legco.gov.hk · legislative council ― 9 november 2016 199 official record of proceedings...

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 9 November 2016

199

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 9 November 2016 200

THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG# THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P. # According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July

2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council.


201

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


THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, M.H., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO THE HONOURABLE NATHAN LAW KWUN-CHUNG# DR THE HONOURABLE YIU CHUNG-YIM# DR THE HONOURABLE LAU SIU-LAI# MEMBERS ABSENT: THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI # According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July

2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council.


203

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION MR YAU SHING-MU, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING MR JAMES HENRY LAU JR., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, G.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, G.B.S., M.H., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS MR STEPHEN SUI WAI-KEUNG, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE MR RONALD CHAN NGOK-PANG, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


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

Marine Parks (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2016 166/2016 Merchant Shipping (Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling

Systems on Ships) Regulation (Commencement) Notice .....................................................................

167/2016 Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution)

(Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 2015 (Commencement) Notice .......................................

168/2016 Other Papers

No. 21 ― Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Fund Annual Report for the year from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016

No. 22 ― Environment and Conservation Fund

Trustee Report 2015-2016 Report No. 2/16-17 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. Will Mr HUI Chi-fung please put your supplementary question.


205

Stand over items: Question nos. 1 to 6 (since the meeting of 19 October 2016) 2016 Legislative Council General Election 1. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I wish to put a question to you, President, on the reasons why you did not allow an adjournment debate by the Legislative Council to discuss the NPCSC's Interpretation. I know Mr James TO has already given you a notice … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. If you do not intend to put a supplementary question, please sit down. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): President LEUNG, I am putting a question to you. I am asking you why you abused your power to forbid this Council to discuss the NPCSC's Interpretation. The NPCSC's Interpretation affects our rule of law and judicial independence, interferes with our executive, legislature and judiciary, renders "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, if you do not stop speaking, I will consider that you are seriously breaching the Rules of Procedure. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Our high degree of autonomy is gone. Why did you forbid the Legislative Council to have an adjournment debate? I am asking you this oral question. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, this is my last warning to you. Please put your supplementary question immediately. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I am asking you this oral question. Would you please explain to Members why you did not allow an adjournment debate by the Legislative Council to discuss the NPCSC's Interpretation? Are you trying to cover up …


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please leave the Legislative Council Chamber immediately. (Mr James TO, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr KWONG Chun-yu, Mr Nathan LAW, Dr YIU Chung-yim and Dr LAU Siu-lai walked towards Mr HUI Chi-fung, attempting to obstruct security officers from assisting Mr HUI to leave the Chamber. At this juncture, a number of Members spoke loudly) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is the question session. Members please sit down. (Mr Andrew WAN indicated his wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, what is your point? MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): What are your justifications for ruling that a speaking Member has breached the Rules of Procedure? Please explain. I wish to know. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, this is the question session. What Mr HUI said has nothing to do with the subject of the question. I have warned him thrice. MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, he only meant to stand up and speak. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Despite my repeated warnings that Mr HUI should not make comments irrelevant to the subject of the question, he continued to speak. I thus asked him to leave. Will other Members please return to your seats. Will Members please refrain from obstructing the Secretariat staff to execute my orders.


207

(Mr James TO, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr KWONG Chun-yu, Mr Nathan LAW, Dr YIU Chung-yim and Dr LAU Siu-lai stood around Mr HUI Chi-fung, attempting to obstruct security officers from assisting Mr HUI Chi-fung to leave the Chamber. At this juncture, a number of Members spoke loudly) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, please sit down. Those Members who obstruct Secretariat staff from executing their duties commit an offence under section 19(b) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. (A number of Members continued to speak loudly) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will all Members please return to your seats immediately. (Mr KWONG Chun-yu asked the President loudly why he treated a speaking Member in such a way) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The ruling of the President is final. Will Members please return to your seats. I now suspend the meeting. Will Secretariat staff please execute my order. 11:04 am Meeting suspended. 11:46 am Council then resumed. (A number of Members kept shouting loudly)


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting. The meeting shall resume in Conference Room 1 at 1:00 pm. 11:46 am Meeting suspended. 1:00 pm Council then resumed in Conference Room 1. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. Mr Charles Peter MOK, please put a supplementary question. (Mr James TO indicated his wish to raise a point of order) MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, do I need to stand up when I speak in Conference Room 1? Or sitting down will do? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please stand. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I should stand and speak, right? Okay. President, regarding the application I submitted to you on moving a motion for the adjournment of the Council, I hope that you can formally explain to Members of this Council and the general public your reasons for rejecting my application. It seems that the matter can be discussed anywhere in the world except at the formal meetings of the Legislative Council. Isn't this odd? Besides, the matter is quite urgent because the membership of more than 10 Members is being questioned, and this will seriously undermine the operation of the Council.


209

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TO, please sit down. Mr TO wrote to me yesterday regarding his application for moving an adjournment motion under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure today. I have already made a written reply to Mr TO and a copy of my reply has been sent to Members for reference. I do not permit Mr TO to move the adjournment motion because I am not satisfied that the issue he intends to raise today is of such urgency that it must be debated at this Council meeting. Moreover, a special House Committee meeting attended by the Chief Secretary for Administration and other public officers was held this morning to answer questions from Members. As I have already made a ruling on Mr TO's request, Members should not comment on my ruling at Legislative Council meetings. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, I wish to state one point. As you mentioned the House Committee meeting held this morning, I wonder if the President has considered the fact that at that meeting we were only allowed to raise questions and the meeting was very short. On the other hand, if we are allowed to have a debate at this Legislative Council meeting, each Member will have more than 10 minutes to speak, and our views can be put on record. The political spectrum reflected by these different views will be broader, and the Government may refer to such views when it considers the measures to be adopted in future. This issue is rather urgent because the Government can file a judicial review application to the court any time. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already ruled on this matter. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, it is not that we didn't understand your explanation just now, but why didn't you properly explain yourself this morning? Why did you expel Mr HUI Chi-fung from the Chamber as soon as he asked a question? Such a ruling is totally unacceptable. Can you give an explanation? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, this is not a point of order. Mr HUI Chi-fung should put his supplementary question at that time and he should have put his question to the public officer, not me. He misused the question time and


I repeatedly asked him to stop, but he disregarded my request. So, I have no choice but to ask him to leave the Chamber. Mr Charles Peter MOK, please put your supplementary question. (Mr LAM Cheuk-ting indicated his wish to raise a point of order) MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. Can I be spared the need to stand when I speak? I am afraid that the microphone cannot receive the sound well. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We are having a Legislative Council meeting now. Would you please stand when you speak. Our staff may give you a wireless microphone. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, regarding the adjournment motion proposed by Mr James TO, you said last week that the issue in question had not yet come into being, and now you say that you are not satisfied that the issue must be debated at this meeting. In fact, why is the Legislative Council deprived of the chance to debate such an important issue? Members could not say anything or make any comments in the question session held this morning. Should you reconsider your ruling? For instance, you have earlier overturned your own ruling regarding the oaths taken by Members. So, why can't you reconsider your ruling today? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, as I said just now, I have already made a ruling and Members should not debate my ruling at Legislative Council meetings. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. President, I have been listening to what you said so far and I feel that you do not even plan to allocate any time to discuss Mr James TO's adjournment motion. If this is the case, the Legislative Council will not have any platform to discuss the NPCSC's Interpretation, and Members with different political affiliations cannot express their opinions on this important issue. This is in fact a dereliction of duty on your part. President, why do you frequently say "I have made my ruling"? Do you think that the matter is settled as long as you have made a ruling? This is


211

tantamount to hushing the Legislative Council regarding the NPCSC's Interpretation? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, I have already pointed out that I had made a ruling. If necessary, Members can pursue this matter with the Government through other channels or through the Panels concerned. (A Member indicated a wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As I have already made a ruling, I do not intend to dwell on this matter any longer. A Member is not allowed to freely speak on any topic on the excuse of raising a point of order. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, public officers came to the Legislative Council to attend various meetings yesterday and today. I believe the public officers will reiterate that the validity of the oaths taken by certain Members here is questionable as a result of the NPCSC's Interpretation, and thus they will adopt a wait-and-see attitude and reserve all legal rights to take further actions. President, here is the Legislative Council, and Members here are returned through a lawful procedure. However, the public officers attending meetings here at the Legislative Council say that our status as Members is questionable, that the validity of our oaths is questionable, that they reserve the legal rights to take further actions. President, my question is a point of order. Public officers have openly questioned the status of Members at meetings held between the Government and the Legislative Council. President, how are we going to continue having meetings with them? May I ask the public officers through the President to clarify which Members are being questioned by the Government as not having the status of a Legislative Council Member? If there are such Members, they should name them clearly; if there is no such Members, please ask the public officers to withdraw their remarks. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order.


MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, my question is a genuine point of order. President, under Articles 72(1) and 72(6) of the Basic Law (which is about the powers and functions of the President of the Legislative Council to preside over meetings and to exercise other powers and functions as prescribed in the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council), the President should exercise these powers and functions to assist this Council to implement Article 73(5) of the Basic Law (that is, to raise questions on the work of the Government) and to implement Article 73(6) (that is, to debate any issue concerning public interests). Chief Secretary Carrie LAM and the Secretary for Justice specifically said just now that they would review other Members' qualifications in the context of the NPCSC's Interpretation and see if they needed to take further actions. They also made it clear that although they had come to answer questions, it did not mean that they acknowledged the status of the Members who put questions to them. In my opinion, under Articles 72(1) and 72(6) of the Basic Law, the President is vested with this power and it is up to the President to use it or not. Articles 73(5) and 73(6) of the Basic Law … let me repeat their content again … which is about the power of the Legislative Council to raise questions on the work of the Government … The Government has made it clear that it will do something, and it may file a judicial review application on the validity of the status of some Legislative Council Members. And Article 73(6) is about the powers of the Legislative Council to debate any issue concerning public interests. If the status of Legislative Council Members is questionable, this certainly will seriously undermine the interests of the public. This is stipulated in the Basic Law. President, have you read Articles 72(1) and 72(6) and Articles 73(5) and 73(6) of the Basic Law when you made your ruling? This is a constitutional issue. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you can raise questions to the Government through other proper channels or through the Panels concerned. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I wish to raise a point of order concerning Rules 46, 47 and 48 in Part J of the Rules of Procedure. In the event that some Members are disqualified after the conduct of several Legislative Council meetings at which some resolutions had been dealt with, and


213

that the number of disqualified Members affects the passage or otherwise of these important resolutions at such meetings, should these resolutions be considered passed or rejected? President, can you make a clear ruling on this point? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. I will discuss this matter with the Legal Adviser and will then explain in writing. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, may I ask what constitutes a point of order? Mr Kenneth LEUNG raised a very important question just now, which concerns the voting made by this Council; and Dr Fernando CHEUNG also raised a question just now on the qualifications and status of Members. If these questions are not regarded as points of order, what kind of questions will the President consider to be points of order? Would you please explain to us so that Members can at least have some rough ideas? If you do not explain, how are we going to know? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is the question session. If Members have queries about the Rules of Procedure, you can discuss with me, the Legal Adviser or the Secretariat on other occasions. MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, please continue with the question session. It is because Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure clearly provides that the issue to be debated must be a matter of urgency if an adjournment motion is to be moved under this Rule. The NPCSC's Interpretation has been made. The Secretary for Justice also clearly said at the House Committee meeting this morning that he would review the qualifications of some Members in the context of the NPCSC's Interpretation and take other follow-up actions. He has the obligation to do so, and we do not see any urgency in this matter which justifies the moving of a motion under Rule 16(2). President, I hope that you can strictly enforce the Rules of Procedure. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. We shall continue with the question session.


MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Thank you, Your Highness. No, I should call you President, but your handling of this matter gives us the impression that you regard yourself as the Emperor. You should not abuse your power after assuming the office of the President, not to mention that you have failed your job as a President. President … sorry, Your Highness, here is my question to the public officers. First of all, why is it that only the Under Secretary attends this meeting and attended the meeting held last week? I think the Government really has no respect for the Legislative Council; nevertheless, I still wish to raise my supplementary question. During this Legislative Council election, many procedures were chaotic and were delayed. These procedures can actually be automated and conducted in an electronic manner. For instance, it was ridiculous for polling station staff to use a ruler to cross out the names of the voters after checking the Hong Kong Identity Cards of the voters concerned. Has the Government previously studied the feasibility of conducting these procedures in an electronic manner, not to mention the vote-counting step? In the United States, the polling results are almost known a few hours after polling is closed. But it takes much longer here in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is such a small place and it was a shame that such chaos had happened. What has the Government been doing? Has it conducted any studies? Where has the Secretary gone? Is it because the Secretary is unwilling to tackle this issue, so only the Under Secretary is here today? UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, we will be delighted to hear more views from Members and different sectors of society on the issue of electronic voting. Actually, we did conduct some researches on this subject, and not long ago the Secretary went to New Zealand and Australia to explore and study the issue of electronic voting on-site. I wish to point out that electronic voting has its advantages in terms of time and resources. It can speed up the polling process, including the vote-counting procedure. But I also wish to point out that electronic voting is not completely risk-free. As Members may be aware, some overseas experiences show that although some procedures were conducted in an electronic manner, there were hiccups that arose from systematic problems or power supply failure. Members


215

may notice from the news reports today that there are similar reports in the United States. That is why we need to study this issue in greater detail. Besides, we also need to take into account the electronic devices. Even if we have procured the electronic devices, we still need to consider whether we have enough time to install these devices when we set up the polling stations. Given that we can only borrow the premises one day before the polling day and time is rather limited, we need to ensure that we can complete the proper installation of all electronic devices within the limited time for the smooth conduct of the polling and vote-counting procedures. We need to conduct further studies. I agree that there are such requests in society and in the Legislative Council, and we will be delighted to continue to explore this issue with Members and listen to Members' views. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, the Under Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. I asked him whether any study has been conducted and any timetable is available. He only mentioned overseas visits and did not answer my question. I am not asking him to conduct all the procedures in an electronic manner. I only asked him to at least electronically check the identities of voters. He seems to say that it is very risky to do so. Is it the case that he does not intend to pursue the issue at all? UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, as I have said just now, I am delighted to continue to explore this issue with Members. As I have said just now, even if we have an electronic register of electors, this is not completely risk-free. Coincidentally, we learn from today's news that the bugs in the electronic systems at some polling stations in the United States have resulted in various voting problems. Hence, we need to study the issue in a critical manner. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I wish to explain to people watching the meeting on the television that we are in the question session. In case they forget, I wish to remind them that the question is about whether the arrangements of the Legislative Council General Election just held were proper. I hope that members of the public know what we are doing now.


Under Secretary, voting at a polling station in Tai Koo Shing came to an end at almost 2:30 am on the following day, when some polling stations had already started counting votes long ago. Some other polling stations did not start their vote counting procedures until the Tai Koo Shing polling station had completed its voting procedure. There is no standard arrangement to follow. It is not satisfactory at all. But I am more concerned about the attitude of the Government and the Electoral Affairs Commission ("EAC") in handling the election. Would voters who had not yet cast their votes be affected by the voting results released by other polling stations which started counting their votes so early? Even though actually the answer is in the negative, this is a serious problem in principle. But what did the Honourable Mr Justice FUNG Wah say? He said that as there were 370 000 voters in the Hong Kong Island geographical constituency area, and the Tai Koo Shing polling station only accounted for 6 000 votes, no matter what had happened in the Tai Koo Shing polling station, it would not affect the fairness of the election. Under Secretary, I believe this is not the case at all. One of the successful candidates in the Hong Kong Island geographical constituency won by only 2 000 votes, and another candidate in the Kowloon West geographical constituency by a mere 400 votes. How could the result of one polling station not affect the fairness of the election? I would like to ask the Under Secretary: Does the Government share the above views of the Honourable Mr Justice FUNG Wah? UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, let me put it this way. On that night, under the instructions of EAC, polling station staff only started counting the votes after all voting procedures were completed. Perhaps due to communication problems, certain polling stations started vote-counting ahead of others, but EAC ordered these polling stations to stop counting the votes as soon as it learned about the instructions. Hence, procedurally speaking, all polling stations formally started counting votes upon the completion of all voting procedures. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, the Under Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. My question is about the response of the Honourable Mr Justice FUNG Wah who did not say that the results would not be affected because the results of the polling stations were released long after the closure of the Tai Koo Shing polling station. What he said was that several


217

thousand votes were insignificant and would not affect the results. I thus asked the Under Secretary: Does the Government share the attitude of and the explanation made by the Honourable Mr Justice FUNG Wah? UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I think it would be inappropriate of me to comment on the Honourable Mr Justice FUNG Wah's remarks here, but I wish to reiterate that we followed the work flow whereby vote counting only started upon the completion of all voting procedures. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, I think the Administration should seriously look into the problems about polling stations. Many people complained that the polling stations to which they had always been going were changed, and the locations of the stations, far from their residences, were not conveniently accessible. Some elderly people had to walk a long way to vote, which dampened their voting drive. Because of changes in the locations of some polling stations, some voters simply did not want to vote. As they had all along been going to the same polling stations (schools) to vote, they did not know where to go to cast their votes when the schools were no longer used as the polling stations. In fact, as far as voting is concerned, it is very important to facilitate the voters to vote. If the location is not conveniently located, many voters will not go voting. We note that the locations of many polling stations in this election had been changed because many schools or organizations were unwilling to lend their premises for polling use. Should the Government adopt some measures, no matter by means of legislation or guidelines, to require all aided or government schools to make their premises available for polling use? In this election, it took a long time for some polling stations to complete the polling process. One of the reasons was that the venues were too small. Hence, for an election to succeed, it is very important to have proper and conveniently-located polling stations. President, I hope the Government can tackle this problem. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I very much agree with Dr QUAT that it is very important to have appropriately-selected polling stations in place to facilitate voters in exercising their polling rights. The Registration and Electoral Office


("REO") encountered many difficulties in identifying premises for polling use. As I said in my main reply last week, 80-odd schools or organizations rejected REO's requests for venue. In response to such a situation, EAC had, in the course of identifying polling stations, issued letters to these schools and organizations to urge them to accede to REO's requests as far as feasible. There were cases in which the schools and organizations initially turned down our requests for venue, but REO and EAC followed up on each individual case by soliciting the assistance of the Education Bureau and asking the schools to reconsider their decisions, and some schools and organizations eventually changed their original decisions by agreeing to lend their premises for polling use. President, I still wish to call on all schools and organizations to accede to REO's requests for venue as far as possible when we look for polling venues. As to whether we can make it mandatory, through legislation or other means, that schools must lend their premises to us, we need to discuss it further with colleagues of the Education Bureau. We will follow this issue up later. However, the fact is that if we cannot identify appropriate premises in the district, some voters will inevitably be assigned to a more remote polling station to vote. I agree that this is not satisfactory and we will strive to improve this situation. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, as there may be a by-election, improvement work must be done expeditiously. I hope that voters do not need to face this difficulty again and that the Government will not stall for time but expeditiously identify appropriate premises and means to solve this problem. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, after the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has made an interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law, I notice that some people in society question the validity of the oath taken by C Y LEUNG. They are also very angry that the principal officials, including the Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary for Administration, the Secretary for Justice, and so on, have failed to do their best to safeguard the rule of law in Hong Kong. I am now looking into this issue. Today, I will put a question to the public officers here, but it does not mean that I accept their words and deeds, nor does it mean that I accept their act of


219

betraying the interests of Hong Kong people. I reserve every legal right of mine to pursue this matter further. President, Hong Kong is a developed city. We need to implement electronic voting. The Administration should expeditiously introduce this technology into Hong Kong. According to international experience, electronic voting can substantially increase the voting rates of the elderly, the disadvantaged and the disabled. Given that the Government has said that it is conducting researches on this subject, is there a timetable? And has it conducted any studies on how to facilitate the elderly, the disadvantaged and the disabled to vote after the launch of electronic voting? UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, Dr Fernando CHEUNG's supplementary question is actually similar to that of Mr Charles Peter MOK, and I have responded to that question just now. Let me reiterate that we are aware of the advantages of electronic voting. It brings much convenience to voters as well as election staff. I share this viewpoint and I certainly agree that it also benefits the disadvantaged groups. But as I said just now, we need to take into account the fact that electronic voting is not totally risk-free. In the past, some overseas places had reverted to paper-based voting after trying out on electronic voting due to the popping up of insurmountable technical difficulties in the course of implementing electronic voting. The inherent risks were also very high. For instance, how to ensure that the system will not be attacked by hackers? In the absence of paper votes to serve as records, how to recount the votes in case of disputes over the counting of votes? These are practical issues we need to consider. In organizing any election, we must ensure that the election results are fair and just. If we encounter a problem, we have to trace the roots of the problem and try to tackle it. For instance, under the present legislation, the paper votes and the copies of registers of electors are required to be kept for six months after the election. The reason is that when the community, the court or the candidates find it necessary to follow up on certain problems, these paper records may serve as physical and concrete evidence. But how are we going to overcome these difficulties after the launch of electronic voting? If problems occur in the election process, how are we going to trace the roots of the problems? We need to seriously address these problems when we study this issue.


DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I asked about the timetable but he said nothing about it. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Under Secretary, do the authorities have any timetable? UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, we will later listen to views from members of the Panel on Constitutional Affairs on various arrangements of the election, including the possibility of adopting electronic voting. We will be delighted to listen to Members' views at that Panel meeting. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Okay. Second question. Proposed enhancements to decision-making and governance structure for listing regulation 2. MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") and The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited ("SEHK") issued a joint consultation paper on proposed enhancements to SEHK's decision-making and governance structure for listing regulation in June this year. Some members of the financial services industry have reacted strongly to the proposals put forth in the consultation paper. They are of the view that the existing structure has all along been working well in the recent 30 years or so. However, the proposed new Listing Regulatory Committee and Listing Policy Committee, each with less than 10 members, may make decisions overriding those of the existing Listing Committee which is broadly representative, allegedly weakening the latter's power to vet and approve listings. Also, the Financial Services Development Council, Hong Kong has recently indicated that the proposals concerned simply cannot achieve the objectives set out in the consultation paper. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as the objectives of the proposals put forth in the consultation paper include the establishment of a more efficient decision-making structure to address various regulatory issues (including stock price


221

manipulation, corporate governance shortfalls, disclosure problems and other misconduct which prejudices public investors), whether the Government knows the respective numbers of cases in which SFC conducted investigations and instituted prosecutions in respect of such issues and the number of convictions concerned, in each year during the period from 2011 to September this year, with a tabulated breakdown by regulatory issue, as well as the percentage of the number of companies investigated in the total number of listed companies;

(2) as the Chief Executive Officer of SFC has indicated that there is no

Plan B for the consultation, how the authorities will deal with the situation where the proposals concerned are not accepted by the industry; whether the authorities have assessed if the proposals concerned have violated the market participant-based regulatory principle set out in the Davison Report, which has been adopted by the authorities since 1988; whether the Government will request SFC to revise the proposals concerned so as to garner more support from members of the industry; if it will, of the details; and

(3) as some members of the industry have indicated that the proposals

put forth in the consultation paper, if implemented, will increase the costs and time required for listing, impact on the development of the industry and undermine the competitiveness of Hong Kong, whether the Government knows the time generally required for completing the entire initial public offering ("IPO") process currently; how the time for vetting and approving listing applications in Hong Kong compares with the relevant time in other major securities markets; as Hong Kong ranked first globally in terms of IPO funds raised last year, whether the Government has assessed the impact of the implementation of the proposals concerned on the competitiveness of Hong Kong as an international financial centre; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, as pointed out by the Financial Secretary in the 2016-2017 Budget, given the size and complexity of the securities market, we need to constantly review the relevant regulatory regimes, streamline procedures and enhance market efficiency and quality to reinforce Hong Kong's status as the


premier capital formation centre. The joint consultation of the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") and the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited ("HKEx") on "proposed enhancements to the decision-making and governance structure for listing regulation" aims to enable the listing regulatory structure and procedures to respond to rapid developments in the market. My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(1) The numbers of cases that SFC commenced investigations in relation to corporate governance deficiencies and disclosure issues, insider dealing and market manipulation during the period from 2011 to September 2016, as well as the number of companies involved as a percentage of the total number of listed companies are set out in the Annex. For most of these cases, SFC would seek non-criminal rulings from the Market Misconduct Tribunal ("MMT"), or initiate civil proceedings in the Court of First Instance, instead of treating criminal prosecutions as the ultimate destination. SFC enhances Hong Kong's market quality in a comprehensive manner, through combating wrongdoings by way of various different types of enforcement actions. The relevant statistics are also provided at Chart 2 of the Annex for reference.

(2) SFC has clarified earlier that the remarks of the Chief Executive

Officer of SFC on no "Plan B" for the consultation simply meant that the consultation was a genuine consultation and that there was not any fallback or alternative proposal. SFC and HKEx will keep an open mind and listen to market views.

Since the launch of the consultation, various stakeholders have been

providing a wide range of valuable views on the consultation proposals. The Government is pleased to see the industry's overwhelming responses. In fact, SFC and HKEx have extended the deadline for response to the consultation by two months to end on the 18th of this month, allowing a five-month consultation period. This gives various parties more time to file their submissions.

The question asked whether the consultation proposals have violated

the practitioner-based regulatory principle as set out in the Davison Report in 1988. It has been 28 years since the release of the Davison Report, and the Hong Kong listing market has transformed tremendously in terms of scale and complexity. The Stock


223

Exchange of Hong Kong ("SEHK") was demutualized and became a listed company after the release of the Report. Therefore, there is a need to put in place vetting and approval procedures and structure that are appropriate to effectively deal with the current market environment. SFC and HKEx's joint consultation paper proposes to establish two new committees under SEHK to focus on important listing policies and decisions. At the same time, it proposes that a large majority of initial listing applications will continue to be vetted and decided by the Listing Committee, while SFC will no longer as a matter of routine issue a separate set of comments on the statutory filings made by new applicants. That means that the related vetting and approval work would continue to rely on market participants, namely representatives on the Listing Committee. Therefore, the relevant proposals do not deviate from the practitioner-based regulatory principle.

(3) According to information provided by HKEx, regarding the vetting

time from the date of submission of listing application to the Listing Committee hearing, SEHK completed the vetting of around 90% of the listing applications within 180 calendar days in 2015, and the vetting of most of these cases was completed within 120 calendar days. SEHK's performance was comparable to that of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States. The Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom does not publish information on the time taken to vet a listing application.

Regarding the impact of the consultation proposals on Hong Kong's

competitiveness as an international financial centre, we would like to reiterate that the consultation paper aims to introduce further one-stop processing and provide a more focused platform for SFC and SEHK to concentrate on policies and decisions that are significant to the quality, competitiveness and development of the market at an earlier stage. The consultation paper also aims to simplify the process for listing applications, including the proposal that SFC would no longer as a matter of routine issue a separate set of comments on the statutory filings made by new applicants. This would make the vetting process more efficient and strengthen Hong Kong's competitiveness as an international financial and capital formation centre. As pointed out in part (2) of my reply, SFC and HKEx will keep an open mind and listen to market views.


Annex

Regulatory actions taken by SFC in respect of corporate governance deficiencies and disclosure issues,

insider dealing and market manipulation Number of investigations commenced

Number of investigations commenced(1)

(Number of listed companies involved as a % of number of

listed companies)(2)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

(Jan to Sep)

Corporate governance deficiencies and disclosure issues(3)

36 (2%)

34 (2%)

60 (4%)

124 (7%)

177 (9%)

150 (8%)

Insider dealing 37

(2%) 40

(3%) 45

(3%) 70

(4%) 53

(3%) 41

(2%)

Market manipulation 54

(4%) 66

(4%) 54

(3%) 78

(4%) 81

(4%) 59

(3%)

Sub-total 127 (8%)

140 (9%)

159 (10%)

272 (15%)

311 (16%)

250 (13%)

Notes: (1) "Number of investigations commenced" is not the same as "Number of listed companies

involved". (2) "Number of listed companies involved as a percentage of number of listed companies" is

provided as requested in the question. However, since (i) an investigation in respect of one listed company may involve one or more regulatory issues; (ii) one listed company may be involved in more than one investigation, inquiry or legal or other proceedings, and (iii) an investigation, inquiry or legal or other proceedings may involve one or more listed companies or individuals, it is not possible to rule out any double-counting or under-counting. Hence, these figures should not be taken as an accurate quantitative representation of the regulatory actions taken by SFC.

(3) Including directions issued under the power in section 179 of the Securities and Futures

Ordinance ("SFO") to require production of records and documents concerning listed companies.


225

Number of criminal proceedings, civil proceedings and MMT proceedings on foot

Number of legal proceedings and

MMT proceedings on foot

(Number of listed companies

involved as a % of number of listed

companies)(4)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

(Jan to Sep)

Criminal proceedings

15 (less than 0.01%)

17 (less than 0.01%)

13 less than 0.01%)

9 (less than 0.01%)

7 (less than 0.01%)

9 (less than 0.01%)

Civil proceedings(5)

47 (0.27%)

44 (0.26%)

58 (0.37%)

69 (0.51%)

79 (0.54%)

80 (0.47%)

MMT proceedings(6)

10 (0.07%)

11 (0.06%)

11 (0.06%)

31 (0.11%)

26 (0.16%)

39 (0.21%)

Sub-total 72 (0.34%)

72 (0.32%)

82 (0.43%)

109 (0.62%)

112 (0.70%)

128 (0.68%)

Source of information: SFC Notes: (4) Please refer to note (2). (5) SFC has the power to initiate civil proceedings by applying to the court for injunctive or

other remedial civil orders both in relation to listed companies and other persons, under sections 213 and 214 of SFO.

(6) MMT, established under section 251 of SFO, is empowered to make various orders on

the basis of civil burden of proof. MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, according to the Secretary, most listing applications will be vetted and approved by the Listing Committee under SEHK in the future. What he meant to say was that this initiative will not hinder market development. In that case, what is the point of setting up a new Listing Regulatory Committee ("LRC")? Isn't it a kind of redundancy? What kind of applications must be referred to LRC for processing? As he says that most applications will be vetted and approved by SEHK's Listing Committee, what is the point of setting up a new LRC? And, what are the functions of a Listing Policy Committee ("LPC")? Isn't it a kind of redundancy that will plunge the market into confusion?


SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, as I said just now, over the past 28 years … The existing listing framework was introduced in 2002. At the time, the market was obviously smaller in size, and its structure was less complex than the existing structure. Besides, the market has turned complex due to its growth over all these years. For these reasons, we propose to set up the two committees of LRC and LPC respectively charged with regulatory matters and decision-making under the existing Listing Committee as a platform whereby the existing Listing Committee may refer those listing applications involving suitability issues to LRC for processing. In our estimation, such applications should merely account for less than 10% of the total. When LRC receives such listing applications of greater complexity, it can vet and approve the applications concerned on its own platform. As I said just now, our estimation is that over 90% of the cases will still be vetted and approved by the Listing Committee. As for the Honourable Member's question about the purpose of setting up a new LRC, the reason is that when applications involving suitability issues or those of greater complexity are received, such applications may be referred to LRC for processing. Besides, the purpose of setting up a new LPC is that when various factors, such as policies, decisions and competitiveness, need to be considered due to market development, LPC may serve as a suitable channel to deal with various factors such as market quality. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, one major problem with this consultation paper is that it has not set out clearly the powers and duties of LRC, and we have reflected this view to the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of SFC. Just now, the Secretary said that 90% of the cases would still be processed by the Listing Committee. But under what circumstances or based on what criteria will a listing application be referred to LRC for processing? This is a question on the minds of many people. I hope the Secretary can undertake that when necessary, SFC will issue another information paper setting out clearly LRC's functions. Second, is there any timetable? In the case of new listing applications which must go through the Listing Committee, when will the Listing Committee refer them to LRC? Will it do so within the same day as it receives such applications? How to enhance the efficiency in processing applications? He must explain all these matters.


227

President, my last question is: Is it necessary to amend the relevant subsidiary legislation (such as Part V of Cap. 571)? This is likewise a question that many people want to ask. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, SFC and HKEx are certainly aware of the views of the industry and the legislature in the consultation process. They will fully consider, study and examine these views. When necessary, they will provide further information on the particulars of LRC. As for the question about the availability of a timetable, that depends on whether SFC considers it necessary to issue any further papers after examining all the views (meaning the views received before the 18th of this month). They will decide on all such matters. In addition, the Honourable Member asked about the necessity to amend Cap. 571 in his supplementary question. As far as our present understanding goes, the changes concerned will not necessitate any amendments to Cap. 571. Certainly, after collecting all the views, we will examine whether the changes concerned will entail any subsequent amendments. We will further review this matter. MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): President, as the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury pointed out in his main reply earlier on, "we need to constantly review the relevant regulatory regimes, streamline procedures and enhance market efficiency and quality to reinforce Hong Kong's status as the premier capital formation centre". According to HKEx's research report entitled "Disclosure-based regulation", "[t]here is a world-wide trend to move from merit-based towards disclosure-based regulation of listed issuers". This report even sets out the development of many securities markets in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong, while also pointing out that many places are gradually moving from a merit-based to a disclosure-based approach to regulating their listed issuers. In the 1930s, the United States already began to undertake reform in this direction. With ongoing enhancement and improvement, the size of the United States' capital market now ranks first in the world. Can the Government tell us whether the regulatory regime for Hong Kong's securities market has undergone any constant development in this direction over recent years? Do the new reform proposals on listing regulation also dovetail with this direction?


SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, all along, disclosure is not the sole basis of the listing regulatory regime in Hong Kong, meaning that our regime is not solely information-based or disclosure-based. Disclosure is premised on HKEx's satisfaction that issuers and their business are suitable for listing, and the suitability issue is involved. The purpose is to achieve gatekeeping for market quality. Certainly, we will examine the disclosure-based approach as a general direction for Hong Kong and pay particular attention to this direction. Nevertheless, disclosure is basically not our sole basis. Rather, we emphasize the suitability of business and issuers. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, our industry is also very concerned about the matter raised in Mrs Regina IP's question today. Speaking of this consultation paper, I suppose we are unable to discuss it thoroughly in the oral question session today. We should spend more time on discussing this major issue. Later on, I will propose a motion in this Council, so as to give Members ample time for discussion. The so-called "consultation" this time around is actually not a genuine consultation exercise as such. The reason is that the two organizations have no whole-hearted intention whatsoever to consult the industry on market development. Rather, they are competing and vying for power and seek to turn their unresolvable internal conflicts into a joint consultation, a social conflict and an adversary between the industry and SFC. What is the Government's role in this consultation paper? Will the Government intervene as a middleman or mediator, to ensure that the consultation outcomes will be fair and impartial? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the consultation this time around is a genuine consultation exercise. The reason is that when SFC and HKEx prepared this consultation paper, they were aware that under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, "a recognized exchange company shall … act in the interest of the public, having particular regard to the interest of the investing public". This is stipulated in section 21(2) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance. In this regard, HKEx is well aware of SEHK's responsibility to ensure public interest in its operation. Before SFC and HKEx commenced consultation, their management had already


229

conducted in-depth studies. Afterwards, they decided to issue this joint consultation paper. To our understanding, the board of directors of SFC and also the HKEx board are supportive of conducting consultation on the proposals concerned. During the public consultation, we are certainly aware of the divergent views of the industry, including the views put forth by the legislature during question sessions and debates. But we believe that SFC and HKEx will pay heed to the views concerned and respond to such views where appropriate, such as how to ensure the attainment of appropriate outcomes from this highly transparent consultation exercise. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would like to ask the Secretary: Why did they launch a joint consultation before they reached any internal agreement? After the consultation, a press conference convened by an HKEx director has triggered opposition voices. Why is there such a huge disagreement between the two organizations? What has the Government done? Why has the consultation paper created various backlashes in the market after its release? And, in response to this consultation, some will even stage a protest on the 13th of this month … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, you have already pointed out the part to which the Secretary has not responded. Please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, as I pointed out just now, the HKEx board decided to support this initiative at its meeting and conduct consultation. As for the presence of opposition voices among industry members as mentioned by Mr CHEUNG just now, I think this is conceivable because the HKEx board comprises representatives of the industry and also various sectors. It is naturally not surprising to see that they reflect dissenting views. So far, we have seen that despite their dissenting views, many industry members are supportive of the proposed reform direction in the consultation paper. Certainly, having considered other factors, some industry members may hold dissenting views because they think that the representativeness of their industry in LRC is insufficient. We respect and will pay heed to the relevant views.


MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): In my view, the Secretary has still failed to grasp the underlying conflict … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, if you still have other views, you may follow them up on other occasions. Third question. Using industrial building units for arts, cultural, recreational and sports purposes 3. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): In June this year, a No. 4 alarm fire broke out in the mini-storages of an industrial building at Ngau Tau Kok Road. Subsequently, the Lands Department ("LandsD") takes risk-based enforcement actions against lease breaches involving the change of uses in industrial buildings. LandsD will issue warning letters to owners of industrial building units involved in lease breaches, requiring them to rectify the breach of uses within 14 days, or else LandsD will initiate the procedure for re-entering such units. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of cases to date in which LandsD has issued warning letters; among such cases, the number of those related to lease breaches involving uses of industrial building units for arts, cultural, recreational and sports purposes; whether the authorities will give consideration to stakeholders' views and grant longer grace periods to the persons concerned in those cases of lease breaches that do not involve high fire safety risk; if they will not, of the reasons for that;

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

(2) of the criteria currently adopted by LandsD for assessing the fire safety risk involved in using industrial building units for arts, cultural, recreational and sports purposes, as well as the criteria adopted for assessing such risk involved in other non-industrial uses like mini-storages, scientific researches, etc. in industrial building units; if the two sets of criteria are the same, of the reasons for that; and


231

(3) as there are views that the enforcement actions taken by LandsD run contrary to the direction of the policy, put forward earlier by the authorities, that the restrictions on non-industrial uses in industrial buildings be appropriately relaxed to better utilize the existing spaces in industrial buildings, whether the authorities will expeditiously revise the definition of "industrial use" set out in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines as well as the relevant fire safety requirements, so as to avoid compressing the room for survival of the arts, cultural, recreational and sports industries; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, having consulted the Security Bureau and the Home Affairs Bureau, my reply is as follows:

(1) and (2) On 15 July 2016, the Government announced the risk-based

enforcement arrangements against lease breaches in industrial buildings, targeting units in breach of the lease matching two conditions: (i) there are other premises in the same industrial building currently issued with Licences for Manufacture and/or Storage of Dangerous Goods ("DGLs") by the Fire Services Department ("FSD"); and (ii) the uses attract the flow of people.

The Lands Department ("LandsD") will adopt a stringent approach

and take measures to re-enter units in these cases which pose a higher risk, with a view to urging the parties concerned to rectify the breaches as soon as possible. The regulatory arrangements aim at protecting the safety of members of the public accessing the units, because such conditions will pose an obvious risk to those accessing the industrial buildings but are unfamiliar with the setting.

As of 18 October 2016, the District Lands Offices ("DLOs") under

LandsD had inspected a total of 15 industrial buildings targeted for risk-based enforcement action, involving 92 premises. Of the 92 cases, there were 53 in which the breach of uses had been rectified before warning letters were issued, 12 required further investigation, and 27 were confirmed to have breached the uses specified in the


lease, with LandsD having issued warning letters requiring that the breach of uses be rectified within 14 days. Among them 24 cases had rectified the breach before expiry of the warning period; three cases had proved their rectification of the breach before the completion of the re-entry procedures by LandsD, and as a result, there was no need for the department to continue its re-entry action. The above mentioned 27 confirmed breach cases involved uses including learning centres, places of entertainment/recreation, shops and religious gathering places.

