residential blocks being squeezed onto every available site. Many DC members serving the Tung Tao Court in the Eastern DC or Sha Tin DC are found to have displayed banners to express opposition to land sales or the handing of such sites to the Lands Department for sale. Actually, these discussions are a reflection of the problems. When people living in the districts see those banners, they will surely criticize their DC members for being slow and unresponsive, but the DC members will say, "The truth is when no one tell me anything about the land sales, do I have the resources and an independent secretariat to support the DC, so that we can have a clear idea of the changes to the planned use of the site or the Government's land sale programme?" The three examples cited by me just now precisely reflect that, even if we propose increasing the number of seats today or make a request at the meeting held by the Panel on Home Affairs on Friday for raising salary, office allowances, or some accountable allowances, all this is not the crux of the problem, which is not simply about the provision of money, manpower or resources for DC members. Today, this has become a problem of effective governance and consequently a problem of performance. With increasingly high public expectations for DC members and DC members' expectations for themselves, I hope these interwoven problems can be readily solved as Hong Kong moves towards genuine universal suffrage. Hence, Deputy President, we certainly know that today, given the existing formula, we have to increase the number of seats according to demographic changes. This the Civic Party agrees. But meanwhile, even if we express approval, we will and probably continue to call on the Government to launch a fresh comprehensive and systematic district administration and governance reform following the last one conducted in 2006. I so submit.


1965

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the contents of the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013 under discussion today are related to the amendments made to the District Councils Ordinance in 2013. Not only have Members put forward their different views on issues in this regard in the meeting, Mr IP Kwok-him, Chairman of the Subcommittee, and other colleagues have also expressed their opinions. Nevertheless, I think there are two points worth mentioning again. The first one is related to the seats of DC constituency area T01 (Lantau). There have been calls for increasing the number of seats due to the pressure borne by the DC members in that constituency as a result of the growing population. However, the Bureau has turned down this request on the ground that the review criteria are based on the relationship between its population and geographical situation. Hence, the total number of seats remains to be 19. I can see that the Bureau has merely insisted on the number without an in-depth understanding of the actual situation and the plights of the people in the district. Insofar as this question is concerned, I hope the Bureau can gain some more detailed and accurate understanding. Having been a DC member for nearly two decades, I understand that a DC member will have to bear with increasing pressure if the population of his constituency becomes too large. To my understanding, the population of the DC constituency, namely Lantau, will reach 40 000 to 50 000 in the near future, which is several times higher than the Government's existing standard ― the population of a DC constituency should be 17 000 ― or equivalent to the population of a Regional Council constituency with one seat. The enormous pressure borne by DC members is imaginable, but their support and resources remain unchanged. This is why I think that the Bureau should consider from this angle if one seat can be split into two or three, in order to relieve the pressure on DC members. Second, many colleagues mentioned DC's functions and questioned whether the electoral method should be changed. Ms Emily LAU from the Democratic Party has even requested that the existing "single seat, single vote" system be replaced by a proportional representation system. There were times when the Democratic Party was the political party with the largest number of DC seats in the territory, but it had never proposed changes to the electoral method. Today, however, they propose introducing changes because the number of their seats has continued to drop. I think the drop in the


number of their seats is not without reason. They have been abandoned by their constituents because they have failed to adjust their standard of services having regard to changes in the constituencies and their constituents' demands. With the passage of time, public aspirations and their standard of service required of DC members now are different from that in the past. Having served as a DC member for two decades, I personally feel that the public expectations in the past and now are completely different. Nowadays, the constituents will very often request meetings with DC members of their constituencies to discuss their family, housing, and even personal problems. If a DC member is often not available because he is somewhere else or cannot be contacted, his constituents will look for another option. Hence, I think that it is not easy to be DC members today. If they can serve the public immediately, I believe their popularity rate can still be maintained. I would like to tell colleagues with dissenting views that changing the electoral system can only keep the status quo but not change the number of their seats. In connection with the review today, I hope the Government can consider a review of the future functions or role of DCs in two aspects. Firstly, I think that DC's functions should be enhanced. Under Article 97 of the Basic Law, district organizations which are not organs of political power may be established in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to be consulted by the government of the Region on district administration and other affairs, or to be responsible for providing services in such fields as culture, recreation and environmental sanitation. In fact, this provision should be applicable to the functions of the Regional Council and Urban Council back then. Under Article 97 of the Basic Law, the powers and functions of the district organizations and the method for their formation shall be prescribed by law. I recall the mention by former Chief Executive, Mr Donald TSANG, of the need to enhance the functions of district administration, but he merely focused on enhancing the powers of District Officers and compared them to junior Chief Executives. Despite his remarks, it will eventually be up to DCs to make decisions when it is time for decisions to be made in the DC or consultation conducted with the DC. The District Officers can only make complementary efforts and assist DCs in relaying messages to the Government. Therefore, it is


1967

simply useless to merely enhance the powers of District Officers but not that of DCs. The Government has introduced something new to the DCs of the last term by providing more funds for improvements to minor works at the district level. Not only have we begun to see initial results over the past four years, joint efforts have also been made in DCs to improvements works not yet realized or arranged by the Government, thus impressing the public that DCs can indeed do something for the public. Unfortunately, only cosmetic changes could be made because of inadequate resources. Last year, the $100 million proposal put forward by the Government to allow DCs to undertake projects of a more substantial scale finally changed the public's impression. In my opinion, the enhancement of DC functions means respect for them. The energy of DCs can also be boosted so that they can serve the public better. Hence, I hold that enhancing the powers and scope of DCs in terms of their functions can definitely enable them to command more respect from the public. Talking about respect, I would also like to say a few words about the Legislative Council's respect for DCs from our experience. In 2010, following a comprehensive consultation conducted by the DC concerned on the construction of a library in Area 3, Yuen Long, the public agreed that a library be built on the proposed site. However, when the proposal was tabled before the Legislative Council, some members of the public requested certain Legislative Council Members to raise objection. Consequently, some opposition Members requested the DC concerned to conduct a fresh consultation, thus delaying the construction works by a year and costing the Government nearly $100 million in additional construction fees. Regarding such matters, I think that DCs must be respected by not only the Government but also the Legislative Council. This is because funding applications for construction works to be carried out at the district level must be scrutinized and approved by the Legislative Council. If an application is dismissed when it is submitted to the Legislative Council for scrutiny and approval despite public consent having been obtained by the DC concerned after an extended consultation, conflicts will arise between the Legislative Council and DCs. Moreover, such an act is disrespect for DCs. The second point which I think has to be reviewed is the support for DCs. Regarding the role of a "junior Chief Executive" mentioned by the last Chief Executive, as I mentioned just now, what is the role played by the Government in


support of DCs? In my opinion, besides enhancing the powers of District Officers, more respect should be given to DCs, too. During its consultations with DCs on matters such as the problem of landfills discussed in this Council in the first half of the year, if the Government can fully respect DCs and halt the extension works because of DCs' objection to the extension of the landfills, then the efforts of DCs can definitely gain more respect. Meanwhile, arrangements should be made to deploy more manpower in the Government's Civil Service team for support to the work of DCs, including more manpower in the secretariat. Thanks to our continued efforts to fight for additional posts of Assistant District Officers, three such posts have eventually been created in three districts, though they are still absent in many other districts. Such efforts must be recognized and supported by the Government before the role of DCs can be changed. Deputy President, I think the Amendment of Schedule 3 merits support. Despite my dissenting views on some of its contents, I think that time is required for reviews and debates in many areas before better results can be achieved. Therefore, I support the motion today and hope that the Government can continue to consult the Legislative Council and people from all walks of life in the community on the functions of DCs. Thank you, Deputy President. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013. I must respond briefly to the comments made by a number of Members just now on DCs' functions and DC members. I think that the remarks made by Ms Emily LAU and some other Members that attributed the narrow vision of DC members to the small scope of the existing constituencies is unfair to DC members. Their contribution to serving their constituencies has been neglected, too.


1969

The merit of a small constituency is that DC members can fully grasp its situation, so that they can relay the voices of its residents in greater detail. It is not an easy task to serve 17 000 people. As there are DC members in various parties and groupings, the Members must understand that the daily schedule of DC members is extremely busy. The 17 000 residents often seek assistance from DC members in dealing with various matters, and DC members are expected to resolve problems for each and every resident. In this connection, they have to co-ordinate, discuss and negotiate with different departments in their daily work. Hence, the merit of a small constituency is that DC members can provide the public with more personal services. I disagree with the view that the vision of DC members is narrow due to the small size of their constituencies, because their vision is definitely not narrow. In various parties and groupings, there are Legislative Council Members who were former DC members. Because of their work experience at the district level, they were capable of standing in the Legislative Council elections and garnering more public support. It is thus evident that DCs are a good venue for training political talents. As regards the question of whether DC members have narrow vision, I think it all depends on their aggressiveness. Apart from serving their small communities, DC members have to attend regular DC meetings, too. At these meetings, DC members from different districts will give an account of matters of concern to the residents in their respective districts. They can also understand what happened in their own districts through the meetings. The Government has great respect for DC members. In particular, all DC members will be invited to attend consultation sessions during consultation periods. The Government has published a series of consultative documents, including those on the Long Term Housing Strategy, the population policy, and so on. If DC members are willing to conduct policy research on their own and present opinions, their standard of conducting DC business is absolutely not lower than that of Legislative Council Members. What is more, many DC members have unique insights on the Government's policies. This is why I think that whether or not the vision of DC members is narrow has nothing to do with the sizes of their constituencies. Instead, it all depends on their understanding of public policies, their aggressiveness and their quest for continued progress. Hence, I must give a response.


Furthermore, a number of Members pointed out just now that many conflicts have arisen in the community due to the small size of the constituencies served by DC members. In view of this, they propose introducing the proportional representation system because they think that this can resolve the problems in the community. This I disagree. Indeed, the proportional representation system has the merit of allowing people representing minority voices to join the DCs. Although this system is adopted by the Legislative Council, does it mean that such problems as the siting of obnoxious facilities in districts be resolved easily? Despite DCs' opposition to the extension of landfills, the Legislative Council, which was formed through the proportional representation system, similarly objects to the proposal. Hence, I think that even if DCs are returned by the proportional representation system, they will still not be able to resolve disputes in the community more effectively than they do now. On the contrary, the Legislative Council, which is returned by the proportional representation system, has become more and more confrontational, and the Government has found it harder and harder to lobby Members' support, too. Such a phenomenon is evident to all. Just now, Ms LAU also mentioned her concern about the delineation of the DC constituency area. She said that judges had no idea of the delineation and, what is more, the present delineation is aimed at suppressing the pan-democracy camp. Accusations or remarks like that are very unfair to judges. Honestly, everyone believes that judges are fair and impartial, but the truth is they may not have an in-depth understanding of everything. Although the investigation into the Lamma marine disaster is led by a Judge, I do not believe he necessarily has a thorough knowledge of everything. He can only base on the views of all stakeholders and expert reports to make a fair and impartial judgment. Hence, I disagree with the remark made by Ms LAU just now, that judges have no idea of how to delineate the boundaries of DC constituencies and certain political parties or groups might be favoured as a result of the existing delineation. In fact, different political parties and groupings will have their own opinions on the outcome of the delineation of the boundaries of DC constituencies. It is true that such situation is a common phenomenon after all elections. Nevertheless, I am still convinced that judges are fair and impartial.


1971

Just now, a Member mentioned that the Government's housing production target cannot be achieved because it is blocked or opposed by DCs or DC members. I would like to make two points in response to this remark. To my understanding, the Government's current proposal of pursuing development of new towns on a large scale, including the North East New Territories (NENT), and our proposal of developing Lantau are vigorously supported by DCs. The NENT New Development Areas Project, if implemented, will lead to the development of another new town. In my opinion, the opponents are not DC members of the district, but some other people. Just now, another Member also mentioned the resistance met by the Government in seeking to build residential blocks on every available site in developed communities. I have discussed with various DCs and found that they actually understand the Government's housing production need and wish to complement the Government's efforts by all means. The problem is they hope that when there is a need to identify sites for housing production, the Government can regard them as partners rather than lobbying them only after the identification of preferred sites. Instead, they hope that the Government can discuss with various DCs at the initial planning stage and make joint efforts in identifying suitable sites in the districts for purposes of increasing land and housing supply. The view of DC members is that, despite the great efforts made by government departments to lobby DCs on every occasion, there is a complete lack of discussions at the initial stage. I hope conflicts like that can be addressed properly in future, so that a step forward can be taken by all parties. DC members fully understand the problem of inadequate living space faced by the public and the Government's need to identify sites for housing production and additional community facilities. Nevertheless, I hope that government departments can discuss with DC members at an earlier stage. As regards the requests made by DCs for ancillary facilities, the one made by Sha Tin DC in response to the Government's intention to increase the density of housing construction is actually reasonable. While DC members understand the Government's intention, they just hope that it can demonstrate a commitment to the ancillary transport and community facilities in the district. Otherwise, the conflicts arising from inadequate resources when the additional population begins to move into the district will become another problem for the Legislative Council, Sha Tin DC and the Government. I must clarify that the request made by DC


members is confined to ancillary facilities only. They have no objection to the production of additional housing flats or construction works. I would also like to say a few words on how to further support the work of DCs and enhance district administration. The slogan proposed by the Chief Executive during the Chief Executive Election, which reads "addressing district issues at the district level and capitalizing on local opportunities", was supported by the majority of DC members. So far, however, each DC has received only $100 million from the Government at its free disposal. I absolutely support this measure because the provision makes it possible for DCs to implement projects for the first time through internal discussion. During my initial communication with the Bureau, I expressed my hope that the provision could be used not only for construction, but also for DCs to design projects for application by the public. If the provision amount can be enhanced in future, I hope the Government can give DCs greater flexibility to launch projects or initiatives, so that they can take practical action to demonstrate to the public their capability of doing solid work for the community. Nevertheless, it appears that concrete measures have not been taken in other aspects. For instance, how can district issues be addressed at the district level? Regarding this part, I hope the Secretary can give us a response in his reply later or a detailed explanation on other occasions in future. In fact, DC members have time and again appeared before this Council or attended DC meetings to bring up a wide range of district problems, including street management, water seepage, vehicle parking, and so on. Government officials might have already heard of things like that. However, unlike other matters, these problems have not been accorded priority on the agenda of Bureau Directors or Heads of Departments. It is precisely for this reason that the problems discussed by DCs over a long period of time appear to remain unresolved yet. Such being the case, how can the idea advocated by the Chief Executive of "addressing district issues at the district level" be realized? In my opinion, the Government should give this issue further thoughts in future. Just now, some other Members expressed the hope that the Government can give further support to DCs and DC members. I feel very pleased because the issue of raising the amount of accountable allowance for DC members is on the agenda of the meeting to be held by the Panel on Home Affairs this Friday. I


1973

have to declare that I am a DC member, too. In fact, not only are DC members, particularly those with offices set up in private buildings, facing rental pressure, they also find it difficult to identify suitable premises to set up their offices. Furthermore, the annual rental increase is quite alarming. The increase in the amount of accountable allowance for DC members can indeed raise the standard of service provided by DC members. While it is crucial to give support to DC members, it is equally crucial to give support to the District Council Secretariat. When I chatted with District Office staff, District Officers and colleagues of the District Council Secretariat, I found that they were under considerable stress. Let me cite Liaison Officers, whom I am most familiar with, as examples. They are often required to join DC members at meetings with building management bodies, but one Liaison Officer has to serve three or four DC constituencies. Their workload is thus imaginable. I have also seen colleagues in a certain District Council Secretariat posting slogans that complain about enormous workloads. I do not wish to see the staff of the Home Affairs Bureau or District Offices follow in the footsteps of those of the Buildings Department, who have to go on strike to urge the Department to provide more resources. I hope the authorities concerned can address the manpower problems faced by DCs seriously. Lastly, I have to emphasize again that the Bureau should continue to respect DCs and DC members. To give the matter its fair deal, in addition to the numerous discussions held by this Council on the relevant issues, actual improvements have actually been seen in recent years, with department heads and government officials given the opportunities to visit various DCs. Being a DC member as well as a Legislative Council Member, I feel that the treatments accorded to them are different. When a government department receives a telephone call from a DC member, it might not give a reply even after a long delay. On the contrary, if it receives a telephone call from a Legislative Council Member, it will give a reply more promptly. This is not helpful to DC members in resolving the problems faced by the public in concrete terms. I hope government departments can take practical actions to demonstrate that they take DC members and DCs seriously. In addition to paying visits to DC members or DCs, the Government should deploy officials of an appropriate rank to deal with cases referred by DC members as well as their requests, and respond to their requests in due course.


Deputy President, I hope I can discuss with the Bureau and Members ways to improve or enhance district administration on other occasions to further improve the functions of DCs and enable DC members to provide more targeted services. Deputy President, I so submit. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after the reunification, we have conducted a number of reviews on the functions of DCs. In each review, it was proposed that the powers had to be devolved, but what powers have to be devolved? Members can think about this. We can look at what the functions are prescribed by section 61 of the District Council Ordinance (Cap. 547) for the DCs. They are to advise the Government on matters affecting the well-being of the people and on projects in their districts and to undertake local public works with the public funds allocated. The scope of duties of our DC members is just this small, so when we talk about the so-called reviews of the functions of DCs, what are they actually about? As some Honourable colleagues said, there ought to be more funding and greater respect, but can this enhance the functions of DCs? In fact, "turning to people who are helpful but not pleasing in difficult times, while turning to people who are pleasing but cannot help in happy times" is the best depiction of DC members. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) As far as I can remember, I may be one of the few Honourable colleagues in the Council who once served in the Urban Council. The Urban Council Ordinance clearly provided for an independent financial framework for the Urban Council. Although the decisions passed by the Urban Council were limited in scope, when government departments performed the actual administrative tasks, they were still bound by the decisions. Therefore, when we had discussions in the Urban Council, in one way or another, we had to resolve the matters that fell within its ambit, and in the era of the Urban Council, they included the management of environmental hygiene, libraries, public parks and museums, as well as street and hawker management. All these fell within the ambit of the Urban Council. Insofar as these areas were concerned, the Urban Services Department was the executive arm of the Urban Council. Those were the


1975

powers in district administration that we actually possessed in local representative councils, so that we could work on the administration of the district and devise strategies and tactics for it. Most importantly, when devising strategies and tactics, we had to face financial pressure and were also duty-bound to resolve issues that fell within our ambit. This morning, when Secretary WONG Kam-sing talked about the landfills, he was roundly criticized. However, in the era of the Urban Council, the Urban Council decided that incinerators had to be built, even if they had to be located in the urban area. Nowadays, building an incinerator in the urban area would be an unimaginable decision. However, why did we decide to do so back then? The reason was that if we wanted to solve the problem of refuse management in the urban area, it would not be possible for us not to procure and install tools for terminal treatment and incinerators were the best option given the limited space. Therefore, in the era of the Urban Council, in the face of the difficulties and the disputes over not putting such things as refuse in one's backyard, that is, the concept of "not in my backyard", as is the case nowadays, since we had the responsibility to deal with our own problems, so given the powers and responsibilities vested in us, surprisingly, the measure to build incinerators in the urban area was taken. Unfortunately, in 2000, the Government took the drastic measure of dissolving an organization of district administration that had the greatest political energy and actual powers among the representative councils and in the system, so all the powers of the Urban Council were handed back to the Government. At that time, the Government said, "The Government can do an even better job!" Some 12 or 13 years have passed, have Members ever thought about the issues relating to our district administration? Are our streets cleaner under its management? Is there any clear direction for our cultural policy? Is there any improvement in street and hawker management? Courting for trouble and backfiring are the best descriptions of the measure to abolish the two Municipal Councils by the Government. Today, even if we were to argue until the day breaks, we still would not be able to resolve the issues relating to an incinerator, so had the Urban Council still existed, an incinerator would have been built long ago. In the final analysis, what is the problem? The crux of the problem is how to give the representative councils powers and responsibilities when they have discussions in their chambers. What do powers and responsibilities mean? Naturally, people who


are elected have the responsibility to speak for the public and naturally, they also have the power to monitor the administration by the Government. However, when we put forward proposals, we should consider if they can be implemented and whether or not we will encounter unmanageable financial pressure. This kind of discussion can only take place in representative councils with powers and responsibilities. In the case of the existing DCs, the responsibility of members is to voice their opinions and all of them think that the views voiced by them are correct, demanding that the Government attach importance to their views. Moreover, since the Government is a weak one and its proposals have to be passed back and forth several times in the course of consultation ― I do not mean that consultations are unimportant ― if such consultations are just a waste of time and the purpose is just to listen to the views of all parties but when having discussions, people still say that they want to have the moon in the sky, how possibly can we solve the problems? Secretary, in fact, I have already mentioned a number of times the review of the functions of DCs soon to be conducted by the Government and I have already called on you and requested a number of times that you take the initiative in the review. However, you only handed the relevant task back to the Home Affairs Bureau. Although the Bureau is one of the departments that are accountable to us, this is a matter of changing the political system, so unless you are in charge, nothing much can be changed and in the end, it will again cost money. Just now, an Honourable colleague said that it was not bad at all if $100 million was available at our disposal, that we could consider how to carry out development in the local communities and that if $30 million was allocated each year, it could be used for community development. However, if Members find that even if we have these sums of money, we still cannot do anything, what is the point of having them? If the projects to be carried out by us would incur recurrent expenditures for the Government, that is, recurring and long-term financial commitment, they cannot be carried out. In that event, may I ask what can possibly be achieved by allocating funds to the DCs to carry out projects? Secretary, if you take a stroll outside, what do you think the most common local projects in various districts are nowadays? They are covered walkways. Why do we have to build so many covered walkways? Apart from addressing the needs of the public, another reason is that we have too much money left and do not know on what to spend them. Since the scope in which we can spend the funds is so small, how else can we spend them?


1977

Secretary, although the discussion this time around is about adding a few seats to some DCs, it is actually not worthwhile to discuss it. However, when we discuss the functions of DCs and if we want to carry out a review of their functions, yet we are not allowed to do anything about this piece of legislation, that is, if you let something slip through your fingers, we can proceed but if you do not, then we cannot, what actually is this matter about? Frankly speaking, perhaps I belong to the minority of Members who would talk about this sort of things. Each time you asked if it was necessary to increase the salaries and subsidies for DC members, I believed that given our present functions, we actually need to change the system. However, if we talk purely about our salaries and subsidies, the amounts are by no means small. Honourable colleagues have already raised with you a number of times the fact that many Honourable colleagues renting commercial premises are paying very high rents, so their burden is very heavy. The correct approach to deal with this should be: If Honourable colleagues have no alternative but to rent premises in shopping arcades, the relevant rental expenses should be regarded as part of the accountable expenses. However, you have not done so. Rather, in dealing with this, you have mixed everything together. Of course, if you were to give it to me, I would not say generously that I do not want it. I would not say so. However, the problem is that this cannot resolve the crux of the problem. The functions of DC Members cannot be enhanced through the review and their outlook cannot be broadened through the electoral system for the DCs. We often criticize DC members for their insular vision. How can their vision not be narrow? If I find that my voters come only from four buildings, I know that the 15 000 people in these four buildings are my electorate base, that is, the people and group I have to serve. In such an electoral system, how can I not focus on the needs of my voters? If you say that this is not related to the electoral system, I really have to ask the Secretary to enlighten me for what reasons DC members are criticized by the public or society as having limited vision? Have you ever thought about the reasons? Have you ever targeted the causes and proposed solutions? Or would you only say that it is difficult to do so, that of course, you know where the problem lies and that the solution is to broaden the scope for the DCs but since


this amounts to political suicide, this must not be done? However, Secretary, if society does not even discuss such a fundamental issue, the DC system that we have all along maintained would not make any progress. Therefore, I wonder if it would be too late, but if a review of the functions of DCs were really conducted, here, I hope that you would take charge of it. Even if you do not take charge of it … or rather, you and the Home Affairs Bureau should take charge of it together, so that all parties can have the opportunity to discuss whether or not the functions as prescribed by the District Council Ordinance are appropriate. Can they address the needs of society nowadays? Is it necessary to conduct a review? Back then, the Government promised after abolishing the Urban Council that its functions would be devolved to the DCs, so how did it do so? How much power has it devolved? Can it tell the general public openly how different the Urban Council back then was from the DCs nowadays? If it does not give a clear account of such matters, it is actually resorting to hypocritical rhetoric, that is, by increasing the funds allocated to DC members, so that they can do some more things, it equates this with the devolution of power. However, if we think further, this is as different as heaven and earth are. Back then, the resources controlled by the two Municipal Councils amounted to $13.5 billion and the executive arm under them, that is, the Urban Services Department, had a staff of 30 000 people. Their work arrangements would all be affected by the decisions made by the Urban Council. For example, a very simple question is, "Should the opening hours of libraries be extended?" Even such a simple arrangement involves the issue of resource distribution. It caused a heated debate when the Urban Council discussed it. However, after a decision had been made, the Urban Services Department could not refuse to implement the relevant decision. This trains people involved in politics to take the consequences of and responsibility for the decisions made by them, so is this not the kind of political system that we are pursuing? If we say that there are not enough political talents in society, should the Government not conduct a review in earnest of the organization and functions of more than 500 DC members and the DCs from this angle to provide a channel and platform to our society to groom political talents? Otherwise, the Government will always try to cite such an excuse to block the progress of democratization, saying all the time that political talents in Hong Kong society


1979

are insufficient, whereas the true reason is that the Government does not want to undertake such a task and has no intention of dealing with this matter, thus causing perpetual confusion over the issue of whether the chicken or the egg existed in the first place. President, under our political structure, a review of the functions of DC members is very important. I hope very much that the Secretary can really listen carefully and truly understand the crux of the problem, as it cannot be solved simply by the allocation of funds. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is suffering from leg injuries, special seating arrangement has to be made for him and the electronic voting system used by him has also been adjusted accordingly. Mr LEUNG, please speak. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, when it comes to a review of the functions of DCs, it is impossible not to consider it from the angle of the constitutional review for the whole territory. In fact, when the two Municipal Councils were scrapped back then, this issue was also considered, that is, changing the representative government from three tiers to two tiers. In my opinion, the three-tier system of representative government posed some obstacles to the SAR Government's administration back then. This is because any representative council, no matter how its relationship with the Government is like, that is, no matter if it is controlled by a majority political party or not, will surely check the Government, so with one representative council less, there would be less trouble for the Government. As a result, the tier of representative council as represented by the Urban Council was abolished. After abolishing a representative council with solid powers and independent sources of finance, naturally, the services provided using the relevant resources and according to the powers conferred by law also disappeared. At that time, the SAR Government thought that this would be even better. Without a superfluous tier of representative council, the various powers and functions could simply be handed over to the DCs. This promise was made with apparent sincerity and


assertion back then. Be it on the ground of getting a share of the pie, or that of "killing someone, seizing his goods and sharing the spoils", or due to their support for the Government, many Members took various courses of actions. Now, in retrospect, TUNG Chee-hwa is now "defunct", that is, politically speaking, he is no longer in office and it is not possible to hold him accountable, so we now hold the present Government accountable. LEUNG Chun-ying said that this had to be solved on the spot, just like killing someone and seizing his goods on the spot, or killing someone and taking his money. In the context of Hong Kong, to talk about resolving an issue on the spot is actually nonsense. If we talk about power sharing, it surely involves autonomy and autonomy is surely founded on differences. May I ask the Secretary what is the difference between the busiest district in Tsim Sha Tsui and Tin Shui Wai nowadays? That means the aim of what is called urbanization or becoming a world city is to narrow the differences among districts ― except the rent ― so on this issue, there is indeed no need for autonomy in overall administration. In that case, why is it still necessary to retain the DCs? The answer is very simple. First, they are rubber stamps, that is, if another tier of representative council is added, that would cause a big problem. This is the first reason. The second reason is that in the districts, some … I also heard Ms Starry LEE talk about this ― with 17 000 people, a DC member has to work till he pukes, and this I also know. I live in Kai Yip Estate and those people are bustling about really busily, playing a part in giving away rice and everything. In fact, if they do so, that is not a representative council and they are not members of representative councils. In fact, those are the duties of District Officers, that is, whenever there is anything relating to hidden public problems, public discontent, disaster relief or celebration, it is up to these officers to deal with all of them. In fact, what are the differences between the responsibilities and actual work of the members of a DC and those of a government civil servant? I cannot see any difference. That is, to liaise with residents somewhat and if they need any help or a transfer, one helps them resolve such matters, for example, by approaching social workers because by doing so, the matters can be resolved more quickly. Then, the social workers will approach doctors and a matter can be resolved even more quickly. Therefore, in this regard, it is practically impossible for the DCs to do anything.


