official record of proceedings thursday, 19 december … · 2020-03-02 · legislative council ―...

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 December 2019

3789

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 19 December 2019

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT: THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P. PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, G.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S., J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 December 2019 3790

THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG


3791

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., J.P. IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, B.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P. THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P. THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.


DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H. DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN MEMBERS ABSENT: THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.


3793

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (am) MR SONNY AU CHI-KWONG, P.D.S.M., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SECURITY, AND SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (pm) MR SONNY AU CHI-KWONG, P.D.S.M., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (am) CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


MEMBERS' MOTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning. This Council continues to deal with the three motions concern the protest which occurred outside the Legislative Council on 12 June 2019 ("the '12 June' incident"). Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, please speak. MOTIONS UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE TO APPOINT A SELECT COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 18 December 2019 MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Good morning, President. First of all, I would like to thank Mr Andrew WAN and a few other Honourable colleagues from the democratic camp for proposing motions on the "12 June" incident and police brutality, so that we can review in the Council the events that happened in Hong Kong before and after 12 June. Hong Kong seems to have gone through ages in six months' time since June. Six months ago, we would not have imagined how brutal the Police could be or how fierce the resistance of Hong Kong people could be. Over the past six months, Hong Kong has changed … (There was interference with the broadcasting system in the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, please check if your mobile phone is with you. If so, please put it away. (Mr LAM Cheuk-ting put his mobile phone away) MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, is that okay?


3795

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): No echo is heard for the moment. Mr LAM, please continue with your speech. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Over the past six months, Hong Kong has changed too rapidly, too extensively and too drastically. Many Hong Kong people, especially those living overseas, have told us that Hong Kong has become a stranger to them. President, ever since the "anti-extradition to China" movement started early this year, Members of the democratic camp (including the Democratic Party) had strongly and repeatedly warned the SAR Government and royalists that the consequences of bulldozing the evil bill would be devastating, even worse than what happened when they attempted to legislate for Article 23 of the Basic Law years ago. But did the royalists listen to us? Did the SAR Government listen to us? No. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"), being the main culprit of the evil bill, constantly took advantage of the deceased in the Taiwan murder case. The Government … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, I remind you that you have digressed. This Council is now debating motions on the "12 June" incident. Please return to the subject of this debate. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, I certainly know the subject of the debate, but I have to explain the background of the "12 June" incident. Without such a background, why would people became so furious and protest so strongly on 12 June? President, please allow me to talk about the background briefly. I will keep it short. On the part of the Government, it did not consider other options for handling the Taiwan murder case and turned a blind eye to the repeated requests of the Taiwan authorities for judicial mutual assistance in this case. Despite the fact that the media, legal profession, business sector and academia had repeatedly advised against the evil bill, the Government refused to listen and did not carry out any public consultation. As for the royalists, they relied on weight of numbers in the Council to push through the evil bill, provoking the subsequent


protests in the Council. John LEE evaded questions in the Panel on Security and kept repeating his arguments like a human tape recorder. Carrie LAM, who was up on her high horse, had the royalists sided with her. Consequently, Hong Kong people made history on 9 June with a 1 million-strong protest against the evil bill. The 9 June protest had indeed offered the Government an opportunity to revisit its decision to push through the evil bill. It provided an opportunity for the royalists to change their stance like what the Liberal Party did in respect of the legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law. If they had suspended the evil bill at that very last moment, the "12 June" incident would not have happened and the history of Hong Kong would have been rewritten. Unfortunately, the royalists did not do so. Instead, they … President, please allow me to quote the criticism that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan levelled at Chief Executive Carrie LAM yesterday. She mentioned the statement issued by the Government at 11:00 pm on 9 June that the bill would resume its Second Reading on 12 June as originally scheduled. According to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, she was not happy when she learnt about the Government's decision and she criticized the Government for being "brainless". Why couldn't the Second Reading be put on hold for a few days? That was what Dr CHIANG Lai-wan said in the debate yesterday. Dr CHIANG is like a goldfish whose memory resets every five seconds. Doesn't she remember that DAB issued a statement on 9 June to reiterate its support for the legislative amendments proposed by the SAR Government and urge for speedy scrutiny of the bill by the Council to meet public aspirations? In other words, DAB demanded to amend the legislation, and even wanted to speed up the process so as to meet the aspirations of the supporters of the amendments. Apart from DAB, The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions also issued a statement to indicate its strong support to the SAR Government in expediting the amendment exercise … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, I remind you once again that you have digressed. Please return to the subject of this debate.


3797

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, I have already told you that we cannot afford to skip the background. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, whom I have just quoted, also talked about the background when she spoke in this debate. It is thus reasonable for me to respond to her and other royalist Members. Is that right? I will soon finish this part. The New People's Party and the Liberal Party had also thrown their support to the amendments of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance proposed by the Government. Mr Michael TIEN was the only royalist Member who had never given his support. We must clarify his stance and be fair to him. So, can the royalist Members stand aloof from what happened after 12 June, including the clashes on 21 July and 31 August? Their failure to stop the Government had resulted in a 2-million strong protest. After their defeat in the District Council Election, they blamed the Government for bringing them into trouble and criticized it for failing to conduct sufficient consultation, rushing into the legislative amendments and failing to listen to the people. Mrs Regina IP even refused to accept the apology of the Chief Executive. In fact, being a Member of the Executive Council, she was the one who advised the Government to proceed with the evil bill. After the "12 June" incident, did she call for the withdrawal of the bill? No, she did not, and worse still, she opposed the suspension of the bill. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan was even more ridiculous. At the end of June, she said that the bill should be reintroduced a couple of months later. After they suffered a crushing defeat in the District Council Election, they put the blame on the Government. All of them are like goldfish. Their memory is so short-lived that, after five seconds, they forget how they supported the evil bill before. President, Hong Kong has been fraught with clashes and police brutality since 12 June. The current chaos in fact originated from what happened from early this year to 9 June, which included the SAR Government forcefully pushed through the evil bill, the royalists blindly sided with the Government, and some police officers―now commonly known as "bad cops"―abused their power, made arbitrary arrests and used excessive violence. I will now go back to the "12 June" incident. President, on 12 June, a group of pro-democracy Members, including me, came to the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex") to get prepared for opposing the legislative amendments. Yet, before we arrived, tens of thousands of Hong Kong people