As for other categories of lease breaches in industrial buildings,

LandsD will continue with its current arrangement: namely, DLOs will, in general, issue a warning letter to the owners requiring that the breach of uses be purged within 28 days. If the breach is not rectified upon expiry of the warning period, DLOs will register the warning letter at the Land Registry (that is, commonly known as "imposing an encumbrance"), and reserve the right to take further lease enforcement action in the future.

In other words, the risk-based enforcement arrangements are by no

means a stringent across-the-board measure for handling cases in breach of the lease by re-entering units. The target of lease enforcement is not to strike a blow against any individual industry either. In fact, regarding the concern raised by Mr MA Fung-kwok about arts, cultural, recreational and sports uses, for lease breaches of uses not attracting the flow of people (such as self-occupied cultural/creative workshops), or breaches involving the flow of people but the industrial building has no premises currently issued with DGLs by FSD, or, they are not currently targeted for stringent enforcement action by LandsD.

From the fire safety point of view, FSD suggests that commercial

and other activities that will attract members of the public, such as operating learning centres, places of entertainment/recreation, shops, restaurants, religious gathering places, etc., in industrial buildings is unacceptable, because industrial activities in industrial buildings carry much higher risks of fire and other accidents than commercial and other activities. Moreover, industrial operations and production processes usually involve the use of dangerous goods, and dangerous goods stores and storage of a large quantity of


233

dangerous goods may exist in industrial buildings, leading to an even higher fire risk. For example, leakage of chemicals may happen during loading and unloading of dangerous goods in industrial buildings, which will pose hazards to visitors.

In addition, if commercial and other activities that attract members

of the public take place in industrial buildings, visitors (especially children, the elderly and persons with disabilities) may not be aware of the potential risks involved in industrial buildings and may not know how to evacuate if necessary. Such visitors will face severe threats in case of fire and other calamities in industrial buildings.

(3) According to the Definition of Terms used by the Town Planning

Board ("TPB") in interpreting the planning terms used in statutory plans, "Industrial Use" means the use of any place, premises or structure related to industrial processes. The TPB reviews and amends the definition of "Industrial Use" from time to time based on the social and economic development needs of Hong Kong. The current definition of "Industrial Use" has been extended to cover design, research, development and training related to industrial processes. Such definition is broader than the coverage under the definition of "Factory" under the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance.

Besides, to allow more flexibility in the use of industrial buildings,

the scope of uses that are permitted in those buildings in the "Industrial" ("I") zone has been widened to cover certain uses related to creative industries and music since 2001. In view of the recommendations of the Area Assessments of Industrial Land in the Territory conducted by the Planning Department ("PlanD") in 2014, the restrictions on non-industrial uses, especially those uses that will not constitute concerns on building safety and fire risk or cause nuisances to other users in the same building, have been further relaxed with a view to further optimizing the use of existing industrial buildings. In this connection, a total of 12 outline zoning plans ("OZPs") have been amended from 2015 to mid-October 2016 to include "Art Studio" as an always permitted use in industrial-office buildings in "I", "Other Specified Uses" annotated "Business" and "Residential (Group E)" zones.


However, such art studios should not involve direct provision of services or goods. Similar amendments would be made to other OZPs in future when suitable opportunities arise.

As to whether an industrial building unit used for the purposes of

arts, cultural, recreational and sports purposes is in breach of the land lease depends on the actual operation and the lease conditions of the relevant lot. If the land lease stipulates that the lot shall only be used for "industrial" or "industrial and/or godown" purpose, arts, cultural, recreational and sports uses are in general in breach of the land lease, but owners may apply to the respective DLOs under LandsD for a temporary waiver or lease modification permitting the intended use. In processing the applications, DLOs will consult the relevant departments including PlanD and FSD. If the intended use complies with the requirements of the town plans and/or obtains the necessary planning permission, DLOs will, depending on the comments received, consider in the capacity of the landlord whether to issue a temporary waiver or modify the lease conditions to approve the use. If the application is approved, the applicant will have to pay a waiver fee/land premium and an administrative fee, and accept other terms and conditions stipulated in the modification letter and waiver.

In considering the relaxation of non-industrial uses in industrial

buildings, the most important principle is not to constitute significant fire safety risk. At present, industrial activities including those involving storage of dangerous goods are still found in many industrial buildings. Fire safety risk would be increased if activities attracting large flow of people are held in these industrial buildings. We have to be cautious in handling the issue.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary recommended in his blog in April this year that, in order to further optimize the use of existing industrial buildings, the Government could consider further relaxing restrictions on non-industrial uses in industrial buildings, especially uses not creating building safety and fire risks, and uses that do not cause nuisances to other users in the same building.


235

I would like to learn about the specific work of the Government in this respect, as the Secretary has only showed part of the picture in his reply just now, but not detailing the overall policy. In fact, groups currently located in industrial buildings (arts, cultural and recreational groups in particular) may receive warning letters any time, and are then required to move out within 14 days. I would like to ask the Government: Why is it that over all these years, the Government has not taken any action to amend the legislation governing industrial buildings? This has rendered such legislation unable to catch up with social changes. Will the Government set up a cross-departmental working group to review and revise existing policies and ordinances relevant to industrial buildings, so as to really revitalize these buildings? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government acknowledges the difficulties encountered by the cultural and sports industries in acquiring premises for organizing activities, as well as the problem of high rents. We are eager to help. As I have pointed out in the main reply, since 2015, we have amended some OZPs to include "Art Studio" as an always permitted use. Amendments to other OZPs will be made when suitable opportunities arise. This is the first point. Second, if we were to relax the uses of industrial buildings for arts and cultural practitioners, fire safety is our primary concern. We are poised to relax these uses as far as practicable if we can address the issue of fire safety. As Mr MA has pointed out just now, I mentioned that the Government was studying the possibility of further relaxing these uses, provided that this would not give rise to serious fire safety risk. At the moment, the cross-departmental working group comprised of staff from LandsD, FSD and the Buildings Department is studying the issue, and they have encountered major difficulties. That said, we are putting in efforts to offer help as far as possible. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The next Member to raise supplementary question is Mr CHAN Chi-chuen.


MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has pointed out in the second paragraph of part (3) of the main reply that TPB has amended 12 OZPs to include "Art Studio" as an always permitted use in industrial-office buildings in "Industrial" zones, etc., but such art studios are not allowed to provide services or goods directly. The Government may know that these art studios, such as band rooms, galleries or photographic studios, provide services to various extents. Does the Government mean that owners of such band rooms in industrial buildings themselves can practise music in the premises, but are not allowed to lease the units to others for music tutorials or practices? If the unit is used as a photographic studio, does it mean that only the owner, but no other people, is allowed to practise photography? The Secretary keeps reiterating that they target uses which attract members of the public and substantially increase the flow of people. I am not going to repeat his logic, yet his underlying viewpoint is that visitors do not know how to evacuate in case of emergencies in these industrial buildings. If so, as most uses in these buildings do involve provision of services, "provision of services" should not be the Government's criterion in exercising relaxation. Instead, should the Government use the criterion of "flow of people" or "large flow of people" in exercising such relaxation? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr CHAN Chi-chuen for the supplementary question. Mr CHAN focuses on flow of people. He also understands the risks posed by fire or other emergencies if such premises are frequented by a large number of visitors. Therefore, according to our consideration at the moment, self-used units do not cause many problems as they do not attract a large flow of visitors; however, the situation will become worrying if the units are leased to other people as band rooms or as venues for conducting various types of tutorials. In this case, we cannot rashly relax the restrictions. However, Mr CHAN, I also wish to point out that we will only adopt the stringent approach of re-entering the units in cases where the following two conditions are both met: the uses attract the flow of people; and other premises in the same building are issued with DGLs. Otherwise, it is our practice to issue warning first, followed by the imposition of an encumbrance.


237

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am not talking about re-entering. My question is: Can TPB adopt "flow of people" instead of "provision of services" as the criterion for effecting relaxations to OZPs in future? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr CHAN for his suggestion. We have considered this before. However, regarding my reply just now, I do not have anything to add. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The next Member to raise supplementary question is Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the question today indicates that the fire safety standards defined under the Fire Services Ordinance for different categories of premises can hardly catch up with the latest social and economic developments. Therefore, I want to put questions to the Secretary for Development and the Secretary for Security regarding two aspects. Should the Government consider setting up a cross-departmental working group to, by making reference to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order in the United Kingdom, amend the Fire Services Ordinance in Hong Kong? If so, different legislations and different criteria may be formulated for different industries, so that those industries found suitable to operate in industrial buildings (including arts, cultural, recreational and sports groups) may be formally accommodated in these buildings to facilitate their long-term development? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will reply to this supplementary question? Secretary for Development, please reply. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok for the question. Deputy President, as I am the only public officer assigned for this question, I will reply as far as I can.


I thank Ir Dr LO for his suggestion. However, the circumstances in Hong Kong are not comparable to the situations overseas. In Hong Kong, most industrial activities are conducted in multi-storey or high-rise buildings. In other words, many different industrial operations are accommodated in one industrial building. With so many different industries operating in one single building, if we were to draw up a specific set of fire safety standards for each and every industry, the complexity involved is immense. Furthermore, these industries are not totally distinct from one another. As I have pointed out in my reply just now, if dangerous goods are stored in some premises in the same industrial building, then even the loading and unloading of these dangerous goods may create significant impact to others. Therefore, we cannot simply adopt overseas legislations in Hong Kong. As regards the question from Ir Dr LO, we need to get back on this and give the Member a written reply afterwards. (Appendix I) MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after the fire in the mini-storages of an industrial building in Ngau Tau Kok, LandsD took a series of enforcement actions against non-compliant uses in industrial buildings. LandsD will issue warning letters to owners of non-compliant units, requesting owners to rectify such irregularities within 14 days; if owners fail to do so, LandsD will initiate the procedure for re-entering such units. It is impossible for arts or sports groups in industrial buildings to rectify the breaches or identify an alternative venue within 14 days after receiving a warning letter. I would like to ask the Secretary: How do the authorities come up with the 14-day period? Will the Government consider relaxing the time limit for arts, cultural, recreational and sports groups, say, allowing a year's time for preparation? Has the Government considered this? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr YIU Si-wing for his supplementary question. Deputy President, the difficulty lies in the fact that such a stringent approach has to be adopted if the non-compliant unit attracts flow of people, and other premises in the same building are issued with DGLs. In other words, no one knows what kind of accidents and when such accidents will happen. Therefore, it would be in no one's interest if a longer grace period is given and fire or other accidents happen


239

during that period because such accidents would be disastrous. Therefore, I urge the stakeholders to cooperate with us. Furthermore, it is not that they have no option. They may move to buildings not having dangerous goods, so that they will not be affected. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last supplementary question. MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I wish to follow up on the question asked by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen just now. With regard to the second paragraph in part (3) of the main reply, first, as the Secretary replied that the authorities would amend the uses in other OZPs when suitable opportunities arise, I wish to know if there is any timetable; second, Deputy President, in fact, industrial buildings have their own industrial use, so they will attract flow of people even before a change of use. For example, in case of factory use, since people will go there to work, there is a large flow of people. I want to know, in terms of flow of people, what is the definition of a large flow of people? If the use concerned only brings in a small flow of people … with respect to direct provision of services or goods, Hong Kong is basically a service-oriented city. Of course, I understand that there is a need to handle dangerous goods, but if the Government simply adopts an across-the-board approach without clearly defining the meaning of "large flow of people", this will bring immense pressure to small and medium enterprises, including recreational, cultural and arts groups, as well as those from industries mentioned just now. As users from these industries are mainly tenants, they have to move out once the owners of their units give them pressure. I would like to know the authorities' views on the definition of "flow of people". SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Ms Tanya CHAN for her supplementary question. Deputy President, regarding the timetable, we indeed have a very tight schedule as there are so many OZPs in Hong Kong, especially the rezoning of sites to facilitate land supply. We usually adopt a multi-pronged approach by accomplishing several tasks in one go. Presently, we do not have a concrete timetable, say, within three years. However, we give each OZP a careful look in each and every amendment exercise, and we deal with this issue whenever suitable opportunities arise. This is the first point.


Second, I understand the Honourable Members' concern about the flow of people. According to our present consideration, the Government's stringent approach is not targeted at activities generating a large flow of people only. In fact, industrial buildings should not be frequented by members of the public not working there. When we define "a large flow of people", we have to take into account the possibility of elderly people escorting children to attend various types of tutorials organized in industrial buildings, because they face greater risks than the physically abled adults. Therefore, considering the present situation, we have adopted a relatively stringent approach. We will strictly handle those cases in which the relevant uses attract flow of people and dangerous goods are stored in the industrial buildings concerned. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question. With the concurrence of Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG will raise this question on behalf of Mr LEUNG. Sign language interpretation service 4. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, some persons with hearing impairment have relayed to me their hope that the Government will make sign language as an official language, and require television ("TV") stations to provide sign language interpretation service in their news programmes, so as to foster a barrier-free environment for these persons to receive important information. On the other hand, when conducting a public consultation exercise in 2014 in respect of the application for renewal of a domestic free TV programme service licence ("TV licence"), the Communications Authority ("CA") noted the views expressed by various groups that there was an increasing demand for sign language interpretation service provided in news programmes. However, as the licensee said at that time that there was a short supply of qualified sign language interpreters, CA eventually only included in the renewed licence concerned an enabling clause on the provision of sign language interpretation service. CA also indicated that it had planned to conduct a review at the end of 2015 to explore ways to ensure the accuracy of the contents of news programmes upon inclusion of sign language interpretation in such programmes, so as to comply with the relevant programme standards. The effective date of the clause would be subject to the outcome of CA's review. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


241

(1) whether it knows the details and progress of the aforesaid review conducted by CA; whether CA has formulated a timetable for implementing the clause on the provision of sign language interpretation service in the TV licence; if CA has, of the details; if not, when CA will formulate such timetable;

(2) of the training and accreditation schemes for sign language

interpreters to be implemented by the authorities in the next three years; and

(3) whether it will consider making sign language as one of the official

languages? SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in consultation with the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Office of the Communications Authority, we provide our reply to the three parts of the question as follows:

(1) To meet public demand for easier access to information by the hearing impaired, there are provisions in the current domestic free television programme service licences ("free TV licences") requiring the licensees to provide subtitling for certain types of programmes (including news programmes) as directed by the Communications Authority ("CA").

In its public consultation exercise on the applications of Television

Broadcasts Limited ("TVB") and Asia Television Limited for renewal of their free TV licences in 2014, CA noted that there was an increasing demand from various groups for the hearing impaired for sign language service in television programmes, particularly in news bulletins.

TVB then submitted to CA that there was a limited supply of

qualified sign language interpreters in Hong Kong, while the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards ("TV Programme Code") promulgated by CA required that licensees shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the factual contents of news. TVB submitted that under this circumstance, should it be required to provide sign language interpretation for news


programme, it might not be able to comply with the requirement on the accuracy of contents of news programmes as stipulated in TV Programme Code.

Taking into account TVB's representations, CA considered that it

was prudent to conduct a review first to explore measures to resolve issues relating to the implementation of and compliance with TV Programme Code in the provision of sign language service for news programmes. CA proposed that the review should be completed within 24 months from the commencement of the renewed licence of TVB, i.e. by the end of November 2017. In the meantime, to prepare for the implementation of the proposed requirement on sign language service, CA recommended to the Chief Executive in Council that an enabling provision should be included in the renewed licence of TVB to require the licensee to provide sign language services for its free TV programmes as directed by CA.

The Chief Executive in Council approved the application for licence

renewal by TVB in May 2015, and accepted CA's recommendation that an enabling provision be included in the renewed licence of TVB. The effective date of the provision would be subject to the review of CA.

Upon renewal of the free TV licence of TVB, CA proceeded to

conduct the review on the provision of sign language service for news programmes on free TV and accordingly set up a task force comprising representatives from groups of the hearing impaired to actively examine the relevant issues. The licensees would also be consulted on the recommendations.

Specifically, a number of issues are being examined by the task force

under CA. They include whether there are sufficient sign language interpreters in Hong Kong to provide sign language service for news programmes; the issues relating to licensees' compliance with the TV Programme Code in the provision of sign language service in news programmes; and the specific implementation arrangement for the provision of sign language service in news programmes such as the form of presentation to be adopted for the provision of signing. CA will endeavour to complete the review by the end of November 2017.


243

During the transitional period when CA is conducting the review, in order to facilitate the hearing impaired's access to information, TVB has agreed to provide sign language for Legislative Council and other important government meetings/announcements to be broadcast by its channel(s) where sign language is included in the video feed at source.

(2) and (3) The Labour and Welfare Bureau has set up a Working Group on

Promoting Sign Language ("Working Group") under the Rehabilitation Advisory Committee ("RAC") to advise the Government on ways to promote sign language. The Working Group comprises RAC members, persons with hearing impairment, sign language interpreters, representatives of rehabilitation non-governmental organizations and the education sector. Representatives of relevant government bureaux and departments also attend meetings of the Working Group on a need basis.

In September 2015, the Labour and Welfare Bureau included sign

language in the domain of language courses under the Continuing Education Fund ("CEF") and course providers may apply for registration of sign language courses as CEF courses. Those enrolled in sign language courses may apply for reimbursement of 80% of the course fees, subject to a maximum sum of $10,000, on successful completion of the courses. Since February 2016, two courses in professional sign language interpretation organized by rehabilitation organizations, both accredited at Qualifications Framework ("QF") Level 3 by the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications, have been included in the Reimbursable Course List of CEF. The Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies of The Chinese University of Hong Kong ("CUHK") has also obtained approval from the University Extension Board to launch its Certificate Programme in Sign Language Teaching (QF Level 3) in June 2016.

Furthermore, in collaboration with rehabilitation organizations, RAC

under the Labour and Welfare Bureau also released the first List of Sign Language Interpreters ("the List") in Hong Kong in June 2016.


The List contains information of experienced sign language interpreters in Hong Kong at present, such as their professional qualification, work experience and means of contact. The Labour and Welfare Bureau will continue to consider the views of the Working Group and enhance training for sign language interpreters, including building up a glossary of commonly used terms in current affairs to facilitate provision of sign language interpretation for television news broadcasts in the future.

The Working Group notices that a common form of local sign

language has yet to evolve. Different sign language expressions may be used by different deaf groups to convey the same meaning. The Working Group considers that priority should be given to the promotion of sign language for the time being to popularize an easy-to-learn basic sign language and facilitate the development of a glossary of commonly used terms in current affairs. The Government currently has no plan to designate sign language as an official language.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, from 2013, the last Legislative Council has gradually begun to provide sign language interpretation service for Legislative Council meetings as well as meetings of other committees. However, commercial broadcasters are now saying that if they have to provide sign language interpretation, they are worried that the accuracy of the contents cannot be ensured. Does it mean that the commercial broadcasters are alone in this regard and the legislature has no such worry? Why does CA allow commercial broadcasters to use this as a reason for not providing sign language interpretation service? Deputy President, the Government said that the study will only be completed by the end of 2017. I would like to ask the Secretary: Can he undertake that before the end of the year, sign language interpretation service would be available for urgent announcements, severe weather warnings and even major elections, including the upcoming Chief Executive election, which are aired on free television stations? SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I have mentioned in the main reply that at the present study stage, many specific issues have to be addressed, and the licensees have the duty to


245

ensure the accuracy of the contents being reported. We have earlier heard from the public, organizations of the hearing impaired in particular, that they would like to see sign language interpretation service included in news programmes. We are now conducting our study in this direction. Regarding the arrangement to bring in sign language interpretation for live news bulletins, we have encountered technical problems because we have to ensure that the quality of television service for the general public will not be compromised while allowing the hearing impaired to enjoy sign language interpretation service. We will proactively explore ways to make technical arrangement to provide the service. The Working Group will make recommendations and consult the licensees. We wish to balance the needs of the various parties as soon as possible in order to provide this service. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has failed to grasp my supplementary question clearly. My supplementary question was: Before the completion of the study, could he undertake that when free television stations air urgent announcements (including severe weather warnings) or major elections (for instance, the upcoming Chief Executive election) … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, Members can only raise one supplementary question. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): He has not answered this supplementary which I asked earlier. I am only asking him to undertake that sign language interpretation will also be provided on such occasions. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I understand. Please be concise. Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I mentioned earlier in the main reply that where sign language is included in the video feed at source, the licensees have undertaken to air those signals on their channels.


DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Democratic Party is very concerned about equal opportunities for the hearing impaired … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please stand up. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): This question is about sign language. I would like to raise a supplementary question regarding parts (2) and (3) of the main reply. Apart from devoting efforts to promote sign language, has the Government considered providing resources to allow the hearing impaired to learn oral languages? A person having hearing impairment is not necessarily mute. What resources or plans does the Government have to help the hearing impaired learn oral languages? UNDER SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to thank Dr WONG for her supplementary question. Dr WONG is right. Given the respective levels of their hearing impairment, some of them may use oral languages while others may use sign language. Depending on the level of hearing ability, the hearing impaired make use of various communication means. For instance, those who can hear will use oral languages, those who are unable to hear at all may have to use sign language. Yet, many of them are bilingual, using both oral and sign languages. Thus, the Government will not put the emphasis on sign language only when promoting equal opportunities for the hearing impaired. In line with the overall rehabilitation policy, the promotion of oral languages, the use of sign and oral languages and other means of communication will be given equal footing. Take education as an example. For students with better hearing ability who are studying at ordinary schools, the Government's policy is to train them to communicate through oral languages and other means, including making gestures, writing and drawing. Of course, for students who suffer from more severe hearing impairment and have to study at schools such as the Lutheran School For The Deaf, we will give them the choice of sign language. In general, the Government's policy is to allocate resources according to the needs of the hearing impaired. It will not be biased towards either sign language or oral languages. Yet, in the past, the development of sign language has lagged behind


247

and so we have to catch up. This is the background for the establishment of the Working Group. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I asked earlier what plans and resources the Government has. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Under Secretary, do you have anything to add? UNDER SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I have to reply in two aspects. First, we are in fact providing support services for both sign language and oral languages. Second, regarding promotion, we welcome the parties concerned to apply to the Labour and Welfare Bureau for government fund to implement public education activities on rehabilitation, for the purpose of organizing promotion activities. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The next Member to raise supplementary question is Mr Andrew WAN. MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to ask the Secretary about the technical restrictions mentioned in the main reply, including a lack of sign language interpreters at present; the compliance with TV Programme Code when providing sign interpretation in news programmes, and the absence of a common form of sign language. I have noticed many contradictions in the main reply, including the List released in June 2016 as mentioned under parts (2) and (3). I have made inquiries with the industry. There really are not many interpreters but the List does exist. Why did the Secretary say there is a big difficulty? Can he explain? As regards the absence of a common form of sign language, I am aware that a colleague mentioned earlier that at present, sign language interpretation is provided for major government announcements or Legislative Council meetings. More importantly, this does not seem to be a very complicated matter which


warrants a 30-month review by the Government. For many policies of greater importance, it takes only 18 to 24 months for the Government to complete a review. Are the authorities too lenient with the broadcasters to allow as many as 30 months to complete the review of a matter which does not seem to be highly complex? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WAN, please raise your supplementary question. MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am about to ask two specific questions … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You can only raise one supplementary question. MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): All right. When the Under Secretary replied earlier, he said that the development of sign language has lagged behind. We all know that people who have successfully completed sign language courses can apply for reimbursement of course fees, subject to a ceiling of $10,000. Given a lack of manpower at present, would the Bureau consider taking some more proactive measures to enhance training? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Is the Secretary or the Under Secretary answering this supplementary question? Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, please reply. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, let me reply first. Mr WAN asked about the progress earlier. We can see that the List was only released in June 2016 and it represents progress achieved as a result of efforts from all parties. I would like to point out that members of the Working Group include the hearing impaired, sign language interpreters and representatives of the Labour and Welfare Bureau. We are focusing on this subject and discussing how some technical issues can be


249

overcome so that sign language interpretation service can be provided as soon as possible. As for the licensees, their technical problem is to consider how to make sure that the provision of sign language interpretation will not mess up the visual effect and affect the service provided to the general public. In respect of technology, there is difficulty requiring the licensees to provide sign language interpretation for urgent and non-pre-scheduled programmes (for instance, breaking news reports) because they have to ensure the accuracy of the information. Therefore, we need to strike a balance. The Working Group is studying and making reference to overseas examples to find out how best to tackle the issue. As I can see, in those overseas countries where the provision of sign language interpretation service on television programmes is mandatory, the service is mainly provided by public organizations. That said, we also hope to provide more opportunities for the hearing impaired to obtain information from television. The Under Secretary for Labour and Welfare will answer the second part of the supplementary question. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Under Secretary for Labour and Welfare, the Member has asked if there are proactive measures to make up for the existing manpower shortfall. UNDER SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr WAN. Put simply, RAC, as well as organizations and service groups for the deaf, are promoting sign language in three broad directions. First, they seek to popularize sign language so as to facilitate communication between people with hearing impairment and the hearing community. This initiative can also train up more sign language interpreters. In this regard, the Labour and Welfare Bureau has funded many activities, including the annual large-scale Hong Kong Deaf Festival, developing various computer software or smart phone applications for sign language learning or making sign language learning cards, etc.


The second direction is the building up of a glossary. As various deaf groups now use different lexical signs, we hope to gradually standardize sign language through the establishment of a glossary. With subsidies from the Labour and Welfare Bureau, the Hong Kong Sign Language Browser developed by CUHK is now in the fifth stage. CUHK has collected the lexical signs used by different deaf communities and uploaded them to the Browser by classifying them into various browser modules, such as the modules of "Daily Signs", "Legal Signs", etc., so as to enhance the public's understanding of sign language. The third direction is striving to train up sign language interpreters as professionals. It has been mentioned in the main reply that with the collaborative efforts of the Working Group and organizations for the deaf, two professional courses have been launched. One of them is a professional sign language interpretation course organized by The Hong Kong Joint Council for People with Disabilities, and the other is a professional course organized by another organization. These two courses are aimed at training more professional sign language interpreters. CUHK has also introduced a training course for sign language instructors. CUHK will enhance the academic elements of sign language interpretation and introduce a course at Qualifications Framework Level 4 in early 2017. Why do we promulgate the List? It is our hope that through uploading the List to the Internet, organizations would know which persons are sufficiently-experienced interpreters, what their expertise is and which levels of certificates they have obtained. This will facilitate greater use of sign language interpretation service to help the hearing impaired in their communication. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have to remind Members and officials that under the Rules of Procedure, each Member can only raise one supplementary question. Would officials responsible for replying also be more concise. Otherwise, Members who are waiting will have no opportunity to ask questions. Fifth question.


251

Impact of Mainland-funded consortia buying commercial and residential sites and properties in Hong Kong 5. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in recent years, cases of Mainland-funded consortia investing huge sums of money to buy commercial and residential sites and properties in Hong Kong have been on the rise. Over the past several months, two thirds of Grade A commercial buildings were gobbled by Mainland-funded consortia, involving an amount as high as some $20 billion, which far exceeded the total amount in the past decade. In addition, in the past two years, among the 50-odd residential sites sold by the Government, 20% of which were bought by Mainland-funded consortia. Like a rising tide that lifts all boats, the price of the units of the first residential project built under the "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" policy (i.e. with land lease conditions restricting the resale of such units to Hong Kong people only) and developed by a Mainland-funded consortium is as high as $18,000 per square foot ("ft2"). Meanwhile, local developers also offer high prices in land auctions in order to compete for development sites, resulting in many small flats with an area of 200 to 300 ft2 fetching $20,000 per ft2, which is far beyond the affordability of the general public. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has assessed if the continuous buying of commercial and residential sites and properties in Hong Kong by Mainland-funded consortia has any impact on the abilities of the general public to buy homes and conduct business; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, whether it will expeditiously do so; whether the so-called "influx of capital from the Mainland into Hong Kong" will offset the effect of the Chief Executive's policy initiative of increasing land supply in the hope of cooling down the overheated property market; if so, of the details;

(2) whether it will, in view of the incessant rise in property prices, put

forward and implement a more effective housing policy to assist first-time home buying families and relieve the youth housing problem; and

(3) as the Government has adopted the approach of "working on the

easier tasks first and the more difficult ones later" (i.e. to proceed with the removal and relocation of non-indigenous villages before


developing brownfield sites) in taking forward the public housing development at Wang Chau, whether the Government will adjust the approach and resume illegally occupied Government land for the development of large brownfield sites first, so as to increase the supply of residential sites more quickly?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as the Secretary has gone on a duty visit outside Hong Kong, I will reply to questions raised by Members today in my capacity as the Acting Secretary for Transport and Housing. Deputy President, having consolidated information from the Development Bureau and relevant departments, my reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr Paul TSE is as follows:

(1) For the past two years or so (from the financial year of 2014-2015 to 2 November 2016), the Government sold a total of 68 residential, commercial/business/hotel and industrial sites. Analysis based on the information provided by the tenderers in their tender forms(1) indicates that 11 sites were awarded to developers of Mainland enterprises (including those associated with Mainland enterprises or joint venture companies).

The Government has actively increased the supply of land and

housing and has endeavoured to manage demand. The current term of Government introduced the Buyer's Stamp Duty (BSD) in 2012 and the doubled ad valorem stamp duty in 2013 to curb external and investment demand. The property prices dropped by 11.3% between the fourth quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016. In the third quarter of 2016, the monthly average number of residential property transactions involving non-local individuals and non-local company buyers was 105 (or 1.5% of the total transactions of residential property), markedly below the average figure of 365 cases (or 4.5%) for the 10 months before the introduction of BSD.

(1) Without examination of the shareholding information therein.


253

Nevertheless, the property market showed renewed signs of exuberance since April 2016, with accelerated rise in property prices, which are now close to the historical peak in September 2015. In fact, under the global context of ultra-low interest rates and abundant liquidity, high property price is not a phenomenon unique to Hong Kong. Some other major cities(2) also face the same challenge.

Although the supply of residential properties has been steadily

increasing, the demand-supply imbalance remains tight in the short run. In order to stabilize the property market, to guard against further increase in the risks of a housing bubble, and to accord priority to the home ownership needs of those Hong Kong permanent residents ("HKPR") who do not own any other residential property in Hong Kong, the Government decided to raise the ad valorem stamp duty ("AVD") rates chargeable on transactions for residential property to 15% across different value bands on 4 November 2016 (last Friday). The exemption arrangements under the existing regime remain unchanged(3).

(2) The prevailing housing demand is keen irrespective of age group.

The only way to concretely address the long-term housing needs of first-time home buyers and younger generation is to increase the overall supply as quickly as possible and to build an effective housing ladder. Therefore, the Government has set the total supply target for the 10-year period from 2016-2017 to 2025-2026 at 460 000 units, among which 280 000 units are public housing units.

Subsidized sale flats, such as the Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS")

flats, serve as the first step for many families to achieve home ownership. The Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") has

(2) The residential property prices in Vancouver increased by about 19% last year, followed by

another 22% increase in the first seven months of this year. The residential property prices in Sydney increased by about 14% last year, followed by another 2.2% increase in the first half of this year. The residential property prices in London increased by about 12% last year, followed by another 7.7% increase in the first seven months of this year.

(3) The major exemption is where the buyer is an HKPR acting on his/her own behalf and is not a

beneficial owner of any other residential property in Hong Kong at the time of acquisition of a residential property. Under such circumstances, the new AVD rate will not apply and the relevant transaction is only subject to the lower AVD rates at Scale 2.


resumed the HOS and pre-sold newly-built HOS flats at the end of 2014 and this year respectively. HA has also commenced the pre-sale of flats under the Green Form Subsidized Home Ownership Pilot Scheme last month. Besides, HA has introduced two rounds of Interim Scheme to Extend the Home Ownership Scheme Secondary Market to White Form Buyers ("the Interim Scheme") in 2013 and 2015 respectively to allow eligible White Form applicants to purchase flats with premium not yet paid in the HOS Secondary Market.

As at end September 2016, the projected supply from the first-hand

private residential property market for the coming three to four years is approximately 93 000 units. Experiences from major cities around the world show that tight supply and cheap credit are the main reasons of rising property prices and rents. If the Government and the community do not bite the bullet and make determined efforts in searching land for housing, the problem is not going to be resolved easily. At the end of the day, it will be the low-income group and the younger generation who suffer.

(3) Regarding the development of public housing at Wang Chau, the

Government decided in early 2014 to develop the site in phases by proceeding first with Phase 1 with a view to providing 4 000 units as early as possible and including these units in the Ten-year Housing Construction Programme. Phases 2 and 3 will be deferred, but the target of developing a total of 17 000 units remained unchanged. This decision was based on the considerations that developing Phases 1, 2 and 3 concurrently would involve more complicated problems in terms of the provision of infrastructure, including traffic and transport, sewerage and power supply. Furthermore, the sites of Phases 2 and 3 involved more brownfield operations and environmental problems than that of Phase 1. This would lead to more complicated development works and required a longer lead time to formulate an implementation plan and for the construction process. The Government has explained the relevant analyses, details are at Annex.

There are views that we should only develop Phases 2 and 3; or

develop Phases 2 and 3 first and postpone Phase 1. People holding


255

these views may think that there was more government land in the sites of Phases 2 and 3 than that of Phase 1 and hence the resumption of such land would be easier. Some may also think that most land on the sites of Phases 2 and 3 is "brownfield" site and no "Green Belt" site is involved; or developing Phases 2 and 3 does not require relocating people residing in the area. The case is not that simple.

Firstly, the ratio of government land in Phases 2 and 3 is smaller

than that in Phase 1. While 38% of the Phase 1 site is government land, only a total of 30% of the Phases 2 and 3 sites is government land.

Regarding "Green Belt", the entire Phase 1 site was "Green

Belt" under the outline zoning plan before rezoning in June 2015. For Phases 2 and 3, although the ratio of "Green Belt", at 55% of the total area under the outline zoning plan, is lower, the actual size is larger at 7.3 hectares.

As regards people residing in the area, at present we do not have

official data on the number of households and population for the Phases 2 and 3 sites. However, according to the observations in the Planning and Engineering Study, it is believed that there are people living in the sites of all three Phases.

Therefore, when the Government proceeds with the development of

Phases 2 and 3, similar to Phase 1, application for rezoning the "Green Belt" site therein and relocation of local residents are also required.

Another reason for the obviously shorter development time for

Phase 1 than that of Phases 2 and 3 is that there is almost no "brownfield operations" in Phase 1 site. On the other hand, it is estimated that there is an area of seven hectares of "brownfield operations" in Phases 2 and 3. Hence, develop Phase 1 first, followed by development of Phases 2 and 3 in stages is a progressive approach to tackle relatively easier tasks first in terms of overall planning and relevant strategic arrangements.


Annex Government response to media enquiries on public housing development plan at Wang Chau ***************************************************************** In response to media enquiries on the public housing development plan at Wang Chau, a spokesman for the Government said today (30 September) that, after checking various documents, a consolidated reply is given as follows: As explained earlier, the Planning and Engineering ("P&E") feasibility study for the public housing development plan at Wang Chau, which commenced in 2012, comprised a number of technical parts, including assessments on traffic and transport impact, geotechnical feasibility and site formation, natural terrain hazard, drainage impact, sewerage impact, water and utility impact, environmental impact, air ventilation, land requirement, tree survey, financial assessment and so on. Different parts were completed at different periods. The Government originally planned to develop Phases 1, 2, 3 and Yuen Long Industrial Estate Extension ("YLIEE") at the same time. But after the Government decided in early 2014 to develop Phase 1 first, followed by phases 2 and 3 later, we asked the consultant, who were carrying out the study then, to conduct supplementary assessment on the traffic and transport impact, air ventilation, drainage impact, sewerage impact, water supplies and environmental impact to confirm the feasibility of commencing Phase 1 first. We have stated earlier that the P&E feasibility study reports for the public housing development plan at Wang Chau contain some sensitive information, and the Government will submit them to the Legislative Council when the new term comes into session officially and make them available to the public after processing the relevant sensitive information in an appropriate manner. Assessment reports have to be submitted to the Town Planning Board ("TPB") when processing the rezoning application for the Phase 1 development. Therefore, the supplementary assessments on traffic and transport impact and air ventilation in the feasibility study were attached to the submission to the Rural and New Town Planning Committee ("RNTPC") of the TPB on 17 October 2014. (Reference number: RNTPC Paper No. 13/14). Prior to the submission to the RNTPC, we had ascertained that there was no sensitive information in it. But the staff concerned did not delete the wording "please keep confidential" when preparing the submission.


257

The aforesaid traffic and transport impact assessment stated that "planning parameters are yet to be confirmed at the stage of the study. As for a conservative approach, it is assumed that the total number of flats is capped at 5 000 units with PRH/HOS ratio of 50:50 for technical assessment purpose …". This illustrates clearly that the "planning parameters" of the Phase 1 housing project has not yet been decided. The assessment adopted a "conservative approach" that "assumed" the total number of flats was to be "capped at" 5 000 and, for "technical assessment purpose", the proportion of public rental housing/home ownership scheme flats was "assumed" to be 50:50 so as to maintain the flexibility to ensure that results of the technical assessments will be applicable to future development. The paper (RNTPC Paper No. 13/14) itself stated clearly that the proposed number of flats was 4 000. As regards the actual number of flats and the proportion of rental housing and subsidized sales flats, it has yet to be decided. In the traffic impact assessment submitted to the RNTPC, routing of the road connecting Wang Chau Phase 1 was different from the one outlined in the paper submitted by the Civil Engineering and Development Department ("CEDD") to the Yuen Long District Council's Traffic and Transport Committee (TTC Paper No. 39/2015) on 21 May 2015. As for the reason for the re-routing, the CEDD had already given a detailed account in the paper for the aforesaid meeting of the Yuen Long District Council. It was stated that "Through enhancing the road routing and moving it northward within the development boundary by the CEDD, members of the public will have the convenience of passing in and out the burial ground located to the north of the development area without the need to enter into the future housing estate." As regards the planning application by a private development at the locality of the Wang Chau public housing development, when the Planning Department consulted related government departments on it, the Housing Department raised objection on the ground that ingress of the road proposed by the private development would encroach into the boundary of the Phase 1 public housing development at Wang Chau and the original design of the public road for Wang Chau Phase 1 had not taken into account the private development. There are views commenting on our decision of rolling out firstly Phase 1 of the Wang Chau public housing development and then phases 2 and 3 later. We reiterate that the decision aims at an early production of 4 000 public housing flats in the Phase 1 of the Wang Chau public housing development. Some of the technical details are outlined herein.


