MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a Member has just brought up the issue of insurance. In fact, for insurance, like “co-location”, there is nothing to worry about. The section of Express Rail Link (“XRL”) operation within Hong Kong’s territory will be managed by the MTR Corporation Limited who will procure third-party insurance under which the people will be protected. While the Mainland authorities will manage the Mainland Port Area and be responsible for any injuries to passengers caused by negligence. That said, governments normally do not have to procure third-party insurance. I hope I have answered Member’s question. This is simple indeed, and we do not have to worry at all.
The opposition camp has two original sins which blind them to the advantages brought by “co-location”, disregarding the people’s feelings and views. In order to stop the motion on the co-location arrangement, the opposition camp has raised two arguments trying to justify their rejection. Their first original sin is that the opposition camp has never thought of travelling by XRL as its members are generally barred from entering the Mainland, or are not interested in going to the Mainland. As they are not going to take the XRL, how can they possibly understand the needs of those who will travel frequently by XRL, and approach the issue pragmatically from the passengers’ perspective? The people believe that “co-location” is absolutely necessary. Anyone not planning to take the XRL will never understand this. For their second original sin, members of the opposition camp fear that they will be arrested in the Mainland Port Area in West Kowloon. In this respect, many people relay to me that there is nothing to worry if one is upright. They wonder why the opposition Members are fearful of this. Even if the opposition Members are truly afraid, they can still travel to the Mainland by other means. They can indeed make their own choices, but why do they have to force the public to give up “co-location”? As the fear is unique to them, what makes the opposition Members believe that a normal citizen will share such fear? In fact, they are all out of touch with the general public.
Apart from the original sins, the opposition camp is narrow-minded in their refusal to acknowledge the people’s acceptance to “co-location”. They have misled the public in two ways. First, they advocate the so-called proposal to set up customs and clearance facilities in the Futian Station instead (“Futian proposal”). This is simply a proposal fancied by the opposition camp. In fact, the formulation of any checkpoint proposal requires communication between governments of the two places, yet the Mainland government does not intend to tie in with this at all. Even if everyone in Hong Kong supports this proposal, how can the opposition camp realize such an unrealistic scheme? How long will it take to realize this proposal, three years, five years or never? Will the opposition camp please give an account of this?
Second, after introducing such an unrealistic Futian proposal, they go on to mislead the public by conducting a survey on their own. They then claim that most people support the Futian proposal and reject the co-location arrangement. It is just ridiculous to see them doing their own survey to support their own proposal. This will not make them more credible. Maybe we can get back to some more credible surveys done by trustworthy universities like the University of Hong Kong (“HKU”) and The Chinese University of Hong Kong (“CUHK”). The survey done by HKU clearly showed that 53% of the respondents supported the co-location arrangement, while 34% rejected it. Likewise, according to the CUHK survey, 55% of the respondents supported the “co-location” and 29% of them rejected it. Both surveys have expressly demonstrated the genuine opinion among the public in which most of the people do support the “co-location” proposal. Members can never act against the people, therefore I call for the opposition camp to stop opposing “co-location” and spend time on other practical issues instead.
I can foresee a personal attack on me later on, claiming that automatically elected legislators are “Members with zero vote”. By saying such words, it not only reflects their ignorance but also their poor quality. Members from functional constituencies are elected in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong. Though opposition Members, dissatisfied with this election system, always attempt to discredit Members returned by functional constituencies, most people in Hong Kong are smart that they will focus on Members’ performance in the Council and their achievements for Hong Kong as a whole. Indeed, it is reasonable to assess a legislator by these criteria. While accusing others as “Members with zero vote”, the opposition Members have largely achieved nothing on the basis of these criteria. So, I hope these underachievers can first look at themselves before criticizing other automatically elected Members in future.
By checking the proceedings in this Council, the public will notice that many Members from functional constituencies are diligently fulfilling their duties and supporting the entire Council. I quote one example and the people will know. Despite having a stake in portfolios involving hundreds of millions of dollars in each move, Mr Christopher CHEUNG opts not to make money in the financial market, but shoulder his responsibility as a legislator and stay in the Council. The meeting would have been adjourned otherwise, right? He always tells me―I mean sometimes, he tells me how much money he has lost after missing a certain investment opportunity. The smile on his face when sharing the experience with me just reflected how much he cared about the Council and Hong Kong, in despite of the significant amount of money involved in his investments. So, I hope people can respect Members from functional constituencies. There are more examples indeed. For instance, as a Senior Counsel, Mr Martin LIAO chooses to be present in this Chamber instead of earning a fine income in private practice in the legal profession. There are too many examples that I cannot possibly list them all lest I will help the filibuster. I simply hope the public can appreciate the enormous social contributions made by Members from functional constituencies. Thank you.