were already in Admiralty to besiege the Complex, regardless of danger. The Security Bureau, however, would describe them as law-breakers who occupied the roads, engaged in riots and used violence. I must emphasize again: Without an oppressive government, where come the rebellious people? If the Government has not been so outrageous and completely ignored public views in the first few months of the year, why would there be tens of thousands of people coming out to protest against the bill? All the protesters had to bear the risk of being charged with unlawful assembly, riot or even more serious offences. Why did they come out? Was it because they had all taken money from foreign powers to provoke riots as claimed by the royalists? How is it possible to give out money to tens of thousands of people? Can you guys show us how to do that? It has been quite a while since 12 June, did the royalists provide any evidence to support their claim? No, they did not. So, please stop putting the blame on foreign powers. People besieged the Complex because of you guys. The Government should have withdrawn the bill upon the siege of the Complex. If it had done so, things would not have become so bad. President, though you announced the cancellation of meeting on 12 June, the protesters continued to stay in the vicinity of the Complex as they had little trust in the Government. We, Members of the democratic camp, tried to mediate when the clashes were getting violent. Mr Andrew WAN, Dr Helena WONG and I walked towards a place between the Central Barracks of the Liberation Army and the Office of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and used loudspeakers to urge both sides to halt. The protesters had obviously stopped their actions and the Police also stopped temporarily. However, when the three of us were still standing between the protesters and police officers and using loudspeakers to call for restraint, some police officers suddenly sprayed pepper based solution at us even though they knew we were Members. How could they handle the situation like this? We were just trying to mediate. Worse still, there were numerous video clips showing how police officers hit protesters fallen on the ground violently with batons, and how police officers fired at protesters. Some people queried whether the protesters had used force. The answer was in the affirmative, and I will not deny. However, given the Police's accoutrements and weapons, how seriously could police officers be hurt by the protesters? Since the "anti-extradition to China" movement, how many protesters have their heads bashed and battered or have suffered from bone fracture? How many have been shot blind? Cases of this type are numerous. Many people even


3799

suspect that there were fatal cases. It is true that some police officers have also been injured, but if look at the number of persons injured and the seriousness of injury, the Police obviously have an absolute advantage in terms of force. We would not criticize the Police for arresting protesters if they were really law-breakers and the arrests were made according to the procedures. But that is not what happened in reality. The Police will, after subduing the protesters, continue to beat them with batons. For better cases, the protesters will be beaten on legs; for worse case, they will be hit on head and bleed. The protesters will be prosecuted for whatever reasons and the charge will drop when evidence cannot be produced at court. What kind of government is this? President, I emphasize once again: Oppressive government drives the people to rebellion. The Government should stop police brutality and institutional violence which have come into being since 12 June. If it had withdrawn the evil bill on that day, stopped police brutality and investigated the incident, Hong Kong would not have paid such a high price in the past six months. Many of our young people have sacrificed their studies, youth and freedom. They may even have to leave Hong Kong or be detained in jail. Are they really rioters? Do they really want Hong Kong to descend into chaos? They are indeed trying to protect Hong Kong, their home. I urge members of the public to show more understanding to young people as they are facing an authoritative government and a gang of royalists who cannot tell right from wrong and reverse black and white. This is why we are angry. Therefore, Hong Kong people must continue to pursue the goal of "Five demands, not one less". I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, please lower your placard as it blocks my view on the Members at the back. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Good Morning. First of all, I would like to thank Mr Andrew WAN, Mr Jeremy TAM and Dr KWOK Ka-ki for proposing the motions on the "12 June" incident, hoping that an independent investigation can be conducted into the incident pursuant to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.


I did not really want to speak on this motion because I do not think it is necessary to speak to the President and Secretary John LEE in this connection. Obviously, the primary responsibility for the "12 June" incident lies with senior government officials, the Security Bureau, the senior management of the Police Force and the management of the Legislative Council, i.e. you, the President. As the Speaker of this Council, how could you fail to judge, based on public sentiments, whether it was appropriate to continue to hold a meeting that day? Today, you decided that you need to take a short break at 10:30 am to go to the washroom; but seeing that tens of thousands of people were gathering outside the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex") at 6:00 am on 12 June, how could you fail to judge that something unusual would happen that day? Have you people used your brains? So, I really feel upset when I have to speak to the President and Secretary John LEE and ask them to judge whether it is necessary to rule on my remarks. John LEE should have stepped down long ago. Where has former Commissioner of Police LO Wai-chung gone? Nobody remembers his name. On 12 June, there was a large-scale gathering and protest, followed by a police crackdown, but the crackdown by the authorities happened long ago. I think a systemic crackdown did not originate from the "anti-extradition to China" law. The Government's misjudgment of public sentiments and mishandling of the situation on 12 June led to the chaos today. If colleagues still remember, the system of Hong Kong has become defective since the Occupy Central movement in 2014, people's grievances cannot be alleviated and this Council and the Government lack recognition. Thus, chaos is expected. But in the past decades, the pro-establishment camp, the opposition camp or the democrats used to be loafing at work. We have become accustomed to the fact that politics is like acting, with each party speaking on behalf of their factions and interests. We have not expected that pretence would come true, and we have not expected a trade war between China and the United States. How come the pro-establishment camp had received no intelligence and made no analysis or judgment on 12 June? In addition to investigating the "12 June" incident, we should also investigate what happened throughout June. President, you definitely made a mistake for not cancelling the meeting on 12 June. The show staged by John LEE on 9 June was not bad. Have colleagues forgotten what happened that day? There was an "anti-extradition to China" rally on 9 June and 500 000 people took to the streets. I do not know why there was chaos under the Drum area of the Complex that night, but it


3801

seemed to me that those actions were not taken by protesters. Someone piled up the mills barriers and later some people suddenly changed their clothes. I am not saying that those people were undercover police. It is meaningless to find out the identities of undercover police because there are undercover agents in every action, but appropriate arrangements have been made. The situation was very chaotic on the night of 9 June and the Police efficiently dispersed the crowd. A little after 2:00 am, LO Wai-chung said, "Pro-establishment Members and Mr Holden CHOW can rest assured, you need not worry that you cannot enter the Complex for attending the meeting. We are confident that all violence will be under control". The Government subsequently issued a statement at around 11:00 pm that night, stating that the Legislative Council would continue to deal with the amendments of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. On 12 June, major platforms and camps mobilized people to come out. As the Government and pro-establishment Members believed that their acting on 9 June had successfully aroused public sentiments and opinions, they could get hold of the situation. This is another trick to conceal the true state of affairs from above and below. Hence they still acted in a leisurely and carefree way. Pro-establishment Members was not ashamed when they spoke yesterday; if they were really determined to pass the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), they should have returned to the Legislative Council early that day. President, I agree that the "12 June" incident should be investigated. I am most eager to know where pro-establishment Members were that day. Where were they waiting? Where were they hiding? Were they inside the Central District Police Station? If they were so loyal and patriotic, and if they had ideas about governing Hong Kong and the country, they should have entered the Chamber early that day and waited. But, to be fair, I saw Mr WONG Ting-kwong come back early in the morning, and Mr CHAN Han-pan was already in the Complex at around 7:00 am. I came back at 5:00 am that morning and went out for breakfast, and I returned later on. As I saw crowds of people at 6:00 am, I judged that the Bill might be debated. As a Member, I had to prepare to speak and point out what was wrong with the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. President, how could anyone tell you that the Bill would be passed that day? The debate had yet to start, how would the Bill be passed? Why were so many people gathering? Was John LEE not responsible for misjudging the situation?