On the part of road traffic, Phase 1 only involves the improvement of the junction at Long Ping Road and Fung Chi Road and the construction of a road to the Phase 1 of Wang Chau development. The concurrent development of phases 1, 2 and 3 of Wang Chau will require road works at various locations in Yuen Long District such as Long Ping Road, Wang Lok Street, Fuk Hi Street, Shui Pin Wai Interchange and so on as well as the construction of a public transport interchange. It involves more complicated works and requires longer time for working out a proposal and completing the works. On drainage facilities, it only needs to improve local drainage pipes there in Phase 1. The concurrent development of phases 1, 2 and 3 will require a larger scale of improvement works on drainage pipes in the area concerned and in Yuen Long District. The Yuen Long Sewage Treatment Works will also need to be improved, involving more complicated works and longer time for working out a proposal and completing the works. In respect of power supply, the existing transformer station can cope with demand generated by Phase 1. If phases 1, 2 and 3 are to be developed simultaneously, a new 132kV transformer station will have to be constructed. As regards brownfield operations, about 0.1 hectare of land on the sites of Phase 1 are occupied while such operations occupy about 17 hectares on the sites of phases 2 and 3 and YLIEE. The sizeable brownfield operations in phases 2 and 3 include supportive activities such as logistics, port back-up, waste recycling, car repair and so on. They also offer employment opportunities. The Government wishes to handle them more properly. Moreover, there are various environmental issues that have to be dealt with in phases 1, 2 and 3. The more critical one is pollution generated by operations on the brownfield sites in the district. In terms of location, Phase 1 is farther away from those brownfield operations at phases 2 and 3 and the pollution brought by it. When bringing forward Phase 2, we have to resolve the pollution problem caused by brownfield operations at Phase 3 on the north of the development. When we move on with Phase 3, we have to resolve the pollution problem caused by brownfield operations on site of YLIEE on the north. Thus, it will require more time to resolve the environmental pollution problem when we implement phases 2 and 3, including the pollution caused by brownfield operations on sites of phases 2 and 3 and YLIEE. Taking the above into account, the Government decided in early 2014 to roll out the Phase 1 development Wang Chau first with the objective of


259

completing 4 000 public housing flats in 2024-2025 with the early commencement of various formal procedures within a relatively short period of time. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government had not yet introduced the "harsh measures" when this oral question was submitted, and to a certain extent, it can be said that I have successfully striven for the introduction of the demand management measures, though I am not in favour of the launching of "harsh measures". What I would like to make clear is that although two or three attempts have been made by the Government in the past to introduce "harsh measures" or demand management measures to increase the duty rate, it seems that the market only responded with a slight downward adjustment of property prices for just a month or so. Property prices then showed a sharp rebound, rising to a level even higher than that before the relevant measures were launched. Such being the case, I really do not think the introduction of these measures can help solve the problem. I would like to ask the Government whether it will seriously consider imposing certain restrictions on land auction in the medium to long term, so that a cap (such as 60%) would be set on the amount of land to be sold to Mainland-funded consortia; or a requirement would be introduced to stipulate that certain land sites must be developed under the "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" policy; or certain restrictions concerning first-time home acquisition would be imposed, such as earmarking land sites for developing housing units for first-time home buyers and granting them free of premium to developers for the construction of housing for sale or rent to singletons or first-time home buying families? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, with regard to the points raised by the Member, we also understand that the relevant demand management measures are only extraordinary measures for extraordinary times. We are of the view that the right way to resume the stable and healthy development of the property market is to ensure an adequate supply. Hence, as far as identification of sites and land supply are concerned, we are looking forward to a greater support from the community. We hope the entire community would focus on tackling the land supply problem, regardless of whether the sites are identified for private or public housing.


As for other suggestions put forward by the Member, the Development Bureau has in fact been exploring whether there are other ways to handle various land development issues, so that the actual land supply can better meet market demand. MR NATHAN LAW (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary mentioned in part (2) of the main reply that the prevailing housing demand was keen, and that the long-term housing needs of the younger generation had to be addressed, but he also said earlier that the current property prices were on the high side. Attempts to increase supply will only intensify speculation, property prices will then continue to remain on the high side, and the housing needs of the younger generation will still be a very serious problem. Should we provide alternative choices other than home acquisition, in order to help address the housing needs of the younger generation? The Government announced in the 2012 Policy Address the implementation of the Youth Hostel Scheme with the objective of providing 3 000 hostel places, but as evidenced by the number of public housing applications by single persons aged below 30, which stands at over 70 000 at present, the Youth Hostel Scheme is just a drop in the bucket which can only offer a little relief. In this connection, what is the current progress of the Government's discussions with interested non-governmental organizations? Apart from the five Youth Hostel Scheme projects under planning, does the Government have any plans to roll out other new projects so as to increase the number of hostel places provided? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we understand that as far as aspiration for home ownership and housing needs are concerned, the prevailing demand of the younger generation is keen. However, as I pointed out earlier in the main reply, the housing demand is keen irrespective of age group or occupation, and there is in general a tight supply-demand situation on all fronts. As for the Youth Hostel Scheme mentioned by the Member, it falls under the policy portfolio of the Home Affairs Bureau within the Government, and it seeks not only to provide short-term rental accommodation to the younger generation, but also to give effect to certain policy intentions regarding the personal development as well as the growth and development of young people.


261

Generally speaking, there are two aspects of work that are considered more important: on the one hand, the overall supply should be sufficient to ensure the stable and healthy development of the property market, so that property prices are maintained at an affordable level to home buyers of different age groups. This is an important factor. On the other hand, as far as public housing is concerned, efforts should be devoted to make sure that a greater number of public housing units would be provided to address the housing needs of members of the public, those of the lower class in particular. Under the prevailing practice in allocating public rental housing units, it is our opinion that priority should be accorded to household and elderly applicants. Therefore, relatively speaking, such applicants will normally be given priority when public rental housing flats are allocated. I think we all understand that young people have better chances of upward mobility than elderly people. Hence, we are of the view that as public housing should particularly be provided to address the needs of people from more underprivileged groups, priority should be accorded to applicants from such groups. MR NATHAN LAW (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAW, I have to remind you that this oral question is about the impact of Mainland-funded consortia buying commercial and residential sites and properties in Hong Kong. According to my understanding, the issue concerning youth hostel does not fall under the portfolio of the Secretary who is replying to your question now. Mr LAW may follow up the issue on other occasions. Let me see if the Secretary has anything to add. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have nothing to add. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): Most brownfield operations involve the trading industry, port business and logistics activities, such as using brownfield sites for storage of containers, heavy machinery, prefabricated building components, and as parking spaces and maintenance yards for heavy vehicles.


All these are components of the supply chain of the whole logistics industry. Although the Government has taken on board our suggestion and is planning to accommodate some brownfield operations into multi-storey buildings, many of these activities cannot be performed in multi-storey compounds. As brownfield operations involve economic activities, and their contribution to socio-economic development is affirmed, I would like to ask the Government: Will a relocation policy be formulated before developing brownfield sites in the future, such as relocating brownfield operations before clearance? If so, what are the details; if not, what are the reasons for that? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, with regard to the points raised by Mr YICK just now in his supplementary question, the Government fully realizes, understands and agrees with what he said. As there are now many different types of economic operations on brownfield sites, consideration has to be given to providing the required operating space for such operations when these sites are developed. Hence, with Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area as a pilot area, the Government has already commissioned a consultancy study to explore various ways to make more effective use of land resources. As pointed out by the Member just now, the study will examine the feasibility of integrating brownfield operations and accommodating them in multi-storey industrial buildings or other compounds, thereby releasing brownfield sites on an extensive scale. The relevant work is now led by the Development Bureau, and of course with the participation from the Transport and Housing Bureau since some of these brownfield operations fall under the policy portfolio of the Transport and Housing Bureau, such as those involving port back-up and vehicle maintenance. The inter-departmental working group of the Government will first conduct studies on various aspects, and then formulate different measures accordingly to work out arrangements for different kinds of operations. A report to the Council will definitely be made after a mode to handle the matter has been worked out, and liaison with members of the industry will certainly be maintained during the process. MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, when replying to the question concerning first-time home buying families, the Secretary focused mainly on assisting such families with the provision of subsidized sale


263

flats, HOS flats in particular, and he even cited the Interim Scheme to illustrate his points. Let me put aside the side effect of the Interim Scheme for the time being because as we all know, applications received greatly outnumbered HOS flats put up for sale under the Interim Scheme, thus creating a considerable number of luxury HOS flats which were sold at sky-high prices. Yet, it seems that the Secretary's reply has failed to address the needs of some middle-class families which are not eligible for applying for public rental housing or HOS flats. The Secretary mentioned just now that when the Government raised the AVD rate to 15% on 4 November, exemption arrangements have already been made for first-time home buyers to assist them to achieve home ownership. However, I hope the Secretary would understand that property prices are now sky-high. Even though the costs in "soy sauce" remain unchanged, the price of the "chicken" is so high that nobody can afford to buy that "chicken". This is the problem currently faced by families which are not eligible for applying for public rental housing or HOS flats. Although they have a keen aspiration for home ownership, property prices are beyond their affordability, especially the down payment … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, please raise your supplementary question as soon as possible. MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): I am about to ask my supplementary question. Although the Secretary said that housing supply would increase steadily, it will still be of no help to first-time home buying families if property prices are still on the high side. Has the Government formulated any policy to assist such first-time home buying families to achieve home ownership? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, with regard to the measure announced last Friday to raise the AVD rate to 15%, arrangements have already been made to exempt property buyers who are not beneficial owners of any other residential property so that instead of subjecting their transactions to the new AVD rate of 15%, stamp duty will be chargeable at the lower AVD rates. The exemption seeks to cater for the needs of local home buyers. Therefore, consideration has been given and importance


has been attached to this point in the introduction of the specific demand management measures. I understand that under the global context of ultra-low interest rates and abundant liquidity, high property price is not a phenomenon unique to Hong Kong, and as we can see, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom also face the same challenge. We certainly realize that the situation is particularly difficult for some classes of people in Hong Kong, and have therefore endeavoured to build an effective housing ladder by increasing the supply of subsidized sale flats, such as HOS flats or flats under the current Green Form Subsidized Home Ownership Pilot Scheme, with a view to making it easier for these people to achieve home ownership. People may think that property prices are still very high, but it is our hope that assistance would be rendered to home buyers through an effective housing ladder so that their housing needs could be met. I am aware that such efforts may not be sufficient to fully meet the demand of different classes of people, but this is what the Government has striven to do in this respect. MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Chief Executive has repeatedly claimed that the approach of "working on the easier tasks first and the more difficult ones later" has been adopted in taking forward the development at Wang Chau, but there are still a lot of misunderstandings about the issue. As a matter of fact, apart from Wang Chau, the development of brownfield sites in many parts of the New Territories has also encountered certain difficulties, especially the needs of resolving the relocation problem of various operations on these sites. In order to address public concerns over these development plans, will the Bureau explain more specifically the details of such plans, such as the standard workflow and time frame of developing brownfield sites, the interaction with the relevant stakeholders, the projects underway which involve the development of large brownfield sites, and so on, and undertake to enhance the transparency of these plans? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I hope Members would understand that the overall policy or arrangements concerning the development of brownfield sites are not within the policy portfolio of the Transport and Housing Bureau. In the current incident of development at Wang Chau, we have focused our reply on matters concerning the


265

residential or public housing development on the relevant brownfield sites. As for the wider issues raised by Mr LAU, we reckon that it may be more appropriate to follow them up on other occasions or at meetings of relevant Panels, and I hope Deputy President and Members would understand this. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There are still six Members waiting to ask their supplementary questions, but we have already spent more than 22 minutes on this question. Last oral question. Problems related to damage claims lodged by torture claimants in respect of unlawful detention 6. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in March 2014, the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") held that, on the basis of the circumstances of the case, a person convicted of overstaying in Hong Kong had been "unlawfully detained" for part of the period for which he was placed, after serving his sentence, under administrative detention by the Director of Immigration Department pursuant to the Immigration Ordinance, and the person was entitled to claim damages for unlawful detention. It is learnt that since the handing down of CFA's judgment, the number of damage claims for unlawful detention lodged by torture claimants has soared. As at February this year, the District Court had a backlog of about 730 such claims. In addition, in August this year, a District Court judge pointed out in his judgment that 450 cases of such claims were handled by the same law firm and 212 of them were granted legal aid. The judge questioned the sources of funding for the claimants who had not been granted legal aid in their institution of proceedings, and warned that the court would not hesitate to refer any such cases to the authorities for investigation if there was evidence to show that they involved champerty. The judge also pointed out that as the claimants of some cases appeared to be economic migrants and their claims had a low success rate, the relevant proceedings should not be commenced at all. The judge also said that a copy of the judgment would be sent to the Director of Legal Aid for reference and consideration. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) in respect of the aforesaid cases involving the institution of proceedings by claimants who had not been granted or who had not applied for legal aid, whether the authorities will take the initiative


to investigate if the legal services provided by the law firm concerned involved champerty;

(2) in the light of the situation in which 212 claim cases granted with

legal aid were handled by the same law firm, whether the authorities will review the existing declaration system to ensure that in nominating lawyers to act as their legal representatives, the aided persons have not agreed to share with any person any damages or costs which they may be awarded at the close of the proceedings; and

(3) given that the cumulative number of non-refoulement claims to date

has exceeded 11 000, whether the authorities have assessed if there will be a further surge in the number of claim cases related to unlawful detention; whether the Legal Aid Department ("LAD") will review if the threshold for approving legal aid applications lodged by claimants is too low; if LAD will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the question straddles different bureaux and departments, and the Government's consolidated reply is as follows:

(1) Generally speaking, upon receipt of a complaint, the Police will assess the merits of each case as to whether any criminal activity is involved so as to decide whether investigation should be pursued. If the court, in the course of handling cases before it, proactively requests the Department of Justice to refer a complaint to the Police for investigation, the Police will follow up according to the law upon receipt of such referrals.

(2) Legal aid services form an integral part of the legal system in Hong

Kong. The policy objective of legal aid is to ensure that all those who comply with the regulations of the Legal Aid Ordinance ("LAO") (Cap. 91) and have reasonable grounds for pursuing or defending a legal action in the courts of Hong Kong will not be denied access to justice due to a lack of means. To qualify for legal


267

aid, a person is required to satisfy both the means test and merits test as provided by the LAO.

For legal aid cases, as a measure to combat improper touting or

champerty activities and to prevent aided persons' nominations being affected by improper conduct of lawyers, the Legal Aid Department ("LAD") introduced a declaration system for legal aid applications in September 2013 after consulting the Legal Aid Services Council ("LASC") and the two legal professional bodies. The system seeks to ensure that nominations of lawyers are made out of aided persons' own free will and they have not agreed to share with any person(s) (including nominated lawyers or their employees, agents or claims agents) any damages, property and costs which they may recover in the proceedings.

LAD will remind legal aid applicants to report to LAD staff in case

they are approached by any person claiming to offer assistance in applying for legal aid or suggesting nomination of a particular lawyer. Aided persons may contact and consult LAD if they need advice on the choice of legal representatives.

Moreover, LAD has maintained communication with the two legal

professional bodies to prevent improper touting in legal aid cases. A clear message has been conveyed to the public through publicity and education that any improper conduct of assigned lawyers will be taken very seriously by LAD.

Regarding the situation where a certain number of damages claims

granted with legal aid have been assigned to the same law firm, it is believed to be related to LAD's past arrangements in assigning legal aid cases to lawyers.

Section 13 of LAO provides that the Director of Legal Aid ("DLA")

may act for an aided person through legal aid counsel or assign any lawyer in private practice selected from the Legal Aid Panel by either DLA or the aided person. LAD has devised a set of criteria on the assignment of legal aid cases which have been endorsed by LASC and uploaded onto LAD's website.


Regarding assignment of legal aid cases to lawyers in private practice, in light of legal advice and precedent cases, when an aided person nominates by himself/herself lawyer pursuant to section 13 of LAO, LAD takes the view that the nomination should be given due weight and should not be rejected unless there are compelling reasons. Compelling reasons include unsatisfactory past performance of the nominated lawyer, disciplinary action taken against the nominated lawyer by regulatory body, or language requirements of the proceedings which are likely to undermine the aided person's interest in the proceedings and/or to jeopardize the legal aid fund; or the aided person has made repeated or late requests for change of lawyer without reasonable grounds. Therefore, some lawyers did take up a higher number of legal aid cases in the past.

LAD has, since 2013, gradually tightened up compliance with the

limits on the number of assignments handled by a lawyer and the cumulative amount of legal aid fees payable as stipulated in the Manual for Legal Aid Practitioners. Strict enforcement of the assignment limits has now been extended to cover civil and criminal cases of all categories. When considering nominations of lawyers, if the number of cases assigned to a nominated lawyer has exceeded the limit, LAD will ask the aided person to select another panel lawyer.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption completed a study

on LAD's assignment system for lawyers and experts in early 2015 and the Corruption Prevention Advisory Committee recommended that LAD should review, in a timely manner, the system for assignment of legal aid cases, including the current limits on the number of cases handled by a lawyer in private practice. LAD is further reviewing the limits on the number of assignment of legal aid cases and will consult LASC in due course.

(3) The Court of Final Appeal ruled in March 2014 that the detention

powers exercised by the Immigration Department ("ImmD") is subject to the common law Hardial Singh principles, i.e. a person may be detained only for a period that is reasonable to effect removal. What constitutes a reasonable period depends on the circumstances of the case. Some past cases that did not fully


269

comply with the said principles may constitute "unlawful detention". According to ImmD's record, since 2008, 1 288 claims for damages on the ground of "unlawful detention" have been lodged against ImmD. ImmD has already implemented a number of measures to ensure every decision on detention meets with the above ruling, including making and publishing detention policies to set out factors that ImmD may consider in determining whether a person should be detained, and reviewing each detention case regularly. When there are particular changes in the circumstances of the case, ImmD would decide whether to continue with detention. If ImmD decides to detain or continue to detain a person, reasons will be provided to him in writing. These practices ensure the legality of detention decisions. We believe the chance of another influx of damages claims is low.

LAD has all along adopted a set of stringent and objective criteria in

processing all legal aid applications. All legal aid applications are processed by legal aid counsel of LAD. As with processing cases of other categories, LAD will, when conducting the merits test for non-refoulement cases, investigate and examine the background, evidence available and legal principles applicable so as to determine whether legal aid should be granted. LAD must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds or points of law involved for which it is desirable to grant legal aid to enable the matter to be submitted to the court for judgment before granting a legal aid certificate.

For individual applications, if the case documents demonstrate

strong grounds for taking proceedings or issues raised are already covered by previous judgments or advice given by the court for similar cases, legal aid may be granted to applicants who have passed the means test. For applications involving complicated issues of law, LAD may, pursuant to section 9(d) of LAO, seek independent legal advice from practising counsel on the merits of such applications.

Regarding legal aid applications in respect of damages claims for

unlawful detention, LAD will continue to process each case in accordance with the requirements of LAO to see if both the means test and merits test as provided by LAO are satisfied, thereby


ensuring that only cases with reasonable grounds are granted legal aid.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the cumulative number of non-refoulement claims, including torture claims, has already exceeded 10 000, and I believe that most of the claimants are bogus refugees who are making use of all means to prolong their stay in Hong Kong. Obviously, some law firms are providing assistance to them, and it is very likely that champerty is involved. Despite the many mechanisms just mentioned by the Secretary, it seems that such mechanisms are unable to resolve the abuse problem. We have already seen many strange and unreasonable situations. For instance, it is highlighted in the court judgment that although most of these claims, including those cases granted with legal aid, had a very low success rate, they could still pass the merits test. Another example is the assigning of over 200 cases to the same law firm by LAD. Instead of assigning all the cases to one firm, why did it not allow other law firms to handle these cases? Besides, in another case, the court criticized the legal aid counsel for preparing a large amount of useless documents and that was a waste of public money. These reflect that misconduct of legal aid counsel does not only happen in individual cases. However, why does the Government allow the occurrence of this kind of incidents? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr QUAT, please raise your supplementary question. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is: Do these situations reflect the existence of serious loopholes in the system? Will the Government review and improve the system as soon as possible in order to thoroughly resolve the problem? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will answer this supplementary question? Secretary for Home Affairs, please reply.


271

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in regard to Dr QUAT's supplementary question, first of all, if the judge has already given certain views on the merits of the case, and if the judge has made certain instructions or referral requests, I believe that the authorities concerned will certainly take follow-up actions. Concerning the overall screening principles of the legal aid system, basically, as I stated in the main reply, all legal aid cases, including applications lodged by non-refoulement claimants, have to go through both the means test and merits test, and each case has to be processed by LAD under a stringent system. As regards the success rate of legal aid cases in the past, it was as high as 90% for civil cases as a whole. Dr QUAT can rest assured that overall speaking, the screening procedures of the entire legal aid system are very stringent. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on the question of bogus refugees, at present, we can only see that the incentives have not been reduced, the law and order is still unsatisfactory while social pressure is still heavy. It is because the Government is using Hong Kong people's money to hold Hong Kong people back. The Secretary's reply just now is in fact a cliche to us. It has totally failed to respond to people's concern about the one-stop services available to bogus refugees when they arrive in Hong Kong, including the large number of cases likely to be handled by certain law firms as mentioned earlier. On the other hand, according to government figures at present, LAD needs to employ 500 additional lawyers to handle more cases. However, in the whole process, it has not told us how the number of such cases can be reduced in the future. In fact, when the incentives are still there, the number of these cases will only be ever increasing. If we increase the manpower at this juncture, although we can solve the problem … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG, please raise your supplementary question as quickly as possible. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): … Therefore, we hope that the Government, no matter which Secretary―in fact, we hope that the Secretary for Security can give us a response―can tell us whether it will set a cut-off date


which we have been proposing. After handling this batch of cases, the authorities should adopt a new approach to deal with other bogus refugees coming to Hong Kong so as to reduce the incentives. Besides, in regard to these legal aid one-stop services, the authorities should have adopted the approach of public hospitals in the first place. They cannot allow monopoly by a certain law firm. Instead, law firms should line up for cases to be assigned so that these 10 000 cases can be resolved as soon as possible. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG has raised a series of question. Given the instruction of Deputy President, I will try to answer briefly. First of all, concerning the employment of lawyers, the Government has to execute the court judgment and all these non-refoulement claimants can receive legal assistance which, however, is different from legal aid that we discussed earlier. We provide legal assistance to them through the Duty Lawyer Service. In assigning cases to lawyers, they also have certain rules under which cases are assigned to lawyers by rotation. As I recall, there was an appeal case taken to the High Court on whether a certain lawyer could be assigned to handle a certain case, and on which the court has also made a very clear explanation. In the second part of the question, Dr LEUNG is concerned that there is quite a number of―actually quite a large number of―claimants in Hong Kong. We all understand the gravity of this issue, but we also have to deal with it in accordance with law. Therefore, apart from setting up a task force under the Bureau to study and deal with this issue, we have also set our major direction. For example, seeing that a vast majority of claimants are illegal immigrants, early this year, we started to take long-term joint operations with related Mainland authorities on combating the smuggling of illegal immigrants. As shown in the figures, there is a big drop in the number of non-refoulement claimants who have successfully arrived in Hong Kong through illegal means. Besides, we will of course handle our work on hand as soon as possible, and this will involve various aspects. For example, we need to look at the allocation of manpower resources to ImmD for undertaking various screening work, for example, can we increase the quota of cases handled through the Duty Lawyer Service? Do we have sufficient adjudicators on our independent Appeal Board to hear the appeals lodged by claimants who are not satisfied with the results? We are currently dealing with all these issues, and have already decided to brief Members on this issue at a meeting of the Panel on Security to be held on


273

the day after tomorrow. With the pardon of the Deputy President, I am not going to dwell on the details any longer. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as we understand, we have allocated a funding of around $644 million to this torture claim mechanism in this financial year. According to some press reports, there is champerty in certain law firms, as among the 730 claims for damages from the Government, 450 cases of such claims were handled by the same law firm. As the Secretary highlighted in the main reply, LAD will remind torture claimants to report to LAD in case they are approached by any person claiming to offer assistance in applying for legal aid or suggesting nomination of a particular lawyer. Deputy President, this is a big joke indeed. If the torture claimants are colluding with the law firms, will they report to LAD? I think the Government has to adopt some pro-active means. For example, will they … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please raise your supplementary question. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): … take the initiative to investigate whether these law firms are engaging in illegal activities like champerty? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will answer this supplementary question? Secretary for Home Affairs, please reply. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the problem mentioned by Mr CHAN is that some law firms have handled or have been assigned with a large number of cases, and this situation is not desirable. Hence in 2013, we conducted a review and made some amendments designed to tighten the enforcement of the system under which the number of legal aid assignments handled by a lawyer is capped at 45 civil cases and 30 criminal cases respectively. After tightening the enforcement of the above system for more than two years, the number of cases handled by the same lawyer has been substantially decreased as compared with the figure in the past. We will further


review the system in due course to see if the caps should be further lowered. We are currently working on this. If there is any result, we will, as soon as possible, submit it to LASC for consideration and report to Members. Therefore, we will continue with this aspect of work. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question, as he only mentioned some follow-up measures. My question is: Will he investigate into the case in which the law firm concerned was assigned 450 cases to see if this involves champerty? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can you directly answer this follow-up question raised by the Member? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the case is now being tried by the court. At present, the judge is talking about some non-legal aid cases. We are therefore waiting for referrals by the judge. As far as I know, no referral has been made for the moment. If there is, the authorities concerned will take appropriate actions. MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): As Mr CHAN just highlighted, under the current LAD system or the Duty Lawyer Service, some applicants can select their own lawyers. My question is: Regarding this procedure and the system under which the number of assignments handled by a lawyer is mandatorily capped or the waiting list arrangements as mentioned by the Secretary earlier, are these the arrangements that are being reviewed by the authorities? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, under the existing system, section 13 of LAO provides that an aided person can select his own lawyer, and this is clearly stipulated in the law. When the aided person selects his lawyer from the Legal Aid Panel, we will strictly adhere to the requirement about the maximum number of assignments for each lawyer. Therefore, we may not grant our permission if the number of assignment for a lawyer has reached certain level. When the number of assignments handled by


275

that lawyer has reached the cap, we will not accede to the applicant's request for that lawyer. However, we will still allow the applicant to select other lawyers. MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): As regards the implementation of measures like examining the existing … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms YUNG, you can only raise a follow-up question on the part of your supplementary question raised earlier which has not been answered by the Secretary. MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): This is related. Concerning what was mentioned earlier … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You cannot raise a new supplementary question. MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): … This is not a new supplementary question. I just want the Secretary to implement the legal declaration system that he mentioned earlier and to add some punitive provisions to forestall favouritism. Besides, can the system concerning the cap be implemented effectively? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, these measures are being implemented. We will also conduct reviews in due course. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 23 minutes on this question. Although there are still four Members waiting for their turn to ask questions, they can only follow up this issue on other occasions. Oral questions end here.


WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Provision of interpretation services and public services for the ethnic minorities 7. MR ANDREW WAN (in Chinese): President, regarding the provision of interpretation services and public services for the ethnic minorities ("EMs"), will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows the number of interpreters currently hired by (i) the Hospital Authority ("HA") and (ii) subvented organizations commissioned by the Government to provide interpretation services; if it does, of a breakdown by name of organization; whether it has assessed if such organizations have sufficient manpower to provide interpretation services (including telephone interpretation and on-site interpretation); if it has assessed and the outcome is in the negative, whether the authorities will consider allocating additional resources to such organizations, with a view to enabling them to provide more expeditious and appropriate interpretation services;

(2) whether it knows the respective current situations of telephone

interpretation service and on-site interpretation service provided for EMs by public hospitals and clinics under HA, government departments and public organizations (including the Integrated Family Service Centres and the Social Security Field Units under the Social Welfare Department);

(3) for how long EMs currently have to wait in general before they are

provided with telephone interpretation service and on-site interpretation service respectively; if such information is not available, of the reasons for that; whether the various government departments will consider including in their performance pledges the maximum waiting times for telephone interpretation service and on-site interpretation service; if they will, of the implementation plan; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) given that the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau

("CMAB") has formulated the Administrative Guidelines on


277

Promotion of Racial Equality ("the Guidelines") to provide guidance for various bureaux, government departments and public organizations with a view to providing equal opportunities for EMs to access public services, quite a number of EMs have relayed that when they requested government departments to provide them interpretation services in order to use public services, they were repeatedly turned down by the departments concerned for various reasons, of the criteria currently adopted by the authorities for determining whether a government department has to provide telephone interpretation service for EMs;

(5) as CMAB reviewed the operation of the Guidelines in 2014 during

which various bureaux, government departments and public organizations gave a positive response to the implementation of the Guidelines, and a number of them indicated that they had put in place new measures to assist EMs, whether the authorities will upload the review report onto government websites for public access in the light of public concern about the operation of the Guidelines; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(6) given that quite a number of EMs living below the poverty line are

unable to complete application forms because they do not understand Chinese and English, rendering them unable to benefit from the various poverty alleviation measures provided by the Government for the needy, whether the six support service centres for EMs and two sub-centres currently provide any service to assist EMs in completing application forms; if not, whether the authorities will include the provision of such service in awarding new contracts for service centres; if they will, of the implementation plan; if not, the reasons for that; and

(7) given that some EMs have relayed that their unemployment problem

is serious and that the Labour Department has set up the Selective Placement Division dedicated to providing free employment placement and recruitment services for persons with disabilities and their prospective employers, whether the authorities will set up a similar employment services division for EMs?


SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, after consulting the relevant responsible departments, the consolidated reply to the question raised is as follows:

(1) to (3) Various government bureaux and departments ("B/Ds") of the Hong

Kong Special Administrative Region have been providing services to meet the needs of the ethnic minorities ("EMs") under their respective policy areas, with a view to helping them integrate into society. The B/Ds concerned will provide suitable assistance to EM service users according to these users' practical needs, including interpretation services, thereby ensuring their equal access to public services.

The Home Affairs Department ("HAD") has commissioned the Hong

Kong Christian Service to run the Centre for Harmony and Enhancement of Ethnic Minority Residents ("CHEER"). The services provided by CHEER also cover general interpretation and translation services, including telephone interpretation and enquiry services, on-site interpretation and written translation services. At present, there are 15 EMs working in CHEER responsible for providing a variety of key services, including interpretation and translation services. Telephone interpretation and enquiry services may be provided instantaneously, but on-site interpretation service is only available by appointment. The services provided by CHEER have been operating smoothly and there is currently no plan to increase its manpower.

The use of CHEER's telephone interpretation and enquiry service

and on-site interpretation service in the past five years are as follows:

Year

Telephone Interpretation and Enquiry Service

On-site Interpretation Service

Total number of

usage

Number of usage by B/Ds

and public organizations

Total number of

usage



2011-2012 3 304 384 462 343 2012-2013 3 369 380 515 463


279

Year

Telephone Interpretation and Enquiry Service

On-site Interpretation Service

Total number of

usage



Total number of

usage



2013-2014 2 872 366 497 415 2014-2015 2 667 365 621 601 2015-2016 3 206 618 701 664

As CHEER is one of the interpretation and translation service

providers that B/Ds and public organizations could choose to engage, the above figures do not represent the total amount of interpretation services provided to the EMs. If government departments need to procure outside interpretation services, they may do so in accordance with the Stores and Procurement Regulations based on their practical requirements.

Interpretation and translation services in specialized areas do not fall

within the service scope of CHEER. As different B/Ds and public organizations may have different requirements on the interpretation and translation services to be provided, they may engage appropriate service providers directly to assist the EM service users depending on the practical situations.

Interpretation services covering 18 EM languages are provided for in

public hospitals and clinics under the Hospital Authority ("HA") primarily through a service contractor, the HKSKH Lady MacLehose Centre ("the Centre"), part-time court interpreters and relevant consulates. At present, the Centre employs more than 70 interpreters who have all received training in medical-related knowledge as well as communication skills.

Moreover, the HA has also formulated guidelines for its staff on the

procedures of arranging interpretation services. HA staff will arrange on-site or telephone interpretation services according to the needs of each case or at the request of patients. To ensure the quality of the interpretation service, the HA also pays close attention


to the users' comments and feedback. According to previous questionnaire surveys conducted by the HA, users are generally very satisfied with the interpretation services provided in hospitals and clinics.

Regarding the service units of the Social Welfare Department

("SWD"), they will arrange interpretation services, including on-site and telephone interpretation services, in EM languages (e.g. Bahasa Indonesia, Hindi, Nepali, Punjabi, Tagalog, Thai and Urdu) for those in need, and the operation has generally been smooth so far. In August 2016, SWD issued a "Points-to-note for providing welfare services for EMs" ("Points-to-note") to its service units (including Integrated Family Service Centres and Social Security Field Units) as reference in providing services to the EMs. The Points-to-note contains information on the cultural and living habits of the EMs and how to arrange suitable interpretation and translation services, etc. It also reminds the staff to make known to the EMs their right to receive interpretation and translation services. A notice on "Assistance and interpretation services for ethnic minorities" in EM languages is also included in the Points-to-note for display at the reception of SWD's centres to inform visiting EMs of the channels to acquire social welfare services and interpretation services.

(4) and (5)

Relevant government bureaux, departments and public authorities

are responsible for, within their respective policy and programme areas, the implementation of the Administrative Guidelines on Promotion of Racial Equality ("the Guidelines") issued by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau in 2010. They are also required to draw up checklists of measures that would assist in promoting racial equality and equal access to key public services to enhance the transparency of their work. The relevant departments will draw up and issue updates on the contents of the checklists according to their respective programme areas and where necessary. The checklists contain contact information of relevant departments and have been uploaded onto the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau website.


281

The scope of application of the Guidelines covered 14 departments in 2010 and has now been extended to cover 23(1). The Government will keep the scope, coverage and implementation of the Guidelines under review as appropriate, and share among departments effective measures to facilitate experience sharing and enhance the effectiveness of the Guidelines.

(6) The HAD has commissioned non-profit-making organizations to

operate six support services centres and two sub-centres for EMs to provide services such as conversation classes, induction programmes and mutual aid groups, etc. to facilitate EMs' integration into the community. The centres also help government departments promote to EMs public services and allowances by, for example, holding briefing sessions on newly introduced social services and setting up temporary consultation counters in the centres, etc. If necessary, staff of the centres also provides translation services for EMs and assist them in contacting the relevant departments for enquiries. However, as personal data of the applicant and his/her family members are usually required in the application for public services and allowances, the HAD considers it inappropriate for the staff of the centres to complete application forms for the applicants. As a result, the centres do not provide this service, and the HAD does not have any plan to include such service in future contracts.

(7) The Labour Department ("LD") has been providing dedicated

services to cater for the employment needs of EMs. It operates 13 job centres across the territory to facilitate the use of employment services by job seekers (including EMs) living in various districts. All job centres provide dedicated employment services such as special counters, resource corners and employment briefings for EM job seekers. LD has also made arrangements with non-governmental organizations to provide simultaneous

(1) The 23 B/Ds and public authorities are the Education Bureau, SWD, Labour Department,

HAD, Employees Retraining Board, Vocational Training Council, Food and Health Bureau, Department of Health, HA, Construction Industry Council, Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, Innovation and Technology Commission, Office of the Communications Authority, Housing Department, Hong Kong Observatory, Post Office, Legal Aid Department, Hong Kong Police Force, Correctional Services Department, Customs and Excise Department, Immigration Department, Fire Services Department and Registration and Electoral Office.


interpretation services for EM job seekers who speak neither Chinese nor English.

Furthermore, in order to strengthen the employment services for

EMs, LD has implemented the Employment Services Ambassador ("ESA") Programme for EMs since September 2014. Trainees of the Youth Employment and Training Programme who can communicate in EM languages are engaged as ESAs to help EM job seekers make use of various job search facilities and services at job centres, industry-based recruitment centres and job fairs. EM job seekers may also meet employment officers at job centres to receive personalized employment advisory service. Employment officers familiar with local employment market and proficient in English will provide EM job seekers with job search advice and employment information on the basis of their individual needs and preferences, and match them to suitable jobs. In tandem, LD has been making continuous efforts to canvass and disseminate vacancies suitable for EMs and organize inclusive job fairs to enhance their employment opportunities.

LD will continue to provide dedicated employment services suited to

the needs of EM job seekers in different districts through the existing network of job centres, which offer comprehensive services with the support of EM ESAs.

Use of government premises for the operation of self-financing post-secondary programmes 8. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Chinese): President, in February this year, the Government invited applications from non-profit-making educational institutions which offered self-financing full-time locally accredited programmes at sub-degree level or above to rent two government premises at a nominal rent for the operation of their programmes. The Government subsequently received applications from 10 institutions. The Education Bureau announced on 22 September that on the recommendation of the Vetting Committee for the Allocation of Sites and Start-up Loan for Post-secondary Education Providers ("Vetting Committee"), it had decided to lease the two government premises to the Community College of City University ("CCCU") and Yew Chung Community


283

College ("YCCC") for the reprovisioning of their existing campuses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows the considerations based on which the Vetting Committee recommended to lease the aforesaid two government premises to CCCU and YCCC; and

(2) as CCCU announced in 2014 that it had formed an alliance with the

University of Wollongong in Australia ("UOW") for the operation of self-financing programmes at associate degree, degree and taught master's degree levels, etc. under the management of UOW, and that it planned to let UOW lead the management of the college after a five-year transitional period, whether the authorities know if the Vetting Committee took into account the development plans of the institutions applying for renting government premises when vetting and approving their applications; how the authorities ensure that the institutions which have been given approval for renting government premises will use such premises for operating self-financing local programmes?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the Government is committed to providing quality, flexible and diversified study pathways with multiple entry and exit points for secondary school graduates. To promote the healthy and sustainable development of the self-financing post-secondary sector, the Government has introduced the Land Grant Scheme ("LGS"), under which suitable land sites and vacant government premises are identified and provided to self-financing non-profit-making post-secondary institutions at nominal premium or at nominal rent as appropriate for the provision of self-financing locally-accredited local and/or non-local post-secondary programmes. A total of 11 land sites and eight government premises have been allocated under the LGS since its introduction in 2002. Our reply to Dr KWOK's question is as follows:

(1) and (2) All local and non-local non-profit-making post-secondary

institutions which are established or registered under relevant ordinances in Hong Kong and offer self-financing locally-accredited


local and/or non-local post-secondary programmes in Hong Kong are eligible for the LGS.

In the latest round of LGS, two government premises in Tai Wai and

Aberdeen respectively were launched for application from eligible institutions for reprovisioning purpose to enhance teaching quality and improve students' learning experience. All applications were assessed by the independent Vetting Committee for the Allocation of Sites and Start-up Loan for Post-secondary Education Providers ("Vetting Committee") against a set of criteria, which include the applicants' experience in providing post-secondary education, the nature and quality of programmes to be offered, the projected student enrolment, facilities to be provided, the implementation plan and the financial arrangements. After detailed examination of all the applications, the Vetting Committee recommended that the Community College of City University ("CCCU") and the Yew Chung Community College be earmarked as the prospective operators for the government premises in Tai Wai and Aberdeen respectively for reprovisioning their existing campuses. The Vetting Committee's recommendation has been accepted by the Secretary for Education.

The Vetting Committee is fully aware of the development plan of the

CCCU in examining its application. According to its proposal, the CCCU plans to move into the new campus in Tai Wai in 2021 and offer 13 existing associate degree programmes, which have already gone through the Learning Programme Accreditation by the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications ("HKCAAVQ"). Under the existing mechanism, these programmes are subject to Learning Programme Re-accreditation by the HKCAAVQ in future for maintaining the accreditation status.

All institutions allocated with government premises under the LGS

are required to enter into a Service Agreement and Tenancy Agreement with the Government to ensure that the premises concerned shall be used for the permitted purpose.


