MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): The controversy arising from the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2019 this time around is due to the fact that the House Committee needs to have its Chairman elected for the new session before it can deal with its normal work. The agenda is actually very simple as there is only one item, and that is, the election of the Chairman. Yet the House Committee has spent three months, a total of 24 hours to convene 12 meetings, but so far no one can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Recently, it is said that six more joint debates would be conducted before it would proceed with the election procedure. For that reason, it is estimated that the chance of electing the Chairman in the coming months is rather slim, and it is very unlikely that the House Committee can resume its normal operation in the near future.
I consider that the chair of the House Committee meetings for Chairman election has made two major mistakes: First, he allowed unlimited speaking time. Now Mr Dennis KWOK has just returned to the Chamber. Very good, he can focus his mind on my speech. Last time another Member asked him about this, and he replied that it was impossible for the legislature to operate if the speaking time was to be limited to 1 minute or 2 minutes. Actually I wanted him to respond to this question when I delivered my previous speech, but I have just waited for this opportunity to ask him this question again. I consider that if we deal with matters according his principle, many Members will rise to speak … I note that the longest speech was about 15 or 16 minutes, I am not sure. But in every turn any given Member has spoken for 7 or 8 minutes or even longer, and obviously, we have spent three months on that. Can a legislature work or otherwise according to that principle? I consider that this is clearly a wrong demonstration.
Second, he allowed Members to discuss matters which were not directly relevant to the election of Chairman. Of course, as the chair of the meeting, he was entitled to judge if the matters were relevant or irrelevant and it was difficult to challenge his decisions. But the problem is, no matter how good this chair is, I do not think anyone will consider him a good chair if he has spent three months in convening meetings and yet no Chairman has been elected. He must have some problems in handling the election of Chairman. Is it due to the chair’s incompetence or it is a deliberate filibuster? The public know what is going on. Since everyone knows that the filibuster will result in the lapse of a certain number of Bills, therefore the Secretary is bold enough to propose the motion instead of referring the Bill to the House Committee, which is a known black hole. The Bill should be referred to the Panel on Manpower for scrutiny, so as to evade the filibuster launched by the opposition camp to enable the Bill to be scrutinized and passed as soon as possible. The Secretary makes this move because he is left with no choice at all. But above all, he has done so in strict accordance with the Rules of Procedure, and his proposal is approved by the President. Therefore, I consider that this is certainly better than being a sitting duck.
Today’s legislature is highly politicized. If public officers are being complacent, if they do not exercise flexibilities and take the initiative, they will definitely be mucked around by the opposition camp. But the important point is to act strictly in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Just like many other meetings, I will do the same in the Finance Committee, if a Members acts fully in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I can do nothing against him, as I have to deal with him or his request step by step, inch by inch. I think public officers are the same. If you cannot do something due to the restriction of the Rules of Procedure, you need to find a way to go around the problem.
As the President said, although panels and Bills Committees have a very a clear division of responsibilities, such division should be based on the normal operation of the Legislative Council. At present, since the House Committee is unable to operate, therefore on the premise that nothing is deviated from the Rules of Procedure, it is therefore sensible and reasonable to refer the Bill to the Panel on Manpower for scrutiny. It is sensible because the route ahead is blocked, it is absolutely fair and justifiable for the Government to look for a second route for this important issue concerning the people’s livelihood. Why the Government should take this route? It is reasonable because the Government’s proposal satisfies the requirements of the Rules of Procedure; it has not adopted any unscrupulous means. Besides, the proposal was approved by the President; therefore I consider it sensible and reasonable.
Let us see how Members from the opposition camp distort the fact. They accused the Secretary of making a bad precedent. Actually the opposition camp is trying to divert others’ attention from themselves. A Member from the opposition camp acting as the chair of the House Committee meeting for the election of its Chairman has spent three months to convene 12 meetings but nobody is able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, this is a truly bad precedent. In my opinion, the opposition camp dared not to criticize the filibuster in the House Committee as a bad precedent. And quite the contrary, they tried to hinder the Government from solving the problem. It is just like someone has set a place on fire, you do not chastise the culprit but reprimand the fire fighters. If you find this justifiable, where on earth is justice?
Some Members from the opposition camp criticized the President for making the decision in violation of the Rules of Procedure, and they claimed that the decision did not comply with procedural justice. If we talk about procedural justice, can it be said that hindering the operation of the House Committee, preventing the Legislative Council from legislating for extending maternity leave can deliver justice? As a matter of fact, before the President made his decision, he had discussed the matter with the Secretariat and the Legal Advisor for hours. Members from the opposition camp maintained their longstanding and typical style by making frenetic and groundless accusations against the President, saying that he violated the Rules of Procedure, yet they were unable to provide any proof. Unfortunately, some members of the public consider their approach acceptable. As a result, someone publicly said in the meeting of some other Panel that: “the public had seen you through, you ask ‘what is the problem of a filibuster’? We will carry out the ‘filibuster'”. After all, they have made people accept their approach. For that reason, I always say that the quality of your electorate will shape the quality of a Member. No matter you like it or not, that is the fact.
Some Members from the opposition camp said today’s proposal had bypassed the House Committee. But in view of the fact that the House Committee has become a black hole because of the manipulation of the opposition camp, should we act like a sitting duck? In fact, the Panel on Manpower is also a committee of the Legislative Council, and the resumption of the Second Reading of the Bill must satisfy the Rules of Procedure. And at the end of the day, the Bill has to be passed by the Legislative Council. For that reason, we have not bypassed the Legislative Council. The opposition camp is simply smearing other people and trying to obscure the facts.
After all, for Members from the opposition camp, political stances are the number one consideration. Politics are of utmost importance and they would hijack any livelihood issue with political consideration. They would call a stag a horse and invert right and wrong. I hope that Members of the public will understand the fact that they will surreptitiously substitute one thing for another, divert others’ attentions, invert right and wrong, all of these are their frequent whatever-it-takes tactic, and the objective is to prevent the Legislative Council from enacting legislation, prevent the Government from improving the people’s livelihood and to keep on inciting and accumulating public resentment. Now the Secretary has sought the President’s consent for proposing the motion in accordance with the Rules of Procedure; and the new method, which is approved by the President, may break the impasse and benefit the public as early as possible, therefore in my opinion, it deserves our support.
Thank you, President.