1981

Now, the Government has allocated $100 million to the DCs as promised for their use, but there are also some restrictions. The DCs cannot do what the Government will do in the future. In that case, how can this $100 million be used? Let me tell you that this $100 million can only be used for one thing, that is, only giving the political parties or DC members controlling a DC more money to be used as rewards. Let me make it clear that they are rewards. Under this corrupt system, the powerful and privileged on the upper tier are receiving huge sums as reward for services, so I do not consider it excessive if DC members use public funds to give local residents rewards in order to buy a seat. If we have come to such a conclusion, naturally, the reform of DCs is related to the implementation of district autonomy or power sharing arrangements with the Government. May I ask the Government … at present, the matters that can be decided by DCs are already constrained by the central political system. This is very simple. The Town Planning Board has supreme power in what is to be decided by it. What we have now, for example, the Transport Advisory Committee, are all advisory bodies passed down by the British-Hong Kong Government and it is up to the Chief Executive to dictate the subjects of consultation, then the biggest rubber stamp will be given by these subjects of consultation before a matter is referred to the DCs or introduced into the Legislative Council. Even the Legislative Council finds it impossible to counter, so how possibly can the DCs counter? Therefore, on this issue, let me tell you that I am hundred percent sure that the political reform of the DCs must enable them to have substantive powers and independent financial resources. A long time ago, Sir Mark YOUNG of the British-Hong Kong Government already said that Hong Kong should be divided into five large districts. The members of representative councils in these five districts were to be either called DC members or Legislative Council Members, who would bargain directly with the Government in the representative councils and work directly with the bureaucracy, that is, the Government. What is the problem with this? To revive the Urban Council? It is already too late. So the reform of the Legislative Council definitely has to be considered. If it is really impossible to deal with this problem, as claimed by Ms Starry LEE or other Members, is it actually attributable to the excessively small size of the constituencies, the excessively small number of service recipients or the small number of people that makes it possible to hand out rewards directly? Frankly speaking, there are differences. If there are 17 000 people and each person is given $3, that would


cost $51,000, but if you try to give 170 000 people $3 each, that would cost $510 000. This is very simple logic. When it comes to this point, if the central political system is not reformed, and this is related to the reform of the Legislative Council in 2016 … after this very hideous product called functional constituencies has been given the boot, it would do just to change those seats into seats returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections. Just expand the constituencies, then make the DCs the foundation and that would do. This is because one can win in the direct elections of geographical constituencies only if one has the power in the DCs. If the system is not that of proportional representation, the other half can be turned into the party list system, that is, people have to vote for political parties, for example, to vote for the League of Social Democrats, with "Long Hair" being the first on the list, and the votes garnered will then be allocated. This is entirely reasonable and proven, is this not? It is only necessary to divide the directly-elected seats into five or six or seven districts and I do not care. If the Government does not do so, and if nothing much can be done in 2016, I can simply say that today, in talking about reforming the DCs here, we are not undertaking our proper pursuits, preoccupied only with minor issues. As long as the reform in 2016 is not settled, how can there be a way out? I cannot see any way out. As regards Ms Starry LEE's point about the DCs being the venue for grooming political talents, I think this is correct. Members can look at Ms Starry LEE. How long did it take her to rise from being a DC member to being a Member of the Executive Council? To describe it as flying in a helicopter would still be too slow, buddy. We should say a rocket launcher instead, should we not? Who in the DCs, as a representative councils … I would simply say that whoever says that members of the DCs have deliberated on a wide array of subject matters and have made great contribution is just talking through his hat. Who knows about that? Which DC member was elected a Legislative Council Member on account of his first-rate political views? It is not like this. It is only on account of the system of political inheritance and the fact that someone belongs to one's camp that he is promoted to serve in the Legislative Council. If someone fares even better, he would be promoted to become an Executive Council Member. Therefore, if it is said that DCs are the venue for grooming political talents, this is utterly a failure, buddy. One cannot say that because someone was once a


1983

DC member and eventually, he became the Chief Executive, so the DCs are the venue for grooming chief executives. This is a lame argument. Therefore, the whole question is actually like this: The politics of the DCs is only pork barrel politics and back then, when the British-Hong Kong Government established the DCs, it wanted to create a "three-legged stool" as it wanted to counter the resumption of sovereignty, and so set up an organization of public opinion as the support. Apart from this, it has no other use. For this reason, on this point, I believe that if we want to make the members of DCs accountable, only elections can make them accountable. What does this mean? It means that the representative councils would not act against public opinion and if they do, they will be punished. This is very simple and this will happen later. Will you be present later on? There was 70% public support for the legislature to invoke the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to investigate the black-box operation undertaken by LEUNG Chun-ying but today, can the legislature reflect public opinion? In voting against the motion on invoking the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, will they get their retribution? No, they will not. Therefore, this is so in the Legislative Council and it is also like this in the DCs because frankly speaking, how can such matters as cleansing of sewers in the DCs reflect whether or not the political views of DC members are correct or not, and how can they reflect if they are responsible? They just cannot. At present, the DCs have developed into super District Officers or relief officers. Therefore, so long as a political party has the manpower, materials and resources to provide social services, its members can become DC members and this is a self-sufficient system. This is very simple and to cut it short, which political party can control such matters? It is the Communist Party of China (CPC). If we just talk about the organizations governed by the CPC in Hong Kong, there are innumerable ones that are both overt and clandestine. If not, they would not have been engaged in internecine feuds. Therefore, if this system of DCs lingers on, it would only lower the intelligence of the public. I can put it this way: The public would only care about "snake feasts or seasonal delicacies" but of course, after having them, one do not necessarily have to vote for those people. But the organization of snake feasts or giving away seasonal delicacies have become their tools for brainwashing. Therefore, on this point, I hope that when Secretary Raymond TAM gives a reply later on, he can talk about whether or not he thinks that in the reforms of the


Legislative Council in 2016, practical measures will be taken to reintroduce the arrangement of making Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections directly accountable to their constituencies? If the list system is adopted for the other half of the seats in the Legislative Council elections, of course, this piece of junk called DCs can be dispensed with. Otherwise, what are we going to reform by spending another $1 billion or more? I remember that when I was small and my mother was playing mahjong, I was also like this. I would tuck at the hem of her clothes and say, "Mom, I am sleepy", "Mom, I have a stomachache" or "Mom, my eyes hurt". Then, my mom would give me 50 cents, saying, "You brat, take this, buy something to eat and stop pestering me.". At present, the whole structure of DCs has precisely degenerated to such a state, to a machine used by the Government to fool the public with public funds. Therefore, my view is very simple. Today, the high praises of the DCs sung by some people here only reflect the fact that the DCs only represent the continuation of a way of fooling and harnessing the public from the British-Hong Kong era to the present. Therefore, I hope our legislature can summon the courage to implement constitutional reforms as soon as possible by conferring the power of district administration directly on Legislative Council Members returned through universal suffrage, so that they can answer to their voters, have sufficient power to lobby for district autonomy, have sufficient power to reflect the views in the districts and have sufficient financial power to truly carry out local development. I hope our legislature would be able to do so. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs to reply. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied.


1985

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Members who spoke just now for all expressing their agreement or not voicing disagreement with the details of the Amendment of Schedule 3 Order proposed today. As I said in my opening speech, we propose that the number of elected seats in the DCs be increased by 19 starting from 2016. This proposal is made on basis of objective data and reasonable considerations, including the abolition of all DC appointed seats from the term of DCs in that year onwards. Once again, I thank Members for their support in this regard. Just now, many Members raised some views that are beyond the scope of this motion, so I wish to take this opportunity to give a general response. Some of the viewpoints are indeed outside the portfolio of my Policy Bureau. Nevertheless, just now, I still listened to them carefully and will also bring the views expressed just now, in particular, the views on district administration, back to our team and report them to the Secretaries concerned, and even to the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Chief Executive. Just now, a Member talked about the demarcation of constituencies and here, I reiterate that the Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC) is an independent statutory body that has worked according to law and undertaken the demarcation of constituencies in an open, fair and impartial manner throughout the years. The demarcation exercise is carried out in strict accordance with the relevant laws. Under our current laws and regulations, apart from making reference to the population quota mentioned by me just now, the law also permits a certain degree of flexibility, so that the factors mentioned by a number of Members just now, such as geographical size and local characteristics, can be taken into account. In this process, the EAC will, as was its past practice, carry out extensive consultation. I believe that be it members of local communities, the public at large or the members of representative councils, they all surely will have many opportunities to put forward their views and proposals on demarcation in due course. The EAC will also prepare a report after concluding the work in this regard. Of course, this report will give an account of the views and representations received during the consultation period and give an account of the grounds for accepting or not accepting the arguments in the representations. All these will be set out in the report and of course, the report will also be made


available for public inspection. Therefore, when launching the exercise in this regard in the first half of next year, I believe Members will surely have many opportunities to present their views to the EAC. Just now, some Members also raised some rather fundamental issues, including whether or not the population quota should be kept at about 17 000 people as the reference for one seat, whether the electoral system should be changed from the existing "single seat, single vote" system to that of "proportional representation", and so on. Just like the views and positions expressed by us in this regard at the meetings of the Subcommittee, we believe the population quota has been adopted since the 1990s and throughout so many years, the "single seat, single vote" system has also been adopted in all DC elections. It seems that judging from past experience, adopting the population quota as the criterion and this electoral system are both familiar to and widely accepted by the public. Of course, just now, many Members voiced their views in this regard and I could also hear Members voice different views. We will take them back with us, so that we can consider the issues in this regard. However, I wish to talk about some of my personal observations here. Because of my work, over the years, I have had discussions and interactions in the course of my work with many DCs and their members. The impression I gained is rather unlike that painted by individual Members just now, that is, the vision of DC members was rather narrow. On the contrary, I think many DC members have a very broad vision and they are willing to perspire a great deal and "roll up their sleeves", so to speak, in order to serve the local residents. In particular, in recent years, when I had chats with some younger DC members, I found that be it the macro and broad world vision or matters directly related to the daily lives and needs of local residents, they always borne all of them firmly in mind. Therefore, I think that regarding the system or the criterion of population quota for the DCs, given that the DC system is a labour-intensive mode of service, we cannot see any need for any fundamental change at this stage. Just now, a Member also raised the issue of ex officio seats. As we said in the past at the meetings of the relevant panel, the seats are certainly returned by elections, so they also have an element of democracy in them. In this regard, we will continue to listen to various views voiced by Members.


1987

Lastly, just now, many Members talked about issues relating to district administration and made suggestions in many areas, including the functions of DCs, the support and resources received by them and even their secretariats. Here, I can say on behalf of the SAR Government that we attach great importance to district administration. For this reason, the Home Affairs Bureau will submit some proposals on the provision of supportive resources to the Legislative Council this week for scrutiny, as a Member also said just now. In the past, a number of Members also voiced the difficulties or issues relating to the rental level of their offices. In this regard, I support meeting the operational needs of DC members as far as possible. Therefore, concerning Members' views on how to do an even better job of district administration, the team in the SAR Government and I hope that more improvements can be made. We will continue to listen humbly to Members' views and those of DC members in this regard. I know that Secretary TSANG Tak-shing and the Chief Executive have organized several meetings related to district administration and I will also join the one to be held later, so I hope that on that occasion, I can listen to more views in this regard. As I said just now, although the motion today is related to an increase in the number of elected seats for the DCs, on going back, we will carefully and prudently consider and make reference to the many valuable views raised by many Members just now. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.


MEMBERS' MOTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions. There are a total of four Members' motions for this meeting. First Member's motion: Mr Andrew LEUNG will move a motion under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure to take note of the Solicitors (General) Costs (Amendment) Rules 2013, which was included in Report No. 2/13-14 of the House Committee laid on the Table of this Council. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): According to the relevant debate procedure, I will first call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion, and then call upon the chairman of the subcommittee formed to scrutinize the relevant item of subsidiary legislation, Mr Dennis KWOK, to speak, to be followed by other Members. Each Member (including the mover of the motion) may only speak once and may speak for up to 15 minutes. Finally, I will call upon the public officer to speak. The debate will come to a close after the public officer has spoken, and the motion will not be put to vote. Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion. MOTION UNDER RULE 49E(2) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the House Committee, I move the motion, as printed on the Agenda, under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure to allow Members to have a debate on the Solicitors (General) Costs (Amendment) Rules 2013 which was included in Report No. 2/13-14 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments. I so submit.


1989

Mr Andrew LEUNG moved the following motion:

"That this Council takes note of Report No. 2/13-14 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 6 November 2013 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below:

Item Number Title of Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument

(1) Solicitors (General) Costs (Amendment) Rules 2013

(L.N. 110/2013)."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed. MR DENNIS KWOK: In my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Solicitors (General) Costs (Amendment) Rules 2013 (the Subcommittee) gazetted on 21 June 2013 as L.N. 110 of 2013, I report on the main deliberations of the Subcommittee.

The Solicitors (General) Costs (Amendment) Rules 2013 (the Rules) amends the Third Schedule to the Solicitors (General) Costs Rules, which apply to all solicitors' non-contentious business except for any such business which is provided for or regulated by the Solicitors (Trade Marks and Patents) Costs Rules made under section 74 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (LPO).

As L.N. 110 was made by the Council of The Law Society of Hong Kong

instead of by the proper body, the Costs Committee, as required under section 74 of the LPO, the Subcommittee is of the view that L.N. 110 is void ab initio and does not have any legal effect. The Administration admits this to be the case. However, since L.N. 110 has already been gazetted, the Subcommittee would still need to find a way to deal with and resolve the current situation. The Administration has proposed for members' consideration three options of dealing with the matter. The first option is the publication of a new set of


rules to be made by the Costs Committee with a Corrigendum in the Gazette to explain the error. The second option is the express repeal of the Rules under section 34 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. The third option is the validation of the Rules by legislation. Members agree that validation of the Rules by legislation is not an appropriate option for the present case. Although the majority of the members of the Subcommittee supports the publication of a new set of rules to be made by the Costs Committee with a Corrigendum in the Gazette to explain the error under Option 1, Mr Ronny TONG and myself are of the view that moving a motion to repeal the Rules under Option 2 would ensure the most complete legal certainty and finality. The arguments in support of Options 1 and 2 are set out in the report submitted to the members. President, the Subcommittee urges the Administration to request the Costs Committee to expedite the making of a new set of rules together with the publication of a Corrigendum in the Gazette to clarify the matter and to explain the background and history. To prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in the future, members consider that the Administration should also follow up with related parties on the proper procedure for the making of subsidiary legislation relating to the legal professional bodies. President, the above is my report on the Subcommittee's work. I shall now express my personal views on the Rules. Let us hope that The Law Society of Hong Kong will not screw up again by using the wrong procedure. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, Members have finished speaking, I now call upon the Secretary for Justice to reply. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied.


1991

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): President, the Solicitors (General) Costs (Amendment) Rules 2013 (the Rules) made under section 74 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (LPO) was gazetted on 21 June 2013 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council afterwards. Under section 74(3)(a) of the LPO, the Rules should be made by the Costs Committee. However, the Rules published in the Gazette were made by members of the Council of The Law Society of Hong Kong rather than members of the Costs Committee. In view of this, the House Committee of the Legislative Council formed a subcommittee to study the validity of the Rules and the follow-up actions to be taken. The Subcommittee has held two meetings. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman, Mr Dennis KWOK, and other members for their valuable views. As mentioned in the report tabled by the Subcommittee, the Administration has proposed three options for the consideration of the Subcommittee. As the details have been set out in the report, I will not repeat them here. One of the options, or Option 1 as mentioned in the report, is the publication of a new set of rules to be made by the Costs Committee with a corrigendum in the Gazette to explain the error. The Administration has advised that this option is more desirable and the majority of members of the Subcommittee also consider that Option 1 should be adopted for the following reasons. Firstly, according to the records, it is apparent that the Rules published in the Gazette on 21 June are not made by the proper authority vested with the requisite powers under the LPO. Secondly, there is no pending or ongoing court case that challenges the legal effect of the Rules as a piece of subsidiary legislation. Thirdly, the Rules have not yet come into operation. Fourthly, there are precedent cases on the adoption of approaches similar to Option 1. Finally, Option 1 is the most straightforward and simplest option among the three options. It has been learnt that the Costs Committee will soon convene a meeting to follow up this matter. I believe The Law Society of Hong Kong will also adopt suitable measures to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents. I so submit. Thank you, President.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 49E(9) of the Rules of Procedure, I will not put any question on the motion. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second Member's motion: Motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. (Mr Charles Peter MOK stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your point? MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second Member's motion: Motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon Mr Charles Peter MOK to speak and move the motion. MOTION UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed so that we can launch an inquiry and obtain the relevant documents involved in the issuance of free television programme service licences (free TV licences).


1993

President, many protesters have been waiting outside for a long time and will later begin to hold an assembly at 6 pm. I hope this television set will not have any technical failure, thus allowing us to see the demonstrators outside this Chamber live. Meanwhile, they will also listen to the speech of each Member in this Chamber. President, the storm over the issuance of domestic free TV licences is really not simply about watching television. It is about the future development of the creative industries and the situation and development of the free market of Hong Kong. Do not think that only those who are television fans will be very concerned about the incident. I, as a Legislative Council Member from the business sector, also agree with the concerns of the business sector as mentioned by Mr James TIEN. He said that the business sector feels concerned about the damage caused by this incident to the proven system of fairness in Hong Kong as they may query whether the rule of law or the rule of man will prevail. How can the public believe there is fair competition in tender exercises? Will the goalposts the game be moved in the middle of a contest? Not only Mr TIEN, friends in the business sector, including big corporations and small and medium enterprises, all said unanimously that we should push the Government to give a clear explanation instead of turning a blind eye to such an incident. According to an opinion poll conducted by Ming Pao Daily News on Monday, 66% of the respondents supported our moving the motion today to invoke the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) while only 17.5% were not supportive. As many as 77% of the interviewees were dissatisfied with the Government's handling of the licensing issue. I absolutely do not believe that this so very much perfunctory elaboration released by the Government yesterday can make more people feel satisfied with it. On the contrary, more and more people have criticized the Government during the past several weeks for the manner in which it has handled the issue. In the political sector, the situation is star-studded. Those critiques of the Government included the President, Rita FAN, Henry TANG, Dr Allen LEE, Selina CHOW, LAU Siu-kai, Frederick MA, Joseph WONG, Dr York CHOW as well as a number of ex-Members of the Executive Council. Can you imagine how bad the situation is? The Secretary for Justice earlier said that neither my motion nor Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment could be passed. In other words, we cannot be allowed to


obtain those documents for three reasons. Actually, the very core documents we want to obtain are those four consultant's reports. However, the Secretary for Justice cited three untenable grounds for the refusal. The first untenable ground is the Executive Council's principle of confidentiality. Does the Secretary know what the principle of confidentiality says? The principle of confidentiality means that no individual should disclose the content of what has been discussed during the Executive Council meetings. But as a representative of the whole Executive Council, the Government certainly can and should announce all decisions made after discussion together with justifications for arriving at such decisions. We have to clarify once again that we are not asking for any minutes of meeting. We want to obtain a technical department's consultant's reports financed by public funds. This technical department is at least two notches below the Executive Council. We are simply asking for the four consultant's reports that have been compiled by the same company between 2010 and 2012, not to mention the fact that the reports have already been partially disclosed by the mass media. According to the statement by the Secretariat of the Executive Council on 20 October, the Executive Council had considered some of the contents of the documents quoted in Ming Pao Daily News and Cable TV on 19 October. But they are not Executive Council documents. In other words, the Executive Council admits that documents considered it will not automatically turn into Executive Council documents. In the Executive Council Secretariat's reply yesterday, the consultant's reports on the "competition implications of new entrants to the local free TV market" which the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) has been demanding to disclose to the public were mentioned. These are the four consultant's reports that we are asking for this time. These documents have not automatically turned into Executive Council documents and, therefore, we should have access to these reports. Quite the contrary, the irresponsible remarks made selectively by some authoritative sources within the Government have damaged the system of confidentiality of the Executive Council. I hope the Secretary can tell us later who that authoritative government sources are. Let me give you a hint ― eight Chinese characters in length. The weekly Next Magazine said they were Director of the Chief Executive's Office of Hong Kong Edward YAU, Director of Information Services Michael WONG and Executive Council Member CHEUNG Chi-Kong. Secretary, would you please confirm it? The Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) news also mentioned the


1995

eight Chinese characters, that is, "the authoritative government sources" indicated that the three Secretaries of Departments and most of the Executive Council Members have agreed to only issue two additional licences. It has obviously damaged the Executive Council's system of confidentiality. You people can do it, but the public are not allowed to even ask. What is wrong with you? The second untenable ground is commercial secrets. In the process of licence application, some of the important information is in fact gazetted. Besides, the three applicants are listed companies. What confidentiality are you talking about? Have you ever asked those three companies whether they were willing to disclose the information? Since HKTVN has agreed to the disclosure, why not ask the other two companies? Instead of asking, you just said "thanks" and treated them as a velvet carpet to retreat. The third untenable ground is equally absurd ― unable to say anything in view of the judicial review. But when someone suggested to withdraw the judicial review as long as you could disclose the documents, you ― not you but the Chief Executive ― stated that nothing can be said with or without judicial review. As a matter of fact, the Legal Adviser of this Council has made it very clear that the legal proceedings and powers are completely independent of the procedures and powers of the Legislative Council. They are not mutually exclusive. The intention of the pro-establishment camp to avoid this issue is no different from self-castration. It is a political decision that is entirely irresponsible, one that smacks of dereliction of duty on the part of Members. Through the very beginning till the end, there have been two main issues about free TV licences. The first issue is why "no ceiling" has been changed to "two out of three"? The second is why HKTVN has become the last on the list? As for these two questions, the first is more important than the second one. What we have seen recently is the fact that the mass media as well as the Government itself are constantly trying to divert our attention. What is their first tactic to divert our attention? We have learnt that the consultant's reports suggested that four licences are acceptable if the market condition is good. The reports added that the market, if in an ordinary condition, could only accommodate three licences. Sorry, I really think that this is simply bullshit. Ricky WONG said yesterday that the advertising market is dynamical. Even the consultant's reports indicated the same about the advertising market. Everybody


knows that not every licence operator is the same. To which companies are these four licences issued? The advertising net income of TVB during these three years has been increasing. Its income actually has been on the rise for years, or an annual increase of around $300 million to $500 million. The income of TVB in 2010 amounted to $3.73 billion with their ad-rate still rising. The market estimated that the Asia Television Limited (ATV) only accounted for $100 million to $200 million of the market. One TVB may possibly be equivalent to 30 ATVs in this term. When you say that the market can only accommodate four or two operators, it does not mean anything. Business can be big and small. Every business operator understands it. Simply providing a figure as to how many companies the market can accommodate does not mean anything. Having experienced the liberalization of the telecommunications market, we can tell you one thing: the conclusion is "a load of humbug", completely meaningless. Do not forget that the advertising industry also issued a joint statement on 25 October requesting an explanation by the Government. There is a lack of competition within the advertising industry, resulting in a monopoly wherein ad-rate can rise every year. What does it mean? In order to protect a company in a certain field of business, every other company, advertising agencies or business operators selling soft drinks or tissue paper have to be victimized or adversely affected. Very often, consumers will also be affected, as the burden of increasing advertising expenses will be shifted onto them. Regarding their second tactic to divert our attention, Mrs Regina IP said in a radio programme on Saturday that among the 10 applicants for Pay TV licence in 2000, five were approved while the remaining five were denied. Mrs Regina IP said that no explanation was given at that time as to why some applicants were denied. As a matter of fact, TVB and Ming Pao Daily News had once reported that the then Director of Information Technology and Broadcast Bureau had given an explanation although it was not shown in any document. But I can assert that he had explained in the press conference that applicants were declined because of their outdated networking technology and financial shortfalls, and so on. Besides, the Director's briefing at that time was very clear. Unsuccessful applicants had failed to meet the regulatory requirements and/or assessment criteria. There was no mention of whether the market could accommodate so many competitors. The number of operators at that time increased from two to seven. Among the newly increased licence operators, only one survived. But


1997

why was not the Government very nervous about those companies that closed down or could not survive? Since the market is an open one, let them compete among themselves. The complete change of policy is actually another diversion of public attention. Instead of evading our questions, the Government must explain why it has become "two out of three". The third tactic to divert attention is to adopt an ultimate move. Yesterday, I knew that many pro-establishment Members ― I talked to some of them ― have been waiting eagerly for the Government to give them further explanation within today so that they can feel secured to change their stances from being indecisive to straightforwardly opposing my motion as well as Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment. Yesterday morning, LEUNG Chun-ying said there was a six-page written explanation. I can only print out five of them. It really does not matter whether there are five or six pages. I think the Government is just running out of excuses. It is a pity that however they drag, there is no way for them to make out six pages. The Government has to stall until the last moment in the afternoon when the so-called detailed information is presented. It is, in fact, a kind of "insidious trick". In the end, the Government's written explanation has nothing to offer. It is really "flogging a dead horse" and "nothing new". I was wondering yesterday that I might have to rack my brain the whole night on how to respond if the Government was going to provide any new information. To my surprise, the Government has nearly provided nothing. There were only 11 factors in addition to four assessment criteria. But there was still no mention of the cause of death of HKTVN. The more the Government tries to explain, the more likely it is trying to cover up something. As for the specific conditions that the Executive Council has considered in applying those four main criteria to their assessment, I would like to know when those specific conditions were made. I have gone through the whole Guidance Note for Those Interested in Applying for Domestic Free Television Programme Service Licences in Hong Kong (Guidance Note). Pages 19 to 20 contain eight assessment criteria, but they are not about what the Government has said. I have no time reading out those criteria one by one, but I am sure that Members must have the Guidance Note. To put it simply, issues regarding holding company as mentioned in those five pages of explanation yesterday is nowhere to be found in the Guidance Note. On the contrary, the Guidance Note mentioned the benefits for viewers or consumers as well as the opportunities for new jobs to be created.


But the licensing criteria as mentioned in that five-page explanation are not found in the Guidance Note. Is it a kind of "moving the goalposts to suit the game" or "adopting unfair practices to win"? Moreover, the five pages of explanation implied implicitly that these four main criteria were introduced only at the stage of assessment by the Executive Council. This five-page explanation also mentioned that the consultants have invited them to make a statement regarding these criteria prior to the making of any licensing decision in the Executive Council. In other words, the criteria were made only at that stage. Do you think the Executive Council could introduce criteria not listed in the Guidance Note? Do you think the Executive Council could ignore the criteria listed in the Guidance Note? Since nobody thinks it is fair, how do we have the audacity to keep saying procedural justice? From those five pages, I feel that the "filibuster" was being stretched way beyond imagination. No wonder why the Government could not come up with Page 6. Let us see what they said. There was a point about whether the television market could be enlarged. It only said that the Executive Council's views varied. Some opines that it should be enlarged while some suggested that the market could not grow infinitely. If not stated clearly in the first place, I thought it was a consultative paper adopting an open standpoint. There is a remark in the explanation: "It is unnecessary to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to intervene in the matter. It will politicise the matter but offer no help in resolving it." However, this is huge disrespect to the Legislative Council because the Government has failed to face up to the public's request for resolution of the problem. On the contrary, the Government has shifted the responsibility to us, saying that we have politicized the incident. This is absolutely ridiculous. I have sympathy for Honourable colleagues from the pro-establishment camp because even such a highly intelligent man as Dr LAM Tai-fai also had to ponder over it last night. I am sure many pro-establishment Members were also looking for a graceful way to get out of the predicament. Now, there are "banana peels" everywhere and they are stuck as to how to "end it up". Things that Mr Michael TIEN said the day before yesterday were much more than those five pages combined. Mr Michael TIEN is not in the Chamber now although he was awe-inspiring the other day. To everyone's surprise, he quickly popped up yesterday to indicate his support for the Government by opposing the invocation of the P&P Ordinance. Even if there was nothing in those five pages, he dared


1999

say things were so "vividly portrayed" that the Government's explanation was already acceptable. When he has to question the Government in future, the government officials may just reply by saying that things are already "vividly portrayed" in the earlier explanation. Can anyone accept the saying that Mr Ricky WONG is not as rich as Mr LI or Mr NG? The Government has obviously "moved the goalposts to suit the game". He was so awe-inspiring the other day. But the very next day, he apparently surrendered. I am very disappointed. The voters really need to open up their eyes. I also hope that Members who have yet committed themselves can think about it thoroughly. All in all, we hope to invoke the P&P Ordinance to demand the Government to disclose these four consultancy reports with a view to checking clearly whether there are serious inconsistencies with the final outcome. What does the Government have to conceal? HKTVN requests the Government to agree to the disclosure of such information, but the Government does not agree. Instead, the Government prefers to divulge the information bit by bit and selectively inform some of the pro-establishment Members. The Government does not seem to worry about partial or selective disclosure. Why is the Government not afraid of misleading the public in this way? Today, the staff of HKTVN and I have arranged for some "honest steamed buns stuffed with red bean paste". I have put them inside the dinning hall for all of you. Members are welcome to eat one so that they may salvage their conscience and speak the truth when they give speeches and vote. Please support our motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance in order to inquire into the incident. I am just informed by the Secretariat that more than 4 000 emails and faxes have been received so far to request Members to support invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry. The statement made yesterday by HKTVN has also concluded that those five pages of explanation are inconclusive, untrue as well as unfair. President, there is nothing that cannot be said unless you have something to hide. Therefore, we have no way but to believe that the Government is concealing rather than explaining. I hereby urge the pro-establishment Members to vote according to their conscience. Thank you, President.


Mr Charles Peter MOK moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance to order the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development to attend before the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting on or before 8 November 2013 to produce all relevant papers, books, records or documents involved in the processes of vetting and approval of domestic free television programme service licence applications by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government (including but not limited to all relevant documents and reports submitted by the former Broadcasting Authority to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government)."

(Mr Kenneth LEUNG stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, what is your point? MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, since Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion and Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment involve the confidentiality system of the Executive Council and relevant documents being scrutinized by the Executive Council, please make a ruling according to Rules 84(1) and 84(1A) of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) as to whether the three Legislative Council Members who also serve as Executive Council Members can vote on the motion and the amendment in this Council. President, please make a ruling on this. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, on what grounds do you consider that the three Members who also serve as Executive Council Members shall not vote upon the question under Rule 84 of the RoP? MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the heading of Rule 84 of the RoP reads, "in case of Direct Pecuniary Interest". Given that the three Members also serve as Executive Council Members receiving direct emoluments


2001

and the relevant motion is directly related to certain powers of the Executive Council, including its confidentiality system, they have direct pecuniary interest in the question and therefore I intuitively feel that they have to withdraw and shall not vote upon the question. Would the President please make a ruling. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, as we all know, the motion and amendment proposed under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance seek to authorize a panel of this Council to order the Bureau Director concerned to produce all relevant papers involved in the processes of vetting and approval or processing of domestic free television programme service licence applications. If the motion or amendment is passed, matters such as how the panel will exercise the vested power, what documents will be obtained, how these documents will be used and the consequences thus arising are not within the scope of the motion. Rule 84 of the RoP clearly provides that a Member shall not vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. However, regarding the content of the motion or whether it will be passed or not, I do not think that the three Honourable Members who also serve as Members of the Executive Council have any direct pecuniary interest. So, I do not think that the three Members shall not participate in the voting or should withdraw according to Rule 84 of the RoP. Furthermore, we have not yet entered the voting stage. As Members are aware, Rule 83A of the RoP provides that if a Member considers himself having a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter of a motion and wishes to speak on the motion, he shall disclose the nature of that interest. The debate now continues. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Charles Peter MOK be passed.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK wishes to move an amendment to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the amendment. I now call upon Mr Dennis KWOK to speak and move the amendment to the motion. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion be amended. President, is watching television a basic human right? Certainly, from angle of legal principle, it is relatively difficult to justify this statement. However, why has the Government's decision on the issuance of free TV licences caused such huge reverberations in society? Because the decision has utterly destroyed Hong Kong people's core values. What are these core values? These include an open and transparent process, fair competition, a level playing field, procedural justice, the rule of law, free market, the notion of "big market, small government", fighting spirit and entrepreneurial spirit. These are the core values upheld by Hong Kong people all along. However, these core values have been utterly destroyed by the Government. Hence, tonight, hundreds of thousands of people will come to the Government Headquarters to express their dissatisfaction with the Government. President, first of all, I would like to point out that the legal procedure of the issuance of free TV licences is actually crystal clear. Under section 10 of the Broadcasting Ordinance (BO), the Chief Executive in Council may, after considering the recommendations of the Communications Authority (CA), grant a licence. It means that they have to consider the recommendations of the CA before making a decision. Without specifying the factors to be considered by the Chief Executive in Council when making such a decision under the BO, there is a section clearly stipulating that they have to consider the recommendations of the CA. Hence, the design of the BO reflects that the CA plays a very critical role in the licensing procedure. Regarding the free TV licence applications this time around, the Broadcasting Authority (BA), the predecessor of the CA, completed its deliberations and submitted its recommendations to the Chief Executive in


2003

Council in 2011. If a major change has been made to the Government's licensing policy afterwards, the Government should give these three applicants an opportunity to make representations. Apart from this, from the legal and procedural viewpoint, the Government has to invite the CA to express its new opinions on the licensing matter again so that the Executive Council and the Government can make analysis on its new recommendations before making a decision. If the Government does not take this step, it has ignored the important roles played by the BO and the CA in the entire decision-making process on licensing. President, if the Chief Executive in Council, after changing the policy, only gives the three applicants an opportunity to make representations without seeking new recommendations, this is a contravention of procedural justice and violation of a very critical element in the BO. The problem which is more serious than the procedural aspect is certainly the fact that the Government, after making the decision, argued eloquently that the justifications and reasons for the decision would not be publicized. President, in present-day society of the 21st century, the Government has a responsibility to explain the justifications and reasons for any administrative or political decision. Let me cite an example. The Government has to explain in writing the reasons why a person's application for public housing has been denied, not to mention the fact that the incident this time around involves extensive public interest, which is the issuance of a free TV licence. In view of the Government's refusal to disclose the genuine justifications for the licensing decision, many people have proposed various approaches to require an explanation from the Government. Today, Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) is one of the approaches. The most appropriate, most desirable and accessible way for us as Legislative Council Members is to make use of the powers under the P&P Ordinance to compel the Government to provide the genuine reason and produce the relevant documents. We, as Legislative Council Members, have to discharge our responsibility in this regard. We should understand that to compel the Government to produce documents relating to the licensing procedures by resorting to a judicial review is actually a most unsuitable approach. We, as Legislative Council Members, should consider what we can do in our position. But many Members said that it is preferable to leave the decision to a judicial review. In the remaining time, I would like to


analyse why a judicial review is definitely not a panacea insofar as this issue is concerned. The public may have an excessive reasonable expectation on a judicial review due to an illusion. This explains why LEUNG Chun-ying has adopted a seemingly encouraging attitude towards those who are unhappy with the decision and challenge him to a judicial review. His audacity is due to the fact that he is aware right from the beginning that firstly, the power through a judicial review to compel disclosure of documents by the Government is very limited. There is a major difference between cases in the High Court and a judicial review and that is, a general procedure of disclosure of documents for the former. In other words, both parties are required to disclose all relevant documents to the counterpart for this is the normal litigation process. However, according to the principles of common law, the document disclosure procedure is not applicable to judicial review cases. In other words, the Government may selectively disclose or not disclose some documents even though it is a respondent in a judicial review case. Furthermore, as minutes of meetings of the Executive Council are involved in this case, the Government can argue eloquently in court and apply for exemption from disclosing any records of the Executive Council in public interest. In that case, the Court cannot do anything with the Government. Moreover, even if the Government has disclosed all documents in court allowing the counterpart to read the documents relating to the issuance of free TV licence, the public may not know what these documents are. These documents, even if they are produced, cannot be used for reasons other than court proceedings and disclosed to the public as this may constitute contempt of court. So, even if the Government is really willing to produce these documents in a bona fide manner in the court proceedings, the public may not know exactly the contents of these documents. Secondly, judicial review cases actually involve a very important issue, which is procedural justice. It means whether the executive authorities have complied with the statutory procedures and the principle of natural justice when making a decision. As to the question of whether the decision is correct or not, in the end it is the executive authorities or the Government which will make the judgment rather than the Court, for the Court will not step into their shoes. To put it simply, the Court cannot decide for the Government whether two or three licences should be issued. Even if the Hong Kong Television Network Limited


2005

(HKTVN) initiates proceedings and wins the case, the Court can at most rule that the decision be reconsidered. In other words, the Government has to reconsider whether the decision is correct. The Court will not tell the Government which decision is right or advise the Government to issue two or three licences as the final decision rests with the Government. Therefore, when preparing an affidavit for the proceedings, if the Government, from the perspective of ex post facto, provides an explanation which can justify its decision, it can pass the test, so to speak. Therefore, a judicial review for cases like this will simply not bring any change. Nor will the Government issue a licence to HKTVN because of the judicial review. Let us consider the case from the bright side, as our Party Leader always advise us that we have to consider a matter from the bright side. Let us assume that HKTVN really wins its case in a judicial review, then what will happen? As I said earlier, the Court cannot make any judgment or decision on behalf of the Government. The Government at most will only say that since the Court held that it has violated procedural justice, it will not make the same mistake. Then it will seek recommendations from the CA for the Executive Council's consideration before maintaining the original decision of issuing two licences on the ground of public interest. In that case, the Court cannot do anything. In fact, such precedent cases are numerous. But due to the time constraint, I will not analyse those precedent cases in detail. However, I would like to point out that if the Court rules that the case be returned for reconsideration and the Executive Council maintains the original decision, the Executive Council is not obliged to give any explanation at all. I have explained why there is an obvious limitation with a judicial review for this incident. Any persons, especially Legislative Council Members, will not put up judicial review as an excuse if they understand or willing to understand the limitations of a judicial review in this incident. They are deceiving themselves in doing so. A Member said that if no one applies for a judicial review, he will do so. I hope he will ponder whether he is really so stupid or simply reluctant to look into the whole series of incidents. I hope Members will really think about it, and I do not want to make any personal attack because it is unfair to any Member. Just now, I explained in detail the best, the most convincing and fully justified rationale in the whole incident in this Council in the sincere hope that Members will make an analysis of these justifications before voting.