285

Competitiveness of Hong Kong 9. MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Chinese): President, regarding the competitiveness of Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that three authoritative international research institutions (i.e. the World Economic Forum ("WEF"), the Z/Yen Group and the International Institute for Management Development in Lausanne, Switzerland ("IMD")) published this year their global competitiveness reports one after another, and Hong Kong's ratings as well as rankings in such reports varied from the first to the ninth place, whether it has explored why Hong Kong's rankings vary quite significantly among such reports; whether it has reviewed and targetted the items on which Hong Kong has obtained relatively lower ratings in the reports and introduced new policies to enhance Hong Kong's competitiveness in respect of such items; if it has not, of the reasons for that;

(2) given that as indicated in the Global Competitiveness Report

2016-2017 published by WEF on 29 September this year, Hong Kong's overall ranking in 2016-2017 in the Global Competitiveness Index has dropped to the ninth place, and Hong Kong's rankings in the aspect of innovation in the past three years were all lower than the 25th place, whether the Government has, in light of the report, studied ways to enhance Hong Kong's capacity for innovation; if it has not, of the reasons for that; and

(3) given that albeit IMD's ranking Hong Kong as the world's most

competitive economy in the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2016 published in May this year, the Yearbook mentions at the same time that except Hong Kong and Singapore, the rankings of other Asian economies have all dropped as compared with those in the year before, whether the Government has studied the overall economic outlook of the economies in Asia and reviewed if such an outlook would affect the long-term economic development of Hong Kong; if it has studied and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the new corresponding measures the Government has in place; if it has not studied, the reasons for that?


SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government attaches great importance to the enhancement of Hong Kong's competitiveness, in order to adapt to the world's ever-changing economic environment and secure the healthy development of Hong Kong's economy in the long term. Having consulted the Economic Analysis and Business Facilitation Unit, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, and the Innovation and Technology Bureau, my consolidated reply to the three parts of the question is as follows: Study reports on competitiveness The research foci of the three reports mentioned in the question vary considerably. The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report and the International Institute for Management Development's World Competitiveness Yearbook ("WCY") focus primarily on assessing the overall competitiveness of economies. The former puts a greater emphasis on innovation when measuring the competitiveness of developed economies; while the latter assigns a balanced weighting scheme to its four competitiveness factors, namely "economic performance", "government efficiency", "business efficiency" and "infrastructure". Given Hong Kong's long-standing comparative advantages in robust institutional framework and facilitative business environment, our performance in the WCY is relatively better in general. Meanwhile, the Government stays committed to enhancing Hong Kong's competitiveness in innovation and technology ("I&T"), details to be set out in ensuing paragraphs. As for the Global Financial Centre Index compiled by the Z/Yen Group, the primary focus lies in assessing the competitiveness of the financial sector in various cities. According to that Index, Hong Kong as well as London, New York and Singapore continue to be world leading financial centres. The focus of the index is significantly different from those of the two other competitiveness reports, and it is therefore hard to draw direct comparison between them.


287

Economic trends in the Asian Region and the Impact on Long-Term Development of Hong Kong's Economy Economic ties between Hong Kong and other regions of Asia are close, and the Government has continuously monitored the economic trends in Asia and their impacts on the Hong Kong economy. Regarding the performance of Asian economies in WCY 2016, certain economies saw a visible drop in their rankings, while others showed some improvement. Competitiveness rankings of economies are determined by an array of factors and indicators, with some indicators more prone to cyclical fluctuations. Therefore, the short-term changes in competitiveness rankings should be interpreted with these considerations in mind. Different economies in Asia are at different stages of economic development, with diverse performances each year. Yet, in overall terms, the emerging market economies in Asia are buttressed by sound fundamentals and relatively resilient domestic demand. The paces of economic growth in recent years, though somewhat slower when compared to preceding periods, were still much faster than those of advanced economies and their peers in other regions. Add to that the large size of population, Asia possesses promising market potential. Meanwhile, the differences across economies provide opportunities for economies to complement each other, and the competitiveness of the region as a whole could be lifted through closer economic integration. Hong Kong is well-positioned to leverage on Asia's economic strength in moving towards a high value-added, knowledge-based economy. Measures to strengthen Hong Kong's competitiveness The Government adopts various measures to strengthen the overall competitiveness of Hong Kong. Apart from continuing to expand and strengthen the four pillar industries where Hong Kong enjoys an advantage, we are also determined to develop the local I&T and creative industries, etc., in order to drive the upgrading and transformation of our overall economic structure, and encourage the diversified development of Hong Kong's economy.


Innovation and Technology Following the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau in November last year, the Government has invested over $18 billion to formulate a series of initiatives with a view to fostering I&T development in Hong Kong in multiple aspects, including: increasing basic infrastructure for research and development ("R&D"); funding universities in conducting midstream research and commercializing R&D results; promoting "reindustrialization"; subsidizing the industry's adoption of technology to upgrade and transform; supporting start-up developments; nurturing R&D talents; and funding projects that make use of I&T in improving the people's daily living. Among the initiatives, the $2 billion Midstream Research Programme for Universities and the $500 million Technology Voucher Programme will be introduced within this year. Besides, the $2 billion Innovation and Technology Venture Fund and $500 million Innovation and Technology Fund for Better Living are expected to be rolled out in the first half of next year. The implementation of these measures should help to enhance Hong Kong's competitiveness in I&T. Financial Services Hong Kong is an open and vibrant international financial centre with a wide range of products and expertise as well as a sound financial infrastructure and regulatory framework. The Government has been implementing measures to enhance Hong Kong's competitiveness as an international financial centre, including broadening our legal framework and improving the tax environment, strengthening our asset management platform and corporate treasury services, enhancing mutual market access, as well as deepening our offshore Renminbi business. Application of financial technologies ("Fintech") can enhance operational efficiency of the financial services industry, and has the potential of transforming traditional products and processes to further strengthen the competitiveness of Hong Kong's financial industry. As an international financial centre with a highly developed information and communication technology sector, Hong Kong is an ideal place for both financial institutions and start-ups to develop Fintech business.


289

To support Fintech development, the Financial Secretary announced in his 2016-2017 Budget a range of relevant measures. The Government, our financial regulators and stakeholders are also collaborating closely to implement measures to promote Fintech development in Hong Kong, including:

- The Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA"), the Securities and Futures Commission and the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance have established their respective dedicated Fintech liaison platforms to enhance communication with the industry. The platforms are tasked to handle enquiries from the Fintech sector and provide information on related regulatory requirements to companies engaging in financial innovation to enhance the industry's understanding of the regulatory environment in Hong Kong;

- The HKMA introduced the "Cybersecurity Fortification

Initiative" and "Fintech Supervisory Sandbox" to enhance the cyber resilience of the banking sector and facilitate the pilot trials of Fintech and other technology initiatives of authorized institutions before they are launched on a fuller scale;

- The HKMA will set up a Fintech Innovation Hub with the Hong

Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute to provide a neutral ground for market participants such as banks and payment service providers for exploratory and experimentation stage Fintech research and development work so that industry-wide Fintech solutions can be developed more timely and efficiently;

- Cyberport launched, in April, the first phase of its dedicated Fintech

space in its Smart-Space co-working space, and its designated incubation programme will offer support to 150 Fintech start-ups over the next five years; and

- Invest Hong Kong has set up a dedicated Fintech team to attract and

assist Fintech start-ups, investors and R&D institutions to establish in Hong Kong, as well as organize international Fintech events including the first Hong Kong Fintech Week on 7 to 11 November.


Creative Industries The Government supports the further development of creative industries. The Government injected an additional $400 million into the CreateSmart Initiative in May 2016 and will accord priority, where appropriate, to those programmes which nurture start-ups and talents, as well as promote Hong Kong designers and brands, etc. The Government will also expand the scale of the Design Incubation Programme to admit 90 incubatees within three years from 2016-2017 to help new and emerging designers develop. In addition, the Government is gradually rolling out fashion-related pilot measures. These measures include boosting promotion of local fashion design and brands, providing technical training and support for the trade, and launching the Fashion Incubation Programme which is expected to incubate 15 fashion design companies within three years from 2016-2017. The Government will continue to foster the development of the film industry, including encouraging more local film production, nurturing new talents, expanding audiences and promoting the Hong Kong film brand. The Government has further injected an additional $200 million into the Film Development Fund ("FDF") last year, implemented measures to enhance the Film Production Financing Scheme to support the small-to-medium-budget film productions, and launched the Film Production Grant Scheme to provide low-budget film productions with cash subsidies. The Government also continues to implement the First Feature Film Initiative to nurture talent for the film industry. Furthermore, the Government further injected an additional $20 million to the FDF in June 2016 to enhance support for Hong Kong-produced Cantonese films to tap into the Mainland market. The Economic Development Commission The Economic Development Commission ("EDC"), established in 2013 and led by the Chief Executive, has been studying how to make the best use of Hong Kong's prevailing advantages and opportunities, conducting in-depth discussions on the visionary direction of the overall strategy and policy to broaden our economic base and enhance our long-term development, and identifying industries which present opportunities for Hong Kong's further economic growth, with a view to recommending policies and other support measures for facilitating the sustained development of the industries concerned.


291

The four Working Groups under the EDC (namely the Working Group on Transportation, the Working Group on Convention and Exhibition Industries and Tourism, the Working Group on Manufacturing Industries, Innovative Technology, and Cultural and Creative Industries, and the Working Group on Professional Services) have submitted to the EDC specific recommendations on promoting the sustained development of the relevant industries, which were endorsed by the EDC and accepted by the Government. The Government is progressively implementing the recommendations and expects EDC to submit further specific recommendations. Provision of interpretation services for the ethnic minorities 10. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Chinese): President, recently, a number of members from the ethnic minorities ("EMs") have sought my assistance. They say that quite a number of government departments (including the Hong Kong Police Force, Customs and Excise Department, Immigration Department, Social Welfare Department and Labour Department) and public organizations (including public hospitals and clinics) have failed to provide adequate interpretation services for EMs. As a result, non-Chinese/English speaking EMs have encountered difficulties in areas such as employment, education and access to public services. On the other hand, in 2010, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau issued the Administrative Guidelines on Promotion of Racial Equality ("the Guidelines") to provide guidance to the relevant policy bureaux, government departments and other public authorities so as to promote racial equality and ensure EMs' equal access to public services in key areas concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of government departments which employed in the past three years interpreters to assist their staff in communicating with EMs, and set out by department the languages of EMs involved;

(2) whether the authorities will step up their support for public

organizations in respect of the provision of interpretation services for EMs; if they will, of the details; if not, how the authorities ensure that public organizations provide adequate interpretation services for EMs who use their services; and


(3) since the review of the Guidelines in 2014, whether the authorities have reviewed afresh the effectiveness of the Guidelines; if they have, of the outcome of the review in respect of the provision of interpretation services for EMs, and the details of the relevant improvement measures; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, after consulting the relevant responsible departments, the consolidated reply to the question raised is as follows:

(1) and (2) At present, various government bureaux and departments ("B/Ds")

of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region each provide suitable support services to meet the practical needs of the ethnic minorities ("EMs"), such as provision of interpretation services, publication of service pamphlets in EM languages and recruitment of EM services ambassadors, etc., so as to ensure their equal access to public services.

If Government departments need to procure outside interpretation

services, they may do so in accordance with the Stores and Procurement Regulations based on their specific requirements. Among them, the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") has commissioned the Hong Kong Christian Service to run the Centre for Harmony and Enhancement of Ethnic Minority Residents ("CHEER"). The services provided by CHEER also cover general interpretation and translation services, including telephone interpretation and enquiry services, on-site interpretation and written translation services. At present, there are 15 EMs working in CHEER responsible for providing a variety of key services, including interpretation and translation services. Telephone interpretation and enquiry services may be provided instantaneously, but on-site interpretation service is only available by appointment. The services provided by CHEER have been operating smoothly and there is currently no plan to increase its manpower.


293

Interpretation and translation services in specialized areas do not fall within the service scope of CHEER. As different B/Ds and public organizations may have different requirements on the interpretation and translation services to be provided, they may engage appropriate service providers directly to assist the EM service users depending on the practical situations.

(3) Relevant government bureaux, departments and public authorities

are responsible for, within their respective policy and programme areas, the implementation of the Administrative Guidelines on Promotion of Racial Equality ("the Guidelines") issued by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau in 2010. They are also required to draw up checklists of measures that would assist in promoting racial equality and equal access to key public services to enhance the transparency of their work. The relevant departments will draw up and issue updates on the contents of the checklists according to their respective programme areas and where necessary. The checklists contain contact information of relevant departments and have been uploaded onto the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau website.

The scope of application of the Guidelines covered 14 departments

in 2010 and has now been extended to cover 23(1). The Government will keep the scope, coverage and implementation of the Guidelines under review as appropriate, and share among departments effective measures to facilitate experience sharing and enhance the efficacy of the Guidelines.

(1) The 23 B/Ds and public authorities are the Education Bureau, Social Welfare

Department, Labour Department, HAD, Employees Retraining Board, Vocational Training Council, Food and Health Bureau, Department of Health, Hospital Authority, Construction Industry Council, Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, Innovation and Technology Commission, Office of the Communications Authority, Housing Department, Hong Kong Observatory, Post Office, Legal Aid Department, Hong Kong Police Force, Correctional Services Department, Customs and Excise Department, Immigration Department, Fire Services Department and Registration and Electoral Office.


Pilot Earn and Learn Scheme for Retail Industry 11. MR HO KAI-MING (in Chinese): President, the Government, the Vocational Training Council ("VTC") and the Hong Kong Retail Management Association ("HKRMA") jointly launched in 2014 a Pilot Earn and Learn Scheme for the Retail Industry ("the Pilot Scheme") to provide student-workers with an opportunity to "earn and learn" as well as a well-defined progression pathway, aiming to attract talents to join the retail industry. In respect of the Foundation Diploma ("FD") programme under the Pilot Scheme, the first cohort of student-workers graduated in March this year and the second cohort will graduate in February next year. Upon graduation, if the student-workers are to become full-time employees of the same employer as during the training period, they will be entitled to a monthly income of not less than $11,000, which includes basic salary and commission. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows the number of graduates in the first cohort of the FD programme, and among such graduates, the number of those who are at present still employed by the same employer as during the training period;

(2) whether it knows the total number of positions offered to the

graduates in the first cohort of the FD programme by the employers participating in the Pilot Scheme; among such positions, the respective numbers of those with a basic salary of more than and less than $11,000 per month; among the positions with a basic salary of less than $11,000 per month, the respective numbers of those with a basic salary of less than $5,000, between $5,000 and $7,000, between $7,001 and $9,000, and more than $9,000;

(3) whether it knows the number of the second cohort of student-workers

studying in the FD programme; the total number of confirmed positions to be offered to such student-workers by the employers concerned; among such positions, the respective numbers of those with a basic salary of more than and less than $11,000 per month; and


295

(4) regarding the steering group comprising representatives from VTC, HKRMA and the Government, of the details of its work in monitoring the operation and progress of the Pilot Scheme over the past two years; whether the steering group will consider inviting trade union representatives to join the group so as to enhance its communication with trade unions in the industry; if the steering group will, when such invitation will be extended; if not, of the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, to alleviate the manpower tightening problem of the retail industry, the Government launched in 2014 three measures for its manpower development. As one of these measures, the Earn and Learn Pilot Scheme for the Retail Industry ("the Pilot Scheme"), implemented by the Vocational Training Council ("VTC") in partnership with the Hong Kong Retail Management Association ("HKRMA"), enables Secondary Six graduates to attend classes on campus while acquiring work experience with participating employers and receiving a Government allowance of $2,000 per month. It aims to ease the manpower strain of the retail industry and attract aspiring youngsters to join the retail workforce. My reply to the various parts of Mr HO's question is as follows:

(1) The first cohort of student-workers of the Foundation Diploma ("FD") programme under the Pilot Scheme, 161 in total, graduated in March this year. The VTC plans to conduct a total of three post-graduation tracking surveys over a period of two years to follow their situation. The first survey was launched in August this year, with responses received from 86 graduates by mid-October representing a response rate of 53%. An interim analysis of these responses is given below.

Among the respondents, over 40% (35 respondents) have joined the

retail workforce, with half of them (17 respondents) employed by the companies that have provided them with the internship placements and the other half (18 respondents) by other retail companies. Nine respondents have pursued a career in industries other than retail, while 31 respondents are taking higher diploma or associate degree


courses in other disciplines or considering further studies. The remaining 11 respondents have yet to decide on a definite path they wish to take. The VTC will follow up with those graduates who have not yet responded to encourage them to return the questionnaires. The VTC plans to conduct the remaining two tracking surveys in the third quarter of 2017 and 2018 respectively.

(2) As pointed out in the funding proposal for the Pilot Scheme

submitted to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, employers will offer a salary of no less than $11,000 per month, which may include basic salary, commission and allowances, to the graduates of the FD programme if they become full-time employees of the companies that have provided them with the internship placements.

According to the above interim analysis, 17 of the respondents are

now employed by companies that have provided them with the internship placements, with eight of them being full-time and nine being part-time employees. All of the full-time employees are receiving a salary of no less than $11,000 per month, which includes basic salary, commission and allowances. Their average basic salary is over $9,300.

(3) As at mid-October this year, there are 104 student-workers in the

second cohort of the FD programme under the Pilot Scheme. It is expected that they will complete the programme in February 2017. Same with the arrangement for the first cohort of graduates, employers will offer a salary of no less than $11,000 per month, which may include basic salary, commission and allowances, to these graduates if they become full-time employees of the companies that have provided them with the internship placements. As the student-workers of the second cohort have yet to complete the programme and decide on their paths after graduation, we are unable to provide employment information as such for the time being.

(4) The Government will continue to monitor the operation and progress

of the Pilot Scheme, particularly the working conditions of graduates joining the retail industry, through a steering group comprising representatives from the Government, the VTC and the HKRMA.


297

For over two years since the Pilot Scheme was implemented, the steering group has advised on such areas as course arrangements, ancillary learning support and internship placements for students, and the comments were then followed up by the VTC and the HKRMA. The steering group is of the view that the Pilot Scheme is generally running smoothly, and it will continue to closely monitor the learning and placement arrangements for student-workers as well as their situation after graduation. In addition, the VTC keeps abreast of the developments of the retail industry through the Retail Trade Training Board ("RTTB"), which comprises stakeholders of the retail industry (including employee representatives of the industry), so as to ensure that the VTC's vocational and professional education and training can meet the anticipated manpower requirements of the industry. The RTTB has been advising the VTC on curriculum development, course planning and quality assurance issues, including following up on the implementation of the Pilot Scheme on a regular basis. The RTTB acknowledged the positive impact of the Pilot Scheme and considered it conducive to nurturing new talents for the industry. It also noted that the internship placement of student-workers had inspired improvement in the existing staff's attitude towards continuous learning.

We will do our best to implement and improve the Pilot Scheme and

provide graduates with a clear articulation and career ladder, which will help inject new impetus into the retail industry and enhance its professional service standards.

Support for Internet learning for students from grass-roots families 12. DR LAU SIU-LAI (in Chinese): President, as revealed by the findings of a survey conducted earlier on, the amount of subsidy provided under the Subsidy Scheme for Internet Access Charges ("SIA") is insufficient to meet Internet access charges. As a result, the relevant grass-roots families have to pay almost $100 per month out of their own pockets to cover the shortfall. Moreover, quite a number of the families surveyed have indicated that they cannot afford the costs for repair or replacement of their computers, and 10% of such families have not purchased any computer, resulting in the students of these families being unable


to undertake Internet learning at home. There are comments that such a situation would result in a "digital divide", making the students of grass-roots families unable to enjoy equal learning opportunities when compared with other students. Regarding the support for Internet learning for students of grass-roots families, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether aided kindergartens and primary and secondary schools are required to install, for use by their students, computers of such a number which is no less than a particular percentage of the number of students; if so, of the details;

(2) whether it has compiled statistics on the respective average numbers

of computers installed in each aided kindergarten, primary and secondary schools for use by their students, as well as the respective average daily usage rates; if it has; of the details;

(3) of the current number of computers installed in each public library

for public use, and the average daily usage rate of such computers; (4) of the respective current public expenditure and manpower involved

in the various Internet learning support programmes provided for students from grass-roots families (including SIA and the "i Learn at home" programme); whether the authorities will take measures to further encourage schools to allow needy students to use the school computers to finish their homework relating to Internet learning;

(5) given that the amount of subsidy for Internet access charges has

been increased by $100 for the 2016-2017 school year, but the adjusted amount, as revealed in the aforesaid survey, is still below the amount actually needed, of the mechanism for the adjustment of the subsidy and whether it will make improvements to the mechanism; whether it will adjust the amount of the subsidy upward to an amount actually needed so as to alleviate the financial burdens of grass-roots families and, at the same time, provide other subsidies for grass-roots families to meet expenses on repair and purchase of computers; if it will, of the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and


299

(6) given that when they launched the Internet Learning Support Programme ("ILSP"), the authorities estimated that 410 000 students from 300 000 eligible families would benefit from ILSP in the 2011-2012 school year and an additional 112 000 students from 82 000 families would benefit from ILSP in the following four years, but some organizations have pointed out that for five years since ILSP's implementation, only 10 889 computers were purchased and 13 427 cases of Internet connections were set up under ILSP, which accounted for only a very small proportion of some 340 000 students from grass-roots families, indicating that ILSP has a very low utilization rate and cannot meet the needs of grass-roots families, whether the authorities will comprehensively review ILSP to ensure that ILSP can meet the needs of grass-roots families?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, (1) and (2)

The Education Bureau has been implementing various strategies on IT in education with the goal of unleashing the learning power of our students to learn to learn and to excel through realizing the potential of IT in enhancing interactive learning and teaching experience. To enhance student's learning effectiveness, we have been encouraging teachers to use the right technology at the right time in adopting different pedagogies and learning activities flexibly in accordance with the different learning goals and contents of subjects. Therefore, we have not specified any number of computer facilities and computer to student ratio for schools. Schools should take into account their own school circumstances, such as curriculum planning and actual teaching arrangements, in determining the amount of computer facilities required. We provide a recurrent Composite Information Technology Grant ("CITG") to all public sector schools every year to meet the diversified needs of schools on e-learning. Under the principle of school-based management, schools can flexibly deploy their CITG or other resources as appropriate to upgrade and replace their schools' computer facilities. We do not have any statistics on the number of computer facilities in schools.


(3) The Leisure and Cultural Services Department currently provides over 1 870 computer workstations with Internet connection at 69 static libraries for users to access the libraries' multimedia and digitized resources, e-books and online databases, as well as other online resources on the Internet, to facilitate their seeking of information, leisure reading and self-learning. Depending on the positioning, floor area and scope of services of different libraries, the number and function of the computer workstations provided in the libraries vary. Around 5 349 000 user requests for the computer workstations were recorded in 2015, accounting a total average usage rate of the concerned facility at about 70%.

(4) and (6)

The "Internet Learning Support Programme" ("ILSP" in short, also known as "i Learn at home" programme) is implemented by the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer ("OGCIO"). It was launched in the 2011-2012 school year with a funding of $220 million approved by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council in 2010. ILSP aims to assist (i) families receiving the flat-rate grant for School-related Expenses under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance scheme, or (ii) families passing the means test of the Student Finance Office, to acquire affordable Internet access service and computer equipment, and to provide target families with training and technical support.

Regarding the acquisition of computer equipment, the non-profit-making social welfare organizations responsible for implementing ILSP provide affordable computer equipment, including desktop, notebook and tablet computers, monitors and printers, for purchase by eligible families. These offers, which include maintenance service for a period ranging from one to three years, are generally more economical as compared to the market prices. The implementers also make available computer purchase through payment by instalment for families with financial difficulties. Usage and technical support services, including free technical advice and free checking of computer equipment are also provided under ILSP. All participating families, including those


301

who have not acquired computer equipment through ILSP, can enjoy these free support services.

OGCIO has commissioned non-profit-making social welfare organizations to implement ILSP. As at October 2016, the total expenditure was $133 million. OGCIO considers that the lower-than-expected take-up rate of ILSP was due to the changes of the social environment in recent years, including the increase in IT knowledge of students and their parents, and the continuous increase of Internet penetration rate among low-income households. Some of the families have already acquired computer equipment and Internet access and hence do not have the pressing need to use the services provided by ILSP.

Following the mid-term review of ILSP in 2013, a number of refined arrangements have been launched. These include bringing in more diversified and economical Internet access services and computer equipment, and strengthened technical support services. As a result, the service take-up of ILSP has continued to improve. As at 31 August 2016, a total of 306 000 services were delivered since its launch in July 2011. In the 2015-2016 school year, 86 400 services were provided to eligible families, representing an increase of more than one fold in comparison with the 39 300 services in the 2012-2013 school year, i.e. the school year prior to the mid-term review. Among the refined services, there was a strong demand for technical support services and Internet access services by service recipients. The utilization of these two services in the 2015-2016 school year were 34 500 and 4 700 times respectively, representing a substantial increase in comparison with the 5 800 and 1 600 times in the 2012-2013 school year.

Based on the survey conducted by the Census and Statistics Department in 2015, the Internet adoption rate for students from low-income families reached 95.2%, which was roughly on par with that of the mainstream students at 96.7%. The findings reflect that ILSP has helped narrowing the gap in respect of usage of information and communications technology between students from low-income families and their mainstream counterparts. Eligible families, who had used the services, were very satisfied and


considered ILSP useful in helping students undertaking web-based learning. According to the user satisfaction survey conducted in early 2016, over 90% of the respondents were satisfied with the overall service performance of the implementers.

With endorsement from the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting of the Legislative Council, OGCIO has extended ILSP for two years until the 2017-2018 school year. OGCIO has also stepped up the promotion of ILSP and actively promoting it to teachers and social workers so that eligible families can learn about it via different channels. The monthly fees of the broadband services offered for the 2016-2017 school year is more economical as compared with that of the 2015-2016 school year. For example, the monthly fee for household broadband service of 100 Mbps is adjusted to $98 per month ($129 for the same service in the 2015-2016 school year). OGCIO will continue to refine the programme services where appropriate in light of service demand and the latest development of IT in Education.

Besides, Education Bureau all along encourages schools to make good use of their computer facilities to address the after-school learning needs of students, such as extension of opening hours of schools' computer facilities.

(5) To assist students from low-income families to access the Internet

for learning, the Social Welfare Department and the Student Finance Office have implemented the "Subsidy Scheme for Internet Access Charges" ("SIA") to provide cash subsidy on a household basis to eligible families to relieve their financial burden of providing Internet access for their children to undertake web-based learning at home. In the 2015-2016 school year, the expenditure of SIA is about $214 million, with subsidies disbursed to over 190 000 families.

According to the mechanism approved by the Legislative Council Finance Committee, the rate of SIA is reviewed annually with reference to the prevailing market prices of Internet access services, including those offered by the two non-profit-making organizations under ILSP, so as to reflect the latest market situation and to allow


303

the families to flexibly use the subsidies to acquire Internet access services that can best meet their needs. In the 2016-2017 school year, the full subsidy rate for each eligible family has increased from $1,300 to $1,400 while the half subsidy rate has increased from $650 to $700, which can well cover the Internet access services (ranging from $900 to $1,176 annually) under ILSP.

Enforcement actions against breaches of land lease conditions in industrial buildings 13. MR NATHAN LAW (in Chinese): President, since April 2014, the Development Bureau has implemented a series of measures to revitalize old industrial buildings, with the aim of "encouraging owners to revitalize industrial buildings by ways of redevelopment and wholesale conversion" to better utilize vacant industrial building units, so as to release more space for use by small and medium enterprises as well as arts, culture, sports and charity organizations. Owners of industrial building units intending to use their units for uses other than those permitted under the lease must first apply to the Lands Department ("LandsD") for temporary waiver permitting the intended use. If the application is approved, the applicant is required to pay a waiver fee and an administrative fee, and accept other terms stipulated in the waiver. However, some tenants of industrial building units consider that such revitalizing measures have minimal effects and have instead fuelled speculations in industrial buildings. On the other hand, LandsD has commenced the risk-based enforcement actions against breaches of land lease conditions in industrial buildings since 29 August this year in the wake of the No. 4 alarm fire at an old industrial building in Kowloon Bay in June this year. However, quite a number of tenants of industrial building units have criticized LandsD for being excessively stringent in law enforcement and ambiguous about the criteria for enforcement actions, causing worries among such tenants that they will be forced to move out of the industrial building units at any time. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that a survey conducted in late February 2015 by LandsD on temporary waiver applications revealed that there were then approximately 1 000 valid temporary waivers applicable to industrial building units, of the respective original uses and approved new uses of those units, with a tabulated breakdown of the


numbers of such cases by category of their approved new uses; the procedures and criteria adopted by LandsD for vetting and approving applications for temporary waivers;

(2) given that LandsD charges fees for temporary waivers and the

standard rate for industrial building units of Group B uses (i.e. uses other than those for residential purposes but excluding hotels; Group B uses cover those offices and operations that involve the direct provision of customer services or goods to the general public) in the urban area and Tsuen Wan/Kwai Tsing was $308/square metre ("m2") per annum in 2003, of the reasons why LandsD doubled the rate to $650/m2 in 2014; whether LandsD has assessed if such a move has dampened the desire of owners of industrial building units to apply for temporary waivers and has hence deviated from the policy intent of the measures to revitalize industrial buildings; if LandsD has, of the details, and whether LandsD will provide more incentives for application for temporary waivers, including lowering the fee rates to a level affordable to tenants, so as to better utilize industrial building units;

(3) given that some tenants of industrial building units who had placed

television sets and sofas in their units were issued warning letters by LandsD for suspicion of using the units for domestic purposes, whether LandsD has assessed if such an enforcement force is excessively stringent; whether LandsD has formulated guidelines on the enforcement actions for compliance by enforcement officers; if LandsD has, of the details of the guidelines, and whether LandsD will make public such guidelines; if not, whether LandsD will formulate such guidelines expeditiously, and collect and take on board the views of tenants of industrial building units and other stakeholders when formulating the guidelines;

(4) given that many non-profit-making organizations renting industrial

building units have received warning letters one after another, whether enforcement officers are required to consider the social and cultural values inherited in the uses of the units concerned when taking enforcement actions;


305

(5) whether the authorities have set up an inter-departmental meeting or working platform on ways to promote social functions, such as culture, sports and community services, etc., and included the related policies in their consideration of the policy regarding industrial buildings, so as to enable those tenants of industrial building units who cannot afford the rentals of commercial buildings but are engaged in businesses beneficial to the development of Hong Kong to rent industrial building units at reasonable rentals, thereby putting Hong Kong's land resources to more effective use for the development of local industries such as those related to culture, sports, design, etc.; and

(6) whether LandsD will consider suspending the aforesaid enforcement

actions for one year and consult the affected owners and tenants of industrial buildings before resuming the enforcement actions; if LandsD will not, of the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government has all along been encouraging and supporting the development of cultural, sports and community activities. Whilst the Development Bureau will endeavour to increase land supply, it will also continue to coordinate with the policies of the Home Affairs Bureau and help provide space necessary for arts, cultural, sports and community activities through planning and other appropriate measures as long as they are in compliance with statutory and public safety requirements. Having consulted Home Affairs Bureau, my reply is as follows: (1) and (2)

Whether an industrial building unit used for the purposes of arts, cultural and sports purposes is in breach of the land lease depends on the actual operation and the lease conditions of the relevant lot. If the land lease stipulates that the lot shall only be used for "industrial" or "industrial and/or godown" purpose, arts, cultural and sports uses are in general in breach of the land lease, but owners may apply to the respective District Lands Offices ("DLOs") under the Lands Department ("LandsD") for a temporary waiver or lease modification permitting the intended use. In processing the applications, DLOs will consult the relevant departments including


the Planning Department ("PlanD") and the Fire Services Department ("FSD"). If the intended use complies with the requirements of the town plans and/or obtains the necessary planning permission, DLOs will, depending on the comments received, consider in the capacity of the landlord whether to issue a temporary waiver or modify the lease conditions to approve the use. If the application is approved, the applicant will have to pay a waiver fee/land premium and an administrative fee, and accept other terms and conditions stipulated in the modification letter and waiver.

As outlined in the question, LandsD conducted a survey on the number of temporary waivers in February 2015. As there were over 1 000 waivers, LandsD does not have readily available information on the breakdown of the uses of all waivers.

Since its introduction in 2003, the standard rate of waiver fees has been reviewed and adjusted annually by LandsD in light of the prevailing transaction records of market rental and related property price indices to reflect changes in market rental values. The standard rate applicable in 2014-2015 as mentioned in the question was also adjusted in accordance with the aforementioned mechanism. The level of a waiver fee reflects the increase in land value brought about by the waiver of lease restrictions. It is determined in a fair and reasonable manner under the usual and established land policy adhering to the contractual spirit of the lease, unless a relevant bureau, based on policy considerations, introduces a fee waiver/concessionary scheme in respect of an individual trade or a specified use, so as to facilitate the conversion of an industrial lot or an existing industrial building to specified uses.

(3) When handling suspected cases of lease breaches, staff at DLOs of

LandsD will, according to the uses permitted by the land lease and other conditions, consider whether the premises are in breach of the lease conditions by comparing the information collected (including the information provided by the occupiers of the unit, the inspection report on the environment and facilities on-site and other circumstantial evidence available to DLO staff). The question claims that LandsD suspected some industrial building units were


307

being used for domestic purposes because television sets and sofas had been placed therein by the tenants. This piece of information does not fully reflect other on-site and circumstantial evidence collected by DLO staff on these cases. As the lease conditions involved and the uses identified on-site in each case are not exactly the same, DLO staff have to take into consideration the actual operation of each use, and seek legal advice where necessary to determine whether there is any breach of lease conditions governing the lot concerned.

(4) and (6)

A land lease is a private contract signed between the Government and a land owner. The land owner is required to ensure that the use of the land is in compliance with the lease conditions and that breaches are rectified. Those who use industrial building units should also pay attention to the user restrictions stipulated in the land lease. In fact, those in search of premises for running their businesses should first consider whether the uses of the premises are in compliance with the lease and the requirements of relevant legislation. They should seek legal advice when necessary, lest losses be incurred eventually as a result of choosing premises in breach of the lease and the requirements of the relevant legislation.

On 15 July 2016, the Government announced the risk-based enforcement arrangements against lease breaches in industrial buildings, targeting units in breach of the lease matching two conditions: (i) there are other premises in the same industrial building currently issued with Licences for Manufacture and/or Storage of Dangerous Goods ("DGLs") by FSD; and (ii) the uses attract the flow of people.

LandsD will adopt a stringent approach and take measures to re-enter units in these cases which pose a higher risk, with a view to urging the parties concerned to rectify the breaches as soon as possible. The regulatory arrangements aim at protecting the safety of members of the public accessing the units, because such conditions will pose an obvious risk to those accessing the industrial buildings but are unfamiliar with the setting.


As for other categories of lease breaches in industrial buildings, LandsD will continue with its current arrangement: namely, DLOs will, in general, issue a warning letter to the owners requiring that the breach of uses be purged within 28 days. If the breach is not rectified upon expiry of the warning period, DLOs will register the warning letter at the Land Registry (i.e. commonly known as "imposing an encumbrance"), and reserve the right to take further lease enforcement action in the future. In other words, the risk-based enforcement arrangements are by no means an across-the-board measure for handling cases in breach of the lease by re-entering units. The target of lease enforcement is not to strike a blow against any individual industry either. In fact, regarding the concern raised by Mr Nathan LAW about arts, cultural and sports uses, for lease breaches of uses not attracting the flow of people (such as self-occupied cultural/creative workshops), or breaches involving the flow of people but the industrial building has no premises currently issued with DGLs by FSD, they are not currently targeted for stringent enforcement action.

(5) In considering ways to optimize the use of land resources in Hong

Kong, including the relaxation of non-industrial uses in industrial buildings, the most important principle is that the proposed measures would not constitute significant fire safety risk. At present, industrial activities including those involving storage of dangerous goods are still found in many industrial buildings. Fire safety risk would be increased if activities attracting large flow of people are held in these industrial buildings. We have to be cautious in handling the issue. Development Bureau will continue to coordinate with the policies of Home Affairs Bureau and help provide space necessary for arts, cultural, sports and community activities through planning and other appropriate measures as long as they are in compliance with statutory and public safety requirements. Home Affairs Bureau had explored the feasibility of accommodating visual arts workshops in industrial buildings with FSD, PlanD and LandsD. After several rounds of discussions, the concerned departments agreed to include "Art Studio" (excluding those involving direct provision of services or goods) as an always


309

permitted use in industrial-office buildings in "Industrial", "Other Specified Uses (Business)" and "Residential (Group E)" zones. As of mid-October 2016, 12 outline zoning plans ("OZPs") have been amended accordingly. PlanD will make similar amendments to other OZPs in future when suitable opportunities arise.

Development of a smart city 14. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, the Government commenced in 2015 a study on developing Hong Kong into a smart city. The Chief Executive stated in the 2016 Policy Address that the Innovation and Technology Bureau would, in collaboration with research institutions and public and private organizations, study the development of a smart city. The Government told this Council in June this year that a consultancy study on the smart city development blueprint ("consultancy study") would commence in the second half of this year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the name(s) of the organization(s) commissioned to conduct the consultancy study, the related consultancy fees and work schedule, and the progress to date of the study;

(2) whether the authorities have consulted the various government

departments concerned on the scope of the consultancy study; whether they will explore the feasibility and details of conducting inter-departmental joint projects;

(3) given that smart city development involves the collaboration between

public and private organizations on various fronts, of the criteria to be adopted by the Government for selecting its private sector partners, and how it ensures that the relevant selection criteria and procedures are in compliance with the principles of openness, impartiality and fairness;

(4) whether it has currently any plan to collaborate with certain private

organizations in developing a smart city; if so, of the details (including the model of collaboration it intends to adopt); and


(5) as the authorities have indicated that a dedicated portal will be set up in the initial stage of the consultancy study for collating inputs regarding the smart city from stakeholders and the public at large, how the authorities will handle these inputs; whether the authorities will provide other channels and incentives to encourage the public to provide inputs and suggestions and participate in the development of a smart city?

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, our reply to the different parts of the question is as follows:

(1) The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Limited in September 2016 to conduct a consultancy study for formulating a Smart City Development Blueprint for Hong Kong. The scope of the consultancy study covers policy objectives and strategy, development plans, governance arrangements, digital infrastructure, open data sharing and public-private collaboration model. The consultancy study is expected to complete in mid-2017 at a cost of about $5 million.

(2) to (5)

The consultancy company will consult stakeholders, including relevant bureaux and departments, on the development plans and recommendations pertaining to different areas of development of a Smart City. A dedicated website will also be developed for collection of views from various stakeholders and members of the public. The consultancy company will make reference to the views collected and put forward recommendations applicable to the Smart City Development Blueprint for Hong Kong, including inter-departmental cooperation projects and public-private collaboration model.

In the course of implementing Smart City projects, the Government will follow the established procedures and abide by the principles of impartiality and fairness. As the consultancy study has just started, the Government currently does not have any concrete plans regarding cooperation projects or collaboration model.


