OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Friday, 5 December …official record of proceedings friday, 5 december 2014 the council continued to meet at nine o'clock members present: the president

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 December 2014

3281

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Friday, 5 December 2014

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 December 2014 3282

THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C. THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.


3283

DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S. MEMBERS ABSENT: THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.


PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N. THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C. DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S. THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.


3285

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY MR KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION MR STEPHEN SUI WAI-KEUNG, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


MEMBERS' MOTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning everyone. The meeting will now resume. We will have a debate on the motion "Adhering to the need to 'put Hong Kong people first' in formulating policies". Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon Mr Gary FAN to speak and move the motion. ADHERING TO THE NEED TO "PUT HONG KONG PEOPLE FIRST" IN FORMULATING POLICIES MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. President, this is the second time I move a motion during this term of the Council on "Put Hong Kong people first". One year ago when I proposed a similar motion in this Council, I experienced a lot of abuses from Members. My motion was seen as "discrimination" and "extremist hatred". Mr Christopher CHUNG of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong even branded it as a "fascist motion". But throughout this one year past, as the Government still fails to adopt effective measures to solve the China-Hong Kong conflicts, the problems just aggravate. Nativism continues to boom and grow. The SAR Government pursues in a blind attempt to integrate China and Hong Kong. All the side-effects begin to surface. Therefore, I propose a motion on "Put Hong Kong people first" once again and in the motion wording I have put in more comments on public policy. I hope that other Members will not adopt an attitude which passes the part as the whole and reject the importance of nativism, or try to hurl invectives and smear this motion on "Put Hong Kong people first" as indicative of the radical thinking of advocates of Hong Kong independence. All these will not help break the impasse our society is facing. President, as a matter of fact, many scholars and news commentators such as LEE Yee, LIAN Yi-zheng, MA Kwok-ming and HUI Po-keung, and so on, are beginning to study and analyse the rise of nativism in Hong Kong. They urge the Government to face squarely such demands caused by the China-Hong Kong


3287

conflicts. Over the year past, nativism thoughts have become a major trend and this is a fact which the SAR Government has to admit. President, the University of Hong Kong (HKU) and The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) undertake periodic tracking surveys on the identity of Hong Kong people. The latest findings of a survey done by CUHK were released at the beginning of November. The survey considers those who see themselves as "Hong Kong people" or "Hong Kong people and also Chinese" as people who recognize putting Hong Kong people first. They take up as much as 68.8% and it is the highest ever since 1996. On the contrary, the percentage of those who think of themselves as purely Chinese has slid from 32.1% during the reunification in 1997 to the lowest in 18 years. It is only 8.9% now. Similar findings are published by the HKU in June and among the interviewees, the option which the highest degree of identification is "Hong Kong person". The lowest percentages are the options "Chinese" and "People's Republic of China national". The findings of this survey prove that for the Hong Kong people, especially the young people, their sense of nativism and autonomy has become the mainstream in our society. When the "royalists" or the SAR Government look at these findings, they will instinctively distort them as Hong Kong people not behaving well enough or that the hearts of the people have not yet returned. Then they propose that more of this brainwashing national education should be launched in Hong Kong. Recently, Dr Priscilla LEUNG pointed out that students taking part in the Umbrella Movement were not patriotic and that the cause of the problem lay in the subject of liberal studies. The Education Bureau was asked to fix up the contents of the subject in the area of politics. In order to achieve the aim for the hearts of the people to return, the Government even forces the people of Hong Kong to integrate with China blindly in politics, economy and culture, and measures like One-Way Permits to Hong Kong, the Individual Visit Scheme and using Putonghua to teach Chinese, and so on, are rolled out. These are proofs of the above view. Official media on the Mainland even put forward ideas like the "New Hong Kong people". President, "New Hong Kong people" refers to immigrants from the Mainland which Hong Kong has taken in during these years, including a large number of Mainlanders holding One-Way Permits coming to settle here. The Neo Democrats has always respected the right of family reunion. But this system of One-Way Permits does have big loopholes. Two days ago there was a


report saying that the Immigration Department had cracked down on a syndicate which arranged false marriages between people of Hong Kong and Mainland China. This is a family-run crime syndicate and in two years it has arranged for 80 false marriages, helping Mainland residents of dubious origin to settle here as spouses of Hong Kong residents. However, the SAR Government has never exercised the right to vet the entry of One-Way Permit holders. On the other hand, it is co-operating with the Chinese communists and replicating the trick of colonization in Hong Kong which has been practised in Xinjiang and Tibet. This aims at changing the population of Hong Kong. These "New Hong Kong people" have been screened by Mainland authorities and they have been living under Chinese communist rule for years. While they have a big difference in culture with the Hong Kong people, they may not embrace the core values of Hong Kong. Therefore, it is only by revising the One-Way Permit system and allowing the SAR Government to exercise its right of vetting applications that this situation of people obtaining One-Way Permits by slipping through the back door and engaging in corruption, fraudulence, false marriage, forged documents and putting up an excuse of family reunion, and so on, can be prevented. It is only by doing this that families which truly want to reunite with their members can benefit. President, by proposing this idea of putting Hong Kong people first, I demand that the Government should exercise its right to vet One-Way Permits and revise the residency requirement for applicants of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance. This has nothing to do with the race or place of origin or a discrimination against anyone, which people who criticize me have said. On the contrary, formulation of policies on population and immigration which are reasonable and can meet the expectations and development needs of the local people can prevent the appearance of unnecessary hatred. President, the European Court has ruled at the beginning of this November that members of the European Union have the right to legislate to prohibit immigrants from enjoying the same rights as their citizens. CAMERON, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, even thinks that the ruling is common sense. At the end of last month, the United States announced that amnesty would be granted to a certain number of illegal immigrants and one of the conditions was that they could not enjoy any subsidy for medical insurance and other government benefits. It can be seen that the basic responsibility for any country is to take good care of the citizens and permanent residents first. Mr Vincent FANG of the Liberal Party asked in a motion debate one year ago


3289

whether or not members of the American Congress would move any motion to give priority to American citizens. President, in the amnesty announced by OBAMA this time, it can be seen as a response to Mr Vincent FANG's question: That giving priorities to citizens is common knowledge in the United States and no debate on that is necessary. President, a Hong Kong person is never defined simply by race or place of origin but that he or she must uphold the core values of Hong Kong. After the Second World War, countries in Europe were in opposition to the extremist nationalist thinking of fascism and countries were urged to enter into alliances in which member states all pursue peace and democracy and the furtherance of human rights in the absence of any racial differences. I support the view of according priority to native Hong Kong people. I consider that we should transcend narrow nationalism and we should base on the core values of Hong Kong and build a consciousness for the citizens of Hong Kong. We are not after separation from the nation. Therefore, it is unjustified to say that giving priority to the native Hong Kong people is an evidence for advocating independence of Hong Kong. President, the Government has never faced up to the development of nativism. Ever since LEUNG Chun-ying has assumed office, it can be seen that there is an increasing tendency of various policy areas tilting towards the Mainland and China-Hong Kong conflicts have intensified. According to this year's Budget, the share taken up by the tourism industry in the GDP is far less than the other three pillar industries. This is disproportionate to the negative impact brought about by the Individual Visit Scheme. But the Government still turns a deaf ear to demands to slash the quota for the Individual Visit Scheme and abolish the one-year multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements. The aim is to integrate Hong Kong into the one-hour living circle of Shenzhen. The following are other examples. The Education Bureau promotes the use of Putonghua to teach Chinese language in the primary and secondary schools, aiming at severing the cultural ties with Cantonese. Numerous "white elephant projects", such as the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail which squanders public money and creates an economic dependence on China, are carried out for the integration of Hong Kong with China. Water is bought from China with water from the Dongjiang River and public money is wasted. All these are examples of policies slanting very much towards the Mainland and not to the interests of Hong Kong people at all. Conflicts between Hong Kong and China only go from bad to worse.


In addition, the numerous policy blunders committed by the LEUNG Chun-ying administration have resulted in problems in the distribution of public resources. This in turn becomes the root of China-Hong Kong conflicts. School children in Hong Kong have to compete with those so-called "doubly non-permanent resident" school children across the border for school places in the kindergartens and primary one. In the 2013-2014 school year, among the eight government-funded postsecondary institutions in Hong Kong, 80% of the non-local students come from the Mainland. Official media from the Mainland are taking advantage of the loophole in the sports and leisure services provided by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, and travellers on the Individual Visit Scheme are encouraged to occupy the swimming pools of Hong Kong, football pitches and such community resources in Hong Kong. But what has the Government done? All along there has been no effective measure from the Government to ensure that local school children need not go to schools in other districts and that locals are given a priority in using educational resources. The Government cares nothing about the effects of large numbers of travellers on the Individual Visit Scheme and multiple-entry endorsements. Given such an unjust social environment, the young people of Hong Kong will naturally feel discontented. Those people who take part in the Umbrella Movement are mostly this new generation of young people who are unhappy with the present situation here. This proves that inclining towards the Chinese communists in every aspect will only result in the loss of support from a whole generation of Hong Kong people. President, the crux of this assimilation with the Mainland is not only evidenced by policies like the Individual Visit Scheme, using Putonghua to teach Chinese, and so on, but also in a political system in Hong Kong that can never realize autonomy. The recent "nine-in-one" elections in Taiwan are a source of inspiration for the impasse in governance in Hong Kong. In Taiwan, the ruling Kuomintang Party suffered a disastrous setback because of its intention to lean towards Mainland China in the economic sphere. At the beginning of this year, the Sunflower Student Movement in Taiwan which was likewise led by young people broke out and its effects are fully seen in the elections this time. The Kuomintang is punished by the voters and in many counties the party is thoroughly thrashed. Taiwan has undergone colonial rule and the impact of the Kuomintang's relocation into Taiwan. Its culture is diversified and for a long time indigenous Taiwanese values have been formed. The Taiwanese people naturally hope that


3291

there can be a distinction between these values and those of the Mainland which are obviously different. For Hong Kong, our core values which are upheld by our nativism are also products of historical development. They are the heritage of the culture of South China, formed under 160 years of British colonial rule, with the confluence of both Western and Eastern cultures which accept universal values, capitalism, the industrial culture of the West while Cantonese culture is also preserved. For decades this develops along a separate track from that of Mainland China and accounts for the building of subjectivity in our identity. All these are indelible marks and they should never be forgotten. President, I wish to stress that this nativism is not a venting of feelings of national confrontation but that this is a result of Hong Kong people casting away their sojourner mentality and they are really taking Hong Kong as their home. They are making their efforts to build an ideal society. This will become the spirit of the Lion Rock for the new generation of Hong Kong. The crux of the identity of Hong Kong people lies in whether or not the core values of Hong Kong, that is, democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law, are recognized and defended. For the SAR Government, it cannot simply stress that Hong Kong is a part of China and hence try to subvert the values that have developed throughout the years and ask the people of Hong Kong to submit to the ways of a communist China. President, for a long time Hong Kong treasures openness and we have never resisted blindly the incoming of Mainland culture into Hong Kong to a proper manner. There are many cultural totems in Hong Kong, such as the kung fu movies, martial arts novels, and even traditional customs like villain hitting in Canal Road. They are all under the influence of Chinese culture and they all acquire local colours through time. Apart from that, there is diversity found in Hong Kong culture and this can be seen in Chungking Mansion, Soho district in Central and curry restaurants in Mong Kok. Our success lies in Hong Kong's international perspective, plus our inherent advantages, instead of relying solely on China as our hinterland. What the Government is doing is that it makes use of its administrative power and force through an integration of Hong Kong with China in the name of boosting the economy. This is to make our economy reliant on the Mainland. The aim is to undermine "one country, two systems" so that Hong Kong will become a second-rate city in China over time and that our hopes for democratic development will be dashed.


The example of democratization in Taiwan tells Hong Kong people that democracy will never come by from begging a power higher than the indigenous system and it is not given but gained through the struggles in the process of indigenization. So we should respect the right of Hong Kong people to choose their lifestyle and it is only by doing so that there can be a mature democracy for Hong Kong. In the Umbrella Movement which has been going on for the past two months, the people of Hong Kong feel that the Hong Kong they are familiar with is fast changing. The freedom of the press and the freedom of speech are suppressed, the Police which used to uphold public order have relegated into the likes of public security officers and municipal control officers of China and they are political tools. The Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying finds the time to go to Beijing to pay tribute to his boss but does not have the courage to go to the Legislative Council to face the people. I therefore propose this motion on putting the people of Hong Kong first (The buzzer sounded) … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, speaking time is up. MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): … President, I so submit. Mr Gary FAN moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That this Council urges the SAR Government to proactively handle China-Hong Kong conflicts, and to adhere to the need to 'put Hong Kong people first' in formulating policies; the relevant policies should include: Immigration ― (1) in accordance with Article 22 of the Basic Law, to exercise the

power of the SAR Government to vet and approve the entry under the dual vetting and approval system of the One-Way Permit for immigration for serving properly the gatekeeping role on the long-term population policy of Hong Kong;


3293

(2) to amend Article 24 of the Basic Law to abolish the right of abode in Hong Kong enjoyed by babies born locally to parents who both are not Hong Kong permanent residents (commonly known as 'doubly non-permanent resident babies');

Education ― (3) to expeditiously review the teaching effectiveness of the

implementation of the scheme of 'Using Putonghua to Teach Chinese Language Subject' in primary and secondary schools, and to formulate an independent language policy for Cantonese for protecting its official status at policy level, so that students will not depart from the local culture in their learning, thereby affecting the cultural inheritance in Hong Kong;

(4) to reduce the existing admission rate of over 80% for Mainland

students to funded tertiary programmes, and to give priority to local students in allocation and use of local education resources;

(5) to require kindergartens to admit 'schooling within the home

district' students, and the Education Bureau should allocate the projected surplus Primary One places in various school nets to a '37th school net' for selection by 'doubly non-permanent resident students', in order to avoid the need for local students to attend school in other districts;

Economic development ― (6) to cap the number of visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme and

immediately abolish the measure of allowing Shenzhen residents to visit Hong Kong on the one-year multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements ('multiple-entry endorsements'), so as to reduce the impacts caused by a large number of Mainland visitors on local residents;

(7) to revise the Dongjiang water purchase agreement to an agreement

for charges based on supply quantity to reduce the expenses incurred by Hong Kong for purchasing Dongjiang water, and to focus resources on studying desalination technology to facilitate desalination to become a major source of water for Hong Kong in the long run;


(8) to stop conceiving 'white elephant projects' for blindly pursuing the objective of integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland, and to ensure that large-scale infrastructure development can meet the long-term needs of Hong Kong people to avoid further cases of persistent delay of works and cost overrun in infrastructure projects, resulting in wastage of public resources;

(9) to protect the rights and interests of local workers and oppose

importation of labour blindly; and Welfare ― (10) to revise afresh the residential requirement under the

Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme and present a relevant bill to the Legislative Council for scrutiny in accordance with the legislative procedures to ensure that Hong Kong permanent residents may receive social welfare protection with priority."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Gary FAN be passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Four Members will move amendments to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the four amendments. I will first call upon Ms Claudia MO to speak, to be followed by Dr Helena WONG, Mr Christopher CHUNG and Mr TANG Ka-piu respectively, but they may not move amendments at this stage. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, in our opinion, the greatest obstacle to resolving the intensifying China-Hong Kong conflicts is that when Hong Kong people are putting up a real fight for genuine universal suffrage, there are claims that "one person, one vote" already amounts to genuine universal suffrage. That is not what we want to hear. They are only a pack of "bootlicking guys", puppets of Beijing and "dogs of Beijing" left upon screening


3295

for selection by Hong Kong people. One should never think that the metaphor of dogs is an insult to future candidates. Rather than an insult, it is a vocabulary of the Chinese Communist Party. A recent saying has made it clear that journalists in Mainland China are compared to "a dog of the Party" in a folk ditty. From this you will know how people in the capacity of journalists are looked at in Mainland China. Students of the School of Journalism and Communication of The Chinese University of Hong Kong have their own publication named the U-Beat Magazine, by which we are told that the average number of news reports on the directors of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by Wen Wei Po per year, from the then JIANG Enzhu to the present one whom we call "Mr Xiaoming". Back then, the number of reports on JIANG Enzhu in Wen Wei Po was just 8.9 on average in a year, while this year, the number of reports on ZHANG Xiaoming has increased by as many as five times to 42.6. The same publication also mentions the number of times for the top leaders in Beijing to comment on Hong Kong affairs ― in total, not on average ― and the so-called top leaders in Beijing certainly refer to the level of President, Vice President and Premier, and the comments on Hong Kong affairs made by the Hong Kong and Macao Work Coordination Group after 2003 are also included. In the whole year of 1998, the year after the handover, there were only three such occasions; in 2003, it increased to eight occasions; and in 2014, there have been 14 occasions before this year ends, representing an increase by as many as four times. Judging from the above, Beijing has now fully tightened its grip on Hong Kong, giving orders as it wishes without any restraint. As to the Hong Kong Government ― the puppet Government, which is "a dog of Beijing" ― it is just fully compliant in the formulation of its policies. However, I really have to remind LEUNG Chun-ying's Government that things will turn into their opposite when they reach the extreme. It is like bouncing a ball. The harder you hit it, the harder it rebounds. You can look at how high the level of political awareness is among our youngsters of this generation. Particular attention should be drawn to the identity of Hong Kong people. At present, everyone can tell the difference between those who are identified as Hong Kong people or Mainlanders. We do not mean to discriminate against Mainlanders. It is just about a sense of recognition of our identity of Hong Kong people which has been there since 1847.


On 22 September, President, students of tertiary institutions declared the start of a class boycott. They hung a huge vertical banner on the campus of The Chinese University of Hong Kong with the message of "anti-colonialism and say no to screening". Everyone knows what it means by "say no to screening". As to the "colonialism" in "anti-colonialism", it stems from the word "colony". Now the attitude of Beijing is obviously like this. Youngsters who dislike Hong Kong may just go away. They should study and work overseas or emigrate to other countries as they wish. They may leave here, and there will always be people staying in Hong Kong. The population will not diminish as 150 One-Way Permits are granted a day to allow entry of Mainland immigrants. Among them, some truly come for family reunion. But Members have a pretty good idea of the situation. President, as you are well versed in China-Hong Kong relations, you should know what kind of people are planted among them. Are there any security figures from various network for national security and vote rigging purposes? President, the identity of Hong Kong people or even the English word "Hongkonger" has been added to Oxford dictionaries as a new entry. I have grounds to believe that the phrase "add oil"1 will also be added to Oxford dictionaries soon. Clearly, this has summed up how things are going among this generation in Hong Kong. And LEUNG Chun-ying's Government has been unceasingly promoting integration between Hong Kong and China, deliberately blurring Hong Kong's features. As regards his trump cards, apart from wearing down the sense of belonging to Hong Kong ideologically by "brainwashing", the most powerful means is economic monopoly. President, in the past … not in the past, because he is still alive. According to WU Guoguang, formerly an intellectual in the Mainland, people under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party are living in a zoo. The foremost priority is to make you care only about your belly, forget your dignity and lead an undignified life, asking for no more than a roof and two meals. People are deprived of the most basic dignity as they have been degraded to animals.

1 A character by character translation of the Chinese term "加油", which is used for cheering people on.


3297

What have come under economic monopoly? There are many. In my amendment to Mr Gary FAN's motion, there are two key points. First, WONG Kam-sing has made an open invitation for public discussion by a consultation exercise, but he has fully exposed his sense of superiority as a government official, hard selling the Government's inclination to purchase electricity from the Mainland. We have been reliant on the Mainland as 80% of our fresh water supply comes from Dongjiang water. But the pro-establishment camp is still quoting those words from Beijing day after day, alleging that you people are working towards Hong Kong independence by "putting Hong Kong people first" and promoting "the local culture of Hong Kong". Why does it amount to "Hong Kong independence"? The reliance on Mainland to supply 80% of our fresh water is already a hard fact. I call on the Government to show its genuine determination to monitor the progress of seawater desalination works for us. Now, they say that the works are underway, but expect a delay of 20 to 30 years. And in the year 2047, they will again say that the works will be carried out in due course. At present, the same applies to electricity. They claim that as there is a need for Hong Kong to purchase a large amount of electricity, the existing percentage should be raised by purchasing electricity from the China Southern Power Grid. Nevertheless, it is commonly known that the China Southern Power Grid is mainly coal-fired. Is this fair to the residents on the Guangdong side? Electricity is supplied to Hong Kong by means of coal-fired generation. But how about the air pollution on that side? Can the Government just ignore it? As to supply reliability, the figures provided by CLP to us show that the annual average minutes loss of electricity supply for Hong Kong customers is a bit more than two minutes, while the relevant data of the China Southern Power Grid show that the annual average minutes loss of electricity supply for their customers is a bit more than two hours. In view of this, how can the authority ask for reliability? According to Secretary K S WONG, the authority will not give in on the supply reliability. He is just paying lip service, in the same manner as saying that genuine universal suffrage by "one person, one vote" will be implemented in Hong Kong. If so, why is Hong Kong still degraded to such a pitiful state? President, can we trust the Government? The auction of 3G spectrum is no different. Using free market as an excuse, the existing 3G suppliers offer one third of their spectrum for auction. In a seemingly free market, spectrums are awarded to bidders offering the highest


bids. However, the authority has conversely used such tactics to draw China Mobile into the market. Although there are worries that the radar station at Tai Mo Shan may intercept many of our telecommunications, such concerns will diminish in future. But according to members from the IT industry, they are a bit worried because the use of China Mobile services may already give rise to the problems of interception of telecommunications. Hence, President, we must stay away from Mainlandization and defend Hong Kong's spiritual features.(The buzzer sounded) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, your speaking time is up. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, the Democratic Party opposes any form of discrimination. Hong Kong has all along been a society including both Chinese and Western cultures. The ancestors of many Hong Kong people came to Hong Kong from the Mainland at different times last century, particularly in the 1950s. They built a solid foundation for the industrialization and economic take-off of Hong Kong in the 1960s and the 1970s by providing an abundant source of labour and encouraging the inflow of talents, skills and capital. We cannot deny that these are part of Hong Kong's history. Later, at different times, Mainlanders immigrated to Hong Kong and become Hong Kong residents. They have made hard efforts to integrate into society of Hong Kong. Therefore, if we were to introduce any policy that would distinct, discriminate or exclude new arrivals, we must be very careful. For these discrimination policies actually constitute discrimination against our ancestors, who used to live in the Mainland and had migrated to Hong Kong for various reasons. However, President, we cannot overlook a phenomenon which prevails in society now. This is the increasingly intensified conflicts between the Mainland and Hong Kong since the reunification. Rejecting people who are different from us becomes increasingly obvious in society, and most of the rejections are directed against new arrivals. Why would such phenomenon occur? This deserves much thought of our colleagues in this Council.