Back to the contents of my amendment. In fact, I quite agree with Mr Charles Peter MOK's original motion. However, at the last meeting of the House Committee, I heard many Members say that this would undermine the confidentiality system of the Executive Council because the motion seeks to obtain the records of the Executive Council and some confidential commercial information. Fine, let us stop arguing over the confidentiality system of the Executive Council. Hong Kong people and I merely hope that the majority of Members of this Council can hear the voices of the people on this matter and we can unite together to support this motion. Therefore, I have proposed an amendment for I do not want to see any further arguments on the confidentiality system of the Executive Council as these will not help. I have proposed the amendment in the hope that I can win the support of more Members, especially those from the pro-establishment camp. Finally, President, I hope that Members, after hearing our justifications, will understand why we have to invoke the P&P Ordinance in order to obtain the relevant documents so that the public can fully understand whether the justification for the licensing decision in the five or six pages of justifications for the licensing decision as provided by the Government is an one-sided story or really unbiased explanation. I would like to discuss the wordings of my amendment. It is very simple, especially in the English version: "but excluding the deliberations and relevant records of the Executive Council". It is written in a very clear manner. We will not ask for records of discussion of the Executive Council or dwell on the issue. It is very clear. Please do not try to mention any wordings which are not contained in my amendment and claim that this will not obtain any information at all. No. In my amendment, I have made it very clear that the former BA has to produce its report, its correspondence with the Bureau and all documents related to issuance of licences. These are the documents we ask for and discussions of the Executive Council are not included. So, I hope Members will read the wordings carefully and vote on the motion on the basis of their conscience and justifications so that we can be accountable in a formal way to the hundreds of thousand people outside this Chamber. Thank you, President.


2007

Mr Dennis KWOK moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To delete "on or before 8 November 2013" after "before the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting" and substitute with "within 21 days after the passage of this motion"; to delete "processes of vetting and approval" after "involved in the" and substitute with "processing"; to add "the former Broadcasting Authority, the Communications Authority and" after "applications by"; and to delete "(including but not limited to all relevant documents and reports submitted by the former Broadcasting Authority to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government)" immediately before the full stop and substitute with "but excluding the deliberations and relevant records of the Executive Council and any confidential commercial information involving the licence applicants"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Dennis KWOK to Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion, be passed. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, between December 2009 and March 2010, the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN), the Fantastic Television Limited (Fantastic TV) and the HK Television Entertainment Company Limited (HKTVE) had separately submitted applications for the domestic free television programme service (free TV) licences under the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562) (BO). The former Broadcasting Authority (now the Communications Authority) (the Authority) processed the three applications in accordance with the BO and established procedures, and submitted its proposal to the Chief Executive in Council in July 2011. On 15 October 2013, the Government announced that the Executive Council had approved in principle the applications of Fantastic TV and HKTVE for free TV licences, whereas the application submitted by HKTVN had been rejected.


Since the date the outcome was announced, the Government has explained as far as possible on various occasions the criteria adopted and the justifications for the relevant decision. We notice the concerns and views expressed by the public and members of the industry on the outcome. Hence, in the last couple of days, to address the concerns and views of the public, the Government has seized various opportunities, including accepting media interviews, issuing press releases and submitting papers to the Legislative Council, to further elucidate the relevant criteria and justifications for the decision of the Executive Council. Today, I am glad to have this opportunity to give a detailed explanation on the stance of the Government again. I would like to reiterate four points in particular. First, it is about the law and system. As the Chief Executive said earlier, the free TV licensing system, which has been put in place for a long time, has a relevant policy and legal basis. The licensing system in Hong Kong was implemented in the 1960s when free TV was available. Before the reunification, the Governor in Council was the licensing authority, whereas the Chief Executive in Council is the licensing authority after the reunification. According to the BO, all applications for free TV licences must be recommended by the Authority, and then decided by the Executive Council after considering all relevant factors. According to the law, the Executive Council is the ultimate decision-making body for granting free TV licences. If anyone hopes for a review of the decision through judicial channels, the authorities will respect the legal rights of the party concerned. This is a system of Hong Kong, a time-honoured and proven system, and we must respect it. The Executive Council has all along acted in accordance with the law in processing the three applications. Since the submission of the recommendations by the Authority in July 2011, the Executive Council had processed the three applications in an expeditious and cautious manner in accordance with the BO and established procedures, as the Government explained to the Legislative Council and the public a number of times in the course handling the present incident. We have explained that the vetting of the three applications involved complicated issues, including the requirements of the relevant legal provisions and procedural justice, so it took time to process carefully. In processing the three applications, the Executive Council has all along ensured procedural justice and acted with reference to the professional advice tendered by local and overseas counsel.


2009

We understand that the public may have different views about the outcome of the applications. However, under the system, the Executive Council has already made the decision according to the law, whereas the views of the public are among the various factors given consideration. According to the confidentiality system of the Executive Council, the Executive Council will not make public the content of its deliberation on any agenda item. This has been a long-established practice and we should not depart from the relevant system due to individual incidents. I have to stress that on the premise of not violating the system, the Government has explained the criteria and justifications for the decision of the Executive Council as far as possible. Hence, the misunderstanding of some people that the Government has not explained the decision on granting licences is not true. In our view, if the original motion of Mr Charles Peter MOK is passed to authorize the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting to exercise the powers conferred under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) (P&P Ordinance) to order the authorities to produce all relevant information involved in the process, this will damage the confidentiality system on which the effective operation of the Executive Council hinges. Regarding the amendment of Mr Dennis Kwok, he said earlier that the content of his amendment is very simple, which only involves the deletion of the wordings related to the deliberations and relevant records of the Executive Council and confidential commercial information involving the licence applicants. However, I would like to point out that the amendment is not meaningful at all, for all the relevant papers were required to be submitted and had been submitted to the Executive Council for consideration. As for the information involved in the so-called processing and not involving "the deliberations of the Executive Council" or the commercial secrets of the applicants, we do not know what it is referring to specifically. Such deletion is de facto the inclusion of part of the discussion papers of the Executive Council, which will also damage the proven confidentiality system of the Executive Council as a whole. Even if all papers involving the deliberation of the Executive Council are excluded according to the amendment, the disclosure of piecemeal information will only lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations and sweeping conclusions. This is the last thing we would wish to see. Besides, this will be extremely unfair to all parties and can in no way help to address the problem.


The Executive Council is given the power under the system to make decisions on issues concerning free TV licences. If anyone disagrees or queries the decision of the Executive Council, he is given the right under the system to resort to review via fair and impartial legal proceedings. Mr Dennis KWOK should know this full well. The exercise of the power conferred by the P&P Ordinance will not only damage the system but also politicize the incident. I believe this is not the aim of Members. Besides, it will do no good to the situation if the incident is politicized. The second point I would like to reiterate is that the gradual and orderly approach in introducing competition is in line with the television market liberalization policy. I notice that there are views querying whether the decision of the Executive Council indicates a change in policy, or whether it involves the so-called "moving of the goalposts" as some Members mentioned earlier. These views involve misunderstanding or distortion. I thus consider it necessary to reiterate here that the granting of free TV licences under the system does not entail a "blanket approval for all applications received". Though there is no prescribed ceiling on the number of free TV licences to be issued, there is no mention in the policy on television market liberalization announced in 1998 and the BO that applicants that satisfy certain basic criteria will be guaranteed a licence. According to the BO, companies may apply for free TV licences anytime, yet all applications must be subjected to the recommendation by the Authority and then consideration by the Executive Council of all relevant factors before a decision on whether or not to grant a licence is made. It has been nearly four decades since the last free TV licence was granted. The consultant's findings indicated that based on the business plans submitted by the applicants, it is estimated that the market may not necessarily sustain the operation of all five companies, that is, the two existing companies and the three applicants. The public surely hope that more choices will be offered, and it is simply human nature. However, under the market liberalization policy, the licensing authority is obliged to adopt a macroscopic perspective by taking into account the sustainable development of the free TV market as a whole. In processing the applications for new licences, the Executive Council must consider public interest, including the impact brought by the granting of new licences on the sustainability of the television industry in Hong Kong. In gist, it has to consider whether the number of new licences granted will lead to


2011

over-competition or vicious competition, including the dilution of advertising revenue in a way that all or most of the television stations will not have adequate revenue during the licence term to support quality and consistent programme production. For this reason, precisely, the Executive Council considers that competition should be introduced in a gradual and orderly manner to ensure that the possible adverse impact accompanied by the benefits brought forth by the introduction of competition into the free TV market will be minimized, which includes preventing the competition introduced into the market after the granting of the licences to last only for a short while. This practice is in the interest of the public and in line with the existing policies and law. I stress that the Government's policy in opening up the television market has never changed, and the possibility that additional free TV operators will be introduced suitably in response to the market situation in future cannot be ruled out. The third point I would like to reiterate is that we have considered 11 factors and four assessment criteria in processing the applications. As I said earlier, since the first date of the announcement of the decision, the Government has on different occasions publicly explained the considerations and assessment criteria adopted by the Executive Council under the system. As some views still consider the Government has not yet explained the factors of consideration or the assessment criteria, I would like to reiterate the 11 factors here. These include:

(1) the three applications; (2) the recommendation submitted by the Authority; (3) the relevant requirements under the BO; (4) the assessment criteria in the Authority's "Guidance Note for Those

Interested in Applying for Domestic Free Television Programme Service Licences in Hong Kong";

(5) sustainability of the free TV market in the broad sense; (6) the consultant's reports on the impact of introducing new competitors

on the competition environment of the free TV market (including the consultant's assessment of the relative competitiveness of each applicant) (the Consultant's Reports);


(7) all representations/responses by relevant parties, all relevant documents;

(8) all relevant latest developments; (9) all public views received; (10) the Government's prevailing broadcasting policy; and (11) public interest.

In considering public interest, the Executive Council considers that the sustainability of the free TV market should be assessed. On the premise of gradual and orderly introduction of competition, the Executive Council adopts the four assessment criteria proposed by the consultant and disclosed to applicants in assessing the proposals submitted by the three applicants. The four criteria include:

(a) financial capability; (b) programming investment; (c) programming strategy and capability; and (d) technical soundness.

There are many specific items for consideration under the four major criteria. In gist, the Executive Council has taken various relevant factors into consideration, including the relevant assessment conducted by the consultant and all relevant representations made by the applicants against the Consultant's Report. After that, the authorities will assess the relative competitiveness of the three applications on basis of the four major criteria. Finally, the Executive Council considers that Fantastic TV and HKTVE have an edge over HKTVN, and thus the applications of the two former companies have been approved in principle. I stress that the assessment made by the Executive Council is a judgment in overall terms. Despite the objective criteria laid down for assessment, different people will have different considerations and emphasis, and may attach different degrees of importance to various criteria, thus arriving at different conclusions. This is a matter of viewpoints and angles. Moreover, the Executive Council


2013

cannot and should not only consider the views of one party, say the views of the consultant. The Government has tried to explain the justifications of the Executive Council as far as possible within the system. As for other details, since they may inevitably involve commercial confidential information and detailed discussion within the Executive Council, it is inappropriate to make open such details. We respect divergent views in a pluralistic society, yet the existence of different perspectives and views should not denigrate that the objective and reasonable decision and justifications this time around. In fact, the Executive Council has considered the views and representations made by various parties before coming to the present decision. The fourth point is that the vetting procedures of the three applications are fair and impartial and compliant with the requirement of procedural justice. In processing the applications, the Executive Council has sought further information from the relevant parties, including the applicants and the existing licensees, and invited them to make representations. Before making the determination, the authorities have disclosed the relevant information to all applicants, which includes the Consultant's Report, the intention of gradual and orderly introduction of competition, and the four assessment criteria. It has also allowed sufficient time for all applicants to submit several rounds of representation on the aforesaid matters, the relevant assessment of the consultant and other relevant issues. The Executive Council has also considered all the representations received before making the decision. The principle of procedural justice was strictly adhered to throughout the process. President, the processing of the three applications this time around is fair and impartial, and the decision of the Executive Council was made after comprehensive consideration, whereas the Government has given detailed accounts under the existing system. I hope Members will support the system of Hong Kong, as the Government and the public do, by opposing the motion and the amendment proposed today, so that the incident will not be politicized. The authorities should focus its effort on compliance with the system, procedures and policy to take forward the second stage of work on license application as soon as possible, so that the introduction of competition into the free TV market will be realized to benefit the general public. I shall stop here for the time being. After listening to the speeches of Honourable Members, I would give a supplementary response. Thank you, President.


MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, as we have come to this state, there is no more we can say. Many people do not know what to say about the present situation. Some say that the incident should not be politicized, but I am torn between laughter and tears by this comment. This is the Legislative Council. If we do not talk about politics here, what should we talk about then? Should we throw a party and sing Karaoke here? Politics refers to issues concerning the public. Why should we make politics so menacing, as if it is totally untouchable or something? What kind of government official is he? President, having said I knew not what to say about the incident, I will make a last ditch effort to convince Members. I will not use phrases like "forsaking heresy for the right", but I will instead urge them to "come out of the darkness into the light". It is said that in the separate voting tonight, there are still four votes short in the functional constituencies for the motion to be passed. So, I will try to persuade Dr LAM Tai-fai, whom I can chat with sometimes. Dr LAM Tai-fai is in the Chamber now. I notice that Dr LAM Tai-fai is particularly concerned about education. We who have been teachers know that education is the first choice to reform society. Education is about building people, which is a process of a hundred years or so. We teach young people and the next generation the spirit of equality, justice and fairness. I always tell the young people that sometimes equality is really hard to uphold. One will never be equal with his or her mother throughout his or her life. Though it is said that all men are born equal, it may not be the case in reality. One should never vie with an old lady for a seat in the MTR cabin on the grounds that all men are equal. So, it is something extremely difficult to handle. As for justice, which is "公義" in Chinese, the meaning of the word "義" (righteousness) can hardly be defined. In the context of triad society, righteousness means one thing, but it carries a different meaning when it is put in the ethics context in the examination in court under the rule of law. So, the definition of the word "義" (righteousness) varies according to the context and the identity of the person using the word. Yet I like the word "fairness" the most. Ask yourself honestly whether the whole incident is fair: Is it fair? Is it really really fair? Just ask yourself. We do not use the word conscience, for people in general have a clear conscience. Yet there is this common saying that "how much is a catty of conscience", querying the importance of conscience. We teach the next generation about fairness through the way we uphold the spirit of fairness. In a competition with three candidates, one is backed by a parent company with a strong financial background and another is backed by an


2015

influential parent company, but the remaining one has nothing. Young man, you have lost at the starting line. It now comes to light that it is a matter of innate disadvantage, something inherited. After all, it is because he does not have a strong financial background and influential power. If so, why bother to invite him at the beginning? Why offered him a site and told him to "set up a TV city and go ahead"? Another Member I would like to persuade is Mr MA Fung-kwok. He was in the Chamber earlier. He has left, has he not? Mr MA is the representative of the sports, performing arts, culture and publication sector. I believe that, as the representative of this sector, it would be particularly difficult for him to make the decision today. I do not plan to cite the figures to give him the opportunity to read from his script to state a certain number of graduates come out of the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts every year, and that there are a large number of students from the schools of communication, multimedia and journalism of the various universities. Journalism is culture, performing arts is culture. Should he think deeper for the sake of our next generation? I of course have to remind Members from the Business and Professional Alliance for Hong Kong (BPA) for they are flying the banner of economy first. I am quite confident that they should have read a great article written by LIAN Yi-zheng in the Hong Kong Economic Journal. The article is quite long and I will not read it out here. LIAN Yi-zheng, an economist of some standing, says that according to his calculation, if the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) of Ricky WONG is not granted the licence, Hong Kong will suffer a loss of close to $40 billion in five years. How should we make the calculation? Mr SHEK, can you think about how to assess the loss? The authorities often say that the market cannot absorb the increase in operators, but should it not be left to the market, the audience and the advertisers to decide. Some people say that the size of the pie for advertising expenses is fixed and it will not be enough for distribution among all operators. If so, it should be left to the advertisers to decide whether they will place their advertisements with operator A, B, C, D or E. Can the authorities offer one more option? Why does it have to deprive people the right to choose? Hong Kong is among the freest markets in the world. There is a good example, which I think colleagues from the BPA and other Members will be familiar with. It is the victory of Walmart over Kmart in the


United States. These two discount supermarket chains emerged nearly at the same time. At the beginning, Walmart which capital was incomparable to that of Kmart regarded itself as a tiny little star, and it thought Kmart was a superstar. A manager of Walmart once said that he sometimes thought Walmart was so small that it could in no way compete with the enormous Kmart. He described the situation as a child fighting a giant, where Walmart was a small operator but Kmart was a giant company, and the child would surrender before the fight started. He said, "Sometimes, I felt like we couldn't compete". Comparison and competition were simply out of the question. Yet Walmart has successfully beaten Kmart in the end, even though it is not a knock-out defeat. It is evident that strong financial background and influence does not mean all. It is management approaches and market strategies that count. There is no guarantee that a company with copious capital will not close down and that it certainly will not cause a great number of Hong Kong people to lose their jobs. The problem now is that the present decision has caused 320 people to become unemployed immediately. I believe the Secretary is truly upset by this. But why would the authorities make such a decision? Of course, the Secretary must act in accordance with the majority rather than his personal views, but this cannot win the trust of the people. I understand that as at yesterday, many people had not yet decided what to do, for LEUNG Chun-ying had indicated that there would be further discussions and he would explain further to Members. Hence, they would like to hear what he has got to say before making the decision. Honourable Members, if you have not yet made up your mind, like Dr LAM Tai-fai and Mr Abraham SHEK, you should think carefully about it. Are you convinced by the six-page press release issued by LEUNG yesterday? The six pages of information he provided is ridiculous. Nothing new has been said, apart from those insinuations. You may not know what insinuations I am referring to. Indeed, it is suggesting that anyone without the support of a mother company with a strong financial background and influence will be in trouble. The freedom of expression and the freedom of the press in Hong Kong are going downhill. According to the latest survey, we notice that the confidence of Hong Kong people in the freedom of the press and television news is at the historical low. Yesterday, the Hong Kong Journalist Association issued a statement to censure the six pages of so-called press release from the Government, querying what LEUNG was saying. Why did LEUNG Chun-ying not come forward to meet with reporters? He did not dare to face the queries from reporters or the press, particularly when the questioning would surely be


2017

broadcast live. It is ridiculous, is it not? Why would a government adopt a completely one-way communication approach in administration? How could it just issue statements? It just said what it wanted to say and no more. If you do not believe it, it is your own concern; if you do not like to listen to it, you may ignore it. What kind of attitude is it? In Hong Kong, we adopt the separation of powers, namely the executive, the legislature and the Judiciary. We the press is the fourth estate, yet he has completely ignored us. It is the inherited responsibility of the Legislative Council to monitor the administration of the Government and guard against blunders in governance. If the Legislative Council, which is empowered under the system of separation of powers, cannot perform its primary functions of monitoring the administration and governance of the Government, Hong Kong will fall. Hong Kong will really fall! Recently, many people have asked why Hong Kong has come to the present pass, and I wonder if Members have heard such comments. These people find Hong Kong such a stranger, and they wonder what a city it is now. It is no longer the city they knew well in the past, for significant and major changes had taken place in the last couple of years. Regarding the licencing controversy this time around, some may say that Hong Kong people have overreacted, and it does not warrant such a great outcry even though they are denied one TV station. However, the incident is about something more than watching television programmes. We all know that the public are not angry merely out of the concern that the decision has deprived them of a wider choice of television programmes or that they have no programme to watch during meals ― we are not that shallow. In the present case, it is a matter about the core values of Hong Kong being trampled. Businessmen are particularly concerned about the spirit of fairness. As a person conducts himself in the world, fairness is the fundamental attitude. Are you being fair? Are you a fair person? Is this a fair government? If we cannot even safeguard the power of the Legislative Council under the system of separation of powers to fulfil its primary function, we should feel sad about Hong Kong. President, the six-page press release fails to ensure openness and transparency, worse still, it shows total disregard to the powers that can clamp down on the executive ― the press and the Legislative Council. Hong Kong is encumbered by one single man, LEUNG Chun-ying. Thank you.


MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Government has refused to grant a free TV licence to the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN). Some time ago, the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, stressed that more information would be announced at a later time to remove the doubts of the public. However, similar to the way he handled his illegal structures, he had merely offered empty talk. As usual, his words are louder than his action. Above all, what he claimed to be further information was only information released in a squeezing-toothpaste manner in the past. The information had been reorganized slightly and delivered by him again. Yet, he claimed that it was new information. Once again, he adopted his hypocritical rhetoric to procrastinate on the incident further. As in the case involving his illegal structures, he had said he would give a full account to society, but regrettably, he has not done so to date, has he? He has not changed. Nonetheless, he states forcefully that he has already given an account. President, how will there be peace in society when the Government is led by a Chief Executive like him? How will the public be convinced by a Chief Executive like him? How will there be smooth and unobstructed administration when the Chief Executive is adopting such an attitude in administration? However, President, the main reason for his administration not being smooth is that he has all along been acting against the public sentiments. The most obvious point in the incident of free TV licences this time around is that he ignored the views of the public and insisted on having his own way. Even when he could not win the support of the majority of Members in the Executive Council, he still made the decision according to his own preference. These incidents have happened for more than once. The incident of national education is a case in point. In addition to the national education incident, the government restructuring proposal on five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux put forth prior to his assumption of office was another example. For this reason, it is predictable that there will be an endless number of similar cases if he refuses to step down and maintains such an attitude in handling relevant issues. It is definitely not in the interest of Hong Kong, and it will only bring more damage to society. Let us look back on the short period of a year or so since LEUNG Chun-ying took office. The culture of hypocritical rhetoric created by him has already penetrated the bureaucracy. Many officials have more or less been polluted by this culture in explaining their cases. If the situation is not changed,


2019

society as a whole will end in a disaster. President, Secretary Gregory SO is a case in point. Some time ago, it was revealed that the Bureau under his purview had deleted from its website a paragraph stating "there would be no limit on the number of licences". Secretary Gregory SO had stated unabashedly that the deletion was part of a routine updating of its website, where colleagues had updated the information on the website to avoid repetition of the message. President, should the authorities delete the message arbitrarily just because of repetition? Such a practice is not compliant the rules and established practice, is it? The content deleted is exactly relevant to the licensing incident this time, but Secretary Gregory SO has not given any detailed explanation about the deletion and simply resorted to hypocritical rhetoric as a shield. In my view, the Government as a whole is giving people the impression that it is in a hopeless state. President, to date, HKTVN's licence rejection has raised a huge hue and cry in town. I think the Chief Executive and Members of the Executive Council should all be held wholly accountable. What do I mean by being held wholly accountable? I am not asking them to fabricate all kinds of excuses to defend themselves, but to tell the true reasons for the rejection. President, recently, many so-called sources or Members from the pro-establishment camp, and even government officials, have stressed repeatedly that it is unnecessary to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to intervene in the incident, and the practice will not be helpful in any way to resolving the problem. It has also been stated that the possibility of granting additional free TV licences in future cannot be ruled out. President, such a remark is offensive. Worse still, it conveys the impression that the Government lacks even the wisdom to avert the crisis. How lamentable indeed. First, why is it unnecessary to invoke the P&P Ordinance? The Chief Executive and the government officials have time and again asserted the need to uphold confidentiality, so the information cannot be made public. However, the information the Government has made public in actuality is vague and empty, failing to dispel the doubts of the public. Even the consultant's report cannot be made public. If the information cannot be made public whereas the doubts of the public cannot be dispelled, what other alternatives are available to resolve the problem? If we do not invoke the P&P Ordinance to press the Government to


disseminate the relevant information, how can we do justice to society? As such, I have to ask the Government or those people whether it is necessary. I do not wish to invoke the P&P Ordinance either. But can they tell me in what way we can make the Government make public all the information to let the public know the truth? As for the issue of politicizing the incident, as Ms Claudia MO said earlier, issues concerning the public are politics. The incident is in fact a general issue concerning people's living, but the way in which the Chief Executive, the Executive Council and the SAR Government have handled it has provoked an outcry throughout the territory. It has indeed escalated a people's living concern to the political level. Therefore, the Government and the Chief Executive are the culprits who politicize the incident. To me, it is not a cause of concern that the incident has been politicized. As Ms Claudia MO said earlier, this Council should be discussing political issues anyway. If so, why do we need to fear? If they fear, they should not be government officials, nor should he be the Chief Executive. It is the responsibility of the Chief Executive and government officials to handle political issues. President, when the Government and the Chief Executive realized that they could no longer use the tactics employed in the past to resolve the present conflicts, they said that the possibility of granting additional free TV licences in response to the development of the market in future could not be ruled out. President, such remarks are comparable to pacifying children with candies. In fact, may I ask the Chief Executive how we should teach our children? We teach our children that never put off till tomorrow what we can do today. Why? For there are too many tomorrows. President, to date, the Chief Executive and the Government are still emphasizing that the collective responsibility system should not be damaged because of an individual case. Right, the collective responsibility system is a tradition of the cabinet of the United Kingdom. However, we cannot apply other's practice arbitrarily here. The cabinet of the United Kingdom is comprised of members elected by the public. They play a part in ruling the country, assume political responsibility and are accountable to the public. When they disagree with the views before them in the cabinet, they will resign from the cabinet of their own accord. This is a display of the spirit of political ethics. But when we look at the Members in the Executive Council, do they have the courage to uphold such political ethics?


2021

President, the executive and the legislature are separated in terms of powers and each fulfils respective functions. We in the legislature are responsible for legislative work and monitoring the administration by the Government. I hope colleagues of this Council will reflect on their fundamental responsibilities. When the Government refuses to provide a reasonable explanation to the public, how should we press the Government to respond to the public? We are now conferred such power. Power means responsibility. If we do not fulfil this responsibility and decide to give up, what is the meaning for us to be Members? Will you be willing to serve as a chess piece or a rubber stamp, what is the point of doing so? Do you think it will appeal to your conscience? President, I now come to my last point. Today, someone told me that Ricky WONG said he had never promised the Government to keep all the papers and reports confidential. President, if anyone has ever made a promise, he must keep it. But if he has never made such an undertaking, I think it does not really matter, and he may as well make public such papers and reports. Why not? Now, I urge that if the motion today cannot be passed and if Ricky WONG really has not made any undertaking with the Government, he is duty-bound to make all relevant papers public to let the people know the truth and to do justice to society. President, I so submit. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, the free TV licencing incident this time around is a disastrous administrative blunder of the SAR Government. The Government has lost all of its credibility, the core values of Hong Kong have been damaged and Hong Kong people have been unreasonably deprived of the right to receive information. Hong Kong and the people of Hong Kong are the biggest loser in the incident. The public but not the Government is the real loser. The burning rage of the public has driven them to take to the streets during the short period time just past to vent their anger in the uproar. Today, we will support Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion requesting exercise of the power under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to press the Government to tell the truth to the people of Hong Kong, telling us the major justifications in the entire course of making the decision, and to prevent the Government from adopting dictatorial and black-box operation. These are the common demands of the public, which is evidenced by the relevant


figures. According to the latest opinion poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong, 75% of the public support the granting of a licence to the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN). As indicated in a survey conducted by Ming Pao Daily News, 77% of the public are dissatisfied with the Government's handling of this incident, and 65.9% of the public support the passage of Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion. Therefore, the purpose of today's motion is to protect the reputation of Hong Kong and to do justice to the public by telling them the truth. We are not supporting any particular applicant, but the pursuit of justice and the truth. President, our core values have been damaged in this incident. However, the Secretary and the Chief Executive have made continued and repeated claims that procedural justice has been upheld. At hearing such comments, I doubt whether or not they feel ashamed in saying that. The first major principle under procedural justice is that in the course of making important decisions, the authorities should make a due effort to ensure justice and fairness in the process. More importantly, the second major principle must be strictly adhered to, namely, the process should be seen to be fair to the persons affected or onlookers, which is the fundamental principle of procedural justice. Regrettably, today, on the grounds of confidentiality, the Government has refused to tell the largest stakeholder of the reasons for refusing its application, whereas the public who are entitled to the right of assess to information can in no way know why they are deprived of the right to choose. Under such circumstances, how could the handling of the incident be compliant with procedural justice? The Government keeps using the confidentiality system of the Executive Council as a shield. However, anyone with some common sense will say or understand that it is an insult to the wisdom of the public to put up such an excuse. The Executive Council has to consider a large number of public policies and make many administrative decisions at every meeting, so does it mean that clear explanations will not be provided for all decisions considered by the Executive Council? If that is the case, the public will have no way to know the important information involved, particularly on the major justifications for certain important decisions. In gist, does it mean that even the reasons cannot be provided? If confidentiality is stretched to the degree of disallowing the provision of justifications, how can the Government provide explanations and be accountable to the public?


