OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 9 May 2019 The ... · THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN,...

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 9 May 2019

9669

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 9 May 2019

The Council met at half-past Ten o'clock

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 9 May 2019 9670

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


9671

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., 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 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 WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN


THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H. DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H. THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN MEMBERS ABSENT: THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU


9673

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, G.B.M., G.B.S., M.H., J.P. FINANCIAL SECRETARY THE HONOURABLE MS TERESA CHENG YEUK-WAH, G.B.S., S.C., J.P. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS W. YANG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS MR JOSEPH CHAN HO-LIM, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY, AND SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE THE HONOURABLE JOSHUA LAW CHI-KONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING


PROF THE HONOURABLE SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH THE HONOURABLE EDWARD YAU TANG-WAH, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL WONG WAI-LUN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT THE HONOURABLE KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION THE HONOURABLE PATRICK NIP TAK-KUEN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS CLERK IN ATTENDANCE: MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL UNDER RULE 8 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND TO ANSWER QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS.


9675

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members will please remain standing while the Chief Executive enters the Chamber. (While the Chief Executive entered the Chamber and walked towards the rostrum, a number of Members repeatedly chanted the slogan: "No China extradition! Down with Carrie LAM!") PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. If any Member yells again, I will order him or her to leave the Chamber immediately without issuing any further warning. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Chief Executive will first address the Council. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Good Morning, President, Honourable Members. Since today is the third time I attend the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session in the current legislative session and about half a year has passed since my presentation of the 2018 Policy Address on 10 October last year, I have arranged, as I did last year, for presentation of a written statement of some 7 000 words in Chinese and English to Members as a comprehensive half-yearly progress report. Overall, the implementation of initiatives espoused in the 2018 Policy Address has been progressing well with only three policy initiatives behind schedule. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the politically appointed officials and civil servants of various ranks for their joint efforts and Members for their support. Coincidentally, when I spoke on this very occasion last year, 32 Members had just completed their visit of five cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). And last month, a delegation comprising 22 Members, led by President Andrew LEUNG, visited the Yangtze River Delta Region. From my observation, the latest visit to Shanghai and Hangzhou was even richer in itinerary and accorded a higher grade of hospitality. From both visits, Members came away with essentially the same key message: a better grasp of the development on the Mainland can help Hong Kong make plans for the future; and the competitive edge of Hong Kong can be


maintained only if we strive to improve the status quo and avoid being stuck in a rut. The insights gained by Members from their visits to the Greater Bay Area and then to Shanghai and Hangzhou mirror what I have grown to appreciate deeply in my role as Chief Executive over the last two years. My appreciation probably runs deeper than that of Members. For during this period, I have been at the forefront collaborating with the Central Authorities as the latter render unfailing support to the integration of Hong Kong into the overall development of the country while continuously introducing substantive measures that benefit the economic development of Hong Kong and facilitate Hong Kong people in studying, working and living on the Mainland. Hence, I wish to take this opportunity to give Members a brief account. These measures introduced by the Central Authorities in support of Hong Kong cover the following aspects. First, on measures providing convenience to the public, the Central Authorities announced, in August and December 2017, August 2018 and March 2019 respectively, a series of public facilitation measures, including allowing Hong Kong residents living on the Mainland who meet the relevant criteria to apply for residence permits, which enable them to enjoy the rights, public services and facilitation measures in their usual place of residence. To my knowledge, as at early March, 120 000 Hong Kong people have applied for residence permits. These facilitation measures also include a taxation arrangement for the convenience of Hong Kong people working on the Mainland, i.e., any stay of less than 24 hours on the Mainland will not count as a day of presence; as well as the concessionary measures that encourage Hong Kong youths to start up businesses in the Greater Bay Area―next week, I will attend a high-level Hong Kong/Guangdong Co-operation Conference in Guangzhou, presenting plagues in recognition of some entrepreneurial bases for youths together with Mr MA Xingrui, Governor of Guangdong Province. Besides, Hong Kong students studying on the Mainland are accorded the same treatment as their Mainland counterparts. The second set of measures concerns unequivocal support for Hong Kong's development into an international innovation and technology hub and giving Hong Kong a leg up through the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, including allowing the use of the science and technology funding granted by the Central Government in Hong Kong through cross-boundary remittance in response to the aspiration of people who engage in scientific research in Hong Kong


9677

The third set of measures, which concerns education, provides Hong Kong students with more options of further studies by way of gradually expanding the Scheme for Admission of Hong Kong students to Mainland Higher Education Institutions. In the 2019-2020 school year, the number of these Mainland higher institutions has increased to 112 with new additions including the Central Academy of Fine Arts, the Central Conservatory of Music and the Central Academy of Drama, which would help nurture talents in culture and arts for Hong Kong in the future. The fourth set of measures supports the development of creative industries in Hong Kong with five relaxation measures introduced just last month to further facilitate entry of Hong Kong films and film practitioners into the Mainland market. The fifth involves two key national strategies, i.e., the Belt and Road Initiative and the Greater Bay Area development, in which the key role to be played by Hong Kong is fully recognized. Last month, for instance, we led a high-level delegation to attend our country's second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. For a forum for international cooperation of such a high level, the Hong Kong delegation comprised no less than 68 members. Our delegates had spoken in 11 of the 12 thematic forums as well as in the CEO Conference. At a thematic forum on sub-national cooperation, there was even a dedicated 40-minute session on Hong Kong set aside for us to showcase or illustrate Hong Kong's advantages. As regards the Greater Bay Area, the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area promulgated in February underlines how Hong Kong can leverage its advantages in meeting the country's needs. More important still is the appreciation that, amid the various tasks undertaken in support of Hong Kong as mentioned, the Central Authorities have firmly upheld the "one country, two systems" principle. Moreover, as the Chief Executive accountable to the Central People's Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR"), I will do everything within my ability to implement the "one country, two systems" principle, uphold the Basic Law, defend the rule of law and promote a deep and positive relationship between the Central Government and the Hong Kong SAR, as I pledged at the inauguration ceremony on 1 July 2017. Hence, I find it saddening and regrettable that the recent discussions on the proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance have


given rise to some extreme rhetoric and unnecessary fears―borne out of incomprehension, misunderstanding or other reasons―which have stirred up conflicts between the Central Authorities and Hong Kong and between Hong Kong and the Mainland. In my view, these concerns can be best allayed through pragmatic discussions on the safeguards under our proposed case-based surrender arrangement, rather than rejecting an amendment effort that seeks to plug loopholes and uphold justice at the risk of turning Hong Kong into a place where offenders can elude justice (Mr HUI Chi-fung spoke in his seat) and worse, where public safety is jeopardized. I and my … (Mr HUI Chi-fung spoke aloud in his seat) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, if you yell again in your seat, I will consider your conduct grossly disorderly. Please be quiet. Chief Executive, please continue your speech. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): As a final note, I wish to state that my team and I will continue our efforts to give explanations and seriously consider any practicable measures put forward by the Legislative Council and various sectors in the community. Thank you, President. (Dr KWOK Ka-ki stood up) DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, point of order. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order? DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): The Chief Executive just now spent a lot of time lying through her teeth, claiming that Hongkongers lack comprehension of the extradition to China law, which is an outright lie …


