MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, before stating whether I support these 69 heads standing part of the Schedule, I think we should sum up the way in which the Appropriation Bill 2014 is now handled.
The results of filibustering are predictable actually. The filibustering Members sounded great when they claimed that they were fighting for universal retirement protection. In fact, we all know that universal retirement protection is a really implicated issue that requires enormous social resources in the long run. The Government has also commissioned a comprehensive study by Prof Nelson CHOW. The issue entails in-depth discussions and filibustering or shouting slogans cannot change the policies and procedures. It would be even more astonishing for the Government to give in so easily. Moreover, the filibustering Members know very well that they are just enjoying the limelight under the pretext of fighting for universal retirement protection.
After the President had decided to “cut off the filibuster”, “Long Hair” with the crying face apologized that he could not fight for universal retirement protection for the elderly through filibustering. This fully demonstrated how hypocritical he was. We can more or less assert that he would filibuster again in the Budget debate next year and he would also tender apologies then. He simply considered Hong Kong people as fools. Some Members are really addicted to filibustering. They are even filibustering when we discuss the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau; this sufficiently proves that they regard exposure as the most important thing and they can brush public interests aside.
“Long Hair” is the one who was lost in his own “hypocritical rhetoric”. His remarks contain some key points such as “trying his best to subdue others” and half-truths. What is meant by “half-truths”? He focused on the parts but not the whole, mixing up truths and lies and even making non remarks; this is amazing …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I remind Members once again that we are having a debate on the sums for 69 heads standing part of the Schedule. If Members have views on the filibuster, it is more appropriate for them to express them in the next joint debate. If Members speak not on the question of the sums for 69 heads standing part of the Schedule, they have digressed from the subject of this joint debate.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): I thank the Deputy Chairman for the reminder. I would only discuss in the next debate the problems with the procedures of examining the Appropriation Bill 2014.
Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Chairman, before I indicate whether or not I support the entire sum of appropriation, I think we should sum up the manner in which this Council has been dealing with the Appropriation Bill. I think Members can predict what will be the result of filibustering. Members who engaged in filibustering said that they wanted to strive for universal retirement protection. This sounds grand enough. But we all know that retirement protection is a very complicated issue and it involves long-term and enormous resources in society. The Government has commissioned Prof Nelson CHOW to carry out a comprehensive study on it and there is a need for society to hold in-depth discussions. One can never expect this government procedure to change just because of the filibuster or the chanting of certain slogans. I think the problem would be significant indeed if the Government should succumb so easily. Actually, those Members who engaged in filibustering know this very well, only that they wanted to place themselves in the limelight by bringing up this issue of retirement protection.
After the President had decided to cut off the filibuster, “Long Hair” came out and apologized to the people with a sad look on his face. He said that he was sorry for not being able to fight for universal retirement protection for the elderly. This fully demonstrates his hypocrisy. We are almost certain that he will filibuster in next year’s deliberations on the budget and he will tender apologies again. He is treating the people of Hong Kong as if they are fools. He is almost addicted to filibustering. This is like the case now when he wants to filibuster and block the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau which has great benefits to the people of Hong Kong. It proves that what he pursues is the limelight, which is so important to him that the interest of the people can be put aside.
“Long Hair” is a person lost in his own “hypocritical rhetoric”. There are a number of features in his comments. He smears and badmouths and he talks in half-truths. That is to say, he only gives half of the truth and mixes up the true with the false. He even goes to the extreme of talking nonsense. How amazing. In this meeting when Members filibuster, if only we care to listen to his remarks, we can find a lot of such examples.
For example, in the meeting on 22 May, he said that I came to the assistance of the Government in scolding him for I wanted to fight for permission from the Government to allow the insurance sector to launch high-risk structural products. I think only people of a standard like that of “Long Hair’s” can have thought this way. Because if we are for the good of the sector, how would we want to ask the Government to permit the sale of toxic products? It is only by selling products which the people need and those with actual benefits that the sector can grow and thrive. My position on this is clear enough. I want the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance to crack down on undesirable products so that no damage will be done to the reputation of the sector.
“Long Hair” is a man who can speak with eloquence but not with morals. Previously when I spoke, I had criticized “Long Hair” for his filibustering. My remarks did not sound pleasing, but they were all based on facts. I hope he can listen to different opinions. He always scolds people and the people he scolds are those officials, Members of this Council and even those Members from the pan-democratic camp. I can see that most people are just bearing with his remarks in silence. This makes him think that he is most awesome. But he does not know the importance of reflecting on his acts. Now he is asserting simplistically that his critiques are all motivated by interest considerations. He thinks that he can cheat the people this way. But he is only cheating himself. And this is a classic example of reckless smearing.
Another example is that in the meeting on 7 May, he said that when LEUNG Chun-ying was the Chief Executive designate, he had visited New Zealand, Chile and Brazil during the period from 9 April to 18 April 2012. At that time “Long Hair” queried what kind of business did Hong Kong have with these countries and he suspected that LEUNG Chun-ying was making use of his status as the Chief Executive designate to go to these places and do business for himself. So he wanted to cut LEUNG’s expenses for duty visits. But at that time LEUNG Chun-ying had just won in the Chief Executive election, how could it be possible for him to go on these long-haul trips in this capacity? Information shows that at that time the Chief Executive was on an official trip, but the Chief Executive in question was former Chief Executive Donald TSANG, not LEUNG Chun-ying. This is a classic example of what I mean by half-truth regarding “Long Hair”. I wish to declare first that this is a piece of information I have collected myself. For if not, there may be people who will smear me and say that I have been given this piece of information by someone.