3299

I think this involves various structural factors and some blunders in policies. Hong Kong people are pushed to the very end that they start to react irrationally, such as an earlier case of a new arrival applying for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), which has aroused serious misunderstanding and strong opposition in society. In fact, for these new arrival families, particularly for new arrival women who have lived in Hong Kong for seven years, they become a member of a Hong Kong family when they have arrived Hong Kong. These new arrival women may have to take care of a husband who is much older than themselves, or they have to take care of some young children. They have a very important role in society. However, if these new arrival women are members of families on the CSSA, only their children are eligible for receiving it. We can imagine the difficult situation of these new arrivals. The case is particularly difficult when they are single parents and new arrival women. The mother in such case will have to live on the CSSA of her children, where the mother and son will have to rely on the CSSA payment for one child. We have heard the pleads of many new arrival families. They even mock this way of life as "cooking the son's rice" ― which means the mother has to share her son's ration and live on the son's CSSA. The situation has given rise to the judgment made by the Court of Final Appeal. However, we know that people helping these families to lodge an appeal have been subjected to strong criticism by a force so-called the "nativism power". In my view, more often than not, these so-called criticisms have become irrational. We do not want our society to regard all new arrivals as people unwilling to work who will only erode our welfare and the CSSA. I think such slur and labelling are very unfair to them. President, our policies are plagued with problems, including those on tourism. How many tourists can Hong Kong receive? Mr Gary FAN has put forth several directions in his original motion, and I have put forth my amendment. The most important point is that we should welcome new arrivals and formulate sound migration policies. Hong Kong should consider proper gatekeeping in immigration and migration. As for tourism, Hong Kong should make projection on the number of inbound tourists against our capacity, and examine whether roads, traffic and hotels, and other aspects will be overcrowded. Yet I will not talk about the immigration policy in detail today. Regarding the


several aspects mentioned in Mr Gary FAN's motion, I would like to focus on the education aspect. For education, the motion mentions "Using Putonghua to Teach Chinese Language Subject". I know that the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) and certain Members from the pro-establishment camp strongly recommend using Putonghua for teaching the Chinese Language subject. President, I have taught Chinese Language in a secondary school for two years and now I am still teaching at university. If I am given the choice, I greatly prefer using Cantonese as the medium of instruction. If students are given the choice, they will prefer teachers to teach in Cantonese, for an overwhelming majority of Hong Kong people speaks Cantonese. However, there is mounting pressure on using Putonghua to teach recently. Even teachers in tertiary institutions are under pressure. For subjects like liberal studies, where topics related to China and Hong Kong are taught, they are required to be taught in Putonghua. It is an extremely strange request. In the past, we were allowed to use Cantonese to teach subjects on politics of China. This will not pose any problem, for the vast majority of students attending the course are Cantonese-speaking. Will the use of Putonghua in teaching the Chinese Language subject enhance the Chinese language standard of students? The Director of the Centre for Advancement of Chinese Language Education and Research, TSE Shek-kam, has all along been studying the effectiveness of teaching Chinese Language in Putonghua. In an article published in 2004, he pointed out that using Cantonese as the medium of instruction would facilitate interaction in class, for students could express themselves more easily and would be more willing to participate in class discussion. He has also quoted the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment of 2012. Among the 65 countries and regions participating in the programme, Hong Kong students rank second in reading ability, whereas students in Taiwan rank the eighth. It is evident that there is no positive causal relationship between the use of Putonghua or Mandarin in teaching Chinese Language and the advancement of reading ability of students. As I have been a teacher of Chinese Language, I understand that there are many colloquial expressions in Cantonese. When students use these colloquial expressions in their writings, teachers will usually delete them and request the students to refine them in written Chinese. This is a learning process. Chinese Language teachers of primary schools and secondary schools will teach students


3301

the need to adjust their verbal language to written language, which is not a process that cannot be mastered. Therefore, President, I personally consider that the authorities should review the effectiveness of using Putonghua to teach Chinese Language subject as soon as possible. President, regarding the conflicts between Mainlanders and Hong Kong people arising from various policies, I think these must be faced squarely. This is particular the case for education, as I have noticed some phenomena in this aspect. If we agree that local resources are limited, it is only natural for us to consider the principle of "putting Hong Kong people first" as proposed by Mr Gary FAN ― particularly on education. As I have raised the concern a number of times in this Council, we now see that a lot of education resource is used on non-local residents, and I am not referring to new arrivals but people coming from other places who are not Hong Kong people. I propose an amendment to the original motion of Mr Gary FAN, for I notice that some of the information does not tally with the facts. The existing admission rate of Mainland students to universities does not exceed 80%, for the quota for university undergraduates is set at 10% and not exceeding 20%. As this is a factual error, I must amend it. However, for postgraduate programmes such as those of Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy, and so on, it is true that nearly 70% of the students come from the Mainland, and for individual schools or disciplines, it may be 80%. We need to think about this. Even if we are to nurture talents for our mother country, we have to ask whether we should use taxpayers' money to fully subsidize these students who are not children of local taxpayers. Therefore, I consider it an urgent task to review these subsidies. If the Government does not face these problems squarely, we can imagine that it will flare discrimination against Mainlanders or new arrivals in society. I think we should tackle the problem at source and use the precious resource of Hong Kong cautiously. By the same token, the admission of students to kindergartens should be considered in the same way. However, the request "to require kindergartens to admit students within the home district" proposed in the original motion is difficult to implement, for 15-year free education has not yet been implemented and many kindergartens are private operations. In view of this, President, I have proposed the corresponding amendment. As for other aspects, I will leave it to other Members from the Democratic Party to give supplementary views.


MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, as the saying goes, "he who denies all confesses all". As he dares to do this, he should have the guts to admit it. So he should come clean about raising a Fascist motion and not cover it up if he has done so. In the wordings of Mr Gary FAN's motion today, he urges the Government with much fanfare to proactively handle the so-called "China-Hong Kong conflicts", raising the smokescreen of "put[ting] Hong Kong people first" as a forceful front. His 10 suggestions aim, however, to intensify the conflicts between the two places as well as the internal confrontation within Hong Kong. As his motion is way beyond revision, we have no alternative but to delete all his suggestions. Actually, the wordings of Mr FAN's motion today are the same as those he used last year. His previous motion was brief, but in the end even the opposition which usually supported him and spoke the same language with him dare not endorse it. Some Members deleted the so-called "China-Hong Kong conflicts" from the motion, others added in wordings to convey a resolute opposition to any xenophobic and discriminatory remarks on new immigrants or other ethnic groups. Why did they make such changes to the motion? The underlying reason was that Mr FAN's so-called "put[ting] Hong Kong first" in fact harboured a xenophobic attitude, discriminating against new arrivals and creating internal confrontation. He was absolutely "crying up wine but selling vinegar". This could be best illustrated in an incident in which he initiated and executed a newspaper advertisement campaign under the theme of "anti-integration, anti-communization, anti-blinded land grab". In the incident, some of his supporters ceased to ally with him and withdrew from the joint petition. What was more, some even lodged a complaint to the Equal Opportunities Commission against the advertisement for discriminating against new arrivals. Mr FAN had intended to seek advantage in chaos but unwittingly met with a sharp rebuff in the end. This time around, Mr FAN has changed strategy and used other ways to discriminate against the new arrivals by publicizing his "anti-integration, anti-communization, anti-blinded land grab" propositions and instigating conflicts. But as "the Devil is in the details", picking it out is not too hard. Point (4) of his motion, which suggests the Government "reduce the existing admission rate of over 80% for Mainland students to funded tertiary programmes" is extremely misleading. After reading it, an average citizen may


3303

think universities in Hong Kong are now occupied by Mainland students. But as the saying goes, "Figures don't lie", in 2013-2014, there was not even one Mainland student enrolled in subsidized associate degree programmes while in subsidized bachelor's degree programmes, Mainland students only made up 8%, not 80%, of the total student enrolment. Even if we add those enrolled in subsidized post-graduate programmes, Mainland students as a whole made up only 13% of the total. But I believe that Mr FAN is neither poor in mathematics nor as foolish as he seems to be. He is just trying to cheat with these figures so as to create a misconception. What Mr FAN is actually pointing out should be that Mainland students contribute to about 80% of all non-local students. He uses such wordings to mislead the public and create a delusion that Mainland students are now vying fiercely with local students for university places, so as to step up the conflicts between the two places. He has done all these evil-mindedly. How can he be sincere in resolving the conflicts between the two places? Mr FAN should have known that subsidized bachelor's degree places for local and non-local students are counted separately and the scenario where these two types of students compete for university places does not exist at all. Hence, even when Mainland students are rejected, the vacated places are not meant for local students. The wordings of the motion pick on Mainland students. Even if the institutions reduced their intake of Mainlanders, the vacated places would not serve to benefit local students. If, following the suggestion of Mr FAN, the institutions do cut back the intake of Mainland students, they will only take more students from Taiwan, Japan, Europe or the America, without giving more opportunities to local students. Mr FAN uses such kind of underhanded tricks to lie with figures, aiming only for expelling Mainland students rather than redeploying education resources for the priority use of local students. How can we not delete such kind of suggestion which does harm to others without benefiting ourselves, which "sells vinegar while crying up wine"? President, suggestions similar to the above are plentiful in Mr FAN's motion and one of them is point (10), which is a suggestion on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"). It is true that the ruling handed down by the Court of Final Appeal regarding the residence requirement for CSSA has aroused social concern. However, the issue is not an instance of conflict between the two places as these two issues are totally unrelated to each other. As a veteran District Council Member, Mr FAN should have known that the CSSA system is not quota-based and it gives no priority to individual applicants, unlike in the case of application for public rental housing. In sum, those who


are eligible will be able to receive CSSA. If the Government does not have sufficient money, it can make an application to the Legislative Council for additional funding. That is to say, even if new arrivals need to apply for CSSA, this will not deprive Hong Kong permanent residents of the chance to apply for the same, reduce the amount of CSSA granted to them, or slow down the application process. If there are such cases, would Mr FAN give us some examples please? Mr FAN has involved CSSA in the motion so as to define the CSSA issue as an instance of China-Hong Kong conflict. In his motion, he argues for the need "to ensure that Hong Kong permanent residents may receive social welfare protection with priority". It is a deliberate move to make up a false impression that Mainland people are coming to Hong Kong for scrambling welfare benefits. In the name of "put[ting] Hong Kong people first", he is categorizing Hong Kong people into classes and types. Under the motto of "handling China-Hong Kong conflicts", he provokes conflicts and creates confrontation in a despicable manner. This is exactly "revelation of malice"; this is exactly Fascism. President, apart from intensifying conflicts between the two places, the original motion will also deepen the internal conflicts within Hong Kong. Some of the suggestions made are completely anti-intellectual and self-contradictory. For instance, point (5) of the original motion makes a suggestion to "require" ― and I stress require ― "kindergartens to admit 'schooling within the home district' students". Nowadays, many parents want to enrol their children in kindergartens at Kowloon Tong or the prestigious school areas on Hong Kong Island. If the motion is passed, does it mean that the students concerned cannot go to school in other districts but must attend kindergartens within their home districts instead? Can their parents afford to live in Kowloon Tong or move to Mid-levels on Hong Kong Island where the school net is better? Is it feasible for Mr FAN to prohibit students from attending school in other districts? As Hong Kong is a small place, a school net may just be one street away from the next one. The Legislative Council Complex, for instance, is one street away from Wan Chai. Is the call for "schooling within the home district" in the original motion truly "put[ting] Hong Kong people first"? The deprivation of parents' right to choose and the right of schools to choose students is a faked solution to China-Hong Kong conflicts. This suggestion is totally irrelevant and cannot materialize "put[ting] Hong Kong people first". President, as a former school principal, do you consider his suggestion anti-intellectual?


3305

President, owing to the time constraint, I can only briefly respond to the other suggestions put forth by Mr FAN. The "double vetting and approval system" suggested by him will only impede the reunification of Hong Kong people with their family members in the Mainland. This is contrary to "put[ting] Hong Kong people first". Next, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has clearly presented its views on "doubly non-permanent resident babies". If the problem really has to be resolved with legal means, there is in fact no need to amend the Basic Law. Third, Cantonese is not the only official language but its legal status is unquestionable. He puts forward the argument that "Cantonese is facing a crisis in status" merely for eliminating Putonghua, and this breaches the "biliterate and trilingual" language policy. If Mr FAN really wants to pass down local culture … as a Member representing the New Territories, does he know Wai Tau dialect? Does he understand the dialect? "Can he understand?(in Wai Tau dialect)" The fourth point is about the Individual Visit Scheme. Governments of the two places are already discussing the proper and orderly reception of Mainland tourists and it is unnecessary to demand for an immediate solution at the present moment. About the arrangement of Dongjiang water, it is the best manifestation of "put[ting] Hong Kong people first". Over the years, even when Shenzhen, Dongguan or Heyuan experienced drought, Hong Kong could be spared from water rationing. Changing the present situation cannot help Hong Kong save money and is definitely not "put[ting] Hong Kong people first". President, regarding the other amendments, Ms MO's amendment, for instance, is an uncritical acceptance and further development of those anti-intellectual and problematic contents. What exactly is "without limiting … to those who are born of Chinese blood"? This is really creating trouble out of nothing. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) is not going to give its support to this amendment. About Dr Helena WONG's amendment, in which she has diligently corrected obvious errors and anti-intellectual contents, we are not going to support it as it still retains many suggestions unacceptable to us. As for Mr TANG Ka-piu's amendment in which most of the contents of the original motion has been deleted, the DAB believes that we should study the actual situation when considering the importation of foreign labour and cannot rule the


policy out categorically. Hence, we are going to abstain from voting on this amendment. President, I so submit. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, extreme xenophobia is fascism. I suppose anyone who knows history well will agree. I think Mr Gary FAN must first say thank you to pro-establishment Members because … Much of what he said just now was perturbing, and would foment discrimination, fan discord and cause mistrust and ill-feelings between Hong Kong people and Mainland compatriots. He also talked about a so-called population replacement, but this is an unfounded and biased viewpoint. Why do I think that Mr Gary FAN must say thank you to us? Suppose the motion this morning is instead moved by a pro-establishment Member and Mr Gary FAN is present, he will certainly request a headcount first; if pro-establishment Members all speak eloquently, he will again request a headcount in order to interrupt our speeches. But we respect the parliamentary culture and will bear with such behaviour. I hope Mr FAN can learn from us. My description of Mr FAN's remarks as being unfounded, exaggerated and biased is of course based on facts and actual statistics. I am of course very grateful to Dr Helena WONG for her very righteous speech and factual clarification of certain education matters just now. Mr Christopher CHUNG has likewise pointed out clearly that Mr Gary FAN's argument is specious. With an attitude of seeking the truth, I wish to discuss the most perturbing argument advanced just now: population replacement. In 1981, locally born people accounted for 57% of the Hong Kong's population, and those born in China, Macao and Taiwan accounted for 40%. According to the population census conducted in 2011, that is 30 years later, the rate of locally born people stood at 62.8%, representing an increase of nearly 6%, and the rate of those born in China, Macao and Taiwan (chiefly the Mainland, in fact) dropped almost 7% to 33.3%. This means that all arguments concerning population replacement and massive imports of population cannot be tenable before the facts. Such arguments are just deliberate attempts to fan discord and discrimination. As for absolute population figures, the number of locally born people in Hong Kong stood at 2.85 million in 1981. In 2011, the figure rose to 4.27 million, an increase of 1.4 million. Those born in China, Macao and


3307

Taiwan numbered 1.97 million in 1981, and the figure rose to 2.26 million in 2011, a mere increase of 300 000 only. All is mere fabrication, aimed at fanning discord and fomenting discrimination. Mr FAN cannot possibly be unaware of all these figures, but he has chosen to omit them all together. The second thing is exaggeration. We of course agree that the government of any place must look after and consider local people and seek to satisfy their needs as a matter of priority. I do not think that any governments or public administrators will disagree to this point. But does this mean that we should thus blindly discriminate Hong Kong from the Mainland and even hold Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying responsible for things that have nothing to do with the current-term Government? As soon as LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office as Chief Executive, he rolled out the "zero delivery quota for doubly non-permanent resident babies" and the policy of not issuing any birth certificates to such babies. These two policies have successfully curbed the coming or increase of "doubly non-permanent resident babies". He has also sought to increase land supply flexibly, with a view to resolving Hong Kong people's home acquisition problem or meeting their demand in this respect as much as possible. Besides, he has also abolished the immigration policy of allowing people to become Hong Kong residents by buying properties in Hong Kong. People who want to become Hong Kong residents must now make investments in Hong Kong, rather than purchasing any properties. All these policies are obviously aimed at responding to Hong Kong people's livelihood and economic needs. But Mr FAN does not mention any of them, and simply holds the LEUNG Chun-ying administration responsible for all problems. The third thing is bias. He claims that the Mainland people coming to Hong Kong, visitors and new immigrants alike, all want to snatch resources from the Hong Kong Government. Earlier on, he himself asked a written question on this topic, probably thinking that he could thus score some credit. But what do the figures provided by the Government show in the end? Well, the truth is that when it comes to the people who book the venues under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, Europeans and Americans actually outnumber Mainland people. I of course do not think that any such differentiation should be made at all. We have excellent urban facilities, so we should share them with others and promote their use if possible. He also says that new immigrants will take away Hong Kong's welfare resources. Now, if he is really looking at the matter purely from the perspective of resources, then why does he not mention another trend which is even more worrying? At this moment, I do not have any position on


the human rights aspect of this trend. Anyway, what is the trend I am talking about? It concerns the torture claims filed by many foreigners in Hong Kong. I can remember that two years ago, the number of such claims was 6 699. Today, it is nearly 10 000. Although all the foreigners who claim that they have been subjected to torture ― this, however, has not been affirmed by the Court ― do not receive any cash assistance from the Hong Kong Government, every one of them is nonetheless in receipt of substantial legal aid, rental allowance and food assistance. The relevant expenditure already amounted to $500 million to $600 million last year. There are some 9 000 such foreigners this year, so the expenditure may be even higher. Why does he not mention this issue? Obviously, therefore, he discriminates against Mainland compatriots. It was mentioned just now that we must steadfastly safeguard the core values of Hong Kong. But I am deeply worried that Mr FAN's opinions may fan the flame and add to the unhealthy trend in society. This reminds me of a cultural Hall of Famer in Hong Kong, Mr Louis CHA. If Mr Louis CHA is only in his twenties today, and he has recently arrived at Hong Kong, speaking only the Zhejiang dialect, what will happen to him? Will he find Hong Kong a land of opportunities for him? He speaks only the Zhejiang dialect, so people will think that he must be from the Mainland, and they may even suspect that he might have been a member of the Communist Youth League. Amidst such an atmosphere, he may not want to stay in Hong Kong at all. Hence, if Mr FAN continues to propagate such opinions, and if he also seeks to fan the sentiments of ostracizing both insiders and outsiders openly or secretly, Hong Kong will no longer be the Hong Kong we used to know. Some Members think that as long as we can uphold our core values, all will be fine. According to some pan-democratic Members, the most important thing is that new immigrants will accept Hong Kong's core values after their arrival at Hong Kong. It looks like Hong Kong's core values are their only concern. But I must ask them to note the fact that they themselves are ruining the most important core value of Hong Kong: the rule of law. On 30 October, the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies under The Chinese University of Hong Kong released the findings of an earlier opinion poll on Hong Kong people's views regarding 11 "核(hat6)心價值" (core values) ― I should pronounce "核" as "wat6", otherwise Mr CHAN Chi-chuen will again correct my pronunciation. The core value with the top ranking is "rule of law", and the percentage is 92.7%. I am not going to mention the percentages of the rest. The second ranking goes to "just and corruption-free"; the third is "social stability"; the fourth is