Did the Police use excessive force on 12 June? Did they violate humanitarian rules? Frankly speaking, I believe Members present do not think that the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance can do us justice. Vindication may only come years later or even 10 or 20 years later, by then we may know the truth. However, I just want to tell colleagues that this is what we have to do as a formality. I have finished talking about the pro-establishment camp and I do not want to talk too much about them as I have already spent seven minutes. My conclusion is that it is a waste of resources to provide for them. The same has happened to the pro-establishment camp for decades. At a certain stage, they must press the button to pass a certain bill. Several hundred thousand people took to the streets on 9 June, why did they have to put up a show to pass the Bill? Why could they still be so loafing at work? Will Members of the pro-establishment camp reflect on how mediocre they are. Concerning the "12 June" incident, the pan-democrats and the Democratic Party should also conduct a review. The movement in the past could sustain because we knew what had gone wrong. In 2014, the occupation lasted 79 days but to no avail, so we have to admit the failure of the Umbrella Movement. The pro-establishment camp thought that the protesters intended to occupy the streets in the vicinity of the Complex on 12 June; luckily, we had not done much in June. Honestly, I remained low profile in June. Fortunately, the public and protesters understood that they could no longer rely on Members of this Council and the so-called opinion leaders to defend Hong Kong. The pro-establishment camp thought that after the crowds were dispersed on 12 June, the roads would be cleared and we could hold a meeting. If they wanted to disperse the protesters, action should be taken from 6:00 am onwards. President, if you wanted to push through the Bill, you could notify us to come back at 6:00 am for meeting and the meeting could be held overnight; yet, you dared not do so. I implore the Civil Human Rights Front not to set up a main stage at passageways in future. The Police will fire tear gas rounds at the main stage and the tents. Use your brain, how could a main stage be set up outside CITIC Tower. A stampede was nearly triggered. The decision to set up a main stage was made between 10:00 am and 11:00 am on 12 June. They set up a wooden main stage at a convenient place and audio equipment was available to allow people making speeches. However, mistakes should not be made repeatedly. What is the point of occupying a place but not knowing how to use the place, not guarding the place for usurping power or striving for a say, but


3803

merely for setting up a main stage to gather people around for expression of views. Actually, they could express their views elsewhere. They only realized that they had to run for life after tear gas rounds were fired at them. I do not think there is anything to investigate with regard the "12 June" incident. I just want colleagues to know that the Police fired tear gas rounds to disperse the crowd when people were unprepared and unequipped. A teacher was shot and he nearly became blind. All of us saw these news clips but I would like to tell you that many after-effects could not be seen from these news clips. A teacher accidentally stumbled when he was running, hit his head and passed out. He thought that he was fine, but one day in October when he woke up, he could not speak. This teacher found that he was mute in October, and it turned out that there was blood stasis in his brain. It was only discovered after a few months, so he had to undergo a brain surgery, followed by consultation twice a week. He cannot say that he is a victim and the funds in the community cannot help him. I would like to ask what is it that we want to vindicate and ascertain responsibility. The person to be responsible is now sitting in the Chamber listening to my speech. President, you have to understand that I feel really helpless. If I were you, President, I would have announced early in the morning that the meeting would not be held that day. More than 10 000 people were gathering outside the Complex at around 6:00 am and colleagues could not return to work. Why did the President not decide to cancel the meeting? For this reason, the President has to bear the biggest responsibility for the "12 June" incident. As the Speaker of the Council, you do not know how to judge how controversial a bill is. Moreover, being at the power centre in the governance of Hong Kong―please use your "dead man's brain"―the Speaker represents the interests of the sector, i.e. your party, how can you not know how to think? (Dr Junius HO indicated his wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, what is your point of order? DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, I raise a point of order about parliamentary language. Dr CHENG Chung-tai said, "use your 'dead man's brain'", which is definitely offensive to the President.


DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, I withdraw the remark. As you do not have a brain, you do not need a "dead man's brain". DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, Dr CHENG Chung-tai is really getting insolent. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, are you guessing that I do not have a brain? DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, I am not talking about you, I mean to say that he does not have a brain. I said you have a brain. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, it seemed that was not what you just said. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I dare to admit what I said, and I did say "use your 'dead man's brain'". PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Each Member of this Council has different opinions and this is an open debate. Perhaps you made the remark because the idea has been implanted in your brain; but the people watching the proceedings of the meeting may not agree to your remarks. Dr CHENG, please continue with your speech. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Lastly, in the remaining two minutes, I wish to return to the subject just now. According to the news reports, eight persons were formally prosecuted yesterday for unlawful assembly on 9 June. Chaos erupted on 12 June owing to the misjudgment by senior government officials. They lack the ability to govern Hong Kong and this Council lacks the ability to scrutinize bills, and in fact …


3805

President, do not be mistaken, I am not talking about problems related to you personally, but about the deficiencies of the system. As the system lacks recognition, when pro-establishment Members like Mr Holden CHOW have to make decisions, they only consider whether elections can be held. Governing Hong Kong is not only the business of these people, as they may not have the capability to think and make decisions. As in the example I just cited, during the occupation in the past, tear gas rounds were obviously fired at the main stage. Why should a main stage be set up? Of course, decades later, whether the Police have committed crimes might … (Some Members were talking in their seats) President, please ask them to shut up, they are talking. Decades later, whether the Police have committed crimes might probably become clear. They fired tear gas rounds at first aid stations, first aiders and doctors that day. We may become accustomed to that after a few months but what happened that day is still vivid in our minds. I only have dozens of seconds left and I would like to say that if colleagues believe that Hong Kong has entered an uncontrollable state of war, please lend a hand to all kinds of support projects, including the Bless Hong Kong Scheme. I so submit. MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, opposition Members have moved motions under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to request an inquiry into police handling of the "12 June" incident. I must stress that the "12 June" incident is essentially a siege of the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex") by rioters. Members of the public know full well about this. Given Hong Kong's current situation, the newly released overall unemployment rate has risen further. Among all industries, the unemployment rates of the catering industry, tourism industry and hotel industry have soared, with the catering industry registering an unemployment rate as high as 6.2%. After Christmas and the Lunar New Year, I believe that there will be a surge in company closures and layoffs across Hong Kong. Hong Kong people, wage earners in particular, will find themselves in dire straits. The strategy of "mutual destruction" advocated by the opposition camp and the self-proclaimed protesters will be successful very soon. While their goal will never be achieved, "mutual destruction" will soon materialize.