9679

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. Please sit down. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, we do not wish to be sent to China. We send her this clock.1 (Dr KWOK Ka-ki, holding a prop comprising a clock and a placard, walked towards the President's podium; security staff moved forward to stop him) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please leave the Chamber immediately. (Dr KWOK Ka-ki left the Chamber with the assistance of security personnel) MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): President, I hope we can make use of this time to solve various social issues. Chief Executive, the long-awaited Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme ("VHIS") was finally launched on 1 April this year. It is hoped that VHIS will divert patients from public hospitals to private hospitals, and thereby relieves the pressure exerted on the public health care system. The Government has also set a target of 1 million VHIS subscribers. On the other hand, four land lots have been earmarked for private hospital developments to dovetail with VHIS, although unfortunately, only one private hospital has been completed. Society is, therefore, concerned whether the existing private hospitals are able to cope with the demand in case it is really driven up by VHIS, and whether the waiting time will get longer and longer. I have recently discussed with a group proactively preparing for the establishment of a private hospital. They lamented that although they are making every effort in undertaking the preparatory work of the hospital to dovetail with VHIS introduced by the Food and Health Bureau, they have not received any policy support from other relevant Policy Bureaux, and hence, the progress has been very slow. In a nutshell, one government department encourages the construction of private hospitals, while other departments work by the book and hinder the progress of hospital construction. 1 The pronunciation of "clock" in Chinese rhymes with "中" which can be taken to mean

China, hence the pun of extradition to China.


Chief Executive, I understand that you have formulated a number of sound social policies in various aspects since you assumed office. But one of the significant social issues in Hong Kong now is the lack of cooperation among the many Policy Bureaux and departments, which leads to only half the result with twice the effort. May I ask the Chief Executive whether she has any sound solution to tackle this issue? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr CHEUNG for his question. I believe the thrust of Mr CHEUNG's question is looking at the issue from a broader perspective, instead of focusing on VHIS or the establishment of private hospitals only. I do not deny that the Government―in fact, not only the SAR Government but many governments―lacks adequate coordination within it. Sometimes, we do not know if both left and right hands are moving in the same direction. You asked me for a practical solution. First, when I first assumed office, I stressed to all secretaries and directors, my governing team and civil servants that being collaborative is one of the major principles on which the governance of the current-term Government relies. That means we want to be a fully collaborative government. Surely, it is easier said than done as the structure is so big with close to 70 departments and Policy Bureaux, but we are working hard on it. Therefore, presently as soon as a bureau raised the need for assistance from other bureaux, our senior governing team, including three secretaries―mainly two secretaries, namely the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary―and I will assume a coordination role in the matter. For instance, we held a meeting for more than an hour yesterday to discuss maritime services in Hong Kong and how best Hong Kong's marine and aviation services could be enhanced. It involved so many departments that even a large round table could not see everyone seated. This kind of collaboration has been an ongoing task of the senior governing team in these two years. However, it may not be the ideal approach. The ideal approach is that departments help each other spontaneously in order to achieve each other's policy objectives, but it will take some time. Mr CHEUNG, it takes time to change the culture, especially since government departments are subject to public monitoring nowadays. Many colleagues are worried that they may become the target of criticisms if they go out of their way and take a step further. Hence, I will strive to guide our colleagues in this direction.


9681

In the short term, the Policy Innovation and Co-ordination Office ("PICO") was set up last year with the endorsement of the legislature. PICO directly assists me in collaboration and coordination. For instance, after I announced in the Policy Address last year the siting of two public markets in Tin Shui Wai and Tung Chung, PICO took charged of the overall collaboration among departments responsible for works, land planning and district home affairs. I will continue to handle these matters. Insofar as the case you just mentioned, you are more than welcome to refer it to PICO which will provide a one-stop coordinated service. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I have this question for the Chief Executive. The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission ("USCC") published a report yesterday, which recommends, if the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") is passed, the United States Government to review the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act. The ultimate result will be that not only will the international status of Hong Kong be affected, the special treatment Hong Kong now enjoys will also be subjected to profound impact. At the same time, the International Chamber of Commerce―Hong Kong officially stated its stance on the Bill, sharing its worry that once the Bill is passed, the business environment in Hong Kong will be severely affected. Will Honourable colleague please not forget that this chamber of commerce, which supports the Belt and Road Initiative and the Greater Bay Area development, has now also made known its stance. Chief Executive, over the past period of time, the international community, including the United States, the United Kingdom and European Union, have all voiced their stances, so has the international business sector. They all expressed their concern about the impact of the Bill on Hong Kong. In response to the report of USCC, the Government released a statement yesterday, stating that the Bill of Hong Kong has drawn reference from the practices of the United Nations. If the Government did draw reference from international practices when drafting the Bill and if it can truly "stand the test of the international community", why does the international community still have such a grave concern? Has the entire world misunderstood the Bill and only the Carrie LAM Government is correct?


CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr YEUNG for bringing up the issue of amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO"), especially in the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session today as there is no three-minute limit on the speaking time, so I can talk on it in detail. Mr YEUNG and some Members would invariably quote various statements and comments of foreign governments―particularly the United States Government. I hope Members can pay attention that today the United States and China are not only embroiled in trade conflicts, but also truly engaged in wrestling. I hope Members can see the facts clearly and safeguard Hong Kong's interests. Coming back to the Bill, exactly what is the purpose and spirit of the amendment to FOO? And what relationship does it have with the international community? If Mr YEUNG does not trust me or my government, I will share with him the original intent of the British Hong Kong Government in introducing FOO in 1997 or at the end of 1996 and when the Ordinance was passed in 1997. As speeches were given in English at the Legislative Council back then, I can only repeat the speech made by the then Secretary for Security of the Government at the time. He said, "we cannot afford to have Hong Kong become a haven for fugitives or to allow criminals to avoid justice and the rule of law by seeking refuge in other places. It is well recognized that if Hong Kong is to continue its success, to maintain its reputation as a law-abiding community, and to strengthen its status as an international commercial and financial centre, it is important that we should not allow any gap in the relations with our law enforcement partners on surrender of fugitive offenders after 30 June 1997." This is the original intent of FOO. In fact, why do we have to make this amendment? As the Secretary for Security has repeatedly stressed, and as stated in the papers we provided for all Honourable Members―of course, the focus of popular attention is on the murder case that took place in Taiwan; we are not able to surrender the fugitive offender to Taiwan so that he will be brought to justice―but this case has highlighted the loophole in the existing system, which also explains the meaning of "we should not allow any gap" pointed out back then. At present, there is a gap, a void. For one, it is due to the geographical restrictions that FOO does not apply to other places in China. In other words, there is a complete lack of legal basis for the surrender of fugitive offenders between Hong Kong and Mainland, Taiwan and Macao.