3309

"freedom"; the fifth is "peace and benevolence"; the sixth is "individual property"; the seventh is "level playing field"; the eighth is "family"; the ninth is "democracy"; the 10th is "diversity and tolerance"; and the last is "market economy". Do you people really think that you have all the say? You keep referring to this and that as the most important values, but you simply ignore the fact that Hong Kong is a society with diversified values and a high degree of tolerance. Hence, over the past two years, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) has been voicing unequivocal opposition to Mr Gary FAN's original motion. Mr FAN has indeed been very clever because he has sought to gain support by dragging in the labour issue here and there. The position of the FTU is very clear. From the perspectives of the economy and people's livelihood, we think that we must oppose any expansion of labour importation. Mr Christopher CHUNG, we do not really oppose labour importation across the board. Rather, we think that the existing mechanism ― comprising the various labour importation schemes operated by the Immigration Department and also the Supplementary Labour Scheme monitored by the Labour Department and the Labour Advisory Board ― is already sufficient to answer the needs of our society and protect the livelihood of local "wage earners". We will therefore continue to oppose any expansion of labour importation, and this is what I put forward in my amendment. We agree that exchanges among different cities are in fact very normal. But Mr FAN compared Hong Kong with the United States just now, implying that since American citizens enjoyed priority, priority must likewise be given to Hong Kong people. This comparison can already show his intention. Does he want to champion Hong Kong independence? He even sought to compare Hong Kong and the United States as counterparts. I so submit. Thank you. (Mr SIN Chung-kai rose with the intention of speaking) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN, please hold on. I will ask the Secretary for Education to speak first. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong and the Mainland are closely related to each other, and the two places are frequently having two-way and bilateral interactions with each other on the commercial and


social fronts to benefit the people of the two places. Nevertheless, with the increase in visitor flow, inconvenience may be caused to the daily life of some local residents. Such inconvenience, together with the cultural difference and difference in ways of life between the two places, has indeed given rise to some unhappy incidents. The Chief Executive has made it clear that the current term of Government would adopt measures which "put Hong Kong people first" in dealing with things prone to shortage in supply. Let me cite some examples. As the community has continuously been expressing concern about Hong Kong's capacity to receive visitors, the Government of the Special Administrative Region (the SAR Government) is currently looking into ways to monitor the increase in visitors and adjust the composition of visitors. The SAR Government will publish the study results promptly after it has completed negotiating with the Central Government and the relevant Mainland authorities. Regarding the issue of cross-boundary students, the Education Bureau has implemented a revised central allocation arrangement under the Primary One Admission System to provide another "Choice of Schools List for Central Allocation" for applicant children residing in the Mainland. This measure is in effect providing another "dedicated school net" for these children with the aim to alleviate the problem of insufficient school places caused by cross-boundary students in certain districts on the one hand, and ensure the right of cross-boundary students to a Primary One place in public schools on the other. Nevertheless, I must point out here to Mr FAN that this arrangement has nothing to do with "putting Hong Kong people first", as the cross-boundary students are also Hong Kong people. In addition, we will also keep a close watch on the overall demand and supply situation of kindergarten places. If there is any need to increase the supply of kindergarten places, we will request kindergartens to make the best use of their school premises to have more classrooms and encourage kindergartens to make full use of the registered classrooms to take in students. The Mainland is Hong Kong's largest trading partner, while Hong Kong is its second largest. Hong Kong and the Mainland will further co-operate with each other on the economic front to maintain Hong Kong's economic growth, with a bid to cater for the long-term needs and interests of our next generation. It is our belief that a cross-boundary transportation networking is becoming increasingly important to Hong Kong's economic development. As the demand for such a network will continue to increase, the relevant infrastructural projects are really indispensable. Regarding Member's concern about the cost overrun in public works projects, I need to point out that the Government has put in place


3311

established mechanisms for formulating and vetting the estimates for such projects. Regarding the Dongjiang water purchase agreement, during our discussion with the Guangdong authorities on the new water supply agreement conducted this year, we have explored the adoption of "payment on actual supply quantity" with the Guangdong side. However, as no annual supply quantity will be specified under this payment approach, the Guangdong side will have difficulty in guaranteeing that the water supply quantity requested by Hong Kong can be met. In particular, during the drought years, as Hong Kong and Guangdong Province are under the same climatic setting, both the local yield and the quantity of Dongjiang water available for distribution will dwindle. The Guangdong side might not be able to provide adequate Dongjiang water to meet our demand, and this would in turn affect the water supply in Hong Kong. In order to tackle the challenge posed by climate changes, we are conducting a study on the proposal to build a desalination plant in Tseung Kwan O. Nevertheless, as the desalination plant needs to consume more energy and the water it produces is more costly, Dongjiang water is still a comparatively more cost-effective source of water supply. As regards the option of reclaimed water, we have also commenced a study on supplying reclaimed water to Northeast New Territories, including Sheung Shui, Fanling and the new development areas. Nevertheless, the reclaimed water will only be supplied for flushing and other non-drinking purposes. Since the reunification with China, Hong Kong has been implementing the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" in accordance with the Basic Law. As a special administrative region of our country, Hong Kong is giving full play to the edge we have under the principle of "one country, two systems" and maintaining our unique features as an international city. We are also committed to upholding the rule of law, sustaining as an open society, promoting diversified development, and consolidating our position as an international connector. Indeed, as always, the SAR Government will take into full consideration all relevant factors in formulating policies, so as to ensure that the policies formulated will be constitutional, lawful, reasonable and sensible, capable of addressing people's concerns and balancing the impacts on all parties concerned. Besides, the policies will also be formulated with the overall interest and long-term development of Hong Kong society and its people in mind.


President, I, as well as the Secretary for Security and the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, will make our concluding speeches after listening to the views expressed by Members. President, I so submit. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, today I will speak mainly on the control of inbound travellers. With the implementation of a series of policies including the Individual Visit Scheme, I believe the number of inbound travellers will exceed 60 million this year. As at October, 49.8 million visitors have visited Hong Kong, and 38.69 million or some 77.5% of them are Mainland visitors. Will it necessarily be better for Hong Kong if more visitors are coming? I think it all depends on the capacity of Hong Kong to receive visitors. By that I mean we need to see whether the normal daily life of the people is affected, and whether the various transportation facilities can take the additional passengers. We believe there is room for adjustment, which can be achieved by means of administrative measures. As the Under Secretary has pointed out earlier on, the authorities are currently negotiating with the Mainland authorities in this respect, but we still believe we should consider implementing certain economic measures as well. As we all know, departure tax is levied on travellers coming to Hong Kong, and the air passenger departure tax is $120 while the embarkation fee for cross boundary ferry passenger is $11. In short, inbound travellers need not pay any arrival tax although the airlines or ferry companies will collect departure tax from them when they buy flight tickets or ferry tickets to depart from Hong Kong. However, for those who are entering and leaving Hong Kong by land, they are the only ones who are not required to pay any tax. As such, we believe we should really consider and study whether a land arrival tax should be charged. Certainly, it would be more consistent with the relevant policies if the tax to be charged were a departure tax. As I have mentioned just now, passengers departing Hong Kong by planes and ferries have to pay departure taxes. A land departure tax would be more consistent with the principle involved. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to implement a land departure tax. Will the authorities forbid visitors to leave just because they fail to pay the departure tax which is no more than several dozen dollars? From this we can see that it is


3313

really very difficult to implement a departure tax. On the other hand, implementing a land arrival tax is comparatively easier. As travellers have to pay the tax before they can enter Hong Kong, this measure can be implemented more easily. If we want to be fair, we can levy the tax on all travellers, which means that both residents and non-residents of Hong Kong have to pay the tax. If we want to alleviate the nuisance caused to local residents by inbound travellers, we should levy a land arrival tax. In that way, passengers travelling by sea, land or air have to pay tax in this connection. Indeed, what is the appropriate measure that Hong Kong should adopt to adjust the number of visitors coming to Hong Kong? How about administrative measures? We all know that we cannot select our visitors. However, if an economic measure is adopted, visitors with better buying power may choose to come to Hong Kong again. I believe visitors (particularly those travelling by air) will not stop coming to Hong Kong just because they have to pay an arrival tax of several dozen dollars. The deciding factor is whether Hong Kong is an attractive tourist destination. If we implement a land arrival tax, the new tax will have an impact on the "parallel traders" to a certain extent. Dr Helena WONG's amendment puts forward a "one trip per day" measure, and I believe this measure can help reduce the incentive for "parallel traders". As we all know, some time ago, a large number of "parallel traders" were travelling to and from Hong Kong many times a day to transport powdered formula and other articles of everyday use, and the "one trip per day" measure can combat the activities of these "parallel traders" without causing any major trouble to the normal activities of tourists. Hence, we should really consider and look into this measure. If Hong Kong imposes a land arrival tax, passengers will be required to pay an arrival tax before they can enter Hong Kong. We believe this is a fairer approach capable of adjusting the number of visitors entering Hong Kong to the capacity of our city. Moreover, if Hong Kong is too overcrowded, visitors may not find visiting this place a pleasant experience. If Hong Kong is to maintain its attractiveness, we must not give visitors the impression that this city is too overcrowded or inconvenient. Indeed, if Hong Kong is too overcrowded, international visitors will be discouraged from visiting it. When there is an overwhelming number of Mainland visitors, their shopping rushes will push up prices of goods, thereby making Hong Kong less attractive to the international visitors. As such, I think this is an issue worth looking into.


Last but not least, apart from the "one trip per day" measure, is there any other measure that the amendment has not mentioned? One example is the present arrangement under which Shenzhen residents can visit Hong Kong several times a year. The authorities may negotiate with the Mainland to restrict the number of trips they can make in a year, with a view to reducing the number of Mainland visitors coming to Hong Kong. After all, quite a large percentage of Hong Kong's visitors are entering by land. The impact on Hong Kong's receiving capacity can be alleviated even if the percentage is adjusted slightly. In addition to putting forward the various economic and administrative measures, we also need to stress that the economic measures must be implemented fairly and imposed on all travellers alike. If we are concerned about the fairness issue, we may resolve the problem by imposing a flat rate on both local and non-local residents. The amendment aims mainly at putting forward a number of measures for the Government's consideration. It is our hope that the Government will conduct a comprehensive consultation exercise before implementing any of them. Lastly, I would also like to speak on other aspects of the motion, and I believe the Education Bureau may need to face up to the problems concerned. Among the students studying for Master's and Doctor's Degrees in our graduate schools, as many as 70% to 80% are non-local students rather than local students. We have injected a substantial amount of our resources into education because we want to train up local Hong Kong students. What is the point of using ample resources to train up some non-local students? I hope the Government will explain whether it is using an appropriate ratio of resources to take care of our local students. I think it is acceptable if 20% to 30% of the students studying for Master's and Doctor's Degrees in our graduate schools are non-local students, but the real situation is not so, as 80% of the graduate students are non-Hong Kong people. MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong and the Mainland are mutually dependent. Following the reform and opening up of China since the 1970s, Hong Kong has backed up on a mutually beneficial basis the remarkable development of the Mainland in various areas with our competitive edge in the supply of funding and talents, the exchange of information and a sound legal system. However, more than 30 years have elapsed and the situation now has already reversed. With the emergence of China as the second largest economy


3315

in the world, it is now the turn of Hong Kong to attract foreign investment with the aid of the resources and advantages offered by the Mainland in order to maintain our economic growth and prosperity. World attention has now been focused on the huge market of China and everyone is following the world trend and trying in every way to get a share of the market. However, unfortunately, some people including Mr Gary FAN and Ms Claudia MO have chosen to do the very opposite. They have been advocating localism and de-sinolization, targeting their attacks repeatedly at visitors and new arrivals from the Mainland, stirring up China-Hong Kong conflicts and bringing endless troubles with an aim to drag Hong Kong onto a path of no return, of self-seclusion. This is not the first time that Mr FAN move a motion on "putting Hong Kong people first" and the many fallacies in the reasons given for moving the motion have only aroused our suspicion of his motive for doing so. First of all, with regard to the proposals put forward in the motion to protect the official status of Cantonese, I think the real purpose behind is to promote localism. Through the campaign to protect the official status of Cantonese, the proposers aim to reject Putonghua and other international languages and label the learning of Putonghua as Mainlandization. As we all know, the language policy of "biliteracy and trilingualism" has been adopted in Hong Kong after the reunification, not only to cater for the need of maintaining close contact with the Mainland, but more importantly, to keep pace with the economic success of China in recent years. The emergence of China has made it necessary for many foreigners to get acquainted with Chinese and many people are rushing to learn Putonghua. As a matter of fact, Putonghua has become an important tool for communication as English, while learning Chinese and speaking Putonghua is a world trend. Hong Kong people enjoy a definite advantage in learning Putonghua and it is not a bad thing for students to master Putonghua as a second language during their young age. This will definitely be conducive to enhancing the competitiveness of our next generation and should have no conflict with the protection of indigenous languages. Mr FAN has also suggested in the motion "to reduce the existing admission rate of over 80% for Mainland students to funded tertiary programmes, and to give priority to local students in allocation and use of local education resources". The statement is obviously misleading and has deviated from the actual facts, and the sole purpose is to arouse the discontent of local students against Mainland students. Under the existing policy of the University Grants Committee (UGC),


UGC-funded institutions may admit non-local students to their degree, sub-degree and postgraduate programmes up to a level not exceeding 20% of the approved UGC-funded places of these programmes. According to the data maintained by the UGC, the number of non-local students in 2013-2014 only constituted 15% of the UGC-funded places in tertiary institutions. The wordings used by Mr Gary FAN in his motion would mislead the public into thinking that the majority of UGC-funded places in local universities have been allocated to Mainland students. It is a known fact that tertiary institutions all over the world would make their best endeavour to attract overseas students to enrol in the programmes they offer and strengthen their academic standing with the normal practice of providing financial assistance to students with outstanding academic achievements. The provision of an increased number of self-financing programmes in local universities is actually the major reason for the marked increase in the number of Mainland students in the past decade and students enrolled in these programmes are required to pay the regular programme fee, with Government subvention granted only to some students with outstanding academic performance. It would be a very irresponsible generalization of the actual admission rate for Mainland students to funded tertiary programmes if illustration is only made on the examples of individual faculties or postgraduate programmes. With his repeated attempts to mislead the public by stating that the existing admission rate for Mainland students to funded tertiary programmes is 80% and claiming that local education resources have been seized by Mainland students, the intention of Mr FAN is indeed very obvious. As for economic development, Mr FAN seeks to cap the number of visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) and abolish the measure of "multiple-entry endorsements", to which I have to express my objection. We have to bear in mind that since the implementation of the IVS in 2003, a significant growth has been maintained in the overall tourists' spending in various tourism-related industries of Hong Kong such as retail, catering, transportation, hotel, and so on. This is conducive to both the economic development and the creation of a large number of job opportunities in Hong Kong and any suggestion to cap the number of Mainland visitors would be taken as a gesture to show our dislike and rejection for visitors. The influx of Mainland visitors does affect the daily life of residents in some districts but the problem stems from the inadequacy of the Government in exploring measures to enhance our capacity for receiving tourists, to divert visitor flow and to tackle the impact of parallel trading activities. In my opinion, it is not feasible to abolish the measure of "multiple-entry endorsements" or even introduce a land departure tax which, as


3317

mentioned by Mr SIN Chung-kai just now, is similar to the levying of arrival tax in overseas places because these may result in congestion in custom counters and boundary control points. Thus, the series of measures proposed to mitigate the nuisance caused by visitors in some districts will only be in vain. They will only turn out to be detrimental to the tourism-related industries as well as the economic development of Hong Kong. President, for the future of Hong Kong, I hope that the extremists among Members of the opposition camp will show mercy and stop defaming Mainland visitors and flaring up China-Hong Kong conflicts. Instead, a solution to the problem should be given in an objective and positive manner. Any message conveying the idea of localism and promoting a seclusion and closed-door policy will in no way bring protection to our next generation but will render young people narrow-minded progressively and restrict their future development in the isolated island of Hong Kong. With these remarks, President, I object to the original motion. MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the motion topic today is on adhering to the need to "put Hong Kong people first" in formulating policies. I approve of the basic direction of this motion topic, agreeing that in case of necessity, it is reasonable and obligatory for the Government to adhere to the overall interest of Hong Kong and its people and formulate policies which "put Hong Kong people first". Yet, since the contents of the original motion and some of the amendments will cause many legal and operational problems and difficulties, and they may not be conducive to the overall interest and development of Hong Kong as a result, I will not support the original motion and some of the amendments. President, to varying degrees, many countries and places around the world will adhere to the rights and interests of citizens or local residents as one of the major considerations in formulating policies. In case of necessity, policies may even be appropriately skewed for the purpose of enhancing the protection of people's rights and interests. There is in fact nothing wrong with this. For instance, the "zero delivery quota for doubly non-permanent resident babies", the policy of "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents", the "harsh measures" for the property market and the "milk powder rationing order" rolled out by the SAR Government in recent years can all highlight its intention of looking after and protecting Hong Kong people as a matter of priority through the formulation


of appropriate policies and measures. Of course, these are all unusual measures adopted in unusual times. The skewing of the relevant policies and measures towards Hong Kong people should only last for a short while. At appropriate junctures, they should be abolished as early as possible, or else there will be far-reaching impacts on Hong Kong's overall economy and even image. Besides, over the past few years in this Council, I have been urging the Government to formulate "local professions first" policies and measures, with a view to enabling a greater number of local enterprises and professional talents in the field of professional services, especially small and medium enterprises, to have more opportunities to take part in local development projects, so that through practice and accumulation of experience, they can drive the development and upgrading of Hong Kong's professional skills levels. Therefore, conceptually, I agree that the Government should formulate short-term policies that "put Hong Kong people first" in case of necessity. The original motion recommends the Government to amend Article 24 of the Basic Law to abolish the right of abode in Hong Kong enjoyed by babies born locally to parents who both are not Hong Kong permanent residents. In this connection, I hope Mr Gary FAN can first clarify one point. Does he think that "doubly non-permanent resident babies" should enjoy the right of abode in Hong Kong? If he thinks that "doubly non-permanent resident babies" are Hong Kong people who should enjoy the right of abode in Hong Kong, then under the aegis of the policy on "putting Hong Kong people first" which he advocates, they should be looked after as a matter of priority. But then, why does he instead propose to abolish the right of abode in Hong Kong enjoyed by such babies? His arguments are confusing and contradictory. The original motion also proposes to cap the number of visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme and to revise the Dongjiang water purchase agreement to an agreement for charges based on supply quantity. I think capping the number of Mainland visitors to Hong Kong is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. Most countries and cities around the world hope that they can attract more visitors, so as to boost and drive their economic development. Their efforts cover the creation of new tourism spots, the holding of more large-scale festive activities and the enhancement and upgrading of the levels of tourism-related services. They all seek to attract more visitors and consumption with an active attitude and pragmatic measures. If Hong Kong really goes in the opposite direction of capping the number of visitors from the Mainland, rather


3319

than seeking to upgrade Hong Kong's capacity of receiving visitors, I simply fail to see how Hong Kong can thus benefit, not to speak of the fact that Mr FAN's proposal will lead to suspicion of discrimination against visitors from the Mainland. Therefore, I honestly cannot support the motion. As for the proposal of revising the Dongjiang water purchase agreement to an agreement for charges based on supply quantity, I am of the view that it is equally unrealistic. Water is a kind of precious resource. I believe that like me, some Members here also experienced the hardship of having water supply for only four hours in four days. Therefore, maintaining a stable supply of water is of very great importance to Hong Kong. Once a change is made and the charges of Dongjiang water are based on supply quantity, can Hong Kong still receive a stable supply of potable water every day like now? Besides, whether such a change can really save expenditure is still largely unknown. President, another point which I must respond to is a proposal of the original motion to stop the planning of large-scale infrastructure projects for the purpose of avoiding any further cost overrun of such projects. I think this is tantamount to trimming the toes to fit the shoes. I am firmly against the proposal. The correct approach should be to take stronger steps to make sure that the Legislative Council can effectively vet and approve the funding requests of different infrastructure projects, and that it can also effectively monitor the progress of various works projects. Regrettably, at present, since some Members have initiated a non-cooperation campaign and resorted to filibustering, the normal functioning of the legislature is severely hindered. As a result, the processing of a huge backlog of public works funding requests is still pending. Prospects of works commencement are remote and distant, and workers have no work to do. The livelihood of workers and even the overall development of Hong Kong are directly affected. I maintain that Members belonging to the opposition camp must be blamed for this. President, I so submit. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, the motion moved by Mr Gary FAN today on "putting Hong Kong people first" is grossly confusing because in actual fact, all policies formulated by a government are meant for its people. Policies formulated by the Hong Kong Government are of course adopted to serve Hong Kong people. Are they made for foreigners?