Also, “Long Hair” said that I was not in the insurance sector. But the fact is, before I became a Member of this Council, I had been in charge of the management of an insurance company for more than 15 years. Moreover, I was also the Chairman of the Chinese Insurance Association of Hong Kong and the Chairman of the Hong Kong Federation of Insurers. It really baffled me when he said that I was not in the insurance business. Of course, I am not actually in the insurance business now because I am a Member of this Council. I think I have the responsibility to tell the public that such absurdities are found in this Council.
“Long Hair” said that I know nothing about universal retirement protection. I just want to tell a fact to Members, that in 2009 the Alliance for Universal Pension organized the first social forum on universal retirement protection and I was one of the guest speakers. Here is a photo taken at that time and Members can take a look at it. I did take part in 2009. Then in 2011, I was also one of the speakers. Members can imagine how much I know about universal retirement protection. What I am against is not the question of whether or not universal retirement protection should be introduced, but I detest someone making use of this issue of universal retirement protection to put up a show. I am only one of the persons criticized by “Long Hair” in the speeches he made on the amendments. But my experience is good enough to show that his speeches are fraught with problems. I am sure that the criticisms he made of other people and also of government departments were likewise fraught with problems. Unfortunately, the Government chose not to make any response direct.
I wish to talk about a related issue and I will do so in the form of telling a story.
Members can take a look here. There is this village called “Hong Village”. Two representatives are elected from this “Hong Village” and they are tasked with guarding the wealth and interest of the people there. If Members can take a careful look, they will find that on the vests they wear, one of them has got the word “pro” as in “pro-establishment” and the other has got the word “pan” as in “pan-democratic”. They are guarding the barn in which grain is stored. They are very happy because they are elected. One is shouting, “I have won.” And the other is shouting, “Thank you for your support.”
Soon someone comes to steal the grain. “Pan” says, “Let him go. It only happens once in a while and there is no need to get excited about it.” But we can see that the rice in the barn is slowly disappearing. And so “Pro” says to “Pan”, “The thief comes here to steal so often and I think we have to think of some ways to guard against thieves. I suggest that we can co-operate. This is because it is only when we co-operate that it can be effective.” But “Pan” says, “I do not support any theft, but I will not object to it either.” I think Members can imagine what will happen later. Soon all the rice in the barn is gone. The thief who stole the rice is very happy. He has taken all the rice. But you can see that “Pro” is not happy. As to what “Pan” will think, I still have no idea. I think it would be easy for Members to imagine what will happen in the end. I can show you what happens in the end. It is, all the things in the barn are gone. That means, all the interests of the people in that village are gone as well. So the people in the village are all unhappy. People from the pro-establishment camp are scolded by other people. You can take a closer look. A person is flying in the sky. Who is it? The villagers say that they have really chosen the wrong person and he has not done anything at all. I therefore hope that Members can really do something.
Earlier on some people said that their speeches were so well-prepared and sensible. And when there was no response from the Government, it was like a tacit admission. I think it has really shown the weakness in the mindset of the pro-establishment camp and that of the Government. Both of them did not want to point out the absurdities of the filibustering Members. They were afraid that those Members will make use of the occasion to condemn them, making the filibustering an endless show. But this view had only fallen into the trap of the filibustering Members.
We should know that filibustering these days is always evolving and the pro-establishment camp, the Government as well as the pan-democratic camp will all have to ponder over two points. First, what can be done to make the people see the real damage done to Hong Kong by filibustering, how it has forestalled the development of Hong Kong and wasted so much time on discussing things that cannot really propel the development of Hong Kong? I am a Member from the business sector and in the business sector, it is a sin to waste time. At the end of the day, filibustering will cause losses to Hong Kong, even though it may bring a fleeting moment of pleasure to those filibustering Members. The damage done to Hong Kong by filibustering will have to be seen 10 years from now. Second, what can be done to amend the Rules of Procedure so that this filibustering which does not seem to end will not happen and will no longer get Hong Kong stuck in an impasse?
Moreover, I would like to point out that this filibustering a la Hong Kong has caused a fundamental change to filibustering. In foreign countries, filibustering is accepted. But in Hong Kong, the nature of filibustering has changed. It has become a tool to catch the limelight for certain people. So despite the fact that filibustering can be so organized and well-prepared, by nature it is no more that an act which disrupts the Council and hence should not be supported and encouraged. This is just like theft. Regardless of whether theft can be so organized, sophisticated and intelligent, I am sure no one will encourage such an act.
I would therefore think that for those well-known figures in society, when they comment on acts of filibuster a la Hong Kong, they should watch out in order not to cause themselves to be misread or misinterpreted as supporting filibustering. This would be most unfortunate and it will lead public opinion to go in the wrong direction.
“Long Hair” may come back later. If the Chairman should allow him to speak again, he will certainly bombard me and make his remarks as nasty as possible. Actually, if I am to have a debate with “Long Hair”, I think I am bound to lose. This is because he likes to make arbitrary remarks, invent things out of nothing, go about engaging in reckless smearing and talking half-truths, confusing one thing with another, slipping in straw arguments, rambling and sidetracking and making sweeping assertions. He is an expert in all of these things. Anyone who has morals and who debates with him will certainly lose. This is why I will never argue with him. But I trust the wisdom and judgment of Members and I am sure Members can tell which is true and which is false in the things he says.
Chairman, I so submit.