Tourists have also been scared away. Recent statistics show that the number of inbound visitors for November has dropped drastically by 56% compared with the same month last year. Hong Kong has completely lost its international image as a hospitality city. The incessant illegal violent clashes in the past six months have not only affected the public, but also seriously distorted people's sense of values. A poll conducted by the Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre has surprisingly found that 40% of respondents agreed that justice can be achieved by violating the law, and no one should be held liable for breaking the law for this purpose. As the spirit of the rule of law diminishes, cases of assault, vandalism and arson occurred on a daily basis in the past six months. The wanton attacks on people and shops with different political views have seriously threatened the lives and properties of the public. We particularly feel sorry for teenagers nowadays, many of whom had been instigated to do something which harmed others and ended up harming themselves even more. So far, a total of over 6 000 people have been arrested in various violent and illegal incidents, 40% of whom are students whose future may be completely ruined. Of course, President, we know that leaders and Members of the opposition camp have reaped enormous "political dividends" as they have won the seats effortlessly and even achieved international fame. The 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund has raised nearly $100 million. What are the uses of the Fund? In fact, quite a few people also have many doubts about it. Let me return to discussing the siege of the Complex by rioters in the "12 June" incident. Hong Kong has literally changed overnight. In fact, not long ago, an overwhelming majority of Members, including opposition and pan-democratic Members, condemned the riot which took place in Mong Kok on the first day of the Lunar New Year in 2016. However, this appeared to be a thing of the distant past. Why does the opposition camp not sever ties with rioters this time? The reason is that the opposition camp has adopted a strategy known as "no severing ties", under which they will extend unlimited tolerance to all violent and illegal acts of people whose political stance is the same as theirs. On the other hand, the opposition camp has levelled unlimited criticism against law enforcers and blamed them for whatever they do. Even for some technical procedures or actions taken in the absence of any alternative, they will get to the bottom and pursue responsibilities for selective scenes, blame other people first, and reverse the cause-and-effect relationship. Throughout the disturbances arising from the proposed legislative amendments in the past six months, they have repeatedly lied and used hypocritical rhetoric to achieve their political objectives of attacking the Government and snatching political power. In sum,


3807

the opposition camp has always used three tactics during the disturbances arising from the proposed legislative amendments: first, violence; second, lies; third, packaging violence with lies. Coupled with the strategy of "no severing ties", the three tactics serve to maximize their political interests. President, I will now focus on the reasons why I do not support an inquiry under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance into the Police's law enforcement operations in the "12 June" incident. I remember that on 12 June, Mr HO Kai-ming and I were heading for the Complex at around 7:00 am to attend a committee meeting. We nearly arrived at the Complex before 8:00 am, only to find many black-clad people and radical protesters gathering there. We could not even walk close to the Complex, and in fact most Members could not enter the Complex to attend meetings that day. Protesters threatened Members with violence and prevented them from attending meetings and deprived Members of their power to express their views in the Council. Such acts per se constitute an offence. In the afternoon, we saw via live television broadcast a large group of rioters using lethal weapons, such as bricks, sharpened iron poles, corrosive liquid and umbrellas, to repeatedly charge the police cordon lines at the designated demonstration areas of the Complex (commonly known as the Drum area) for nearly half an hour. The Police were actually very restrained back then as they kept moving their cordon lines backwards. A police officer who were on duty told me that the protesters' frantic, deliberate and reckless violence intent to kill. As we all know, bricks can really kill. President, Mr LUO, an elderly cleaner, was killed by a brick on 13 November. His death was absolutely caused by lethal violence. We deeply deplore his death. Subsequently, rioters pushed the police cordon lines backwards to the Drum area where the glass door of the public entrance to the Complex was less than 10 m away. Without any alternative, the Police had to push its cordon lines forward by using tear gas and firing rubber bullets and bean bag rounds with anti-riot launchers. In fact, from an objective and technical perspective, in all fairness, the Police had not really used excessive force. After the incident, a rather neutral media organization invited the United States and French experts on forensic evidence to comment on the incident. They both agreed that the law enforcement operations by the Hong Kong Police that day were on the whole extremely restrained. The opposition camp has, however, demonized the Police's use of force by singling out certain scenes of clashes, such as firing tear


gas rounds outside CITIC Tower. Fellow Members should be very familiar with CITIC Tower as we often patronize the restaurants there. At that time, the commander of the Civil Human Rights Front suddenly asked protesters to flock to CITIC Tower. Why didn't the commander of the Civil Human Rights Front ask protesters to retreat to Tim Mei Avenue? Tim Mei Avenue is a wide road with two traffic lanes and a wide pavement. Instead of asking the protesters to go to the wide road, they asked them to flock to CITIC Tower. What was their purpose after all? Did they try to create a clash scene where crowds of people scrambled to enter CITIC Tower through the glass door in panic? Is that their purpose? While we cannot possibly ascertain their purpose, these questions merit our consideration. If the Police had not taken any action to disperse the crowd and fired tear gas rounds, how the situation would have changed. In fact, this hypothetical situation did realize later. The vandalism of the Complex on 1 July is a case in point. On that day, the Police had not deployed officers outside the Complex. I consider this to be a blunder. I have to say so even the Secretary is present. We all witnessed very clearly that rioters stormed the Complex at will in the absence of any police officers there. If police officers had stationed outside the Complex, the Legislative Council could have been better protected, the solemn Chamber could have been spared the destruction and vandalism, and the rule of law and democratic system could have been better safeguarded. On 1 July, all facilities in the Complex were vandalized. Although the Chamber has restored its previous grand outlook, the scenes of its destruction are still vivid in our mind. If police officers did not fire tear gas rounds, rubber bullets and bean bag rounds to disperse the crowd on that day, were they supposed to fight hand-to-hand with protesters or even use real ammunition? Certainly not, as this would only cause more casualties. While over 10 people were killed in the yellow vest movement in France, should Hong Kong follow suit in order to comply with the international standard? Or are we supposed to follow the example of the United States, where nearly 1 000 people were shot dead by police officers every year? Let me return to a matter of principle. As I said just now, in fact, the investigation targeted at the Police was essentially a case of the guilty party files the suit. This is a political manoeuvre against the target of hatred. In the past few years, the opposition camp did not have any achievements on livelihood-related and other practical issues. Originally, their public support had significantly diminished. Therefore, they had to identify a target for criticism