2023

It is ridiculous and outrageous to stifle the public's right to information on the feeble excuse of upholding "collective confidentiality". Hence, the former Chief Secretary for Administration, Anson CHAN, and a former Director of Bureau, Joseph WONG, both consider the practice of the authorities unconvincing. I think they have let their conscience speak, while incumbent Members of the Executive Council are speaking in betrayal of their conscience. Besides, despite claiming the need to uphold confidentiality, the Government has continued making selective disclosure of information in a squeezing-toothpaste manner, disclosing bits and pieces of information one at a time. In the beginning, it was said that a host of factors was involved. Later, it said that the advertising market was limited in scope and thus could not accommodate too many operators. It then said that the financial capability of the applicant was not strong, or that its technical soundness and coverage did not satisfy the requirements likely to be imposed by the Government. No matter how the authorities present its case, there is this failure to give a comprehensive, clear and specific explanation. All these comments are camouflage aiming to divert the focus rather than making a bold and upright explanation. How can a government act in such a sneaky manner? Yesterday, the Government issued a five-page paper to explain the incident, but the explanation relating to the factors is mere empty talk. The authorities have told us nothing about how the 11 factors and the four criteria are applied in the assessment to arrive at the present outcome which we all consider unconvincing. The Government often claims that the information involves commercial secrets. But I must remind the authorities here that they are exercising important public powers now, how can they put forth evasive excuses like protecting commercial secrets to evade giving explanation to the public? They should know that the exercise of public powers in this respect has in actuality affected the interest and important rights of the public significantly. If the motion today is passed, I think among the many pieces of information involved, people will be most interested in the specific justifications applied in examining the applications and certain important content of the consultant's report, but not what certain Members of the Executive Council said at the meeting or what they thought. How would such information be regarded as commercial sensitive information? Will the disclosure of the information as appropriate inflict severe damage on the applicants? I do not think so. If


anyone objects to the disclosure, the authorities may simply delete the name of the person concerned, but a clear picture of the justifications involved will at least be presented. Some people said that Ricky WONG had agreed to accept the rule that he would not be told the reasons for the rejection of his licence application when he first submitted the application. I recall that there is such a provision in the contract or the application concerned. However, this undertaking of not pursuing the reasons for refusal of licence was made by the applicant in his personal capacity. Even if the provision is binding, it will only be applicable to the applicant but not the general public who are entitled to the right to information. The general public have the right to know why the Government has handled the incident this way and why the Government has repeatedly changed the policy in a self-contradictory manner. Regarding the justifications already disclosed, I would say that they are utterly ridiculous, self-contradictory and anti-justice. On the one hand, the Government has stated the need to open up the market, where no prescribed ceiling for the number of TV licences has been set. But on the other hand, it said today that "cut-throat" competition should not exist and the advertising market cannot accommodate four television stations. This is the most obvious self-contradictory statement made so far. Anyone who can think logically will know that the Government is slapping its own face. If it desires to open up the market, it should let the market decide who should stay according to "the survival of the fittest" theory, but not allowing the Government to do any screening. The word screening sends a chill down my spine, for I see how the screening is done. The Government once said that there was no ceiling on the number of licences to be issued, but then it told the public that the market could only accommodate four operators, and the introduction of one more free TV station might threaten the survival of operators. It even said that one of the TV stations had to be screened out so as to protect the other four TV. If such comment is not self-contradictory, what is it? The Government is indeed stating that: the requirement to limit the number of licences to four free TV stations should be laid down in the market and that the number of licences must be capped. But then, the Government told us it had already decided who should state in the market and who should be screened out.


2025

Moreover, it is stated unequivocally in the legislation that the Government must heed the recommendations of the former Broadcasting Authority (BA). But the Government has changed this rule. The Government had gone further by disallowing applicants to modify the content of their proposals and failed to consult the views of the former BA, or the Communications Authority now again. Mr Dennis KWOK has mentioned this point earlier. He pointed out that Prof Albert CHEN of the University of Hong Kong had stated clearly that the practice of the Government had violated procedural justice, which may be challenged by judicial review. Another point is about reasonable expectation. Despite the good deal said by the Government, the Government has "moved the goalposts" arbitrarily, changed the rules and disallowed applicants to respond to changes and made modifications accordingly. How can this be called fair? Besides, it has violated the principle of reasonable expectation of the public, that the Government cannot go back on its words. More importantly, public interest has been distorted in this case. The Government has told the public that the market could only accommodate a limited number of competitors, and that which free TV stations could stay in the market and others should be screened out. This practice of the Government has distorted public interest. It has not only distorted public interest but also claimed that this is the way for sustainable development. How utterly outrageous! Regarding the overriding public interest, that is, the rights to broadcast, the rights to dissemination and circulation of information and the public's right to receive information, the Government has not said a word, nor has it mentioned the importance. In fact, in 2011, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations submitted a report on the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in SAR and issued General Comment No. 34. It was pointed out in the comment that states parties must avoid imposing onerous licensing conditions and fees on the broadcast media, and the criteria for the application should be reasonable and objective, clear, transparent, non-discriminatory and otherwise in compliance with the Covenant. This is a very important point. It was pointed out in the same comment that states parties should take effective measures to ensure that legislative and administrative frameworks for the regulation of the mass media are consistent with the Covenant to prevent the control of the media as would interfere with the right of everyone


to freedom of expression. These are some general recommendations made by the Committee of the United Nations responsible for examining the implementation of the Covenant, but the Government has obviously violated the relevant requirements. Members must bear in mind that the Covenant has become part of the Hong Kong Bills of Rights. If the case is taken to the Court in future for a hearing, these comments will be strong evidence proving that the Government has violated the Covenant and the Bills of Rights. I am glad that the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor has told me that in the Meltex Ltd and Mesrop Movsesyan v Armenia case heard by the European Court of Human Rights, the Court had come to the decision that since no concrete reasons were provided on the refusal of granting broadcasting licences, the general public and the applicant had no way of knowing the specific justifications for the licensing decision, and such practice had violated and interfered with the freedom of expression and amounted to a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope the Government has heard clearly that this is the most definite and the strongest evidence indicating that the Government has already violated the laws and various covenants on human rights. Therefore, its practice is an absolute injustice. I hope the Government will turn back, and I hope Members from the pro-establishment camp will realize that (The buzzer sounded) … if they still have to vote in opposition, it not only violates the law … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, your speaking time is up. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): … but also molests their conscience. MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, many people may not understand the source and scope of power of the Chief Executive, but I strongly believe that LEUNG Chun-ying knows it full well, for he has the Secretary for Justice around him, whereas the Secretary for Justice has hundreds of lawyers around him. If he wants to understand his scope of power, he can definitely do so. In case he does not know about it, I would take this opportunity to tell him and colleagues of the Legislative Council the source and scope of power of the Chief Executive.


2027

The authority of the Chief Executive to issue television licence is not absolute but confined to a scope. The power conferred on the Chief Executive under the laws is for the implementation of the principle and relevant policies laid down in the laws. Sorry, we are not in the feudalistic age or the era of Emperor QIN where the Emperor's word was law ― no, it does not work this way. His power is subject to the provisions of the laws. President, what are the laws I am referring to? They are the Broadcasting Ordinance (BO) and the Telecommunications Ordinance (TO), and so on. What are the licencing criteria laid down in these Ordinances? President, there is only one condition, that is, be a "fit and proper person". President, what is the definition of a "fit and proper person"? Whether or not a person is "fit and proper" is not defined by the assets and capital he possess. Even if it is stipulated explicitly in the provision that the person must posses "plenty of assets", there will still be a problem, for it is hard to define "plenty". So far, the requirements for recognized persons under the law merely require the person to be a Hong Kong resident with no criminal record and no possession of other media. These are the requirements set out in the laws. President, if only persons with tens of millions or billions worth of assets can take part in the competition and do business, what kind of place will Hong Kong become? Hong Kong used to be a small fishing village. The outstanding achievements today should all be attributed to the spirits of fighting and competing of the people of Hong Kong. But now, someone dare to say unashamedly, "Sorry, I think you do not have enough money." If anyone considers himself fit for the competition, he should be allowed to join the competition. Yet today, someone outrageously judged that the person concerned did not have enough money. May I ask how much money will be considered as sufficient? President, there is also one very important point. In fact, a comprehensive competition law is enshrined in the BO. The Secretary should know this full well, for he has spent a long time in promoting the cross-sector competition law. Actually, a set of competition law has long since been included in the ordinance. Why is the competition law included? The objective and spirit are crystal clear, that is, to maintain competition in the industry and prevent monopoly. What does competition mean? Competition means decision by the market and the survival of the fittest, and improvement in quality of services or products will be brought about by competition. If an operator can offer excellent services, it can stay in the market. By the same token, when an operator fails to provide


excellent services, it cannot stay in the market. It is all left to the market to decide. The Chief Executive is no God. God may decide who can stay according to His preference. Perhaps I should not joke about this. What I mean to say is that the Chief Executive is not the overlord. He only needs and can only facilitate competition within the framework of and adhering to the spirit of the ordinance. In fact, I think even a three-year-old kid would know which TV station in the television broadcasting industry should be eliminated. Even without the issuance of additional licences by the Government, a three-year-old can tell which TV station should go. But the Chief Executive dares to say openly that he will not allow additional competitors. His subtext is that he has to protect the TV station which may have been eliminated anytime even without the granting of additional licences. His remark is suggesting that others are not allowed to join the competition. Is this the spirit of Hong Kong? Should Hong Kong's success today be credited to such sophistry? The core value of Hong Kong is the self-resilience built up through competition. Why should the Chief Executive go against this core value which Hong Kong has held onto since its establishment? Worse still, he thinks that all Hong Kong people are silly. The sophistry advanced by him in the past three weeks is laughable. But sorry, I really do not have the mood to laugh. President, to put it simply, to date, there is prima facie evidence proving abuse of power by the Chief Executive. That means he has abused the power conferred on him by the ordinance in making a decision that violates the spirit of the ordinance. When society queries the Chief Executive has abused his power, and if we Members of the Legislative Council say here that the case does not warrant any concern and can be handled via other means, can we go away with a clear conscience, let alone acting in good faith for the public? In the morning, when we look at ourselves in the mirror, do we have the courage to say, "I am acting in good faith."? Many colleagues have thought up thousands of excuses to oppose the motion today. This has brought me mixed feelings, laughable yet lamentable. President, the reasons they put forth are really interesting, like "I have not had the meeting yet", "I have not thought about it thoroughly", "I do not know what I should do", "A better explanation may be provided tomorrow, and if a better


2029

explanation is provided tomorrow, I can make the decision". President, why do they being Members not know how to handle a simple problem concerning the core values Hong Kong? There is another Member, Mr MA, he is not in the Chamber now. Though I do not want to criticize him, I cannot help passing a fair comment. He has not only failed to fulfil his responsibility, but also indicated his intention of applying for judicial review. A kid would have known the situation better than him. First, in what capacity will he apply for judicial review? Second, what information does he have to apply for judicial review? Will he rely on the information learnt from the television? Definitely not. The victims have a lot of information at hand, but we do not have such information. The victims may point out to the Court that they consider the Chief Executive has abused his power or violated social justice based on the information at hand. How could Mr MA be the one to apply for judicial review? In fact, all these issues are unimportant. The point is judicial review cannot provide a solution to the problem, for common sense tells us that judicial review seeks to examine whether or not a decision is wrong and if it is wrong, a different decision will be made ― this common sense is rudimentary, basic and not related to the law. However, an investigation by the Legislative Council is not about issues in this aspect, but about whether the Chief Executive has abused his power and violated the core values and the spirit of the rule of law upheld by Hong Kong all along. We want to know the "cause of death". To certain people, the Court's ruling on whether the decision is right or wrong is very important, but to this Council, it is not the most important concern. On the contrary, the important concern is whether our system has been distorted. It does not bear any relevance to any application for judicial review to the Court, does it? How can he use this as an excuse ― I can hardly call this a "reason" ― to shirk his responsibility? For this reason, I am very disappointed with Mr MA. However, I am not in a position to criticize him, and I should leave it to his electors. President, judicial review is not at all related to the motion today. Some colleagues mentioned that "it is lucky that the Executive Council has a confidentiality system", and they used this as a shield. President, according to my understanding, the so-called "confidentiality system of the Executive Council" does not have any specific legal basis in Hong Kong. The


confidentiality system of the Executive Council was established when Hong Kong implemented the so-called "accountability system" or when the Executive Council was established back then. The objective of the confidentiality system is to enable Members of the Executive Council to express themselves without reservation during debates at the meetings. Usually, the content of the debates of the Executive Council will not be made public. A person will agree to comply with the confidentiality agreement when he or she becomes a Member of the Executive Council. The Chief Executive can renounce the power to ensure confidentiality at any time, for Members of the Executive Council are accountable only to the Chief Executive under the confidentiality agreement. Has the Chief Executive ever renounced the power to uphold confidentiality? Yes. Many people have made casual comments in the open, stating who has made certain remarks and even who has sneezed. We know all of these. But has the Chief Executive ever said "You have violated the law and you should be jailed"? No, for this is not a criminal offence, but a civil liability. Certainly, the Government enjoys exemption on the grounds of public interest, so that all government documents are protected from being disclosed. There are many such justifications, for instance, when the disclosure of the relevant documents will undermine the interest of the State or the operation of the Government, or violate public interest, the Government will protect the documents. However, the exemption in public interest is not an absolute power. It never is. It is subject to the ruling of the Court. Based on the information required in individual cases, the Court will examine what kinds of documents can be disclosed and what cannot. Moreover, the Court may read the documents without allowing their disclosure, and make a decision based on the documents it has read. These are the requirements of the Court. President, the power conferred on the Legislative Council under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance is similar to that of the Court, no more and no less than that of the Court. In other words, if the Court has the authority to decide which documents should not be disclosed for it is against public interest, we also have the authority to make such a decision. If we make the wrong decision, others may apply for judicial review against our decision, or we may refer the issue to the Court of our own accord. However, it is not the case that the information cannot be provided. President, the information we mentioned here are classified into two categories: First, internal discussion records of the Executive Council; and


2031

second, internal documents of the Government. Internal documents of the Government are never covered by the confidentiality system, and the Government has submitted its internal documents to the Legislative Council before. I have asked my assistant to briefly review the cases in the past, and at least two cases were identified ― the Hunghom Peninsula incident and the Jeremy GODFREY incident. In the two incidents, the Government had produced all internal documents for Members' scrutiny in detail. It is evident that there are precedents. As for the specific content of speeches made by Members of the Executive Council at the meetings, I am not interested at all. I am not interested in any one of the Members of the Executive Council in any aspect. Perhaps they may be attractive to reporters, but not me. As Mr Dennis KWOK said, we do not need to read the internal discussion records of the Executive Council, and we only want to obtain the internal documents of the Government to understand the reasons for the Government to make the relevant decision. The information I just mentioned is not within the scope of the so-called confidentiality system. As I said earlier, even if the documents fall within the scope of the so-called confidentiality system, the Government should still disclose the documents on the grounds of public interest. Therefore, if anyone opposes the motion for the reason of the confidentiality system, he is trying to use this to deceive children. Honestly, he is indeed trying to deceive children. President, having said all this, I surely understand that the decision made by Members today is a political decision in all senses ― I was not born yesterday. In this Council, the one who has reason will not surely win. This has never happened in this Council. I have been in this Council for nine years and I note with regret that I have never seen a Member winning in the voting because he has a point, nor have I ever seen a motion passed because the reasoning of the Member is correct. Sometimes, I do miss the days at the Court, for the one with the right reasoning will win, which is not the case here. In this Council, all that matters is politics, and the only reason for making a certain political decision is to defend the Government. There is no other reason, is there? I think Members may as well act frankly in a plain-spoken manner by simply saying that, "I do this because I am "pro-government" and I am an expert in defending the Government." If that is the case, let them be "pro-government"! I can do nothing about that. Nonetheless, they will have to face their electors eventually.


MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, subsequent to the commissioning of Hong Kong's first free television (TV) station, Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB), in 1967, the then British Hong Kong Government decided in 1973 to issue two additional free TV licences to Rediffusion TV (now known as ATV) and Commercial Television (CTV). In the '70s of the last century, thanks to the keen competition in Hong Kong's free TV market, the three TV stations had produced a lot of hugely popular TV dramas and programmes. As a result, TV had swiftly become the main form of entertainment for the general public, thus ushering in the era of "people watching TV over meals". However, the shared dominance of the three TV stations lasted only three years. Although CTV commissioned in 1975 was well received by the public with quite good ratings, it finally ran into bankruptcy in 1978 after three years of operation because it was in dire financial straits after incurring enormous losses. As a result, only two TV stations, namely TVB and Rediffusion TV, remained in Hong Kong's free TV market. Being the first free and colour TV station, TVB had the advantage of being a pioneer in the market. Shortly after its commissioning, it had already secured higher ratings and a greater share of advertising revenue. Compared to CTV and Rediffusion TV, TVB had more favourable operating conditions. Although Rediffusion TV, later known as ATV, had produced quite a lot of well-received TV dramas and programmes after the bankruptcy of CTV, it was still unable to close the gap with TVB in terms of ratings and advertising revenue. As a result, there was a wide gap in strength between TVB and ATV. With TVB benefited by the habitual viewing, Hong Kong's free TV market had gradually lost its competitiveness. Hence, many members of the public and people of the performing arts sector hoped that the situation in which there was a lack of competition in the free TV market could be changed. In order to reverse the situation in which there was a lack of competition in Hong Kong's free TV market, the SAR Government accepted the recommendations of the Broadcasting Authority (BA), now known as the Communications Authority (CA), to issue more free TV licences in order to introduce competition into the free TV market. In 2010, the City Telecom (HK) Limited and two paid-TV operators, namely Cable TV and now TV, respectively submitted applications for free TV licences. After three years of scrutiny, the


2033

Chief Executive in Council decided on 15 October to issue free TV licences to the Fantastic Television Limited (Fantastic TV) of Cable TV group and the HK Television Entertainment Company Limited (HKTVE) of now TV, but not the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN), formerly known as City Telecom (HK) Limited. Although the Chief Executive in Council's decision to issue two more free TV licences will double the number of free TV stations from two to four, HKTVN, which was more proactive than the other two operators which were granted free TV licences, had recruited a large number of actors, actresses and producers while awaiting the outcome of its application for a free TV licence, and emphasized the production of dramas, was denied a licence. As a result, quite many members of the public who hoped to see more creative dramas and people of the performing arts sector were greatly dissatisfied, thus triggering the current controversy. The main purpose of issuing more TV licences this time around is to introduce more competition into the free TV market. However, the applicant regarded by the community as the most aggressive and creative was rejected by the Chief Executive in Council. Naturally, the decision is a far cry from the expectations of many members of the public and people in the performing arts sector. The support campaign launched by former and existing employees of HKTVN and a large number of people in the performing arts sector over the Government's refusal to grant a licence to HKTVN has touched quite a number of people and won their sympathy for HKTVN. It is hoped that the SAR Government can further explain why HKTVN was denied a licence with a view to allaying public concern, and issue a licence to HKTVN in a timely manner. Earlier on, Members from the DAB openly expressed their hope that the SAR Government could further explain the reasons for not granting HKTVN a licence without prejudice to the existing Executive Council rules in order to allay public concern, and give timely consideration to the issuance of a licence to HKTVN. It is thus evident that the DAB has never opposed the issuance of a free TV licence to HKTVN by the Chief Executive in Council. It also considers that the SAR Government should give timely consideration to the issuance of more free TV licences.


Regarding this motion proposed by Mr Charles Peter MOK to call on this Council to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to make public the information involving the vetting and approval by the Chief Executive in Council of the applications for the issuance of more free TV licences this time around, we think that such a move will not offer practical help to resolving the existing controversy and safeguarding the interests of HKTVN staff and the general public. First of all, Hong Kong is a society that upholds the rule of law. Each policy decision is made by the SAR Government in accordance with an established set of procedures and cannot be changed arbitrarily. Under the existing legal system, unless it is spelt out before a decision has been made by the Chief Executive in Council that an appeal can be made regarding the relevant policies or matters, a decision made by the Chief Executive in Council cannot be changed lightly. In other words, even if the Legislative Council endorses invoking of the P&P Ordinance to make public the information involving the vetting and approval by the Chief Executive in Council of the applications for the issuance of more free TV licences this time around, we can still not make the Chief Executive in Council change the relevant decision immediately and issue a licence to HKTVN. Furthermore, the call for making public the relevant information involving the Executive Council will not only disclose a large amount of confidential commercial information involving the three free TV licence applicants, but also undermine their interests. What is more, the rules of confidentiality and collective responsibility will fail, and Executive Council Members will be unable to play their role, thus undermining the long-term interest of Hong Kong. Mr Dennis KWOK, also from the pan-democracy camp, has proposed an amendment to delete the request for making public the deliberations of the Executive Council and the confidential commercial information involving the three applicants because he understands the concern of people from all social sectors and the impact of making the disclosure. However, as pointed out earlier by Ricky WONG, chairman of HKTVN, and I quote to this effect, "What else can be obtained and what is the point of conducting a probe if documents involving the Executive Council and information involving the three applicants are inaccessible?" Even Secretary Gregory SO pointed out just now that he had no idea what documents could be provided even if the original motion and the


2035

amendment were passed. This is why we think that it is not going to work. In the opinion of the DAB, Mr Charles Peter MOK's original motion and Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment are merely a gesture of "invoking the P&P Ordinance for the sake of it". We think that it is meaningless to do so. The DAB considers that if the information and arguments in the 17-page response made by HKTVN yesterday are comprehensive and accurate, the DAB thinks that it is all the more necessary for HKTVN to apply for a judicial review to allow the Court to rule whether there is any misconduct on the part of the Chief Executive in Council in making the decision. However, Mr Dennis KWOK seemed to have changed his usual attitude when he delivered his speech. Instead of demonstrating great passion for judicial review as the Civic Party usually does, he said that judicial review was pointless, as if implying that the Court could not do anything to compel the Government to act because it lacked "bite". But then, I heard Mr Ronny TONG and Mr Albert HO say that the decision made by the Chief Executive in Council was in breach of the ordinance relating to broadcasting services and the Bill of Rights, an abuse of power, and seriously flawed. If there are so many flaws, I think HKTVN has the conditions to win the lawsuit. Nevertheless, I have no idea which lawyer will be hired by Mr WONG to fight the legal battle. Legislative Council Members probably have very good insights in this regard, too. For these reasons, I think that a legal battle should be fought. I agree with Mr MA Fung-kwok who proposes that judicial review should be considered. Given that the Government has acted inappropriately, why do we not apply for judicial review instead of believing that only through invoking the P&P Ordinance can we compel the Government to entertain our request? We disagree with such a view. If it is ruled that HKTVN wins its case, I think the Government should reconsider whether HKTVN should be granted the relevant licence. Furthermore, according to the statement issued by the SAR Government yesterday, the SAR Government has not completely closed the door to HKTVN's bid to apply for a free TV licence. Just now, Secretary Gregory SO also reiterated that he did not rule out the possibility of issuing more TV licences in future. Hence, we would suggest HKTVN revise its proposal and submit a fresh application. Certainly, I have repeatedly raised the idea in the past couple of days of requesting HKTVN to consider the acquisition of ATV for the sake of obtaining a free TV licence.


As we all know, ATV is under heavy financial and operating pressure due to its long-standing weakness. Moreover, its original licence will expire in 2015 and be due for renewal. Hence, if ATV is acquired by HKTVN, the latter will provide the former with new funds or operating strategies. I would also like to point out that HKTVN can also receive a free TV licence to broadcast in the airwaves, and such a licence is different from the existing licences granted to the two other TV stations. I think a win-win situation will thus be achieved. After all, this controversy is attributed to the people's expectation for the introduction of more competition to the free TV market and the provision of more quality TV dramas and programmes. Hence, the DAB considers that the SAR Government should expeditiously finalize the licensing details with the two operators granted with new TV licences and discuss with the two existing free TV operators about licence renewals. Moreover, it should make reference to the earlier recommendation made by Mr Robert CHUA, a media veteran, that more stringent licensing conditions should be formulated during the renewal of licences for the two new free TV operators as well as the two existing free TV operators by stipulating, for instance, the number of hours of locally produced programmes, the broadcast of locally produced programmes only during prime time, and restricting the number of repeats on free TV channels. This can, on the one hand, meet the public's expectation for watching more locally produced programmes and, on the other, create more room for development for the performing arts sector in Hong Kong. With these remarks, I have spoken according to my conscience and from the bottom of my heart in opposition to Mr Charles Peter MOK's original motion and Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, I have been in a terrible mood lately, I could not sleep at all last night. I just could not help tossing and turning restlessly, wondering why the row over the issuance of free TV licences could have caused such a great controversy, fragmentation in the community, public uproar and strong public resentment in Hong Kong, making the Government hugely unpopular. The more I thought about it, the more heartbroken and disappointed I became, and the harder for me to fall asleep. Moreover, unhappy scenes I hate to see, such as incidents involving the unauthorized building works of Henry TANG and LEUNG Chun-ying, and faces of Franklin LAM, Barry


2037

CHEUNG, LEW Mon-hung and Paul CHAN kept coming to my mind. I had nightmares all night long. President, during his election campaign, the Chief Executive displayed in high profile an air of regarding the people as his family members and taking public opinion seriously, saying he would bring along a pen, a note pad and a stool to listen to people's opinions, provided that they were willing to speak up. Many people were indeed overjoyed, flattered and intoxicated at that time. With his popularity ratings continuing to rise, he finally ascended to the throne of the Chief Executive. President, it has been 16 months since the inauguration of the new-term Government, which means that one third of the Government's term of office has already passed. For a period of time in the past, the Chief Executive had kept emphasizing that he took public opinion seriously and attached importance to the openness and transparency of the Government. Not only did he chant slogans about being "candid and honest" and adopting a "people-based" approach all the time, he also made many promises to the people of Hong Kong that the Government was committed to playing the role of a "market enabler" by improving people's livelihood, pursuing economic development and promoting democracy. Thanks to his promises, Hong Kong was teeming with life and hopes. Everyone thought that there would be no more shortages of housing, school places, beds, and formula milk. President, these were his words after being elected: "There was no longer "Tang camp" or "Leung camp" but only the "Hong Kong camp" in Hong Kong. I hope all of you can make concerted efforts to support the Government's implementation of new policies." His words were so touching that we were all intoxicated, including me. I thought it was a blessing to Hong Kong people to have such a broad-minded Chief Executive to run Hong Kong. It could be said that he was the right man. While Hong Kong society could then unite in harmony, the Government could make appointments on the basis of merits, adopt a "people-based" approach, and put its words into actions. Unfortunately, President, as the saying goes, as distance tests a horse's strength, so time reveals a person's heart, and strong winds test the strength of the grass. The storm stirred up by the issue of national education, the provision for the Old Age Living Allowance, the vetting and approval of the extension of landfills, the launch of "curbs" measures involving stamp duties on properties, and the decision on the issuance of licences this time around have revealed the Government's repeated acts of digging its own grave, asking for trouble and bringing disgrace on itself.


We can note from a series of blunders made by the Government in administration that its strategies have not been well thought out and its consultations not conducted properly. What is more, it has no respect for public opinion. It is self-centred and acts like a tyrant all the time. Not only does it lack any team spirit, it does not resemble a team at all, with government departments minding only their own business without supporting each other. In the end, no policy can be implemented smoothly. We can only see government officials working in confusion and making more efforts in taking remedial measures than celebrating victories. With the Government's credibility continuing to fall, the Chief Executive's net popularity rating has recently even dropped to -38, and there have been persistent calls from the public for individual government officials, such as Paul CHAN and Eddie NG, to step down. Secretary, you might be the next one to be asked to quit. President, the rising grievances in the community have intensified the public's discontent with the Government and caused a lot of conflicts. Today, the atmosphere of the community is so tense that it is like the eve of a storm in the breaking. President, it takes more than one cold day for the river to freeze three feet deep. The Government's announcement of the outcome of the issuance of free TV licences on 15 October is a far cry from the public's expectation. Not only has the Government failed to perform proper management of people's expectation beforehand, it has also failed to clearly explain the justifications for its decision during the announcement. The array of factors mentioned by Secretary Gregory SO has turned into a heap of nonsense which has instantly stirred up discontent among the public and triggered grievances in the community. On 22 October, more than 100 000 people took to the streets and joined the rally in protest against the Government's approach of handling the matter. I believe the public and the Government did not expect this turn of the matter. President, who should be held accountable for turning a commercial decision into a social issue and triggering such a situation in the aftermath of a political issue? Who is the author of his own misfortune? I believe you, President, already have the answer in mind and so do the public, because we have all waken up. President, since 15 October, I have been watching the development of the incident closely and paying close attention to the public's reaction and sentiment and the Government's response. From the beginning, the Government has been giving responses like squeezing toothpaste from a tube, thereby failing


2039

completely to allay public concern. Neither has it said anything to account for the public's greatest query about the decision not to grant HKTVN a free TV licence. It is simply impossible to convince the public. In addition, its ambiguous explanation gives the public the impression that the Government is engaging in black-box operation for reasons including political considerations, thus leading to growing anxiety and discontent. President, the Government must understand that Hong Kong owes its success to its free economy. The fact that Hong Kong society is full of competition makes Hong Kong a very competitive city. Elimination of the weak and survival of the fittest are inevitable principles in the market. In fact, healthy competition is beneficial to the progress of individuals and development of society. Naturally, some people will win and some will lose in a competition. It is absolutely unnecessary for the Government to worry that an individual investor might incur losses. An applicant entering the competition must have considered his application thoroughly. Only the market can tell whether or not his business will succeed. Certainly, the Government is obliged to maintain a business-friendly environment and provide fair, impartial and transparent conditions for the market to enable investors to engage in fair competition. It must absolutely not act like a "cheating" referee who looks at the competition through tinted glasses even before its commencement and judge which team is going to win or lose. What is more, it must not merely care about keeping a particular team in the game without giving any chances to new players. President, if the Government invites investors to submit applications for any licences or development projects in future but still sticks to the same approach of making its decision by comparing the financial strength of the applicants, the entire market will only end up being monopolized by just a few tycoons. Not only will the Government be criticized by the public for colluding with business, there will also be no more new comers in the market. President, I very much cherish the meeting held last Saturday with the Chief Executive. During the meeting, I tried my best to advise the Chief Executive by analysing all the advantages and disadvantages and telling him the public's discontent. I very much hoped that he could wake up, and the Government could go heart to heart with the people to avoid such a confrontational situation. Meanwhile, I also hoped that the negative energy in the community could diminish gradually and internal attrition be minimized.