9683

For another, of course, even if it is now possible to carry out surrender on a case-based basis, but the related procedure cannot be executed in effect. Therefore, in the past 22 years, there has not been a single successful surrender case. For this reason, in the spirit of serious consideration, we have proposed this amendment. I truly do not see―if the original intent of FOO won popular recognition back then, as the related bill was also subjected to scrutiny back then―why the same task being undertaken today will instead affect the international view on Hong Kong. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Chief Executive mentioned the original intent. The original intent of FOO enacted in 1997 was the intentional restriction imposed on surrender of fugitive offenders to the Mainland. It has been so in the past 22 years, and that was the original intent. I really wish to clearly ask the Chief Executive: if she cares so much about the international status of Hong Kong, can she ignore the voices of even the international community? She can ignore the international community, but can she ignore her traditional allies? She can ignore the business sector, the 130 000 people who took to the streets and the pro-democracy camp, but why did she ignore the views of Prof Albert CHEN and Prof HO Lok-sang? Is it true that the entire world has misunderstood Carrie LAM and only her subordinate officials are correct? Only John LEE and Teresa CHENG are correct? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG needs not be so agitated. I will unhurriedly give my reply. The so-called stipulation was not made deliberately then that FOO is not applicable to other places in China. Also, it was not, as suggested by some people, laid down out of the fear of the Mainland legal system after the reunification. Neither was it made because, as some people have pointed out, China also agreed in the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group that China was also worried that FOO would affect the smooth handover of Hong Kong. This is all nonsense. Members can review the records of the Legislative Council, can't they? (Ms Claudia MO stood up)


MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Lying! CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I do not lie. Members can review the archives of the Legislative Council. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, you have made an open accusation here that the Chief Executive "is lying". Will you withdraw such an accusation? MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Definitely not. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, such an accusation is seriously offensive. If you do not withdraw such an accusation, please leave the Chamber. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Why should I withdraw it? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is a serious accusation made in violation of the Rules of Procedure. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): It is my comment. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please withdraw your accusation. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I will not withdraw it. (A number of Members talked aloud in their seats. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Gary FAN stood up and indicated a wish to raise a point of order)


9685

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am now dealing with the point of Ms Claudia MO. (A number of Members continued to talk aloud) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO has made a serious and offensive accusation. (Mr LAM Cheuk-ting remained standing and expressed his views aloud. Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Gary FAN remained standing and raised their hands to indicate a wish to raise a point of order. A number of Members kept talking aloud) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting. 10:53 am Meeting suspended. 11:10 am Council then resumed. (While the Legislative Council President entered the Chamber and walked towards the President's podium, a number of Members kept chanting slogans: "Carrie LAM is lying! Andrew LEUNG is incompetent!") PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since Ms Claudia MO accused the Chief Executive of "lying", I consider this the use of offensive language about the Chief Executive, which is unparliamentary. For this reason, I requested Ms Claudia MO to withdraw this remark. Moreover, she made an unseemly interruption while the Chief Executive was speaking, contravening Rule 42(d) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). I have long reminded Members not to shout in their seats. I now ask Ms Claudia MO once again. Will you withdraw the said remark?


MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Let me reply first. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, if you do not withdraw the remark, I will regard your conduct as grossly disorderly and order you to immediately withdraw from the meeting in accordance with RoP 45(2). Ms Claudia MO, will you withdraw the remark? MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I tell you, Andrew LEUNG, the Legislative Council serves to monitor the Government. I say, Carrie LAM is lying! PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Ms Claudia MO please leave the Chamber. (A number of Members stood up to indicate their wish to raise points of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have to enforce the order relating to this point of order first. (Security officers came forward to try to help Ms Claudia MO leave the Chamber) (A number of Members talked aloud) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already made the ruling. Will Ms Claudia MO please leave the Chamber. (A number of Members continued to talk aloud) (While holding up a placard and chanting "No extradition to China! Down with Carrie LAM!", Ms Claudia MO left the Chamber with the assistance off security officers) (Mr LAM Cheuk-ting indicated his wish to raise a point of order)


9687

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, what is your point of order? MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, I hope you will clearly explain your yardstick and criteria for making this ruling because over the years, quite a number of Legislative Council Members have criticized other Members or officials, saying that they were "lying" in their speeches, or accusing them of being "liars", or likening their remarks to calling a stag a horse. President, is it that in future, regardless of reasons, if any Member makes such a remark, you will say that the relevant remark is insulting and request the Member to withdraw from the meeting? Without asking Ms MO why she said the Chief Executive "is lying", you ruled her remark as insulting. This is contradictory to the ruling made by former President Jasper TSANG in 2013 on Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's accusation that the then incumbent Chief Executive was a "liar". President, have you made stricter criteria of your own to suppress Members' room for speech and deliberation? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already made the ruling. The President's ruling is not subject to debate. If you have any opinion about my ruling, you may discuss with me on other occasions. (A number of Members talked aloud) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. (Mr Gary FAN indicated his wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, what is your point of order? MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, just now Chief Executive Carrie Lam claimed that the views of members of the community, professional sectors, the Hong Kong Bar Association and Members on FOO are nonsense. Ms Claudia MO said the Chief Executive "is lying". This is a statement of the fact. It is not in contravention of RoP. Hence, the ruling made by you just now


is wrong. Being the Chief Executive, Carrie LAM is all the more duty-bound to explain clearly why, in respect of the views of people from various sectors of the community, the business sector, Members and professionals on FOO … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please stop speaking. I have already made the ruling. The President's ruling is not subject to debate. If Members have other views on my ruling, they may raise them to me on other occasions. Chief Executive, please continue. (Mr Jeremy TAM indicated his wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point of order? MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): You let someone else speak, but you did not let me raise a point of order? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, I have called out your name. You may speak. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): I did not hear it just now. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you did not hear it, perhaps you could seek professional advice. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, now I need to raise a point of order because just now you expelled Ms Claudia MO from the Chamber, and you said earlier that after enforcing the order of expelling Ms MO from the Chamber, you would let us raise our points of order. Actually, this is already questionable


9689

because this decision made by you is wrong. You could have requested Ms Claudia MO to explain why she accused the Chief Executive of "lying". But you cannot prove … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already made the ruling. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): … you cannot prove … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, please sit down. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): … you cannot prove … that Carrie LAM is not lying! PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, please sit down. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): You cannot prove that! PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I consider her remark insulting. I have already made the ruling. (A number of Members talked aloud) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. Do not talk aloud in your seats. (Mr Jeremy TAM continued to speak aloud while standing) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, please sit down.


MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): You did not answer my question. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I already did. (Mr Jeremy TAM continued to talk aloud while standing) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already made the ruling. (Mr Jeremy TAM kept talking aloud while standing) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, if you continue to speak, I will order you to leave the Chamber. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Carrie LAM is lying! PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, please leave the Chamber. (Security officers came forward to try to help Mr Jeremy TAM leave the Chamber. Meanwhile, a number of Members chanted the slogan: "Carrie LAM is lying!"; Mr Gary FAN, holding up a placard, went behind Mr TAM with the intention of hindering security officers from helping Mr TAM leave the Chamber) (Some Members indicated their wish to raise points of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am now dealing with a point of order. Mr Jeremy TAM, please leave the Chamber. (Mr Gary FAN then returned to his seat; Mr Jeremy TAM, sitting in his seat, refused to leave the Chamber)


9691

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, if you do not leave the Chamber, the meeting will be unable to proceed. (While holding a placard and making comments aloud, Mr Jeremy TAM left the Chamber with the assistance of security officers) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, do you wish to raise a point of order? MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): No. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, please continue. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I have to respond to Mr Gary FAN. Just now I refuted one of the many points made by Mr Alvin YEUNG. According to him, when FOO was enacted back then, China and other regions were excluded deliberately. As I said, in addition to the remark about "deliberately", I also heard from the community that given the differences in the legal systems of the two places or even the need for a smooth and trouble-free reunification, there were worries about the impact of the application of the Mainland legal system, etc. I meant to refute these points, but it does not mean that public discussions or debates on FOO or even recommendations made by members of various sectors cannot be considered by the Government. Is that clear?

Why is this a factual statement? As 23 years have passed now, I can only refer to the relevant records. I would like Members to refer to the records of the Legislative Council or the then Legislative Council to see why China and other parts were excluded from the Ordinance. The reason was that the work on the Ordinance was part of the efforts at localization at the time of reunification back then. In other words, prior to 1997, the surrender arrangements between Hong Kong and other countries were based on the treaties entered into by the United Kingdom with other countries, which were then extended to Hong Kong. To ensure that such work could continue after 1 July 1997, the enactment of the localized Ordinance was necessary, and there was no surrender of fugitive


offenders between Mainland China and Hong Kong back then, as clearly documented in the records of the then Legislative Council. This is a factual statement, so stop falsely accusing me of turning a deaf ear to the many views voiced in the community. In fact, what I am going to say is something already said in my opening remarks earlier. We will listen to views on this complicated issue. But while listening to views, we seek also to achieve our purpose. Our purpose is twofold: first, to deal with the time-critical Taiwan issue involving a fugitive, and second, to fill the gap as described by me just now, i.e. the void or loophole in the system, so that we will have the necessary legal basis to deal with a second or third case in future. This is what we expect to do. Certainly, for suggestions essentially of a legal nature, they should be studied by colleagues and departments responsible for legal matters to see whether they are legally and constitutionally feasible. We will give audience to them in a rational, composed and humble manner. Hence, I have come here today to give further explanations to Members, hoping that Members can expeditiously form a Bills Committee so that we may discuss with Members issues we were originally prepared to go through in detail at meetings of the Bills Committee. (Mr Alvin YEUNG stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, you have asked your supplementary question. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): The Chief Executive has not answered my supplementary question. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG, you may follow it up on other occasions. (Mr Alvin YEUNG continued to speak while standing) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, please sit down.


9693

MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, in Hong Kong, when individuals apply for loans from banks or financial companies, the relevant institutions will make enquiries with the TransUnion Limited ("TransUnion"), a business data company, about the applicants' credit reports as reference for vetting loans, and the personal credit data maintained by TransUnion are provided by financial institutions, such as banks. In November last year, a media corporation easily passed the authentication process of TransUnion which holds the credit data of millions of Hong Kong people and downloaded your personal credit report and those of other senior officials. I think you have been feeling unhappy or at least uneasy about it. This incident has shown a leakage of personal data by a business data company to an unauthorized third party. It has been six months now, and just this past Monday I put questions to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("MA") about the latest development at a meeting of the Panel on Financial Affairs. I was given the reply that the final report of TransUnion on the incident had not yet been received but consideration would be given to introducing competition as a means to improve services. However, I also got news that the contents of TransUnion's report have so far remained evasive and that it is unwilling to admit to the blunder. In view of such a situation, may I ask the Government whether it will expeditiously review afresh the approach for monitoring business data companies, introduce more stringent guidelines and penalties, and confer more penal powers on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data and at the same time, enhance public awareness of privacy protection, in order to ensure that the personal data of Hong Kong citizens are afforded proper protection? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I thank the Member for his question. We attach great importance to the protection of personal privacy. This is particularly so in the financial realm because Hong Kong is an international financial centre and now we also wish to achieve rapid development in technology. Therefore, with regard to the question asked by the Honourable Member, I will ask the Financial Secretary to follow it up with MA. MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, when the credit data of Hong Kong citizens are placed in the hands of business data companies, there is, after all, the possibility that such data are used for commercial purposes. To


tie in with the introduction of electronic identity ("eID") by the Government in 2020, may I ask the Government whether it will consider setting up on its own a Government-led personal database or credit database, so that the public will have more confidence in the protection of personal credit data? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): With regard to the issue raised by Mr CHAN, I am afraid I do not have the required knowledge to give him a definite answer in this respect today. Having said that, the Innovation and Technology Bureau is actively promoting the development of Hong Kong into a smart city, including the eID programme mentioned by Mr CHAN. I think this issue can be referred to the relevant departments for further studies and we will give a reply to Mr CHAN as soon as possible. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Carrie LAM, I always thought you would act like a person because you were born in Hong Kong, grew up in Hong Kong, received education in Hong Kong and served as a high-ranking official in Hong Kong. You should clearly know that "one country, two systems" is implemented because Hongkongers are afraid of the Communist Party of China ("CPC"). Hongkongers do not have confidence in CPC. This is the fact. Hongkongers do not believe that CPC would not exploit its powers to the fullest. Hongkongers are also well aware that CPC would protect its powers, position and one-party dictatorship at all costs. However, fancying yourself as being smart, you break open the firewall separating China and Hong Kong. In respect of the core value of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, you simply say never mind, putting it nicely as plugging the loophole, while in fact it means giving up protection. What is more, as you said just now, you treat everyone's worries as nonsense. Carrie LAM, without the protection of "one country, two systems", how would Hong Kong be a place where we can settle down and live in peace? How would it be conducive to our business environment as you said? Please take a look at yourself. What I now see in you is only the character of CPC and slavishness with no human conscience and no humanity. The destruction you have brought to Hong Kong is more serious than that brought by TUNG Chee-hwa and even more horrible than that by LEUNG Chun-ying. Now let me ask you, actually how many people have to take to the streets to make you back off? How many people have to withdraw their investments to make you back off? How many Hongkongers have to apply for emigration to make you back off? Let me ask you again, will you retract the