311

Efforts to combat crimes of cruelty to animals 15. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, the Government has implemented the Animal Watch Scheme since 2011 to step up cooperation among the relevant government departments and organizations in the joint combat against cruelty to animals. However, an animal protection organization has pointed out that incidents of animal abuse still occur from time to time. In the past three months, there were already more than 30 stray cats suspected to have been abused to death in To Kwa Wan. The organization is disappointed that after a long time, the Police have not arrested nor instituted prosecutions against the abusers involved in such cases. The organization has further pointed out that the relevant departments and organizations always passed the buck among themselves when dealing with cases of animal abuse. For example, the Police will open a case file and initiate criminal investigation only if a staff member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("SPCA") has concluded on the spot that the animal's cause of death is suspicious. However, SPCA is often unable to determine the animal's cause of death without first conducting an autopsy, and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") will conduct an autopsy only after the Police have opened a case file. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that extremely serious cases of animal abuse occur frequently in To Kwa Wan, whether the authorities will consider setting up a Crime Investigation Team in Kowloon City Police District to deal with such kind of cases;

(2) given that the cause of death of an animal whose carcass has no

visible injury may be found to be suspicious upon autopsy, how the Police and SPCA handle the animal carcasses seized by them; whether the authorities will consider handing over such animal carcasses to animal welfare organizations for them to arrange autopsies; if they will not, of the reasons for that;

(3) of the respective current roles and duties of the relevant government

departments and organizations (including the Police, AFCD, SPCA and veterinary associations) under the Animal Watch Scheme; whether the authorities have formulated guidelines and codes of practice on issues relating to the operation of the scheme; if they have, of the details, and whether they will review the effectiveness of the scheme; if they will, of the details;


(4) given that the Tai Lung Veterinary Laboratory ("TLVL"), Sheung Shui, under AFCD is currently the only laboratory providing official autopsy services, of (i) the number of laboratory rooms in TLVL, (ii) the time TLVL normally takes for conducting an autopsy, and (iii) the maximum daily number of animal carcasses autopsies TLVL can conduct;

(5) of the respective numbers of suspected cases of cruelty to animals in

the past five years in respect of which the Police received reports, opened case files for criminal investigation and instituted prosecutions; and

(6) given that quite a number of members of the public have relayed to

me that the existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) is more lenient than the relevant legislation in other jurisdictions, and is not effective in deterring animal abusers from inflicting cruelty to animals, when the authorities will commence work on reviewing and amending the legislation?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) ("the Ordinance") aims at combating acts of cruelty to animals. To enhance cooperation among various government departments and organizations concerned in this respect, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD"), in conjunction with the Hong Kong Police Force ("the Police"), the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong) ("SPCA"), set up an inter-departmental special working group in 2011 for forging closer cooperation and mutual support in handling animal cruelty cases. In the same year, the Police, together with AFCD, SPCA and veterinary associations, introduced the Animal Watch Scheme ("the Scheme") to strengthen efforts in tackling such cases. My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) According to the Police's record, its Hung Hom Division and SPCA received a total of 10 reports of cat deaths in the district from August to early October 2016. Investigation showed that nine of the cases did not involve any criminal element, and the deaths were mostly


313

caused by animal bites. All of the said cases were classified as "animal carcass found" cases.

The remaining case is being followed up by the crime investigation team of the Kowloon City District. The animal carcass involved was examined by the designated veterinary laboratory, and the death was preliminarily assessed to be caused by dog bites. Upon receipt of a detailed examination report from the veterinary laboratory, the Police will decide whether further investigation is needed. In view that the above cases may be connected with stray cats and dogs in the district, AFCD will take appropriate follow-up actions including inspections, capture and removal of stray dogs and cats in the district.

The Police will investigate all animal cruelty cases in a professional manner. To better enforce the Ordinance, the crime investigation teams in different police districts will be responsible for handling suspected animal cruelty cases. Depending on its manpower resources, nature of the cases, and any increase in the number of cases, individual police districts will assign dedicated teams to take follow-up investigation as necessary.

(2) If the cause of death of an animal is found suspicious by the Police,

the carcass concerned will be sent to AFCD's designated veterinary laboratory for examination. If the cause of death of the animal is determined on the spot to be not suspicious, the Police will inform FEHD to remove the carcass.

(3) The Police launched the Scheme in October 2011 in collaboration

with AFCD, SPCA and veterinary associations. The Scheme adopts a holistic approach by promoting wider public participation, strengthening the existing cooperation between agencies, and enhancing the professionalism of officers in the investigation and prosecution of such cases. Under the Scheme, relevant departments and organizations undertake their respective duties, with the Police and AFCD responsible for the investigation of animal cruelty cases. Information is exchanged regularly with SPCA. AFCD's dedicated team for animal management and welfare supports and complements


the work of other departments and organizations in the areas of education, intelligence gathering, publicity and investigation, and provides expert advice on animal cruelty cases. Where necessary, AFCD conducts post-mortem examination to find out the cause of animal deaths. SPCA provides medical service to maltreated animals and runs a 24-hour hotline to gather information on animal abuse cases from the public so as to assist the work of the law enforcement officers.

The Police reviewed the effectiveness of the Scheme in early 2016. All stakeholders consider that the Scheme has been operating well and is effective in combating animal cruelty. The Police will further review the Scheme whenever appropriate based on actual needs.

(4) There are 19 laboratory rooms in AFCD's Tai Lung Veterinary

Laboratory located in Sheung Shui. The laboratory conducts various kinds of tests and laboratory examinations, including post-mortem examination, bacteriological examination, serological testing and molecular biological testing. Since the time required for post-mortem examination is subject to animal types and case categories, as well as the number and types of tests required, the number of post-mortem examination carried out by AFCD varies daily.

(5) At present, the Police and AFCD can take enforcement actions under

the Ordinance depending on the circumstances. The numbers of animal cruelty reports received by the Police and prosecutions initiated by the relevant departments under the Ordinance in the past five years are set out in Annex. The Police does not keep statistics on cases filed for criminal investigation for the past five years.

(6) Under the Ordinance, any person who cruelly beats, kicks, ill-treats,

over-rides, over-drives, overloads, tortures, infuriates or terrifies any animal, or by wantonly or unreasonably doing or omitting to do any act, causes any unnecessary suffering to any animal commits an offence. The Government updated and substantially increased the penalty levels in 2006 to strengthen deterrence. The current


315

maximum penalty under the Ordinance is a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for three years. The definition of acts of cruelty to animals under the Ordinance is comparable to that adopted in some overseas jurisdictions (e.g. Singapore), and the maximum penalty under the Ordinance is heavier than that of our neighbouring regions (e.g. Singapore and Japan). The Government is of the view that the current penalty level can provide sufficient deterrence against acts of animal cruelty and has no plan to amend the penalty level stipulated in the Ordinance for the time being.

The Government considers that public education on responsible pet ownership is more important for safeguarding and promoting animal welfare. To this end, AFCD has established a dedicated team to disseminate the messages of animal care and responsible pet ownership. In the past year, AFCD conducted a series of educational and publicity activities, including broadcasting publicity messages in the media and holding talks in schools and local communities. Our efforts on this front will continue.

Annex

Numbers of animal cruelty reports received by the Police and prosecutions initiated by the relevant departments under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance

Year Number of reports received by the Police Number of prosecutions*

2012 63 19 2013 120 20 2014 77 29 2015 58 11 2016 (January to June) 32 4 Note: * Due to progress of investigation and other factors, the year of reports received and that of

prosecutions instituted by the Police may be different.


Enhancing the support and resources provided for disciplined services 16. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have relayed to me that Hong Kong is a very safe city, thanks to our professional and dedicated disciplined services. Besides, as Hong Kong is currently facing various challenges (problems such as riots and bogus refugees), it is necessary for the Government to expand the establishment of the disciplined services, enhance their accoutrements and improve their conditions of service, so as to boost staff morale. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that the current retirement age of most police officers is 55 and, with the onset of a wave of retirement in the Police Force in the coming few years, there will be a wastage of a large number of experienced police officers, whether the Government will consider dealing with the retirement age of police officers flexibly; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether it will allocate additional resources to the Hong Kong

Police Force for it to expand the establishment of the Police Force and procure additional accoutrements (e.g. the provision of body-worn video cameras for every police officer), so as to cope with the need of maintaining law and order; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) given that the work of firemen may involve complicated, urgent and

dangerous situations, whether the Government will establish for the Fire Services Department ("FSD") an independent grade structure and pay scale similar to those for the Police Force, and allocate to FSD corresponding resources; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) as some firemen have reflected that, due to manpower shortage in

FSD, they have to start performing duties after receiving professional rescue training for a compressed duration, whether the Government will allocate additional resources to FSD to ensure that firemen start performing duties only after receiving adequate professional rescue training; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;


317

(5) whether it will increase the manpower of FSD for setting up dedicated inspection teams to perform, as a precautionary measure, routine fire safety inspections; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(6) as there has been a significant rise in the number of non-refoulement

claims in recent years, which has increased the work pressure of the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre ("CPBIC"), the centre for detaining such claimants, coupling with the fact that repeated incidents of disturbances and fights occurred in CPBIC in the past, which has posed threats to the safety of the staff of the Immigration Department ("ImmD"), whether the Government will increase the manpower of CPBIC, and provide ImmD staff with adequate accoutrements and training, so that they can handle unforeseen incidents in an effective manner; whether the Government will allocate space to build detention centres for separate detention of claimants having committed crimes in Hong Kong and other claimants, with a view to facilitating the management work of ImmD staff; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(7) whether it will expedite the studies on amending the Weapons

Ordinance (Cap. 217) to put ImmD within the ambit of the Ordinance, with a view to facilitating ImmD staff in discharging their duties; if it will, of the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and

(8) given that quite a number of police officers, firemen and ImmD staff

have relayed that the departmental quarters provided by the authorities are in short supply, whether the Government will build more departmental quarters for the various disciplined services; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, the fact that Hong Kong remains one of the safest cities in the world is attributed to our professional disciplined services, which are strongly committed to their duties, highly dedicated and very diligent. The HKSAR Government has been supporting the work of the disciplined services in many aspects. The reply to Dr Elizabeth QUAT's question is as follows.


(1) The Police have formulated a detailed strategic human resources management plan to cope with the situation of natural staff wastage in the next few years. The Police will, based on their needs, adopt various measures on the extension of service of civil servants. Currently, the retirement age of all newly recruited police officers appointed on or after 1 June 2015 has been raised to 60. The Police will also engage retired police officers on contract terms where necessary to undertake ad hoc, time-limited or seasonal tasks. In addition, the Police will continue to process applications by police officers for final extension of service beyond retirement age, the maximum period of which has been raised to 120 days, in accordance with the prevailing mechanism. Besides, the Police will, based on their needs, deploy the mechanism that will be rolled out for further employment of civil servants beyond retirement age for a longer period.

In addition to the above initiatives, the Police will strengthen recruitment and training in order to manage manpower resources effectively and ensure the smooth operation of the Police.

(2) The establishment ceiling of the Police has in general been on the

rise over the past 10 years, from 32 482 posts in 2007-2008 to 34 081 posts in 2016-2017. The Police will continue to review from time to time their establishment according to their operational needs.

In respect of equipment, the Police have been regularly examining the equipment of police officers and will update and procure equipment if necessary. The scope of work of the review committee established by the Police after the Mong Kok riot also includes examining equipment. Indeed, the Police have already procured additional personal protective gear for front-line police officers to enhance the safety of police officers in their execution of duties, including helmets, goggles, protective gloves and protective boots, etc. The Police have also procured more Body Worn Video Cameras to enhance the capability in gathering evidence on scene.


319

(3) to (5)

The Fire Services Department ("FSD") has been providing high-quality fire-fighting, rescue and ambulance services to members of the community, which is of paramount importance to the public safety of Hong Kong. Fire and ambulance personnel also often discharge their duties under extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances.

The establishment ceiling of FSD has in general been on the rise over the past 10 years, from 9 319 persons in 2007-2008 to 10 462 persons in 2016-2017. FSD will continue to review from time to time its establishment according to its operational needs.

Adequate professional training is crucial to FSD's personnel in the discharge of fire-fighting, rescue and ambulance duties. FSD therefore reviews from time to time the programmes and contents of the prevailing professional rescue training to meet the needs of the community and tackle various safety hazards. The new Fire and Ambulance Services Academy has commenced operation in early 2016. With an area of 158 000 sq m, the new Academy was developed at a cost of over $3.5 billion and is equipped with advanced facilities, such as live fire training and professional training grounds, which can provide new recruits with better basic training and offer in-service members with more comprehensive training. This can help consolidate and augment their professional abilities to face new challenges brought by changes of the times. Furthermore, fire and ambulance personnel can receive training together in the new Academy, thus strengthening their coordination and response capability in handling incidents.

On fire prevention, FSD has been committed to abating fire hazards by carrying out fire safety inspections, taking necessary law enforcement actions and advising on fire prevention measures. Moreover, targeting various fire risks in the community, FSD has set up task forces for different fire safety problems to step up inspection in respect of suspected irregularities. In recent years, FSD has set up different task forces for different areas of fire prevention work


through creation of additional posts and internal redeployment of manpower.

The Government will, having regard to factors such as the overall fiscal position, policy priorities, as well as the actual needs of the departments, etc., provide the departments with the resources for handling ongoing and additional tasks as appropriate. As regards the proposal of establishing an independent grade structure and pay scale for FSD, the relevant bureaux and the FSD management will maintain communications with its staff.

(6) Since 2009, the Immigration Department ("ImmD") has from time to

time invited the Correctional Services Department ("CSD") to organize joint courses on detention centre management and tactical training for all the ImmD officers to be deployed to the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre ("CIC"). Moreover, CSD also provides the CIC officers with refresher tactical training four times each year, with a view to consolidating and strengthening their knowledge and competence for performing the job, as well as enhancing their management skills and response capability. Meanwhile, ImmD provides the personnel stationed at CIC with regular training courses, including fire drills, simulation and scenario training, resistance control, escort skills and use of relevant anti-riot equipment, etc. The HKSAR Government attaches great importance to the safety of front-line officers and daily management of CIC. The Government reviews the operation of CIC from time to time and will increase manpower where necessary. The Government will carefully consider the necessary manpower resources and relevant arrangements if there is a need to expand CIC's detention capacity or provide additional detention facilities.

(7) As part of the comprehensive review of the strategy of handling

non-refoulement claims, we will consider measures to strengthen ImmD's capability for detaining illegal immigrants (including non-refoulement claimants) and managing detention facilities, taking into account relevant legal, resources and security considerations.

(8) To alleviate the shortfall of departmental quarters, the Chief

Executive announced in the 2014 Policy Address that the


321

Government would expedite eight departmental quarters projects for disciplined services, aiming at providing more than 2 200 flats by 2020. On the other hand, to optimize the use of land resources, the Government has been striving to raise the plot ratio or relax the height restrictions of the sites for the provision of additional flats. The departments concerned will continue to closely keep in view the demand situation of departmental quarters and, at the same time, proactively take forward various departmental quarters projects.

Planning and development of lands in the New Territories 17. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Chinese): President, in connection with the planning and development of lands in the New Territories, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) in respect of Kam Tin South housing development,

(i) given that the authorities completed the Land Use Review for Kam Tin South and Pat Heung in April 2014, and the Chief Executive in Council approved the draft Kam Tin South Outline Zoning Plan in September 2016, of the reasons and the basis for the authorities not having conducted any public consultation on the project so far; the details of the procedures and guidelines to be followed by the authorities on conducting public consultations for the planning of new towns and major development projects, and set out the names of those projects for which public consultations were conducted in the past three years in accordance with the relevant guidelines; and

(ii) whether the authorities are going to adopt the Conventional

New Town Approach ("CNTA") (i.e. using public money to resume lands for development of the areas concerned) for implementing the project; if so, of the details; if not, whether the development under the project is required to observe the restrictions on rural residential density prescribed in paragraph 3.4.2 in Chapter 2 of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (i.e. "Zone 1 relates to a medium


rise residential block with up to 12 floors including at most two commercial lower floors. It is the highest density appropriate to non-urban areas … (Maximum plot ratio 3.6)"); and

(2) in respect of the planning of North East New Territories New

Development Areas, given that the then Secretary for Development said in June 2012 that the authorities had decided to adopt CNTA, instead of the Public-Private-Partnership Approach ("PPPA"), for implementing the project, and in September of the same year, the incumbent Secretary for Development indicated that consideration would be given to adopting PPPA for the project, and in July 2013, the authorities announced the adoption of an Enhanced Conventional New Town Approach ("ECNTA") for the project:

(i) of the new towns which were developed under CNTA, PPPA

and ECNTA respectively, and the respective site areas of such new towns;

(ii) of the entire decision-making process leading to a change in

the development approach for the project (setting out the dates of all relevant meetings, participants of such meetings, the relevant justifications, as well as the specific dates on which the various decisions were made);

(iii) of the respective projected revenues from land sales and land

premiums for implementing the project using the aforesaid three development approaches; and

(iv) of the respective major views opposing and supporting the

adoption of PPPA/ECNTA for the project which were received by the authorities at different stages of consultations (including informal consultations, public consultations as well as different forms of public engagement activities conducted by the Town Planning Board), and set out the information by category of such views?


323

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the question mainly covers two projects, namely the housing development at Kam Tin South and the Kwu Tung North/Fanling North ("KTN/FLN") New Development Areas ("NDAs"). Our reply is as follows: (1) (i) As explained in the Government's reply to the Council's

question No. 18 on 2 November 2016, when preparing for development/planning studies and land use reviews, the Government will work out appropriate public consultation arrangements for collecting public views in the light of the individual situation of the project and taking into account factors such as the planning objectives, study area, land uses, scale and implementation programme of the project, etc. Depending upon the circumstances of individual planning study or land use review, public consultation can be carried out in different forms, including public forums, community workshops, briefing sessions, focus group meetings and collection of written submissions. We will also consult representative and consultative bodies at appropriate levels, such as the Legislative Council, District Councils ("DCs"), Heung Yee Kuk, rural committees ("RCs"), etc.

Regarding the housing development at Kam Tin South in question, it refers to the Land Use Review for Kam Tin South and Pat Heung (Land Use Review) completed in 2014. The Land Use Review was a district-based land use review and planning project, mainly examining the development potential of the West Rail Kam Sheung Road Station and Pat Heung Maintenance Centre, as well as the possibility of using their adjoining land for housing development. As indicated in the reply to the Council's question mentioned above, as the Land Use Review is different from large scale land development projects in terms of planned uses and scale, the consultations arranged by the Government for the Land Use Review mainly covered local stakeholders, including DC, RCs and resident/concern groups.

For the Land Use Review, the Planning Department ("PlanD") has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the comments


received and properly responded to the parties concerned. The findings of the consultation were then relayed to the Yuen Long District Council ("YLDC") and the Rural and New Town Planning Committee ("RNTPC") under the Town Planning Board ("TPB"). Related documents of the YLDC and the RNTPC have been uploaded to their respective web pages for public inspection.

RNTPC paper: <http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/papers/RNTPC/532-rntpc_6-15.pdf> (English version only) YLDC paper: <http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/yl/doc/2012_2015/tc/dc_meetings_doc/611/dc_paper_2015_027.pdf> (Chinese version only)

Regarding the Kam Tin South Outline Zoning Plan ("the OZP") mentioned in the question, the PlanD proposed in 2015 amendments to the OZP to facilitate the residential developments at the West Rail Kam Sheung Road Station and Pat Heung Maintenance Centre which were taken forward based on the Land Use Review completed by the PlanD in 2014. In accordance with the established procedures, the PlanD consulted Kam Tin RC, Pat Heung RC and YLDC on the OZP amendments in April 2015 before submission of the amendments to the RNTPC in May 2015. The amended OZP was gazetted on 29 May 2015 for the public to make representations and comments. The TPB received a total of 55 representations and 330 comments, and arranged the representers and commenters to attend the relevant hearings. Having considered the representations and comments, the TPB decided not to amend the OZP to meet the representations and comments and submitted the OZP, together with the representations and comments, to the Chief Executive-in-Council ("CE-in-C"). In August 2016, the CE-in-C approved the amended OZP.


325

(ii) As indicated above, the Land Use Review was primarily a district-based land use review and planning project, rather than a planning and engineering study for NDA or new town extension. The Land Use Review recommended that the West Rail Kam Sheung Road Station, the Pat Heung Maintenance Centre and the adjoining sites (the five proposed public housing sites) should have a maximum plot ratio of three and the development density in areas away from the railway station should gradually decrease (with maximum plot ratios from 2.1 to 0.8) in order to maintain compatibility with their rural surroundings. The recommendations were made with reference to the maximum domestic plot ratios for commercial centres of rural townships laid down in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, taking into account the concept of sustainable development with railway as the base and the relevant district planning factors.

The residential development of the above two West Rail sites will be implemented by the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation ("KCRC") and the MTR Corporation Limited serving as KCRC's agent based on the model of the West Rail property development. In accordance with the recommendations of the Land Use Review, Government is undertaking a detailed engineering feasibility study for three public housing sites at Kam Tin South. The public housing developments will be implemented through resumption of private land. For the remaining sites identified by the Land Use Review, there is no implementation plan as according to the Review, the provision of sufficient supporting infrastructures is yet to be confirmed.

(2) The North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning

and Engineering Study, commenced in 2008, was completed in 2013. During the course of the study, three stages of public engagement were conducted to solicit public views on respectively the visions and aspirations for the NDAs, the Preliminary Outline Development Plans and the Recommended Outline Development Plans. During the three stages of engagement, different public views were received on the implementation arrangements and


development approach. The Government has prepared consultation reports incorporating the public views as well as its responses in the three stages of engagement, including the views received on the implementation arrangements and development approach of the NDAs. The consultation reports are public record of the entire process and they have been uploaded to the web page of the relevant study for public inspection (<http://www.nentnda.gov.hk/eng/public_1.html>; <http://www.nentnda.gov.hk/eng/public_2.html>; and <http://www.nentnda.gov.hk/eng/public_3.html>).

Specifically, after considering the fact that more than half of the developable land in the North East New Territories ("NENT") NDAs are privately owned, the Government has in Stages 1 and 2 public engagement invited public views on the implementation arrangements and development approach. The consultations have suggested studying other possible implementation approach including the private sector participation other than Conventional New Town Approach ("CNTA") (i.e. the Government will resume and clear the land, carry out site formation works and provide infrastructures before allocating land for various purposes). At the start of the Stage 3 public consultation, the Government indicated that consideration would continue to be given to the adoption of CNTA as the implementation approach. However, the society had different views on the suggestion. Some public comments expressed views against the CNTA and urged the Government to allow land exchange. Some public comments welcomed the implementation of the NDA project through land resumption. For example, when the Government consulted the Legislative Council Development Panel on the Stage 3 public engagement on 28 June 2012, individual Legislative Council Members indicated support to the CNTA, but some Members also concerned about the exclusion of the Public-Private-Partnership Approach ("PPPA") or private sector participation. Some Members expressed that there was a need to achieve a balance between individual's property right and public interest, but some Members considered that CNTA was at the expense of private land owners' interests, thereby recommending the Government to consider inviting land owners to implement part of the NDAs projects. Some Members were even against compulsory


327

resumption of private land, which would deprive land owners of rights in pursuing their own development for the land.

In July 2013, after considering the views received in the three stages of public engagement, the Government announced the revised proposals for the NENT NDAs, which recommended that the two NDAs at KTN/FLN should be developed first as an extension to the Fanling/Sheung Shui New Town to form the Fanling/Sheung Shui/Kwu Tung New Town. Taking into account public views received in the Stage 3 Public Engagement, the Government decided to adopt the Enhanced Conventional New Town Approach ("ECNTA") approach. The Government will take the lead and resume land for various developments in accordance with the plans when implementing the two new town extension projects. At the same time, flexibility will be provided for modification of lease including in-situ land exchange applications by owners of land planned for private development meeting a set of stricter criteria. A detailed account of the relevant decisions was given in the discussion paper submitted to the meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Development on 15 July 2013. <http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/panels/dev/papers/dev0715cb1-1461-1-e.pdf>.

It is worth noting that the ECNTA is not PPPA. Under the ECNTA, the Government would still take the lead in implementing the NDAs by resuming and clearing the private land planned for public works projects, public housing and private developments, carrying out site formation works, and providing infrastructure before allocating such land for various purposes, including disposal of the land planned for private developments in the market. However, on the condition that the specified criteria are met, the Government will exercise stricter requirements in allowing applications for modification of lease (including in-situ land exchange). This approach was indeed the same as the one adopted for developments of new towns (such as Sha Tin, Fanling/Sheung Shui and Tseung Kwan O New Town) in the past when the Government undertook most of the work of private land resumption, while allowing at the same time private land owners to apply for modification of lease (including in-situ land exchange) for private developments. The purpose of setting stricter requirements


(therefore the name "enhanced") is to ensure compliance with the NDAs planning and their development schedules, help advancing housing land supply and production without compromising comprehensive planning, certainty and timely provision of supporting government, institution or community facilities, while safeguarding fair treatment to existing occupants on the private land concerned. These criteria include mainly the following four points:

(a) Lease modification applications (including in-situ land

exchange) are confined to sites planned for private development; other private land will be resumed by the Government for development.

(b) Such applications must meet specified criteria and conditions,

including that the proposed site should have an area of not less than 4 000 sq m and all the lots contained therein should be under a unified ownership to ensure planning integrity and comprehensive development.

(c) The private development must be able to ensure timely supply

of housing and other facilities. For applications of which the development cannot be completed within the specified time period, the private land involved will be resumed by the Government for development.

(d) Landowners in the proposed lease modification applications

should be fair to the tenants/occupants by, inter alia, offering them monetary compensation comparable to that offered by the Government.

The CNTA has primarily been used in the implementation of our existing new towns in the past. Up till now, only the implementation of the KTN/FLN NDAs has adopted ECNTA. We have no statistics on the land areas of new towns implemented under different approaches. Since the ultimate location and number of successful in-situ land exchanges in KTN/FLN NDAs cannot be ascertained, the Government is unable to make a comparison on the differences in the land sale and land premium under different implementation approaches.


329

Management of turfs of public sports grounds 18. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, in July 2013, the turf of the Hong Kong Stadium ("the Stadium") became muddy after an international friendly soccer match had been held there. In August of the same year, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") set up an Expert Group on the Hong Kong Stadium Turf Pitch ("the Expert Group") to offer professional advice on how to enhance the turf quality of the Stadium. Following the Expert Group's recommendation, LCSD started works to reconstruct the entire turf system of the Stadium in 2015. The works project was completed in July 2015. Nevertheless, it has been reported earlier that the turf of the Stadium was beset by problems such as loose soil and moss growth after two soccer matches had been held in late September this year. Besides, it has been reported that LCSD has offered high salary earlier to engage an overseas expert to Hong Kong, who was specially tasked to impart knowledge of turf maintenance to LCSD staff. However, a staff member who has received the training was subsequently transferred out to manage other facilities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the expenditures involved in the maintenance and management of the turf of the Stadium since 2013; among which, of the respective amounts met by government funds and the funding from the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, with a breakdown by expenditure item;

(2) whether LCSD has, since 2013, regularly inspected the quality of the

turfs of the Stadium and other sports grounds; if LCSD has, of the inspection mechanism, criteria and outcome; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) of the details (including the number of staff members specially

tasked to undertake such work, with a breakdown by the total amount of the monthly salary and allowance of staff member) of the human resources allocated currently by LCSD to manage the turf of the Stadium and train staff who manage the turf;

(4) of the details of the monthly salary, allowance and duties of the

aforesaid overseas expert engaged by LCSD; and whether LCSD has


carried out a value-for-money assessment on the post; if LCSD has carried out such an assessment, of the outcome;

(5) of the justifications for LCSD to transfer out the local staff member

who has acquired turf maintenance knowledge from the in-house turf management team despite the fact that the turf quality of the Stadium was found to be poor; and

(6) of the details of the work of the Expert Group; the number of

meetings held by the Group so far; whether LCSD has assessed the effectiveness of the work of the Expert Group; if LCSD has, of the outcome?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, the Government attaches great importance to the quality and maintenance of the Hong Kong Stadium ("HKS") turf pitch. The Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") set up the Expert Group on the Hong Kong Stadium Turf Pitch ("the Expert Group") in August 2013 to provide professional advice on how to enhance the quality of the turf pitch. On the recommendation of the Expert Group, LCSD decided to reconstruct the turf pitch to enhance its quality and durability in the long term. The scope of works involved complete removal of the original turf and soil, replacement of the underground irrigation and drainage systems, reconstruction of a new pitch reinforced sand profile and laying of new turf. The project cost, in the order of $31 million, was fully funded by the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust while the Hong Kong Jockey Club ("HKJC") provided comprehensive technical support for the professional and efficient delivery of the project. Apart from consulting the Expert Group, LCSD also established a task force to monitor and oversee the project. The project commenced in April 2015 and HKS reopened in November of the same year. A number of soccer and rugby matches have been staged at HKS since its reopening in November 2015. The conditions of its turf pitch are generally satisfactory, especially that of its drainage system, which has been working effectively. Regarding the media report on algae and loosening of turf found on the HKS turf pitch during a Hong Kong Premier League match in late September 2016, LCSD has found that there was no abnormal loosening of turf during the match, and that the wear and tear to the turf was also considered normal in general. The algae mentioned in the media report was mainly found outside the


331

playing field of the pitch. To draw up a more effective plan for the maintenance of the turf pitch in summer next year, LCSD adopted two different methods of turf establishment after the end of the 2015-2016 soccer season to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of different maintenance plans. Stolons of Bermuda grass were planted and grass seeds were sown at the same time in the field of play while only grass seeds were sown outside the field of play. The particularly rainy and humid weather in August and September this year affected the normal growth and coverage of Bermuda grass at the pitch, resulting in poorer grass coverage and relatively more algae growth in areas outside the field of play. Thus, the maintenance method of planting grass and overseeding at the same time has proved to be more effective. In view of the situation, LCSD has enhanced topdressing at the pitch and stepped up spiking to improve aeration and drainage. Growth lights and chemicals have also been used in turf maintenance to improve the growing environment and control the growth of algae. During a match of the Hong Kong Premier League held on 22 October, the conditions of the turf pitch were satisfactory. From the experience and observations gained from turf maintenance carried out in summer 2016, the underground rhizome system of the new turf of HKS is still at the development stage one year after the reconstruction. The sand-based soil needs accumulation of more organic matter in order to preserve the nutrients in the soil. It is expected that the turf will take longer time to grow more steadily and reach maturity. In fact, turf pitches normally require at least three years of seasonal change to reach maturity and maintain a more stable state. LCSD has used advanced technology and ancillary equipment such as growth lights and ventilating fans to enhance the effectiveness of turf maintenance. With the adoption of a stricter approach to scheduling events and activities, and giving more time for the turf to recover between events and activities, the turf quality of HKS can be constantly maintained at a high level. My reply to the question raised by Mr Kenneth LEUNG is as follows:

(1) and (3) The LCSD staff are responsible for the maintenance and

management of the turf pitch of HKS. Routine turf maintenance is carried out by a six-man core team of the department, consisting of one Amenities Assistant I, one Senior Artisan and four Artisans, who have received horticulture training or professional training on turf


maintenance and have working experience in this respect. The monthly mid-point salaries of Amenities Assistant I, Senior Artisan and Artisan are $32,470, $20,060 and $17,685 respectively. The six-man core team is supervised by three tiers of Leisure Services Manager Grade officers who have experience on turf management or possess relevant qualifications. In the past three years (i.e. from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016), the average annual recurrent expenditure of LCSD on the maintenance of the HKS turf pitch was about $2.5 million, including direct staff (e.g. salary) and material costs. Turf growth lights and turf fans were also procured by LCSD to enhance the maintenance of the turf pitch.

LCSD set up a specialized Sports Turf Management Section

("STMS") in 2014-2015 to offer professional advice and technical support for all the natural turf pitches managed by LCSD, in particular HKS and other pitches designated for the Hong Kong Premier League matches. The annual staff cost of STMS is about $3.4 million. Furthermore, LCSD provides in-depth and systematic training courses on turf management and maintenance for staff of various ranks, including those of HKS. In 2016-2017, in addition to in-house training courses for some 300 staff, LCSD will provide training opportunities for 190 staff to pursue three overseas programmes and two local programmes to enhance their expertise and knowledge in the field. The estimated expenditure involved is about $1.4 million in 2016-2017.

(2) The staff responsible for the maintenance of the turf pitch of HKS

and other natural turf pitches carry out routine turf maintenance work according to LCSD's established guidelines, taking into account the conditions in different growing seasons and months of the year. The work includes watering, mowing, weeding, pest and disease control, fertilizing, scarifying, aerating, topdressing and turf repair, etc. To enhance the monitoring of pitch quality, LCSD has been conducting monthly performance testing of pitch quality, which covers grass coverage, grass height, mass root depth, thatch depth and soil pH value, etc. Assessment results show that the turf quality indicators generally meet the required standards. The turf quality of HKS and other natural turf football pitches are now showing progressive improvement.


333

(4) The Head of STMS of LCSD is recruited through an international search and his monthly salary and cash allowance are $112,255 and $30,240 respectively. His duties include following-up on the turf pitch reconstruction works for HKS through offering professional advice on pitch design and turf maintenance, especially the use of advanced technology and ancillary equipment such as growth lights and ventilating fans for turf. Besides, the Head conducts frequent inspections of natural turf pitches managed by LCSD, in particular those designated for the Hong Kong Premier League, and offers advice on turf management and maintenance. He also helps the department to formulate the best modes of operation for sports turf maintenance and training strategies to enhance the internal professional training and development with respect to turf management and maintenance, and to facilitate the sharing and transfer of knowledge. Through the efforts mentioned above, the overall turf quality of pitches managed by LCSD has been generally improved.

(5) As LCSD is responsible for the management of a variety of sports

and recreational facilities, it is necessary for its staff of different grades to be equipped with the relevant knowledge and skills. Timely staff deployment and training are common and effective practices in human resources management to broaden the staff's horizons, enrich their work experience and help meet the department's operational and long-term development needs. Routine maintenance of the turf of HKS is supervized by officers who possess professional qualifications in turf maintenance and management. The natural turf pitches provided by the department in various districts are now managed and maintained by some 400 staff. STMS provides professional expertise and technical support for the natural turf pitches managed by LCSD, in particular HKS and other pitches designated for the Hong Kong Premier League matches. STMS is also tasked with facilitating the sharing and transfer of knowledge and experience, as well as strengthening the training of staff.

(6) The Expert Group, set up on 30 August 2013, is composed of experts

on turf pitches from Hong Kong and the Mainland, and representatives of HKJC, the Hong Kong Football Association,


Hong Kong Rugby Union and the relevant government departments. The Group has held five meetings so far and the most recent one was held on 3 March 2016. Apart from that, several site inspections were conducted to exchange views. The Expert Group had had detailed discussions on many aspects, including the reconstruction works for the HKS turf pitch in 2015-2016 (which involved the design of drainage and irrigation systems, selection of grass species, etc.) and other matters concerning the medium- and long-term improvement measures for enhancing the quality of the turf pitch, as well as its daily management and maintenance. The Expert Group had given their professional and valuable advice on the above matters.

Assistance for Hong Kong residents serving sentences in the Philippines 19. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, a Hong Kong resident, Mr TANG Lung-wai ("Mr TANG"), was sentenced to a long-term imprisonment of 40 years in the Philippines after trials suspected to be unreasonable and unfair, and his appeal is now in progress. In reply to my question concerning Mr TANG's situation that I raised at the Council meeting of 29 June this year, the Secretary for Security ("the Secretary") advised that the Government attached great importance to cases where individual Hong Kong residents were imprisoned for a long term outside Hong Kong. However, Mr TANG has pointed out that such a reply is not true; the Government has never showed great concern for his case or his situation in the prison, and he urges me to ask the Security Bureau the following issues. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that Mr TANG has pointed out that personnel from the British Embassy in the Philippines have, for a long time, been keeping a close watch on his case, visiting him in the prison every three months and keeping records of each visit, of the number of visits paid by the personnel of the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines ("the Embassy") to Mr TANG in the detention centre and the prison, the date of each visit, as well as the assistance rendered to him and the follow-up actions taken; if no information about the Embassy's records is available, whether the Government will enquire with the Embassy;


335

(2) given that Mr TANG has pointed out that during his trials in the past, he was provided with interpretation service only once by an anti-narcotics officer of the Philippines whose reliability, fairness and impartiality was in doubt, and this is entirely different from the Secretary's claim that the Embassy has been helping to relay his request for interpretation service, whether the Government knows the date(s) and the relevant records regarding the Embassy's provision of interpretation services for Mr TANG during his trials; if no such information is available, whether the Government will enquire with the Embassy;

(3) as the incumbent Government of the Philippines, since its

inauguration, has reportedly executed more than 3 000 prisoners allegedly related to narcotics, whether the Government has kept a close watch on the development of such a situation and explored ways to ensure the personal safety of Mr TANG; whether it will (i) request the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China ("MFA") to urge the Philippine authorities to expedite the processing of Mr TANG's appeal and (ii) in case his appeal is unsuccessful, expeditiously approve Mr TANG's transfer back to Hong Kong to serve his remaining sentence according to the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Ordinance (Cap. 513), so as to avoid a Hong Kong resident becoming another victim after Mr CHEUNG Tai-on's death in a foreign country due to suspected unjust imprisonment;

(4) as the incident that a student movement activist was refused entry to

Thailand and detained for 12 hours early last month has aroused wide public concern, and there are comments that Mr TANG, who has been unjustly imprisoned in the Philippines for years, deserves more concern and support from Hong Kong people, the Security Bureau and MFA, whether the Government will, in light of the situation mentioned in item (3), urge MFA to offer more assistance to Mr TANG and take other actions to ensure that Mr TANG will have open and fair trials during his appeal; and

(5) as the Secretary has reiterated for many times that the Government

and the Embassy "must respect and abide by the local judicial systems" when giving assistance to Mr TANG's case, but Mr TANG has pointed out that in his case and the case of Mr CHEUNG Tai-on who died in a foreign country, they were convicted of drug


trafficking and sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment by the Philippine authorities in the absence of any interpretation service, evidence given by police officers and exhibits, which was tantamount to their being framed, and thus Mr TANG doubts the Government and MFA are turning a blind eye to their unjust cases under the pretext of respecting the local judicial system, whether the Government will review afresh the assistance rendered to Mr TANG and step up its efforts to rescue him in response to the public views?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to Mr Paul TSE's question is as follows: The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSARG") attaches great importance to cases where individual Hong Kong residents are detained or imprisoned outside Hong Kong. The background and details of the assistance rendered by the HKSARG and the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines (the Embassy) to Hong Kong residents serving sentences in the Philippines have been detailed in my replies to the related questions at the meetings on 8 and 29 June this year, and are not repeated here. Regarding the case mentioned in the question, the Assistance to Hong Kong Residents Unit ("AHU") of the Immigration Department has been maintaining close contact with the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the HKSAR and the Embassy to provide practicable assistance to the subject or his family according to their request as far as possible. Over the years, whenever receiving a request for assistance from the subject or his family, AHU would, having regard to the circumstances and nature of the request, immediately follow up on the case or make relevant arrangements through the Embassy, including urging the relevant local authorities for prompt, impartial and fair hearings in accordance with local laws and provision of free translation services. The Embassy officials had visited the subject several times, provided him with daily necessities and food, and assisted in reflecting his requests to the local government repeatedly. The Embassy had also coordinated with the local Chinese and assisted the subject to employ an interpreter. In addition, AHU provides updates on the subject's case to his family from time to time. The HKSARG does not maintain statistical information on the assistance rendered in this case. We will continue to monitor this case to provide the subject with practicable assistance.