President, during the meeting, I actually felt that the Chief Executive understood my words and the matters I was trying to relay to him. Hence, over the past few days, I have been waiting silently in the hope that the Government can give a further explanation to the public expeditiously in order to allay public concern and calm the storm this time around to prevent the community from being torn apart. However, my hope was dashed following the issue of a six-page statement by the Government yesterday. I was totally disappointed with this suicidal statement because it was full of platitudes and devoid of new ideas. President, regarding this motion on the P&P Ordinance today, I would like to tell you ― I believe you are aware of it, too ― that regardless of whether or not it is passed, I believe the incident involving the issue of free TV licences will definitely cause considerable side-effects and sequelae to Hong Kong society, and the community as a whole has thus been depleted. Hence, I very much hope that after this lesson, the Government can learn from its experience of defeat and expeditiously mend its relationship with the public and the cracks between them. I also earnestly hope that the Chief Executive can stop behaving arrogantly and listen sincerely to the public's aspirations and the views expressed by various major political parties. He must stop listening to views in a biased manner, behaving like a tyrant, being self-centred, and feeling good about himself. The Government must give due regard to public sentiment and perception and understand what they have in their minds before taking actions. In fact, there are many competent persons in the community who have insight. The Chief Executive can actually learn from the wisdom of the community, and I believe doing so can assist him in administration. If the Chief Executive can perform his role properly, I believe the public will naturally develop a sense of belonging, and his administration will naturally become smoother. President, I was born and raised up in Hong Kong. I love my country, and Hong Kong, too. As a pro-establishment Member, I will definitely fully support the administration by the Government in accordance with the law. However, if the Government takes a wrong step or makes any mistakes, I will not stand on the sidelines. What is more, I will not move the goalposts arbitrarily. I will endeavour to do my part as a Legislative Council Member, perform my duties properly, and monitor the operation of the Government. I will remind myself at all times not to get lost. I will spare no effort in protecting public interest and assisting in the development of society as a whole.


2041

Regarding the incident involving the issue of free TV licences this time around, President, it is evident that the Government can still not allay public concern, calm public discontent and stop the accumulation of grievances despite all the efforts it has made. Furthermore, it is unable to minimize divides in the community and, hence, command public trust and support. The situation created by the Government today has made me very sad and worried. In fact, if the Government cannot provide an effective solution to this incident, it will definitely encounter great difficulties in its administration in future. President, I am no expert in law, but I believe judicial review is definitely not a panacea for resolving this incident. Should the Government fight against members of the public and investors in court, the incident will only drag on and on and probably lead to inestimable consequences or even more serious damage. Meanwhile, the Government should not encourage the public or investors to take the matter to court. In fact, the Chief Executive had repeatedly reiterated to me during our meeting that the Government had no wish to fight a legal battle. Neither do I hope to see other Members encourage investors or the public to take the Government to court. Hong Kong needs "to maintain harmony", and litigations are unnecessary. President, a colleague has proposed today invoking the P&P Ordinance to require the Government to produce documents to assist in digging out the truth. After days of deliberation, I have decided to support Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment without prejudice to the Executive Council's rule of confidentiality and disclosing commercial secrets and sensitive information. President, as regards the request made by Mr Charles Peter MOK in his original motion for the Government to submit all the documents, including documents involving the Executive Council and confidential commercial information, on 8 November, the day after tomorrow, I consider this request not only unrealistic in terms of time, manpower, resources and spirit and the confidentiality rule, but also incompatible with the realistic circumstances. Hence, I will absolutely not support the motion. With these remarks, President, I hope the storm this time around can be calmed down expeditiously, so that the community can stop splitting and Hong Kong can continue to move forward for further development. President, I so submit.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is now 7 pm. It is obviously unlikely that we can finish all the items on the Agenda before midnight today. Hence, I will suspend the meeting at 10 pm until 9 am tomorrow. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Members should know that people rallying outside the Legislative Council Complex are watching us delivering our speeches, and we can watch their reactions, too. I believe the speech delivered by Dr LAM Tai-fai just now must have won an applause from those people outside and people calling for fairness in the issuance of licences. It is also a challenge to other pro-establishment Members: On which side do you stand, the public or the Government which is engaging in black-box operation? I believe the people are sharp-eyed. The one who really stands on the side of the people and really gives them a helping hand is pretty obvious. We are very pleased that at least one pro-establishment Member has defected, though we hope more Members will follow suit. However, Dr LAM might argue that he has never expressed support for the "Leung camp" and will definitely declare himself to be a supporter of the "Hong Kong camp". As he said just now, he was deeply touched by the remarks made by LEUNG Chun-ying about the "Hong Kong camp" initially, so I believe he is really a supporter of the "Hong Kong camp" and the "people's camp". I hope other pro-establishment Members can listen to him and cast a supportive vote according to their conscience. President, Hong Kong people are really miserable. We cannot choose the Chief Executive or functional constituency Members; we can only vote on half of the seats in this Council. It is already impossible for us to choose the Chief Executive and the other half of the seats in this Council, now we cannot even choose our TV services. Sometimes, the general public might wish to have more choices to make life less boring. What wrong have they done? However, we are left with no choice at all, including political choices. Now, we have even been stripped of our right to choose TV services by LEUNG Chun-ying. He has always talked about promoting creative industries and industrial diversification. This topic has been discussed in this Council on many occasions, too. Although functional constituency Members in the pro-establishment camp who are knowledgeable in economics often advocate the need to promote the economy and develop a diversified economy, what have you, pro-establishment Members done, despite the fact that creative industries are precisely a component of a diversified economy? You have not given creative industries any support, and the Government has even gone so far as to stifle the


2043

creative industries. As a result, some employees are thrown out of work and some have no idea of their way forward. But most importantly, they were originally dreaming of having more opportunities in Hong Kong following the issuance of more TV licences, and employees and members of the public would then have more choices rather than seeing the market being dominated by one single TV station and watching cooking shows only. When people who share this sentiment felt that they could finally realize their dream and give play to their creativity, their ambition was suddenly stifled by the Government's decision not to issue the licence. The Government was really unacceptable to them for it was like throwing a cold blanket on their creativity and passion. I really do not understand why the pro-establishment Members would like to see this happen. Although they often express support for the creative industries, what do they actually support? There is this creative industry before them, but they are not going to support it and conversely they are going to defend the Government. What is the point? What is the point of joining the Legislative Council? On the one hand, they express support for creative industries but, on the other, they act otherwise. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions (FLU) often vow to protect employment opportunities, so what rubbish are they talking about? What we wish to do now is to create job opportunities. More competition will naturally bring job opportunities. I also wish to challenge Cable TV and now TV. Why have we never heard of any of their productions? Without producing their own programmes, what programmes will they broadcast? I hope they can assure us that they have really prepared some programmes for us, because HKTVN has really got some programmes in stock and can be described as having provided job opportunities and produced some programmes. I hope the FTU and the FLU can think twice because I have already asked them just now and learnt that they were not prepared to cast a supportive vote on the grounds that the Executive Council's rule of confidentiality could not be challenged. It turned out that they considered the rule of confidentiality even more important than the rice bowls of workers. What is the point of talking about labour unions or protecting workers' interest? I hope they can give a response later on. Despite the request made by the staff of HKTVN to meet with Miss CHAN Yuen-han, the latter was being evasive. How can she represent the labour sector? I really hope that these Members can explain their case clearly.


Just now, the staff rallying outside requested us to hand this black box to the pro-establishment Members. President, you will definitely stop me from hurling this black box, so I can only continue with my speech. This black box represents LEUNG Chun-ying. Just now, Secretary Gregory SO pointed out in his speech that the entire licence issue process was compliant with procedural justice. He was really remarkable, for he could have made such a remark shamelessly. Like a black-box operation, the entire process was actually unfair, biased and unjust. Where is their conscience if Members can support this black box all the same? During the past three weeks, LEUNG Chun-ying has been hiding inside the black box. Just now, many Members referred to him as "squeezing toothpaste from a tube", but I think he is most remarkable for being hated by the people as their enemy. What did he say initially? He said that the reasons could not be revealed due to the rule of confidentiality and added that nothing could be disclosed due to the judicial review application. When he learnt that the party concerned had given up the idea of seeking a judicial review, he changed his tune, saying he would only give an explanation in court. What was he talking about? Why could he only explain in court but not disclose the reasons in this Council? According to his logic, does it mean that the confidential documents involving the Executive Council can only be disclosed in court but not the Legislative Council? What is the status of the Legislative Council in his mind? When he subsequently realized that using the Court as an excuse would not work, coupled with the fact that the party concerned had given up seeking a judicial review and public emotions were running high, he came up with the new idea of disclosing information selectively to Members picked by him. As a result, some Members were summoned by him to listen to his explanation, including Mr Michael TIEN. After his summoning and explanation, I had no idea what Mr TIEN was talking about when he walked out the office of the Chief Executive. I only know that Mr TIEN decided to oppose invoking the P&P Ordinance for the sake of conducting an investigation. Next, LEUNG Chun-ying issued a six-page statement but, as evident to all, it has offered no explanation at all. It has merely set out 11 factors and four criteria. As Secretary Gregory SO pointed out just now, consideration was given according to the overall ratings. Not only were there no scores for each breakdown, there were no explanations whatsoever. Hence, in the words of Ricky WONG, the cause of death remains a misery.


2045

President, this is what is meant by LEUNG Chun-ying's black box. He is still engaging in black-box operation. I think that the entire debate boils down to four core questions as mentioned by many Members, but never explained by the Government. Firstly, why did the Government move the goalposts? Did it admit doing so? The Government had been stating that three licences would be issued, but in May, the applicants were suddenly informed that the Government had changed its mind and requested them to make a fresh representation because only two out of the three TV licence applications would be approved. When the Government was asked why it had to do so, it replied that there had been no change in policy. But the fact is it had originally said that three licences would be issued but it turned out that only two out of the three TV licence applications would be approved. How could the Government insist that there had been no change in policy and it had not told any lies? Why did it suddenly change its mind by reducing the number of licences issued from three to two? The Government has never offered any explanation. Secondly, the Government has often used vicious competition as an excuse, but what does vicious competition mean? According to LAM Woon-kwong, vicious competition is not a good thing. The market can accommodate four licences at the most because the Government does not wish to see vicious competition. Hence, does it mean that we have to eliminate the strong so that the weak will stay? Certainly, the Labour Party supports the disadvantaged groups, but we are not talking about supporting these people. Instead, we are talking about supporting a TV station which is absolutely insincere in operating its business, one which has become the mouthpiece of the Central Authorities. Actually, it needs not fear competition because there will be no shortage of funds. In the end, there will still be five TV stations. Of course, whether or not viewers will watch their programmes is quite another matter. Is the Government deliberately giving this TV station protection? If so, this world is really absurd, for there is such a thing as eliminating the strong and retaining the weak. Thirdly, the Government has even interfered in the market and picked the winner. The Government should not be the one to pick the winner. Why did it not let the public do so? We can make all sorts of choices in Hong Kong every day. Given that the public can pick the winning local café and take charge of everything, why did the Government have to act for the public in picking the winner this time around?


Fourthly, one of the criteria is fatal. I wonder if it was included only subsequently. One of the four key criteria suggested was to ascertain the financial strength of the holding company. But why was this criterion included for no reason? If the decision is based on this criterion, people starting from scratch will never have the opportunity of making a fortune because they lack "financial strength". Is it Hong Kong's existing policy to offer permanent protection to children of the rich? If this is the case, please state it honestly and do not mention something else. Anyhow, there will be only one criterion in future, that is, only children of the rich can apply for licences. Interestingly, a report in the Hong Kong Economic Journal today points out that this will lead to yet another legal problem. According to the newspaper, under section 2 of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Ordinance, a licence shall not be granted to or held by a company which is the subsidiary of a corporation. This is really strange. If the subsidiary of a corporation will not be granted a licence, then why should we be concerned about the financial strength of its holding company? This is really self-contradictory and baffling. Even the laws are not complied with. None of these questions has been answered. Lastly, President, the pro-establishment Members and even the Government have merely been repeating that the Executive Council's rule of confidentiality must not be challenged. However, as I pointed out just now, the public's right to information rather than this rule is overriding. Strangely enough, what is the point of talking about this rule? Is the Executive Council's discussion not yet over? Our current request is for the Government to produce information after the discussion for explanation purposes. Can the Government say that it cannot explain why the Executive Council supported the application submitted by CLP Power Hong Kong Limited for a 5% tariff increase on the ground of maintaining the rule of confidentiality, even though the increase has already been discussed and approved by the Executive Council? Actually, this is not the case. Because all the information was provided for explanation purposes on each and every occasion. Except for commercial confidential information, information about the entire deliberation process was made public to explain the reasons. Why could the Government not do so this time around and could only hold closed-door meetings and disclose the information selectively to Members? In fact, such an act amounts to leaking secrets. Why could the Government leak secrets to Members but not the public? Hence, the so-called rule of confidentiality is just an excuse. The Government can simply not explain the whole incident. Anyhow, it just seeks to muddle through with its antics.


2047

Just now, Mr TAM Yiu-chung accused us of invoking the P&P Ordinance for the sake of it, but the P&P Ordinance is indeed within our scope of authority. On the contrary, I think that he is backing the establishment for the sake of it. Actually, there is no need for the pro-establishment Members to say anything else. They just need to state clearly that they will not reason and will only support and defend the establishment. Full stop. President, I hope the outcome today will not break the hearts of the people outside. Nevertheless, I believe they know very well that the debate will end in failure. We can tell the outcome by just looking at those pro-establishment Members, except for Dr LAM Tai-fai who made us so excited for a while just now. I believe it is doomed to failure. Nevertheless, I think we can keep up our efforts and invoke the P&P Ordinance next time (The buzzer sounded) … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE, the speaking time is up. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): … to summon Ricky WONG for a fresh debate. Thank you, President. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Mr Charles Peter MOK's original motion and Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment. President, I believe you must have also received the message from the Secretariat that vehicles cannot access the Legislative Council car park because the Tim Mei Road off the Complex has already been cordoned off. The fact that more and more people are hurrying to the Legislative Council Complex and the Central Government Complex might be a true reflection of the remark made by Mr LAM Woon-kwong last year, that "the elephant representing public opinion has come out". Mr TAM Yiu-chung said in his speech just now that actually the DAB has no objection to the issuance of three TV licences ― although Mr TAM is not in the Chamber now, some of his party comrades are still here ― I find it very strange that if the DAB has no objection … I have on hand a joint statement signed by 35 Members from various parties and groupings on 28 October calling for the issuance of three TV licences. President, you need not look for a


magnifying glass, for even if you manage to find one, you can still not find the names of DAB Members in the statement. May I ask why? Are they focusing on individuals rather than facts? Is it the case that they refused to sign because we have signed the joint statement? If they could indicate approval so openly, they should sign it! However, it is not too late because they can still do so now. I call on Members to sign it to give play to our power. In a radio programme attended by me just now, the programme host, LEUNG Tin-wai, asked how this issue could be resolved. He said that there was apparently no way out because the entire community was embroiled in serious internal disputes. I told him that he was wrong, for the Members sitting on the other side were very powerful. President, I wonder if you remember that the Chief Executive refused to say a word when the incident came to light. However, when he was pressurized and threatened by those Members at a meeting, he began to disclose the information bit by bit. Despite his failure to reveal everything and his poor expression, he will tell us the story in the end. I believe the President in particular will understand this. If we have 50 or even more votes in this Council, will the outcome turn out to be the same? Hence, I believe the crowds gathering outside and people watching the live telecast are very enthusiastic about the speech delivered by Dr LAM Tai-fai just now ― please hurry up and come after dinner for "the elephant representing public opinion" is coming out. I hope some Members will sign this joint statement and support Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment (if they do not support Mr Charles Peter MOK's original motion). If this is the case, I believe the executive has to make an about-turn. When I attended a dinner party hosted by a small and medium enterprise last Friday, I found that all the people there … many of them, if not all of them, looked miserable. I had chatted with some people in the business sector, and most of them disapproved of the Government's handling of the TV licence incident. They even felt concerned that the business sector or other people would run into trouble should the situation in Hong Kong remained unchanged. When speaking on the stage, the Chairman of the organizer of the dinner party, Mr David LAN, a former high-ranking official, said that there was nothing the Government could do. So, what else can be done? The SAR Government absolutely owes Hong Kong people.


2049

This morning, I also heard a radio programme say that some people had migration plans, as if we were going back to two or three decades ago when some Hong Kong people voted with their feet because of their worry about Hong Kong's future. Just now, Tin-wai asked me what should be done given the mistakes made by the Government one after another. I replied that during my discussions with some royalist Members and even people inside the Government, I found that most of them were actually in favour of issuing licences. Some of them even questioned why LEUNG Chun-ying could have made such a decision given that he was so smart ― I certainly disagree with this remark. Some people also thought that it had actually nothing to do with Beijing. I think that they might be right, or they might be wrong, but we cannot rule out the possibility of Beijing's involvement, too. Nevertheless, I heard some people say that should Hong Kong perish one day, the eunuchs in Hong Kong, or people who love to second-guess the "Big Brother", must be held responsible. Even a ballet called The Dream of the Red Chamber ran into big troubles lately for no reason and became a laughing stock in Germany. Following the occurrence of this incident, President, how many more incidents will we have to face? Recently, I have been requested by some people on the streets to scold LEUNG Chun-ying for them. For instance, when I was walking on the street after having a meal, I was approached by the mother of a family who made a similar request. When I was taking a taxi, I was reminded by the taxi driver to scold LEUNG Chun-ying for him. The other day, I came across Mr Abraham SHEK when I was having a meal. I was requested by a woman near the entrance to scold LEUNG Chun-ying for her, too. We can thus see how angry the public feel. Have we reached the so-called critical point? Why do the public feel so angry about this incident? One of the reasons is … not for the sake of Ricky WONG. I agree with other Members that it is not for his sake. Because the public think that the existing fee TV programmes are really problematic. Although Hong Kong claims to be an international metropolis, the number of TV stations here is the same as that in North Korea. Is there something wrong? Besides, some singers have indicated in radio programmes that they always hope to see new comers, be they singers or creative industry practitioners. If we wish to take a look at these singers, when will such programmes be aired on free TV stations? President, we have to wait until past midnight to watch such programmes. Why? Because the TV stations have to save money by either broadcasting TV programmes bought from outside Hong Kong or producing


cooking shows for the viewers. This is why the public feel so angry. Why do the authorities concerned still not see the point? Both ordinary people and the business sector … we in the Democratic Party take the business sector very seriously. Hong Kong must have a business-friendly environment and fair rules of the game before we can have faith. Recently, some people have time again mentioned such risks brought by policies. Should the Government keep changing this and that policy, will people be willing to make investments here? Despite the occurrence of this single incident recently, there has actually been a string of incidents occurring one after another. I believe it is impossible for Hong Kong to take too many incidents like this one. I really have no idea of the decision-making process of the Executive Council and the Administration. With respect to a statement issued by Prof Albert CHEN on 4 November, as mentioned by quite a number of Members just now, I have told the Secretary that many people concur that the Government has obviously changed its policy, but it is unlawful for the Government to change its policy without consulting the Communications Authority (CA). The Government should first consult the CA and, upon receiving its recommendations, submit them to the Executive Council for discussion. Nevertheless, it is better late than never. It is just a decision in principle. The authorities concerned must consult the CA again and wait for its views before conducting further discussions. President, the Legislative Council should also be informed if there is a change of policy. However, in that five- or six-page widely known statement, the Secretary said that there had been no change of policy. According to the Secretary, the "inclination" is to adopt the gradual and orderly approach. Have Members heard of such "hypocritical rhetoric"? What does it mean by "inclination"? According to the Government's initial policy, no ceiling will be set, and applicants will each be granted a licence provided the licensing requirements are met. Consequently, three applications in total were received. We have all along thought that the three operators will each be granted a licence provided the qualifications are met. However, the operators were suddenly informed in May that this was not the case and the gradual and orderly approach would be adopted, which meant that not all the three applications would be accepted. What is more, the operators were requested to express their views but not revise the contents of their applications. It is a change of policy, is it not? People who have not read the statement issued by Prof Albert CHEN should get a copy and read it, for he has already stated clearly that such an act is unlawful.


2051

President, the Secretary has actually given us a reply in that five- or six-page statement that, as the Government often says, a London Silk has been consulted. At the end of the day, it is the taxpayers who suffer because both parties have counsels and consequently, they will have to meet again in the Court. When it comes to meeting in the Court, President, you are not an absent-minded person. Royalist Members used to condemn members of the public for initiating lawsuits indiscriminately. In their opinion, people frequently taking cases to the Court are ridiculous and trying to politicize matters. Today, however, they behave very differently from their usual self, as Mr TAM Yiu-chung said. Despite his criticism of Mr Dennis KWOK for behaving in an out-of-character manner, I think he was actually behaving very differently from his usual self because he was the one who called on the people to initiate court proceedings. President, what is the approach taken by the DAB, to which you belong? Which words should I trust? It used to tell people not to politicize matters and bring cases to the Court. Today, however, it is appealing to people to bring cases to the Court. In addition, Mr TAM even sought to belittle the Legislative Council, saying the discussions should not be held here. What is more, he sought to prevent Members from exercising their power. I think he has really gone over the top. Members should know that we will become very powerful if we can act in solidarity ― both Mr SHEK and Mr LEUNG are present. In fact, we can compel the authorities to deal with the matter more properly if we can give our consent and have 50 to 60 Members cast a supportive vote to call on the authorities to give an explanation or even sign this document immediately to call for the issuance of three TV licences ― I have not heard anyone raise objection today. In fact, we are doing this to fight for victory for the sake of the public rather than Mr Charles Peter MOK. I would like to invite Members to examine their conscience and ask themselves whether the Government has done anything wrong in this incident. I am aware that some Executive Council Members have indicated in public or private that all the applicants should be granted a licence. Certainly, some extremely leftists, particularly critics of the President, disagree with this idea. Nevertheless, the majority of people share the view that all the applicants should be granted a licence. So, why does the Government still make such a decision? Will the sky collapse should Ricky WONG be granted a licence? I really have no idea, but I know many members of the public will feel happy about it.


Furthermore, he has promised that he dares not make headlines and do this and that for fear that some people will scold him every day over the granting of a licence to him. President, if he has not done anything wrong, who will find the time to scold him every day? I think that this incident is absolutely unbearable. I also hope that the authorities can listen to public opinion clearly. At the beginning, the Administration said that it would not give any comment because the incident was under judicial review. After both Philip LI and Ricky WONG had said that they would withdraw their accusations for the time being, which meant that there would be no more judicial review proceedings, LEUNG Chun-ying came forward but still refused to say anything. Is there something wrong with him? He was actually lying. Regarding Ricky WONG's remark yesterday that he would prove that LEUNG Chun-ying was lying, I would like to request him to reveal the lies told by LEUNG Chun-ying expeditiously given the release of this statement of several pages. Actually, I am now seeking to blow up the lies told by LEUNG Chun-ying. Initially, it was thought that he could not speak because of the charges laid against him. However, he still refused to speak even after the parties concerned had withdrawn their judicial review applications to prevent him from using the judicial reviews as an excuse. President, this is like tossing a coin and saying "heads I win, tails you lose". Is he not winning either way? However, we are not tossing a coin; we are talking about a matter of enormous import in Hong Kong. In particular, someone's business is now at stake. Although the Chief Executive has clearly pointed out that Hong Kong is a commercial city ― I certainly disagree with this point because we need to take various aspects into account ― and businesses play a very important role, he does not keep his word. So, what can be done? Some labour unions have said that they will support workers. Now several hundred workers have been thrown out of work, but where have all these labour unions gone? How outrageous! Actually, many people have indicated in private that they are in favour of issuing licences. I really do not know whether the Chief Executive has taken the wrong drugs or is in some kind of condition. Now the matter has reached a critical moment, but some Members are nowhere to be found. Perhaps they are now doing some thinking, which is good. I do hope they can think independently. Just now, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan also said that he hoped they would do some thinking. I would like to tell "Ah Yan" that something might


2053

happen, as we expected, for the sake of Hong Kong but not for our sake or that of Mr Charles Peter MOK ― Mr MOK, you should not be laughing here. We have to understand that the authorities concerned should heed the strong message issued by the Legislative Council not for the sake of our request but because the handling of the incident is wrong, and so it has to be corrected. The Government might think that it will lose its credibility if a correction is made, but does it still have any credibility? Is it good to be scolded every day? The biggest problem is, should we continue to be troubled by these matters, we can do nothing and will be unable to discuss in a focused manner some solemn and important policies because Members no longer wish to talk about them. Even if they do, the media will not be willing to listen. Is the Government not a great sinner if such things go on and on here every day? Hence, President, I would like to call on Members who are upstairs or downstairs to do some thinking, to consider carefully casting a vote for Hong Kong. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, please abide by the Rules of Procedure during the meeting. Please do not leave your seat and move the articles displayed on the desk. You may seek assistance from other Members. MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, my speech surely will not be as passionate or dramatic as those delivered by the several Members speaking before me. After the occurrence of this incident, on the day when we learnt about this piece of news, we all asked why the Government had suddenly changed its policy of issuing three TV licences and imposing no ceiling to that of issuing just two licences. At that time, in the course of discussion in the Liberal Party, many issues were discussed and now, I will recap our views on or our analysis of this incident in an even-tempered and calm way. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair) We think that according to the claim made during the consultation some time ago, Hong Kong should be able to accommodate three TV stations. Therefore, in a meeting of the pro-establishment camp held several weeks ago,


we explored if we could issue a joint letter calling on the Government to issue three TV licences. The view of the Liberal Party at that time was that we should help the Government get out of this quagmire. If the Government receives a joint letter from 50 or 60 Members from the pro-establishment camp and the pan-democratic camp, and the letter is neither critical nor offensive and just asks the Government to issue three licences, and if the Government is willing to heed public opinion ― since we, that is, more than 60 Members, be it those returned through direct elections or by functional constituencies, all represent the Hong Kong public or voters ― this would give the Government a graceful way to back out. However, many Honourable colleagues in the pro-establishment camp had many different views and at one point, I also came out with the intention of taking the lead and acting as a go-between, but to no avail. In the end, the several Members of the Liberal Party took part in the joint letter initiative taken by Members of the pan-democratic camp. Subsequently, the Government remained unwilling to adopt such a stance, thus leading to the discussion today on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to obtain information in relation to this incident. On this issue, I wish to analyse several points further with Members, that is, whether or not Hong Kong can accommodate three new TV licences. There are already two existing ones in Hong Kong, with one operator being very successful and the other one, very unsuccessful. No matter how, as a member of the business sector, I often think that my ability to comment on business issues is greater than that on political issues. Insofar as a market is concerned, how large is it actually, and is it true that after it has grown to a certain size, it cannot expand any further? Or can it expand further if it is doing fine? This is one viewpoint. Of course, I also have to respect the views of the Members of the Executive Council. However, this incident happened in 2008 or 2009. We can see that during the financial tsunami in 2008, the overall revenue for TV operators declined. Since the Asia TV Limited (ATV) is not a listed company, we do not have its annual report. The revenue of the TV Broadcasts Limited (TVB) from its free TV service was about $2.4 billion in 2007 or 2008. It did not include the revenues from its TV services overseas, on the Internet or from its magazines. However, in the past few years, TVB's advertising revenue increased from $2.1 billion in 2009, through $2.5 billion in 2010 and $2.9 billion in 2011, to almost $3.2 billion last year. We can see that from 2009 to 2012, its advertising revenue in the Hong Kong market increased continually and the four or five years


2055

from 2009 to 2012 was exactly the period in which the Government conducted its review. According to these figures, coupled with the fact that both the Financial Secretary and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority forecast that Hong Kong's economic prospects between 2012 and 2016 would be positive rather than seeing an economic downturn in the next few years, does it mean that even if the number of TV stations was not increased and only TVB's present turnover of $3.1 billion was taken into account, in 2012 and even the next few years, there would still be a surplus? Of course, all along, the Government has said that it has to manage its finance prudently but from the angle of the business sector, if funds are available but no investment is made with them, and if one wants to manage one's finance prudently, one would do well to deposit the money into a bank to earn some interest. All that the second or third generations of wealthy families do is to earn interest with their money and do nothing else, so is this being not enterprising enough? It can be said that in the 1960s, Hong Kong people were living in the world depicted in Below the Lion Rock. Andrew, your father and my father both built their businesses by working hard in the course of many years in Hong Kong. This generation of ours should also do better for the sake of Hong Kong. However, if the attitude of the Government is that of "we must not be too enterprising, so let us play safe and issue only two TV licences instead of three because we can see that the TV market will not see any growth in the next few years", I do not agree with it. Of course, regarding the two existing TV operators, TVB accounts for $3.1 billion of all the advertising revenue, whereas ATV has not disclosed any information but it probably amounts to only several hundred million dollars. Mr WANG Zheng said in 2012 that he would raise a capital of $300 million to buy a 52% stake of ATV and he also said publicly that the cumulative loss in the previous years amounted to about $1 billion. In other words, without any new competitor, ATV still ran into operational difficulties for other reasons. In view of this, if there were three new TV operators, would this deal an even greater blow to ATV? Even without the three new TV operators, ATV may still find it impossible to continue with its operation. If new competitors, in particular, the Hong Kong TV Network Limited (HKTVN), are introduced, since many members of the public like its programmes, I think there would be one more choice and the advertising revenue would also increase. If the public has one more choice, of course, TV viewing will also increase and if TV viewing increases, all kinds of businesses would also place advertisements.


