MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): I speak on Amendment No 676 proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man. Mr WONG seeks to reduce $6.2 million of the expenditure in respect of “Head 140 ― Government Secretariat: Food and Health Bureau (Health Branch)”. The amount is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for conducting public consultation on the Health Protection Scheme (HPS) by the Food and Health Bureau. The Government has been studying this scheme for years. Unfortunately, the changes made by the Food and Health Bureau have shattered the original HPS. It is now a “bogus” HPS with much less benefit for the public. If the Food and Health Bureau tried to forge ahead such “bogus” HPS, I believe neither the Legislative Council nor members of the public would support it. Therefore, Mr WONG Yuk-man has based on facts to propose this amendment. To help the public distinguish between the “genuine” HPS and the “bogus” HPS, I am going to explain their differences today.
The original version of the HPS is based on the Government’s report on the results of the consultation. What I am saying now is mostly excerpted from this document. The scheme has three main objectives. The first is to facilitate the adoption of packaged services and charging on the basis of Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) in the private healthcare market. The advantage of packaged services and charging is that it can effectively address concerns about rising medical costs in the private sector, uncertainty over payment beforehand, and the lack of transparency in pricing. The second is to establish a regulatory framework for the HPS, optimize the existing health insurance system and prescribe some standardized items. The merits are obvious as consumer protection would definitely be strengthened and the HPS would certainly be optimized. However, the demerit is that the products would become more expensive. The third is to provide subsidies amounting to $50 billion to serve as financial incentives under the HPS and support the healthcare reform. It includes the provision of a high-risk pool, discount for first-time subscribers, premium rebate for long-time subscribers after age 65, and tax rebate on insurance premium.
As Members can see, the objectives of the original HPS are very clear. It is to the interest of consumers. The introduction of DRG packaged charging can put the inflation of medical costs on check and enhance transparency, and thus lead to better policy design and protection for consumers. Yet, with so many advantages, the premium levels of the original HPS would certainly be higher. To ensure that members of the public can afford the new premiums, $50 billion will be earmarked for offering discounts to first-time or long-time subscribers, so as to attract young and healthy people to join the scheme and achieve risk sharing.
Let me now talk about the “bogus” HPS on which the Government will soon launch a public consultation …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please state again which amendment you are talking about now.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): The amendment proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): What number is this amendment?
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Amendment No 676. This amendment is related to cutting the annual estimated expenditure for conducting public consultation on the HPS. The amount involved is $6.2 million. The amendment is numbered 676 concerning head 140.
Let me further talk about the problems of the existing HPS, on which the Government will soon launch a public consultation. First, the consultants hired by the Government have indicated that the necessary mechanism is not yet in place to underpin a standardized DRG classification system. That means DRG classification will not be implemented. It will do a huge disservice to the public, as the inflation of medical costs cannot be controlled and the transparency of pricing in the private healthcare sector cannot be enhanced. In our opinion, the Government should not let the private healthcare sector get away with their duty easily by skipping the most important work, that is, improving the existing fees charged by private hospitals.
Second, as for devising the major insured items of the HPS, the Government has made adequate efforts on this front. The insurance industry has spent years actively negotiating with the Government and tried hard to conform to the 12 requirements of the HPS. Unfortunately, the Government does not express gratitude but go tougher instead. All health insurance policies available in the market are suddenly required to meet the 12 minimum requirements. Simply put, only expensive insurance policies will be available in the future. No inexpensive insurance policies will be available. It will stifle consumer choice.
Third, the $50 billion set aside for relieving the public’s financial burden in joining the HPS and for providing financial incentives is completely cancelled, leaving only $4 billion or so for the high-risk pool. The most welcomed and useful proposals, such as offering discount for first-time and long-time subscribers, are all gone. Only tax rebate is still provided. As a result, it fails to attract young and healthy people to take out health insurance policies. This will surely be more unfavorable to the public.
As Members can see, the Food and Health Bureau will no longer introduce DRG packaged charging. Our hope to control the inflation of medical costs is dashed and transparency cannot be enhanced either. In fact, if the Food and Health Bureau really wants to introduce DRG packaged charging, there is still time to do so, as we still have two to three years to go before 2016 or 2017. Besides, the more co-operative the insurance industry is, the more it will be suppressed. To safeguard the HPS, the Government even prohibits members of the industry from selling relatively inexpensive plans. It is infringing on the free market and depriving the public of their choices. Therefore, it is unfavorable to the public.
As Members can see, the “bogus” HPS, as compared with the original HPS, has much less benefit for the public. It would only trigger more people to turn to public hospitals. Therefore, the “bogus” HPS is not worth supporting. Nevertheless, if we simply call off this study and consultation, which has taken nine years, there will not be any discussion on healthcare financing in Hong Kong in the next decade. As I have been involved in studies on healthcare financing since 2005, I clearly understand this point. Therefore, I would not easily vote down the consultation. However, I earnestly hope that the Food and Health Bureau will turn back before it is too late to adopt the original version of the scheme for consultation, as that version is more beneficial to the public. In that way, it will truly benefit consumers. I thus oppose Mr WONG Yuk-man’s amendment. Thank you, Chairman.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Chairman, again some Members have proposed more than 1 000 amendments in respect of the Budget this year. Most of these amendments are made with a view to delaying the meetings, which is tantamount to paralysing this Council, and causing trouble to the Government by preventing it from getting the Budget passed on time. In the name of fighting against the Government for the rights of the people, these Members are actually working for their own interest with an intention to catch the limelight and make more political capital out of the filibuster. I really hope that members of the public will not be misled.