9695

Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 and make a one-off arrangement on an individual basis with the Taiwan authorities to deal with CHAN Tung-kai's case? Can you have mercy on Hong Kong? Can you protect Hong Kong's core interest in "one country, two systems"? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, what Mr WU Chi-wai said just now … (Mr LUK Chung-hung stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, what is your point of order? MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I hope you would make a ruling. The Member who spoke just now said many offensive words, including "no human conscience", "no humanity" and "slavishness". Are these offensive expressions? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Let me remind Members once again to use neutral wording by all means and not to use offensive language, especially about the Chief Executive. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Just now Mr WU Chi-wai's remarks, the smear of me aside, are exactly like what I said in my opening remarks. It is heart-rending and regrettable. After 70 years of development, this year our country celebrates the 70th anniversary of its founding. Having come to this stage, in the face of such groundless accusation, I really feel heart-rending. Since my assumption of office, I have always honoured what I said on the day I took the oath, as I repeatedly shared with Members just now. My mission and duty is to safeguard "one country, two systems", uphold the Basic Law … (Mr WU Chi-wai stood up and spoke aloud)


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please let the Chief Executive answer your question. Chief Executive, please continue. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I hope Mr WU Chi-wai would spend a little time to read several articles, particularly the one published in the English newspaper today. It was written by former Director of Public Prosecutions Ian Grenville CROSS, SC. This is already the third article written by the Senior Counsel since we announced this exercise in February. Can this Senior Counsel, who is currently not an Executive Council Member or holding any public office, be that kind of person like the description made of me by the Member just now? (Mr WU Chi-wai stood up and spoke aloud again) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please keep quiet. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): As such, will Mr WU please also listen to the remarks made by former Members of his Democratic Party. When the Fugitive Offenders Bill was scrutinized in 1996, the Chairman of the Bills Committee was a Member of the Democratic Party. On the day of resumption of the Second Reading, the two Members who spoke were also Members of the Democratic Party. They said that during the scrutiny, they had asked whether other laws would be invoked to handle the surrender and extradition of fugitives between Mainland China and Hong Kong in future, and what the relevant legislative exercise was, because they had learnt that this exercise was localization of laws, so it would not be handled for the time being. It would be handled only after the reunification … (Mr WU Chi-wai stood up and spoke aloud again) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, this is my last warning to you. Will you please keep quiet.


9697

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): However, during the course of examination, this former senior Member of the Democratic Party said that when scrutinizing the Bill, they bore one point in mind, that is, after 1997, the institutional safeguard and protection of human rights in the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") enacted on that day might apply to surrenders between Mainland China and Hong Kong. He even described it as a good and valuable frame of reference. This Member said that they bore it in mind when scrutinizing the Bill. On the one hand, they hoped that the Bill could be passed as soon as possible so that Hong Kong would … (Dr Helena WONG stood up and spoke aloud) CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Could Members face the reality and let me finish this paragraph? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please keep quiet. (Dr Helena WONG continued to speak aloud) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, if you speak in your seat again without my approval, I will regard your conduct as grossly disorderly. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Because I heard an incorrect allusion to "firewall", deliberate … MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): You are lying! CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): We need to conduct discussion in a rational manner, on the basis of facts …


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, just now I already gave you my last warning to remind you to not shout in your seat, but you continued to do so and used insulting language. Will you please stop. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Because those remarks were well said. I must continue. He said they bore it in mind when scrutinizing the Bill. On the one hand, they hoped that the Bill could be passed as soon as possible so that Hong Kong would have a piece of localized legislation on the surrender of fugitives, which application could be extended beyond 1997. On the other hand, they also hoped that the Bill could serve as a good example for consideration by the Chinese Government when formulating the policy and legislation on the surrender of fugitives between Hong Kong and Mainland China in future. In other words, from the then perspective of Members of the Democratic Party, the terms and protection in today's legislation on the surrender of fugitives may apply to … MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Because at that time we expected the legal system on the Mainland to improve, but today, it keeps regressing. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): … They are applicable. Today, the case-based surrender proposed by us has maintained all the safeguards in the provisions of FOO, so the Bill is in fact very simple, consisting of only 10 clauses. It is very simple because it has just copied the original practice. If you wish to talk about the development of the Mainland legal system, I am not an expert, but as I have mentioned, today the third article of Mr CROSS, SC is entitled: "Progress of Mainland overlooked in extradition debate". You may read it for reference. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Mr CROSS also asked you to solicit other expert evidence in the LEUNG Chun-ying case. Why did you not heed him? You would listen if it is pleasant to your ear; otherwise, you would just turn a deaf ear. I ask you, do you mean the Chief Executives in the past three terms


9699

failed to do their job? TUNG Chee-hwa failed to do his job. So did LEUNG Chun-ying and Donald TSANG. Only you are so capable, plugging the loophole 23 years later? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): This is a difficult question because I never wish to criticize the past Governments. However, since Secretary John LEE has used the word "ostrich", I cannot but support this remark made by him―"ostrich". We have acted like an ostrich for 22 years, but there is a reason for acting in such a way. In each and every period, the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government … (Some Members talked aloud) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): In each and every period, the SAR Government would face a lot of political controversies. We also know very well that the proposal this time around would draw to the officials, including the Chief Executive, severe flak. Today we see it right before our eyes. Therefore … (Mr WU Chi-wai stood up and spoke aloud) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please keep quiet. (Mr WU Chi-wai continued to speak aloud) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Mr WU Chi-wai please leave the Chamber. (Several Members repeatedly chanted the slogans: "Down with Carrie LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor!" "Down with Carrie LAM!" While shouting aloud, Mr WU Chi-wai left the Chamber with the assistance of security officers) (While shouting aloud, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen dashed towards the President's podium with a placard in his hand)