3809

which did an even worse job than them. Hong Kong people are very caring and compassionate, and they oppose violence. Therefore, the opposition camp has taken advantage of this mentality of Hong Kong people to repeatedly propagate, boost, beautify and defend the so-called "three Nos" policy, namely no severing ties, no snitching and no condemnation. They would instigate violent attacks in order to create scenes of clashes, from which they would compile scenes featuring clashes arising from police treatment of protesters, with a view to fuelling new conflicts and new hatred. This cycle of events continually repeats itself to serve their political purpose. They have never considered making efforts to ease the situation. After the first big march, the Government had tried to respond to the request for suspending the legislative amendments as soon as possible. Of course, only time will tell whether it is a good strategy to yield to violence and lies. Anyway, the Government has at least made an effort to respond. On the other hand, the opposition camp has continued to add fuel to the fire and has, at a later stage, even elevated local matters to the international level, turning the Hong Kong issue into a pawn for the United States to attack our country. They are willing to be held hostage by other countries, and some of them have even proposed disbanding the Police Force to achieve the aspiration of "Hong Kong independence" advocated by some of the most radical extremists. The motion being discussed today is targeting selectively at the Police Force. Is the inquiry really aimed at seeking the truth? The opposition camp has all along cared about political stance only, not the truth. To them, what is to be called the truth must conform to their political interests. The most obvious example is the case of a woman who got shot in the eye in Tsim Sha Tsui in the "11 August" incident. We are also very concerned about the situation of the injured person. However, the opposition camp and the injured person have all along refused to assist in police investigation. Who has actually caused her eye injury? The opposition camp has asserted that it was caused by the Police, but she might also get hurt by other protesters or simply by accident. However, they have refused to reveal any details and only asserted that the injury was caused by the Police. When the Police requested an investigation, they would not allow them to do so. When the Police requested medical records from them, they filed for a judicial review, and fortunately the court ruled against them in the end. I hope that the Police will expeditiously obtain the relevant medical records in order to restore the truth. We are not only focusing on political stance, we also want to find out the truth.


The opposition camp has claimed that the "31 August" incident had caused numerous deaths and injuries. In the suicide case of student CHAN Yin-lam, even her mother have publicly clarified that her daughter took her own life due to emotional disorder, and her school has also released closed-circuit television recordings. However, the rioters have not spared the school as they continued to vandalize all facilities on campus. With regard to the numerous incidents which occurred recently, supporters will always believe whatever the opposition camp claimed to have taken place. The opposition camp will play up any slightest clues available to alarm the public. Even when no evidence is available, they will still frame their narrative as if something had really happened. Their claim of what happened at the San Uk Ling Holding Centre is a case in point. They have reached the verdict and predetermined the answer even before the trial begins, with a view to instigating anti-government populism. Throughout the disturbances arising from the proposed legislative amendments, the opposition camp has never exhibited any intention to seek the truth based on the facts. If they really intend to seek the truth, they should require the Police to fully cooperate with the investigation of the Independent Police Complaints Council under the current established legal mechanism, rather than wasting time in the Legislative Council which is a platform to deal with political issues. During the debate in the past two days, opposition Members were only concerned about political stance but not the facts. It was thus impossible for them to identify what they claimed to be the truth. The debate has simply provided a platform for those Members who have been led by political stance to shamelessly smear the Police Force. Even if an independent commission of inquiry is really set up, it will still be unable to seek the truth due to its lack of professionalism. It has been suggested that further investigation would help eliminate the hostility between the Police and the public. However, given that the opposition camp has been unwilling to compromise at all, and they are still chanting the slogan "Five demands, not one less" to this day, they will not give up until all the rioters have been released. Under such circumstance, they will never stop until they successfully disband and discredit the Police and discredit the Government. Fellow Hong Kong citizens, Hong Kong is now facing the most difficult time. Not only have the trade war and disturbances arising from the proposed legislative amendments resulted in economic recession, the general trend of "mutual destruction" has also taken shape. We have to be even more vigilant and prevent the recent incidents from overshadowing Hong Kong's real social conflicts, namely the oligopoly by large consortiums, disparity between the rich


3811

and the poor as a result of real estate hegemony, and social inequality. We should not let people with an ulterior motive to divert the attention of the community by using the Government as a scarecrow. The consistently loyal, committed and outstanding Police Force which serve the public with courage and loyalty have become (The buzzer sounded) … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK, please stop speaking. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I heard Mr LUK Chung-hung refer democratic Members as rioters in his speech. Even if we were rioters, we had a huge victory over the pro-establishment camp in the District Council Election. Should they bury their heads in the ground? Mr LUK suffered an overwhelming defeat and was spurned by the people in the Election, yet today he is still spouting nonsense here. President, in respect of this subject, I speak today to support the motions proposed by Mr Andrew WAN and Mr Jeremy TAM to appoint a select committee to investigate the "12 June" incident; I also support Dr KWOK Ka-ki's motion proposed under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to summon the Commissioner of Police to testify in this Council. The fact that we have to talk about the "12 June" incident and hold the discussion before the impudent and shameless John LEE in this Chamber is very ridiculous in itself. The "12 June" incident opened the Pandora's box of police brutality, and police brutality never ends thereafter. The "12 June" incident happened because of the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, and the government official in charge of the amendment is John LEE, the "dog official" before us. Today, he is still sitting impudently and shamelessly before us, as if nothing has ever happened. The Secretary for Justice is also one of the government officials in charge. She too appears as if nothing has ever happened and continues to be Hong Kong's Secretary for Justice. Moreover, Chief Executive Carrie LAM has yet to step down. All the above mentioned facts are a great irony of how Hong Kong's political system has been distorted and corrupted in that the accountability system for principal officials has disappeared, and he has not even made any response for being called a "dog official". This is our impudent and shameless government official.


In the "12 June" incident, there was no riot but only tyranny. The "12 June" incident was definitely not a riot, and the people involved were definitely not rioters. The protesters used their body to defy this evil law for the future of Hong Kong and its people, for the basic freedom of Hongkongers, and for saving Hongkongers from being extradited by the Government for no reason to the Mainland―a place that exploits human rights―for trial. Therefore, the essence of the "12 June" incident was the people's vigorous resistance to defy the evil law. However, how did the Government treat these brave protesters? The Government has treated them with asymmetric force of rubber bullets, tear gas rounds and pepper balls to inflict serious bodily harm. The Government has also suppressed members of the public. People around the world have seen how the Government used the evil law to restrain people's freedom, suppress our basic rights, and infringe human rights. When people rose vigorously for defiance, could they be called rioters? Who has after all done wrong? Today's motion demands a thorough investigation into the "12 June" incident, so we have to understand its background first. Why did the incident happen? Who make the wrong move first? In the discussion about the "12 June" incident, people are most furious about the level of force involved, i.e. the weapon used by the Police as I just mentioned. Apart from the level of force, people also wanted to know the attitude adopted by John LEE, the officer in charge, and the Police Force in treating the people. I consider their attitude malicious. Why do I say so? While it was definitely possible to adopt peaceful means to disperse the crowd, why did the Police shoot people in their heads and eyes? Why did the Police kettle the people at CITIC Tower and fire tear gas rounds at them, causing breathing difficulties? Mr LUK Chung-hung seemed to be poorly prepared for his speech, or he has deliberately distorted the fact. He queried why no one appealed to the crowds at CITIC Tower to retreat towards Tim Mei Avenue. This was because Tim Mei Avenue was blockaded by the Police. Both directions heading towards Wan Chai and Central were blockaded by the Police. Several hundred or even a thousand people were encircled by the Police; where could they escape when the Police fired tear gas rounds at them? John LEE, please answer me. If you were there, where could you escape? Having no way to escape, protesters entered CITIC Tower to hide, almost resulted in a stampede and breakage of the glass doors. Who caused this incident? This is what I meant by malice. The Police not only shot at the crowds but also encircled them for arrest. The purpose was to fire tear gas rounds at protesters. Was it not malicious?