I also noticed an analysis made by the Government that sounds plausible: There are only 7 million people in Hong Kong and even if we assume that all of them watch TV, the number of viewing hours would still be fixed. Surely they cannot watch TV even more often. However, the point is that although the number of viewing hours of these 7 million people does not increase, the financial means of these 7 million has been growing in the past few years. If it continues to increase in the next few years and the spending power of the public increases, naturally, the advertising revenues will also increase. Otherwise, may I ask the Government by how much did the population in Hong Kong increase between 2009 and 2012? If the population did not increase, have the public watched TV a lot more? Why could the revenues for the TV operator concerned increase from $2.1 billion to $3.7 billion? In other words, if you run a business or the businesses in this industry properly, it is difficult to say that growth surely would not occur. In addition, I also have to look at the grounds for the final decision to issue licences to two TV operators but not the third. As many Honourable colleagues said, there had been an established mechanism under which the former Broadcasting Authority (BA) followed the four assessment criteria and more than 10 factors mentioned by the Government just now. After the assessment, comparisons can then be made to see which applicants should be awarded licences. In the process of comparison, the Government conducted a very careful analysis and insofar as the principles or criteria are concerned, it was never said that particular importance had to be attached to financial capability. Certainly, this TV station has made considerable investment but we can see from the information made public that at the end of last year, when the Hong Kong Broadband Network was sold, some $4 billion was made and about $2 billion was distributed as dividends, so the company still has some $2 billion. Of course, the Government has assessed whether or not $2 billion is sufficient for operating a TV station. We think that the Government should use this some $2 billion to make comparisons with Hong Kong Cable TV or now TV on an equal basis and should not pay any heed to how great the financial capabilities of the parent companies or even the grandparent companies above the parent companies are because this is unimportant. If a company is a limited company, it has limited liability. If this company loses money, it cannot ask its parent company to make up for the loss just because the latter has money. This is the concept of limited companies in Hong Kong. Therefore, we think that although the parent companies of the


2057

other two companies have great financial capability, whereas Mr Ricky WONG only has just that many assets, if a business is well run, it is not necessary to use the financial capability of the parents companies as the assessment criteria. The criticisms of other Members are even blunter: If you do not have money or does not belong to a consortium, you just do not have to think about it at all and do not even have to apply. If in the future, we talk about things from this angle, this will deliver a very wrong message to the public. In addition, I also want to analyse what happened in the years between 2009 and 2012. It is not true that HKTVN did nothing. In 2008, Mr Ricky WONG was in ATV for some time. If he had done something that made the Government consider him an inappropriate candidate at that time, why was he still allowed to build his studios on the sites in the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks (HKSTP) and Tseung Kwan O? It was specified that the studios had to be used for broadcasting and could not be used for residential or hotel purposes. That was subsequent to Mr Ricky WONG's involvement in ATV, so when this point was initially raised, I also considered that this matter had nothing to do with politics. If it had, he would not have been allowed to get that site for building a studio in 2009. Moreover, several hundred people were hired in the past few years. What message has the Government been delivering to HKTVN? Now that the Government decided against issuing a licence to him, I think this is unfair to the entrepreneurial efforts of Mr WONG, his employees and all the investors in his company. Deputy President, lastly, I will talk about the role of the Executive Council. Although I only remained in the Executive Council for a brief period of time, the mechanism then and that at present has seen no changes. As far as I know and as many Members said just now, Executive Council Members can speak freely in the course of discussion and what each Member said at that time would become the confidential documents of the Executive Council. Certainly, these confidential documents are not so detailed as to set out whether the Members drank coffee or tea. Such matters would not be put down in the records of meeting. However, with regard to the rest of the documents, they are not kept exclusively by the Executive Council. I can cite an example off hand. Recently, there is a government document introducing the North East New Territories New Development Area and I am holding this document now. It is available to the entire district, the Civil Engineering and Development Department, the Planning Department and all Legislative Council Members. When the Executive Council had discussions, surely it would not use taxpayers'


money to print another version? When the Executive Council had discussions, it also made reference to this document, so how confidential is this kind of information? What cannot be made public? In citing this example, I believe that insofar as the BA is concerned, we can also obtain a lot of information from it. Not that we want to obtain any confidential information or the whole pile of documents measuring six inches thick. What is the point of getting them? Even if we read them, they would not shed light on anything. However, I believe the information concerning the site at the HKSTP granted to him in 2009 can surely be obtained by invoking the P&P Ordinance. Other information can be obtained from the BA and the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. There are many documents of this kind that apart from the Executive Council are held, all other departments, too. By invoking the P&P Ordinance, we can obtain these documents to look into why a licence was not issued to HKTVN. Finally, I also wish to say that the concern of the business sector about this incident was initially not as great as that of late. It is entirely because many members of the business sector have built their businesses from scratch that they think if someone ventures into the business sector, taking such great risks and investing so much money, he should also be given the opportunity to succeed. Why is it that only successful people can have even greater ability to make investments and only successful people can become even more successful, whereas other people cannot be given any opportunity? What is called fairness, impartiality and openness depends on how the Government processed the applications. The Government's initial position was to issue three TV licences and even if less than three were issued, shouldn't the two applicants scoring the highest points be awarded the licences? Initially, I thought that the six-page statement issued yesterday would offer some explanations because when Mr Michael TIEN came out, he said that except financial capability which was rated failed, the other areas were rated as outstanding. However, the statement does not even mention such information and only the overall ratings can be found. I think that in order to command credibility, no matter if there are four criteria or 13 criteria, if the HKTVN's ratings in various areas are the lowest, the Government should state so publicly. After the Government has disclosed them, I believe the public would think that since this is the decision of the Executive Council, we would support it. However, the Government has not done so.


2059

Deputy President, with these remarks, the Liberal Party supports the amendment but as regards the original motion, on the grounds cited by us earlier on (The buzzer sounded) … we will not support it. MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have listened carefully to the speeches of a number of Honourable colleagues, in particular, the many grounds cited by them in support of the motion moved by Mr Charles Peter MOK and the amendment moved by Mr Dennis KWOK. As a Member with dual membership in the Executive Council and the Legislative Council, I wish very much to take this opportunity to respond to the allegations made by a number of Honourable colleagues, in particular, their belief that the Executive Council was operating in a black box and the allegation that the Government has undermined the core values of Hong Kong people and violated procedural justice this time around. As a former senior government official and a Member of the Executive Council, I can say that the procedure and steps taken by the Government this time around and the factors taken into account did not run counter to the established system or the core values. Of course, the Government has the responsibility to explain its policies and according to my experience and the studies conducted by many senior Executive Council Members, the Executive Council, as the highest decision-making body in Hong Kong, and the Chief Executive in Council, as the final review authority of the decisions made by various statutory and non-statutory bodies, would never explain in detail the "causes of death" in relation to the decisions made by the Executive Council on various cases. After the decision to choose two of the three applicants was announced on 15 October, the very first thing that many friends in the mass media industry asked me was what the "cause of death" was. First, I wonder if it is because many members of the public have watched many beauty contests or talent shows that they think when we make decisions, there is a score sheet for us to tick and choose, but I have to clarify that there is actually none. As the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development have explained a number of times, the Government made the overall decision after considering 11 factors and four major criteria and insofar as the four major criteria are concerned, the three applicants all have their advantages. If we had had a score sheet for us to award points, as in a beauty contest, of course, the Government


would have taken public opinion into consideration but again, this is also unlike a talent show or beauty contest, in which we have to make a decision according to the number of lights activated by members of the public pressing their buttons. As regards the procedure, if we look at the information of the Broadcasting Authority, or the Communications Authority (CA), as it is now called ― this can be found on the Internet ― it is clearly explained therein that, and I will read out one of the paragraphs, "This Guidance Note does not bind the CA to consider any application or to grant any licence or to the terms of any licence to be granted. The CA will not be responsible for any claims, actions, proceedings, liabilities, losses, damages, demands, charges, costs or expenses which any applicant may become liable for or have incurred or sustained in connection with this Guidance Note. Certain requirements and restrictions described in this Guidance Note may be modified, for example, in the light of the proposals received or other relevant considerations. This Guidance Note shall not be relied upon to create any expectation that a licence will be granted to the applicant on the terms and conditions referred to in this Guidance Note or otherwise.". In sum, the Government has all along stated clearly that not all applicants will be granted licences and it is also not true that satisfying the 11 factors in the Guidance Note will surely lead to a licence being granted. The Chief Executive in Council can make a decision according to the proposals received or other relevant considerations and make a decision based on public interest. As Secretary Gregory SO has pointed out a number of times, when considering the relevant applications, the Government has considered the unique nature of the broadcasting industry. Just now, many Honourable colleagues also asked why, since this is a free market, this is not an "all are welcome" situation. In fact, the nature of the broadcasting industry is most unique and all along, in Hong Kong … Deputy President, you should know this very well because last year, you were the Chairman of the Bills Committee on Competition Bill and you know that before the passage of the Competition Ordinance, only two industries in Hong Kong were subjected to regulation, namely, the telecommunications and broadcasting industries. Regarding these two industries or this pair of twins, and on the one hand, the Government is worried that there are groups with excessive power in the market to manipulate the market, so it is necessary to impose regulation; and on the other, it is also necessary to ensure the optimal distribution of economic resources. Therefore, all along, these two industries have been subjected to


2061

regulation. In fact, it is not just in Hong Kong that regulation is imposed, this is also the case throughout the world. In Europe and America, there are also telecommunications authorities that consider matters stringently having regard to public interest, including market development, how much competition the market can accommodate and how to achieve healthy competition to avoid economic resources being wasted in the end, and so on, before making decisions. Therefore, the factors considered by the Government in its decision-making process are consistent with those before the reunification, so Hong Kong's core values or established system have definitely not been violated. As regards the question of why the Executive Council does not disclose the "causes of death" after making decisions on some cases or individual applications, I believe there are very good grounds in terms of policy, human factor or law. For example, according to media reports, after an Honourable colleague of the Legislative Council (in fact, it was the Vice-Chairman of my party) had met with the Chief Executive, he commented on some of the causes of death, for example, that financial capability cannot be sustained, and so on. That evening, the Hong Kong TV Network Limited immediately issued a statement to refute him, declaring, "Who said that my financial capability cannot be sustained? Who can take me lightly?" All along, the Government knows that be it applications related to TV, broadcasting, telecommunications, town planning, land, entry, nationality, passports or right of abode, after a final decision has been made, it would only add salt to the injury of the applicant whose application has been rejected by telling him that the reason for not granting a licence is his unsustainable financial capability or the low quality of the programmes. This will surely arouse great resentment from the applicant and in order to protect his business reputation, he will surely refute the Government and even take legal actions. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I was in charge of immigration and security for a number of years and when we rejected applications at the final stage of appeal, we would never disclose the "causes of death". In this regard, we understand that the public have the right to know, but the practice of the authorities has all along been not to argue with the public or the applicants. If the people concerned are not convinced, the best course of action is to take legal proceedings to follow up on a matter and see if the Government has violated natural justice when making the decisions and whether it was being Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. I believe many Honourable colleagues from the legal sector understand this very well.


The Members from the New People's Party and I oppose invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to obtain information. Regarding Mr Charles Peter MOK's original motion, as pointed out by Dr LAM Tai-fai just now, if we want to obtain all the relevant information before 8 November, this is actually impossible. In the course of deliberation in the past three years, many studies at various levels were conducted, including the considerations of the CA, the two consultancy reports prepared by the CA under the previous administration and the two additional consultancy reports commissioned by the previous administration. In addition, many legal letters and representations were exchanged between the authorities and the three applicants. All these involve a great deal of commercially sensitive information, so it is not possible to photocopy all of them and submit them to the Legislative Council before 8 November. This is practically impossible. If it is said that the commercially sensitive information on the applicants or the information on relevant third parties has to be disclosed, in accordance with procedural justice, the Government would never do such a thing. The amendment moved by Mr Dennis KWOK proposes that only part of the information be obtained, so that commercially sensitive information, the details of the deliberations by the Executive Council and the relevant records, as well as any confidential commercial information related to the applicants who applied for licences would not be affected. By doing so, the scope of the documents to be obtained is narrowed and apparently, this is more acceptable but in fact, this is at odds with the aim spelt out by Mr Dennis KWOK just now, that is, to let the public know the whole truth. If we cannot make public the final policymaking process, the discussions as well as the factors considered by the Executive Council, it is practically impossible for the public to know the whole truth. Conversely, if it is possible to obtain some documents in which the commercially sensitive information is deleted or the consultancy reports of the CA several years ago, this may even give rise to a great deal of misunderstanding, so this is even more unfavourable to letting the public know the truth. Therefore, I do not agree with invoking the P&P Ordinance to obtain such information. It is by no means true that the Executive Council encourages the public or companies to apply for judicial review, but the fact is that if the Legislative Council invokes the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry, firstly, the cost will be just as high and secondly, since it will always be the dozens of Members in the Legislative Council who take turns to ask questions but given that they are not


2063

legal experts ― although some of them are ― and there is no need to abide by the strict rules of the Court, this is not conducive to finding out the truth of whether or not the Government has made the decision based on unreasonable grounds. Therefore, we believe that the P&P Ordinance should not be invoked to look into why the Executive Council made such a decision. In the past few days, all the factors considered by the Government in making the decision have been explained to the public as far as possible, particularly in the six-page document issued yesterday. Lastly, I wish to talk about the effects on the creative industry. I once had a meeting with several representatives of the labour union concerned and although in the end, the meeting ended in discord, we still had discussions for an hour. I only wish to say that although the representatives of the labour union concerned were not very pleased to hear my proposals, I think that if Ricky WONG or his employees want to continue to develop the creative industry, he does not have to lose heart over his failure to secure a TV licence now. In fact, according to what I have ascertained with the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, what he set up in Tseung Kwan O is not a TV station but a multimedia production centre. Some Honourable colleagues have watched the drama series produced by him and consider the standard to be quite high. In fact, so long as one produces quality drama series, they can also be sold to countries overseas or be sold in the form of DVDs, so "where there is musk, there is always fragrance". In addition, the drama series produced by him can also be sold to the existing free TV operators or the new TV operators in the future. It is not necessary to set up one's own TV station before outstanding drama series can be produced. To cite an overseas example, an internationally renowned drama series of very high standard known as "Downton Abbey" ― I wonder if the Deputy President has ever watched it ― was all the rage in the United Kingdom and America. It was co-produced by the ITV of the United Kingdom and the Public Broadcasting Service of the United States but because of its very high standards, it was purchased and broadcast by many TV stations. On one occasion, when I was in Beijing, I also found the Downton Abbey series with Putonghua voice-over being broadcast by the China Central TV. Therefore, if Mr Ricky WONG and his employees ― talented script writers and producers ― want to remain and develop in the creative industry, I believe that even though at present, he could not obtain a TV licence, he still have opportunities of development. Moreover, the Government has pointed out a number of times that not issuing a licence now does not mean that when Mr


WONG or any other applicant makes an application again in the future ― of course, I do not mean an identical application ― the Government will still consider it. Moreover, two years later, the two existing free TV licences will also expire and very soon, the Government will have to go through the vetting procedure for licence renewal, so people aspiring to a career in the creative industry will also have many opportunities to give play to their talents in the future. Deputy President, for these reasons, the New People's Party opposes Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion and Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment. MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in every region, there is a pillar, or a principle, supporting its public administration. Once this pillar is damaged, it will bring endless troubles and the governance of the region can hardly be sustained. In Hong Kong, the confidentiality principle of the Executive Council is a proven effective pillar, on which the foundation for making decisions on public affairs of the Executive Council is built, and the Executive Council is in some measure equivalent to the cabinet of certain countries. The confidentiality principle allows Members of the Executive Council to freely express their views during discussions on affairs involving public interest, so that they will say all they know without reservations, truly accomplishing the objective of pooling collective wisdom. This principle has been applied since the British-Hong Kong Government, many decisions involving major business licences have been passed according to this basic procedure, and the businesses concerned have commenced operation. It is anticipated that any sudden change of the principle will severely undermine the governing power of the SAR Government in future, whereas the executive-led position established by Hong Kong as a financial centre will collapse and lose its balance. By then, it will be difficult to maintain the operation of society and keep the lifestyle of the public unchanged for 50 years. What makes the public worried is that if the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) is successfully invoked to obtain the internal and confidential documents of the Executive Council, Members of the Executive Council will have lots of reservations in expressing their views in


2065

future. By then, the objective of pooling collective wisdom will be reduced to empty talk, where all issues will be subject to opinion polls and decisions will only be made upon the release of the results of referendums. Under such circumstances, public administration can hardly make any headway in society. Do Members want Hong Kong to come to this pass? I think it warrants Members to think twice. If we act recklessly, we will easily make a big mistake. Deputy President, this Council is a venue for enactment of law, thus colleagues should be law-abiding. According to Article 48(11) under Section 1 of Chapter IV of the Basic Law, the powers and functions of the Chief Executive include, "[t]o decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the Legislative Council or its committees". This power of the Chief Executive should be respected. If the Legislative Council invokes the P&P Ordinance to obtain internal and confidential documents from the Executive Council, it may be inconsistent or in conflict with the constitutional powers of the Chief Executive. Once this precedent is set, a crisis will arise in the relationship between the executive and the legislature, which is not a scenario the public would like to see. Yesterday, the Government issued a press release to give a detailed explanation of the factors considered and assessment criteria of competitiveness behind the licencing decision this time. Naturally, the opposing party will be unwilling to face the reality. The scope of the press release is rather comprehensive, stating the four criteria laid down for the applicants: "financial capability, programming investment, programming strategy and capability, and technical soundness of the proposed services". On the whole, "programming investment" and "technical soundness of proposed service" are the extension of financial capability. The financial dimension is given such heavy weighting probably because the focus is on the sustainability and service provision. As such, the criteria for approving entry to the market are applied strictly. The provision of free television service is not a private enterprise of a general business nature, which may commence business or close down anytime. It is a significant industry relating to communication and broadcasting, an industry closely related to the general public, public interest and social stability. Social stability is a matter of great import. Many people are concerned whether the present incident is a commercial incident or a political


incident. Certainly, the Government has already explained the case: The Executive Council has adopted a gradual and orderly approach in introducing competition to avoid "cut-throat" competition in response to the expert consultant's view that the free television market in Hong Kong can hardly sustain five players. The interim addition of two free TV stations, which doubles the existing number, is a prudent and responsible practice to society and people's livelihood. This has in effect promoted the interest of the public in respect of the television programmes available for viewing and increased employment opportunities of the industry. In my view, comments concerning the granting of additional free TV licences should be objective and unbiased, as well as practicable, giving due regard to the business operation perspective. It is improper to politicize and sow discord on each and every issue. The content proposed in the amendment has made the motion technically more impracticable. First, if the Secretary is not required to provide or present "the deliberations and relevant records of the Executive Council", how can this Council know the entire process of the relevant licence applications? Second, if the Secretary is not required to provide or make public "any confidential commercial information involving the licence applicants", how can colleagues of this Council and the public understand whether the Government's decision about the suitability or capability of the application is reasonable and fair? Third, according to the content of the amendment, this Council and the public will hardly know how to identify a statutory organization or person with proper powers and functions to select the appropriate documents, so that records of the Executive Council and commercial secret information excluded in the amendment will not be mistakenly selected. How can we achieve this result? Deputy President, the various reasons and technical problems mentioned have prompted a lot of doubts, rendering the feasibility of the motion and the amendment close to "zero". In Hong Kong, a city upholding freedom and democracy, colleagues of this Council and I should consider the case according to our innate knowledge and conscience, casting a vote for the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. I trust the public have discerning eyes and vision. Deputy President, I so submit.


2067

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today I speak in support of Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion. If Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion is negatived, I will support Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment. Deputy President, today I have worn a black tie which has been with me for eight to nine years since I will wear it only when attending a funeral. Since the fermentation of this licensing incident on 15 October, the incident as a whole seems to have buried the core values of Hong Kong. Just now, many Honourable colleagues also mentioned the inherent core values of Hong Kong in their speeches and I am not going to make any repetition. Just now I saw that Mr Dennis KWOK, who has been gentle and cultured in manner, was really angry when he moved his amendment. I hope Members from all parties and groupings can vote according to their conscience and uphold Hong Kong's established core values. Mr NG Leung-sing said earlier that the foundation of governance of Hong Kong will be rocked if we invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. In fact, his is an overstatement. The Government is required to give a full account to the public in the face of such an important issue. I originally did not want to mention the six-page document issued by the Government at 4 pm yesterday. However, since Mr NG has mentioned it, I would like to talk about my impression of this six-page document. Mr MOK said earlier that this document is like "flogging a dead horse". But I think it is superficial rather than just like "flogging a dead horse" because the Government does not understand even the most basic economic ethics. In fact, a number of core issues are involved in this document. But I only wish to talk about a core issue, which is our major concern. A constituent once asked me, "Kenneth, you often mentioned the core values in elections. What are our core values? Can you give me a brief explanation?" I can explain it in a few words, and that is, to "make a living". Deputy President, it refers to our free market economy. After going through the six-page document issued by the Government yesterday, I found that there is only one theme, that is, "anti-competition, maintain the sustainability of the market". This main theme is utterly ridiculous. Let us take a look at "Policy on television market liberalization" in page 1 of the document. In the first paragraph, it stipulates that "consideration by the Chief Executive in Council against all relevant factors, including the sustainability of


the free TV market as a whole". I would like to ask the Executive Council Members this question: Are they God or the invisible hand which has replaced the market economy? On what basis did they make the decision? In the fourth paragraph of the same part of the document, it reads, "That is to consider whether the number of new licences will lead to over-competition or vicious competition, including the possible dilution of advertising revenue". May I ask Secretary SO what is meant by "over-competition" and "vicious competition"? Could he find any economics textbook telling me when "over-competition", "healthy competition" or "vicious competition" will occur? Can these concepts be quantified? If these concepts cannot be quantified, on what basis did he make those remarks? Then, in the document, it said that vicious competition may result in the dilution of advertising revenue. This is a normative statement in economics. However, have the authorities considered that given Hong Kong people's enterprising spirit and entrepreneurship, the keener the competition, the higher the advertising revenue would be generated? Following the logic of the authorities of "anti-competition, maintain the sustainability of the market" to which much weight is attached, I can describe such a situation in a few words: They try to protect the interests of those with vested interests and do not want to open the markets at all. The theme of another part of the document is "gradual and orderly approach in introducing competition". I find the phrase "gradual and orderly" strange. Where did "gradual and orderly" come from? What is meant by "gradual and orderly"? What does "orderly" mean? If it refers to order, what kind of order is it? In which book is this word "order" mentioned? In which consultant's report is order mentioned? Under the heading "gradual and orderly approach in introducing competition" in the document, it is pointed out that "an adverse impact be brought about by a sharp increase in the number of free TV operators, for example a decline in programme quality as a result of the cut-throat competition". Certainly, some scholars may say that competition will lead to improvement of programme quality because they want to get more advertisements. Is such a statement correct? Under "law and system" in page 2, it is pointed out that "It is unnecessary to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to intervene in the matter. It will politicize the matter but offer no help in resolving it." As Ms Claudia MO said just now, what should we discuss if we in the Legislative Council do not talk about politics? Should we throw a "party" or


2069

"chit-chat"? Honestly, this remark can similarly apply to a judicial review and the sentence will be like this: "It is unnecessary to invoke the process of judicial review to intervene in the matter. It will increase the cost of justice but offer no help in resolving it.". Besides, the authorities mentioned the words "resolving it". What problem did they want to resolve? First of all, I would like to tell the authorities of our problem: we want to enjoy the right to know. For an incident which is so important, the public should have the right to know. If the authorities want to solve the problem, they should come clean and tell the public every detail of the incident. However, the authorities did not indicate what problem to be solved, though they implied that there was one. Let us look at the so-called 11 factors in the document. Why did the authorities set out these well-known factors in half a page? The eighth and ninth factors are "all relevant latest developments" and "all public views received" respectively, while the 11th is "public interest". If these three factors are adopted as the criteria, according to the opinion poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong, 72% of the interviewees oppose the decision of the Government on the free TV licences and 73 % of the interviewees oppose the Government's refusal to issue a licence to HKTVN. If we only consider three factors among the 11 factors, namely the eighth, ninth and 11th, is the Government obliged to review its licensing decision in view of the current situation? Also, the 11th factor is "public interest". What is public interest? Do the authorities know exactly what the public want? The public want to have the right to choose, be provided with quality programmes and a variety of television programmes. Perhaps, the authorities mentioned public interest because it is worried that competition may lead to closure of a TV station. Then the Commercial Television incident 30-odd years ago was cited as an example. But times have changed. I am not sure whether a case that happened 30 years ago is still applicable to the current decision of the Executive Council. The authorities should consider this point. Then the document went on to mention four main criteria. These include financial capability, programming investment, programming strategy, and so on, which were mentioned by the authorities before. Why did they flog a dead horse? In fact, what information is provided in this six-page document? Insofar as the three applicants are concerned, there are so many factors or criteria.


However, we want to know which factors or criteria carry the most weight. What are the rankings of these applicants under these weighted factors or items? We must know these before we are convinced. In addition, I have to talk about the confidentiality system of the Executive Council. I have carried out some study on the system, which is nothing more than a convention. Of course, apart from the fact that it is a convention, in section 18 of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap. 11), it is provided that "A member of the Executive Council shall take the Oath of Fidelity and the Executive Council Oath as soon as possible after his appointment." According to the Oath of Fidelity in Schedule 2, it reads, "I will not, except with the authority of the Chief Executive, reveal the agenda or proceedings of the Executive Council, or any document communicated to me or any matter coming to my knowledge in my capacity as a Member of the Executive Council". In Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment, relevant records and deliberations of the Executive Council are excluded. We only want to find out the truth and see whether there are other factors affecting the decision, apart from those 11 factors and four major principles. From the perspective of an ordinary and rational person, why will the existence of a third TV station lead to non-compliance with these 11 factors and four main criteria? We very much wish to know the answer to this question. We do not aim at gaining access to what the Executive Council Members said at the meetings or views in favour of the issuance of licences, or their discussions and arguments. We are not interested in any of these at all. Rather, we want to know the facts and evidence which have led to the decision of the Executive Council. Certainly, if the authorities say that a detailed explanation has been provided in this six-page document, I think this is a load of crap. Deputy President, in this commercial society of ours, apart from the licensing decision this time around, many decisions on the issuance of other licences are also made by the Executive Council. These include matters concerning broadcasters, franchised transport systems and many other kinds of business. If such a bad precedent is set in which such an irrational decision has been made, how can we explain this to the international community and Hong Kong people? What is left of our free market and economy? No one would like to find out later that these 11 factors are not bona fide, which are, however, claimed by the authorities to be bona fide and put down on the application form. But the truth is that there is a 12th factor, which is the personal preference of our


2071

leader, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, and his will. If there is such a factor, what is its weight among these 12 factors? I do not wish to see Hong Kong degenerated to such a state that if someone wishes to apply for a licence, then you have to suck up or else you have to shut up. Deputy President, I so submit. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, five words can sum it all up: "misleading the public and scaremongering". Secretary Gregory SO, who is attending the meeting and a number of Members from the pro-establishment camp who spoke earlier on today, as well as the six-page document issued yesterday, have all misled the public and engaged in scaremongering. For this reason, first of all, I have to make it clear what we are doing, what we want to do, and what we will not do by seeking to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance today. First, although I support issuing a licence to HKTVN, we are not demanding that the Government must issue a licence to Ricky WONG today. I remember that the employees of HKTVN had two slogans. They said, "We can accept defeat, so long as there is a reason for it; we can lose heroically but we cannot die without knowing the reason.". The motion debate today is a quest for the truth. Just now, Mrs Regina IP taught Ricky WONG how to do business, believing that if he does not operate a TV station, he may as well transform it into a production centre, but this is utterly irrelevant. I call on Members not to ramble incoherently. Nowadays, Hong Kong people no longer want to watch the programme "東張西望" (meaning "looking here and there"); what we want to watch is "今日睇真D" (meaning "looking more closely today")! What we want is the truth, but the six-page document released yesterday does not let Hong Kong people know more about the truth; instead, it has only given rise to more doubts. First, who determines the sustainability of the TV market? How was the formula worked out? Who invented the formula? This person can perhaps win the Nobel Prize in Economics. Was this point raised in the consultancy reports? Second, why change the rules of the game on issuing licences? Why were the goalposts moved? Third, how was it decided that HKTVN did not qualify?


This six-page document does not mention the ranking of HKTVN, nor does it point out that HKTVN fared the worst. It only hints that it has inadequacies and inferior areas, so it only recaps the information already disclosed previously. Today, we are talking about invoking the P&P for the sake of obtaining the relevant documents involved in the Government's process of scrutinizing the applications for free TV licences and they include the several consultancy reports prepared by experts and consultants. In fact, we also expressed our hope of obtaining the relevant information at a meeting of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting but at that time, Secretary Gregory SO paid no heed to this. Today, these several reports are no longer very important because they have become "consultancy reports the contents of which we already know". The Government has selectively disclosed the contents of the consultancy reports to Members, and a number of newspapers in society have also circulated some information relating to the reports. At the same time, Ricky WONG is now also choosing a propitious date to disclose some information relating to these reports the contents of which we already know, but the LEUNG Chun-ying administration still refuses to produce them and also opposes the HKTVN in making public the reports, so it has elicited a comment from HKTVN: "Incomplete, untruthful, unjust, unrighteous". We have not demanded that the system of confidentiality of the Executive Council be broken. At least, at this stage and in the motion debate today, we have not made this request. Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion, together with Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment, both show great self-restraint and are full of good intentions. They do not pose difficulties to Members of the "royalist camp", nor do they interfere with the system of confidentiality of the Executive Council, so of course, they have also given Members no excuse for casting votes against them. However, today, the Secretary still resorted to word play with us. All the documents that are marginally related to the black box have automatically become confidential documents of the Executive Council. To put it as a joke, that means even the paper used by its Members to order takeaways has also become a confidential document. The several issues about which we want to ask questions is actually very simple and also very clear: First, why were two free TV licences issued instead of three or more? Second, if only two licences were issued, why did HKTVN lose out? In fact, there is also another question that hardly anyone would ask but is also very crucial, that is, why were the licences not issued a year ago and instead, the exercise was delayed until 15 October this year? Why was it delayed for such a long time? Was it hoped that the delay would cause some TV operators


2073

to give up of their own accord, or that the market conditions would worsen or deteriorate, so that issuing one licence less would be fully justified? The aim of issuing additional TV licences is to introduce competition. As the Secretary put it, this is healthy competition that will give the audience more choices. To the public, this will put an end to the domination by one single TV operator, so that more programmes with greater creativity and of higher quality can be produced in Hong Kong. Certainly, in a competition, the weak will be eliminated and the strong will remain and the programmes as well as TV operators of poor quality will be eliminated. This six-page document is again full of hypocritical rhetoric. It talks about "without setting a ceiling on the number of licences to be issued" but in fact, the Government has set a ceiling, only that it has not set a specific number for the ceiling. The ceiling may be three, four, five or even more. This six-page document also says, "… the CE in Council has to consider public interest in processing the applications for new licences …". May I ask what "public" covers? The public may include the TV audience and those people now outside the legislature; the public may include the TV operators, that is, the existing TVB and ATV and the three new applicants; the public can also include the industry, the performance industry, as well as creative people and producers. This document is really very laughable. It says, "In considering public interest, the CE in Council was of the view that the sustainable and steady development of the free TV market was an important consideration.". Fortunately, what it says is "the sustainable and steady development of the free TV market" rather than the sustainable and steady development of a particular TV operator. The Government has neither the responsibility nor the justifications to guarantee that TV operators would surely make profits and would not close down. If a TV station is not operated properly or is not enterprising, and if it just sticks to the old rut and closes down as a result, it is only getting its just desserts and it is also the general public's wish to kick it out. What follows is the most laughable sentence, "Therefore, a gradual and orderly approach should be adopted in introducing competition, lest an adverse impact be brought about by a sharp increase in the number of free TV operators, for example a decline in programme quality as a result of the cut-throat competition. This would eventually make the public suffer more than they gain." No matter how I think about this, I cannot figure out the relationship between the two. If there is vicious competition or cut-throat competition among TV operators, what would be the worst scenario? If there is vicious competition among TV operators, they may spend huge sums on securing the service of superstars, for example, station A may secure the help of CHOW


Yun-fat, station B may secure the help of Stephen CHOW and station C may secure the help of Tony LEUNG. Or the budget for programme production may be increased, for example, if a drama cost $100 000 in the past, it may now cost $500 000, or it may be raised to $1 million and in this way, the quality of programmes would be improved rather than deteriorate. Vicious competition may also lower the fees for TV advertisements and ultimately, it is the Hong Kong public who will stand to gain. Therefore, Secretary, if it is said that this would eventually make the public suffer more than they gain, may I ask what they will lose? At present, there is only one TV operator in Hong Kong, that is, only TVB dominates the market. If three more licences are issued and in the event that all three TV operators, God forbid, close down, we will be left with just one TV operator, that is, TVB, and we will only be marching on the spot, so what would we lose? Three TV operators have submitted applications. If they close down in the end because they cannot cope, that is their own business. Doing business is difficult, but if they are still willing to take the challenges and risks, that is Hong Kong's entrepreneurial spirit. The Government does not have to teach others how to do business, and Members do not have to teach others how to do business either. However, if it is said that it was out of good intentions that the Executive Council suspected Ricky WONG not to have sufficiently steady financial capability and as a result, decided not to issue a licence to him, just in case he becomes unable to cope and has to close down, this is just like worrying about not being able to raise a child to adulthood, so the child is strangled, so that he could not exist on earth anymore. The argument now is that the Government is worried that a TV operator may close down in the future, thus rendering a lot of people jobless. However, if a licence is not issued now, the TV operator will close down immediately and its employees will also become jobless right away, so the effect is also immediate. This is what the SAR Government is doing now. I said just now that logically speaking, the three TV operators have to take risks, so there is nothing we can do and they have to have no fear of incurring losses. As regards TVB, I would not say logically speaking because as a matter of fact, it would not close down, so in the final analysis, it is only all about the fear that ATV would close down. The reason for not issuing a new licence is the fear that ATV would close down. So it turns out that the Government's policy is to ensure that ATV will not close down for eternity, is it not? If it is, I call on the Secretary to let everyone know. I have said that no matter how we ponder this, what would be the most vicious competition? What would be the