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please leave the Chamber immediately. (Security officers came forward to stop Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and assisted him in leaving the Chamber) (Mr HUI Chi-fung left his seat) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, will you please immediately go … Mr HUI Chi-fung, will you please immediately return to your seat. (Mr HUI Chi-fung still did not return to his seat) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, I am warning you for the last time. If you do not return to your seat, I will ask you to leave the Chamber. (While shouting aloud, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen left the Chamber with the assistance of security officers) (Mr HUI Chi-fung then returned to his seat) DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, actually that was already very kind and generous of you. He spent almost 10 minutes asking his question. I hope that I will be given sufficient time to follow up this question. President, I have this question for the Chief Executive is this. The Medical Council of Hong Kong ("MCHK") finally passed amid criticisms yesterday the proposal to relax the internship requirement for overseas doctors but the passage of this proposal is described as a bitter victory for it serves only as a "blood transfusion" without putting a stop to the "bleeding". It is because we face a shortage of manpower in public hospitals and obviously, despite the passage of the proposal, will overseas doctors choose to work in public hospitals or will we only provide more manpower for private practice?


9701

In this connection, may I ask the Chief Executive, in terms of improvement of manpower arrangements and remuneration in public hospitals, whether more specific arrangements will be made following the passage of this proposal, so that overseas doctors will be willing to choose to work in public hospitals in those three years to serve Hong Kong people and provide health care services that are badly needed? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I thank Dr LEUNG for her question. There is at present a shortage of health care workers in Hong Kong and this is indeed a big problem. Given the continuous expansion of public hospitals and development of new hospitals, and despite an increase in the number of places for students to receive training in the two medical schools, it still seems difficult for this problem to be resolved in the short-to-medium term. Therefore, the importation of registered and practising doctors from overseas effectively and appropriately is actually an all-win proposal for it can alleviate the work pressure in hospitals, especially that of frontline doctors, and also enable us to launch a number of new initiatives in health care policies. We take comfort in the voting result of MCHK yesterday, for at least we have made a step. We hope that more overseas specialist doctors can be attracted to practise in Hong Kong. But in fact, as Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN has said, this is only the first step, and we do not know the outcome. But in view of the present situation, a problem needs our attention all the more as mentioned by Dr Priscilla LEUNG just now, which has also been brought to my attention by some frontline doctors. On 18 April, Dr Pierre CHAN who represented the medical profession in the Legislative Council wrote to me. He thanked me for making fair, discerning comments on this issue as I did not take doctors to task but instead, I explained to the public that doctors in Hong Kong have performed their duties faithfully, that they possess both medical skills and a benevolent heart, and that I do not hope that the community would have negative views on the quality doctors in Hong Kong because of this issue and hence render the mutual trust between doctors and patients affected. Therefore, he thanked me for making those remarks. But he also pointed out that many of the problems nowadays are actually the result of the Hospital Authority ("HA") consistently failing to address problems in staff establishment, mismatch of resources, and so on. He said that this has made many of his colleagues feel a bit frustrated, thus resulting in a low morale among them. This is a management problem.


Therefore, I can tell Dr LEUNG that together with Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN, I have the determination to study ways to alleviate the dissatisfaction of doctors, while improvement can also be made institutionally. If there is a need to inject resources, that would not be a problem. In fact, there is already quite a substantial increase in the resources provided by us to HA this year. But if it is necessary to plough in additional resources, we will certainly work hard to this end. Meanwhile, with the impending opening of the first District Health Centre ("DHC") in Kwai Tsing District, we will strive to set up a DHC in the other 17 districts in the hope that the pressure on public hospitals will be alleviated through the enhancement of primary health care services. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the question that I am going to ask actually comes from a dedicated doctor who has continuously served in public hospitals since I was studying in university. In 2030, 26% of the population in Hong Kong will be aged 65, and this figure is worrying to us all. He can see a dire shortage of young people joining public hospitals, infirmaries or the hospital in Kwai Chung mentioned by the Chief Executive just now. My friend, who was almost in tears, said to me that he very much hoped to ask through me, his secondary schoolmate, how the "bleeding" can be stopped. Will consideration be given to adopting an approach similar to that for our law schools by increasing its number from one to two and then to the existing three, with close to 600 to 700 lawyers starting practice annually now, compared to only 100 local lawyers graduating every year in the past? Will the Government consider establishing another medical school? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): As I said just now, we have already asked the two medical schools to increase the places for medical students, which is being done now. Recently, Members may have watched an interview with Prof Gabriel LEUNG, Dean of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong, who said that there is not even enough seating space and in other words, even a lecture hall cannot accommodate all the students now. So, it takes a long time to increase the student intake of a medical school or develop a brand new medical school as it is necessary to deal with issues of both hardware and software. Therefore, I hope that emphasis can be put on utilizing the two excellent medical schools of ours for training more doctors locally. But this really has to take some time because as Members all know, it takes years to


9703

train a doctor. Therefore, in the short term, I hope that through this opportunity when overseas specialist doctors will be imported more effectively or through the management, resource distribution, personnel management and various other aspects in public hospitals as I have just said, their current pressure can be alleviated but I fully appreciate the pressure borne by doctors in public hospitals in Hong Kong and we will make an effort to bring relief to their situation. (Mr Gary FAN stood up) MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Point of order. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, what is your point of order? MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I have a point of order. I wish to confirm that the Chief Executive, when answering Mr WU Chi-wai's question just now, mentioned that the Government of the previous three terms had not dealt with this so-called loophole in the past 22 years … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. Please sit down. (Mr Gary FAN remained standing and speaking) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please sit down. Mr LUK Chung-hung, please raise your question. (Mr Gary FAN continued to speak while standing) MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, please deal with the problem of Mr Gary FAN's conduct first.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, if you keep talking aloud in your seat, I will regard your conduct as grossly disorderly. Please sit down. Mr LUK Chung-hung, please raise your question. MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, Chief Executive, although the Chief Executive is busy coping with the political attacks by some politicos with ulterior motives and she also faces a society with so much confrontation, I still hope that she would have adequate vigour to pay attention to the livelihood of wage earners. I raise the following question for the wage earners throughout Hong Kong who are working industriously and professionally, overcoming all obstacles without fear of the elements. The Government has recently announced that the Labour Department will amend the Code of Practice in times of Typhoons and Rainstorms to stipulate that resumption of work can be extended for two hours under extreme conditions. Yet, I would like to tell the Chief Executive that this measure is neither fish nor fowl. It cannot solve the problem, nor has it addressed the aspirations of the wage earners. I wonder if the Chief Executive is aware that the Code has no binding effect and it is just a "toothless tiger". There is no penalty even if the employers fail to comply with the Code. Quite a number of wage earners still see their wages and leave days deducted after inclement weather, as some employers would not understand and sympathize with them even if the traffic and weather conditions remain poor. Therefore, we from the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") … President, I hope you will deal with the problem of Mr Gary FAN. (Mr Gary FAN stood up and spoke loudly) MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I hope you will deal with the problem of Mr Gary FAN, I have put up long enough with him. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, I have already warned you many times, you should not yell in your seat. Please sit down. (Mr Gary FAN requested the President to deal with his point of order)