3813

If we appoint a select committee to investigate the "12 June" incident, I think we must have an in-depth investigation of the various decisions made by the public officers in charge on that day. First, when they saw a big crowd of people gathering in the morning of 12 June, making it impossible to hold the Council meeting in a safe manner, why did they still continue to hold the meeting? In fact, Mr LEUNG, you have to bear a great responsibility. I also think that you have a conflict of interest in chairing this motion debate because you could be the first person to be summoned should a select committee be established. Why should the meeting still be held that day? Did you judge that Members could enter the Legislative Council Complex safely for holding the Council meeting? At 11:00 am, the meeting was still not cancelled and people continued to gather, but you did not tell us about the arrangement to be made. At that time, we saw photos of pro-establishment Members boarding a police minibus, not knowing where they were going. Why was this arrangement made? Please explain to the select committee. At that time, there was a saying that the Legislative Council was looking for an alternative venue to hold the meeting. Did you attempt to do so, Mr LEUNG? Was this idea dropped eventually? Who decided not to do so? These are the decisions that we ought to know because such decisions directly led to the radical confrontations on 12 June. Since we do not know the answer, we have to appoint a select committee to conduct an investigation. Actually, if Carrie LAM had decided to give up the amendment in the morning, the confrontations in the afternoon would have been avoided. However, she was not willing to give up. Moreover, the President of the Legislative Council was fatuous, and Members of the pro-establishment camp sided with the Government to support its governance. The pro-establishment Members hid somewhere in Admiralty or in a police vehicle, and they were not willing to make a better arrangement. Precisely because Carrie LAM did not want to lose face and royalists colluded with her, the safety of all fellow colleagues of the Legislative Council, protesters and members of the public were affected, and subsequently led to the conflicts on 12 June. After the conflicts on 12 June, some injured protesters went to hospitals at night to seek medical attention, yet unexpectedly they were arrested in the hospital. Some students who returned to university were arrested in the dormitory. Moreover, the Commissioner of Police said openly on that day that the incident was a riot, and the Government also made similar remark. That was why people still chant today "No riot, only tyranny". In this radical conflict, the


Police claimed that it did no wrong; they launched malicious attack on protesters and used excessive violence to harm Hongkongers. The stern response of the Government made that night had given rise to protests and radical conflicts that has yet to end to this day. This is precisely the background of the "12 June" incident. Justice is in the hearts of the people. However, what we want is not only justice. The purpose of appointing a select committee to investigate pursuant to the Ordinance is not merely to pursue justice, but to find out who made the decisions on that day. Did Andrew LEUNG make these decisions? Did John LEE make these decisions? Did Carrie LAM make these decisions? Who decided to use pepper ball rounds? Who decided to shoot the people? Who decided to shoot people in the head with tear gas rounds? Which commander made the decision? We should summon all parties concerned. This is precisely why today Members support the appointment of a select committee for investigation. What we want is not the justice in our heart; we want to ask the Government to provide the names of the officials concerned and hold them accountable. If government officials have made mistakes, they should step down, apologize and be held accountable. Only in this way can our Council and system have credibility. After the opening of the Pandora's box, police brutality persists to this day. People will not forget the "12 June" incident. Owing to this incident, some protesters died, injured or suffered from permanent physical disabilities due to different reasons. Many protesters have been put behind bars or will have to face trials soon. Many youngsters have lost their prospects and have to face tremendous stress in terms of money, mental condition and family relationship. Does the Government know about that? People will not forget the motor driver of Radio Television Hong Kong being shot by a tear gas round that day and the teacher being shot in the right eye. People will not forget the harm that the incident caused to them. There is no riot but only tyranny. I hope all impudent and shameless government officials who are still staying in their positions and refusing to step down … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI, please hold on. "Impudent and shameless" is an unparliamentary expression.


3815

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): President, you only point out that this expression is unparliamentary after I have used it five times. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please withdraw the expression concerned. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Alright, I withdraw and call him "a dog official" who still refuses to step down … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI, this expression is also unparliamentary. If you continue to use such expressions in your speech, I will regard your conduct as grossly disorderly. Please withdraw the expression concerned. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Alright, I withdraw the expression, but I have said it four times. It does not matter. I withdraw, because in calling him "a dog official", I have belittled dogs. Therefore, I urge Members to support this motion so as to, pursuant to the Ordinance, dig out the truth and return justice to the people of Hong Kong, especially the courageous young protesters. If these young people had not come out that day to defy the evil law with their own bodies, putting their own prospects at risk, Hong Kong would have already fallen low and the evil "China extradition bill" would have been passed by the royalist Members now present in this Chamber. If "one country, two systems" no longer exists in Hong Kong, will we still be tried in Hong Kong today? If protesters will be sent back to the Mainland and be tried in certain people's court in Shenzhen, can we still be able to defend the rule of law? The legislative amendments failed to be passed that day because of the defiance of these young people on our behalf. Should Hong Kong people now defend these young people and continue to protect them? In face of police brutality today, I urge the authorities not to hurt the children of Hongkongers anymore. The Police and John LEE should not vent their anger and discontent over working overtime on these young people. Police officers are paid for working overtime. The amount of overtime allowance paid has reached some $900 million. With weapons in hand, police officers should


exercise restraint if they are still human beings. Young people have acted radically, but their anger is caused by the Government and the pro-establishment camp for reasons that the social system is distorted, that the Legislative Council cannot represent them at all, and that a democratic mechanism is non-existent owing to the small-circle election. Do Hongkongers still have any choice? I hope we will engage in a deep reflection. For those so-called government officials who cling on to their positions and refuse to stop down, I also urge them to reflect and return justice to the people of Hong Kong in respect of the "12 June" incident and the entire "anti-extradition to China" movement. History will remember these government officials; history will remember how the royalist and pro-establishment Members rendered their diehard support for the "China extradition bill" that day to push Hong Kong into an abyss. Mr LEUNG, I so submit. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, according to the latest Agenda of the meeting of the Legislative Council, Members of this Council have proposed a total of 17 motions regarding various incidents and issues resulting from the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments. In order to make effective use of the Council's time and avoid repetition of arguments, you have decided to categorize these motions based on their contents to conduct five joint debates. I think such an approach is sensible and reasonable. The first joint debate will deal with the three motions proposed by Members including Mr Andrew WAN which relate to the incident regarding the protest outside the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex") on 12 June. The social unrest arising from the controversy over the legislative proposal to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance has made people very sad and worried. The unrest is still continuing. I believe that members of the public who aspire to stability and harmony in Hong Kong, be they support or oppose the proposed legislative amendments, would not like to see such a situation. Since the SAR Government commenced its work to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, and in the process of handling disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments, it has indeed made a number of mistakes which have to be reviewed. It is worth noting that owing to various complex factors in society, particularly different kinds of extensively disseminated negative propaganda containing seriously distorted messages,