2075

worst scenario? Would damage be caused to all parties, thus making TV services unavailable? The answer is that this surely would not happen. TVB surely would not perish. The worst type of vicious competition is actually the absence of competition, with no one challenging TVB. Even what TVB produces is just "dog's droppings and junk", without any choice, the public could only watch them and accept them. The cut-throat competition and mutual damage found in textbooks do not exist in the TV market in Hong Kong, nor would it occur. Next, the criterion of "financial capability" among the four major criteria is even more interesting: It is necessary to compare the family wealth, that is, it is also necessary to take into consideration the parent companies but in fact, even if the parent companies have money, they do not necessarily have to inject it into their subsidiaries. It turns out that the Government has changed its rules. It is necessary for the "daddy" to have money before someone will be given a share. If one has money but one's daddy does not, or he does not even have any "daddy", he will not be given any share. If this is indeed the case, it should have been set down earlier. Which consultancy report recommended this? Was it made known to all parties? If it is indeed like this, Ricky WONG should make LEE Shau-kee his godfather because if his daddy or godfather has money, he can have the chance to compete with other people. In addition, the most absurd point is "overall assessment". The authorities mean that the assessment made by Members of the Executive Council reflects a judgment in overall terms, but do Members actually understand this point? It means, "Do not ask me how I calculated this. The calculation is not done in the way you imagine it to be. Do not ask me to produce the rating sheets, or think that because you score low points in just one area but score higher points than others in other areas, in the end, you would not be rated as the poorest candidate." (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) Members who have never worked in the TV industry may not know how it is like. Since I once worked in a TV station, I can use the shady deals in beauty contests as an example to explain this kind of situation to you, my friends. There are rating sheets in a beauty contest and the various items rated include appearance, figure, eloquence, manners and talents, to be rated by the


adjudicators. However, after rating, the calculation method is not to collect all the rating sheets, then use a calculator to calculate the total, with the one scoring the highest points crowned the champion Miss Hong Kong. The process is not like this. The rating sheets are for reference only and sometimes, the adjudicators do not even put down scores on them. They may have put down their names on it only. In that case, how can it be decided who the champion is? The method is to withdraw and deliberate. Then, the chief adjudicator or the wife of Sir Run Run SHAW would say that he or she actually does not like a certain contestant and thinks that another contestant is better. Since he or she is an influential person, the judging panel would vote for the one who did not score the highest points, or the one who did not get the lowest score is ousted. Such is the shady deals in our Executive Council, and this is the true situation. LEUNG Chun-ying is the chairman of the judging panel and in the process, there is no need to refer to the rating sheets, nor is there any need to refer to the rating criteria. It is only necessary to collect all the rating sheets and tear them up, then hold a meeting. LEUNG Chun-ying strongly recommended a certain applicant and in the end, as the Wen Wei Po said, it was 23:3 votes. This is only natural. Since the chairman of the judging panel made such a strong recommendation, the other people could only vote accordingly. This is the truth behind Members' demand that he disclose the assessment criteria and the rating sheets, but how can he have any rating sheets to disclose? Has anyone seen the rating sheets for the Miss Hong Kong beauty contest? Of course, there is none. Today, we say that we want to stop the black-box operation but in fact, it is not possible to stop it. This black box is so strong as to be unbreakable because throughout the process of licence issuance, there is another black box, that is, the system of confidentiality of the Executive Council. In fact, we only want to obtain some documents from the black box, get whatever we can and do whatever we can, with the aim of fulfilling the wish of Hong Kong people and doing justice to Hong Kong people. We will vote on the motion very soon. Last night, when Ricky WONG attended a forum organized by the Shue Yan University, I could see that there were several words on the board behind him that read, "HKTVN will not die". Whether HKTVN will live or otherwise is open to further observation, but the Legislative Council is about to perish. All people expect that the motion is not likely to be passed in the voting later on. I believe that apart from those Members who are extreme royalists, who can bring themselves to say that they are very satisfied with the six-page report, the majority of people cannot bring


2077

themselves to say such a thing. I understand your difficulty in not being able to express your support. To those people who cannot express their support, I wish to offer something for your reference, and that is the advice tender by a former Director of Bureau, Mr Joseph WONG. I quote, to this effect, "I also want to remind those Members who attempt to please both sides by abstaining that you know full well the threshold for passage in separate voting is half of the Members in attendance voting in favour. Therefore, abstention is tantamount to casting an opposing vote.". Such a stance cannot deceive the public because Hong Kong people are getting smarter. The members of the public who are foregoing their meals, staying away from their homes and rallying outside the Government Secretariat and the Legislative Council will not be deceived by this kind of hypocritical rhetoric of "abstaining" as suggested by you. Members who really want to express their neutrality should stay away from the meeting. We do not want to see that before the HKTVN dies, the Legislative Council is already doomed. Recently, we have received a lot of emails from the public and one of the remarks therein is "Remember to vote in favour, or we will make you pay for your vote with our votes." I wish to tell Members that the Members from functional constituencies were not elected by us, and many of them were returned uncontested. Some of them may not run again in the next election, so it may be possible to make them pay for their votes with our votes. However, I think that this time around, the dimension is not just that of making them pay for their votes with our votes. This term "making one pay for one's vote with our votes" was coined by me in 2010 and this time around, it is true that they will pay for their votes. Now, they are making inroads into the public justice of Hong Kong people, making inroads into the core values of Hong Kong people and making inroads into all the things that Hong Kong people respect the most (The buzzer sounded) … so, please remember that it is blood for blood, not a vote for a vote. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, the things which this "689" scoundrel LEUNG Chun-ying has done for more than a year can best be described as running counter to public opinion. He has been trying to challenge the bottom line of Hong Kong people. His popularity ratings sink to rock bottom and to such an extent that everybody thinks he should go. On 15 October the SAR Government announced that free TV licences will be awarded to the Fantastic Television Limited and Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited. The application from the Hong Kong


Television Network Limited was rejected. The decision made is the result of black-box operation, in blatant disregard of procedural justice. When faced with queries from the public, the Government put up the pretext of the confidentiality system of the Executive Council. A public uproar was flared up and there was great public indignation. This Hong Kong communist regime led by the scoundrel LEUNG Chun-ying is an enemy of the people. The people of Hong Kong should brace up and rise, overthrow this government and become the masters of their own house. In October 2008 I was returned as a Member of the Legislative Council. I have taken part in the work of the Information Technology and Broadcasting Panel of this Council served as the chairman of the Panel ever since 2010. I have always kept a close watch on the development of the free TV market. On the one hand, the SAR Government says that it will liberalize the free TV market while on the other it wants to control it. It is with the efforts made by LEUNG Chun-ying himself that reasonable public expectation for liberalization of the free TV market is stifled. He adopted a hardliner stand when answering questions on the issue. There was an air of self-complacency and we were all flabbergasted to see his looks which seemed to say: I have made up my mind and no one can change it. Last week, an article printed in the overseas edition of the Chinese communist mouthpiece People's Daily urged the people of Hong Kong to ponder over the question of why they had so many grumbles. I would think these wordmongers of the communists should ask LEUNG Chun-ying as a lackey who claims to love the country and the party why he cannot accommodate another TV station which aims at providing free entertainment to Hong Kong people and nothing more? Why is he bent on confronting the people of Hong Kong and poke trouble here? In the face of this turbulent public opinion, the pro-establishment camp does not dare to come to the defence of LEUNG Chun-ying in a high profile. The convenor of the Executive Council LAM Woon-kwong pointed out earlier that Members of the Executive Council are playing a role of advisers and the final decision is made by the Chief Executive after considering the views expressed by individual Members of the Executive Council and that the Government should explain to the public the criteria for granting TV licences. People say LAM was drawing a line between himself and LEUNG Chun-ying. Fanny LAW said a few days ago that the arrangement made by the Government to offer an explanation was not in any way desirable. For Mrs Regina IP and Ms Starry LEE, who are wary about offending the public opinion, hold an ambivalent


2079

position. They make specious remarks and do not dare to show a firm stand in support of the Government. President, your honour has urged the Government to explain more its decision on granting free TV licences. For the Liberal Party ― James TIEN is in attendance now ― even showed his support for the motion which proposes invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. This lack of solidarity in the Hong Kong communist regime and its circle of supporters proves that LEUNG Chun-ying is an outright solitary enemy of the people. In December 2009 the SAR Government said that it would accept applications for free TV licences, claiming that it would try to promote the sustainable development of the local broadcasting industry and encourage fair competition, investment and adoption of new and innovative technology in the industry, such that quality and diversified TV programmes could be offered to the people. It also said that efforts would be made in line with a beneficial business environment to elevate Hong Kong into a position as a broadcasting hub in the region. The then Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mrs Rita LAU, also stressed time and again that the free TV market was open. Then in the following year, that is, at the beginning of 2010, applications were submitted by the Hong Kong Cable Television and City Telecom Ltd. These companies later formed the Fantastic TV and the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN). At the end of that year, an application was received from the now broadband TV in the name of Hong Kong Television Entertainment. In July 2011, the Broadcasting Authority, that is, the predecessor of the present Communications Authority finished the vetting of the applications and decided to submit its recommendation on the granting of TV licences to the Executive Council. It was only in 15 October this year that the SAR Government announced the results. The Executive Council spent a total of two years and three months to vet the applications. This made the applicants and people of Hong Kong feel very annoyed. The whole procedure can be said to be totally lacking in efficiency. Finally the Chief Executive in Council decided on a "two out of three" option. The decision was made as a result of black-box operation. This "689" scoundrel LEUNG Chun-ying in reply to questions confounded right and wrong and slipped in straw arguments. He came to the end of his wits, but he still puts on an air of self-complacency. He can rightly be said to be shameless to the extreme and the most lowly man in Hong Kong.


In many policy issues I have stressed that the people have a right to know and for the Government, it has a duty to inform. But the SAR Government is acting in the exact opposite, moving in the direction of autocratic government. What the Government is blocking is not only the free TV market, but also the freedom of information of the people of Hong Kong. Amid these incessant accusations of black-box operation, the response from the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is that the Government must abide by the confidentiality system of the Executive Council. And it claimed that when handling application details, it is inevitable that sensitive commercial information and secrets would be involved and any reckless disclosure may lead to damage or give rise to legal disputes. These are the comments made by the Government. On 19 October, the Ming Pao Daily News published a paper which was suspected to have come from the Executive Council. The paper pointed out that from February to December last year the Government had been proposing the granting of three licences and the rejection of any application would lead to protests. However, after discussions made in the Executive Council, LEUNG Chun-ying decided not to grant a licence to HKTVN. The secretariat of the Executive Council denied that this paper published by Ming Pao Daily News actually came from the Executive Council. However, Rimsky YUEN, the Secretary for Justice, confirmed that the contents of the paper were discussed in the Executive Council. Report by another media disclosed that when the Executive Council discussed the granting of free TV licences, Members like LAM Woon-kwong, Regina IP, Anna WU and Fanny LAW supported the idea that licences should be granted to all applicants. In the report compiled by the government consultants, HKTVN got a higher score than Hong Kong Television Entertainment which was subsequently granted a licence. All this is the information divulged by Members of the Executive Council either knowingly or unknowingly. This shows that it is all right for them to disclose confidential information. This so-called confidentiality system of the Executive Council must never be made an instrument of an autocratic government in deceiving the public. In the year 2000 when the SAR Government processed the applications for licences for pay TV, the then Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting Carrie YAU made a public explanation, that some applicants were rejected due to their outdated technology in laying the network and their financial capability. However, there was no ceiling on the number of licences. What the


2081

Government was considering was purely the merits of each applicant and there was no worry for excessive competition. This was what Carrie YAU said in 2000. But the Government today is acting in exact opposite of this. How unfortunate the people of Hong Kong are when they have to be oppressed by a government which is worse off one after another. This act of LEUNG Chun-ying has put those former members of the Executive Council in disgrace. Many of them came forward and rebuked the Government. Allen LEE and Joseph WONG pointed out that the confidentiality system is only meant to ensure that the position of each Member of the Executive Council will not be divulged. It is not meant to be an excuse to enable the Government to refuse to explain to the public the rationale behind major policies. Allen LEE even pointed out directly that he believes that there must be political factors behind the decision reached by the Government, in disregard of the preference of the people. The former Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson CHAN, issued a statement saying that this move made by the Government had aroused public suspicions about political motives behind the decision and that the public was deprived of the right to know. It is not possible for the public to exert political pressure on the Government or make the Government sense the pressure from public opinion because the public cannot resort to ballots and referendum. This autocratic system which is executive-led has almost become lawless. And decisions on major policies can be made arbitrarily without any regard to the people. Now the confidentiality system is put up as an excuse to shirk the responsibility of offering an explanation to the public. President, the motion today which urges that the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance be invoked has its special meaning, that is, to deter this autocratic government from putting a clamp on the freedom of information of the people. It is meant to stop this autocratic government from forcing open a gap in which public interest is infringed upon. It is also meant to prevent this autocratic government from setting a precedent of using the confidentiality system of the Executive Council to cover up its evils. Recently, many media groups from the pro-establishment camp have begun to report on the so-called causes of death of HKTVN. This is obvious a full-scale counter-offensive from the Government to shape public opinion on the issue. An example is that it is pointed out that HKTVN plans to set up many channels and it is hard to expect them to operate effectively with the income


derived from advertisements. Hence vicious competition will be produced. It is also said that at least 12 years are needed to run a free TV and those with lesser financial strength and which make investments resembling firecrackers and fireworks being set off too early will not be conducive to the market. Even if this is not an all-out counter-offensive and attempt to shape public opinion, in the face of this kind of rumour-like reports and groundless speculations on such an incident of significant public interest, the Government is knowingly or unknowingly standing aloof. It has not done anything to respond to and dispel public misapprehensions. This makes people cannot help but suspect that the Government is in the same ranks as these media and they are collaborating to cover up this decision which is a far cry from public expectation. Some media claim that their news comes from informed sources. But when we teach journalism, we would call this as covert sources of news stories, which are most unreliable. Things like "according to informed sources" or "according to persons close to the Executive Council" are gimmicks often played. I have been in the journalism trade for many years and I can assert if this is news from informed sources in the Government, it will certainly be able to be publicized and there is no need for such secretive kind of flying balloons among the media to create false impressions and confuse the people. Just how can a government like this be qualified to enforce public powers? The Executive Council has powers to formulate major policies. It has the power to vet and approve policies like the fares charged by taxis on the drop of the flag, tunnel tolls, fares for the Kowloon Motor Bus, the "flat for flat" arrangement for developers, the basic tariffs for the CLP Power Hong Kong Limited and the Hongkong Electric, licences for radio stations, the zoning plans of the Town Planning Board and the building of a third runway at the airport, and so on. Such countless examples are all related to the interest of Hong Kong people. If all the decisions are made like the black-box operation on this occasion, can Hong Kong hope to be stable and prosperous anymore? I think the Legislative Council must pass the motion today and it should act on the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to order the SAR Government to produce all related documents and reveal the truth and rationale before the public for its judgment. This will help restore procedural justice in Hong Kong.


2083

Members of this Council are representatives of public opinion and they are advocate for the people. They have the duty of monitoring the Government. With respect to the amendment proposed by Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr LAM Tai-fai said he would support it. Everybody regarded him as a hero at once. Then he said that he would oppose the original motion. From this move we can see that he is politically astute. However, my position is opposite to his. I will oppose the amendment from Mr Dennis KWOK and support the original motion from Mr Charles Peter MOK. The reason is very simple, and I have explained it many times already. It is because Mr Dennis KWOK is knowingly or unknowingly too innocent because he said that he had proposed the amendment in order to solicit more support from Members of the pro-establishment camp. And so he proposed an amendment to the original motion from Mr MOK and allowed the SAR Government not to produce the contents of deliberations made in the Executive Council and the related records, as well as information related to the commercial secrets of any applicants for TV licence. This move is no different from Prof Benny TAI Yiu-ting who ties up his two hands in the attempt to occupy Central after he is branded as a member of the mob. Both of them are like tying up their own hands and feet, stripping themselves of their own powers. This amendment will allow this autocratic government to escape public scrutiny. So I will not support it. I wish to advise people from the pro-establishment camp that when they often say they vote according to their conscience, it does not necessarily mean that they have a conscience at all. The right and wrong of this issue is obvious and nothing can cover it up. We are all clear about what is true and false, and what is right and wrong. Mr James TIEN has always been regarded as a member of the pro-establishment camp and now he is described by certain people as a bad boy. But he is now in his sixties, how can he be called a kid? It is very clear and we all know what is true or false, and what is right or wrong. You people are coming to the defence of this autocratic government but you are actually digging your own graves. Of course, some people say that there is no need to fear and all they should do is to go on giving away treats and seasonal delicacies to bribe the voters and they will certainly win in the elections. They think that we can do nothing about it. They think they will sit here in the next term of the Council and we can do nothing about them. But I do not think this is a fact, and it is not the truth either. These people will die a miserable death. In history, no political party or regime that is an enemy of the people can


go on existing and developing. All these people will be discarded by history. We can all guess what the result is today, and so can the people outside. I told them earlier downstairs that we would call it a day when we have finished putting up a show like this. The only way to get out of this is for us to storm into the Government Headquarters. But Hong Kong people do not have the guts for it. Now the people outside, do you have the guts to gatecrash the Government Headquarters after this motion is negatived and see if they can give in? Much to our regret, the people of Hong Kong are like the democrats; they are just too timid and so they will only be overcome by others. President, I so submit. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, the request to open up the airwaves is giving a little bit of blue to the blocked-up sky. It has been Hong Kong people's aspiration for the past two or three decades. In 1996, I moved a motion debate on the formulation of a long-term free, open and fair broadcasting policy. In 2006, I also requested to open up the airwaves. That request has been discussed for numerous times here in this Chamber as well as in the community as a whole. To our dismay, the sky is still not open. Even worse, the polluted air down from the North has affected the people of Hong Kong. President, the impact from the North has not only polluted our sky, it has also directly influenced us policy-wise. LEUNG Chun-ying's sudden change of policy the day before the granting of licences is not at all coincidental. If you have ever noticed the change in the broadcasting policy and measures of the Communist Party of China (CPC), you will absolutely not be surprised to see a tightening on Hong Kong's mass media. The Propaganda Working Conference of the CPC Central Committee announced five propaganda keynotes this March. The first keynote is the most important one, which I believe has a direct impact on Hong Kong. Under the leadership of LEUNG Chun-ying, this Hong Kong communist regime is responsible for implementing the specific keynotes announced by the Propaganda Working Conference of the CPC Central Committee. The first keynote stipulates that the mass media in China, whether traditional or new ones, should be the mouthpiece of the Party and the people. No Party-led mass media shall


2085

ever again give their voices contrary to the interests of the CPC or the people. Otherwise, their operation rights shall be withdrawn. President, the broadcasting policy has been discussed for many years. The Government, during the British colonial era and the SAR Government after 1997, also promised to grant licences. Regarding the recent problem of licensing, the Administration prior to LEUNG Chun-ying had repeatedly stated that there would be no ceiling on the number of licences. Therefore, a successful businessman called Ricky WONG decided to pursue a different career and invested thousands of million dollars in developing a television business. During the last several years, he has spent an additional $900 million on it. With the promise from some government officials, he worked industriously with the hope of being granted a licence. But he failed in the end. It is closely related to the CPC's decision to tighten its control over the mass media. Secretary Gregory SO mentioned at the end of his speech that this Chamber should not politicize this issue while some Members gave their comments. When I listened to his speech, a lot of adjectives swirled in my mind although most of them are not suitable to quote in this Chamber. They are unparliamentary language. If I say them out, the President will ask me to take them back and drive me out of this Chamber. However, there are some adjectives that can still be quoted. The Secretary said that the issue should not be politicized. If he is not twisting the fact or trying to mislead, then his attitude must be some kind of "idiotic". In terms of the whole licensing issue, the refusal to grant a licence is already a political one. Secretary, the Government has been talking about issuing three licences for so many years and, all of a sudden, only two were granted. This is a political decision and you have made it a political issue. A former Secretary had kept encouraging Ricky WONG, but the door suddenly closed on his face. This is a political decision. You have politicized it and made a major and important political decision. In this Chamber, you are so unscrupulous, irrational, idiotic and full of frivolity in asking us not to politicize the issue. This fully reflects that the so-called political appointees under the leadership of LEUNG Chun-ying are so "politically idiotic" and disappointing. Since you are so "politically idiotic", how can you lead Hong Kong? How can you lead the broadcasting industry? How can you create opportunities for Hong Kong to develop? You should not treat Hong Kong people as idiots. You are


an idiot yourself, but please do not treat the people of Hong Kong as idiots. Those outside in the plaza are not idiots either. You said the issue must not be politicized. Your refusal to grant a licence to Ricky WONG is a political decision itself. The Secretary's explanation in the past month was not good enough. After your explanation, you pretended to shed tears but not a single drop was shed. It has only aggravated public anger. Your own political behaviour has made the issue political. The subsequent bad explanations came one after another from the Chief Executive have only led to more public dissatisfaction. The handling method itself has also made the problem more political. The fact that 120 000 people protesting on the street is also a political movement. A public movement is a political campaign. Your refusal to a grant licence has caused 300-odd staff out of work. This movement itself is political behaviour. Finally, the sit-in protest by 10 braves outside in the plaza for several days is also political behaviour. The assembly tonight together with the rally outside is in itself political behaviour. This motion itself is also political behaviour. Therefore, when he said not to make it political, he can be described as an "idiot of the idiot" and a piece of "garbage of the garbage". I wonder if he would take back his idiotic remark. President, I was outside in the plaza when Dr LAM Tai-fai gave his speech, which was telecast live for those in the plaza. After he had spoken for about six to seven minutes, the public outside began to applause when he talked about "689" and Secretary Gregory SO. Having been in politics for so many years, I have never seen a single pro-establishment Member whose speech could command so much public applause except the uprising of Mr James TIEN against TUNG Chee-hwa's legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law years ago. He hoped that other pro-establishment Members could do some soul-searching. Otherwise, they will be welcome by hostile "middle finger up" signs and public curse when they go out. The issue is basically not a sensitive political topic. The issuance of television programme service licences has been conducted for many years. Mr Ricky WONG does not belong to any opposition party. The staff of the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) are not like the People Power that


2087

pledges to fight against the Hong Kong communist regime. They only wish to have an opportunity to extend their creativity, get their job done and make a little bit contribution to the community. They only want to make a living. But now their "rice bowls" are broken. Secretary Gregory SO, your refusal to grant a licence has made many creative friends, people and talents … see their talents buried. You said not to make it political. It is your decision that has irritated public emotions, hurting public interests and feelings. That is why the heat of the campaign has been on the rise. You are so idiotic to say not to politicize this issue. President, regarding this motion which requests the Government to disclose the relevant documents, many people, particularly the comparatively new Members, may feel very scared or even consider it heinous to ask the Government to disclose confidential documents. Let us turn the clock back to 29 July 1998 when the former Legislative Council Member LAU Kong-Wah (now the Under Secretary) moved a motion to request the Government to set up a select committee to investigate into the Chek Lap Kok International Airport problem. It was a motion moved by you, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB). The motion was passed at that time. The select committee at that time was able to obtain a large pile of commercial documents, including the franchise agreement of Hong Kong Air Cargo Terminals Limited (HKCTL), the franchise agreement of Asia Airfreight Terminal Company, the contracts which HKCTL signed respectively with Murata and Demag on the bulk storage system, the document pertaining to the financing information of Super Terminal One as well as a lot of internal documents from the Government involving, for instance, various economic assessments. The Members of DAB obtained a large pile of commercial documents after the passage of their motion. The royalists are prepared to do anything in order to get what they want. In order to protect the Government, safeguard "689" and maintain a communist-controlled regime, these royalists can betray principles, distort facts and tell lies one after another. At that time, Mr Abraham SHEK was one of those supporters. He supported disclosing these documents. But why does he oppose it now? These are reams of rubbish aimed at diverting our attention. It is like "moving the goalposts" to suit the game. Recently, there are many people who have often moved their goalposts back and forth. The people of Hong Kong have to take a good look at those Members who often "move the goalposts" because their ultimate decisions are to bury their conscience and distort facts in order to sacrifice Hong Kong people's interest.


Besides, I would like to respond to those few pages of justifications for not granting the licence. One of the justifications is about advertising revenue. The Government opines that the advertising market is not big enough to support more licensees. However, the Government's figures are wrong. Some practitioners in the advertising sector have pointed out that 60% of Television Broadcasts Limited's revenue comes from advertising, the proportion of which is much smaller than that indicated by the Government. Moreover, the Government has no obligation to take care of investors' interests. I have never heard of such obligation all these years. If the Government has to take good care of investors' interests, why does it not give a promise on the return of investment? The Government has provided over $100 million to subsidize the ferry companies. Since the Government is so concerned about the interests of the consortia, why does it not subsidize television stations? The second one is about financial capability. President, if my information is correct, the Government may have violated section 2 of Schedule 4 of the Broadcasting Ordinance in considering the financial capability of a parent company. The Ordinance stipulates that a licence shall not be granted to or held by a company which is the subsidiary of a corporation. In this respect, has the Government violated the above Ordinance by granting licences to Fantastic Television Limited (Fantastic TV) and HK Television Entertainment Company Limited (HKTVE) respectively? This is one of the focal points of judicial review that the relevant committee may have to re-examine during the eventual inquiry. Financial capability is one of the reasons why Ricky WONG was not issued a licence. However, HKTVN is relatively stable with a net capital of $2.3 billion while carrying no debts or liabilities. The parent corporation of Fantastic TV has only $56 million with an annual deficit of $100 million to $200 million. The parent corporation of HKTVE has $7.7 billion in cash while carrying both short-term and long-term loans totalling $31.3 billion. In terms of financial stability, the Government has contradicted itself. President, the licensing issue is absolutely a political decision. Everyone knows that PCCW is one of the applicants and that the boss of PCCW owns Hong Kong Economic Journal. Prior to the Government's commencement of its consideration of TV licence applications, Hong Kong Economic Journal sacked some high-level employees, especially those senior staff members, editors and assistant editors-in-chief who had been supporting democracy and freedom of


2089

speech. After dismissing those employees, PCCW was granted a TV licence. When the Government was reviewing the applications, there were some voices indicating that the Government was not quite satisfied with the younger son of LI Ka-shing. As there was too much negative news that LI Ka-shing finally decided to announce a withdrawal of capital, including the selling of its supermarkets business, PARKnSHOP. When the Government decided to grant a licence to the company of his younger son's corporation, LI Ka-shing scrapped the plan to sell PARKnSHOP. Is it not political? The Government has been held at ransom. Instead of issuing the licence to Ricky WONG, the Government granted it to LI's younger son. This is an obvious collusion between the Government and business. It is a decision of transferring benefits to them. (The buzzer sounded) … DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, today we are all sitting in the Chamber and we may not have the time to look outside and see what the situation is. There are dozens of thousand people having a rally outside the Legislative Council Complex. Perhaps the Secretary is not aware of this. The reason why these people have come here is not to show support for an individual called Ricky WONG Wai-kay. What they support is justice, fairness and impartiality which are disappearing in Hong Kong. This show is like a daft soap opera. There is bound to be a lead role in each play and the lead role this time is certainly the best actor, Gregory SO. We still remember when he announced this news, he tried to squeeze a tear or two in front of the camera. But he found it very hard to do so. Some reporter asked him why he was doing that. I do not know if this is because the Secretary had to come out and show his support for something he does not believe in or that he was a bit shameful. In fact, what we see are crocodile tears and they are not real. In this incident, we can see many things which disappoint the people of Hong Kong yet again. In 2009, at that time the Government said very clearly when it wanted to issue more TV licences that after analyses, it considered that competition should be introduced and more options should be made available in the market. But what is the result now? A few years down the line, there is this movement of goalposts, from not setting a ceiling on the number of licences granted to setting a ceiling. And specious arguments and fabricated reasons are advanced to kick out HKTVN.


Some people ask, why does this have to happen? Actually, no one knows whether this is because of an order from the Government or an order from the Western District that he should be kicked out. Or if it is because some people in TVB or ATV are unhappy. They do not want to change this situation of one TV station dominating the scene or that ATV will be affected. No one really knows. Or it could be that the Government wants to please the two giant consortia behind the two applicants granted free TV licences. No one really knows. But what we have seen is that the Government has in this incident completely confounded black and white and right from wrong. I have always thought that the Secretary would not go too far although he is a member of the DAB and although we do not know why he was picked or assigned this post. We would think that since this post is about commercial and economic matters, other considerations would not come in. But what we have seen is that this Policy Bureau which is supposed to promote economic and commercial competition will in the end stifle the show business and innovative technology in Hong Kong, as well as business undertakings which grow from a small capital. In Hong Kong, we all know that Ricky WONG is a very special man. People call him the whiz kid. He is one of the very few persons who can use a small capital to beat a giant. We may recall that when LEUNG Chun-ying first assumed office or during his electioneering, Ricky WONG came out on one or two occasions to show his support for LEUNG and so he is called a fan of LEUNG. Today, many people have come out and make their voice heard. Many Members of this Council are also making their stand known. But they are not lending their support to Ricky WONG as an individual or HKTVN. What they support is the cornerstone of Hong Kong, that is, a just and fair system. I want very much to hear what people from the business sector have got to say. I recall there is this Chinese proverb known literally as the teeth will feel the cold when the lips die. Members should know that in doing business in Hong Kong, we always respect the rights of the businessmen. They can get what they should get in a level playing field. Then what is meant by fairness in this case? What are financial considerations? President, he has got some $2 billion and that is not what an ordinary member of the public or someone who as LAM Woon-kwong says, runs a Hong Kong-style café. He fished out


2091

$900 million and hired 600 people. He even has got the land for his production centre. He is definitely not taking this as a joke. But he has been kicked out. I do not know what is in the mind of Members from the business sector, including those from the industrial and commerce sectors, as well as those from the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong who always say that they represent the business sector. This incident makes me think of the recent event concerning the issue of 3G licences. We know that this issue of 3G licences has got quite a heavy political element in it. Many existing operators of 3G licences do not understand why the Government would want to change the rules of the game arbitrarily, just because it wants to introduce a Chinese state enterprise, that is, the China Mobile. I want to know, just since when Hong Kong started to protect certain companies with a background? Will those people who have the support of Chinese state enterprises, or those who have influence or support of the consortia, can run a business? This is a far more important problem and it will put Hong Kong in a more precarious situation. President, the whole incident is a demon detector which enables us to see many ridiculous things. There is a Member in this Council who represents the show business. I hope that Mr MA Fung-kwok who represents the show business sector ― he is not in the Chamber now ― can say something sounds like a human being. For if not, how can he represent the innovative technology sector in Hong Kong and how can he not feel ashamed in front of those people who have slept out there in the open for more than 10 days and who have devoted the prime of their life to the performing arts? They have only a very simple demand ― they just want to have a place where they can realize their dream in the performing arts. But there is not such a place, and nothing can be done about it. We can also see certain political parties which claim to represent the working class … I read two very interesting pieces of news. There is this newspaper report today which says that a certain supervisor in the film editing department of HKTVN who said that he had cast the wrong vote. He cast his vote to Miss CHAN Yuen-han. She is not here now. He said he has always believed that she is speaking out for workers. But now he knows he cannot trust her anymore. A couple of days ago, a Mr CHENG who works in HKTVN said that he felt ashamed of a rising star in the Executive Council, Mr CHENG


Yiu-tong ― actually he has been in the Executive Council, for some time already. In fact, this is not really a demon detector as such and there are many things which I do not know how to explain. For example, someone called on many Members who represent the trade unions. One of these Members said that he had forgotten the time of the meeting. Another said that he was very busy and he did not have the time to talk. This is absolutely a demon detector. There are also some Members of the Executive Council who make us feel quite disappointed. For example, Mr LAM Woon-kwong. I have great respect for him. His remarks show that he is a clear-headed person among Members of the Executive Council. And he knows how to talk like a human being. But his recent comments on Hong Kong-style cafés really make all the people, including those who actually run a Hong Kong-style café, feel absurd. Just what is he driving at when he compares the performing arts to a Hong Kong-style café? He is insulting the people of Hong Kong and the thousands of people outside the Legislative Council today. Someone says, "We might as well see each other in Court." We all know that the law is an avenue through which people with little power and capability can challenge those with immense power. And on this occasion, the party with immense power is the Government. In the past, many lawsuits on judicial review were often instituted by ordinary members of the public such as foreign domestic helpers or common people who felt that their living conditions were threatened. It was because they were convinced that only by resorting to this means that they could win justice in law. But it is different this time around. The party who instigates others to wage a legal battle is the Government. As we all know, the Government has got limitless resources, including counsels and money. And even before the lawsuit commences, a Crown Counsel may already have been hired. This is really bullying the weak. This should not be regarded as a purpose of law. The law should instead be supposed to help … the spirit of legal aid is to help the weakest and the poorest to challenge authority, something he himself cannot fight against. This is in other words, the Government. The Government has access to all the powers and all confidential information is in its hands. It is really shameless when it tells people to take the case to court. I have always tried to respect the Government, including Secretary Gregory SO. But as we know, on the website of his Policy Bureau, words like "there is no ceiling on licences granted" could have been deleted. This is an example of a


2093

despicable move, a lowly move which people should not make. But he did not feel any shame and came out to say, "We do not want to make things redundant." Then these words were placed back there subsequently. Just what kind of a government is this? What kind of a government is this which makes these lowly moves? This really makes the people of Hong Kong lose their face. This kind of officials and this kind of lowly moves should not have come from our Government. Even if the people do not trust LEUNG Chun-ying, they will trust the Government. They will think that the Government will uphold fairness and do something which human beings do. But I do not think this kind of lowly moves can rightly be said to be made by humans. We know that it is very unfair of this "two out of three" option or divulging some information through other channels. The Government should publicize all information for inspection. But this is not the case now. The Government chose to disseminate different kinds of information selectively to certain reporters, media and individuals, and at different times, all meant to make the other parties dumbfounded and speechless. Can this be called fair? Are those informed sources not from the Government or those authorized by it? The authorities want us to place our trust in the confidentiality system of the Executive Council. Sorry, President, I have to say that you had better ask how many people in Hong Kong still respect the Executive Council. What kind of people are Members of the Executive Council? We may have some respect for former Members of the Executive Council, but we can only shake our heads and sigh when we see Members of the Executive Council hand-picked by LEUNG Chun-ying. I believe Members will still remember Mr Barry CHEUNG. We can leave aside his private loans. He is alleged of fraudulence and may even have broken the law. But he was selected as a Member of the Executive Council. Another man who Members will remember is Mr Franklin LAM. He tried to sell his properties ahead of a government policy. These are Members of the Executive Council. They do not have to be accountable to the public and give any explanation. Of course, they do not command respect from society. But we can see that there are many political parties, especially those with members serving in the Executive Council, which carry this kind of ugly face and make incredible remarks because they want to defend the Government or their colleagues in the Executive Council. I find this hard to accept.