For instance, our public rental housing, Home Ownership Scheme, medical benefits, Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme or various kinds of benefits are only meant for Hong Kong people but not for foreigners. Therefore, the problem of "putting Hong Kong people first" does not really exist for the people of Hong Kong. As for the point raised by Mr FAN just now about the presence of a large number of new immigrants with unknown background from the Mainland in recent years, I earnestly hope that he would take the remark back since it is a serious discrimination against new arrivals from the Mainland or even the people of Hong Kong. Over 96% of immigrants from the Mainland at present are coming to settle in Hong Kong on the ground of family reunion and I would also like to remind Mr FAN that the ancestors of over 90% of the 7 million people now residing in Hong Kong, you and me and other Members in this Chamber alike, were also immigrants who came to settle in Hong Kong from the Mainland. Therefore, I consider it a serious discrimination to reject people from the Mainland with such words and deeds. It would of course be alright for you to suggest repealing the stipulations under Article 24 of the Basic Law, which allow babies born in Hong Kong to parents who are not Hong Kong permanent residents to enjoy the right of abode in Hong Kong. In this connection, I hope Mr FAN would understand that the Central Authorities had actually discussed the issue with Hong Kong people in those days and cautioned that the provisions, once endorsed and established by the judgment made by Hong Kong courts on precedent cases, might lead to a very acute increase in the population of Hong Kong. However, quite a number of fighters for human rights in Hong Kong then did not take this reminder from the Central Authorities seriously and had given their support to the provisions. It is thus necessary for us to be objective and try to understand the underlying cause of the issue. The Central Authorities have never requested that some particular people or "doubly non-permanent resident people" from the Mainland should be allowed to come to settle in Hong Kong; nor has it specified that babies born locally should enjoy the right of abode in Hong Kong. Dr Helena WONG has pointed out just now that nearly 70% of postgraduate students in local tertiary institutions at present are Mainland students. I hope Dr Helena WONG would understand that these postgraduate students from the Mainland are all elite students and many of them have actually not chosen to pursue their study in Hong Kong in the beginning but have finally


3321

enrolled in the postgraduate programmes offered by the eight UGC-funded institutions in Hong Kong in response to the sincere invitation extended by such institutions. Why is that so? The ranking or international reputation of every tertiary institution is primarily determined by its research efforts and academic accomplishments. However, as less and less young people in Hong Kong are interested in taking up postgraduate programmes, most of such programmes offered by the eight UGC-funded institutions would have come to an end if they could not solicit support from these Mainland elite students. Such being the case, I hope Dr WONG would make her comments in this respect after a thorough discussion has been conducted with the Vice Chancellors and Presidents of the eight UGC-funded institutions as well as the research scholars in charge of these programmes. Ms Claudia MO has suggested earlier that we should stop purchasing Dongjiang water and desalination plants should be constructed instead. I think Ms Claudia MO should consult the public more thoroughly to ascertain if they are willing to stop consuming fresh water from Dongjiang and substitute it with desalinated water from the sea. If we have exhausted our fresh water resources in Hong Kong or all over the world some day in the future, or if Dongjiang water has been drunk to the dregs by the people of Hong Kong, the provision of desalination plants would definitely be the last resort for us. Finally, Ms Claudia MO has said just now the electoral system in place is for puppets and dogs to run in the election. I would like to remind her that to my knowledge, people who have stood as candidates in the election include representatives from the Civic Party, the political party to which she belongs, and the Democratic Party, and it seems that these are the only two political parties which have participated in the election. I thus wonder if she is meaning that her fellow party members who have stood in the election are dogs. When we are pointing our fingers at others or trying to ponder over a policy, we should refrain from being too narrow-minded and focusing only on one side of the issue. The approach of seeking common ground should be adopted in handling issues like these so that due respect would be given to the views of all Hong Kong people. I shall stop here. Thank you, President.


MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I agree that we should handle China-Hong Kong conflicts proactively, but I disagree with the approach that we should adhere to the need to "put Hong Kong people first" in formulating policies. I am not saying that I will definitely not support the "put Hong Kong people first" policy. For example, the proposal of "Hong Kong Property for Hong Kong People" was made by the Liberal Party. But the idea of "Hong Kong Property for Hong Kong People" proposed by us does not mean that priority should be accorded to Hong Kong people for all local housing units. We suggest that the Government should provide some lands for the construction of small flats, because some local first-time home buyers want to purchase smaller flats, and the prices of the lands for constructing those types of flats are probably cheaper. As such, Hong Kong people shall enjoy the priority to purchase flats built on those lands as long as certain restrictions are imposed. But it doesn't mean that all lands and properties should adopt this "put Hong Kong people first" policy. If this policy is adopted in all aspects, it will not only give others the impression that we are xenophobic, which will make us lose the demeanour of a world city, but will also aggravate the conflict between the two places. I wish to talk about the ban on powdered formula here. Shall we become so rich and fat that we cannot bend down to put on our socks if all the 1.3 billion people of China are coming to Hong Kong in purchase of powdered formula? But now we have to impose a ban on it. For this issue, actually we should tackle the problem by dealing with importers and wholesalers to ensure adequate supply of powdered formula, instead of imposing restriction on the purchase side, or to "put Hong Kong people first" in the purchase of the powdered formula. The surge in the number of travellers under the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) in recent years has caused some troubles to the daily life of Hong Kong people, but we should find out the crux of the matter. IVS was launched in July 2003, but the Administration lacked the foresight in long-term planning. It could have adjusted itself to the changing circumstance by increasing and enhancing the ancillary facilities for receiving visitors so as to meet the actual need arising from the multiplying number of visitors but it has failed to do so. This has given rise to today's problem of inadequate capacity to receive tourists.


3323

According to the retailing sector, as Mong Kok and Causeway Bay have been affected by the Occupy movement in recent days, many IVS visitors have diverted themselves automatically to other non-occupied districts. This shows that it is not imperative for them to go shopping in traditional shopping districts. One can see that the Liberal Party's proposal for the Administration to construct shopping outlets near the boundary for diverting visitors is an appropriate measure. In response to this proposal of the Liberal Party, however, Mr Gregory SO, the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development said several months ago that as this would involve private land and public coffers, it would be more efficient for land owners to take forward the project in the light of its commercial potential. I think this is merely an excuse. It has been 10 years since 2003. If the Administration had taken the initiative to provide some incentives for enhancing the transport ancillary facilities at the boundary border, all disputes on land could have been solved. Now they still say that the commercial sector should take the initiative to pursue the project, I doubt whether the Administration is late to catch on or it is simply reluctant to wake up or to take note of it. President, I always say that for many things, a pendulum effect, under which things turn from one extreme to another, will arise if we are not cautious enough. Never will things stay in a middle and moderate position. For that reason, the Liberal Party has always been taking a firm neutral stance. The number of IVS visitors has dropped due to a change in the situation of Hong Kong in recent days, but we should wait and observe the extent of the decline. If we are to impose restriction hastily on the number of IVS visitors and abolish the multiple-entry permits for Shenzhen residents, I am afraid that it will deal a heavier strike to the retail and catering industries, which have already slowed down. For that reason, it would be better for us to make the right remedy by pinpointing the problem of parallel traders, that is, to change the "multiple-entry individual visit endorsement" arrangement to a "one day, one entry permit" arrangement. We consider that more appropriate. The Administration should actively seek the co-operation from the Shenzhen Government and enhance the exchange of intelligence between the two places, with a view to combating parallel trading activities, and so on. Another issue I wish to mention is about imported workers. The original motion opposes the importation of labour blindly. Quite the opposite, I wish to


urge Members not to oppose the importation of labour blindly. Each time we discuss the importation of labour, some Members become very hostile as if they were trying to use shields with protruding nails to strike other people. In fact, as at the end of 2012, there were only 2 415 imported low-skilled workers, which only accounted for 0.1% of the total labour force. Therefore, importation of labour blindly is something out of the question. President, I wish to mention something Mr James TIEN has always said, which is the skyrocketing property prices at present. In addition to the Government's policy of high land prices, it seems that cost-wise, the prices of cement, steel and iron are falling while wages remain exorbitant, resulting in the high plateau of property prices. It is a hard fact that Hong Kong is faced with the serious problem of an ageing population. In the long term, we should import workers in order to address the problems arising from demographic changes, or else more phenomena unfavourable to local workers will emerge. President, I wish to mention in passing that while we are discussing standard working hours lately, some Members say that Singapore has put standard working hours in place. Nevertheless, workers are imported in Singapore but such Members do not propose that we should follow its practice in this regard. While all drivers of public transport in Singapore are required to speak Putonghua, should Hong Kong follow suit? Such Member ask us to follow some aspects but not in some other aspects. In the short term, we have seen the side effect of labour shortage. Given a confined market, not only the construction industry, but also many small enterprises, micro-enterprises or even large-scale enterprises cannot recruit enough workers. In the catering industry, many employers are reluctant to make investment because it is hard to find the manpower. At present, a lot of small and micro businesses are dispirited. After struggling a while for survival, they simply close down and withdraw from the market. The market has been tilted for quite a long time in the course of development. Large and medium enterprises are attempting to make use of centralized kitchens and condensed work processes in production to address the problem of labour shortage. If we are unable to find a timely solution to the problem, and just remain complacent and conservative, we will only do harm to the overall competitive edge of Hong Kong and scare investors away in the long run. This will only end in fewer choices for the workers.


3325

I have pointed out repeatedly that we may use the median wage of the relevant type of work for employing imported workers. This condition will ensure that employers cannot employ imported workers at an exceedingly low wage, and it will provide effective and appropriate safeguard to local workers. For that reason, please do not oppose the importation of workers in the pretext of "putting Hong Kong people first". President, I so submit. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the subject of the motion moved by Mr Gary FAN is "Adhering to the need to 'put Hong Kong people first' in formulating policies". In my view, rather than giving the people of Hong Kong a so-called sense of pride, this motion will push Hong Kong people to hell. In discussing this motion, I would like to begin with a story which tells the actual fact. Some 20-odd years ago when the development of Tin Shui Wai was at its early stage, Kingswood Villas operated two bus routes, one running between Kingswood Villas and the Central District and the other between Kingswood Villas and Sheung Shui. As there were not many bus routes serving Tin Shui Wai, the two bus routes were very much welcomed. The residents of Kingswood Villas then proposed that they should have the priority to use the bus services concerned while other residents had to wait in another line and pay a higher fee. We District Councillors and other residents were very much agitated, and hence we requested the Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) to introduce a new route 276 to connect Tin Shui Wai and Sheung Shui. In the end, the so-called estate bus service operated by Kingswood Villas had to wind up some two to three years later, as all the passengers chose to patron the KMB route. From this incident we can see that the so-called priority but unfair arrangement will certainly be sanctioned by members of the public. According to some studies, the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) brought about an increase of HK$2.61 billion to the economy of Hong Kong and created 110 000 employment opportunities in 2012. The IVS is indeed beneficial to the economy of Hong Kong.


Since its implementation in July 2003, the IVS has been in place for 11 years already, and the number of Mainland visitors has been on the rise. From this we can see that Mainland residents find visiting Hong Kong an enjoyable experience. Nevertheless, it is also a fact that a number of social problems have arisen from the huge number of IVS visitors. While we understand that the IVS is beneficial to Hong Kong when we view it from a macro perspective, the grassroots may not be able to appreciate the benefits directly or promptly. On the contrary, when their daily needs and daily life are affected by the IVS visitors, they can feel the conflict of interests involved and will then resent the visitors. Mr Gary FAN likes to emphasize the "China-Hong Kong conflicts". In my view, the conflicts are attributable to the existing practical problems concerned. We are not living in a fairy tale, and neither members of the public nor the visitors are robots with no intelligence or passion. When people interact with each other, conflicts are bound to emerge. The crux of the matter is how we resolve the conflicts. We should try to adjust to each other, face the problems squarely and look for ways to resolve the problems, rather than censuring or splitting up with each other, or even closing the door to all kinds of contacts. While it is true that we are unable to receive so many visitors as too many people want to come, we should not change our attitude and refuse to let the visitors in. This is not the right way or right approach to resolve problems. When the "doubly non-permanent resident" (DNR) pregnant women rushed to Hong Kong and made the local pregnant women have no hospital beds to give birth to their babies, the Government stopped hospitals from receiving delivery appointments from non-local pregnant women. In other words, the Government sought to resolve the problem through a "zero DNR" policy. When the parallel traders bought up the powdered formula available in Hong Kong and gave rise to a shortage in powdered formula supply, the Government launched the "powdered formula restriction order" to allow an adult to carry no more than two cans of powdered formula when departing Hong Kong. When cross-boundary students come to Hong Kong for education and made it difficult for local students to attend schools within their home districts, the Government launched a "cross-boundary students school net" to divert the cross-boundary students to other districts with a large number of available classrooms and school places. All these are effective policies and measures introduced by the Government to address the problems arising from the frequent contacts between Hong Kong and the Mainland.


3327

President, the Occupy Central participants have been blocking up roads in these two months, thereby impacting gravely on the livelihood of people working in small business operations and the transportation and logistics trades. When these victims urged them to give way, the participants said to them, "We are fighting for your future. We are helping you to strive for things at a much higher level." They are taking away people's interest on the pretext that they are doing so for the good of the people concerned, and this pretext is also used in this anti-IVS attempt. Some people have been organizing the so-called "anti-locust" campaigns time and again with an antagonizing and unfriendly attitude and approach to stop Mainland visitors from visiting Hong Kong. If such activities should be allowed to continue, would they develop into another form of Occupy Central movement? Would we not be sorry should Hong Kong be wrecked by their activities? In view of the problems arising from Mainland visitors' huge demand for articles of Hong Kong for daily use, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong suggests that the Government develop large-scale shopping centres at the Lok Ma Chau Border area to diverge the visitors who come to Hong Kong for shopping without staying overnight. If this measure is implemented, it will also help alleviate problems like overcrowded rail compartments and soaring commodity prices caused by an overwhelming number of Mainland visitors. What is more, this will also provide promising business opportunities for the retail industry. Hence, this is a win-win approach. We do understand that a lot of problems have yet to be resolved, and that is why we hope that the Government will adopt some guiding approach in implementing measures to resolve the various conflicts and explore improvement measures to further address the various existing problems. I so submit. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, Mr Gary FAN's motion on "putting Hong Kong people first" last year, which was discriminatory against new arrivals and targeted at inbound Mainland tourists, was eventually voted down. Today, Mr Gary FAN makes his second attempt and moves the motion again. He "urges the SAR Government to proactively handle China-Hong Kong conflicts, and to adhere to the need to 'put Hong Kong people first' in formulating policies", and sets out all sorts of requests in the motion. Covered by a veneer of putting Hong Kong people first, his proposals on the right of abode in Hong Kong, the education policy, healthcare services, the business environment and the


Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) system are essentially discriminatory against new arrivals and Mainland people, aiming to introduce rash changes to existing policies. Worse still, they are marked by a serious deviation from the Government's established principle of upholding freedom, openness and fairness in its policies, and will produce far-reaching consequences. I would say his proposals will only do harm without any good. His motion today requests a review of the vetting and approval of One-Way Permits, and it attributes China-Hong Kong conflicts to the right of abode in Hong Kong enjoyed by "babies born to doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women". In fact, this problem was not created by the SAR Government alone. Rather, it was a "bomb" created by the Society for Community Organization in the CHONG Fung-yuen case. Years back, political parties from the opposition camp joint hands with one another and actively voiced their support. The Government of the last term regarded "children born to doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women" as "new forces" to the Hong Kong population. But things have not turned out the way they thought, and the problem of insufficient kindergarten and primary school places has arisen in the North District in recent years. The current-term Government set things right by calling a timely halt to the "doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women" policy and instead introduced a "zero quota" policy barring all private hospitals from accepting bookings from "doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women" for delivery in Hong Kong from 1 January 2013 onwards. As a result, the number of "doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women" giving birth in Hong Kong has dropped drastically, and this administrative measure has successfully prevented the birth of many more "doubly non-permanent resident babies" which would otherwise have taken place. For these reasons, I must say it will make much ado about nothing and is totally unnecessary to introduce changes to the existing vetting and approval of One-Way Permits as so doing will recklessly damage the existing system. Likewise, I strongly disapprove of any intention to introduce rash amendments to the Basic Law. "Putting Hong Kong people first" is underpinned by protectionism. As a free trade port and metropolis, Hong Kong should never close its door to the outside world and live in seclusion. Therefore, I cannot agree to the motion today. President, over all these years, Hong Kong has benefited from Mainland visitors and the Individual Visit Scheme. With Mainland people coming to


3329

Hong Kong in large numbers for excursion, consumption and shopping, our economy has been stimulated and many employment opportunities have also been created. However, during the interaction between China and Hong Kong, some frictions have nonetheless arisen, the causes of which are complicated. In recent years, the community has seen the surge of a negative sentiment, the sentiment of boycotting the Mainland. It mainly originates from economic, social and cultural differences between the two places. Particularly, with the increasingly strong development momentum on the Mainland, and with Mainland people coming to Hong Kong for the purposes of shopping, buying properties, seeking employment and studying, dealings between the two places have kept rising. Mainland people do differ from Hong Kong people in certain ways of behaving, and there are also competitive claims on resources, which has given rise to conflicts. Such conflicts should be resolved by enhancing communication and mutual understanding. However, under the banner of localism, some people have escalated their acts to the extent of persistently exaggerating China-Hong Kong frictions and promoting the rejection of all Mainland people and hostility to Mainland tourists, investors, visitors and even Mainland students, in a bid to shut them out of Hong Kong. Their intention is to deal a direct blow to the Hong Kong economy and the livelihood of various industries and trades. They even want to undermine Hong Kong's dealings and cultural exchanges with the international community and Mainland people, and to drive Hong Kong into a dead end. China-Hong Kong conflicts actually stem from misunderstanding. It is necessary for the Governments of both places to adjust their policies more proactively and "prescribe medicine according to the disease". Maintaining pluralism and tolerance in society is the only way to sustain the survival of Hong Kong. To improve the economy and people's livelihood, the SAR Government should conduct comprehensive reviews of the existing public policies and services in a timely and appropriate manner, and formulate a long-term population policy based on demographic statistics. As for its services in housing, education, employment and healthcare, it should dovetail with the needs arising from future development, and make better planning for the allocation of public resources and policies, so as to cope with the future development trend of China-Hong Kong integration. The Government is duty-bound to do so.


President, in the debate last year, I already repeatedly requested the various social sectors to refrain from doing anything which might provoke China-Hong Kong conflicts. The HK First formed by Mr Gary FAN and Ms Claudia MO from the Civic Party has been discriminating against new arrivals in various aspects. In September last year, they placed a joint advertisement in Hong Kong and Taiwanese newspapers to smear the Individual Visit Scheme and the One-Way Permit system, to distort the reality by saying that Hong Kong was being "reddened", to incite people into discriminating against new arrivals, to advocate "the seclusion of Hong Kong" and "hostility to locusts" and to insult Mainland tourists at will. They even go so far as to proposing the elimination of anything Chinese. They have sought to deal with the relevant conflicts by incitement rather than communication. All these are downright acts of provoking conflicts and political confrontation, which will result in serious repercussions such as damaging social cohesion in Hong Kong, and undermining the young generation's sense of national identity. Certain aspirations put forth in the recent unlawful Occupy movement in Hong Kong can likewise indirectly reflect that the young generation's concept of the state and nationalist sentiment are both weak. President, China and Hong Kong are closely connected like blood and veins. An overwhelming majority of Hong Kong people support our reunification with China, and people understand that "if the country is in good shape, so will Hong Kong be; and the better Hong Kong is, the better our country will be". It is a pity that due to their failure to understand "one country, two systems", or because of their fear, resentment and hostility to China-Hong Kong integration, some people in society have used "two systems" to counter "one country". Therefore, I think enhancing economic development, improving people's livelihood and relieving Hong Kong people's sentiments for the Mainland can only "treat the symptoms but cannot cure the illness". What is more important is to achieve the return of people's hearts. Next year will be the 25th year since the promulgation of the Basic Law. It is now 18 years into the reunification, but the Government's efforts in promoting the Basic Law are still ineffective. The Education Bureau and the Home Affairs Bureau should enhance people's understanding about "one country, two systems", the Basic Law, China's state of affairs and Chinese history, so as to cultivate a sense of national identity in the young generation. Stepping up political, social and cultural integration is a trend in history, and is only natural and proper.


3331

The amendments of Ms Claudia MO and Dr Helena WONG today are like Christmas trees, in the sense that they are "hung with" many demands targeting at Mainland people. I do not think they deserve my support. I agree to Mr Christopher CHUNG's amendment, as I also think that the Government should squarely address the impacts caused by the frictions between both places. Mr TANG Ka-piu's amendment opposes the expansion of labour importation. As I think this is a highly controversial issue, I do not think it is appropriate to make a judgment right now. I so submit. MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, Mr Gary FAN's motion begins with "urges the SAR Government to proactively handle China-Hong Kong conflicts, and to adhere to the need to 'put Hong Kong people first' in formulating policies". If his motion is limited to this scope, I believe many Members would support and accept it. However, Mr FAN then put forward a range of policies with respect to immigration, education, economy and welfare. In my opinion, the contents of those policies as a whole is unfavourable to Hong Kong. From the perspective of protectionism, the policies he subsequently proposed with respect to the four areas will lead to very undesirable outcomes in Hong Kong. We should understand the fact that the area of Hong Kong is only 1 000 sq m but its population is 7 million. As a number of Members mentioned just now, we have to rely on the Mainland in all aspects. Say, for example, the simplest issue of fresh water supply, or the issue of Dongjiang water. If the Government really desalinizes the sea water in Junk Bay for Hong Kong people's consumption, only 5% to 10% of the demanded volume can be produced, and each cubic metre of desalinized fresh water involves a cost of $12, while currently the cost of Dongjiang water is $5.5. When the cost of fresh water doubles or nearly doubles, will Hong Kong people still agree that we should pay this price? In addition, it comes to my attention that in respect of food provision, 100% of the supply of fresh pork, beef and chicken today come from the Mainland. Moreover, 92% of the vegetables sold in Hong Kong and most of other food items come from the Mainland. If Hong Kong really separates itself


from the Mainland, can anyone imagine the extent of the surge in Hong Kong's cost of living and inflation? Of course, on the surface, the public may find Mr Gary FAN's motion rather appealing. To "put Hong Kong people first", putting Hong Kong before the Mainland is absolutely a good idea. Among the various policies proposed, the Liberal Party approves of several of them. For instance, it is reasonable to give local students in the North District the priority to receive schooling within the home district. What is proposed to deal with the phenomenon of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women and singly non-permanent resident pregnant women giving birth in Hong Kong is also reasonable. But many other policies proposed are inappropriate insofar as economic freedom is concerned. The Liberal Party absolutely stands by these policies if all of them advocate according proper priority. Yet Mr FAN's motion and Ms Claudia MO's amendment and her arguments give other people an impression that Hong Kong has no confidence at all and our people are highly incapable, which has forced us to apply self-defensive measures in all areas. Let us take another perspective reversely. Many Hong Kong businessmen set up factories in Shenzhen back then, and today various sectors would like to establish a foothold in the Mainland, or even in Shanghai and other places. If the Mainland also treated Hong Kong businesses with a protectionist attitude, what could we do? Overall speaking, I think we should strike a balance and the concept of "putting Hong Kong people first" should not be applied across the board. Earlier on, Mr Tommy CHEUNG pointed out that many infrastructure projects have now fallen behind schedule because of the exorbitant wages of workers. With regard to housing development, if we aim to develop 470 000 residential units during the period between 2013-2014 and 2022-2023, we need to have several thousands to 10 000 more skilled worked. Is this "importation of labour appropriately"? "Importation of labour appropriately" ― the wordings are acceptable. Is Hong Kong now importing labour blindly? Absolutely not. If Hong Kong is now importing labour blindly, the construction of residential buildings in Hong Kong would have been speeded up, and the construction cost would be much lower. Now the public at large are the victims, and many of them are the grassroots. We would like to help these people and attach priority to addressing their problem. Should we want to attach priority to Hong Kong people's problem, but there is no worker to do the construction works, and Hong Kong people have no place to live, what is the point in emphasizing "priority"?