Regarding the present filibuster, some Members have made it very clear that they are pressing the Government to either implement a universal retirement protection or make cash handouts of $10,000 to each resident. They therefore try every means to stop the passage of the Bill. They think that they can stand on the moral high ground. However, they should not consider the public as fools. It will never be accepted by the Government if people try to attain their goal by improper means, no matter how virtuous and ambitious the target is. In fact, filibuster is by nature similar to hostage-taking actions. They are now holding the Government to ransom. If the Government does not comply with their demands …
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I wish to raise a point of order.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): What is the point of order you wish to raise?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Government officials should respond only after a Member has made his or her speech. Why does he respond now?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): To my knowledge, a former Member of this Council previously working with Mr CHAN Kin-por has now become a government official, but Mr CHAN Kin-por himself is not a government official.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am sorry. He is not a government official, is he?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am sorry. He sounds like a government official.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): As it is getting late, I am sorry that I have got it wrong.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): … filibuster is by nature similar to hostage-taking actions. They are actually holding the Government to ransom. If the Government does not comply with their demands, it will be unable to pay the civil servants and support the disadvantaged with the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance. Worse still, it seems that the other Members in this Council have been taken hostages as well. They are forced to sit here and take part in such meaningless meetings while they are well aware that this indeed facilitates the show performance of the filibustering Members. However, meetings will be aborted if they are absent, thereby further extending the filibuster and the future meetings. At the end, all the Members have chosen to honour their responsibilities and involuntarily stay here to participate in the meetings.
The filibustering Members are actually manipulating the parliamentary mechanism to hijack the society and politicians. Frankly speaking, it is not possible for the Government to accept their demands in the face of such radical challenges, otherwise this will set a precedent inviting future requests for efforts or resources from the Government by means of different radical behaviors and even a breach of public peace. By then, Hong Kong will enjoy no peaceful days.
As I have mentioned earlier on, they should work through the proper ways instead of resorting to some unorthodox means to get things done, no matter how ambitious their goal is. If the filibustering Members have any great ideas about the universal retirement protection regime, they can recommend it to this Council and the society in an open manner and seek support from the public. If their plan is really good, both the Government and the major political parties cannot just turn a blind eye to it. However, there are many problems with the plan they put forward, such as increasing burden to the society in the long run. Being responsible, the Government must therefore conduct thorough study about the plan. The filibustering Members then initiate their hijacking movement against the Government.
In my opinion, a comprehensive retirement protection system should be a multi-tiered regime supported by several pillars, which may include a government-subsidized retirement scheme. Resources must be used to help people who are most in need, and therefore there must be asset tests for the regime to ensure that we can effectively use the limited resources and allocate the largest portion to the people in need. On the other hand, resources are shared among everyone under a universal retirement protection scheme. Distribution among more people means a smaller per-person share one can have. This is not sufficient to support the living of those people in need.
Let us come back to the issue of filibuster. The filibustering Members like to spread their false ideas. For example, they say that the pro-establishment Members should be held responsible whenever a quorum is not present in a meeting. Indeed, as far as a Member is paid, he or she has the duty to participate in the meetings of this Council. Members from both the pro-establishment and pan-democratic camps bear the same responsibility if meetings are aborted due to their absence. The chairs are all empty at the moment …
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please wait for a while. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): A point of order. I would like to help Mr CHAN Kin-por. He is so unhappy about the small number of participants here. I would like to invite more people to return and listen to the speech made by him, the Secretary.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kin-por, please continue.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I cannot hear your words “request a headcount”.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): You are right. All I have just spoken were nonsense. Now I request a headcount, requesting the Members to come back and listen to the speech of “Secretary CHAN Kin-por”.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please refrain from speaking nonsense.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): No problem. I did speak nonsense …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kin-por, please continue.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Let us come back to the issue of filibustering. The filibustering Members are spreading false ideas. They say that the pro-establishment Members should be held responsible whenever a quorum is not present in a meeting. Indeed, so long as a Member is paid, he or she has the duty to participate in the meetings of this Council. If meetings are aborted due to the absence of any Member, all Members, no matter whether they are from the pro-establishment or the pan-democratic camp, should be held responsible.
Nevertheless, the ultimate responsibility should of course be borne by those Members who request a headcount and step away. This is completely irresponsible, which is tantamount to “a thief crying thief”. Last time when the meeting was aborted, it was clear that Mr WONG Kwok-hing was able to return to the Chamber on time. “Long Hair” stepped away himself but shifting his responsibility for causing abortion of the meeting onto Mr WONG Kwok-hing by saying that Mr WONG Kwok-hing was away to have a coffee at that time. By fair means or foul, he is doing enormous injustice to others in an unscrupulous manner.