337

According to the bilateral agreement on transfer of sentenced persons between the HKSARG and the Philippine Government, if a Hong Kong resident sentenced in the Philippines applies for transfer back to Hong Kong to serve his remaining sentence, the Philippine Government has to provide the HKSARG with specified information on the sentenced person concerned, including the legal documents relating to his conviction and sentence, the length of sentence already served and the remaining sentence, etc. Over the years, the HKSARG had approached the relevant authorities of the Philippine Government a number of times, either directly or through the Embassy, to obtain the documents required for this case. To date, the Philippine Government has yet to reply. The HKSARG will continue to follow up on the case with the Philippine Government through various practicable channels with a view to obtaining the basic information required and confirming the consent of the Philippine Government as soon as possible, so as to proceed with the transfer procedures. Regulation of financial intermediaries 20. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, at present, financial intermediaries are not subject to the regulation by the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap. 163) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA"). In reply to a question of this Council in 2014, the Government indicated that "there is currently no justification from the perspective of maintaining the stability of our banking and financial systems for considering placing the businesses of money lenders under the regulation of HKMA". However, incidents about financial intermediaries employing unscrupulous business practices have still occurred one after another in recent years. For example, some companies with the description of "accounting affairs firms" in their Chinese names seek to promote loan services under the guise of offering financial assessment services to clients, and they charge exorbitant handling fees. There are views that the Government should expeditiously amend the Money Lenders Ordinance to plug the regulatory loopholes, so as to prevent members of the public from falling into credit traps inadvertently. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of cases in the past three years in which various law enforcement agencies conducted investigations into and instituted prosecutions against the illicit acts of financial intermediaries, and set out the respective numbers of prosecution


and conviction cases by the provisions involved (such as section 29(10) of the Money Lenders Ordinance and provisions relating to "false trade description" or "misleading omissions" in the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362));

(2) given that the Government will impose additional licensing

conditions on money lenders' licences by stipulating that a money lender must (i) ask the intending borrower to state whether or not he has entered into or signed any agreement with a third party ("the third party agreement") and (ii) state in writing, in the loan agreement, the intending borrower's reply, and if that reply is in the affirmative, the money lender must not grant any loan unless the third party is a person appointed by the money lender, whether the authorities will consider formulating effective measures to ensure that both money lenders and financial intermediaries will strictly comply with such requirements, and whether the authorities will mandate the incorporation of provisions on cooling-off periods into loan agreements; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) given that no major amendment has been made to the Money

Lenders Ordinance since its enactment in 1980, whether the Government will, with the protection of borrowers as its prime consideration, review existing regulatory policies and amend the Ordinance, so as to place all the businesses of money lenders and the financial intermediaries concerned under the scope of regulation of HKMA; whether it will set regulatory standards, stipulate that the licensee must be a "fit and proper person", and carry out work such as on-site examinations?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, my reply to the three parts of the question raised by Mr WU is set out below:

(1) From the commencement of operation of the amended Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362) in July 2013 up to September 2016, the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") has received


339

211 complaints against financial intermediaries, of which 167 complaints involved false trade descriptions, 27 complaints involved misleading omissions, 14 complaints involved aggressive commercial practices and 3 complaints involved wrongly accepting payment. Regarding the progress of the cases, no offence of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance was found in 44 cases, and C&ED is still following up on 38 cases. C&ED has referred the remaining 129 cases to the Police for further action.

The existing Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap. 163) ("MLO")

expressly prohibits the charging of any fees on borrowers by money lenders, their connected parties (e.g. their employees, agents and persons acting for them) and persons acting in collusion with money lenders. It is also a criminal offence to fraudulently induce any person to borrow money from a money lender by any false, misleading or deceptive statement, or by any dishonest concealment of material facts. From 2012 to June 2016, 50 prosecutions were initiated by the Administration under the MLO resulting in the conviction of 28 persons.

If the acts of a financial intermediary involve other criminal

elements, the Police will deal with and follow up on the matter in accordance with the other relevant legislation (such as the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) and the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210)). The Administration does not maintain any statistics on prosecutions or convictions against financial intermediaries.

The Police are concerned about crimes arising from money lending

activities, especially those involving malpractices by financial intermediaries. In order to step up enforcement in combating illegal practices by unscrupulous financial intermediaries, the Police mounted a number of large-scale enforcement exercises in 2015 and the first eight months of 2016 during which over 400 people were arrested.

(2) In view of public concern about the malpractices by financial

intermediaries for money lending in recent years, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau announced in April 2016 that a


four-pronged approach would be adopted to address the issue, viz. enhanced enforcement, enhanced public education and publicity, enhanced advisory services to the public, and more stringent licensing conditions on money lender licences. Measures to enhance enforcement, public education and publicity and advisory services to the public have been implemented. One of the objectives of imposing additional licensing conditions on money lender licences is to facilitate more effective enforcement of the statutory ban on separate fee charging as mentioned in part (1) above. The additional conditions imposed require, inter alia, that before a money lender grants a loan, if the borrower has entered into or signed any agreement with a third party (e.g. financial intermediary) for or in relation to the loan, that third party must have been appointed by the money lender and such appointment must have been reported to the Registrar of Money Lenders by the money lender and included in the Register of Money Lenders for public inspection. A money lender should also take appropriate steps to ensure that its appointed third party would not charge any fees on the borrowers.

One of the additional licensing conditions also requires a money

lender to establish and maintain a proper system so as to ensure that its appointed third parties shall be informed of and shall facilitate the money lender's observance of the licensing conditions and the provisions of the MLO.

The Licensing Court has started imposing the additional licensing

conditions when approving applications for renewal of money lender licences and those for new licences with the additional licensing conditions to take effect on 1 December 2016, and is processing the Administration's application for imposition of the additional licensing conditions on the other existing money lender licences.

To facilitate the implementation of the new measure, the Registrar of

Money Lenders has issued guidelines on the operation of the additional licensing conditions for money lenders' reference. We will publicize the new measure through public education activities prior to the implementation.


341

(3) The new measure can tackle the above mentioned malpractices more directly and expeditiously than amending the MLO, and hence is a more appropriate approach under the existing circumstances. We will closely monitor the implementation of the new measure. In case there is any breach of the requirements, the authorities will follow up with the money lender concerned in accordance with the licensing conditions, and the Police could gather evidence more effectively to facilitate prosecution of the financial intermediary concerned.

Under the MLO, money lender licences are granted by the Licensing

Court. The MLO also specifies the factors to be considered by the Licensing Court in processing an application for a money lender licence, including whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to carry on business as a money lender. No licence shall be granted if the applicant fails to satisfy the Licensing Court that he/she is a fit and proper person to carry on business as a money lender.

We will review the effectiveness of the additional licensing

conditions after six months of their implementation and will consider if there is a need to introduce any additional improvement measures (such as stepping up on-site inspections and the provision of a cooling-off period) in light of the review results.

According to the Banking Ordinance (Cap. 155), the Hong Kong

Monetary Authority ("HKMA") is responsible for the supervision of authorized institutions with a view to managing the potential risks of the banking system and maintaining the stability of the financial system. We consider that there is currently no justification from the perspective of maintaining the stability of our banking and financial systems for considering placing the businesses of money lenders under the regulation of the HKMA.

Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities 21. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Chinese): President, to encourage the elderly and persons with disabilities to participate in community activities, the Government has implemented in phases the Public Transport Fare Concession


Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities ("the Scheme") since June 2012. The public transport services currently covered under the Scheme include general lines of the Mass Transit Railway as well as some routes of franchised buses, green minibuses ("GMBs") and ferries. The Government has indicated that it will review the Scheme three years after full implementation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows the respective annual increases in passenger patronage and revenues generated for the operators of various types of public transport services by their participation in the Scheme;

(2) as the first phase of the Scheme has been implemented for over four

years since June 2012, whether the authorities will conduct a review of the Scheme; if they will, of the details;

(3) given that red minibuses ("RMBs") have not been included in the

Scheme, but there are similarities (including running fixed routes and having Octopus card readers installed) between the mode of operation of some RMBs and that of GMBs, which have already been included in the Scheme, whether the authorities will consider including the former in the Scheme; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) whether the authorities will study the inclusion of more ferry

services (e.g. kaito ferry service) in the Scheme; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(5) whether the authorities will study the extension of the Scheme to

other public transport modes (e.g. trams); if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities ("the Scheme") has been implemented by phases since 2012 to help build a caring and inclusive society by encouraging the elderly and persons with disabilities to actively participate in community activities. The Scheme enables the elderly and eligible persons with


343

disabilities(1) to enjoy a concessionary fare of $2(2) per trip to travel on the general Mass Transit Railway ("MTR") lines, franchised buses, ferries and green minibuses ("GMBs"). Currently, around 1.12 million elderly people aged 65 or above and 150 000 eligible persons with disabilities benefit from the Scheme. In 2015-2016, the Government reimbursed the relevant public transport operators a total of $870 million in revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the Scheme. It is estimated that this reimbursement amount will increase to around $1.1 billion in 2016-2017. My reply to the question is provided below:

(1) Under the Scheme, the Government reimburses the participating public transport operators regularly the revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the Scheme on an accountable and reimbursement basis. The operators are required to submit relevant information on the numbers of eligible passenger trips and the related amount of differential fare for reimbursement under the Scheme for the Government's review and approval. As a matter of fact, change of patronage of the public transport services could be affected by a host of factors. These include, for example, the overall economic environment, demographic change and community development, etc. The Government does not have information on the change of overall patronage and revenue of the participating operators as a result of the implementation of the Scheme. According to the information provided by the Transport Department ("TD"), since the implementation of the Scheme, the average daily passenger trips for the elderly and eligible persons with disabilities travelling on the above mentioned public transports under the Scheme is around 980 000 trips, and the breakdown is as follows:

(1) Elderly people refer to those aged 65 or above, whereas eligible persons with disabilities

are persons aged below 65 with severe disability as defined under the Disability Allowance receiving the allowance and those with 100% disabilities receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance in the same age group.

(2) The Scheme is designed to allow elderly people and eligible persons with disabilities to

travel on specified modes of public transport and use their services at a concessionary fare of $2 per trip. If the fare for elderly people and eligible persons with disabilities charged by the relevant public transport operators is lower than $2, only the original fare which is below $2 will be charged.


Public Transport Operators (Number)

Elderly Eligible

Persons with Disabilities

Total

MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL)

261 900 41 700 303 600

Franchised bus (5) 415 000 55 500 470 500 Ferry (13) 5 600 700 6 300 GMB (157) 175 500 23 700 199 200

Total 858 000 121 600 979 600 (2) The Scheme has been rolled out on MTR, franchised buses and

ferries in three phases in June 2012, August 2012 and March 2013, respectively. It was later extended to eligible children with disabilities aged below 12 in May 2014 and further extended to GMBs in phases starting from March 2015. The Government will conduct a review of the Scheme three years after its full implementation (i.e. 2018-2019). This is a comprehensive review which will cover areas such as the effectiveness, the mode of operation and views of the general public, etc.

(3) Under the Scheme, the Government reimburses the participating

public transport operators regularly the revenue forgone as a result of the implementation of the Scheme on an accountable and reimbursement basis. As such, any fare adjustments for the public transport services currently covered by the Scheme shall be regulated by the Government. The mode of operation of red minibuses ("RMBs") is different from that of GMBs. The routing and fare of RMBs are not regulated by the Government. Under the current policy, the Government will encourage the conversion of RMBs to GMBs by planning and introducing new GMB routes. The Government currently has no plan to extend the Scheme to RMBs. The Government will consider the scope of the modes of public transport under the Scheme in the comprehensive review scheduled to take place in 2018-2019.

(4) All regular franchised and licensed passenger ferry services have

already been covered by the Scheme. Most Kaito ferry services are operated in a highly flexible manner to meet ad hoc or recreational demand. Their service frequency, fare and timetable are not regulated by the Government. The operators are free to adjust their


345

service frequency, fare and timetable according to operational considerations. In view of the fact that the Government reimburses revenue forgone to relevant public transport operators on an accountable and reimbursement basis (regular franchised and licensed passenger ferry services have been covered by the Scheme) and having regard to other relevant factors, the Government currently does not have any plan to extend the Scheme to cover Kaito ferry services. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the Government will consider the scope of the modes of public transport under the Scheme in the comprehensive review scheduled to take place in 2018-2019.

(5) The Scheme aims to allow elderly people and eligible persons with

disabilities to travel on specified modes of public transport and use their services at a concessionary fare of $2 per trip. If the fare for elderly people and eligible persons with disabilities charged by the relevant public transport operators is lower than $2, the original fare which is below $2 will be charged. Currently the tram fare for the elderly is $1.1, which is lower than the concessionary fare of $2. If the Scheme were to be extended to tram service, eligible persons with disabilities would enjoy a reduced fare of $2 from $2.3 per ride with government subsidies, a reduction of $0.3. The Government has indicated its willingness to consider extending the Scheme to tram service. However, according to the understanding of TD, the Hong Kong Tramways Limited has requested the Government to provide subsidies to the extent to allow free ride for elderly people and eligible persons with disabilities. This is not consistent with the arrangements of the Scheme.

Freedom of Hong Kong residents to travel and to leave the territory 22. MR NATHAN LAW (in Chinese): President, early last month, a student movement leader was refused entry to Thailand when he arrived there by flight. He was repatriated to Hong Kong after 12 hours' detention. It was reported that the Prime Minister of Thailand subsequently indicated that such a move had been made at the request of the Chinese Government. In addition, in the past, some Hong Kong residents who supported social movements were refused entry to places such as India, Malaysia and Macao. Such incidents have caused some members of the public to worry that the freedom to travel and to leave the


territory enjoyed by Hong Kong residents under Article 31 of the Basic Law is in jeopardy. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows the number of Hong Kong residents holding valid travel documents who were refused entry to and repatriated by other jurisdictions in the past five years, with a tabulated breakdown by jurisdiction and reason of entry refusal for such individuals;

(2) whether, in respect of the detention of Hong Kong residents upon

their entry to other jurisdictions, the Government will negotiate with the governments of such jurisdictions; if it will, how and through what channels it will conduct the negotiations; whether any mechanism is currently in place to ensure that the Government will commence negotiations and inform the public of the situations within the shortest possible time;

(3) whether any mechanism is currently in place to safeguard the basic

human rights of Hong Kong residents during their detention after entry to other jurisdictions, including their rights to contact lawyers and the Hong Kong Immigration Department ("ImmD"); of the channels available to the Government for holding the governments of other jurisdictions responsible for violating the basic human rights of Hong Kong residents;

(4) as there are comments that the Thai Government has so far failed to

clearly explain the reasons why the aforesaid student movement leader was detained overnight and not allowed to contact lawyers and ImmD, whether the Government will (i) seriously demand the Thai Government to give a clear explanation in this respect, and (ii) demand the Thai Government to offer an apology when no reasonable explanation is given; and

(5) as some press reports have alleged that the Chinese Government has

requested the governments of Macao, Malaysia and Thailand to prohibit the entry of some Hong Kong residents who are on a blacklist, whether the Government knows the content of the blacklist; whether the Government will request the Chinese authorities to withdraw the blacklist so as to safeguard the freedom to travel and to leave the territory enjoyed by Hong Kong residents under the Basic Law?


347

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, my reply to Mr Nathan LAW's question is as follows:

(1) The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") does not maintain the relevant figures mentioned in the question.

(2) to (4) The HKSAR Government attaches importance to the legal rights of

Hong Kong residents outside Hong Kong, and will provide practical assistance as necessary. According to international practice, immigration authorities around the world will examine and process the entry of foreigners in accordance with their local laws and prevailing circumstances. Separately, according to international practice, immigration authorities will not usually comment on the reason and decision of individual case in detail. We must respect the right of other jurisdictions in exercising immigration control and making decisions in accordance with their laws. We will not, and should not, interfere.

Nonetheless, upon receipt of requests for assistance from Hong

Kong residents who are detained overseas, the Assistance to Hong Kong Residents Unit ("AHU") of the Immigration Department ("ImmD") will, having regard to the nature and circumstances of individual cases as well as the requests of the assistance seekers, liaise with the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the HKSAR ("OCMFA"), the Chinese diplomatic and consular missions ("CDCMs") overseas and the relevant government departments to provide practicable assistance. The HKSAR Government and CDCMs will respect and abide by the local laws when following up with the requests for assistance.

With regard to the case mentioned in the question that a Hong Kong

resident (the subject) was refused entry into Thailand, upon receipt of the request for assistance from a friend (the assistance seeker) of the subject on 5 October, AHU immediately approached OCMFA,


the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Thailand ("the Embassy") and the Thai Consulate-General in Hong Kong to understand the situation. Officers of the Embassy immediately contacted the Thai authorities and, after being informed that the subject was refused entry into Thailand, requested them to ensure that the subject's legal rights be protected. AHU had maintained close contact with OCMFA and the Embassy during that period of time and kept in view of the development of the incident with a view to rendering practicable assistance to the subject. AHU had also maintained communication with the assistance seeker. Subsequently, the subject returned to Hong Kong in the afternoon of the same day.

The spokesman of the Thai government had already made a detailed

response to the incident on the same day. If the subject objects to the decision of the Thai authorities, he may lodge an appeal in accordance with the local laws. If he so requests, the HKSAR Government will, upon receipt of his views on the incident, reflect them to the relevant authorities.

(5) As mentioned above, the spokesman of the Thai government had

made a detailed response to the incident on the day of the incident. Separately, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had also expressed on the same day that it respected the decision of the Thai government made in accordance with local immigration regulations and laws. The HKSAR Government is not aware of any so-called "blacklist" mentioned in the speculative media reports.

The Basic Law protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of

Hong Kong residents, including the freedom to enter or leave Hong Kong. The immigration authorities of other places have the power to allow the entry or otherwise of Hong Kong residents in accordance with their laws, in the light of the circumstances pertaining to each individual case. All other jurisdictions have the rights to exercise their immigration control. It does not contradict Hong Kong residents' freedom to enter or leave Hong Kong under the Basic Law.


349

GOVERNMENT BILL First Reading of Government Bill DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: First Reading. Stand over item (since the meeting of 19 October 2016) SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (2015-2016) BILL CLERK (in Cantonese): Supplementary Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill. Bill read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure. Second Reading of Government Bill DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Second Reading. SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (2015-2016) BILL SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the Supplementary Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill be read the Second time. Section 9 of the Public Finance Ordinance provides, "If at the close of account for any financial year it is found that expenditure charged to any head is in excess of the sum appropriated for that head by an Appropriation Ordinance, the excess shall be included in a Supplementary Appropriation Bill which shall be introduced into the Legislative Council as soon as practicable after the close of the financial year to which the excess expenditure relates." The 2015-2016 Financial Year already ended, and the expenditure charged to 49 heads (out of a total of 84 heads) is in excess of the sum originally appropriated for these heads in the Appropriation Ordinance 2015. The excess


expenditure was mainly for meeting additional expenses arising from the 2015-2016 civil service pay adjustment, provision of $10 billion for the Hospital Authority to establish an endowment fund for Public-Private Partnership Initiatives, implementing one-off relief measures such as paying one month's rent for public housing tenants and provision of extra allowances to social security recipients. Supplementary provision for all such excess expenditure was approved by the Finance Committee or under powers delegated by it. I hereby introduced the Bill into the Legislative Council to seek final legislative authority for the supplementary provision in respect of the 49 heads totalling about $20.7 billion. Thank you, Deputy President. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Supplementary Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill be read the Second time. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request a headcount because I hope more colleagues will listen to the upcoming debate, which is so very important. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (While the summoning bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)


351

MEMBERS' MOTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions. 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 LAM Cheuk-ting to speak and move the motion. Stand over items (since the meeting of 19 October 2016) MOTION UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. President, as a cornerstone of just society, the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") has been safeguarding the probity in Hong Kong. It is also a system of check we take pride in. Apart from causing an unprecedented personnel upheaval in ICAC, the Rebecca LI incident also involves the question of whether there was any abuse of power by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying to intervene in ICAC operation with the intention of interfering with its inquiry into the suspected corruption case involving UGL Limited ("UGL"). Therefore, we must invoke the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance today to appoint a select committee to inquire into the incident. It is only when the truth comes to light that the reputation of ICAC can be rebuilt. This ICAC saga started with the sudden cancellation of the acting appointment of Rebecca LI as Head of Operations. Rebecca LI took up the post in July 2015, but a year later, Simon PEH suddenly cancelled her acting appointment and she resigned subsequently. Simon PEH was strongly queried by people both inside and outside of ICAC, and a number of principal officers of ICAC resigned as a result. The first was Senior Principal Investigator Mr Dale KO, who was followed by Chief Forensic Accountant Ms Melissa TANG. Mr Ricky YAU, Rebecca LI's successor, applied to resolve his agreement with ICAC less than half of a month after assuming office, but he eventually withdrew


his application on the same day owing to the strong efforts made by the top echelons of the Operations Department to retain him. This has exposed ICAC to the most severe personnel crisis ever since its inception and dealt a heavy blow to its reputation. Facing queries from both inside and outside of ICAC, Simon PEH submitted while explaining to the mass media that the work performance of Rebecca LI over the past year was below par. He also said that the acting appointment of Rebecca LI was merely for administrative convenience and did not mean that she would be promoted. President, his explanation is only meant to deceive himself and other people. Head of Operations is the highest position in the Operations Department, under which there are two director posts, which were then held respectively by Rebecca LI and Ricky YAU. Both directors were below the retirement age. Obviously, when Simon PEH appointed one of them, Rebecca LI, to prolonged acting appointment as Head of Operations, he was of the view that she was the most suitable candidate for promotion to the post of Head of Operations. Moreover, in the press release issued by ICAC in July 2015 on Rebecca LI's replacement of retiring Head of Operations Mr Ryan WONG, she was highly commended for her outstanding leadership skills and exemplary performance, which earned her the award of the Hong Kong ICAC Medal for Distinguished Service in 2007. At that time, it was generally believed by both ICAC staff and the public that the acting appointment was in fact a preparation for Rebecca LI's promotion. When publicly explaining the decision of cancelling the acting appointment, Simon PEH said that the decision was purely based on Rebecca LI's performance over the previous year or so. However, Rebecca LI was reverted in rank without committing any serious fault, whereas Ricky YAU, a then Assistant Director in charge of administration who committed clear mistakes in the Timothy TONG case, was offered an opportunity to act. This inexplicable decision failed to convince the public and even the ICAC staff. I know that at a top-level meeting of ICAC, a number of principal ICAC personnel surrounded Simon PEH and asked him to step down immediately right at the scene. In addition, the annual dinner of ICAC scheduled to be held in July had to be called off unprecedentedly due to the absence of a majority of the ICAC staff. The wrath among the ICAC staff towards Simon PEH's decision was fully revealed in the series of incidents. Evidently, the public, the staff of ICAC and I all strongly query Simon PEH's sudden cancellation of Rebecca LI's acting appointment.


353

The Rebecca LI incident was originally a personnel upheaval in ICAC, but how come it has caused people to query if Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying was involved in the incident? It is widely known that LEUNG Chun-ying was under investigation by ICAC concerning his receipt of about $50 million from UGL, an Australian corporation. Rebecca LI was Head of Operations then and was the highest ICAC investigation officer in charge of the LEUNG Chun-ying case when the incident broke out. After the acting appointment of Rebecca LI was cancelled, Simon PEH and LEUNG Chun-ying admitted openly that Simon PEH had informed LEUNG Chun-ying of his decision to cancel her acting appointment and LEUNG Chun-ying said that he had no comment. Eventually, the acting appointment of Rebecca LI was terminated. Judging from the accounts given by both of them, it can be said that LEUNG Chun-ying should be well aware that he was under ICAC investigation and Rebecca LI was the highest officer in the Operations Department responsible for the investigation into his case. Therefore, he should have sought to avoid any perceived conflict of interest by transferring to the Chief Secretary for Administration the process and powers of making decisions on such personnel matters. In fact, there are precedents for LEUNG Chun-ying to follow. In March, 2012, since the then Chief Executive, Donald TSANG, was involved in corruption allegations, he sought to avoid perceived conflict of interest by transferring the power of appointing Daniel LI as the Deputy Commissioner/Head of Operations of ICAC to the then Chief Secretary for Administration, Stephen LAM. In July the same year, because of his involvement in allegations of making false statements in the Chief Executive Election, LEUNG Chun-ying himself also transferred the power of appointing Mr Ryan WONG as the Deputy Commissioner of ICAC to Chief Secretary of Administration Ms Carrie LAM, in a bid to avoid perceived conflict of interest. However, this time around, instead of following the principle of avoiding perceived conflict of interest, LEUNG Chun-ying simply chose not to comment on Simon PEH's decision. In terms of objective effect, this amounted to LEUNG Chun-ying's tacit consent to Simon PEH's act of reverting Rebecca LI, the highest investigation officer in charge of the LEUNG Chun-ying corruption case, to her original rank. His act definitely leads people to query if he had the intention of intervening in the ICAC investigation into his case. In fact, this act of LEUNG Chun-ying involved conflicts of roles and interests and even a breach of the law. Since LEUNG Chun-ying's personal


conduct was incorrect, he naturally did not want ICAC to launch a thorough inquiry into the UGL incident because in this incident, LEUNG Chun-ying, the Chief Executive, even took up outside work with a private company as a business promotion consultant and received a huge sum of money for that. On the pretexts that according to the agreement, no conflict of interest should arise from his service, that UGL had never required him to provide any service, and that he had not provided any service throughout, he emphasized that there was no conflict of interest as such and thus did not need to declare to the Executive Council. Honourable Members, if LEUNG Chun-ying's reasoning is correct, the entire interests declaration system of the Government and even that of the Legislative Council will disintegrate. Can other members of the Executive Council enter into agreements that worth dozens of millions with large corporations before assuming public office? Should one be exempt from making a declaration to the Executive Council as long as it is expressly stated in the agreement that no conflict of interest should be involved, and that no service needs to be provided? Can one serve as a member of the Executive Council on the one hand and receive huge sums on the other as a consultant, an idle consultant? (Laughter) Can't we see that his refusal to make a declaration of interests will lead to the collapse of our systems and institutions? As the saying goes, no work, no pay. Since LEUNG Chun-ying was aware that when he was the Chief Executive, his provision of service to a private company would lead to conflicts of interest. Why didn't he terminate the agreement before assuming office? LEUNG Chun-ying was not required to provide any service but he could receive several million sterling pounds as consultant fee. How can there be any free lunch as luxurious as this on earth? LEUNG Chun-ying's shameless sophistry that no conflict of interests was involved is a downright insult to the intelligence of the public. Actually, LEUNG Chun-ying could have rid himself of any corruption suspicions simply by terminating the consultant service agreement before assuming office. But he did not want to give up the benefit of several million pounds and hoped that he could get away secretly. Yet, he finally got caught in the present dilemma when the truth was exposed by overseas media. President, Article 73 of the Basic Law provides that the basic function of the Legislative Council is to monitor the Government, while the Legislative


355

Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") confers powers on the legislature to summon government officials and witnesses to testify in its inquiring the Government and government officials on cases of serious misconduct. The recent personnel upheaval in ICAC involves significant public interest and the issue of whether the top official had abused his power to interfere with the investigations conducted by ICAC. As a result, the media, the public and representatives of public opinions absolutely have the right and obligation to raise reasonable queries. If we do not invoke the Ordinance, it will be impossible to summon witnesses to testify, and ICAC may not be able to provide any relevant evidence and records. The truth will never come to light in that case, and ICAC will be unable to rebuild its reputation. President, public officers in Hong Kong are well-paid, receiving the highest levels of remunerations in the world. Chapter One of Journey to the West reads: "When riding a donkey or a mule, one thinks of riding a good horse; having assumed office as prime minister, one aspires to become a prince or marquis." People these days are very greedy, and in recent years, various top officials have been involved in graft cases and conflicts of interests, including Raphael HUI, Timothy TONG, Donald TSANG and LEUNG Chun-ying himself. Signs are that probity in Hong Kong is now at a critical point. The core value of probity upheld by Hong Kong for years has been badly eroded. As once described by a former principal ICAC officer, ICAC has already been plunged into a dark age. The ICAC Commissioner, Simon PEH, is poor in personal conduct, appointing people on the basis of questionable criteria. Consequently, Rebecca LI, who served ICAC for almost three decades with admirable achievements in anti-corruption work, was forced to resign, thus triggering off a personnel upheaval in ICAC and dealing a heavy blow to both its reputation and morale. It was all Simon PEH's fault and he should step down to show his accountability. President, many people have told me that if the clean systems and institutions in Hong Kong are destroyed, Hong Kong will be "finished". So, I call upon Members present here to support the invocation of the Ordinance to inquire into the incident and pursue responsibility, so that ICAC can rebuild its reputation and continue to defend probity and justice in Hong Kong. Thank you.


Mr LAM Cheuk-ting moved the following motion:

"That this Council appoints a select committee to inquire into the matter on the personnel reshuffle within the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") arising from ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH's cancellation of the acting appointment of Ms Rebecca LI as Head of Operations, including the process of and reason(s) for such cancellation; whether Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying or other organizations participated in making the decision to cancel the acting appointment; whether the cancellation of the acting appointment relates to any intervention in the investigation into the case of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying's receipt of about $50 million from UGL Limited, an Australian corporation; whether there was any conflict of interest or illegal act on the part of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying if he participated in making the decision to cancel the acting appointment while being investigated by ICAC; and that in the performance of its duties the committee 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."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting be passed. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, today, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting is moving a motion on establishing a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to inquire into the cancellation of Ms Rebecca LI's acting appointment as Head of Operations by ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH. I am here to oppose this motion on behalf of the SAR Government. In his earlier speech, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting repeatedly said that the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") is conducting a thorough investigation into the Chief Executive and the UGL incident. I am afraid his comments are totally speculative or even misleading. ICAC has never openly said that an investigation into this incident is underway. When I was preparing for this motion debate, I also made an effort to reconfirm that I had never been informed that ICAC was conducting an investigation.


357

The second point I would like to make is that if Mr LAM Cheuk-ting is interested in the Chief Executive and the UGL incident, and would like to debate it again in the Legislative Council, he could in fact put forward a subject matter on the this incident. I already made replies successively on three occasions regarding the Chief Executive and the UGL incident: on 29 October 2014, I responded to Mr Albert HO's question; in November 2014, I, in my capacity as Chief Secretary for Administration and another colleague acting as Chief Secretary for Administration, again spoke in the motion debate moved by Ms Claudia MO under the Ordinance; on 20 and 21 November 2014, I spoke once more on the motion moved by Ms Cyd HO under the Ordinance. Today, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting is attempting to discuss this incident again. He has chosen ICAC, the organization which prevents and cracks down on corruption and which we attach great importance to. I find this very regrettable. The ICAC Commissioner, Mr Simon PEH, has over and again responded to inquiries by Members and the media regarding his decision to terminate the acting appointment of Ms LI. He has on various occasions explained the incident. During the visit to ICAC by some Members of this new Legislative Council on 23 September 2016 and in his reply to Members afterwards, the Commissioner gave the details of the whole incident. In order to assist me in responding to this motion in the Legislative Council today, the Commissioner has again provided the following detailed explanation on the process and reason for cancelling the acting arrangement. The Commissioner pointed out that the termination of Ms LI's acting appointment was purely a personnel management decision made by him as Ms LI's superior having regard to her ability and potential. No cases under ICAC investigation were involved; and no other organizations or individuals, including the Chief Executive, ever took part in making the decision. The entire acting arrangement and its termination were made in accordance with the existing regulations and guidelines of the Government and ICAC. Although officers employed by ICAC are not civil servants, ICAC will in general follow the Public Service (Administration) Order, government regulations and rules in the handling of personnel matters. Under the Civil Service Regulations, there are two kinds of acting arrangements, that is, "Acting with a view" and "Acting for administrative convenience". When it is assessed that an officer possesses all the necessary abilities making him suitable for discharging


the duties of a higher rank, but that he still needs wider exposure and most tests in certain areas, he may be given an "Acting with a view" appointment. If his performance is good, he will normally be promoted to a substantive position upon the expiry of the acting period. On the other hand, if an officer is appraised as not ready for immediate promotion or an "Acting with a view" appointment, but is found to be more suitable than the others to discharge duties of a higher rank, he may be given an "Acting for administrative convenience" appointment to have his ability further tested. This kind of acting appointment does not carry the implication of actual promotion at the end of the acting period. In the past, there were cases where individual ICAC officers returned to their original ranks after "acting for administrative convenience" in higher directorate positions for more than a year. In the case of ICAC, the ICAC Commissioner is the approving authority of the actual promotion and acting arrangements for directorate grade officers. According to the recommendation of the 1994 Report of the independent ICAC Review Committee, before the ICAC Commissioner appoints an officer to be actually promoted to a position of point 3 or above on the Directorate Pay Scale, and before he offers an officer an "Acting with a view" appointment for that position, he will first secure the Chief Executive's approval. However, an "Acting for administrative convenience" appointment does not have this requirement. That said, in order to make the Chief Executive aware of changes in principal ICAC officers, the ICAC Commissioner will report to the Chief Executive arrangements for "Acting for administrative convenience" of more than six months for such positions. Before appointing and terminating Ms LI to act as Head of Operations, the Commissioner reported to the Chief Executive in accordance with the normal practice. The Chief Executive only took note of the arrangement and did not give any opinions. Just now, Mr LAM asked if the Chief Executive has authorized the Chief Secretary for Administration to handle such appointments. I can confirm here that in July 2012, the incumbent Chief Executive, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, delegated the power to appoint the Deputy Commissioner to the Chief Secretary for Administration under section 63 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. This delegation remains in force. In other words, the Chief Secretary for Administration is still the approving authority of the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner, until further notice. Nonetheless, as I explained earlier, the acting appointment for Ms LI is one for administrative convenience


359

and does not require the prior approval of the Chief Executive. It also does not fall within the delegated terms of reference of the Chief Secretary for Administration. The acting appointment for Ms LI as Head of Operations began in July 2015 with the departure of the former Head of Operations Mr Ryan WONG. At that time, the Commissioner already considered the experience and performance of the two Directors under Mr WONG and their potential to take up a higher position. Yet, he concluded that both were not ready for an immediate promotion or an "Acting with a view" appointment. As a result, the Commissioner decided to appoint Ms Rebecca LI, who was more senior as a Director in the Operations Department, to act as Head of Operations for administrative convenience. This would give her more time and opportunities to hone her skills and be tested for that position. Before the acting appointment became effective, the Commissioner stated clearly to Ms LI the nature of the acting appointment and the expectations of her performance and ability during the acting period. The Commissioner met with Ms LI at least once on average on a weekly basis to understand the work progress of the Operations Department and discuss other management matters. After observing her for almost a year, the Commissioner concluded that Ms LI's overall work performance, ability and potential failed the test and thus decided to terminate her acting appointment and arranged for her to return to her position as Director of Investigation (Private Sector). Ms LI asked for an early termination of her agreement upon learning of the Commissioner's decision. The Commissioner's effort to ask her to stay came to no avail. Ms LI left on 18 July 2016. To sum up, the Commissioner has already pointed out that the appointment or termination of appointment for Ms Rebecca LI to act as Head of Operations for administrative convenience was purely his personnel management decision in the discharge of his duty as a supervisor and the approving authority for the appointment concerned. The Commissioner has repeatedly said that this decision has absolutely nothing to do with any ICAC investigation. The authority of approving and terminating the appointment concerned lies within the ICAC Commissioner's terms of reference. No other individuals or organizations have ever taken part in the decision or interfered. ICAC has always been highly professional, impartial and fearless in probing into corruption complaints according to the law. Furthermore, ICAC investigation is also subject to close monitoring by the Operations Review


Committee ("ORC"). ICAC has to report all corruption investigations, so it is impossible for individuals to interfere. The Commissioner has reiterated that linking the decision to terminate Ms Rebecca LI's acting appointment to the departure agreement of the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying with the Australian enterprise UGL is totally groundless and fictitious. Having taken the ICAC Commissioner's explanation as stated above, the SAR Government considers that the independent operation of ICAC should be respected and protected. We oppose Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion. Thank you, President. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, in recent years, pan-democratic Members have time and again asked for the invocation of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to investigate various matters. They have sought to stir up a hype over such matters based on fabricated, specious or even totally untenable reasons. This time, their target is the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), an organization that has been operating independently with great achievements. Such reckless attempts with the sole intention of stirring up a hype simply brush aside the well-being of Hong Kong as a whole and plunge all Hong Kong people into unrighteousness. The arrangements for offering and cancelling the acting appointment of former Acting Head of Operations, Ms Rebecca LI, were all in compliance with the existing rules and procedures of the Government. The Operations Review Committee of ICAC consists of people from the community and receives regular progress reports on all major investigation cases. No one single person, not even the Chief Executive, can possibly conceal any irregularities. Simon PEH, the ICAC Commissioner, has written to all Members of the Legislative Council. Actually, as also mentioned by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, the Chief Secretary for Administration has likewise talked about this point. But an important point must be mentioned thrice: the cancellation of Ms LI's acting appointment as Head of Operations was purely a personnel management decision made by the ICAC Commissioner, with nothing whatsoever to do with any investigation cases of the Operations Department and the intervention of anyone. In fact, as Members said just now, under existing government regulations, acting appointments are divided into acting with a view to actual promotion and acting for administrative convenience. The two are markedly different. The latter does not imply or guarantee promotion upon completion of the acting


361

appointment and this point is crystal clear. If an acting appointment means promotion, it will not be necessary to have any system of acting appointment. Before Ms Rebecca LI took up the position of Acting Head of Operations in July 2015, she already knew clearly that the nature of that acting appointment was "for administrative convenience". After the conclusion of the acting appointment, Ms LI was actually asked to revert to her original position as Director of Investigation. Though not promoted, Ms Rebecca LI was not requested to resign. I believe that if there had been any unreasonable treatment in the process, Ms Rebecca LI, who knows the system so well, would have filed complaints with the ICAC Complaints Committee or the advisory committees of ICAC. Many outsiders say that Rebecca LI is highly competent as an investigator. I do not know Ms LI too well, but I believe that a competent investigator may not necessarily possess the good leadership and management skills demanded of Head of Operations. A good soldier may not necessarily be a good general, and a good detective may not necessarily be fit for the position of Commissioner of Police. People have different comments on her, and we should let her supervisor decide on her suitability to become Head of Operations, as remarked by the Chief Secretary. Another protagonist in this incident is Ricky YAU, who first wanted to resign but eventually decided to stay and take over as Acting Head of Operations. He initially also wanted to resign after Rebecca LI, his supervisor at that time, had disclosed her intention to resign. When the incident came to light, people from the non-establishment or pan-democratic camp once tried to make an issue out of it, making all sorts of point-blank, simplistic and blatant guesses that smear ICAC and reduce it to a "dark corner" teeming with ulterior motives and strife of all kinds. However, the truth is a far cry from the guesses of pan-democratic Members. Ricky YAU was present when Members of this Legislative Council visited ICAC. Right before a group of Members, YAU stressed that the incident had nothing to do with the UGL case involving Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying. He said that he tendered resignation that day because following the departure of his ex-supervisor, the public and even the non-establishment camp started to exert pressure through an opinion campaign, and this created an impression of white terror. People's perception of ICAC thus worsened drastically, so he feared that it would be difficult for him to take over. On the other hand, when his ICAC colleagues learnt of his request for resolving his agreement, they all feared that the operation and image of ICAC would be further


affected. Some of them even shed tears. YAU then considered all pros and cons and finally decided to stay. When YAU was making the explanation, many colleagues, including Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, who has spoken today, were probably at the scene. Are they suffering from selective deafness? Or, are they simply unwilling to admit the fact that ICAC is problem-free? After recapping the incident and the statements made by those involved, we can say that what has recently happened in ICAC must just be normal internal staff deployment, certainly not a personnel reshuffle as mentioned in the motion. And, it has totally nothing to do with the UGL incident involving Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying. The incident has been clearly accounted for. Even Ricky YAU, who once tendered resignation, has personally revealed his true thoughts to Members. There was nothing wrong at all, so what is the point of holding an inquiry? Is the truth about the incident really so incredible? Are the explanation offered by those involved really so unconvincing? Or, is it simply because those Members who propose and support the motion actually do not want to see the normal functioning of ICAC? Is it because they simply want to stir up a hype over the incident no matter what, so as to mess up the normal functioning of this statutory body, which is of such great concern to Hong Kong people? ICAC has been highly professional and impartial in investigating corruption complaints, and has always been performing without fear and in accordance with the law. It probably is one of the cornerstones of Hong Kong's success and is a pride of Hong Kong people. Based on the accounts given by Simon PEH and Ricky YAU, we can easily see that there is no major problem with the internal operation of ICAC, and there is no "pressure from the Chief Executive" either. The normal operation of ICAC should basically be a blessing to Hong Kong people. However, it seems that non-establishment Members all crave the occurrence of big scandals involving ICAC, so that they can stir up a hype. We can say that the real challenges now faced by ICAC are individual Members' wilful smearing of ICAC and their spiteful attempts to take advantage of such incidents with the aim of getting media exposure. Their words have created white terror in society, affecting people's opinion on ICAC and exerting pressure onto its staff. President, since its inauguration in February 1974, ICAC has been operating independently, sparing no efforts to combat corruption fairly and


363

impartially. Regardless of the background, identity and status of the suspect, ICAC always does its best to investigate the cases and make corruption a high-risk crime in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance grants ICAC its independent status, and this is the key to the success it has achieved over the years. Article 57 of the Basic Law also provides for the independent functioning of ICAC. With such a constitutional safeguard, the work of ICAC is free from interference. But now a Member puts forward a motion to use the imperial sword, to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, in a blatant attempt to interfere with the independent operation of ICAC. Those involved in the incident have already clarified the areas for which investigation is requested. No accusation can possibly be established, and what are left are just the groundless guesses of individual pan-democratic Members. I find it hard to agree to their demand. After Ricky YAU had given an explanation, I myself also looked at its content. The mover of this motion, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, also admits that the explanation tallies with the information he collected and thinks that it is likely to be true. But he insists on putting forward the motion in the Legislative Council, invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to investigate the incident. The rationale behind his move is really muddled. As the explanation provided by Ricky YAU has effectively dispelled the confusion arising from the so-called "intelligence", what else is left for investigation? What is the ultimate purpose of invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance? To ascertain the truth? Or, to enable individual Members to stir up a hype right after their assumption of office? The answer is very clear by now. Since the beginning of Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's political career, he has kept flaunting his work experience with ICAC as a selling point. From time to time, he will claim that he has received some insider news from ICAC and make all sorts of exaggerations out of them, so as to gain media exposure. But such so-called "insider news" cannot be verified basically … (Ms Claudia MO spoke loudly in her seat)


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please stop talking loudly in your seat. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): … This inevitably makes people think that he is trying to "pass off bullshit as a bible". And, his words so far have even done damage to ICAC … (Mr LAM Cheuk-ting indicated his wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kwok-fan, please wait. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, what is your point? MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. President, Mr LAU Kwok-fan has specifically mentioned me and said that I am trying to "pass off bullshit as a bible". Is this an offensive remark? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kwok-fan, would you please make a clarification? MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting has also heard of it. I have learnt it from some former ICAC people. He told me that ICAC closely observes the confidentiality principle and basically some of the previous cases … (Some Members spoke loudly in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am now asking Mr LAU to clarify. (Dr Helena WONG spoke loudly, saying Mr LAU Kwok-fan was not making a clarification)


365

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, I am the one who chairs this meeting. It is not time for you to speak. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): In fact, I am now making a clarification. Basically, some cases may even be kept confidential to his colleagues or subordinates … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU, please clarify whether the remark you made just now was offensive. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): … They questioned why Mr LAM Cheuk-ting could act as though he was the spokesperson for ICAC, spreading those news around. As all cases are kept in the strictest confidence and away from the other colleagues, how can an ex-employee get hold of the information? I also hope Mr LAM Cheuk-ting can clarify the sources of information that he has and whether he has any evidence. If he cannot produce any evidence, how can he say that I have wrongfully accused him of talking nonsense? MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I note that a colleague has just asked Mr LAU Kwok-fan to clarify a series of accusations, including "passing off bullshit as a bible", "spiteful" and "gaining media exposure", and so on. But he has not dealt with the request. Secondly, President, I would like to ask if you will treat him in the same way as you treated Mr HUI Chi-fung this morning? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am the one who chairs this meeting. Please sit down. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): I was just quoting sources from former ICAC staff and citizens.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kwok-fan, please clarify if the comments you made just now were offensive and whether you are going to withdraw them? MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): Regarding the accusation made by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, I clarify that I was just quoting a source from a former ICAC employee. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech. (Mr Dennis KWOK indicated his wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK. (Mr LAM Cheuk-ting stood up and spoke loudly) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, I did not ask you to speak. Please sit down. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): With these remarks, President, I oppose the motion moved by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting … MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, you have to allow me to raise a point of order. (A number of Members spoke loudly) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have asked Mr Dennis KWOK to speak, please sit down. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, actually I have finished with my speech.