3333

Overall speaking, if Hong Kong adopts a closed-door policy, it would only do more harm to Hong Kong people and our long-term economic development. Lastly, I would like to talk about the problem relating to Individual Visit Scheme. I had strongly promoted the Individual Visit Scheme during my six-year tenure as the Chairman of Hong Kong Tourism Board. Hong Kong's economy is supported by four major pillars. The first one is finance, followed by real estate and hi-tech industry. But frankly speaking, these industries can hardly bring direct benefits to the public at large. Tourism, which attracts tourists to spend money in Hong Kong, is the only pillar that benefits different sectors and industries, from restaurants of various sizes to all retailers (no matter whether they sell branded products), from the operators of all transportation means to hawkers in the streets. Although statistics show that tourism accounts for only 4.7% of the GDP, a large part of the some 200 000 jobs created can benefit the public at large. This is absolutely different from the IPO activities. Speaking of the Mainland enterprises seeking an IPO in Hong Kong, how many people can make profits from these activities? Or talking about real estate, how many ordinary Hong Kong people can buy plots of land for residential development and then sell the units to Mainlanders? Nil. Tourism is the only sector that can generate genuine benefits to the public. For that reason, we should not conclude that the Individual Visit Scheme is full of disadvantages merely because tourists seem to have brought to Hong Kong a lot of inconvenience, such as the crowdedness in the MTR and the long queues outside many restaurants. We can develop more support facilities if the existing ones are not enough. On the contrary, at the most famous tourist destinations in the world, such as Paris, New York and London, have they set any ceiling for the number of tourists in order to protect themselves? No, they have not. Given that the hotel room rates in these cities are expensive, instead of staying in these cities, tourists would prefer accommodation options in other places farther away. This is how things are adjusted under a free economy. Hence, overall speaking, the merits of the Individual Visit Scheme far outweigh its disadvantages. If Hong Kong maintains this protectionist attitude, the only reason is that the confidence of Hong Kong people is dwindling, and this is my biggest worry. In my opinion, we Hong Kong people should re-establish our self-confidence, like what we did in the 1970s and 1980s. Of course, we should understand that the Mainland is growing fast and records surprisingly high growth rates every few


years. This makes Hong Kong people feel uncomfortable, as Hong Kong seems to have fallen behind them. I hope Hong Kong can handle this situation. The Liberal Party opposes the original motion. Thank you. MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, as the economic foundation, cultural development and way of living in Hong Kong are totally different from those of the Mainland, it is inevitable for the people of the two places to have misunderstanding and conflicts when having contacts and exchanging views. Nevertheless, the majority of Hong Kong people do not think that the people of the two places are splitting up and confronting each other. What is more, they can hardly agree that Hong Kong should deny and avoid the benefits arising from the co-operation between the two places or such a direction for future development. The original motion urges the Government to cap the number of visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) and immediately abolish the measure of allowing Shenzhen residents to visit Hong Kong on the one-year multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements, so as to reduce the impacts caused by a large number of Mainland visitors on local residents. I must emphasize that when the IVS was first introduced in 2003, Hong Kong had just survived the SARS epidemic and the objective of IVS was to enable more Mainlanders to visit Hong Kong more conveniently to help Hong Kong's economy to get out from its low ebb. At that time, we all received this scheme with applause. As such, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) believes that as we have enjoyed the benefits of the scheme for years, we should not treat it as if it could be "called to come at a whistle and dismissed with a wave of hand" when problems emerged. On the contrary, we should face up to the problems positively and adopt effective measures to resolve them. The "Individual Visit Scheme for Mainland residents to visit Hong Kong and Macao" is commonly known as IVS. For the first six months of 2013, the accumulated number of passenger-trips made by Mainland visitors to Hong Kong under the IVS has exceeded 100 million. In addition to creating employment opportunities for Hong Kong, the IVS has also brought about substantial increase in income for industries like hotels, retail and catering, as well as many other trades and sectors. In this connection, the total number of hotels in Hong Kong has increased from 96 in 2003 to 217 at present, while the number of employees engaged in the hotel industry has increased from 30 000 to 70 000. The total


3335

value of retail sales of goods has increased from $170 billion in 2003 to $440 billion at present, while the number of employees engaged in the retail industry has increased from 210 000 to 260 000. The number of employees working in food premises has also increased from 170 000 to 240 000. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair) With the number of IVS visitors increasing year after year, the receiving capacity of Hong Kong's facilities will certainly be put to a harsh test, and problems like traffic congestion, soaring commodity prices and deteriorating environmental hygiene are bound to arise. It is the hope of DAB that the relevant departments of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) will expeditiously provide more tourism facilities and other ancillary amenities, increase the number of hotels and facilities for tourists appropriately, and negotiate with the Mainland authorities to enhance the policy on the "Individual Visit Scheme for Mainland residents to visit Hong Kong and Macao". As regards the problem of parallel traders, the relevant Mainland authority and the Customs and Excise Department of Hong Kong should step up co-operation and allocate more resources and manpower to enhance their law-enforcement and publicity efforts. Besides, the regulation of the IVS endorsement system should be stepped up as well. If any Mainland residents visiting Hong Kong with IVS endorsements are caught participating in parallel trading activities, their endorsements should be revoked for a certain number of years. In order to make the best use of the economic opportunity arising from Mainland residents' high acclaim for and confidence in Hong Kong's products, and to grab the business opportunities available in the highly potential retail market on the Mainland, Hong Kong should set up some dedicated sales areas for Hong Kong goods for the convenience of Mainland visitors. On the other hand, the original motion also urges the Government to stop conceiving "white elephant projects" for blindly pursuing the objective of integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland, and to ensure that large-scale infrastructure development can meet the long-term needs of Hong Kong people. In this connection, I must point out that projects pursuing the objective of integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland can all meet the long-term needs of Hong Kong people. As such, how can such projects be regarded as "white elephant projects"? Moreover, who have caused persistent delay of


works and cost overrun in infrastructure projects? Certainly not the DAB or the HKSAR Government. The mover of the motion and other Members of the opposition faction should be held responsible. In order to achieve the objective of integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland, we need to have the right software and hardware as well. In recent years, quite a number of large-scale infrastructural projects are experiencing cost overrun or delay one after another, including the 10 Major Infrastructure Projects such as the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point, Central-Wan Chai Bypass, and so on. We hope that the relevant projects can overcome the various problems encountered during the construction stage so that Hong Kong can enjoy a comprehensive set of infrastructural facilities and keep pace expeditiously with the development on the Mainland, thereby enabling us to achieve continuous improvement in social, economic, as well as other aspects. Deputy President, when viewed from a consanguinity perspective, residents of Hong Kong and the Mainland are compatriots; whereas from an economic point of view, Hong Kong and the Mainland are mutually dependent. In the process of integration, it is just natural for two places to have conflicts. So long as we can understand and tolerate each other and enhance communication and education, we can certainly resolve the misunderstandings between us. We should never be manipulated by those people who have ulterior motives, as all they want is to stir up trouble and fan up flames to damage the ethnic relationship between people of the two places. I have to point out that the motion moved by Mr Gary FAN seeks to sow discord among the Hong Kong people and our compatriot on the Mainland. However, as we are from the same ancestors and blood is thicker than water, his attempts will just be in vain. Further still, I would also like to advise some Members to refrain from using some insulting terms to describe people not sharing their views, as they are in fact insulting themselves with such mean words. The DAB opposes Mr Gary FAN's motion. Deputy President, I so submit. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, to "put Hong Kong people first" in formulating policies can be interpreted as the concept that the Government should give priority to the interests of Hong Kong people and regard


3337

this as the fundamental basis when setting the goals for public policies and assessing the effectiveness of its policies. Based on this interpretation, I think it is alright. I believe Members all agree that the most important responsibility of the Government is to serve the local citizens. Nonetheless, we should be well aware of another point: as Hong Kong is an enlightened, progressive, open and economically advanced international metropolitan, we should respect human rights and uphold the basic values that everyone should be respected and treated equally. Hong Kong people can enjoy these rights and we are proud of that. In giving dual consideration to the above two points, the formulation of any policy that puts Hong Kong people first ― even if it is accepted by us ― must be very careful to ensure that it will not lead to discriminatory consequences. This is a very important point. In other words, in the formulation and implementation of policies, some persons may occasionally be given special or differential treatment. We must ensure that these differential treatment or preferential policies are well justified. Moreover, we must bear in mind that double standards can never be applied to certain basic principles. For instance, when a policeman or ambulanceman comes to rescue a person whose life is at risk, the first thing he will do is absolutely not to check the colour of that person's complexion or find out whether his is a permanent resident of Hong Kong. When firemen rescue people in a fire, it is impossible for them to rescue Hong Kong people first, is it? While these policies are implemented in Hong Kong, we must bear in mind that the life of everyone is equally important. I believe this point is indisputable. However, there can be discretion over one point: the distribution and utilization of resources. Of course, any differential and special treatment should be in proportion and backed by reasonable justification. From a legal perspective, this must be made crystal clear in order to avoid any discriminatory consequence. On what is called differential treatment or arrangement, certain policies are more acceptable to society. The "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong people" policy mentioned by a Member just now is an example. We find this policy necessary because of the limited supply of land in Hong Kong. The undesirable living environment of Hong Kong people is also a result of inadequate supply of housing. Hence we need to have policies that protect the livelihood of local people. I believe all Members would stand by this point. The same argument applies to labour policies. Priority should be given to Hong Kong people in terms of working opportunities. Thus on the issue of


importation of labour, we need to set certain limitations for our policies. I believe all these recommendations are indisputable, too. Currently, the areas with more disputes all involve the utilization of social resources, such as social welfare, social security, medical and health services, education, and so on. Regarding these areas, we should have clear demarcation. We should clearly set out differential treatment respect to the visitors who do not have the right of abode in Hong Kong, as we have to take care of the needs of local residents. However, should we want to take a step further to differentiate between permanent residents and new immigrants (referring to the persons not yet granted the permanent right of abode) among local residents, we must be very careful. New immigrants have become a part of Hong Kong and they will be granted the permanent right of abode when they can meet the requirement on years of residence in Hong Kong. Members should bear in mind that new immigrants will live in Hong Kong for a long period of time, and most of the children of these families may have already become permanent residents of Hong Kong. Hence we must ensure that these families are equally attended to as much as practicable. As everyone is aware, the basic necessities of the people are protected by Article 36 of the Basic Law. For that very reason, the number of years of residence in Hong Kong that the HKSAR Government requires the applicants for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) to fulfil has been increased to seven years from 2000 onward. This measure has aroused strong controversy as many families are impoverished under this policy. Originally, the children of these families can enjoy proper protection for their livelihood, but their mothers who are not eligible to apply for CSSA due to their failure to meet the criterion of seven-year residence in Kong Kong, have to live on the CSSA for the children. Obviously, these children are seriously impoverished. Not even their basic needs are met, let alone equal opportunities for them on the starting line. How can the Government tolerate these situations in Hong Kong? In my view, the Court of Final Appeal has made an absolutely correct and fair judgment, which ruled that the seven-year requirement is outrageous, unreasonable and irrelevant. If the Government can return to the previous residence requirement of one or two years, I believe some applications can be considered with discretion. Many new immigrants may probably have a bit of savings, but under certain circumstances, social workers may consider the applications concerned with discretion as much as possible.


3339

I would like to remind Members that we should never regard new immigrants as a burden. This is a narrow way of thinking. Not to mention the bonding of blood … In fact, many new immigrants have jobs. They are a new and valuable work force from the grassroots in our society. I believe that to certain extent these new immigrants, as a complementary work force, have contributed to Hong Kong's GDP growth. Currently, many primary duties that are obnoxious in nature are carried out by new immigrants. Hence we should appreciate and treasure their contribution to Hong Kong and let them feel the warmth of Hong Kong as they have joined this big family. This is how Hong Kong can truly become an enlightened society. MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we totally support the assertion that the principle of "putting Hong Kong people first" should be adopted in the population policy, education and employment to protect the interests of Hong Kong people. In the case of cross-border works projects, it has been proposed that they should be based on the population policy and undertaken only after the population policy has been dealt with and a consensus has been forged. This likewise commands our support. However, we have much reservation about parts (6) and (10) of the original motion, which respectively proposes the immediate abolition of the "multiple-entry endorsements" arrangement and revision of the residential requirement under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme for the purpose of ensuring the priority use of this welfare benefit by Hong Kong permanent residents. Why? The reason is that these two proposals invariably involve family reunion, and the Labour Party maintains that everybody, irrespective of noble or humble birth, has the right to family reunion. This has remained our position throughout. In 1999, we supported the contention that children affiliated with Hong Kong families, meaning those Mainland-born children of Hong Kong people, should be given the right of abode in Hong Kong. This was in line with the judgment made by the then Chief Justice Andrew LI. However, the SAR Government threatened Hong Kong people by saying that if it was to act on the Court's judgment, 1.67 million people would come to Hong Kong, and Hong Kong would submerge as a result. It went on to say that such Mainland-born children would scramble for "rice bowls" in Hong Kong and snatch our resources. The fear about new arrivals from the Mainland that took root years back has burst out today, posing governance difficulties to the existing SAR Government.


Let me return to the issue of family reunion. Certainly, some holders of "multiple-entry endorsements" issued by the Shenzhen authorities are tourists. I do not think the abolition of this arrangement for these people will cause any problem, because after all, Hong Kong is a tiny place and there is a limit in its capacity to receive visitors. However, people holding "multiple-entry endorsements" also include many single mothers who have not yet obtained their One-Way Permits. They must rely on "multiple-entry endorsements" in order to come to Hong Kong and take care of their children. If the "multiple-entry endorsements" arrangement is abolished, and if it so happens that such mothers come from Sichuan or Yunnan, they will face great difficulties when they want to apply for visit endorsements again. The reason is that they must take a prolonged train journey with their school-age children back to such remote places where they will stay for two or three weeks, and then come to Hong Kong again after obtaining their visit endorsements. This will bring their children's studies to a complete halt, subject them to impact, and cause great frustration to those children who are already permanent residents of Hong Kong. The CSSA residential requirement was introduced by the incumbent Chief Secretary for Administration Mrs Carrie LAM during her tenure as Director of Social Welfare back then. It was stipulated that new immigrants might apply for the CSSA if necessary and the initial requirement was that applicants must have resided in Hong Kong for at least one year. In the case of those with a residential history of less than one year, their applications would be handled having regard to their individual circumstances. I would say it was rather easy to endure one year. But later, the residential requirement was changed to seven years, and people could apply for the CSSA only after obtaining the permanent resident status. Seven years was a period more difficult to endure. Actually, the vetting and approval of CSSA applications should be based on the degree of poverty and needs of the families concerned. Even if the children and the tenant of a family are all permanent residents, the authorities will still refuse to allow the wife who takes care of the children to apply for the CSSA if she is not a permanent resident. However, for some single-parent families in which the single mothers are non-permanent residents with two children who are both permanent residents of Hong Kong, if they want to apply for the CSSA, they will have to face the inhumane situation of what we call "sharing the son's bowl of rice", meaning that the CSSA for the two children will have to support the living of the three of them. If a single mother bears one child only, her situation will be even more miserable, as the CSSA for the child will have to support the living of the two of them. This will create child poverty. The reason is that as the


3341

mother has not yet obtained the status of Hong Kong permanent resident, she is forbidden by the authorities to apply for the CSSA. As a result, the CSSA for the child has to be used to support the living of the two of them. This will pose immense difficulties to them. As no ceiling is imposed on any CSSA-related expenditures proposed in the budget, there is no question of competitive claims on resources whatsoever. Staff members of the Social Welfare Department (SWD) must not regard themselves as "goalkeepers" who seek to turn applicants away in the vetting and approval process. Rather, they must adopt a compassionate attitude and have regard to applicants' needs in the process. The granting of the CSSA to a new arrival family will not deprive a family comprising permanent residents of the CSSA. SWD officers should vet and approve CSSA applications based on the degree of poverty and needs of individual applicants. Both the families of permanent residents and those of new arrivals have the same and equal opportunity to apply for the CSSA. Therefore, I must say that we have strong reservations about part (10) of the original motion. Deputy President, in the following part of my speech, I want to discuss a cultural issue. There is no problem with promoting Putonghua. Everybody should learn three languages or more, as learning more languages may delay the onset of dementia. But I must point out that it will create big problems if Putonghua is promoted as a means of "culling" Cantonese. In the existing Chinese dialects, Cantonese is the closest to classical Chinese. If Members try to read aloud the poem "滿江紅"2 in both Cantonese and Putonghua, they will find that the Putonghua version fails to produce the imposing and delicate effect of the poem because there are no checked tones in Putonghua. Apart from the phonetic aspect of the Cantonese dialect, written Chinese characters are likewise very important. I want to ask the Education Bureau to note that traditional Chinese characters must never be replaced by simplified Chinese characters in the future. The reason is that simplified Chinese characters are devoid of any pictographic and onomatopoeic principles, which makes it more difficult to learn Chinese. One should not think that it will be easier to learn Chinese as simplified Chinese characters consist of fewer strokes. Precisely due to fewer strokes and the absence of any principles for recognizing

2 The title of a famous Chinese poem written by YUE Fei of the Sung Dynasty


Chinese characters, the learning process will turn more difficult, and confusion will arise very easily. In the case of "辭" and "敵" as in "辭職" (meaning "resignation") and "敵人" (meaning "enemies") respectively, for example, the parts with more strokes on the left are invariably rendered as "舌" in their simplified Chinese counterparts. There is no principle to follow, nor any justification for this. Therefore, I would like to ask the Education Bureau to note that in addition to the Cantonese dialect, we are even more concerned about the replacement of traditional written Chinese characters, as this will destroy the fine Chinese culture in its entirety. We must not let this happen. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Mr Gary FAN's original motion, the amendments put forth by Dr Helena WONG and Ms Claudia MO, as well as the speeches given by the three of them, all tell us that they are in fact singing in the same tune ― the tune of advocating Hong Kong independence. They use Mainland-Hong Kong conflicts as an excuse, champion to "put Hong Kong people first" and promote the idea of Hong Kong independence. All these will alienate them from the people. Everything that Mr Gary FAN advocated in his speech at the beginning of this debate, for example, the rise of nativism, a range of thoughts related to nativism, rejecting the Mainland culture and the agenda of Communist China, the awareness of autonomy, and so on, all attempt to rationalize and legalize the idea of Hong Kong independence. He aimed at stirring up conflicts among clan groups and aggravating Mainland-Hong Kong conflicts. This exactly matches with my remark that the ghost of Hong Kong independence is now hovering in the sky of Hong Kong. In fact, a number of points raised in the original motion and the two amendments should be strongly criticized, yet I would like to point out only a few of them due to the time constraint. First, item (2) of the original motion request to amend Article 24 of the Basic Law to abolish the right of abode in Hong Kong of the "doubly non-permanent resident babies". This booklet in my hand is the Basic Law. Item (1) under the second paragraph of Article 24 clearly indicates that "Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" are qualified to be permanent residents of Hong Kong. Over 200 000 "doubly non-permanent resident babies" have been born in Hong Kong since 2001. How can the Government take away their right of abode in Hong Kong? Does Mr Gary FAN mean that they should be expelled