9705

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order, how the Chief Executive gives an answer is her choice. (Mr Gary FAN continued to talk aloud while standing) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please leave the Chamber. (Security officers moved forward and tried to help Mr Gary FAN leave the Chamber, but Mr FAN continued to speak loudly while standing) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please leave the Chamber immediately. (Mr Gary FAN continued to speak loudly while standing) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, please leave the Chamber. If you do not leave the Chamber, this meeting cannot proceed. (Mr Gary FAN yelled while holding up placards, and left the Chamber with the assistance of security officers) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please go on. MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, the public can also see that Members from the opposition camp seek to paralyze the legislature by resorting to such tactics. They even obstruct us in raising questions which are the concern of wage earners. The FTU has proposed legislation for a "suspension of work order" under which employers cannot deduct the wages or leave days of wage earners if the latter cannot go to work during the period for which "suspension of work" has been announced. May I ask the Chief Executive, apart from amending the Code of Practice in times of Typhoons and Rainstorms, will she take on board the suggestion of the FTU to make arrangements for a "suspension of work order" under which employees do not need to go to work, so as to empower the Chief Executive and provide her a


guideline on announcement of "suspension of work" for the sake of protecting the wage earners, such that they would not have to bear the risk of going to work in the event of inclement weather or natural disasters? It is because the existing guidelines do not have any effect. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr LUK for his question. Given that the recovery work, transport arrangements and arrangements for resumption of work after super typhoon Mangkhut hit Hong Kong last year have aroused enormous concern in society, the Government conducted a comprehensive review internally and has recently given an account to the relevant Panel of the Legislative Council. About this issue, that is, whether arrangements can be made upon cancellation of Typhoon Signal No. 8, taking into account the circumstances at that time, so that employees might not need to resume duty immediately, we presently hold that the approach of calling on employers to implement the Code of Practice and relevant guidelines is relatively appropriate after considering a number of factors. While Mr LUK is so concerned about employee welfare, we are similarly concerned about employee welfare, and I believe most employers are also very concerned about the well-being of their employees and they do not hope to see their employees fall victims to accidents in the course of rushing to work. Perhaps I will ask the Chief Secretary for Administration to look into this matter again. MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I hope the Chief Executive will realize that during the period in which a typhoon signal has been issued, many employees in the service industry are still required to go to work by their employers, and some of them may even say that they should go to work even if Typhoon Signal No. 1 000 has been issued. We hope that the Government will address the problem squarely since such guidelines are merely a "toothless tiger". No matter how they are revised, and even if the period is extended to four hours, "2+2", or even six hours, the employees would have no choice but are forced to go to work as long as their employers do not follow the guidelines. If traffic accidents take place when they are commuting to work, or if they are hit by a fallen tree, such cases are not covered by labour insurance, nor are they covered by protection of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance. Is the Chief Executive aware of this situation, and in what ways can she protect the wage earners?


9707

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr LUK. I have heard your views, we will consider the relevant issues altogether. MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, Chief Executive, our former colleague―former Secretary for Home Affairs Dr Patrick HO―was suspected of committing bribery in the United States, and he had been detained since late 2017. Upon conviction early this year, he was sentenced to imprisonment for three years by the judge, a term of imprisonment which was not very long. May I ask the Chief Executive, since we have entered into a transfer of sentenced persons agreement with the United States, if Dr HO refrains from lodging an appeal, will you negotiate with the United States for his transfer back to Hong Kong to serve his sentence, or hospitalization for rest so that he would not have to suffer so much? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Regarding this case raised by Mrs Regina IP, I will ask the Secretary for Security to examine the current arrangements between the two places and our legal basis, to see whether such a request should be made by us or the party involved, but we would consider this matter from a people-oriented perspective. MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, to my understanding, under such arrangements for transfer of sentenced persons, he can be transferred back to Hong Kong upon agreement by the three parties―Hong Kong, the Government of the United States and Dr Patrick HO himself―so that he would not have to suffer so much. I hope that the Chief Executive can give it consideration. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mrs IP. We will give it consideration. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, Chief Executive, under the Road Traffic Ordinance, no person is permitted to use a light goods vehicle for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward unless a valid hire car permit is issued in respect of the vehicle. Yet, according to press reports, some government departments have broken the law with full knowledge of it by hiring


light goods vehicles to pick up their staff for performance of duties. Some staff members have indicated that they worry, on the one hand, that in case of an accident, they might lose their insurance coverage because the carriage of passengers is illegal as the light goods vehicles have not been issued a hire car permit. On the other hand, they are also worried about the risk of leakage of information concerning external inspections. I have made enquiries with the departments that had used such illegal services, and how did they answer me? They said, first, it was because the Government had signed contracts with them; second, it was because the costs were lower. Yet, I believe the Government would not encourage its staff to use these illegal services which are not covered by insurance for the sake of saving money. Therefore, may I ask the Chief Executive whether she had knowledge of this malpractice before it was reported in the news? Have any staff members been subject to punishment as a result? How can she ensure that various departments will not hire these illegal services anymore? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr YICK. First of all, I can confirm with dead certainty that I share the same stance as what Mr YICK said just now. Our government departments must abide by the law. If we do not abide by the law ourselves, how can we demonstrate that Hong Kong is a society that upholds the rule of law? Particularly, we are in fact the law enforcement authority in respect of some matters. After the case was reported, we in the Government are very concerned about it as well, and we have taken certain measures to remind various departments that they should not hire illegal carriage services out of convenience or low price. As regards whether any colleagues would be subject to punishment in this case, I have to hand it over to the relevant department for handling. It seems that the Secretary for Security is also responsible for handling this case. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, I have a follow-up question. We all know that the operation of "white licence cars" is somewhat rampant in society nowadays. I have sought assistance from the Secretary for Justice for presenting justifications to the Court to request that sentencing