Another false idea …
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up again)
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, obviously he is not speaking the truth.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I hope he can take his words back. Obviously, he is not speaking the truth. I said Mr WONG Kwok-hing had been away to have milk tea instead of coffee. How did your assistants do their work, Buddy?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Milk tea and coffee …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It had better be “Yuanyang” (half coffee and half milk tea).
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you must sit down, otherwise you will contravene the Rules of Procedure (RoP). As Members are aware, there is no stipulation in the RoP that Members must speak the truth when giving their speeches.
Mr CHAN Kin-por, please continue.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Thank you, Chairman. “Long Hair” stepped away himself but shifting his responsibility for causing abortion of the meeting onto Mr WONG Kwok-hing by saying that Mr WONG Kwok-hing was away to have a coffee at that time. May I correct myself, it should be milk tea. By fair means or foul, he is doing enormous injustice to others in an unscrupulous manner.
Another false idea is that they blame certain officials for doing a poor job and propose deducting the salaries of these officials. It sounds as if the Government need not care about the employment contract terms and is free to deduct any amount from the salaries. This is just ridiculous. Based on such kind of logic, many Members might be rendered unpaid because every single dollar of their salaries would have been deducted. The filibustering Members have been portraying themselves as so smart and sacrificing. If this is the case, they should first deduct their own salaries in order to show a good example to the public.
(There was a voice of someone who mentioned agreement)
As for the third false idea, they have been portraying themselves as the persons who have already pointed out a lot of problems with the Government. Those problems are all the Government’s fault. For example, they say that the Government has been unwilling to make public the number of stray dogs being euthanized, not until they asked about it in their thousands of questions. In fact, the Government has made public the relevant numbers several times in the recent years. The topic has been covered by the press as well, and the information has also been set out in the Legislative Council papers and questions. We have also had debate over the relevant issues in this Council. How can they say that it has never been publicized? I am afraid that even these Members themselves will believe it to be true when slamming the Government over and again. They are completely irresponsible to make such contradictory, extreme, unreal and nitpicking criticism which is definitely unfair to the Civil Service.
It is very saddening as many Members in this Council have become apathetic to such unjust behavior under the effect of the “slow-boiled frog story” over the years. I understand that Members are all ordinary people. People tend to fear the strong but bully the weak. This is understandable. In fact, anyone who dare make any negative comment on them will become their target for revenge. It is quite frightening as they will keep requesting headcounts, scolding and maddening in order to vent their anger. However, if we are afraid of such attacks by the bad guys and remain silent for the sake of keeping out of the disputes, we are encouraging the improper behaviors in this Council. This will only result in a worsening situation which will adversely affect the society.
Lastly, I must talk about the issue of cutting off the filibuster. Amendment to the RoP will be the most proper means after all. Some pan-democratic Members consider that filibuster itself is a nuclear bomb. It is dangerous but powerful. We should keep it until we come to those subjects of material significance, such as the legislative procedures regarding Article 23. However, it is a pity that some Members have been playing around it several times a year, rendering the nuclear bomb a detestable weapon. I wish to let the pan-democratic Members know that filibuster has been adversely affecting the operation of the Finance Committee, Public Works Subcommittee and the other Panels. The current rules were made year ago, and regulations can only deter good people, rather than bad elements. The RoP is no longer effective, and this Council has been debased into the playground of a small number of people. Members of the public are fed up with this. Therefore, the pan-democratic Members are indeed far too naïve and simple-minded if they just turn a blind eye to the problem and do not bother to take any action because they believe that the filibustering Members will come back to the reality some day when they have played enough with this. The pan-democratic camp will disappoint the public and definitely lose their votes.
I think we must review the RoP and propose a comprehensive mechanism for cutting off filibusters. It will surely arouse huge controversy in the process to establish the mechanism, and we will need a long time for discussion. However, there are still something which can be done expeditiously, including changing the way to do the headcount, clarifying the number of extempore motions to be moved and so on, so as to prevent the filibustering Members from manipulating the system as far as possible even if they do resort to filibustering. I hope that the pan-democratic Members can consider this carefully.
I so submit.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I will not be trapped by “Long Hair” and help him in the filibuster. When I pointed out the wrongdoings of those filibusterers, I already expected that they would retaliate. But I hope they will understand that the speech I gave just now, which I have spent five to six hours to draft, is truly from the bottom of my heart.
As what I said just now ― you may also read from my script ― anyone who denounces them will be frenetically attacked by them afterwards. They will indiscriminately request a headcount in order to vent out their anger. Just now “Long Hair” has demonstrated this. Nonetheless, to save our time, I would like to make a short declaration only: I am not as cunning, fierce and bad-tempered as “Long Hair”.
To me, what he says does not matter much because it is mostly nonsense. I believe the public can judge by themselves. I may also ask him to “back off”!