3343

from the territory of Hong Kong? If so, may I know whether this treatment is in compliance with humanitarian standards; and whether this treatment advocated by him is in contravention of the international practice to determine one's identity by his or her place of birth? In fact, such provision is not unique in Hong Kong; many overseas cities or countries also have similar policies in place. Moreover, the Court of Final Appeal has already ruled on this provision. The pan-democratic Members all the time emphasize that they respect the rule of law, and how come the original motion and the amendments adopt a "bad-loser" approach on this ruling made by the Court of Final Appeal? Are they being self-contradictory and illogical? What is their purpose? This is my first point. Secondly, the title of this motion contains the wordings "put Hong Kong people first". Such wordings, in themselves, are already a counterfeit because under the existing welfare system of Hong Kong, only the permanent residents of Hong Kong are eligible to enjoy the welfare in healthcare, housing and education aspects. Earlier on, some Members have talked a lot on this. For instance, in respect of healthcare services, non-permanent residents who need in-patient service and treatment are required to pay full fees for using such services. For example, pregnant women from the Mainland are required to pay full fees for using the healthcare services in Hong Kong. As for public housing, applicants must meet the seven-year residence requirement should they want to be qualified for the allotment of public housing units. All these constraints and conditions have already been set within the systems. I therefore opine that the motion advocating to "put Hong Kong people first" is a counterfeit, which aims at stirring up Mainland-Hong Kong conflicts and racial dissensions. On the issue of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), originally, applicants have to meet the seven-year residence requirement but the one-year residence requirement has been resumed recently pursuant to the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal. The pan-democratic Members should not adopt a "bad-loser" approach on this. It comes to my attention that some pan-democratic Members approved of this in their speeches given just now, but strangely enough, Mr Gary FAN, Ms Claudia MO and Dr Helena WONG took a different stand in the original motion and amendments. This gives others a feeling that their logics are confusing and their actions are inconsistent with their arguments. The third point is about fresh water supply. Should Mr Gary FAN's principle of "putting Hong Kong people first" be followed, it is not necessary for


the Mainland ― where water shortage problem is also severe ― to supply fresh water to Hong Kong. If Shenzhen and Guangdong likewise advocate putting themselves first, where can we get long-term and stable fresh water supply? What is even more weird is that all the fresh water Mr Gary FAN drinks every day comes from Dongjiang, yet he advocates to revise the water purchase agreement according to the logic of "putting Hong Kong people first". If the Mainland put the Mainlanders first in the same manner, we may have difficulty to secure fresh water supply. Moreover, regarding desalination technology, earlier on a Member has pointed out that even if that works, it can only fulfil 5% of Hong Kong's water demand. Even if the desalination technology is enhanced to the extent that it can fulfil 10% of our fresh water demand, how can we ensure a long-term and stable source of fresh water supply to Hong Kong? Deputy President, Hong Kong is a blessed city; it is also an integral part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China. We should respect and support the "one country, two systems" arrangement instead of instigating conflicts, dissensions and stirring up confrontations among clan groups because all these do no good to both Hong Kong and the nation. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of Dr Helena WONG's amendment. As Hong Kong people and elected representatives, we should of course defend the rights and interests of Hong Kong people and it is exactly the failure on the part of the SAR Government and the syndicate led by LEUNG Chun-ying to defend the same that has aroused widespread indignation and discontent. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Dr Helena WONG and Mr Albert HO earlier, although there is a need to defend the rights and interests of Hong Kong people, we should not reject and discriminate against anybody, especially the underpriviledged, and new immigrants in particular. Anyone who tries to ascend to the top by trampling on the underpriviledged would never have my support. Actually, as far as the issue of "putting Hong Kong people first" is concerned, they exactly are Hong Kong people, are they not? Under the laws of Hong Kong and the Basic Law, they are the people of Hong Kong. As mentioned by Ms Cyd HO just now, we are in total support of family reunion and in order to obtain the permanent resident status, these people may have to satisfy the residential requirement after entering Hong Kong. However, they should be treated as family members of Hong Kong people upon arrival at Hong Kong, so


3345

what is the point of discriminating against them? We understand that the underpriviledged or new immigrants are usually the targets of attack in many societies and at the time of an economic downturn, it will become particularly common for these people to be made to bear the brunt. Deputy President, even in some European countries, it has also been revealed by the latest election results that political parties advocating the rejection of new immigrants had been given an overwhelming support, but I have to express my contempt for such behaviours. Those who have come to Hong Kong should be treated as Hong Kong people and due respect should be paid even to visitors. Nevertheless, when it comes to protecting the rights and interests of Hong Kong people at the policy level, we would certainly give our full support and it is our opinion that the Administration should be held responsible for the heightened tension in the community of Hong Kong at present, since it is the Government which is tearing the community apart. Deputy President, not long ago, the labour and delivery ward of various hospitals in Hong Kong were full and local mothers could not find a place to give birth to their babies. Subsequently, an unprecedented and acute shortage of formula milk powder had put local babies at stake, and a shortage of school places had also been revealed. All these have led to cries of complaint from members of the public and I wonder if these could be attributed to government policies or the absence of such policies, thus causing the Administration to turn a blind eye to the competition for such resources in the community and leading to much indignation among some Hong Kong people. Nevertheless, someone is also taking advantage of the opportunity to sow dissension. We have been urging for many years that those who have resided in Hong Kong for one year should be allowed to apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance but Donald TSANG had taken the initiative to amend the relevant requirement, which had given rise to further action by the Court of Final Appeal subsequently. In this connection, Dr Helena WONG has proposed in her amendment that revision should be made in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal. Therefore, it is our opinion that on the one hand, we have to explain to the public that it is particularly wrong and would be a disgrace of our society to discriminate against the underpriviledged who are also the impoverished, and try to ascend to the top by trampling on them. On the other hand, the Government should be urged to formulate more comprehensive policies so that Hong Kong people would be able to share in a more fair and just manner the fruit of economic prosperity in such areas as medical, education and welfare, instead of injecting most of the money earned into the accounts of the family members of a few major


developers to such an extent that they get too fat to put on their socks. It is even more outrageous to see that, in the face of public discontent, someone has tried in every way to target at the most underpriviledged at grass-root level. I hope Hong Kong people can see our point and I am also confident that most Hong Kong people are reasonable and rational, knowing very well that people living here are all our buddies. Besides, the great majority of members of the public are immigrants themselves or descendants of former generations of immigrants and some of them are having a hard time trying to become immigrants of overseas countries. Thus, why should we torment each other so cruelly? Deputy President, this is the reason why we earnestly hope that good policies will be implemented by the SAR Government so that no opportunity would be given to those who would take advantage and target their attack at the underprivileged because of the policy failures on the part of the Government. There is a saying that someone has been calling for the independence of Hong Kong and advocating the so-called "nativism". Deputy President, how would you feel about the whole thing if even our young people were refused entry into Mainland China? I have asked the Secretary yesterday about the message that have been conveyed to young people by barring their entry into the Mainland and my answer to the question is: Due recognition would not be given to them. If such a recognition is not given, why should the same be received? With at least seven or even more of the 70 Members of the Legislative Council having been barred from entering the Mainland for over 20 years, I cannot help but ask: What sort of policy is this? If the Mainland authorities and the SAR Government insist on implementing policies which reject the people of Hong Kong as well as the people of the democratic camp and the underprivileged, more excuses would be given for making those who have nothing at hand and those who are most deprived or in dire straits to bear the brunt. We do not want to have Hong Kong people incited to hate, reject and discriminate against them and thus, Deputy President, the SAR Government is expected to reflect upon itself and conveyed to Beijing the problem that we are facing. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the motion moved by Mr Gary FAN today is "Adhering to the need to 'put Hong Kong people first' in formulating policies". On hearing the motion subject, one may


3347

find no problem or controversy with the motion. However, if we read the wording carefully, we can see another story. Why do I say that? This is because he is trying to use "put Hong Kong people first" as a pretext to weaken the relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland and to stir up conflicts between the people of the two places. Even though he is not blatantly advocating the independence of Hong Kong, the implementation of his proposals will very easily turn Hong Kong into a closed city and cause the relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland to regress. This will certainly lead to an endless flow of disastrous aftermath detrimental to Hong Kong. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) The wording of Mr FAN's motion starts with the policy concerning the daily quota of 150 One-Way Permits. The objective of this policy is to enable the Mainland residents to unite with their family members in Hong Kong in an orderly manner, and hence this is not a talent admission policy. Moreover, the Mainland will take in the views of the Government of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) from time to time in revising the list of applicants to be given the priority to join their family members in Hong Kong. As such, this policy should not be confused with the population policy handled by the Steering Committee on Population Policy chaired by the Chief Secretary for Administration. What is more, there is no reason for Mr FAN to challenge the power of the Central Authority to approve the One-Way Permit, as such power is prescribed in the Basic Law. As regards the issue of "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) babies" referred to in point (2) of the motion, I believe this is a point of concern shared by all of us. But then, the crux of the matter does not lie in the Basic Law. It is prescribed in the paper setting out the interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) regarding the NG Ka-ling case in 1999 that the legislative intent of Article 24 of the Basic Law is to adopt the explanation made by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1996, which has made it clear that the children given birth by DNR pregnant women in Hong Kong do not enjoy any right of abode in Hong Kong. However, the Court did not take this point into consideration at that time. Besides, the SAR Government did not request the NPCSC to further interpret the Basic Law after the Court had made its final


judgment, and that is why the issue of "DNR babies" troubling us today is eventually resulted. That being the case, should we put the blame on the Central Authority or the Basic Law? President, now I would like to express briefly my view on the policies on integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland referred to in Mr FAN's motion, such as admission of Mainland students to funded tertiary programmes, the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS), and the policy on using Putonghua as a medium of instruction. Regarding the issue of Mainland students coming to Hong Kong for funded degree courses, as far as I know, the local universities admit students on the basis of academic achievements without giving any priority to Mainland students. Besides, when Mainland students come to study in Hong Kong, they can exchange views and experience with local students, thereby broadening the perspective and horizon of local students on the one hand, and enhancing their knowledge of our developing Motherland on the other. Moreover, among the overseas university students in the United States ― the country which pan-democrat Members admire so much ― a quarter of them are from Mainland China, but we have never heard about the United States planning to set any cap in this respect. Indeed, the United States is a converging point of the world's talents; setting such a cap would do it no good but harm. As regards the IVS, if we implement across the board Mr FAN's proposal and revoke the multiple-entry endorsements of Shenzhen residents, the local retail consumer market will be gravely impacted. The local retail industry has published a report in this respect and pointed out that if the IVS quota should be cut back across the board, the loss suffered by the local economy would amount to as much as $40 billion. Besides, such a move is not conducive to the interaction between the residents of Shenzhen and Hong Kong. In my view, it is imperative for the SAR Government to look into ways to enhance our tourism infrastructure and make every effort to alleviate the impact of an overwhelming number of visitors on the people's daily life. As a matter of fact, the Occupy Central movement and its related activities in other areas have already affected visitors' desire to spend money in Hong Kong. Lastly, regarding the issue of using Putonghua as a medium of instruction, I do not think this will affect students' ability to communicate in Cantonese. On the contrary, I have found that many students and parents welcome the idea of


3349

using Putonghua to teach Chinese Language, as this would enhance the students' language proficiency and help them communicate better with Mainlanders. As regards Ms Claudia MO's amendment, this is even more blatant than Mr FAN's original motion. Her depictions of the subject of Liberal Studies, fuel mix for power generation and auctioning of telecommunications spectrum are in fact meaningless, as they are either playing up the so-called nativism or reflecting in full her fear and intention to shut off communism. As Dr Helena WONG's amendment is very similar to the original motion, the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong will vote against the original motion and those two amendments. President, I so submit. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, many people have said that since Hong Kong people of the previous generation and the generation before that were actually immigrants from the Mainland, there is a very close blood relationship among people in Mainland China and Hong Kong. There is no reason for us to discriminate against Mainlanders and new arrivals coming to settle in Hong Kong from the Mainland. President, I consider that as fellow human beings, we should never discriminate against anyone regardless of where the person comes from. As a matter of fact, under Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." It is also stipulated in Article 2 of the Declaration that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights … set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." These are very important assertions which suggest that discrimination of any kind should not be allowed to exist in interpersonal relationships and this is also the reason why Ms Claudia MO has highlighted very clearly in paragraph (14) of her amendment that we should "provide adequate social services support to assist Hong Kong people who are ethnic minorities to integrate into the mainstream community without limiting such support to those who are born of Chinese blood, so as to promote diversities in the local culture". This is a solid social perspective which would enable us to promote the spirit of integration.


However, discriminative attitude against people coming from the Mainland does exist among the people of Hong Kong in recent years. What are the reasons for that? The feelings involved are not merely discrimination but have actually been mixed with a lot of dissatisfactions and it is therefore necessary for us to examine carefully the problems behind such dissatisfactions. A number of colleagues such as Ms Emily LAU have already pointed out just now that public discontent was initially aroused by the "doubly non-permanent resident" problem, as some local pregnant women were even deprived of a place in the corridors of hospital wards when they had to give birth to their babies. They were forced to use the very expensive obstetric services provided by private hospitals. Later on, it was not easy for them to get an obstetric place even in private hospitals. Under such circumstances, how can the public be happy? Apart from the problem related to childbirth, there is also the difficulty in purchasing formula milk powder. After a baby is born, it has to be fed with formula milk powder. Although breastfeeding is very much encouraged, sole use of human breast milk is only feasible during the early stage. As formula milk powder has to be used for feeding babies of a few months old, it will be a big problem if local mothers have difficulty in purchasing it. Worse still, when such babies have grown up to become school-age children, the fight for formula milk powder would be replaced with a competition for school places first in kindergartens, followed by primary schools and then further in secondary schools, and the same would probably apply to places at universities later. Therefore, President, as pointed out by Ms Emily LAU earlier, such dissatisfactions actually stem from the attitude of the SAR Government towards such problems. Having turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the problems, the Government did not even bother to tackle them, thus worsening the situation and arousing widespread discontent. In this connection, the Government would be absolutely wrong if it does not reflect upon itself but puts the blame on the members of the public. Some Members said earlier that the attitude of the Government of the current term was quite different and it had the intention to clarify confusion and put things back to order. However, it would be too late now for the Government to do so since the problems have become deep-rooted. Even though it had the intention to do so, it would not be possible for the Government to have all the problems resolved. It is probable that only some of the problems can be solved while many others remain unresolved. What actually are the problems? Apart


3351

from the abovementioned problems with childbirth, formula milk powder, school places, and so on, housing is another problem and it is of a more serious nature. The gravity of housing problem lies in the ever surging land prices brought about by speculative activities, which has made it very difficult for the ordinary public to achieve home ownership. As related issues like these have remained unresolved so far, public discontent would only be aggravated. Against such background, it is believed that the discussion we have today towards the direction of "putting Hong Kong people first" would receive wide support from the community because people will wonder why we have to live here when local residents are not provided with some sort of basic protection. It is the responsibility of the Government to solve all these problems for them and therefore the public would undoubtedly give us their support. It is definitely against my wish to see that under the said approach, there would be discrimination on such grounds as race, colour, language or place of birth and this should be the most important point to beware. I believe that the emergence of this problem or otherwise hinges very much upon whether the Government can formulate reasonable policies. In fact, as pointed out by Ms Emily LAU, the policies formulated by the Government at present would not only spark off contradictions among people of different ethnic groups, colours, languages and nationalities, but also give rise to a far more serious problem, that is, the more deep-rooted conflicts between the rich and the poor. In brief, with the problems of developer hegemony, collusion between the Government and the business sector, and so on, people living in poverty are not given the necessary protection. Neither has the Government prepared a safety net for them, and therefore they are being driven them into a state of anxiety and apprehension. As long as the problems continue to exist as they are, there would be social divisions and contradictions, which the Government cannot evade. Many Members have argued that it is necessary to continue with the implementation of the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS). Undoubtedly, Hong Kong's economy was in recession in 2003 and the implementation of the IVS revived the local economy. However, it might not be a good thing for Hong Kong if we rely solely on the IVS for economic development. As we all know, tourism is like a bubble because of reliant nature. What should we do if visitors stop coming to Hong Kong for sightseeing, or if foreign nationals choose not to come due to unfavourable economic situations in their own countries, or even if they simply do not want to visit Hong Kong? Thus, development in this


direction is far from desirable. In the past, there were core businesses and enterprises, including those of light industries and heavy industries, in Hong Kong but they have all vanished without a trace. I consider it not sensible and not sustainable to give up the development of such businesses. Take the Four Asian Tigers in the past as examples (The buzzer sounded) … all of the other three have committed to the development of technology … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, speaking time is up. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): … Hong Kong must change its practice of refraining from developing such businesses. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, we certainly understand that it is because of the increasing importance of nativism and noumenon awareness in the discussions on Hong Kong politics that Mr Gary FAN proposes today's motion on "adhering to the need to 'put Hong Kong people first' in formulating policies". This is something we cannot and should not avoid. This《香港民族論》(The Hong Kong Nation) I am now holding in my hand is published by the Editorial Board of Undergrad, The Hong Kong University Students' Union periodical. Many people regard this book as a proscription, and they believe they should not touch this book because it advocates the independence of Hong Kong. However, one of the essays collected in this book is an article written by Mr Joseph LIAN Yi-zheng for the Hong Kong Economic Journal on 19 June 2014, and I think we should ponder over this article seriously when discussing this increasingly important subject matter concerning nativism and noumenon theory. I will quote extensively in my speech some of the points raised in the articles, and I believe Mr LIAN will not mind me doing so. President, "the consciousness of getting away from the control from the north has been rising rapidly among the local young people, so much so that a new direction is thus formed. This consciousness is particularly obvious in a series of social movements like 'anti-national education', 'anti-brainwash', 'anti-locust', 'safeguard Northeast New Territories', and so on, while those participating in the movements are mostly 'post-80s' or 'post-90s'. On the other


3353

hand, upon careful observation, one can also see such a trend in some movements which have never been regarded as 'local'". Let me cite an example. In this year's 4 June candle vigil, we could see that the emotion expressed by the majority of the participants were no longer the same as that expressed on the faces of those "permanent supporters" in the 4 June candle vigils held in the Victoria Park over the past 20-odd years, which was "very close to Quyuan's desperate sighing and mourning. Instead, all we could see was resentment … such resentment is mainly attributable to the young people's dislike and resistance towards the political power in the north. Under such an atmosphere, it would be timely to look into the development stage of Hong Kong people's nativism and noumenon awareness, as well as the direction for future development". According to Mr LIAN, the Undergrad student editors raised two very incisive questions and invited him to make his response. The first question is: "Having regard to historical facts and the existing circumstances, should today's Hong Kong people, particularly those who have accustomed to using 'Hong Kong people' as their own label, still be regarded as 'Chinese' in the contemporary sense, or should they be regarded as having alienated to the level of a potential minority nationality or minority nationality living at the periphery of the Chinese Empire, or even a new nationality which has completed the entire metamorphosis process and become totally different from the contemporary 'Chinese' in some crucial aspects?" The second question is: "Regardless of the reply to the first question, what should one take note of in considering the existing ideas concerning Hong Kong's nativism or noumenon theory, is there any specific development direction, and what is the best way to concentrate wisdom and develop in the healthiest manner?" Mr LIAN said in the articles, "The first question is very extensive and profound. Besides, this question has emerged in the public's consciousness just now. It is impossible for any person to come up with a forceful answer as one has to study a lot of fundamental academic theories". However, Mr LIAN has also pointed out that when it comes to the question of "what is a nation", two schools of theory are of utmost importance. The first one is the "ethnic nations theory" raised by the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb FICHTE. President, to put it simply, the "ethnic nations theory" considers that the people of a nation should be of the same race, same skin colour and same ancestors. Another school is the "civic nations theory" raised by the French scholar Ernest RENEN in


the 18th Century. According to RENEN, the cohesion force of this "civic nations theory" comes from the "vibrant" social factors, including culture, commonly shared value standards, and so on. In Mr LIAN's view, "Discussing nations and considering whether or not 'Hong Kong people' can be regarded as having formed a nation of their own" has nothing to do with the independence of Hong Kong. Perhaps Mr WONG Kwok-hing will be particularly interested in this part, as the article considers that whether the Hong Kong people can be regarded as having formed a nation does not necessarily have anything to do with Hong Kong independence. Mr LIAN said, "Indeed, history tells us that many nationalities have set up their own nations; but then, many other nationalities have chosen to walk towards other directions. Mainland China has 50-odd nationalities, but only a very limited number of them have voluntarily developed their independence consciousness and resorted to separatist movements. Regardless of whether they were under the totalitarian rule of the Nationalist Party in the past or the present democratic and open regime, the aboriginal people in Taiwan have never expressed a wish to become independent". President, regarding the development of nativism or a noumenon theory, Mr LIAN has raised two points when concluding his article, which, in my view, are worth our consideration indeed. The first point is: "As nativism or a noumenon theory is in its inception stage, commenters of different stances may come up with new ideas through arguments among one another. One should avoid considering his or her own stance and views as the ultimate truth and refuse to understand the different views held by others". It is all the more undesirable to dismiss other's ideas once and for all. The second point is: "A platform should be made available for all parties to put aside for a while their confronting political views and look deeply into different aspects to develop nativism or a noumenon theory in a calm and peaceful manner. The different aspects should include all the different facets of 'culture', such as art, languages, ecologies, customs, morals, religions, economies (The buzzer sounded) … ideologies, and so on." I so submit. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Gary FAN for proposing this motion on putting Hong Kong people first so that we can debate on the issue. I believe for all of us who are now at the crossroads of the dispute over


3355

constitutional reform, the debate should be an important one since it enables us, the younger generation in particular, to examine the awareness of nativism among Hong Kong people and to have a glimpse of the capability they possess as well as the direction it will lead us to. Not only can we air our own views on various policies, we can also distinguish right from wrong and conduct rational exploration. However, most regrettably, whenever a discussion is conducted on these subjects, there would be Members ― such as Mr WONG Kwok-hing ― spontaneously accusing other people of advocating "independence for Hong Kong", saying that they are "three persons wearing the same pants". As a matter of fact, Mr WONG Kwok-hing can also be described as an "independent leftist". Who are the three persons wearing the same pants? Perhaps Karl MARX, LENIN and MAO Zedong were wearing the same pants of communism. What direction will such a discussion lead us to? Would there be a conclusion? Would the debate go far off the track all of a sudden, rendering it impossible for us to discuss the matter rationally? There are all kinds of pressure and contradictions in the daily life of Hong Kong people and such contradictions do contain some China-Hong Kong elements. Therefore, even though he disagrees with the views expressed by some other Members, Mr WONG Kwok-hing should still focus his speech on the relevant policy areas and have a very serious and in-depth debate, and only through this would the debate be useful to the Government. Unfortunately, his theory on "independence for Hong Kong" is just a disservice. It would not be useful to the Government; nor would the public officers attending the meeting gain anything after listening to his speech. Could it be the case that policy instructions would be issued by the Secretary for Education to schools, asking for a counteraction against the idea of "independence for Hong Kong" and the introduction of the brainwashing national education? President, I think we should understand clearly the dilemmas that the society of Hong Kong, especially the younger generation, is facing today. The Secretary for Education, Mr Eddie NG, has left Hong Kong to attend a meeting in Nanjing and Mr Kevin YEUNG has taken his place to attend the meeting today. When Mr YEUNG spoke for the first time just now, LEUNG Chun-ying's speech was quoted to indicate that the measure of "putting Hong Kong people first" would be adopted for areas prone to shortage of resources.