9709

guidance be laid down. I have yet to receive any reply from the Department of Justice so far, thus I hope that the Chief Executive can assist in following this up. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Okay, I will follow it up. MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, while there are abundant opportunities in the Greater Bay Area, in fact there exists competition among cities in the region as well. For instance, conventions in Shenzhen, Dongguan and Guangzhou have become increasingly prosperous in recent years, and there are more and more convention and exhibition ("C&E") venues, the area of which is often several times of that of the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre ("HKCEC"). Among them, the Shenzhen International Convention and Exhibition Centre located in Bao'an District, Shenzhen has entered its final stage of construction, and an indoor exhibition venue of up to 500 000 sq m will be provided upon its completion. Looking back at HKCEC and the AsiaWorld-Expo ("AWE") in Hong Kong, their total area is only 160 000 sq m, whilst the relocation plan of the three government buildings in Wan Chai North is expected to be implemented only in 2026, and there is no timetable for the phase two expansion of AWE. It is indisputable that there is a shortage of C&E venues in Hong Kong. At the same time, I have also noticed that in the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area promulgated early this year, it is specifically set out that we should consolidate and enhance Hong Kong's status as an international high-end convention, exhibition and sourcing centre. While Hong Kong faces a shortage of C&E venues on the one hand, we have to maintain Hong Kong's status in the C&E industry on the other. In this connection, may I ask the Chief Executive how the SAR Government can resolve this contradiction? Is there any special knack that she can share with us? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr NG for his question. Our current guiding principle for the development of the Greater Bay Area is to strive for mutual benefits and win-win results, instead of engaging in vicious competition. Yet, competition does exist in certain industries or sectors indeed, and it is rather difficult to ask a city to give up a particular industry. To date, I remain fully confident of the C&E industry of Hong Kong. They excel over


their counterparts in terms of efficiency, management and service quality. Hong Kong is an aviation hub as well, so our international connections also enable our C&E industry to flourish. In fact, we have been aware of the shortage of hardware for years, and our knack is to carry out related projects as expeditiously as possible. The two key projects mentioned by Mr NG just now are being implemented at full speed. The first one is to relocate the three government buildings in Wan Chai North with a view to redeveloping the site into a large-scale C&E centre; whereas the other one is AWE. The Government has actually made efforts in facilitating or assisting the Airport Authority Hong Kong ("AA") in buying back AWE, such that AA now possesses greater autonomy in guiding the operation of AWE and the development of the phase two site. I believe Secretary Edward YAU will have some plans to share with Members later. With respect to the challenge mentioned by Mr NG, actually it is not encountered by the C&E industry alone. Each and every industry that needs land faces the same challenge, not to mention the housing problem which is an issue of the utmost urgency. Therefore, here I would like to appeal to the many Members now present to support the work of the SAR Government in expanding land resources, especially the detailed study on the reclamation projects at East Lantau which will soon be submitted by the Development Bureau. If such work is not launched today, Hong Kong will still be short of land long term, thus impeding us from achieving the policy objective of pursuing economic development and improving people's livelihood to enable the public to live in peace and work with contentment. MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, the President of the United States, Donald TRUMP, has made a sudden change in attitude and plans to increase tariffs on US$200 billion worth of Chinese goods. Once this message is released, the stock markets in the Mainland and the United States plunged, and the stock market in Hong Kong dropped more than 1 000 points. In fact, many financial organizations project that the economic growth slowdown will continue this year. The uncertainties of the China-United States trade war will have significant impact on the financial market and manufacturers in Hong Kong. Some manufacturers say that once 25% tariffs are implemented, basically all sales of goods to Mainland China will have to stop, triggering a factory closure spree which may even affect various trades and the world as a whole.


9711

May I ask the Chief Executive of the assessment of the SAR Government on the future economic environment of Hong Kong amid the fluctuations in the external economy? I notice that a number of Policy Bureaux of the SAR Government planned to convene meetings with various chambers of commerce yesterday, yet for corresponding measures supporting the enterprises, what arrangements will the authorities make? I am worried about the impact of the China-United States trade war on Hong Kong. CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I know that in the concluding remarks for the Budget made yesterday, the Financial Secretary shared with Members the Government's views on the current economic environment. Basically, as Mr WONG said, there are many uncertainties. Yet, in any case, Hong Kong as an externally oriented economy will definitely be affected by the trade dispute. Hence, as seen in the GDP growth of the first quarter of this year, which is 0.5%, and the weak export performance, the situation is worrying. Members may have noticed that the environment in the Mainland has seemed to improve slightly in March and April, yet the exports of Hong Kong remain weak. Definitely, the Financial Secretary will be leading the work and will address it from different aspects. First, it is the exploration of new markets, an area which we have been working on for some time, particularly for the markets of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ("ASEAN"). For this reason, over the past two years, we have adopted a relatively proactive approach in ASEAN work compared with that in the past. Our work includes the signing of the Free Trade Agreement between Hong Kong and ASEAN, which will come into force in the middle of this year, and the establishment of an office in Thailand. I have also visited ASEAN countries with Secretary Edward YAU to discuss with their leaders ways of reinforcing the tie between Hong Kong and these countries. Second, it is the provision of various kinds of support particularly for small and medium enterprises. Regarding their needs for funding for enhancement, transformation or exploration of new markets, we are more than willing to provide support. Hence, I hope that if the industries have any specific measures which may address the problems now faced by them, they will propose to us. Secretary Edward YAU has met with chambers of commerce for more than 10 rounds. At each meeting, we listened for advice on areas which we can offer more support, and we will do so. At the dinner of an industry group of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, I stated that in view of the adverse impact


arising from the China-United States trade conflicts, we and the trades are in the same boat and we will stand together rain or shine. So long as it is within the capabilities of the SAR Government, be it resource allocation, policy support or making proposals to the Central Authorities, we will exert our level best. MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, if the SAR Government can step up negotiations with the Mainland on the opening up of Mainland markets, I believe the impact of the China-United States trade war on Hong Kong businesses will be minimized. Since the Mainland market is really enormous, development of Mainland market will offset Hong Kong's reliance on the United States market. Will the Chief Executive make an extra effort in this aspect? CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, you can rest assured that I will spare no effort in this aspect. In the opening remarks today, I have chosen to recap the support rendered by the Central Authorities in the past two years in economic development and improvement of people's livelihood, as well as measures facilitating Hong Kong citizens in working, studying and living in the Mainland, and so on. The same spirit is also applicable to facilitating the industries in exploring Mainland markets. It is most desirable that the industries will put forth specific proposals, stating whether these should be implemented for the Greater Bay Area or throughout the country and the areas to be covered. Will the industries put forth these proposals to me through Mr WONG or chambers of commerce. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session comes to an end. The Chief Executive now leaves the Chamber. Members will please stand up. (While the Chief Executive was leaving the Chamber, a number off Members chanted slogans repeatedly: "Carrie LAM is lying!")


9713

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session ends now. Adjourned accordingly at 12:04 pm.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 9 May 2019 The ... · THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN,...

Documents

Transcript of OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 9 May 2019 The ... · THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN,...