MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, before stating whether I support the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 and the justifications, I must clearly present my view on functional constituencies (FCs).
Last week, a friend from the insurance sector gave me a call, and said that after listening to Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung speaking for 15 minutes for the first time, he basically did not know what Mr LEUNG was saying. Even if Mr LEUNG speaks nonsense, he also has his supporters. I am not fussy about that, but if his remarks are related to the insurance sector or FCs, I must point out the absurdity of his remarks. During the Second Reading debate a while ago, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung made some remarks. If we compare the speeches of these two Members, it is obvious who is better. I may not agree with the contents of Mr WONG Yuk-man’s speech but his speech is at least 10 times better than that of “Long Hair” in terms of the basis of arguments and the standard of presentation. I hope Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung would do more research instead of making casual remarks, so as to convince people. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung mentioned putting the cart before the horse, telling lies with open eyes or telling lies while dreaming; he is actually describing himself and I am very grateful that he is so frank.
According to Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Members with the worst attendance record are from FCs. But as far as I know, Members with the worst attendance record include FC Members and directly elected Members, depending on how computations are done. However, as for Members with the best attendance record, I believe most of them are FC Members and FC Members would take up top positions. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung often makes arbitrary remarks; for example, he mentioned that $100 million were paid for buying votes. I do not have time to settle old scores with him. Just now I said that FC Members facilitate smooth governance of the Government, but my remark has been misinterpreted as FCs support the transfer of benefits. This is really pathetic. The opposition camp has gone out of their mind in opposing the Government, thinking that fighting against the transfer of benefits is opposing the Government and doing what they have to do; thus, they continue to rebuke the Government.
The Government has taken actions against high property prices but they are finding fault with the Government. Do they sincerely have the interests of Hong Kong in mind or do they want the interests of Hong Kong to be undermined? Hong Kong people should make their own judgment. I guess the opposition camp wants to mess up Hong Kong; the more chaotic, the better. Only by raising opposition continuously can their interests be last forever; only by constantly provoking the emotions of Hong Kong people can they win votes. Although some Members said that FC Members only seek the interests of their sectors, I notice that a number of FC Members can balance the interests of the sectors and the community. If individual FC Members only seek their own interests in voting, they will not get the support of other FC Members.
I very much hope that the opposition camp will no longer mislead the public and discredit FC Members. It is worth noting that quite a few directly elected Members only want to win votes and their only concern is whether the Government’s short-term policies will be advantageous to them in the next election. However, they have ignored the long-term development of Hong Kong. We cannot blame these directly elected Members; if we take a look at the countries and regions around the world which have implemented universal suffrage, in order to win votes, their governments have become …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, at the Third Reading debate, Members should only talk about their voting intentions. You have digressed from the subject, please focus on the motion on the Third Reading.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Yes, thank you, Deputy President. But I hope you could give me some more time because the President only asked Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to return to the subject after he had spoken for six minutes; after you took the Chair and asked him to return to the subject, he went on speaking for about 10 minutes. I hope you could give me two minutes; I will speak on the subject soon. I am sorry …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please speak on the motion on the Third Reading.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Yes, Deputy President, I will return to the subject very soon. If I skip this background information, Honourable colleagues may not have a clear picture. Members of this Council can express their views in a free-spirited manner and a number of Members frequently digress largely from the subject. However, the President has not asked them to return to the subject. I also hope that the Deputy President would understand that I do not do so very often and my comments are indeed closely related to the subject. I beg your pardon.
According to my observation, many governments have, for the sake of winning votes, turned their countries into a disastrous state, bringing suffering to people. Since FCs have been smeared over an extended period, some FC Members really think that they have original sins. I hope they would not think so. We must make good use of the votes in hand, we have to withstand pressure and do practical work for the long-term interests of Hong Kong and the well-being of young people in Hong Kong.
In addition, we should let more people understand and accept FCs. This is a lengthy process and I hope FC Members would work harder in this connection. For example, the group of six that I am more familiar with, including Mr Martin LIAO, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr NG Leung-sing and Mr YIU Si-wing, have given up their well-paid jobs and served Hong Kong with full dedication. I also know that many FC Members in this Council have done the same.
Deputy President, finally, to sum up, I would like to say that I support the existence of FCs as I think FCs can make this Council become balanced. This Bill actually aims at improving FCs. In this process, it does not matter if the steps taken is big or small ― some people certainly think that the amendments are not very effective while some others think that amendments are needed ― I think they have positive effects. I will vote in support of the Bill.
Please allow me to talk about the printing company’s case. There are arguments just now and I would like to express my views. Should the printing company be included in the Insurance FC or other FCs? The Government is right in the sense that a registered underwriter belongs to the Insurance FC under the law. But the problem is that the printing company was registered numerous years ago, is it still appropriate for it to be included in the FC now? The Government should review whether it is necessary to cancel its status as a registered underwriter. The Government really needs to do something and absolutely cannot ignore the issue. I hope the Government would examine the matter. Thank you, Deputy President.