As Mr YEUNG is aware, I teach at university and I think he knows very well that how many secondary school leavers can meet the entrance requirements for university every year, as well as the fact that thousands of such students are not offered a university place due to the ceiling determined by the Government for the number of publicly-funded university places. Is this an area prone to shortage? If so, why does the Government not cater to their needs? Why have additional efforts not been devoted to increasing the number of publicly-funded places so that such students can be admitted to the institutions and faculties they prefer and contribute themselves to Hong Kong by bringing their potential into full play? Why are they forced to enrol in sub-degree programmes? President, I have raised a written question at the Council meeting of 26 November on non-local students studying in local universities and the Government's reply is, "A 20% quota of the approved student number for admission of non-local students is comparable with international benchmarks of countries or regions with good-quality universities". Since I joined this Council, I have been following up the said ratio of 20% and have found that the proportion of non-local students studying in most universities may be below 20%. However, the ratio of non-local students studying in programmes offered by individual faculties is over 20% and most of them are students from the Mainland. If the situation is not handled carefully, would it give rise to some contradictions? If so, why has a review not been conducted? Negotiations with universities via the University Grants Committee have been going on for the Government to identify initiatives to tackle the problem of integration brought about by the policy on the so-called internationalization. Over these years, an additional sum of $94 million has been spent on such initiatives. The original intention of internationalization is considered acceptable and the policy has my personal support. However, it has turned out that an overwhelming majority of non-local students studying in local universities are from Mainland China and a balance cannot be struck with an adequate number of students from other parts of Asia or outside Asia. Why has this happened? Recently, having been faced with the problem of under-enrolment of sub-degree programmes due to population decline, institutions offering such programmes have asked for an extension of the policy on the 20% quota of the approved student number for admission of non-local students to sub-degree


3357

programmes. Have non-local students been regarded as a market or a business, or are the institutions really engaging themselves in the cause of education? Secretary, these are issues to be handled. Most of the university students today are feeling that the opportunities offered to them to pursue their studies are dwindling and the hostel places provided to them are also decreasing. We can of course try to convince them with all kinds of figures but such perception is getting more obvious. This is the case for undergraduate programmes and it is even more obvious for postgraduate programmes. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan is not a university teacher and has not conducted any research either. Surely she does not understand the true meaning of a research and I think there is no point in responding to her views. Frankly, if policies in this regard are not handled properly, I am very much worried that our younger generation would be getting more anxious about Mainlandization and less familiar with Hong Kong. In this connection, the Government is duty-bound to tackle the problem. It cannot just wear a red hat and focus on the ways to head further north, which is not conducive to striking a proper balance under the principle of "one country, two systems". The Government should put Hong Kong people first in formulating its policies so as to achieve the objectives of "a high degree of autonomy" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". I so submit. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, in formulating policies for a particular place, it should be taken for granted and beyond all doubt that such policies would be drawn up to the interests of the people living there. Among the 10 proposals put forward in the motion moved by Mr Gary FAN today, I do have some dissenting views. Nevertheless, I have no intention to focus my discussion on any individual proposal and policy. Instead, I would like to explore the issue of putting Hong Kong people first from a macro point of view and on the basis of the logic behind the policy on economic integration with the Mainland, and to express my views on the way forward for Hong Kong. President, there is a saying which suggests that it has taken over 100 years to transform Hong Kong from a fishing village to an international city but it has


taken LEUNG Chun-ying two years only to turn Hong Kong into a Mainland city. It may be a bit exaggerating for saying so but in recent years, Hong Kong has increasingly deviated from the path of internationalization. Instead, we have unprecedentedly and rapidly integrated with the Mainland economically. The situation has aggravated particularly after LEUNG Chun-ying has assumed office, with everything drawing close to the Mainland unilaterally and the logic and practice of the Mainland gradually diffusing into our policy decision process. Worse still, consideration is only given to the Mainland's interests, thus reducing the measure of putting Hong Kong people first to an inferior position. As the saying goes, "whosoever understands the signs of the times is a great man". With the economic development of China in the full flush of success and a barrel of money right in front of the eyes, how can the ferocious consortia and business sector in Hong Kong stay put? They would rather sacrifice the interests of Hong Kong people than give up the profit growth in the commercial sector. In the face of short-term benefits, though the integration with Mainland China would probably produce a lot of negative effects to people's livelihood and political development of Hong Kong, the Government has failed to deliberate on and examine the road ahead for our long-term economic development. Politically, as the Central Authority has deliberately strengthened its economic influence over Hong Kong, a theory on economic integration which is close to naturally correct, unbeatable and indisputable has been established by the business sector. In the short term, China-Hong Kong economic integration is "a goose which can lay golden eggs" and in the long term, it can practically be described as the only way out for the economy of Hong Kong. The theory on China-Hong Kong integration inclines lopsidedly to the Mainland and has totally forestalled Hong Kong's future economic development. It gives no regard to the need of diversification for Hong Kong's economy and it has no desire for maintaining Hong Kong's status as an international city. Nor does it ask for a role for Hong Kong to play in the process of international economic and trading development. If China-Hong Kong integration is really that invincible as described by those in the political and business sectors, why is the relationship between China and Hong Kong becoming so distant after so much has been done by the Government on integration with China? Why is there the emotional rebound from Hong Kong people, the younger generation in particular? In the past few


3359

years, a strong emotional rebound has been witnessed in the community of Hong Kong because the former relationship with China, which was neither humble nor arrogant, mutually beneficial and reciprocal and established on the basis of mutual respect, has turned into a subordinate relationship under the practice of cuddling up to China so that we have to look upon our Motherland for everything. Besides, instead of breaking new grounds for a more diversified economy, integration with China has ended up reinforcing the original approach adopted for our economic development and worse still, we have failed to find our way out of the dead end of uneven distribution of wealth. We have baked a bigger pie and our gross income has increased, but most of the profits yielded have fallen into the hands of those in the consortia and business sector, leaving for us only the low-paid jobs. President, as you are aware, the current income ranges of the two lowest income groups compare less favourably with those of 10 years ago and the elaboration on the trickle-down effect has all along been a swindle. President, in the eyes of the ordinary public, integration with China hurts more than it helps. On top of the keen local demand for public transport services, visitor arrivals from the Mainland have reached 54 million a year. With the capacity of 2 000 passengers per MTR train and 50 to 60 passengers for each coach only, how can we meet their transport needs? The disastrous effects brought about by integration with China have actually affected the daily life of each and every member of the general public. Has the Government ever tried to tackle these problems? Even shops we Hong Kong people go for our daily necessities have become monotonous since these 54 million Mainland visitors are flocking to shop for a few types of goods only. Under the market principle, the room for survival of local community economy and small shops with local characteristics is shrinking. However, government officials are telling us to be more tolerant: Although MTR trains are more crowded than before, we can just wait for two more trains since overall interests should prevail. Such anti-intellectual responses have aroused widespread indignation since they have completely failed to adhere to the need to "put Hong Kong people first". The provocative comments made by the ever aggressive LEUNG Chun-ying have only added fuel to the fire and with people having dissenting views on the policy of integration with China being described as hecklers who are conceited before getting rich, he is in fact turning a blind eye to the problems brought about by the policy. President, all these can be attributed to the "unbeatable and indisputable theory"


on China-Hong Kong integration, which has given us only one choice of sacrificing ourselves for the overall interests. President, the Government should adhere to the need to "put Hong Kong people first" in formulating policies. Is there a need for the community as a whole to examine afresh the indisputable theory on China-Hong Kong integration? During all these year after the reunification, the community of Hong Kong has for a period of time seriously considered the approach we should adopt to develop our economy but the conclusions drawn were just blusters. If we get accustomed to the blessing of financial assistance from the north and make no attempt to make progress, the ones who will suffer ultimately are Hong Kong people. The economic development of Hong Kong will then come to a halt and our city will no longer be an international city but just one of the many small cities of China. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, it is only natural and proper for any society to put its citizens first. The Labour Party hence thinks that it is only natural and proper for our society to "put Hong Kong people first". However, "to put Hong Kong people first" does not mean that we will reject outsiders, or discriminate against and ostracize new immigrants, because we also consider new immigrants as Hong Kong people. There is now a feeling that new immigrants will turn Hong Kong into a place like the Mainland after their arrival. New immigrants are looked upon as modern-day colonial settlers. However, we do not think that way. We think that new immigrants all come to Hong Kong for family reunion. The daily quota of 150 persons under the One-Way Permit scheme is used mostly by children. After their arrival at Hong Kong, children will be brought up here, and they will thus imbibe Hong Kong people's core values, become Hong Kong people and embrace our diversified core values in the areas of democracy, freedom and culture. Therefore, we must not always think that Hong Kong as we know it will be changed by new immigrants. Rather, we should have confidence in Hong Kong people's values. We should believe that we will be able to change new immigrants arriving at Hong Kong, and convince them that the atmosphere of freedom in Hong Kong will make their continued stay here worthwhile. Actually, many new immigrant children have already grown up and become participants of the pro-democracy movement. For instance, the Committee of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic


3361

Movements of China now also comprises new immigrants from the Mainland, and so does the Hong Kong Federation of Students. These new immigrants have grown up and become members of our society. I must therefore make it clear that we must not treat all new immigrants coming to Hong Kong as outsiders. We must instead absorb them as members of our society. The Labour Party observes that discrimination is not uncommon, and many people think that new immigrants are all poor people who have come to Hong Kong for welfare benefits. I do not think that such a perception is fair. Everybody must realize that many of those who serve the public in restaurants, cafes and retail shops are new immigrants who want to stand on their own feet and fend for their children after coming to Hong Kong. Even if new immigrants stay home as housewives, they will still contribute to the well-being of Hong Kong, so they need not always work in society. They are also Hong Kong people. We therefore hope that people will not perceive new immigrants all as recipients of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) and find faults with them. Something often saddens me very much. Members should have heard many cases in which the CSSA for a child is used to support the living of himself and his mother, who is not a permanent resident of Hong Kong. Why can't we treat such children better? They may have encountered some sort of misfortunes, such as the death of their fathers, or the divorce of their parents. As a result, they must live in Hong Kong together with their mothers, who only hold two-way permits. There are many such cases in Hong Kong. We should care for them and help them grow up in Hong Kong, rather than rejecting them. Hence, regarding the part of Mr Gary FAN's motion on the CSSA, while the Labour Party thinks that a review could be carried out, we also have some reservation. We maintain that people should not think that all new immigrants will definitely apply for the CSSA. What are the reasons for our debate on this issue today? The reasons are the China-Hong Kong conflicts. I think LEUNG Chun-ying is the very culprit who has created such an atmosphere of rejection because he has failed to address two problems. First, LEUNG Chun-ying makes people think that he actually looks down upon Hong Kong in his heart. Why do I say so? I can remember that one year, when he was reading out his policy address, he told people that those who wanted to make big money should go back to the Mainland. He even cited the example of a young man who succeeded in making a fortune for himself


by operating a brewery in the Mainland. He seemed to be saying that there were no longer any opportunities in Hong Kong and our young people should all rely on the Mainland. With such a Chief Executive, what is Hong Kong going to do? If the situation continues, Hong Kong will be turned into another city in the Mainland. We used to perceive Hong Kong as a metropolis in possession of competitiveness. But it now looks like Hong Kong no longer has anything. I am convinced that Hong Kong people all have rich creativity and competitiveness. The only problem is the Chief Executive, who describes Hong Kong as good at nothing. Second, the Chief Executive's failure to formulate satisfactory policies has led to the deterioration of China-Hong Kong conflicts. One example is the power of vetting and approving One-Way Permit applications. Why can't Hong Kong have this power? We do support family reunion, but family reunion aside, will there be an influx of Mainland people who have worked in state enterprises for more than seven years? Will people come to Hong Kong using other excuses? Will "vote rigging" thus occur? Hong Kong people are full of such worries. Why can't Hong Kong take back the power of vetting and approval? Besides, he has also failed to solve the problems with formula milk and school places. If I live in the North District, I will also be very angry when I see the shortage of formula milk and school places. This is only normal because these problems directly affect our livelihood. Therefore, the Administration must formulate policies to resolve all such problems and stop the grievances of Hong Kong people. Finally, although only 10 seconds is left, I must still point out that the Government must not import any workers because this will affect the employment of local workers and increase the discontent of Hong Kong people. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, the Members present here ― including me ― were all born in the baby boom of 50 years ago. Our children are the new generation of youngsters who participate in the Umbrella Movement in an attempt to materialize genuine universal suffrage. The generation before us were the stateless refugees who fled the Communists in order to begin a new life in Hong Kong. They had no nationality, no passports and no BNO. The majority of people like us, who were born locally during the British colonial rule and chose to stay behind at the time of the reunification, would like


3363

to see a democratic reunification. We once hoped that the reunification would give us a new beginning, and that we could realize the goal of enabling Hong Kong people to really choose their political system under the Basic Law. Sadly, after the massacre in 1989, many people left one after another, and many of our relatives and friends all departed. Of course, some people like Robert CHOW have continued to stay in Hong Kong to reap various benefits with all the assurance of the right of abode in Britain. Some 30 years ago, I was a student at the University of Hong Kong (HKU). At that time, we personally experienced the confidence crisis triggered by the Sino-British negotiations. We saw that Hong Kong's system of linked exchange rate might collapse, and there were even worries of bank runs. At that time, the Hong Kong University Students' Union wrote to DENG Xiaoping, stating the hope of being given a guarantee of "one country, two systems". We also wrote to ZHAO Ziyang, and were given a positive reply. At that time, many people (including young people) all thought that there would be a democratic reunification. The "door shutting" package announced by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on 31 August, however, ruined all the previous undertakings, shattering our last remaining dream. That we must make the request of "putting Hong Kong people first" today is something very miserable. This very place was once our home, a place which, we hoped, would see its democratic reunification with the Mainland. But then, today, we must shout at the top of our voices in this Chamber, in a bid to safeguard Hong Kong people's basic rights and interests. Isn't this very ironic and miserable? Recently, a Hong Kong Deputy to the National People's Congress, Fanny LAW, who claims to be representing Hong Kong people, has remarked that because of their fear about the young people today, rather than the Communists, many Hong Kong people have decided to emigrate. Elsie LEUNG is even more outrageous, as she has wondered how they can have the confidence to hand over the governance of Hong Kong to the new generation 20 years later. Given the mentality of all these people, what will become of Hong Kong in the future? These people do not trust the young generation, or the new generation. Maybe, they are already used to being a lackey, so they want to train up a greater number of similar people who will only kowtow and keep kowtowing all the time. People who always say yes to the Central Authorities and people who treat all the decisions of the NPCSC as golden rules will be the very people whom they consider suitable for formally taking over the governance


of Hong Kong in the future. However, this will only make Hong Kong people hate the Central Authorities and the Communist Party even more. With an SAR Government dependent on the support of the Central Authorities, with a government like the present LEUNG Chun-ying administration which has lost all credibility, and with a government like the LEUNG Chun-ying administration dependent on the blind support of the Central Authorities, which totally disregard Hong Kong people's wishes, how can they possibly command people's support? Now, 17 years after the reunification, Hong Kong is no longer the Hong Kong we used to know. We were once proud of Hong Kong, but all the development of Hong Kong nowadays is already totally beyond Hong Kong people's influence or even control. The economic development strategies of Hong Kong must tie in with the country's overall economic development strategies. And, Hong Kong people have never been consulted, and it was only when the Central Authorities announced the new framework that we came to a sudden awakening. We have become an economy under the planning of others. We must keep launching "white elephant projects", spending tens of billions on constructing the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, and so on. Even when the common people, who are locally born and politically indifferent, want to receive education, they may still fail to get any school places. Members all know that "doubly non-permanent resident babies" have come to affect the North District. Many North District residents are grass-roots people who have moved their homes to the district due to the lower rents there. Yet, they are precisely the worst-hit. In respect of education, many young people want to receive tertiary education. But they all find to their dismay that 80% of our university places, especially postgraduate places, are taken up by students from the Mainland ― this is already the figure for the year before last. Young people often tell us that they simply cannot survive, and they do not even have any opportunities to receive education. In respect of One-Way Permits, we must review the whole policy. Some people argue that the policy of issuing One-Way Permits is very important because it can enable Mainland people to come to Hong Kong for family reunion. Yet, do the relevant statistics reflect such a picture? Members are all very familiar with Mr LAI Changxing, a Mainland person who made his fortune by smuggling. When we discuss family reunion … For reasons unknown, some 60


3365

of his family members were able to come to Hong Kong for "family reunion". We do not know how many of them are corrupt government officials, and how many of them have deposited their money in Hong Kong. If we do not have the power of vetting and approving One-Way Permit applications, if we cannot correct the Government's policy, so that Hong Kong people can feel that Hong Kong is still a livable place, there will be no prospects for Hong Kong. I so submit. Thank you, President. MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): President, this motion reminds me of a very familiar term ― protectionism. I have been engaged in the garment industry for more than four decades, and in some 30 years during this very period, I must deal with protectionism. From the 1950s and 1960s onwards, the textile and garment industries of Hong Kong started to develop rapidly, not only because of our fine quality but also because of our low prices. With the concept of boosting sales by making smaller profits, these industries managed to develop rapidly, in turn benefiting Hong Kong's economic development. At that time, our target markets were the most economically advanced countries in the world like Europe and the United States, whose financial strength and consumption power were the greatest. However, these countries held the view that our exports to them had dealt a blow to their textile and garment industries and affected the livelihood of their home workers. As a result, they resorted to protectionism, introducing various quota systems for imports of textiles, garments, and even underwear as well as shoes. Some Members here may be too young to know the origin of quotas, but I believe that they all know very well whether the protectionism of economically advanced countries can really protect their local textile and garment industries. As we all know, the answer is no. Basically, the textile and garment industries of European and North American countries were simply no match for their counterparts in developing countries. The introduction of protectionism not only deprived these countries of competitiveness but also victimized the broad masses of consumers, who must bear high goods prices as a result. Inflation also rose consequently. In the end, quota systems were phased out starting from some 10 years ago.


We may, on the other hand, look at what areas of development the largest two economic entities in the world have chosen over all these years. In fashion, they have been developing upmarket designer products and the small-scale manufacturing of high-end goods. Nowadays, Europe is still the capital of fashion design. Besides, automobiles and mobile phones, the two kinds of products which are now indispensable in our life, are yet better examples. The automobile industries of Europe and the United States and the mobile phones developed by Scandinavian countries were once market leaders. However, nowadays, China has already become the largest automobile manufacturing country in the world, and even smart phones are assembled in China. Are Europe and the United States still practising protectionism and trying to bar the entry of others nowadays? Protectionism cannot increase the competitiveness of the countries concerned, and it will even result in the rapid disappearance of their original advantages. This is the case with industries, with the job market, with the work of government, and even with educating children. Many Members here who are parents like to send their children abroad for education. They also encourage their children to have exchanges and take part in academic tours in foreign countries. Their aim is to enable their children to survive in different environments, emulate others' strengths and in turn upgrade their own competitiveness. Even European countries and the United States, which are all big economic entities possessing rich natural endowments and huge military strength, do not dare to shut their own doors. They do not dare to say that they are self-sufficient. They do not dare to prohibit the entry of foreigners. They do not dare to say that their crops and manufactured goods are for domestic consumption only. They do not dare to make their schools exclusive to local students, nor do they dare to reserve their medical equipment and drugs exclusively for their own citizens. It is fortunate that the Governments, legislatures, and people's elected representatives of these countries are not as myopic and narrow-minded as the mover and supporters of this motion on "putting Hong Kong people first" today. If the otherwise is the case, if tens of thousands of Hong Kong students are required to return to Hong Kong from overseas … Suppose there have never been such large numbers of elite students who have come back to make contributions to Hong Kong with the strengths they have learnt from others, would Hong Kong have been able to enjoy the kind of international reputation, social development and economic success before the Occupy Movement?