367

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kwok-fan, please hold on. Mr Dennis KWOK, what is your point? MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): I consider that apart from being offensive, the remarks made by Mr LAU also contravene Rule 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure, as he imputed improper motives to another Member. President, would you please make a ruling? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting. I will listen to the audio records. 4:11 pm Meeting suspended. 5:11 pm Council then resumed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kwok-fan, are you willing to withdraw the remarks that you have made just now? MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, actually, my words just now were not meant to offend anybody. But if any words that I have said based on my own judgment are taken personally or perceived to be offensive by anyone, and if the same yardstick or criterion will be applied to Members' speeches in the rest of this meeting or in future ones, I am willing to withdraw such words. But then, in case anyone still speak in the same way as I did just now, I hope that the President can also make a ruling. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Alright, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, please continue with your speech.


MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, actually, I have finished my speech, thank you. I oppose Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): He is not going to withdraw his words, right? He is not going to withdraw them after blathering for so long, right? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Could you hear him say that he was willing to withdraw his words? MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): He must say so himself. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): He already said that he was willing to withdraw his words. If you could not hear that, please check the video recording. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Look … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please stop speaking. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Look, he is raising his hand … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung. MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please stand up before speaking.


369

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, may I ask whether you are going to apply the same yardstick when making a ruling on whether any contents of speeches are offensive in the future? This is very important because as we used to perceive, the words said by Mr LAU Kwok-fan just now are only adjectives commonly used in a heated debate. It is all very fine as long as the same yardstick is to be applied in the future. Once this ruling of the President is uniformly applied, we must speak more moderately and sensibly. (Laughter) This is not a bad thing at all. But the ruling must be uniformly applied. Right, President? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please sit down. As a yardstick has been laid down today, I will make my rulings accordingly in the future. (Mr LUK Chung-hung kept expressing his views on the yardstick for making rulings) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will make my rulings in accordance with the yardstick that I have laid down today. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, just now you … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please stand up before you speak. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, just now, after viewing the video recordings together with us, you did not make any ruling on the behaviour and language of Mr LAU Kwok-fan. Just now, we queried whether Mr LAU Kwok-fan's remarks were in contravention of Rule 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure, which says, "A Member shall not impute improper motives to another Member." However, what Mr LUK Chung-hung referred to just now was merely Rule 41(4), which is about "offensive and insulting language", instead of Rule 41(5), which we are talking about now. President, after viewing the video recordings just now, can you say clearly which rule his remarks contravene, Rule 41(4) or Rule 41(5), or both?


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Just now, I asked Mr LAU Kwok-fan whether he was willing to withdraw his remarks that contravened Rule 41(4) of the Rules of Procedure, and he already withdrew the relevant expressions. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I likewise want to ask you a question on the yardstick issue, but it is about the yardstick with which you handle matters. What is involved is just a very simple ruling, but even so, you still wasted so much time, delaying the proceeding of the entire meeting. President, do you think that you should really clarify whether you are going to spend almost an hour every time when a Member queries the remarks of another Member and asks for a withdrawal of the remarks concerned in the future? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, this is not a point of order. Please sit down. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): This is definitely a point of order. I want to know your yardstick, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. Please sit down. MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, you actually did not make any ruling at all just now. When the meeting resumed, you only asked Mr LAU Kwok-fan if he was willing to withdraw his remarks. This was not a ruling. I hope you can realize how important your rulings are, President. That is because, as you should also be aware, the President's decision on a point of order shall be final under Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure. However, a "withdrawal of remarks" should not constitute a ruling. As least … because the President simply should not lightly ask a Member to withdraw his remarks. If a Member is to be required to withdraw his remarks, there must be a basis. But now there is no basis at all. For that reason, we hope the President can explain the basis of such a withdrawal, instead of lightly requesting pro-establishment Members or pan-democratic Members to withdraw their remarks. Thank you.


371

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have said that just now. MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I noticed two points just now. First, I still could not hear your ruling on which rule―Rule 41(4) or Rule 41(5)―he had contravened. Second, as far as I can understand from the response of Mr LAU Kwok-fan, he did not state explicitly whether he would withdraw his remarks. It is because if he attaches any conditions … Let me use a simple example here. Anyone who accuses others of killing and arson can rid himself of any liabilities as long as he adds the word "unless" at the end of his remarks. I maintain that his response was not clear enough. Can you instruct him to state more clearly that he will withdraw his remarks? Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have clearly heard him say that he wanted to withdraw the relevant words. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): So far, I have not heard your ruling, President. Is it really impossible for you to disclose your ruling? So confidential. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Just now, I already said that the words of Mr LAU Kwok-fan contravened Rule 41(4) of the Rules of Procedure. Did you hear me say so? MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): You did not say so earlier. You say so only now. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please continue with your speech on the debate topic. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Alright. The standard of non-democratic Members is never at its lowest, as it forever gets lower and lower. Just look at such standard …


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, the words you use are offensive. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): My words have no specific targets. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now rule that your remark just now is offensive. Please withdraw it. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Who are the targets of this remark? I am just talking about non-democratic Members. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I have already made my ruling. Your remark just now is offensive. Please withdraw it. You may listen to the audio recordings now. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): There is no need for that. I can repeat it myself. "The standard of non-democratic Members is never at its lowest, as it forever gets lower and lower." PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, this is an offensive remark. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): My words have no specific targets. Can you tell me who are offended? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, will you withdraw your remark? MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Why don't you listen to the audio recordings first. I want to know which non-democratic Member is offended. Which Member from the non-democratic camp? You say my remark is offensive, but there must be a target in order for it to be so. Who is the target?


373

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): My ruling is based on Rule 41(4) of the Rules of Procedure. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I see. But you should not adopt double standards. Just now, he specifically named Mr LAM Cheuk-ting. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): My consideration is made on a case-by-case basis. (Mr LAM Cheuk-ting spoke in his seat) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have not called upon you to speak. Please sit down. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): I am not standing up, right? President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Speaking without standing up is a serious contravention of the Rules of Procedure. Ms Claudia MO, please withdraw your remark just now. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Will it be okay if I say "pro-establishment camp" instead of "non-democratic camp"? Or, will it be okay if I say the "shoe-shining camp"? If I instead say that the standard of those "shoe-shining camp" Members who obey all orders from Beijing is never at its lowest, as it keeps going down forever, will it be okay? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, we are holding a Legislative Council meeting. I now say to you that your remark just now is offensive. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I know. I just want to know whom I have offended. Mr LAU Kwok-fan explicitly mentioned that someone had flaunted


his previous experience in ICAC. He actually mentioned his name. But now I am not doing so. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I now give you one last chance. Will you withdraw your remark just now? (A number of Members spoke in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, please do not speak if I have not called upon you to do so. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Alright, I withdraw my remark just now. I withdraw my remark just now. Let me put it in another way. This legislature is full of shoe-shiners who will obey all orders from Beijing. Their standard is never at its lowest but is forever going down and down. Okay, that is all. Something also puzzles me a lot. When someone spoke just now―he was basically talking about Mr LAM Cheuk-ting―he accused Mr LAM of "passing off bullshit", and so on. But at the same time, he said that he himself also knew certain ex-employees of ICAC and simply went on and on, quoting the words of these people without naming his sources. Do Members agree that this is really a debate of puerile primary chicks? Do Members agree that the standard is really very low? I have not imputed any motives to him. He really said so. On the one hand, he asked the other person to name his sources, but on the other, he himself went on and on, quoting information from unnamed sources and seeking to offend other people. This is extremely unacceptable. What is more, he also mentioned that on 23 September, some Members were invited by ICAC to have a direct dialogue with it in its premises. He then went on and on, quoting what Mr YAU had said. I am really puzzled, and I have tried to recall the meeting over and over again. I was there but he was not. I simply cannot know why he could talk about what was said at the scene as if he was really there. This is really … Perhaps, he should have said that he learnt of all this from the newspapers afterwards. But he simply spoke as if he was really there. His speech was very low in standard, very much like a speech by puerile primary chicks indeed … (Mr Holden CHOW indicated his wish to raise a point of order)


375

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW, please wait until I call upon you to speak. Mr CHOW, please speak. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Okay. President, a point of order. The expression "a puerile primary chick" is offensive. As she was referring specifically to Mr LAU Kwok-fan, I hope she will withdraw her remark just now. Thank you. MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, she was clearly referring to Mr LAU Kwok-fan because she said she did not see him during the ICAC visit, and she then described him as "a puerile primary chick". This is offensive. Please make your ruling. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, today is the first time that this Legislative Council can hold a meeting normally. I hope your debate can meet the standards demanded of the legislature. Just now, a Member said that Mr LAU Kwok-fan's remark was offensive. Using the same yardstick, one should agree that Ms Claudia MO's remark is also offensive. When viewing the video recordings just now, I asked Members whether they wanted to adopt this yardstick. Pan-democratic Members agreed, saying that this yardstick should be adopted. Therefore, I have adopted this yardstick. We should be fair and impartial, so we must adhere to this yardstick uniformly. Therefore, Ms Claudia MO, please withdraw your remark just now. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I withdraw the expression "a puerile primary chick", but can I change it into "a puerile college chick"? Can I call him "a puerile college chick"? Or can I say "a puerile kindergarten chick"? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Today is the first time that the Legislative Council can hold a meeting normally. I hope Members can pay attention to the quality of their debate. At present, 7 million people are watching this debate of the legislature. I hope Ms Claudia MO can stop talking about animals and return to the motion, okay?


MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): To speak about people … He wants to raise a point of order. (Mr James TO indicated a wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, I do not quite understand your point. May I ask you to elaborate your ruling so that we can have a better understanding? As far as my understanding goes, even if we are talking about the same yardstick, when we describe a person as "a puerile primary chick", first, we do not actually mean that the person is really a "chick". Rather, we only want to say that the person is of a very low standard. Second, when we describe a person as very low in standard or when we say that his analysis is not sufficiently in-depth, we are just saying that his standard is very elementary, that is very "primary". In fact, in a debate, while I may criticize that the other side is very poor in standard, the other side may likewise dismiss me in the same way. But we cannot possibly adopt a yardstick that treats such a remark as offensive. The reason is that we are political rivals, so it is only common for we to dismiss the arguments of the other side as very poor in standard. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, especially those who have had more than 20 years of debate experience, should understand that during a debate in the legislature, you may criticize the debating skill of other Members, but you must not describe others as "puerile primary chicks", because this expression is offensive. You may talk about various issues, such as the standard of others, but you must not make other Members feel offended. I hope Members can remember this. In the UK Parliament, speaking MPs in a debate are able to criticize others even several times without their realizing it. Can Members learn from such high-level debating skills? MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): A point of order. Similarly, the expression "passing off bullshit as a bible" is the same. In fact, I fail to see how it is offensive. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please continue with your speech.


377

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Not just that expression. He also said something else (Some Members tried to remind her of that something) … Right. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I have made my ruling on his remarks earlier. Please continue with your speech on the motion. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): He said something like "vicious attempts to take advantage of such incidents" … "spiteful attempts to take advantage of such incidents". He said "spiteful attempts to take advantage of such incidents" just now. Ms Starry LEE please get it clear. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): A point of order. President, I also went inside to view the video recordings with you, and we actually viewed the video recordings several times. President, when we viewed the video recordings with you just now, we all looked at them very carefully several times. My question just now was actually about your ruling that Mr LAU Kwok-fan contravened Rule 41(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which provides, "It shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of the Council." However, Mr LAU Kwok-fan also contravened Rule 41(5), which says, "A Member shall not impute improper motives to another Member." Just now, you also heard that he specifically mentioned Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, who moved this motion debate under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, and he accused him of "stirring up a hype", "taking advantage of such incidents" and "interfering with the independent operation of ICAC". All of these remarks contravene Rule 41(5). May I ask the President why your ruling just now does not mention Rule 41(5)? This is even more serious than contravening Rule 41(4). It is higher than the level of "a puerile primary chick". PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, I have made my ruling, and Mr LAU Kwok-fan has already withdrawn his relevant remarks. It is time for Ms Claudia MO to continue with her speech on the motion. You should not raise any question on that again.


MS CLAUDIA MO: So how crude and rude this Chamber could become? Look at the low levels, okay? The level is so low that it is unbelievable. Just look at how those people are behaving, on that side of course, to call our proposer here, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, trying to mute the situation maliciously. That is the exact wording used earlier, that is quite unthinkable. I personally thank Mr LAM for letting the public learn about the whole thing because we would not have known anything about it. ICAC is supposed to be quite shut off. It is supposed to be working independently. But then, thanks to Mr LAM's background and his former ICAC network, we came to learn about this issue. It is a scandal. Of course, it is a scandal. And I was completely taken aback by Carrie LAM saying that, "Who is saying ICAC is actually conducting any investigation into UGL?" We actually had a meeting at ICAC. We were invited into the ICAC headquarters and nobody denied that in that meeting. Look, at that meeting, I actually had notes done. I perfectly understood that that meeting is supposed to be off the record. It is just "for your information" kind of meeting. But my journalistic training tells me that I should be making notes for future record. It was news on that day but history in the future and I was there. I am not going to quote this. I am not going to break my promise on that day. But, for somebody who was not even there to pretend to be quoting Mr YAU Shu-chun, quoting he said on that afternoon, it is just so disgusting. And what are you trying to pretend? Pretend that ICAC is not having anything done about this UGL scandal altogether? Even ICAC would not deny it, let us put it that way. And did we not all hear Rimsky YUEN say this morning that, when it comes to the interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress, there are legal considerations, but of course, there are other considerations as well. Other considerations. I was so sorry that nobody picked that up on Rimsky YUEN. What were the other considerations? And that is what has happened to ICAC. It is Hong Kong's anti-graft body. It is supposed to be working independently. But then, it is answerable, sort of responsible, to the Chief Executive. So, what exactly has it been doing? Of course, it is very easy for the Administration to say that what you are accusing, or what are alleging here is all sheer conjecture, sheer speculation, or completely unfounded kind of allegations. Please, can I remind you, Mrs LAM, that C Y LEUNG was in the Chamber in the middle of July, and he was asked


379

about this UGL business. And at the time, he actually said some … he stonewalled all questions, to start with. But then, he actually said something like, "It is very easy for me to answer questions but I am not giving any more details because that would harm or jeopardize the work of ICAC, the anti-graft body." So, indirectly, he actually acknowledged that ICAC was conducting some kind of a probe into that particular affair of his. So, do not pretend that this whole thing is not there or that it did not happen, or that it is not happening and it will not happen. Please, we have enough of that from this Government. And Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" has been quite shattered and that is the norm now. You keep doing things like this to show to Hong Kong people that that is the norm now. You can twist things to fit what you want, and then you can tell Hong Kong people that the opposition are just making plenty of noises to embarrass the Government and they are not patriots. May I remind you that a true patriot is someone who protects his country from the Government? Can you learn that concept? Do you understand that line? I think it is from Thomas PAINE, but off the top of my head, I could not be absolutely sure. And of course to sum up, C Y LEUNG has been acting quite so suspiciously about the whole thing. Has he actually declared that particular income of HK$50 million-worth of Pound Sterling he got from that Australian engineering firm by the name of UGL? Has he actually declared that? Has he ever paid any tax anywhere for that income? In the United Kingdom? In Australia? He would not reply to that. And the person, this lady investigator at ICAC, who was in charge of the whole thing, suddenly got demoted and she decided to quit, and outsiders like us would not have known anything. Thanks to Mr LAM, LAM Cheuk-ting, thanks again, we would not have known otherwise. I do not need to give you a full catalog of what happened after the news of Rebecca LI … I think LI Bo-lan is called Rebecca … Rebecca LI's resignation, which dropped the bombshell on ICAC, and people started talking, and they talked to their former colleague, Mr LAM here, and then we came to learn about it, the whole of Hong Kong. You cannot just say, "Oh, you have no proof, and you can't just make accusations and allegations". People just do not make up things, maybe you guys still do. You are so used to fabricating stories, but most people do not in


this whole world. We have more good people than bad people, otherwise humankind would not have been able to function. So, they are all liars? All our ICAC friends telling us things, are they all liars? And C Y LEUNG kept saying, "Oh, that cheque … or no … two cheques are just 'golden handshakes', and so on." Come on, I am not going back into the details of those contracts and what is really behind those cheques. Come on, he is not a poor person. He was living on the peak and he just could not resist the temptation of HK$50 million-worth of Pound Sterling income, right? And he knew he would be the head of Hong Kong, the representative of Hong Kong, but he thought, "Oh, I still want that money, and I would keep it quiet, not paying any tax, not declaring it and it is all okay." But we are living in a very transparent society these days, and how he could have tried to pressurize ICAC to stop its probe, we do not know. I have heard Simon PEH, the ICAC chief, say things like "nobody has given me any pressure", that is what he said in Chinese. He is trying to say that he has come under no pressure when it comes to this particular investigation. Well, he may not feel any pressure. He was witnessed to have been inside the Chief Executive's residence. God knows what has been talked about inside. He said he felt no pressure, maybe he honestly did not feel any pressure, because he was going to do it anyway, so we would not know. How are we going to know? Unless we have a Powers-and-Privileges type of investigation, under which you have to make some honest and solemn oath beforehand to tell the truth. I could tell you, people would say, "Oh, this is quite alright. I am quite happy to play puppet. I don't care how many strings there are on me, but I am quite happy to dance to the tune as played by my boss." So, he feels no pressure. There are plenty of speculations indeed. But if you think they are unjust allegations, and so on, and so forth, why do we not have a proper hearing here? Then, we can actually get justice; we can get the truth out and we will make sure that justice is being done. In Chinese, we have this saying, "cover up one's ears while trying to steal a ringing bell hopefully nobody would hear". "For whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee", Mrs LAM.


381

MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): President, I would first like to declare that I am a member of the Corruption Prevention Advisory Committee of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). I notice that there are two facts concerning the motion moved by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting. Firstly, as pointed out by Chief Secretary Carrie LAM earlier, in the verbal response given by ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH when Members-elect of the Council visited ICAC on 23 September 2016 and also in his subsequent written reply dated 4 October 2016 to all Members of the Council, a very detailed account has already been given of the cancellation of the acting appointment of Ms Rebecca LI as Head of Operations, and the explanation has also been widely circulated and extensively covered by local media. Secondly, since the responses mentioned above were publicized, the person involved has made no refutation and/or allegation in respect of the statement of facts given by the ICAC Commissioner. Moreover, following the incident concerning Ms Rebecca LI, I attended in person an internal committee meeting of ICAC. During the committee meeting, it came to my attention that colleagues in ICAC were, as always, discharging their duties professionally and maintaining very high efficiency and high quality services. Hence, I do not consider it necessary for us to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance now to inquire into the matter. In view of my duties as a committee member in ICAC, I have decided not to participate in the voting on the motion in order to avoid any possible conflict of interests. President, I so submit. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, just now, Mr LAU Kwok-fan queried that Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's moving of this motion would affect the independent operation of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") and tarnish its image. In fact, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting intends to safeguard the image of ICAC as an anti-corruption institution. But Mr LAU has distorted his intention and instead described it as an improper motive. And, he even raises various queries. In fact, I think Mr LAU has already contravened Rules 41(4) and 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure. I therefore think that there is omission in the President's ruling.


President, what Mr LAU Kwok-fan said earlier seems to mean that proposing to debate this storm in ICAC is to upset its operation. But in fact, how would we propose to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") without any grounds? Actually, this storm was not triggered by us. In early July this year, there was a so-called earthquake in ICAC. This storm and earthquake started when Ms Rebecca LI resigned after her acting appointment as Head of Operations had been cancelled. She was not the only one who resigned. Rebecca LI's highly trusted subordinate, Principal Investigator Dale KO, who was regarded as a rising star in ICAC, also announced his intention of resigning and resolving his agreement three days later. These are unusual. Within the same month, Chief Forensic Accountant Melissa TANG of the Forensic Accounting Group under the Operations Department also decided not to renew her contract, which is equally unusual. Ricky YAU, who succeeded Rebecca LI as Acting Head of Operations, also applied to resolve his agreement. But he eventually withdrew his application after being persuaded to stay. Why were there so many sudden personnel changes in ICAC within such a short span of time (just one month)? Do they warrant our concern? These incidents were not triggered by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting of the Democratic Party. It is because we can all see the problems with the internal operation of ICAC, and we are concerned about what have happened in ICAC. Hence, Mr LAU Kwok-fan's perception is totally wrong. President, besides, ICAC originally scheduled an annual dinner for its staff in mid-July. However, it is heard that more than three quarters of ICAC staff indicated their wish not to attend the dinner. At the end, this dinner meeting was also aborted. Was Rebecca LI suddenly removed from the post purely because she was deemed to incompetent after a performance appraisal? Is this the true story? There is a widely-circulated story that since Rebecca LI was responsible for investigating Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying's alleged failure to declare his receipt of $50 million from UGL Limited ("UGL"), she was transferred, and she then decided to resign. ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH ascribed Rebecca LI's "downfall" to her failure to meet the required performance standard. But his explanations are inconsistent. Instead of allaying public worries, they even trigger more public queries. To begin with, on 7 July, when Simon PEH responded to media questions, he admitted that he played a part in making the decision of cancelling the acting appointment of Rebecca LI―he played a part in making the decision―but he


383

refused to comment whether LEUNG Chun-ying also played a part in this incident. However, four days afterwards, on 11 July, Simon PEH suddenly convened a press conference, stating that the decision of cancelling Rebecca LI's acting appointment was due to her failure to attain the required performance standard. He also emphasized that this was his own decision. This version is already different from the previous one. He said that he did inform LEUNG Chun-ying of his decision, but LEUNG Chun-ying did not play any part in making this decision. Previously, Simon PEH himself said that he played a part in making the decision of cancelling the acting appointment of Rebecca LI. This actually means that he only played a part and was not the key person. However, soon afterwards, he told a different story, saying that it was all his own decision. This indeed leads us to doubt and question whether there were any reasons and considerations behind his inconsistency. Did he try to cover up the incident because of LEUNG Chun-ying's intervention? This is our query. Moreover, was the cancellation of Rebecca LI's acting appointment purely due to her failure to meet the required performance standard? If this was really the case, why would the cancellation of her acting appointment lead to the resignation of four top-level ICAC officers including herself, and the boycott of the ICAC annual dinner by ICAC staff? What really happened? On the other hand, since LEUNG Chun-ying is being investigated by ICAC for his receipt of $50 million from UGL, there are questions about whether he has breached the legislation on bribery or misconduct in public office. So, during the period of investigation, why has he not followed the practice of the ex-Chief Executive Donald TSANG, who was also investigated by ICAC back then, and who thus he handed over the power concerning personnel management of ICAC to the then Chief Secretary for Administration, Mr Stephen LAM? As he does not avoid arousing suspicion, people will inevitably suspect that the personnel transfer of Rebecca LI is related to LEUNG Chun-ying, whose UGL case is being under investigation. President, I also listened to the Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM's speech earlier. According to her, ICAC has never openly said that it is investigating LEUNG Chun-ying's bribery case related to UGL. She says ICAC has never openly said that it is investigating LEUNG Chun-ying. But President, does this mean that ICAC has not opened a file and commenced its information collection and investigation? Has it commenced investigation? If yes, which stage has it reached? I believe that all those professionals who have been


involved in any investigation will understand that during the early stage of investigation, you will not make the arrest public in a high profile or convene a press conference to tell people that you are investigating LEUNG Chun-ying. Therefore, may I ask the Chief Secretary for Administration one question. ICAC has not said publicly that it is investigating LEUNG Chun-ying, but does it mean that ICAC has not investigated him at all? Or, can we say that it has secretly made an investigation? Is it possible that in the course of secret investigation by ICAC, LEUNG Chun-ying made an instruction of not allowing Rebecca LI to continue with the investigation? This is our question. May I ask the Chief Secretary for Administration whether she has any concrete evidence, and who told her that ICAC is not investigating LEUNG Chun-ying? I think in this regard, the Chief Secretary for Administration should make an account publicly. Did LEUNG Chun-ying tell her that ICAC was not investigating him, or did Simon PEH tell her that Rebecca LI was not investigating him, or did the Chief Secretary for Administration herself ask Rebecca LI, and Rebecca LI said that there was no such thing and no one from ICAC was investigating LEUNG Chun-ying? All professional investigations will not be made public in a high profile or draw media attention unless sufficient information can be collected. This incident is thus beyond comprehension. If the Chief Secretary for Administration wants to tell us there is already sufficient evidence to show that ICAC has never commenced investigation on whether LEUNG Chun-ying's receipt of $50 million from UGL involves misconduct in public office or breaching of the legislation on bribery, the Chief Secretary for Administration should provide sufficient evidence. If it is otherwise, the Chief Secretary for Administration's words cannot provide a solid base for us to believe that ICAC has not commenced investigation into LEUNG Chun-ying's case. Perhaps the Chief Secretary for Administration knows it but dare not say it, or she is worried that LEUNG Chun-ying's reputation will be affected and thus decides not to say it or simply to say the opposite. All these are what we want to know, because this incident is very serious. It involves not only the Chief Executive but also the Chief Secretary for Administration herself. What gives the Chief Secretary for Administration the basis to say ICAC has not said openly that it needs to investigate LEUNG Chun-ying? No public disclosure of any investigation into LEUNG Chun-ying is not equal to no investigation. Hence, in order to let the public know whether


385

the Chief Executive is involved in bribery or misconduct in public office in this incident, and in order to make it clear how much the Chief Secretary for Administration knows about this incident and how much she has disclosed, President, I will support Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's proposal on invoking the Ordinance to investigate this incident thoroughly. President, there is another point which merits our attention. In accordance with section 31AA of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, where the ICAC Commissioner has reason to suspect that the Chief Executive may have committed an offence under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, the Commissioner may refer the matter to the Secretary for Justice. Where as a result of a referral made by the ICAC Commissioner, the Secretary for Justice has reason to suspect that the Chief Executive may have committed an offence under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, he may refer the matter to the Members of the Legislative Council for them to consider whether to take any action under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. Hence in the investigation concerning LEUNG Chun-ying, invoking the Ordinance to understand the entire storm of ICAC is the power vested with our Legislative Council under the Ordinance. I hope that Mr CHAN Chun-ying, who is concerned about the situation of bribery, will pay attention to such legislation. Under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance ("ICAC Ordinance"), any reference to the Commissioner of ICAC will include the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of ICAC. In other words, for the powers and functions entrusted to the Commissioner by the ICAC Ordinance, the Deputy Commissioner also has the power to exercise and perform. Here comes the problem. In 2012, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying reported to the Central People's Government the appointment of Simon PEH as the Commissioner of ICAC. Some people say that he is a supporter of LEUNG Chun-ying, but I am not going to comment on whether he is a supporter of LEUNG Chun-ying. In the UGL incident involving LEUNG Chun-ying, LEUNG Chun-ying did receive a service fee of $50 million from an Australian corporation outside Hong Kong when he was serving Hong Kong people at the same time. Regardless of whether Commissioner Simon PEH is a supporter of LEUNG Chun-ying, it is still possible that he may refrain from launching a formal investigation into this incident, or he may forbid his staff to do so, as he does not want to tarnish the reputation of LEUNG Chun-ying during his term of


office. Simon PEH was appointed by LEUNG Chun-ying, and he may not want to expose this incident either because he himself is against the idea or because he thinks that LEUNG Chun-ying does not want him to expose it. The problem is that while Rebecca LI was the highest official directly in charge of the UGL case, she was only acting Head of Operations. Even though she thought that LEUNG Chun-ying had some integrity problems in the UGL case and had breached the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, she could not refer this case to the Secretary for Justice, so the Secretary for Justice in turn could not refer the case to the Members of the Legislative Council for follow-up. Now, she cannot follow up the case, and what is more, she has lost her acting appointment, and she has even resigned. What really happened? In fact, it is not possible for the public to have a full picture of the incident. Since the incident is so unclear but is so important, as it involves whether the Chief Executive has breached the law and involves ICAC, and we are very concerned about the core value of prevention of bribery, we have to get to the bottom of the case. To date, LEUNG Chun-ying has not appointed any ICAC Deputy Commissioner, and there is only the ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH. A moment ago, Chief Secretary for Administration reminded us again that the absence of an ICAC Deputy Commissioner was actually not related to LEUNG Chun-ying, as the Chief Executive has already delegated the power of appointing ICAC Deputy Commissioner to herself as the Chief Secretary for Administration. This delegation of power to Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM enables her to appoint an ICAC Deputy Commissioner. As far as I know, the Chief Secretary for Administration has not exercised it to date. That means we still have no ICAC Deputy Commissioner up to this moment. Why does the Chief Secretary for Administration not exercise the power delegated by the Chief Executive, so that she can find one more person to assist in handling all bribery cases in Hong Kong, including the case of LEUNG Chun-ying? Hence, we have no other alternatives indeed but to rely on ICAC so that we know the cause of this storm inside ICAC, and how much harm this internal injury will bring to the Hong Kong establishment against corruption. President, I recall that two years ago, Mr SIN Chung-kai, my fellow party member, and I had a meeting concerning the political reform package with some


387

officials of the central authorities in Shenzhen. In that forum, he said that if LEUNG Chun-ying were a member of the Communist Party of China, he would be detained and interrogated a long time before. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please sit down. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, I think that without any concrete evidence, it is groundless and erroneous to make the unilateral accusation that the cancellation of Ms Rebecca LI's acting appointment as Head of Operations in the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") was related to Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying's alleged receipt of $50 million from an Australian corporation called UGL Limited ("UGL"). Today, many Members talk about a letter issued by ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH to Members on 4 October this year. I think that it is necessary to read out one paragraph again, which reads to this effect: "Ms LI's acting appointment began upon the departure of former Head of Operations Mr Ryan WONG at his completion of agreement in July 2015. At the time, I"―the "I" here refers to ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH―"was of the view that no officer in the Operations Department was suitable for immediate promotion or acting with a view to substantive promotion to the position. Therefore, I arranged for the acting appointment of Ms LI to that position for administrative convenience, so as to comprehensively observe her competencies and work performance during her acting appointment to that position. 'Acting with a view to substantive promotion' and 'acting for administrative convenience' are the two types of acting appointment under the existing rules of the Government. An officer will be offered an acting appointment with a view to substantive promotion if he is assessed that his work competencies and performance are almost able to fully fulfil all the requirements of the relevant promotion rank, and that he requires further tests in certain individual areas and core competencies." This paragraph of the letter says clearly that there is a certain difference between "acting for administrative convenience" and "acting with a view to substantive promotion". This paragraph of the letter explains the grounds for personnel promotion, and we can see from it that if we continue to level


accusations at ICAC due to this internal personnel change without any concrete evidence, we will tarnish the integrity of the entire ICAC and shatter people's confidence in ICAC. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair) Members can come to imagine this. If the internal operation and personnel appointments of an organization, especially our century-old ICAC which stresses a high degree of confidentiality and independent operation, are interfered by external forces, all its personnel appointment decisions may likewise come under the influence of public pressure in the future. I believe that if public pressure can influence the internal personnel appointments or operation of ICAC, the operational independence and confidentiality of our century-old ICAC will be greatly shaken. This will honestly arouse our concern about the ability of our century-old ICAC to maintain its existing high efficiency and work reputation and to effectively crackdown on corruption in the future. Likewise, we have often expressed concern about external interference with ICAC's internal operation and investigations. But today alone when even the Legislative Council has yet to decide on the conduct or otherwise of any inquiry, we can already see from the legislature that Members have kept discussing the operation of ICAC and telling ICAC how it should operate. The questions of whether any inquiry should be conducted and how ICAC should operate should be decided by its senior management. But in the discussion of the legislature today, we already keep interfering with the operation of ICAC. Therefore, if we follow the motion proposal that the Legislative Council should invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the internal operation and this personnel appointment of ICAC, the operational independence of ICAC will be plunged into great trouble in the future. The Chief Secretary for Administration has already disclosed certain information and told us clearly that no investigation is conducted by ICAC into the UGL incident. Even if we concede and accept the assertion that ICAC is really conducting an investigation into a certain case, I still do not believe that ICAC as an century-old organization will exert any influence on the case investigation due to the promotion of an individual officer or his retention in the present position. Members should understand that the investigation into a significant case in such


389

an important organization will necessarily involve a team rather than merely an individual officer, and it will not come under any influence of the promotion of an individual officer or his retention in the present position. I wish to discuss one thing here. Just now, I heard Members keep saying that an inquiry should be conducted into the UGL incident. They have requested the Legislative Council to inquire into the operation of ICAC and then the UGL incident. But I wish to point out that under Hong Kong's legal system, criminal cases will undergo criminal investigations and will eventually be brought to court for trial. Deputy President, what is the point of so doing? The reason is that we believe the system of court trials based on common law can ensure a certain degree of fairness, and the outcomes of court trials will be impartial. For example, the great deal of hearsay evidence we have heard at present will be inadmissible in a court trial of a criminal case. But many Members keep mentioning and discussing hearsay evidence in their speeches today and even go so far as to make a judgment based on such hearsay evidence. Simply put, they are taking trial and judgment into their own hands. Under this circumstance, I think they have ruined the existing desirable system of Hong Kong to some extent, especially the legal system. We should not seek to take trial and judgment into our own hands through any channels other than the court. Deputy President, another point is worthy of mentioning. As certain Members have actually kept talking about the alleged receipt of UGL's money by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, I think I as a Member have the responsibility to clearly reiterate the facts from the disclosed information. As we have learnt from the disclosed information, the agreement between LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL years back under which LEUNG received $50 million was a non-compete agreement to prevent LEUNG from competing with UGL after his departure from DTZ. Such agreements are very common in the commercial world. It was solely intended to ensure that he would not poach any staff from UGL or compete with it after his departure, so as to prevent any repercussion or damage in UGL's commercial activities after its acquisition of DTZ. This is the only purpose. On this matter, all the disclosed information and, as far as I can see, even UGL's public statement back in that year have clearly explained this. This is no secret, and the public basically know everything. As many Members have talked about this on this occasion, I think I have the responsibility to tell the facts clearly.