I have also heard the speech made by Mr TAM Yiu-chung. As we all know, he belongs to the same political party as that of Secretary Gregory SO. Their political party also has got two members in the Executive Council. Actually, political parties with seats in the Executive Council should not cast their votes. This is because, as a matter of fact, they have already known everything they should know and they know more than us. Now the public has got a very humble demand only and they hope to know the truth through this Council exercising the statutory powers vested in it. Today, if this humble demand of theirs cannot be met in this Council, I do not think justice exists anymore. Mr Charles Peter MOK has given us many "truth-telling buns", so to speak. It is unfortunate that no one helps himself to them. This is because honest people do not have to eat them and those dishonest ones dare not eat them. Thank you, President. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, the incident of issuing more free TV programme service licences (free TV licences) has been dragging on for almost three years and it was only recently that there was an outcome. The Executive Council approved in principle the applications of Fantastic Television Limited and Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited under i-Cable and PCCW respectively. Two more free TV licences are issued. However, as the application from Hong Kong Television Network (HKTVN) founded by Ricky WONG Wai-kay and which has begun production was unexpectedly rejected, there was great disappointment. The Government puts up the pretext that contents of discussions made in the Executive Council are to remain confidential for its refusal to disclose the specific reasons why the application from HKTVN is rejected. The Government has only kept repeating that the decision made by the Executive Council is fair and that the principle of gradual and orderly progress will be used to introduce competition into the free TV market. About the confidentiality principle of the Executive Council, many retired top officials and even former Members of the Executive Council have pointed out that the present-term Government has distorted the meaning of the confidentiality principle and it is misleading the people. As Joseph WONG, the former Secretary for the Civil Service, has said, what is confidential should be the meeting agenda, papers, discussion contents (including remarks made in the meeting by individual Members), and these will not be disclosed to the public.


2095

But the so-called confidentiality principle of the Executive Council does not mean that after a decision has been made by the Executive Council, the Government cannot explain clearly the grounds for that decision when it announces the decision. When the decision-making process is to be kept confidential, it does not mean that there is no need for the Government to explain after a decision has been made. What should be noted especially is that the issuance of free TV licences is a matter that involves major public interest. It is also a cause of great public concern. Both the Secretary and many Members of this Council know that at this moment tens of thousand people are gathering outside, watching the live TV broadcast. Members of the public watching the TV at home and on the streets are all very concerned. They want to know whether this decision to issue free TV licences is affected by any reasons which cannot be told. Why has the Government been acting so hesitantly and it was only after a prolonged public demand and when a Member of this Council proposed to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) that it issued a six-page press release hastily yesterday, listing the four major criteria and 11 factors for consideration? Why was there no explanation from the Government right at the moment when a decision was made? And why did the Government have to see 120 000 people taking to the streets and encircling the Legislative Council Complex and the Government Headquarters or even after a Member of this Council had proposed to invoke the P&P Ordinance that an approach likened to the squeezing of a tube of toothpaste was used to give an account of the reasons? Now the Government is forced to give an account of a small part of the information. But the public still thinks that the information given is not comprehensive and many problems remain unsolved. This has caused a Member of this Council to propose invoking the P&P Ordinance. President, the Government insists that it will not give an account of all the justifications for the granting of additional TV licences. This will only make society filled with rumours and conspiracy theory against the Government. It will undermine the credibility of the Chief Executive, the Executive Council and the Government. As we know, there is no credibility left of LEUNG Chun-ying already. He has very low popularity ratings. But this incident is far more serious because he has staked the whole Executive Council. Just how will Members of the Executive Council, especially those Members who also serve in the Legislative Council, hold themselves accountable to the public? They can hardly find any words. It seems that he wants everyone to perish together.


In fact, after the uproar caused by the issue of additional free TV licences, the opinion polls conducted by The Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong both showed that the popularity rating of the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying had hit an all-time low. The support from the people has seen a marked decline. This proves that the incident has undermined the Government's prestige of governance. President, it is only in the past few days that we learnt that the Government was doing all it could to secure votes. The Secretary might have gone everywhere and met with Members from the pro-establishment camp for this purpose. When I had my meal earlier, I asked Members from the pro-establishment camp whether the Liaison Office of the Central Government in Hong Kong had made any attempt to invite them for a chat and solicit their support. Certain Members from the pro-establishment camp said it did not and only Secretary SO did that. Then what did the Secretary say to them? Mr Michael TIEN said in his speech earlier that the government officials said to him that a certain part of the information could not be made public and only information now available to Members could be disclosed. I saw them on the TV. Actually, I do not like watching the TV, but I do watch news reports. I could not help but ask, why did the Secretary contact Mr Michael TIEN instead of me, Helena WONG? Why did the Secretary not contact Ms Emily LAU, Mr Charles Peter MOK or Mr SIN Chung-kai? Why did the Government only contact Members from the pro-establishment camp? Is it because they are Members of this Council while we are not? It turns out that the Government only contacted those Members whom it likes. Are these Members the relatives of the Secretary? Of course, there is this affinity differentiation. Of the many Members of this Council, the Government will contact those who speak words to its liking, those who listen to what it says and those whose interest tallies with that of the Government. The Government will ask them for help and vote down this motion tonight, such that everyone can go home for a nice sleep, and the matter can thus be considered solved satisfactorily. President, I have to put up a strong protest here. Secretary, you have disclosed certain information you want to disseminate to some Members in a selective manner. You practise affinity differentiation and pretend not to see the rest of the Members of this Council and the public. How come there are some Members who have more information in their hands while the other Members are kept in the dark? Most of the members of the public only have this press release


2097

of a few pages long. Secretary, I have to protest strongly against what you have done. All Members sitting here are Members of the Legislative Council. The Secretary cannot adopt affinity differentiation and disclose the information only to certain Members selectively. Why are Members forced to take this step and invoke the P&P Ordinance and demand the authorities to produce the information? It is because we know that the Secretary pretends that Members do not exist. If we cannot get the relevant information, how can we get any further information? Mr Michael TIEN, please do not feel happy because you have no idea whether the information from Secretary Gregory SO is true or not, or part of the truth or all of the truth. How do you know that he will not mislead you? So we had better keep our heads cool. Why do we appeal to all Members from both the pro-establishment camp and the pan-democratic camp to unite and lend their support to Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion? It is because if we do not fight for it, we will never know the real considerations behind this decision by the Government. President, someone has pointed out that the Government distorts the confidentiality principle of the Executive Council used by the Government as a shield. But there is another move taken by the Government and that is, it says that legal proceedings over the matter have begun and so no explanation can be offered. LEUNG Chun-ying has said time and again that legal proceedings over the matter have begun and used this as an excuse. He is never tired of doing that. A member of the public had filed an application for judicial review in the Court, but the application was later withdrawn. When people think that the Government has no excuse not to make the reasons public, LEUNG Chun-ying then said that an explanation had already been offered as far as circumstances permit and that it is only when faced with a judicial review that it will state before the Court the reasons for rejecting the granting of a TV licence. When a member of the public filed an application for judicial review, the Chief Executive then stated it was because of this that the reasons could not be made public. But after that member of the public had withdrawn his application, he then said that unless in court proceedings, the reasons could not be made public. This is really a rogue Chief Executive, and I have never seen anyone like this before. President, does the Government really want the people to challenge its decision in court before it can disclose more information and reasons for issuing the TV licences?


President, in the face of queries from the public, the Government issued a six-page explanation before votes were to be cast in this Council. The explanation mentions 11 factors and four major criteria. I am sure many Members must have read this explanation. But obviously we are not happy with it. Why? These so-called four major assessment criteria should have been disclosed by the Government a long time ago. Now when they are disclosed, why are people not happy with them? Because the Government has not disclosed the percentage or weighting taken up by each of these four major criteria. With respect to the final decision made by the Executive Council, he said that it is the result of a general impression. Then that is really bad. Does this mean that the Government is so unscientific that it only relies on its impression to conclude that Ricky WONG does not have enough capital to run a TV station? Or are there any other reasons? Is capital the most important reason? Did the Government say that capital took up 99.9% of the criteria? Did the Government state that innovation in programming would only take up a very small proportion? No. President, why am I so furious? I do not watch the TV very often. But I think we all should be fair. If I am to assess the performance of my students, I would tell them on the first day of the school term what the requirements for the course are, what the passing score is, what the score for getting grade A is and what the failing marks are. I will tell them all these right on the first day. If I have three assessment criteria ― such as handing in a book report, writing a dissertation and taking an examination ― I will say clearly that the book report will take up 20%, the dissertation 30% and the examination 50%. I will definitely tell them clearly. But as we look at these criteria of the Government, nothing is said about them. In the end, HKTVN is rejected under the circumstances that only two applicants out of three are successful. But the Government has not given any clear explanation as to according to what criteria or in which aspects HKTVN has failed. President, despite the many queries raised, the Government has not offered any explanation which is convincing and acceptable to everyone. Another issue of our concern is that this decision made by the Chief Executive in Council seems to be a violation of the details of the broadcasting policy set by the Broadcasting Authority. Section 10 of the Broadcasting Ordinance provides that after the


2099

Chief Executive in Council has considered the recommendation made by the Communications Authority (CA) regarding the issue of licence, it can then make a decision on the application concerned. But the law does not set out the other factors to be considered by the Chief Executive in Council in making this kind of decision. It only requires that the Chief Executive should consider the recommendation made by the CA. From this it can be seen that the key to the system on the issue of free TV licences is the recommendation from the CA. According to the paper submitted by the Government to this Council, the predecessor of the CA, that is, the Broadcasting Authority, had made a clear recommendation to the Chief Executive in Council in July 2011, which was to give an approval-in-principle to all three applicants, including HKTVN, in their applications for free TV licences. What the public and HKTVN are not happy about is why this decision of the Broadcasting Authority is overruled by the Government and TV licences are granted to only two of the three applicants. President, maybe you also know that according to the government website, there is no ceiling on the number of free TV licences. But one day somebody deleted the sentence from the website for no reason. When this was discovered, the Secretary gave the following remark to this effect and with embarrassment: "This is part of the regular updating work of the website". Then the sentence was placed back. This kind of action is stealthy, like that of a thief. The Government should act in an open and aboveboard manner. When it deleted disclosable information in a stealthy manner suddenly and after the act was discovered, it took another stealthy step to restore it. This is naïve and contemptible. We can hardly imagine that things like this could have been done by the Hong Kong Government which is so modern and civilized. President, the Government sometimes says that there is no ceiling on the number of free TV licences and sometimes it seems to be full of sympathy, worried that the issue of three free TV licences will lead to a situation where TV stations may close down because of the fall in revenue from advertisements, hence causing problems in operation. May I ask, when the Government has set down a market rule such as failing companies will be rescued so that they can continue with their operation? Friends in the business sector, since when has the Government been taking so much care of you? All along we have been stressing fair competition, have we not? Now the Government is saying all of a sudden


that a certain sector cannot accommodate any more competition. President, we really do not understand why the Government cares so much about the survival of TV stations that it wants to extend the life of a dying TV station. Any TV station that should die or is about to die should be left to breathe its last breath. Those failing should be eliminated. It is only when this rule is followed that there can be any progress in business and in our society. What we demand is the right to choose. The reason for the public feeling so enraged is the acts of the Secretary and the Government. Why can the right to know not be restored to the people? Why can the Executive Council not be asked to give a clear account to the public? President, many citizens outside are furious. They are shouting and clamouring. They have only a simple demand to make, and that is, their right to know be restored to them. With these remarks, President, I support Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, we have all witnessed a series of happenings arising from the issuance of free television programme service licences (free TV licences). Regarding the Government's licensing policy as a whole, although Secretary Gregory SO has reiterated repeatedly that the policy remains unchanged, I would like to highlight our attitude towards the licensing decision in my speech as follows. On 10 December 1998, the then Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting, Mr KWONG Ki-chi, said, "a vibrant television industry in Hong Kong would not only widen viewers' programme choice, but also enhance our position as the regional broadcasting hub." Then, he pointed out in a policy review that "Under the new technology-neutral licensing regime, there would be no limit on the number of domestic free licences to be issued. Applications for domestic free services transmitted through other technically feasible means will be considered." His remarks are certainly very close to the words of Secretary Gregory SO in his reply to a question by the Legislative Council last year. He said that according to a document released to the public by of the Government, the Government's policy of opening up the television market had not changed since 1998 and there was no upper limit on the number of licences to be awarded. So far, this is the policy as we understand it. This policy should have been


2101

considered by the Broadcasting Authority (BA) in processing the free TV licence applications. Here is a document submitted by the Government to the Legislative Council which states that the three applicants are sufficiently capable of complying with the statutory requirements laid down by the law. Of course, when processing the applications, the BA had considered whether the sustainability of market should be adopted as one of the criteria of licensing. However, according to the BA's decision, this factor should not be included and their idea is in the same strain with the Government. The BA took the view that if our television industry could flourish, the audience could choose from a wider variety of programmes and Hong Kong's position as a regional broadcasting hub could also be enhanced. This is what we often refer to as the core issue, namely, public interest. Unfortunately, after the submission of this report to the Government by the BA in May 2011 and a subsequent delay of more than two years, the ultimate decision is in the negative. The Government has to reconsider the market environment for fear that so-called cut-throat competition will lead to closure of television stations. Obviously, the idea of public interest in the eyes of the Government is different from that of the BA or the ideas behind the government policy in the past. How could this not be regarded as a change in policy? Furthermore, the Government has honoured its pledge of supporting the broadcasting or television industry with public funds. The Government has granted the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) a plot of land in Tseung Kwan O for the establishment of a television centre. To a certain extent, this is a kind of support in terms of public coffers. Despite the granting of land, HKTVN's application has been ultimately rejected even though it has fully complied with all the licensing requirements in the whole application process. This is precisely the reason why the Government should provide the justifications to the public because the Government has stifled not only the public's right to choose but also wasted public funds by handing over a site with designated land use in Tseung Kwan O to a company which, however, has been rejected in the licence application. Is this reasonable? Should the Government be accountable to the public with the use of public funds? The site is certainly very important because it is an asset of society.


If the Government insists that it is not required to explain the reasons for its decision, the public may query whether the Government has moved the goalposts and ignored the public interest. Worse still, the definition of public interest in the eyes of the Government will change with the change of the term of Government. And this is not desirable to any kinds of business environment. I think the business sector would like to see the continuity of policy which is based on sound justifications, clear regulations and a determination of compliance. Although the criteria were laid down in 1998, a belated decision was suddenly made after LEUNG Chun-ying has taken office for more than two years. The Government also pointed out that it has to reconsider whether the issuance of licences would lead to the closure of television stations due to competition. This is inconceivable and the Government has to explain to the public why there is a change in policy. The Competition Bill was passed last year. This year, the Competition Commission (the Commission) will make funding applications to the Legislative Council. What is the purpose of the funding? It is for maintaining competition in the market. The Government has told the public that competition is believed to be able to bring benefits to the people or the public at large. After a complicated process, the Competition Bill was passed. We had been working hard in lobbying and proposing plenty of amendments so that the Commission could be established. According to the latest court ruling, the contracts between the Television Broadcasts Limited and its artistes have violated the Competition Ordinance. It shows that the government policy seeks to uphold the public interest by means of reviews by the Commission and diversified competition. However, in the issuance of free TV licences, the Government was doing exactly the opposite. Does it mean that its policy has undergone a 180-degree change from encouraging competition in the past to anti-competition now? If its policy is anti-competition, should the Competition Ordinance be re-examined? It is often said that significant policy instability of a government will be detrimental to the business environment. In fact, friends in the business sector will calculate their commercial interests and make considerations under whatever situations or scenarios. However, what they fear most is political uncertainty which may lead to inaccuracies in their projections and their investments may go down the drain overnight. It is pointed out in the document that the Fantastic Television Limited and Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company limited are expected to invest


2103

$500 million to $600 million in the next three to six years. However, the HKTVN has already invested $900 million without even getting a licence. We are not saying that a licence will certainly come with a greater amount of investment. However, all signs should go to show that government policies are inclined to encourage competition. Under such circumstances, the applicants are most concerned about whether their applications are considered being in compliance with the licensing requirements and conditions. I believe no one in the business sector would ever envisage that the Government would be so kind as to forecast whether the existing competitors could survive after the entry of some other competitors. If so, what sort of a government is it? Is it a government or society which professes laissez faire? Has the Government considered whether such a change may significantly undermine the rating of Hong Kong as a free economy? These commercial enterprises will make investments and struggle for survival on the basis of their returns. In the process of this struggle for survival, the public would stand to benefit. Just now many Honourable colleagues mentioned the consequences arising from the closure of the Commercial Television (CTV). But I would like to ask a question. During the three years in which CTV was in operation amidst the presence of three television stations, our society could enjoy the economic effect. Our television industry was booming and full of vitality, resulting in a galaxy of talents. Thanks to their contribution to the film industry, Hong Kong has become the "Hollywood in the Orient". This important process can be regarded as a cradle for the industry. Has the Government thought about that? We cannot regard competition as the root of all evil, thereby resulting in the closure of CTV. What kind of logic is it? If competition is the root of all evil, we would have to go back to the era when the Government could determine the licensing criteria of all industries and stipulate the number of competitors in each trade. Can we accept such a situation where the winners are hand-picked by the authorities? Today many Members here come from the business sector. Certainly, during previous debates on social policies, there were often arguments that such polices might intervene or distort the market. It is because we hold different views. For instance, the pan-democrats may be very concerned about labour rights where, in contrast, business people attach importance to the business environment. We are looking for a point where our views can converge. However, what we witness today is an institutional change which involves whether our society still upholds free economy and market competition. As the


name implies, where there is competition, there will naturally be winners and losers. How could everybody win in a football game? What is the big deal with getting the lowest score? He simply cannot get any medals. In business operation, the operators who run their businesses poorly will be eliminated. It is an unalterable principle and the most natural course of things. The Government needs not worry about it. Of course, Ricky WONG has brought tremendous pressure to bear on other competitors because his success in the past was stunning. He had defeated the domineering Hong Kong Telecom by introducing low-cost long-distance telephone service through City Telecom (HK) Limited (CTI). We could imagine that his opponent may feel scared in front of such an opponent who will exert an all-out effort in his job with strong innovative ideas. However, as a government, how can it eliminate such a rival by means of its policy? As a government, how can it make use of its policies to eliminate an opponent who has creative ideas and determination to fight for success in this contest? This is precisely the reason why the Government Headquarters is being surrounded by thousands of people who are demanding an explanation from the Government. The Government has refused to give an explanation on the pretext of the confidentiality system. This is simply self-deceiving or adopting the ostrich approach. Members from the pro-establishment camp often said that invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) will impact the executive-legislature relationship. Whenever the issue is discussed, many of us will reiterate that we should avoid causing so many troubles as this is time-consuming and fruitless. However, if we do not adopt this approach, would the Government be willing to release any materials? Do we think that this six-page statement is acceptable? Can this six-page statement answer why the Government has intervened with the competitive market behaviour? Over the past few years, whenever we discussed invoking the P&P Ordinance, the pro-establishment Members would oppose the deployment of this "imperial sword". Have they ever considered that the Government, at their connivance, could find shielding behind them and therefore distort the rules of the game in society? This is the greatest tragedy of our society. The pro-establishment camp will bear the responsibility of holding a candle to the devil and as a result, the SAR Government or LEUNG Chun-ying can commit the same mistake repeatedly.


2105

The fact that he has committed mistakes repeatedly has already been reflected by his nose-diving popularity. If the Government treats its popularity as a floating cloud, I think LEUNG Chun-ying should step down as soon as possible. Thank you, President. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, the only thing the tens of thousands of people gathering outside the Chamber would like to know is the reason for LEUNG Chun-ying not to grant a licence to HKTVN. We want a reason. We would like to know the cause. Since the announcement of the outcome of the applications for free TV licences by LEUNG Chun-ying on 15 October, emotions have been running high. The SAR Government has actually tried every trick to put out the fire, such as the Secretary's tears, LEUNG Chun-ying's "hypocritical rhetoric", the passing of the buck among Executive Council Members, and spreading of rumours by sources or authoritative people close to the Government. The Government can be said to have tried all of its tricks. President, although much has been said, the only thing missing is the reason and cause the tens of thousands of people gathering outside the Chamber at this moment and the 120 000 people last week would like to know. The Government has failed to give them an account. President, despite our repeated requests, LEUNG Chun-ying has continued to act in an evasive manner. Everything has been accounted for except the reason for not to grant a licence to HKTVN. He cannot satisfy our request even though we only wish to find out the cause. We have thus come to the conclusion that he must have a hidden agenda. I believe our conclusion makes perfect sense. In exercising its power as a legislature that monitors the executive, the Legislative Council enjoys the privilege conferred by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance). It is now time to unleash this "imperial sword" because we are duty-bound to let everyone know this secret. If we allow LEUNG Chun-ying to get away this time around even though he has acted in defiance of rules, laws and procedural justice, then things of an even more outrageous nature can happen in future.


President, I can see hope in the faces and eyes of the 120 000 people last week and the tens of thousands of people gathering outside the Chamber this evening because Hong Kong people have come to realize that we have reached a critical moment. Everything is done according to rules and regulations in Hong Kong, which is very different from the Mainland where people are expected to act according to the wishes of high-ranking officials. The very reason for Hong Kong people to be able to live in peace and contentment is that we are not as smart as people on the Mainland who have the culture of second-guessing the wishes of high-ranking officials. It is our hope that Hong Kong can remain unchanged. Many people have reacted so strongly because they understand that if they do not voice out and stand up to defend Hong Kong's values, Hong Kong will become a complete stranger to them in no time. Should that happen, I believe Hong Kong would only look familiar to the President and me. If we do not wish to see this happen, what can we do? We can compel LEUNG Chun-ying to explain the reason for not granting a licence to HKTVN and examine if the decision was made by "one man" seeking to second-guess the desires of "the exalted officials of the north" according to the wishes of high-ranking officials, thereby making Hong Kong completely changed. President, should this Council decide today not to exercise the privilege conferred by the P&P Ordinance and unleash this "imperial sword", we will not only fail to live up to the expectations of Hong Kong people who give us support to join this Council, we will also fail to do justice to the history of Hong Kong and our country. Because the Hong Kong SAR has been playing a very important role in the modern history of China in enabling the modernization of the country over the past century or so. If we are to continue to play this role, if we are to really realize the unfulfilled wish and make the unaccomplished achievement of the revolution started by Dr SUN Yat-sen a century ago, we must uphold Hong Kong's values and practices. President, you might think that this is an overstatement. However, should Members of this Council decide today, for the sake of defending LEUNG Chun-ying, not to exercise the power under the P&P Ordinance to force him to succumb and make public the reason for not granting the licence, we will fail to do justice to history and become a sinner in history because we allow the SAR Government to transform into another Mainland city slowly. In that event, "one country, two systems" will lose its significance, including historical significance. President, our decision today is indeed very important.


2107

President, Hong Kong people are sensible. Hence, we request the Government to give us a reason because we wish to know why. I wonder if you, President, took a look at the demonstration area outside this morning. I found the scene before me very strange because a large crowd of people in yellow vests and red caps were waving the national and regional flags, accusing people proposing to invoke the P&P Ordinance of being traitors. Do they make any sense? President, who are these people? In the Hong Kong SAR, we have found scenes of masses being mobilized and people criticizing and purging each other as if they were in the Cultural Revolution. We do not wish to see such an unreasonable campaign aimed at mobilizing the masses by "embracing one camp to strike at the other camp". In Hong Kong, we insist on reasoning and compliance with rules. We also have institutions, the rule of law and systems. There can be no unruly acts, LEUNG Chun-ying. President, the six-page statement issued by LEUNG Chun-ying yesterday was absolutely singing the old tune, without adding any new twists. Should the pro-establishment Members contemplate to back down with the help of the statement, I would like to remind them to be careful, or they will fall and die because of its complete lack of substance. President, these were the remarks made by the Government in announcing the outcome of the consultation on the review of television policy, and I quote, "Under the new technology-neutral licensing regime, there would be no limit on the number of domestic free licences to be issued." (end of quote) The then Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting, Mr KWONG Ki-chi, also made these remarks in announcing the measures to open up the television market and promote fair competition, and I quote, "An opened-up television broadcasting and programme service market will speed up technology transfer, attract investment, stimulate the growth of related industries like programme production, and create new employment opportunities. A vibrant television industry in Hong Kong would not only widen viewers' programme choice, but also enhance our position as the regional broadcasting hub." (end of quote) Through the President, I would like to ask Secretary Gregory SO who are sitting here whether he has forgotten all this. If there was a change of policy, when was the proposal made? How did the Government announce the change? Should Hong Kong's policy be implemented in this manner? President, he was exercising public power. It is all the more pale and fragile to use judicial review as an excuse.


In this solemn discussion, let me cite cake making as an example. Suppose a person called Ah Mao has made a cake. In exercising its judicial jurisdiction and power to monitor the executive, the Court will only examine his cake-making process, such as whether sugar was added before water or vice versa, the number of cups of flour used, and so on. If Ah Mou was found to have followed the right steps, his cake would not be rejected by the Court. President, the approach of the Legislative Council is different. We can examine whether Ah Mou should have made the cake and what sort of cake he should make. Should it be round, square, sweet, bitter or spicy? Why can the incident not be examined by the Court in tandem with the Legislative Council? What is the reason? How ridiculous! As regards the proposal of excluding the minutes of meetings and voting results of the Executive Council as well as confidential commercial information, there will be nothing left at all. Who do they think we are? Are we treated as kindergarten pupils? Why can we not read the information papers submitted by various government departments to the Executive Council? Why can we not read the four consultancy reports? Are those papers minutes of meetings? Do they contain any confidential commercial information? How pale and fragile! President, the question put before us now is a test of enormous import which has a bearing on whether the Hong Kong SAR can continue to play the roles of a testing ground and a catalyst in the history of China. We must protect Hong Kong. I have to tell the masses gathering outside that, even if the motion is not passed at the vote tomorrow, we must never give up because it is still uncertain when the last straw will break the camel's back. LEUNG Chun-ying, you must not be too complacent. SUSPENSION OF MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow. Suspended accordingly at seven minutes past Ten o'clock.


2109

Annex I

Amendments moved by the Secretary for Transport and Housing


A1

Appendix I

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to Mr Albert HO's supplementary question to Question 1 As regards phone calls received by suicide prevention hotline services, the relevant figures are as follows:

Phone Calls Received by Suicide Prevention Hotlines in Last Three Years

Financial Year

Service Hotline 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Suicide Prevention Services 24-hour Suicide Prevention Hotline (Phone No.: 2382 0000)

31 259 29 721 34 426

The Samaritans 24-hour Telephone Hotline (Phone No.: 2896 0000)

26 427 29 110 28 906

The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong 24-hour Hotline (Phone No.: 2389 2222)

15 631 16 972 17 737

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2013 A2

Appendix II

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Development to Dr KWOK Ka-ki's supplementary question to Question 6 In the Planning Department's (PlanD's) Stage 1 Green Belt (GB) Review, 13 GB sites which are devegetated, deserted or formed are recommended for rezoning for residential use. These sites have a total area of about 57 hectares, and are estimated to be available for housing development in phases starting from 2014, providing about 23 000 public and private housing units in total. The PlanD has progressively commenced the rezoning work for these GB sites. Rezoning of one of the sites located at the junction of Clear Water Bay Road and Pik Sha Road for residential use was already gazetted on 10 May 2013. As for the remaining 12 sites, it is estimated that their rezoning procedures will be completed as soon as possible afterwards. The Stage 2 GB Review, which focuses on sites in the fringe of urban areas or built-up areas in the New Territories, and relatively close to the existing or planned infrastructure and supporting facilities, with a view to identifying sites suitable for housing or other developments that meet the more pressing needs in the community, is also close to completion. In accordance with the established practice, we will carefully assess the technical feasibility of each site, and when all the aspects are ready, provide details of the site and commence the rezoning process. The PlanD will consult the relevant District Council(s) on the rezoning proposals for individual sites. The Town Planning Board will process the rezoning application in accordance with the statutory planning procedures, and the public will be invited to submit their representations and comments during the statutory exhibition period.

official record of proceedings wednesday, 6 november … · official record of proceedings...

Documents