3367

I understand that the target of the motion today is chiefly Mainland China. But if the Mainland Government thinks likewise and shuts the door to Hong Kong, Hong Kong will have no more Dongjiang water, and no more non-staple foods and consumers from the Mainland. I believe that Hong Kong's population will then be reduced by half because there will occur food shortages and unemployment in Hong Kong. All of us do feel and understand that in a tiny place like Hong Kong, the sudden influx of some 100 000 people every day will indeed cause huge convenience. Yes, there is bound to be a shortage of school places when we need to provide education to an extra several dozen thousand children every year. Yes, the Government's financial burden and welfare expenditure are bound to increase when the number of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance applicants rises by several thousand per year. But all these are only caused by the failure of government policies to cope with the situation. Honestly, if we can all join hands to request the Government to adjust its policies and improve the existing measures, all these problems can be resolved. The issue of "doubly non-permanent resident babies" is a good example. Why should we be so narrow-minded and selfish as to put forward a policy of "putting Hong Kong people first" in total disregard for Hong Kong's overall well-being, simply for the sake of winning votes? This is definitely not a proposal conducive to Hong Kong people's well-being. I so submit. Thank you, President. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, the concept of "putting Hong Kong people first", which is meant to fight for rights and interests for the Hong Kong people, has gained the support of many members of the public, especially the youth. Outside the Legislative Council Complex at present, five young people are going on an infinite hunger strike to fight for the rights and interests to which the Hong Kong people are entitled. Over the years, especially after reunification of Hong Kong, the Chinese Communist Party has taken control of Hong Kong, and gradually perished and destroyed the Hong Kong that we know. I hereby call upon the young people who are now on hunger strike to take good care of their health. I also hope that they can succeed in fighting for their goals in their lifetime.


Thirty years ago when I first ran for the District Council election in 1985, I already indicated that I would fight for genuine universal suffrage. After 29 years, a genuine universal suffrage is still nowhere to be seen. I bless our next generation. I hope that they can succeed in fighting for the rights and interests to which we are entitled. We will continue to fully support the young people in the Hong Kong Federation of Students and the Scholarism who have lofty ideals and capacity, and who are so dedicated to this movement. In fact, the Hong Kong people should be proud of this group of young people, unlike the Secretaries who always see this group of young people as dreadful monsters. If we compare these young people with the red guards in the 1960s, we will know how brilliant this group of young people is. The mass media all over the world also highly commend these young people. However, the leader of Hong Kong has surprisingly mistreated this group of young people. He ordered the maniac police to beat up our young people. President, in the 2012 Legislative Council Election, the People Power already prepared a statement in the course of election. At that time, we said, "Hong Kong is different from the cities in the Mainland, because Hong Kong has freedom of speech and expression, academic freedom and freedom of information, as well as an independent judicial system. However, in the coming four years, the Hong Kong Communist regime will definitely destroy the above precious edges and Hong Kong will become one of the cities of the Mainland. In view of this, in the coming four years, we will try our best to undertake the following major work in order to safeguard the last piece of pure land of freedom in China ― Hong Kong." This is our statement in 2012. After two-odd years, the current situation has aggravated much quicker, more serious and brutal than our expectation then. The motion moved by Mr Gary FAN involves many areas, including immigration policy, education and social welfare. On the overall principle, the People Power is in support of "putting Hong Kong people first". Our Party Manifesto also states that we have to safeguard the core values of Hong Kong, the rights and interests of the Hong Kong people and this special place of Hong Kong. We have already seen at that time that the Chinese Government has adopted the mode of administering Xinjiang and Tibet in governing Hong Kong. Through immigration, tourism and economic control and invasion, it gradually destroyed the original Hong Kong. Hence, in regard to how to safeguard Hong Kong, we have put forward many proposals to the Government in the past, including formulating a population policy and an industrial policy which is in line


3369

with the characteristics of Hong Kong and local interests. We propose five major high value-added industries which can stimulate local employment opportunities in Hong Kong instead of relying on tourism and financial industries. We also suggest to the Government that it has to map out policy to maintain and support agricultural industry. This has also been practised in many places, including Singapore. We should produce 10% to 20% of our products locally, which include pigs, cattle, chickens and other agricultural products. However, the Government simply disregards all these, as the Government has to comply with the instructions of the Central Authority, and to comply with its policy to destroy Hong Kong. It has to develop Hong Kong into one of the Mainland cities and destroy the characteristics of Hong Kong. Therefore, we see that in various industries, the economy and in banking industry, they have been gradually controlled by Chinese capital. At present, the China State Construction Engineering Corporation has already become the largest construction company in Hong Kong. In the financial system, Mainland companies are also gradually replacing Hong Kong companies. Hence, Hong Kong is gradually walking towards destruction. The surviving ones are the education and social aspects, but we are not sure whether they can be safeguarded. In education, there is no Hong Kong student in the master or doctorate courses of certain faculties. In some departments, 100% of the students are from the Mainland. The People Power already raised this query years ago and asked the UGC to take heed of this question. As every faculty of individual universities wants to expand, it will thus be oblivious to safeguarding Hong Kong, and this has to be reprimanded. On principle and on direction, we are in support of Mr Gary FAN's motion. However, we have some questions concerning the contents of the immigration policy and social welfare in the motion. In the area of immigration, the People Power insists that Hong Kong should have 100% power to vet and approve the entry, including the One-Way Permit for immigration and tourism. In the social welfare aspect, we think that it is often difficult to implement the concept of "putting Hong Kong people first". For instance, in the membership of youth centres and services of the homes for the elderly, the level of contribution or the living conditions is always involved, and not necessarily determined by the identity of possessing the right of abode. Due to this reason, we will abstain from voting on the original motion.


MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, the original intent of Mr Gary FAN's motion as indicated by its wordings, to "put Hong Kong people first", is to try putting forth a number of thinking directions regarding China-Hong Kong conflicts that are troubling the Hong Kong society today. Dr Helena WONG of the Democratic Party proposes various technical amendments to the original motion accordingly, with a view to preventing the well-intentioned proposal which aims to "put Hong Kong people first" from turning into a policy which does harm to Hong Kong people in the event the motion get passed. For instance, Mr Gary FAN proposes to revise the Dongjiang water purchase agreement to an agreement for charges based on supply quantity. However, this proposal loses sight of Hong Kong people's need for a steady supply of water. Therefore, the Democratic Party suggests using the average water consumption of Hong Kong in the past five years as the benchmark for calculating the quantity of water supply. Charges will be levied according to the actual amount of water consumption in excess of the benchmark, just like the case of making charges on mobile phone data usage. About government projects, Mr Gary FAN proposes to stop conceiving "white elephant projects" for blindly pursuing the objective of integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland. But does this mean that Mr Gary FAN supports "white elephant projects" other than those for the integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland? Hence, the Democratic Party is going to propose amendments accordingly. After listening to Mr Gary FAN's speech, I find that he thinks all Mainlanders and new immigrants from the Mainland do not embrace Hong Kong people's core values such as democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law. I cannot readily agree with him on this particular point. This judgment is obviously an idealistic and subjective one which is not worth publicizing. Moreover, most of the new immigrants from the Mainland are minors, among whom the great majority is going to receive education in Hong Kong and eventually become the new generation which embraces Hong Kong's core values. Furthermore, we cannot overgeneralize and jump to the conclusion that Mainlanders do not embrace universal values such as democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law. Human rights activists in the Mainland are undaunted by the suppression from the Mainland Government and steadfastly hold on to universal values. Many compatriots in the Mainland also yearn for democracy and freedom. They exhaust all the "walk-a-tightrope" means to go online so as to pose dissident political views on social media websites or listen to the information broadcast from the free world with short-wave. A countless


3371

number of journalists in the Mainland insist to enlighten people at the risk of being corrected by the party committee. Where there is suppression, there is resistance. It is a basic instinct for humans to strive for freedom. The problem is that the communist regime in the Mainland is now hoodwinking and oppressing people, and the problem is that under the iron hoof of Communist China, people are suppressed one by one. The root of China-Hong Kong conflicts is that the two Governments are not facing squarely the unfair distribution of social resources which is resulted from social policies that slant towards big businessmen and consortia. As a matter of fact, unlike countries in Europe and America, the Hong Kong SAR Government does not lack resources. What we lack are effective and fair policies for resource distribution. Therefore, Hong Kong people who embrace universal values should not put the blame on the underprivileged or the new immigrants. Indeed, the great majority of lowly jobs in the Hong Kong society are taken up by new immigrants who at the same time work hard for social integration. Their next generation is going to learn from school the core values that are treasured by society. During the Umbrella Movement, many students and young people have fought hard for the next generation. I firmly believe that many of these Hong Kong people who have struggled for the next generation were themselves new immigrants from the Mainland. Viewing from this perspective, we are all the more obliged to devise and conceive ways to establish a fair social system which gives all new immigrants appropriate care and support whenever they need so that they can become the force driving the progress of Hong Kong as a whole. The injustice and unfairness of policies stem from the existing political system of the SAR. Very obviously, this system fails to provide a platform for various political forces to advance their views and policies or to present their policy intents to all Hong Kong people. But regrettably, the 31 August Decision made by Communist China has firmly shut all the doors, leaving a bleak future for the constitutional reform. We have to give this a thought: If the political system remains the same, how can China-Hong Kong conflicts that are faced by Hong Kong today be alleviated, and in what way can social inclusion be promoted? Therefore, in my opinion, the crux remains the fact that we must consider the direction of development in our political system, such that everybody in society can genuinely


grasp the future in his own hands. If this can be achieved, we can have hope for our future. President, I so submit. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, "to put Hong Kong people first" or "nativism" has been frequently mentioned in recent years. These terms or callings, on the one hand, show that the sense of belonging of Hong Kong people is enhancing. On the other hand, they reveal big problems in the distribution of resources. Hence we are obliged to prioritize the users of these resources. For example, the shortage of school places and formula powder, overcrowded public transport, replacement of small shops by sizable chain stores, and so on, are problems that the Government must address. I will focus on the education aspect and express my views as below. The first problem is the shortage of kindergarten and primary school places that has emerged in the North District and other districts near the border. In the North District, the parents of school children have to queue up overnight, rally and take to the street, only because they want to fight for a school place for their kids. I must point out that the shortage of school places is actually caused by the Government. In respect of the shortage in kindergarten and primary school places in the North District, why did the Government fail to anticipate the problem and resolve it in advance? Over the years, the Government has failed to made proper projections. It is not even clear about the proportion of the children born to single or doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women among all the cross-boundary school children. Moreover, what is the proportion of the school children who live in Shenzhen and whose parents are both Hong Kong people among these cross-boundary children? We do not know the answers to these questions. How can we make proper planning on school places in the absence of all these information and statistics? The number of babies born to Mainland women in Hong Kong (including the babies born to single or doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women) have surged from 19 538 in 2005 to the peak of 43 982 in 2011. The Education Bureau should have anticipated that this group of babies will generate huge demand for school places in Hong Kong. Nonetheless, the Government has not addressed this problem so far; it just repeatedly responded that overall school places are enough. In fact, adequate overall school places cannot ease the


3373

tensions in the demand for school places in certain districts caused by cross-boundary school children. The Secretary for Education, Mr Eddie NG, once said, "It is normal to see people lining up to obtain application forms. This is not a unique phenomenon found only in the North District". It was not until the issue was blown up that the Education Bureau made a respond and came up with various interim remedial measures. President, to tackle the shortfall of school places in the North District caused by the large number of cross-boundary school children, the Government must establish two major principles. Firstly, the Government must attend to the need for education services of both local and cross-boundary students. Secondly, the principle that students should be admitted to school in the vicinity of their residence must be adhered to. This is especially necessary for kindergarten kids to ensure that they do not have to travel a long way to school, during which accidents may happen. I always hold the view that for local students, the definition for vicinity of the student's residence should be assessed by walking time. The existing district school net has demonstrate this definition. For cross-boundary students who have to take transport, however, the definition of vicinity should be measured by the travelling time after crossing the border. The area may therefore slightly bigger than the existing district school net, but the travelling time of these students should be within a reasonable length. This is the concept of synchronizing the local district school net and cross-boundary school net that I have all along proposed. In that case, the Government can divert cross-boundary students to other districts within the specified area through a bigger cross-boundary school net. Regrettably, the Government has adopted only part of this proposal. Consequently, the allocation results for cross-boundary students now cover a very broad area, to the extent that it covers almost the entire New Territories, or even as far as Lantau Island. This has created another problem for cross-boundary students. The solution to the whole problem in fact hinges on whether we have adequate supply of school places. If we have, it is not necessary for us to differentiate the students by giving them higher or lower priority. We only need to provide differential treatment with reference to the residence of different students, or on a case by case basis. This kind of differential treatment,


however, should still be fair and able to satisfy the needs of different groups of students. In particular, local students living in the North District, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long should certainly be admitted to the schools in the district of their residence. In my opinion, this is very important. Meanwhile, we may also need to consider whether we should construct schools. As construction works take time, education planning should be conducted in advance and in time. The Government should make proper projection and planning, construct new school premises when necessary and review the existing allocation method to ensure that it can meet the education needs of local and cross-boundary students. If the allocation system fails to serve this purpose, I believe the conflicts between local students and cross-boundary students will persist. The problem of cross-boundary students' admission to kindergartens in Hong Kong has reduced in scale following the implementation of the cut-off policy, although the demand for primary school places is still very keen. Another issue that I am eager to talk about is teaching Chinese language in Putonghua. This issue has aroused fervent discussion in recent years. Some people oppose to teaching Chinese language in Putonghua on the ground that Putonghua and Cantonese are different in terms of superiority. Some people opine that teaching Chinese language in Putonghua is necessary because this approach can enhance students' identification of national identity and to some extent raise their Chinese language standards. On this issue, I think it is important for us to be practical and give weight to professional judgment. Teaching Chinese language in Putonghua is not a simple issue. We should leave it to the education professionals to study and discuss its advantage or drawback. It is not my wish to support or simply oppose to teaching Chinese language in Putonghua on any political ground. We should conduct study in a practical manner to prove whether teaching Chinese language in Putonghua is effective or not. Currently, most of the study reports we have read seem to indicate that teaching Chinese language in Putonghua is indeed not a very effective approach. Hence we should study this issue in a practical manner and decide whether teaching Chinese language in Putonghua should be implemented in Hong Kong. Nonetheless, there are individual schools claiming that teaching Chinese language in Putonghua has generated positive results in their schools. What are the complex of factors that lead to the success or failure of this teaching approach? I think we should make consideration in a practical manner, and


3375

most importantly, all these policies should be student-centred. Consequently, it is my wish that the education issue as a whole should be student-centred to avoid causing any division.(The buzzer sounded) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Should we want to complete this motion debate in this Council today, it is impossible to have the meeting adjourned before 1.30 pm. I therefore will adjourn the meeting after Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's speech, and this motion debate will resume in the next meeting. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please speak. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, People Power has all along been supporting the policy of "putting Hong Kong people first". We are among the first ones who propose the imposition of a land departure tax and the restriction of non-local pregnant women whose spouses were not permanent residents of Hong Kong for delivery in Hong Kong. We also support the restriction on formula powder as well as the implementation of buyer's stamp duty. In fact, these measures comprise no xenophobic or discriminative elements. As the supplies of land and resources are limited, we cannot allow Mainlanders and foreigners, that is, non-local residents, to come to Hong Kong without any restriction and to scramble for the resources meant for Hong Kong people only. We propose the imposition of the land departure tax with the original intention to alleviate the already crowded living environment in Hong Kong, minimize the pressure among residents and visitors and create a win-win situation for all. This is one of the ways to minimize China-Hong Kong conflicts. However, what did LEUNG Chun-ying say at that time? He said that people with such ideas were conceited before getting rich. Actually, he was the one who provoked Hong Kong people and created China-Hong Kong conflicts. People Power has drafted a paper on its expectations for the 2015 Policy Address. Its title is "Civil nomination, immediate universal suffrage, eliminate poverty, improve the environment, formulate the population policy in the interest of the local people." In reality, has Hong Kong put in place a population policy? The two-year term of the Steering Committee on Population Policy led by Mrs Carrie LAM has expired, but what is their population policy? Nobody


knows. Now she says that the population policy study completed by the steering committee would be adopted by the 2015 Policy Address. However, in an interview exclusive to Hong Kong Economic Times, LEUNG Chun-ying unveiled his population policy. He said, "Hong Kong sees a shortage of land and talented people, and therefore the Government will launch a more relaxed policy on the entry of immigrants with a view to attracting talented people to come and stay in Hong Kong." We do not know how he will relax the immigration policy, but on the other hand he said, "As youths consider themselves lacking the opportunities for upward mobility in Hong Kong, they should look at places other than Hong Kong, such as going to the Mainland for career development." What was he trying to do? Actually he was saying that if people did not like Hong Kong or him, or if they were not satisfied with Hong Kong, they should leave and move to other places, be it Mainland or overseas countries. Talented people who favoured the LEUNG Chun-ying regime should come to Hong Kong, as he would grant them preferential treatments. Is that a conflict? What does LEUNG Chun-ying want to do? A total change of blood? Does he mean that those against him should leave and those who like him should come to Hong Kong? Is he really treating Hong Kong as his own residence? What should in fact be included in a population policy? We think that a population policy should essentially encourage local people to have children, with a view to supplementing the increasing shortage of manpower and resolving the ageing population problem. However, President, the prerequisite is that the Administration should formulate a social policy which protects the rights and interests of Hong Kong people, including the implementation of the "double universal suffrage", thereby creating the atmosphere for people to give birth to new lives. At present, many people do not want to have children, saying that they do not want their children to become hostages trussed up by LEUNG Chun-ying. Moreover, a population policy should also include measures to cope with the mobility of population, immigrants, imported workers and tourism, and so on. We should take back the authority for vetting and approving One-Way Permits so that Hong Kong may have full control on the approval of the entry of immigrants from the Mainland, thereby preventing this authority from becoming a tool for Mainland officials to extort Mainland residents. This can also solve the problem


3377

of different approval and vetting standards adopted by various provincial or municipal governments on the Mainland. Hong Kong can even control the number of Mainlanders settling in Hong Kong or the number of Mainland tourists in the light of Hong Kong's actual situation. This can ensure that the interests and rights of Hong Kong residents will not be undermined by the large-scale influx of Mainlanders. In fact, a controversy has been aroused by the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal earlier, which stipulates that people residing in Hong Kong for up to one year are eligible for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), instead of the previous seven-year residence requirement. I believe that even those Hong Kong people who oppose the decision are not so selfish as to the extent that they will refuse to save a person who is dying, which means that even if you are in trouble, I am not going to give you a helping hand since you do not meet the seven-year residence requirement. Hong Kong people are just concerned about the distribution of resources. They are concerned that Hong Kong people may have no say on the matter of Mainlanders emigrating to Hong Kong and cannot say no to such policy. For that reason, as long as Hong Kong can take back the authority to approve the entry of Mainlanders, the year of residence of CSSA applicants, I believe, is not the major controversy. As the Under Secretary for Education is present today, I wish to talk about education, too. I support that Hong Kong people should learn Putonghua. I have also attended special course and passed the Putonghua proficiency test held by the State Language Affairs Commission in Beijing. We are opposing the use of Putonghua as a medium in Chinese language teaching. Nevertheless, I am not going to tell him its advantage. Instead, I will speak on its major deficiency. The use of Putonghua as a medium in Chinese language teaching will drastically decrease the chance for Hong Kong people to learn Cantonese. Frankly speaking, over the past decades, the Hong Kong Government has not taught Hong Kong people to learn Cantonese properly. I am not quite satisfied about the Cantonese spoken by a lot of Hong Kong students, teachers or even law makers. President, just now you have not pointed out Members' mistakes for correction when they made incorrect pronunciations or used wrong words. Now let me point out their mistakes for correction. Just now when Mr TANG Ka-piu was delivering his speech, he wanted to say the Chinese term "核心 (nucleus)", but he thought that "wat6" was the only correct pronunciation. But the fact is that this word is only pronounced as "wat6" in the case to describe pits of fruits,


otherwise it will be pronounced as "hat6". Actually, it has different pronunciations in Putonghua. For fruit pits, it is pronounced as "hú", for nucleus, it is pronounced as "hé". In fact, Hong Kong people should learn how to speak Cantonese correctly. They not only pronounce incorrectly but also tend to make certain relaxed pronunciations. In the meantime, we used to concern about the Europeanization of Chinese but we are more concerned about the Mainlandization of our Chinese writing now. Who is good at Mainlandized diction? LEUNG Chun-ying is an expert. He would keep on saying "優化 (optimize)", "方方面面 (in all bearings)", "亮點 (bright points)" and "難點 (difficult point)", and so on, while we have been using "改善 (improve)", "各方面 (every aspect)" all along. Why should we change to use Mainland dictions? This will jeopardize Hong Kong's original Chinese language. Therefore, I beg the Education Bureau to consider the matter seriously and spend more time on it so as to allow the children, or even the teachers, in Hong Kong to learn proper Cantonese. Only after they have done so may they go on to learn Putonghua or Taiwanese (Southern Min dialect. I don't care what language they will learn later on. But Hong Kong people's Cantonese is just like something half-bucket full. They cannot even pronounce correctly their names or surnames as some pronounce "麥 (mak6)" as "mat6", "郭 (gwok3)" as "gok3". They do not know how to pronounce these words correctly. President, that being the case, how can they use Putonghua as a medium to teach Chinese Language? NEXT MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on Wednesday 10 December 2014. Adjourned accordingly at 12.55 pm.

Documents

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Friday, 5 December …official record of proceedings friday, 5 december 2014 the council continued to meet at nine o'clock members present: the president