Deputy President, based on my earlier arguments, I do not think this Council should invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the internal operation of ICAC and this personnel change. After all, we firmly believe that the operational independence, efficiency and confidentiality of our century-old ICAC are very, very important. While certain Members have pointed out that there have been previous instances, I still do not think that the Legislative Council should conduct an inquiry under these circumstances. The reason is that if we set this precedent, the operation of ICAC will come under interference. Deputy President, I so submit. Thank you. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak against the motion moved by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. The motion is based purely on a conspiracy theory and unreasonable guesses and suspicion. The aim is to attack the Chief Executive. I see no reason for supporting this absurd motion. (Mr LAM Cheuk-ting interrupted in his seat) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, please sit down first. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, what is your point? MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, he is also making guesses about my motive, claiming that I aim to attack the Chief Executive. He also criticizes me for having a conspiracy theory. This contravenes the Rules of Procedure. I request you to make a ruling. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, are you making any guesses about the Member's motive? MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am not. It is just a matter of diction.


391

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, point of order. When a Member raises a point of order, he will ask you to make a ruling. You should not make your ruling by consulting the Member who has just spoken, asking him what he has said, and whether he has done something wrong, and so on … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will make my ruling. Please do not worry. But I must first enquire with Mr CHEUNG. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it is because this is the second time that this happens today. I believe that as the President … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please stand up when you speak. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): … you should give a proper and independent ruling on whether the remarks made by Mr Christopher CHEUNG just now are in contravention of Rule 41(4) and 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure, instead of asking him whether he has done anything wrong. Deputy President, you should not shift the responsibility of making a ruling to the Member concerned. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Alright. (Ms Tanya CHAN indicated a wish to raise a point of order) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, do you have a point of order? MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I do indeed have a point of order. You also made the same mistake in this meeting room earlier today. The protagonist was Dr Junius HO. You asked him if he meant any offence in


his words. I do not think that this was what you should do when making a ruling, and you are not supposed to do so when making one either. You are capable of independent judgment, so you should not ask the Member involved in a problem what he has actually said. We should adhere to objective criteria. If he claims that he does not mean any offence, would you accept his claim? Right? You should make the ruling on whether the Member concerned has violated Rule 41(4), or Rule 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure; if necessary, you could consider following the practice of the President just now, that is suspending the meeting, so as to review the video records. (Mr Christopher CHEUNG intended to rise and speak) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please sit down first, as a Member is still raising his hand. Mr WONG Ting-kwong, are you indicating a wish to raise a point of order? MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Yes. Regarding Dr Helena WONG's request for you to be "proper" just now, I really wonder if she actually meant to say that you were "improper" in one way or another. I would like to seek clarification from Dr Helena WONG. Does she think that the word she used was a great disrespect for our Deputy President? I think that all along, Ms Starry LEE has been acting seriously and "properly" as the Deputy President, far from being "improper" as described by Dr Helena WONG. They request others to be "proper", so I likewise ask the same of them. (Mr Holden CHOW indicated a wish to raise a point of order) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW, do you have a point of order? MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Yes, a point of order. Deputy President, regarding the meaning of "proper" …


393

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Now is not the time to discuss the meaning of the word "proper". MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): … I think the word "improper" used by Dr WONG to describe others is also offensive because the word can have many meanings. Therefore, I believe she should withdraw this word. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As the President, before I make a ruling, I have the authority to understand the issue concerned or ask Members for clarification. Of course, the current legislative session has only just begun, yet I notice that previous Presidents of the Council did ask Members for clarification under similar circumstances. Before I can make a ruling, I must understand whether a Member intends to offend or insult other Members, or whether a Member has tried to guess other Members' motives. Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please answer again if you intended to use any offensive remarks, or to guess other Members' motives? MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I did not mean to contravene the Rules of Procedure, and I can withdraw the expression "attacking the Chief Executive". DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You are willing to withdraw your words, right? Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, on which expression do you want me to make a ruling? MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, according to your reasoning, we only have to consider … Of course I am raising a point of order … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, please remain standing when you speak.


MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, you say that you have to consider motives before making a ruling. But the Rules of Procedure do not say so. The Rules of Procedure provides that "[a] Member shall not impute improper motives to another Member". Deputy President, it is about the contents, but not the motives of the remark … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is one of the factors that I would consider before I make a ruling. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): This factor is irrelevant. Deputy President, as long as the contents of his speech accuse me of having improper motives, he violates the Rules of Procedure. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, please sit down. I am the one who makes the ruling, and I want to get more information. Please understand that I wish to make a more comprehensive ruling. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Regarding Rule 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure, you do not have to take into account the motives of the Member concerned. All you need to consider is whether the contents of his speech have queried the motives of another Member. Deputy President, this is the criterion based on which your ruling should be made. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, you have asked me to make a ruling in accordance with Rule 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure, yet Mr CHEUNG has already indicated his willingness to withdraw the remark concerned. Mr LAM, do you still seek my ruling? If no, the Council will continue with the debate. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): As Mr CHEUNG has withdrawn the remark concerned, I am not going to seek your ruling in this respect then.


395

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please continue with your speech. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Anyone who is objective and fair can see that the cancellation of Ms Rebecca LI's acting appointment as Head of Operations by the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") is just a normal personnel arrangement. Ms Rebecca LI's failure to pass the assessment and get promoted is just a usual phenomenon in the workplace. Furthermore, ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH has since made a number of clarifications, describing what happened in detail. There is simply nothing suspicious about the arrangement. Sadly, the wind has not dropped despite our wish for calmness. Since the onset of the incident related to Ms Rebecca LI, a whole bunch of Members such as Mr LAM Cheuk-ting have frantically stirred the issue up, claiming that Ms Rebecca LI was not trusted by Beijing, or that the Chief Executive was the mastermind behind the scene. The accusations get more and more serious. Ridiculously, however, their remarks have never been supported by any evidence at all. All along, it is their assumption only. As a Member, one should take responsibility for one's own words, refraining from making any ungrounded comments and unsubstantiated allegations, and most importantly from spreading any rumours to cause trouble. Unfortunately, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting has deliberately made various second-guesses, making up stories and casting all sorts of groundless suspicion on the incident. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, please sit down. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, do you have a point of order? MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Yes, Deputy President, a point of order. Again, Mr CHEUNG is making offensive remarks. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which word do you think is offensive? Please point it out. Which word do you think is offensive?


MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, maybe you can review the audio records, as many of his sentences are … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You need to point out the word which is offensive. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): All the contents of his speech made just now. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): All of them are offensive? MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Yes. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You must point out which word you think is offensive before I can make a ruling. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Let us review the audio records. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The meeting is now suspended. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): You may ask Mr CHEUNG to repeat his words. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The meeting has to be suspended now. I can only make a ruling after you point out the word that you consider offensive. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Review the audio records then.


397

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You must point it out, otherwise I cannot make a ruling. The meeting is now suspended. 6:16 pm Meeting suspended. 7:07 pm Council then resumed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting earlier requested me to make a ruling on Mr Christopher CHEUNG's remarks. During the suspension of the meeting, I talked to Mr LAM and listened to the tape recording of Mr CHEUNG's remarks. As I understand it, Mr LAM alleges that some of Mr CHEUNG's words were offensive to him. Let me quote the exact wording of Mr CHEUNG's remarks: "As a Member, one should take responsibility for one's own words, refraining from making any ungrounded comments and unsubstantiated allegations, and most importantly from spreading any rumours to cause trouble. Unfortunately, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting has deliberately made various second-guesses, making up stories and casting all sorts of groundless suspicion on the incident." As the President, before making a ruling, I already studied the past interpretations and rulings made by the Council regarding Rule 41(4) of the Rules of Procedure. I have also checked the video recordings and communicated with Mr LAM, Mr CHEUNG and some other Members. I am not of the opinion that Mr CHEUNG's words are in violation of that Rule. Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please continue with your speech. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the acts of pan-democratic Members all run counter to what the public expect of Members. More regrettably, their attempt to make an issue of the incident has not only


failed to ascertain the truth in the acting appointment of Rebecca LI but has also complicated and politicized the incident, at times also smearing ICAC and giving people the misconception that ICAC is a place of problems. This contemptible act of pan-democratic Members to spread rumours for political benefits is simply despicable. Deputy President, pan-democratic Members have done everything possible to build up connection between the Chief Executive's involvement in accepting almost $50 million from the Australian UGL Limited and the cancellation of Ms Rebecca LI's appointment. People who have any slightest idea of the ICAC operation will know that all ICAC corruption investigations have to be conducted in accordance with established procedures, and reports have to be made to the Operations Review Committee ("ORC"). ORC is an independent organization and its members include Prof Joseph LEE, Dr TIK Chi-yuen, and so on. Under such a strict monitoring system, how can the Chief Executive interfere with ICAC in its investigation work? The far-fetched accusation by pan-democrats fully shows that they are telling lies when they claim that they are worried about ICAC being manipulated. Their real purpose is to attack and smear the Chief Executive by all means. Deputy President, what I find more worrying is that pan-democrats' finger-pointing at ICAC's personnel appointment arrangements is only the tip of the iceberg. I cannot recall since when opposition Members began taking pains to examine the personnel arrangement of public organizations by resorting to a conspiracy mindset. They endlessly put pressure on these organizations―Independent Police Complaints Council, The Council of The University of Hong Kong, the Equal Opportunities Commission. So long as people from the pro-establishment camp are given public office, pan-democrats will almost immediately slap the charge of being "LEUNG's fans" on them, and then elevate the issue to the political level. They will launch red-guard style of criticism, and are eager to remove them as soon as possible. I would like pan-democratic Members to tell me if this is the objective and impartial attitude required of Members? Taking a step back, are there no capable persons among "LEUNG's fans"? Could "LEUNG's fans" not be given public office? We hope that pan-democratic Members can commend good deeds and reprimand wrongdoings. They should not exert unnecessary pressure on public organizations over personnel arrangement on the pretext of monitoring.


399

"Hong Kong Our Advantage is ICAC". This has left a deep impression on people. ICAC has been around for 42 years. It fights and eradicates corruption, and upholds the core value of a corruption-free Hong Kong. Its achievement is evident to all and is worth the acknowledgement of everyone in Hong Kong. I sincerely hope that ICAC will learn from the Rebecca LI incident. It should predict the response of the parties involved and take precautions when it makes personnel appointments in future. At other times, publicity should also be enhanced to enable the public to have a better understanding of ICAC. Moreover, it should also listen to the views of various parties and keep making improvement and progress in order to carry out its work more effectively. I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I was a member of the Media Publicity and Community Research Sub-Committee of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") from 1995 to 2010. Over the past 10-odd to 20 years, I have had exchanges with ICAC, and I am now a member of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Complaints Committee. In the last Legislative Council, I was a member of the Select Committee to Inquire into Matters Relating to Mr Timothy TONG's Duty Visits, Entertainment, and Bestowing and Receipt of Gifts during his Tenure as Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Both as an academic and a Member of the Legislative Council, I have many opportunities to work with ICAC. I may know Rebecca LI, and I may also have met her. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) When Mr LAM Cheuk-ting moved the motion earlier, he said with certainty that ICAC was investigating the UGL incident. As far as I understand, ICAC maintains strict confidence over the background of people being investigated. No one should have any knowledge. When the Chief Secretary delivered her speech earlier, she also did not say whether ICAC was investigating the matter. Thus, I am very keen to know why Mr LAM Cheuk-ting could say


with such certainty. As I understand it, even if someone files a complaint with ICAC, it will make no disclosure as it does not want the complaint to be used for launching political attacks or inflicting economic damages on certain institutions before someone has been confirmed of wrongdoing. So, I would like Mr LAM Cheuk-ting to state clearly the basis on which he keeps repeating that Rebecca LI was conducting the investigation. The focus of today's discussion is not the UGL incident. Rather, we are discussing why Ms Rebecca LI was not promoted after acting as the Head of Operations for a length of time. Let me quote how the media reported on the incident: "She could hardly accept a subordinate becoming her boss." As she already acted for a period of time, she could not accept that her subordinate ended up being the Head of Operations. This is only human. You have been someone's superior but he even becomes your boss instead. This is difficult to accept. Having worked in a public organization for more than two decades, I have seen many such cases. Ms Rebecca LI is known for her tough style. I believe many colleagues in ICAC respect her and see her as an outstanding investigator. I have come into contact with the ICAC officers. Regardless of which departments they belong to, I respect and admire them very much as they very often are left to themselves to carry out anti-corruption work. Hong Kong has made great achievements. To a large extent, we owe this to the ICAC officers who handle the cases in an impartial manner. Yet, we should understand that when it comes to promotion, only her superior and subordinates know if they can work well together. Within such a large organization, there may be different circles. She may work well with a certain circle but not another. Her unwillingness to accept a subordinate as her superior has led to the discontent of her followers. Nonetheless, this has to be left to ICAC to resolve. Some past incidents have surely plagued ICAC, including the Timothy TONG incident. When the Select Committee carried out its inquiry, some colleagues recommended that guidelines be issued to ICAC in the future, and even demanded that all internal ICAC meetings be tape-recorded. Timothy TONG has committed no criminal offences. We have only found problems with his style. Many people may not be happy with his preference for Maotai over wine. I have also criticized some of his style but do not think that it should be


401

put down in the report that meetings should be tape-recorded. If there is such a requirement, no one will dare to speak the truth. We also would like to see an efficient ICAC. Some people may know Ms Rebecca LI better while others are more familiar with Mr Ricky YAU. I heard Mr LAM Cheuk-ting describe Ricky YAU as a "rising star". This shows that he does not completely rule out his competence. Moreover, he in fact knows the operation of ICAC well. According to media report, he himself and also Mr LAM Cheuk-ting said that ICAC colleagues tried hard to ask him to stay, and he did so for the overall interests of ICAC. We had a meeting with them at ICAC. They of course took the meeting seriously since it involved a complaint against ICAC officers. My experience tells me that ICAC has always observed strict discipline. ICAC officers may be warned for speaking loudly. Some people said that ICAC has fallen apart as a result of this incident. I beg to differ. It is not surprising for colleagues to have grudges against one another. Some of them may like to have Rebecca LI as their boss while others may prefer someone else. Even when it comes to the ICAC Commissioner, some may still like Timothy TONG more. As outsiders, we have no knowledge of their internal situation and should respect ICAC's modus operandi. I have not heard of an ICAC investigation into the incident. The word only came from you. If there really is such an investigation, it should be ongoing. Why do you deny the credibility of those officers who are continuing with the investigation? If the investigation is ongoing, should we wait till ICAC has completed the investigation before discussing whether a select committee should be established? Would that be more reasonable? Why do we have to bundle the cancellation of the acting appointment with the UGL incident? She herself cannot possibly have disclosed that she was investigating the UGL incident, not to say mentioning it only to Mr LAM Cheuk-ting. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting is not an ICAC spokesman. Why does he know so much information? Is there not the principle of confidentiality? If the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") is to be invoked to inquire into the Rebecca LI incident, there must be very clear prima facie evidence. We cannot totally rely on speculation, not to say the hearsay gathered by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting. Once a select committee is established, a lot of work is involved.


I was a member of two select committees established by the invocation of the Ordinance. Is it reasonable for Mr LAM Cheuk-ting to ask for the establishment of a select committee this time? I really do not think so. The Legislative Council should not establish a select committee just because of the cancellation of an acting appointment, unless there is proof of dereliction of duty, a breach of law or direct intervention. In the absence of the above, this motion only serves to provide an opportunity for the Member moving it to speak whatever he wants, and to allow other Members to rise one after the other to allege that insults are being hurled. We should not invoke the Ordinance to establish a select committee to inquire into the internal affairs of some public organizations or important organizations such as ICAC. Even if the Legislative Council is to conduct an inquiry, we should wait till ICAC has finished investigating the UGL incident before establishing a select committee. All matters have to base on objective criteria and adequate prima facie evidence. Therefore, I find it inappropriate to establish a select committee at this stage. I served as a Member in the last two Legislative Councils, and this is my third term. In the course of debating this motion moved under the Ordinance today, a Member will rise almost every three minutes to say that he has been insulted, and the President has to suspend the meeting for 45 minutes to listen to the recording to make a ruling. I sincerely hope that Members who complain of being insulted by other Members can listen attentively and take down the comments they would like the Member involved to retract so that meeting time will not be wasted. President, on behalf of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, I unequivocally oppose the invocation of the Ordinance to establish a select committee to inquire into the cancellation of Rebecca LI's acting appointment as Head of Operations. The Legislative Council should not interfere with ICAC's internal personnel affairs. President, I so submit.


403

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the motion moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting to appoint a select committee to conduct a thorough inquiry into the matter concerning the personnel reshuffle in the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). I have the following viewpoints to express. First, the information submitted by the Government so far cannot explain the sudden departure of Ms Rebecca LI, the highest-level investigator responsible for overseeing the progress of the UGL case involving LEUNG Chun-ying. Did LEUNG Chun-ying play any part in cancelling the acting appointment of Ms Rebecca LI? Did LEUNG Chun-ying make this decision because he was under investigation in the UGL case? All these are questions that must be asked. If the performance of Ms Rebecca LI was truly unsatisfactory, as Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM has claimed, then how can we explain the fact that Ms LI has been repeatedly promoted in ICAC over the years? Ms Rebecca LI joined ICAC in 1984 as Assistant Investigator and was promoted to Principal Investigator in 2002; she was further promoted to Director of Investigation in 2010 and started acting as Head of Operations in July 2015, thus becoming the "Top Lady" of ICAC. If she has been incapable, how could she rise to the No. 2 position in ICAC? I think the explanation of the Chief Secretary for Administration so far simply fails to satisfy us. Has ICAC been subjected to any pressure in the incident? In the term of the previous Legislative Council, former Member Mr Albert HO received reliable information that as early as more than one year before, ICAC had already requested Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying to provide information on the UGL case. But the Office of the Chief Executive and the departments concerned did not give any response even after a very long time. ICAC has the power to request the compulsory submission of documents, but did ICAC ultimately exercise this power? What worries us is whether ICAC was actually pressurized to soften its actions. Concerning the earthquake in ICAC, the media also reported the suspicion that someone might have been asked to leave due to a failure to see which way the wind blew. Were other personnel arrangements subsequently made because another person could see which way the wind blew? Such news reports make


the public worried whether ICAC has been interfered with, and whether someone is trying to cover up the truth. Though these are only speculations, the public have the right to find out the actual situation in ICAC and ask the authorities for explanation. Just now, Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM said in her official capacity that ICAC had never talked publicly about having initiated an investigation into Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying regarding the UGL case. She opposed Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion for this reason. Actually, what the Chief Secretary for Administration said is meaningless because ICAC will never announce who are under its investigation. The public and I am truly surprised that the Chief Secretary for Administration has used this kind of "my mother is a woman" logic to divert our attention when it comes to a matter as serious as this one and a matter of right and wrong. Third, the achievements of ICAC laid down over the past 40-odd years have been possible only due to the efforts of many forerunners in Hong Kong. Tainted by the many collusions between the Government and the business sector after the reunification, the level of probity in Hong Kong today has actually been downgraded to "regressing" by the international community. Nevertheless, we can still feel proud of our present condition, and we hope that the situation will not further deteriorate. In this ICAC earthquake, a number of its senior staff members resigned within a short period of time. Is this normal? We will always feel suspicious no matter where this happens, even in a private organization. We would suspect that that organization might have experienced some internal problems. This is common sense. Something I do not understand is that many pro-establishment Members today say that this is normal and the incident is just a normal personnel reshuffle, and that we are making groundless accusations. Their remarks are against logic and common sense. Don't they feel suspicious that this has happened in ICAC, a respectable investigation body well-trusted by the people? How could pro-establishment Members still defend the Government? Do they honestly think that there is no problem? Within a span of just 20 days, four principal ICAC officers indicated their wish to resign. Among them, Mr Ricky YAU, who took over Ms Rebecca LI as Acting Head of Operations, sought early resolution of his agreement after


405

assuming the post for 12 days, but he dramatically withdrew his application two hours afterwards. Just now, a Member explained the details of his public announcement. We can take that as a reference. But the matter is actually very dubious and mysterious. The independence and stability of ICAC concern the interests of Hong Kong people, and I do not think that we should ignore this matter and let it muddle through. President, as I have noticed, perhaps drawing on their "LEUNG's fans" background, some pro-establishment Members who supported LEUNG Chun-ying in the last Chief Executive Election have time and again claimed that they have received some reliable information and kept making all sorts of exaggerated remarks in order to draw media attention and defend their master. Some of these Members may be trying to amass political assets for their political careers, and their haphazard accusations and unsubstantiated information simply make people think that they are passing off bullshit as a bible. Members who oppose the establishment of a select committee simply do not want to see the normal functioning of ICAC. They are bent on impeding the righteous course, so that the powerful and important person concerned can disrupt the normal functioning of this statutory body. I have stopped short of pinpointing which Member, but if any Members take my criticism personally, if they themselves own up, or if they feel offended, I am willing to conditionally withdraw part of my remark―I will to do so unless no one thinks so. Last but not least, an investigation needs to be done in order to find out whether the ICAC earthquake is truly related to the UGL incident or the matters that LEUNG Chun-ying is alleged to have participated in. But the ICAC earthquake, or its personnel reshuffle, is a fact that has already taken place and that is why an investigation needs to be conducted to find out why so many unexplained mysteries took place in this highest anti-graft organization in Hong Kong. As Dr Priscilla LEUNG just said, and as Members should still remember, the Legislative Council did move a motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to appoint a select committee to independently inquire into the matter concerning Timothy TONG. There is thus a precedent in which the internal problems of ICAC was investigated in this Council, and it is not inappropriate, as pro-establishment Members have claimed, for us to do so again now. It is a matter of vital importance that a select committee be established to find out the truth about the ICAC earthquake for the public, to boost the internal


morale of ICAC and safeguard its credibility. Let me borrow the first half of a sentence of what Mr Christopher CHEUNG just said. Any normal and reasonable person should understand and support the motion and any Member who holds himself responsible to the Hong Kong community should not oppose this investigation. With these remarks, President, I support Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion. Thank you. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, in their speeches just now, a number of Members have talked about the UGL incident, LEUNG Chun-ying, Rebecca LI and the shock caused to the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). All these are very important issues that warrant an in-depth investigation, and I therefore speak in support of Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion, which I consider necessary. However, I would like to spend my speaking time of 10-odd minutes to talk about another issue, because a number of Members have already spoken on the incident involving UGL, LEUNG Chun-ying and Rebecca LI, and I do not want to discuss the relevant issues again in great length since there is another greater issue in front of us: What systemic problems are we actually facing now? ICAC has been established for many years, and although some Members said just now that it is a century-old institution, it was in fact established in 1974. The work of ICAC has all along been very important, and so are its credibility and prestige, but how come there are so many Hong Kong people questioning the work of ICAC now, or regarding the work done by the SAR Government at present in this respect far from satisfactory and convincing? The reason is in fact very simple, and this is because the Government has failed to convince the public that it has performed its tasks in respect of ICAC well enough over the past four years. Chief Secretary, do you remember the subject matter of the first oral question I put to the Government as a Member of this Council four years ago? I asked you when the Government would implement the 35 recommendations put forward by the former Chief Justice Andrew LI in the Report of the Independent Review Committee for the Prevention and Handling of Potential Conflicts of Interest ("the Report") released


407

in May 2012. Do you remember? We all know that there is something wrong with the system in place and a reform is urgently needed, and as far as the Chief Executive is concerned, it is recommended in the Report that arrangements should be made to apply sections 3 and 8 of the existing Prevention of Bribery Ordinance ("the POBO") to the Chief Executive. The former Chief Justice Andrew LI has explained to us very clearly and carefully in paragraphs 4.90 to 4.94 of Chapter 4 of the Report the reasons why a reform of sections 3 and 8 of the POBO is deemed necessary, and how this should be done. Chief Secretary, the question was put forward to the Government four years ago but during these four years, has the Government done anything in this respect? You only replied that a study on the issue would be required. But what else is there left to study? You argued that constitutionally speaking, the Chief Executive has a status different from that of ordinary civil servants, and thus the need to examine how sections 3 and 8 of the POBO should be amended. However, the former Chief Justice Andrew LI has already stated very clearly in the Report how this should be done. It is recommended that an Independent Committee, which should consist of three members appointed jointly by the President of Legislative Council and the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, should be established to examine the issue concerning the solicitation or acceptance of advantages by the Chief Executive. The former Chief Justice Andrew LI has already explained clearly how legislative amendments could be introduced to section 3 of the POBO, and in his opinion, this is constitutionally in order and absolutely feasible. The application of section 8 of the POBO to the Chief Executive is also deemed feasible. The Report was released five years ago, and a very clear illustration was furnished in May 2012 of how the recommendations should be taken forward, but have you done anything over the past four years in this respect? The answer is in the negative. I have repeatedly asked the same question, but the Chief Secretary replied every time that the issue was still under examination. Chief Secretary, I hope you would believe me, for I really am not the kind of person who would take advantage whenever an opportunity arises. Yet, I did ask the Government the same question many times, but the Chief Secretary and the Bureau have never given me an answer.


During the summer holiday just past, I have made use of some free time to think it all over, and I do not think that we should continue to wait for the action by the Government in the coming term. The Government probably would not take the initiative to introduce legislative amendments since it obviously does not want to have a reform of the POBO to extend its coverage to the Chief Executive. Hence, I have spent one week to finish drafting a Member's bill by myself to amend sections 3 and 8 of the existing POBO. I can tell the Chief Secretary that although I was working on my own, I managed to spend two days to finish drafting a complete Member's bill in accordance with the recommendations put forward by the former Chief Justice Andrew LI in the Report. The bill has already been submitted to the Department of Justice with a clear intention of introducing it into the Council within this term. I am now waiting for the reply of the relevant Law Officer of the Department of Justice, and the bill will be introduced into the Council once a certification is issued to confirm that it complies with the relevant legislative requirements. Fellow Members, if you really cherish the system of ICAC and consider ICAC's reputation as a century-old institution a very important asset of Hong Kong, I hope you would take a look at the Report submitted by the former Chief Justice Andrew LI, who has made clear recommendations on how the Government should amend the POBO. This is by no means a difficult task, but certainly important for Hong Kong. Given the opportunity, I also do not mind discussing with fellow Members the Member's bill that I have drafted, and am more than willing to listen to the views of various parties if it is considered that there is still room for improvement in the drafting of the bill, so that the bill may be introduced into the Council for scrutiny. However, please do not say that there is no need to amend the existing POBO, and there is no loophole and problem at all. As the POBO has been in force since 1974, it is time to have a review of its provisions. Secondly, I wonder if you have noticed that in the past few months, the former Commissioner of ICAC, Mr de SPEVILLE, has visited Hong Kong and spoken at a public forum held in the University of Hong Kong on how the operations of ICAC can be improved under the Basic Law. Members have pointed out just now that under Article 57 of the Basic Law, ICAC shall function independently and be accountable to the Chief Executive. The stipulation is very clear but the problem is: Can we fulfil the requirements under Article 57 of the Basic Law with the existing Independent Commission Against Corruption


409

Ordinance ("the ICAC Ordinance") and the laws of Hong Kong? The answer is in the negative. Although ICAC is accountable to the Chief Executive, its work shall also be free from any outside intervention and influence. However, as we can all see, section 5 of the existing ICAC Ordinance stipulates that the Commissioner of ICAC shall be subject to the orders and control of the Chief Executive. ICAC shall of course be accountable to the Chief Executive or even this Council, in the sense that a report shall be submitted once every three months, funding proposals shall be submitted every year for approval, and so on. Yet, that does not mean that the details of all aspects of ICAC's operations and every case under its investigation shall be subject to the orders and control of the Chief Executive under the law. This also runs contrary to Article 57 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that no one, including the Chief Executive, shall interfere with the work of ICAC. Hence, according to Mr de SPEVILLE, it is now the time for us to examine how the ICAC Ordinance should be reformed, so that the Commissioner of ICAC can genuinely perform his functions independently and without interference. In fact, the transparency and independence of the arrangements for the appointment of the Commissioner of ICAC can also be enhanced to foster public confidence in the appointment of the Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner of ICAC. I would like to ask Members who are present here one question. Do you understand that we are now facing an systemic problems which is far more serious than the personal problem of LEUNG Chun-ying or the UGL incident? Discussions have to be made on how we can bring the system closer to perfection. There is no reason why we cannot explore ways to have a reform of the existing legislation so as to better meet the requirements under Article 57 of the Basic Law … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, we are not discussing the problems of ICAC now, but the motion moved by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting to appoint a select committee by this Council to inquire into the matters arising from the ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH's cancellation of the acting appointment of Ms Rebecca LI. Please focus your speech on the motion.


MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, there is no reason why you could not understand what I am saying now. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have listened for more than nine minutes but still do not quite understand. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Moreover, ICAC is now … President, why does Mr LAM Cheuk-ting ask for an inquiry into the current incident involving ICAC, and suspect that Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has interfered with the work of ICAC? It is exactly because there are loopholes in the existing legislation, and it is stipulated under section 5 of the existing ICAC Ordinance that ICAC shall be subject to the orders and control of the Chief Executive. The subject matters of the two issues are basically the same. If ICAC is allowed to operate completely independently under the ICAC Ordinance and is not subject to the orders and control of the Chief Executive, I believe Mr LAM will have greater confidence today in the independent and effective operation of ICAC, and there will be no need for him to move the motion. Why should Mr LAM move the motion? It is exactly because ICAC is not allowed to genuinely operate independently under the existing ICAC Ordinance, and President, this is something you do understand. Let me go back to the point that we, as elected Members of this Council, can now see that the work of ICAC is very likely subject to intervention from the Chief Executive since it is investigating into a case concerning the solicitation or acceptance of advantages by the Chief Executive. Why is it suggested that the need to amend the ICAC Ordinance is to a very large extent connected with the motion under debate? It is because I have drafted a Member's bill over the past two months with a view to introducing a reform to the ICAC Ordinance. The drafting of the Member's bill was completed in just a few days, and it has already been submitted to the Department of Justice. It is hoped that formal certification would be issued so that I can introduce the bill into the Council for scrutiny within the current term. I wish that with the amendments introduced to the ICAC Ordinance under the Member's bill, the frequency of moving a motion similar to the current one moved by Mr LAM under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance could be reduced, and Mr LAM's confidence


411

in ICAC as well as the confidence of other Members and people who are concerned about the effective and independent operation of ICAC could be restored. Hence, a reform of the existing legislation has to be introduced. Even though you do not agree with the motion moved by Mr LAM today, there is no reason why you could not agree that it is now the time to explore how ICAC could better comply with the requirements under Article 57 of the Basic Law within the legal framework. Since it is always said that we should uphold the Basic Law and should not deviate from the original intent of the Basic Law, I am now discussing with you the original intent of Article 57 of the Basic Law, and that is: ICAC should operate independently and its investigation shall be free from outside influence. I believe a genuine reform of the existing legislation would save Mr LAM the trouble of following up the operations and investigation issues of ICAC on an ongoing basis. Therefore, although some Members will vote against the motion, and I believe the majority of pro-establishment Members will do so, I hope Members will try to think about what we can do to have a reform of the existing ICAC Ordinance. Chief Secretary, I would also like to sincerely say this to you: It may be true that there is not much time left in your term of office, but I believe that you do have the ability to improve the existing POBO and ICAC Ordinance. The foundation of ICAC was laid by the former Governor MACLEHOSE for Hong Kong many years ago, and from which generations of Hong Kong people have been benefited, but you now have the opportunity to bring the system closer to perfection, so that it may lead Hong Kong into the 21st century. I am sure the Chief Secretary has the ability to take up the responsibility and do a good job, as long as you are determined to do so. I have already expressed my views, and I hope Members and the Chief Secretary would accept them and grasp the opportunity to improve the ICAC Ordinance and POBO, since a reform is urgently needed. I support Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion because it is considered necessary to move the motion now when the system of ICAC is being eroded. Thank you, President.


MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, I speak on behalf of The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") against the motion proposed by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting. The Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") has been in existence for some 40 years, so it certainly cannot be called a century-old institution. (Laughter) Upholding their roles, all staff members of ICAC are dedicated to their duties in fighting corruption. Thanks to the great contribution of ICAC, Hong Kong has succeeded in building itself into a clean society. Hong Kong people attach a great deal of importance to probity, and every one of us has the duty to defend probity in our society and the dignity of ICAC. As an independent institution, ICAC is protected by the law. As also mentioned by Mr Dennis KWOK just now, Article 57 of the Basic Law provides for the independent functioning of ICAC, and this is meant to protect the work of ICAC against any intervention. Many Members have repeatedly said on various public occasions that they are gravely worried about any interference with the work of ICAC. Mr Dennis KWOK has also voiced such a concern. Many Members keep expressing the fear that the work of ICAC may be interfered with. But what puzzles me is that Members who express such a fear have themselves put forward motions on interfering with the internal operation of ICAC. The ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH already issued a letter to Members earlier on, making it clear that the staffing arrangement concerning Ms Rebecca LI was purely based on personnel management considerations and had nothing whatsoever to do with any cases under investigation by ICAC. Understandably, some Members remain incredulous, and in this Chamber now, they simply keep talking about an investigation into the UGL incident as though there was really one. But according to the reply given by the ICAC Commissioner in this Council, no investigation cases whatsoever were involved. And, this must be acknowledged unless we have no trust in Simon PEH and find him untrustworthy. It is also emphasized in the letter of the ICAC Commissioner that the reason for the decision concerned had nothing to do with any pressure he was subjected to, and the Chief Executive never gave any views on the matter. That being the case, are the justifications given in the motion strong enough to support an inquiry? As for how and why the acting appointment was cancelled, Simon PEH already offered a thorough account both in his letter and at this Council,


413

stating clearly that it was all a matter of personnel management. I can remember he once said that the acting appointment of Ms Rebecca LI was just for convenient administration―or administrative convenience―I cannot recall how it was put. Anyway, the acting appointment was just an arrangement for the convenience of administration, not one with a view to substantive promotion. Undoubtedly, it was just a matter of personnel management. Personnel management is definitely the internal business of ICAC, so I frankly do not think that there is any reason for this Council to intervene at this point of time. The past performance of ICAC can show fully that its investigation work and internal operation will not be affected by any external pressure, nor will it ever consider any political factors. Regardless of how high-ranking the person concerned is, even if he is the Chief Executive or a Secretary of Department, ICAC will still launch investigation impartially. In a highly politicized society, it is absolutely no easy task for ICAC to resist political pressure and accomplish its mission of anti-corruption. At present, our Legislative Council is itself highly politicized, so why should we still seek to reverse the course of ICAC and drag it into our political vortex? Also, I do not think that this highly politicized legislature is capable of conducting a fair, just and objective inquiry, not least because someone has asked me whether there is any connection between the proposed inquiry and the upcoming Chief Executive Election. I have no idea and will not make any guesses regarding the motives involved. But I do think there is one thing that calls for our consideration. The powers conferred by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") are very great powers, and they should be invoked with great prudence. In my opinion, if our justifications for invoking such powers are based on unsubstantiated allegations, or are even based on guesses, estimation and our own imagination, it will be inappropriate to launch an inquiry. President, we also note that earlier on, some Members cited the invocation of the Ordinance by the then Legislative Council in 1993 to inquire into the employment termination of Alex TSUI. The biggest difference between that very case and the present Rebecca LI incident is that Alex TSUI was dismissed, or sacked, but in the case of Rebecca LI, it was just the cancellation of an acting appointment. The two are totally different in nature. Besides, the inquiry by the then Legislative Council was conducted only after ICAC had declined to provide any explanation and after Alex TSUI had openly described his dismissal by ICAC as unreasonable. In contrast, regarding the present incident, ICAC has


already responded to Members' request, explaining verbally and in writing why the acting appointment of Ms Rebecca LI was cancelled. In fact, the two cases are totally different as Ms LI has never said openly that she has been treated unfairly. President, taking into consideration the various reasons mentioned above, FTU is of the view that at present, there is no pressing need for this Council to invoke the powers conferred by the Ordinance to conduct an inquiry into ICAC. We hope that this Council will not interfere with the internal operation of ICAC for any unsubstantiated allegations or drag ICAC into any political vortex lest this may erode public confidence in ICAC. I strongly believe that ICAC will continue to resist pressure and fearlessly carry out its task of anti-corruption. With these remarks, President, I oppose the motion. SUSPENSION OF MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow. Suspended accordingly at 7:56 pm.


A1

Appendix I

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Development to Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's supplementary question to Question 3 As regards using industrial building units for arts, cultural, recreational and sports purposes, currently, for premises with relatively high risk, e.g. dangerous goods stores, hotels, food premises, places of public entertainment, theatres, etc., the Fire Services Department ("FSD") conducts fire safety risk assessment and formulates fire safety requirements for compliance by operators pursuant to the relevant legislation. FSD also inspects such premises with relatively high risk and different types of buildings (including industrial buildings) from time to time to ensure fire safety. There are in general industrial activities taking place in industrial buildings, and these activities carry a much higher risk of fire and other accidents than commercial and other activities. In addition, industrial activities often involve the loading and unloading, storage and use of dangerous goods, which further increase the fire risk. If non-industrial activities (such as direct provision of service or sale of merchandise) take place in industrial buildings, members of the public unrelated to industrial activities may be attracted to those buildings. They may not be aware of the industrial activities inside the industrial buildings and the potential risks involved, nor would they know how to evacuate from industrial buildings. Moreover, they may share the buildings' common areas with people carrying out industrial activities, thus exposing themselves to a significantly higher risk in case of fires or other emergencies (e.g. leakage of dangerous goods). Currently, as far as applications for changing the use of industrial buildings to non-industrial uses are concerned, if there is a buffer floor (e.g. car park, electrical and mechanical plant room, or an empty floor for refuge use) in an industrial building completely separating the lower floors from the upper portion where industrial uses may continue to be present, the Government may accept converting the premises on lower floors (not exceeding three storeys) to other non-industrial uses, including arts, cultural and sports activities.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 9 November 2016 A2

WRITTEN ANSWER — Continued As the Policy Bureau responsible for land-use planning and maximizing the use of our land resources, the Development Bureau has been supporting, through planning and other measures, the policy objectives of other relevant bureau, including those in the areas of culture, arts and sports. In considering ways of relaxing restrictions on non-industrial uses in industrial buildings, one of the most important considerations is whether the relevant measures would compromise safety. The government departments concerned will continue to explore possible ways of relaxing the use of industrial buildings under the precondition of compliance with the law and public safety requirements. Moreover, the Development Bureau is currently re-examining the case for reactivating the revitalization scheme for industrial buildings with a view to better utilizing land resources to meet the needs of different sectors under the precondition of compliance with the relevant safety requirements. Among others, we note that certain arts and cultural activities take place in industrial buildings at present. In this regard, the Development Bureau will closely communicate with the relevant Policy Bureau(x) to see how we may address the needs of specific non-industrial sectors when considering any further measures for revitalizing industrial buildings.

legco.gov.hk · legislative council ― 9 november 2016 199 official record of proceedings...

Documents