3817

heated controversies have been aroused and society has been torn apart. The development of the social situation has also caused a spread of violence in escalating degrees. Opposition Members have repeatedly accused the Police of using excessive force to suppress peaceful assemblies in many protests in June. Hong Kong is a city which upholds the rule of law, the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong and I respect the freedom and right of Hong Kong people to participate in peaceful assembly and express their views rationally. In the daytime on the two Sundays of 9 June and 16 June, a large number of people joined protest rallies, which were supposed to be peaceful and orderly. But in fact, during the protest on 9 June, outside the Designated Demonstration Area of the Complex, some people violently charged the cordon line of the Complex. Some protesters blocked the main roads with miscellaneous objects, rubbish bins, mills barriers, etc., charged the police cordon lines and caused injuries to police officers and members of the public. President, a meeting of the Public Works Subcommittee ("PWSC") was scheduled to be held at 8:30 am on 12 June. As Chairman of PWSC, I drove to the Complex very early in the morning. However, roads in the vicinity of Admiralty were blocked and I could not go inside the Complex. As the majority of members of PWSC faced the same problem, I had no other choice but to instruct the clerk to inform PWSC members that the meeting would be cancelled that day. Later, the protest became increasingly violent, resulting in the cancellation of the Legislative Council meeting, and causing extensive devastation in areas around Admiralty. We clearly saw on television that a large group of masked protesters blocked the roads with miscellaneous objects, bricks, mills barriers, etc., and violently charged the police cordon lines and the Complex. They even attacked police officers with bricks and metal rods. Thus, the Police had no other choice but to use force in defence to protect the Complex. The clash, which unfortunately resulted in injuries of civilians and police officers, can be regarded as a prelude or a rehearsal of a series of more intense violent incidents that happened in recent months. Opposition Members have one-sidedly accused the Police of using excessive forces to suppress the peaceful assemblies in many protests in June, but why have they turned a blind eye and said nothing to the unlawful acts and violent charges of the radical protesters? Recently, serious protest clashes have occurred one after another in countries such as Spain, France and India. The local police officers have used tear gas rounds and force to control the crowds of protesters. In comparison, the


approach adopted by the Hong Kong Police Force has been more restrained. Why have opposition Members used double standards towards police officers in Hong Kong? We cannot exclude the possibility that some police officers have performed below par in the law enforcement process, but can opposition Members wilfully deny the effectiveness of the stringent enforcement actions taken by police officers in Hong Kong and even incite anti-police sentiments? Opposition Members have also accused the SAR Government of suppressing the protesters by charging them with disproportionate offences. They think that most protesters who participated in the assembly near the Legislative Council Complex on 12 June were peaceful. Since they had not caused any serious damage to public or private property and had not endangered the lives of other people, the Police should not charge the arrested persons with the offence of rioting. However, we clearly saw on television scenes of protesters blocking the roads, violently charging the police cordon lines and the Complex, and even attacking police officers with bricks and metal rods. It is reasonable for law-breakers to bear legal liabilities. All sectors of society should condemn these violent charging acts which may constitute serious offences; otherwise, the foundation of the rule of law of Hong Kong may be shaken or even shattered. In order to gain political chips, opposition Members have refused to condemn these violent acts and sever ties with such acts, but instead put all the blame of various incidents on the Government and the Police. Opposition Members have kept widening the rift in society and have actually incited violence. They have made confusing remarks, turned the consequences into the cause, reversed right and wrong and confused black and white; their behaviour is utterly despicable. They have directly or indirectly instigated young people and students to participate in unlawful activities and blatantly undermine the rule of law. Considering that the future of these youngsters will be completely ruined once they are arrested for committing these unlawful acts and offences, one will be outraged by the evil intentions of the instigators. In the past six months, violent acts of the radicals have escalated and spread all over the territory. These people have resorted to more violent and cruel means. They blocked roads, committed criminal damage, launched arson attacks, damaged railway and transport facilities, attacked police officers and executed vigilante justice day in, day out. More seriously, terrible incidents have occurred, including slitting a man's neck with a sharp knife, hurling bricks


3819

with the intent to kill, spraying gasoline on a person and set him on fire. These incidents have imposed a heavier burden on the Police in maintaining law and order. Hong Kong's economy and people's livelihood have been hard hit and incomes of the people have been seriously affected. Opposition Members who have incited violence cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility. Radical protesters disregarded the constitutional system of our country, made futile attempts to cause division and undermine "one country, two systems", and wantonly challenged the rule of law of Hong Kong with violence. The Chief Executive relies on the Police Force to strictly enforce the law. That is her responsibility. If the Police have acted inappropriately in enforcing the law, people can complain and follow up the matter under the existing mechanism. There are many precedents that police officers have to bear legal liabilities if they have violated the law. The Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC") is a statutory authority. Dr Anthony NEOH, Chairman of IPCC, told the press that as at the middle of this month, IPCC received over 1 000 complaints in relation to the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments. He stressed that each complaint would be followed up as an important case, and reports on reviewing the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments would be released by phases. He expected that the first report would be released in end January or early February next year. At the same time, IPCC will look into the incident on 21 July in Yuen Long and the incident on 31 August at Prince Edward MTR station. Members will be aware that the so-called "21 July" incident and the "31 August" incident have already been listed on the Agenda of the meeting of the Legislative Council as subjects of the second and third joint debates. Furthermore, Dr Anthony NEOH, Chairman of IPCC has pointed out the three objectives of the study report, including focusing on the facts and reviewing the big picture; giving recommendations to the Police or the Government; and providing a basis for the community to decide the next step of action. In the minds of opposition Members, there are only "two systems", but not "one country". They have used incidents arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments to gain political chips and utilized lies and fabricated messages about someone being "suicided" to keep tearing society apart and stirring up political conflicts between Hong Kong and the Mainland. Thus, they cannot be absolved from the responsibility of aggravating the social situation and escalating acts of violence.


President, disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments have continued for over half a year. Although there have been fewer riots recently, some people have unlawfully launched violent charges in shopping malls in many districts over the past weekend. The economy of Hong Kong is thus faced with both internal and external threats. According to the Census and Statistics Department, the latest unemployment rate from September to November is 3.2%. In particular, the retail, accommodation and food services sectors have recorded the highest unemployment rate in the past three years; and the unemployment rate of the food and beverage service sector has increased to 6.2%, which is a record high in the past eight years. Some companies have also started to lay off employees and cut their wages. Undoubtedly, the most urgent task of Hong Kong is to stop violence and curb disorder, and this is also the responsibility of the SAR Government headed by the Chief Executive. The people rely on the Police to take stringent enforcement actions and the courts to give fair judgments. It is equally important for all sectors of society to work together in saying no to violence and severing ties with rioters, so that the society of Hong Kong can resume order as soon as possible. Certainly, after violence is stopped and disorder curbed, all sectors of society, including the SAR Government, have to reflect deeply on the social unrest arising from the controversies about the proposed amendments of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and seriously learn from the experience and lessons. On 26 November, Chief Executive Carrie LAM said that the authorities were drawing reference from the practice of the United Kingdom in handling the disturbances in 2011. They were preparing to set up an independent review committee to review the causes for the social unrest in these months, targeting on the facts and not individuals, in the hope that mistakes will not be repeated and solidarity of society will be strengthened. All sectors of society should first allow the independent review committee to complete its review. They can then study the report and decide on the future direction of thought and action. President, even if a select committee is to be appointed under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments, we surely should not adopt the proposal of opposition Members of confining the scope of inquiry to ascertaining the roles of public officers and the Police in the incident. Instead, we should conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the causes and consequences of the relevant disturbances, including ascertaining whether there is any interference of external powers, the sources of funding and resources


3821

for various large-scale demonstrations and disturbances, as well as the deep-rooted conflicts which have led to the disturbances; and make recommendations on ways for social reconciliation. These are the contents of the motion which my colleague Dr Priscilla LEUNG of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong will propose later in the fifth joint debate. President, this social unrest involves the explosion of various deep-rooted social conflicts, including land and housing supply lagging behind the needs of society for many years, the wide wealth gap resulted from the imbalance in economic development, lack of upward movement opportunities for young people, and the problem-ridden education system. All of these involve blunders of the SAR Government in administration over many years. These blunders must be squarely addressed and solutions must be sought. President, with these remarks, I oppose the three motions in this joint debate. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I oppose the motions proposed by opposition Members under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382). These Members made it clear that the "12 June" incident marks the beginning of the people's opposition to an authoritarian regime, which is indeed a biased statement. Regarding this violent movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments as claimed by opposition Members, I will say that the "12 June" incident marks the beginning of black terror and black violence instead. President, from the "12 June" incident till now, members of the public have been confronted with a series of incidents with escalating violence, including continued attacks on police officers with petrol bombs and brutal attacks on people with different political views. Setting fire on a living person is a case in point. Do Members still think that these acts are committed to oppose a despotic regime? If these acts are committed in other parts of the world, they will be classified as terrorist acts and the people involved will be stopped by shooting. However, the Hong Kong Police Force has adopted restrained ways to deal with the incidents. I believe violence has not been completely eliminated even now. As some Members said, the process of stopping violence and curbing disorder has not been formally completed. I must point out here the reason behind is that


opposition Members in this Chamber have never severed ties with the evil power and black terror. They have allowed the evil power to run amok in society, which include vandalizing shops, setting fire to banks, etc. While opposition Members have never denounced violence, they have obstructed law enforcement officers in the discharge of their duties. What is the implication of such behaviour? I remember a very important period in history. In the 1930s, fascism emerged. The Nazi Party of Germany had relied on Adolf HITLER's Waffen SS to victimize law-abiding civilians and persecute opponents of fascism. The Nazis tortured those who did not obey them and arbitrarily arrested people on the street. Certainly, as Hong Kong is a society which upholds the rule of law, people cannot be arbitrarily arrested on the street, but they can arbitrarily attack other people on the street. Have the assailants been arrested by the Police? Even if an assailant is arrested, he will be released on bail by the court for just a few hundred dollars and then he can even go on an overseas visit. How awful has our society become? People have taken the consequences for the cause and confused right and wrong. Is the situation similar to the period which saw the emergence of Nazism? If Adolf HITLER raised his hand, tens of thousands would cheer him on. The current situation in Hong Kong is about the same. If someone raises his hand, thousands of people will cheer him on and applaud violence. If Hong Kong has degenerated into a society of black terror, can it develop any further? President, as Members of the Legislative Council, we should strictly say no to violence. However, opposition Members applaud violence, and they describe the "12 June" incident as the suppression of a peaceful protest. In fact, people clearly knew what happened. At that time, many opposition Members were at the scene. I, Mr WONG Ting-kwong and a few other Members were there too and we clearly witnessed the entire incident. To maintain law and order, to ensure the normal operation of the Legislative Council and to protect the dignity of the Legislative Council, the Police had put barriers outside the Legislative Council Complex to prevent people from charging. At the time, there were only some police officers and a line of barriers. Mr Jeremy TAM was at the scene, what did he see? Did the police officers take the initiative to withdraw? Did they take the initiative to withdraw after their cordon line was broken through? No. At the time, thousands of protesters wearing yellow helmets and holding metal rods and bricks were charging the police cordon line outside the Legislative


3823

Council Complex, such that the police officers were forced to withdraw to the so-called Drum area. They fired the first tear gas round only when they could not recede any further. Opposition Members and their propagandists accused the Police for firing tear gas rounds at the protesters, and praised the students for using their bodies to defend against tear gas rounds. How forceful are the propaganda! If we had not witnessed the entire incident but merely read the propaganda, we would have thought that the Police fired for killing. However, since the "12 June" incident, has anyone been shot dead by the Police? Opposition Members have not told the truth at all. The propagandists have fabricated news such as a number of people died in the "31 August" incident; many people died on other dates, some were thrown into the sea after being killed by the Police, etc. I once heard a police officer say sarcastically, "I have work to do every day, but now, I am also responsible for rapes, sodomies and disposal of dead bodies". These are heart-breaking remarks. If these messages are true, what kind of society has Hong Kong been degenerated into? If these messages are false, what do opposition Members and those who oppose the Government want Hong Kong to become? Members of the public wish to have stability and harmony in society; they do not want to hear suspicious and frightening messages. Earlier, we have heard speeches of opposition Members, including Mr HUI Chi-fung, describing our society as irremediable because it is an authoritarian regime; and claiming that the people need to topple it together. Suppose what they say is correct and they want to topple this authoritarian regime, what kind of a society will they take us to? We did not hear the kind of society that these Members will take us to. They have only put forward the two demands of democracy and freedom; but are we not democratic enough at present? The rioters have destroyed the whole society and set fire to banks; is there not enough freedom? Their remarks are totally out of touch with the reality of Hong Kong and they surely want to take Hong Kong people into the fires of hell. Violence is the symbol of their power. Members of the public have been silenced and they dare not talk about anything in front of these people because they are worried about being beaten up for talking too much. Some people even rushed into restaurants where members of the public were dining, vandalized the restaurants and drove the people away, what kind of a society is this? But surprisingly, no one has condemned these people and opposition Members even think they have done the right thing.


President, I think Hong Kong is heading towards degeneration. If we do not support the Police in continuing to take stringent enforcement action, Hong Kong people cannot carry on with their lives. I heard that many people would rather leave Hong Kong now because this kind of black violence and black terror have made them unable to carry on with their lives in Hong Kong. After the "12 June" incident, our economy has continued to decline. Business in many industries, including the tourism industry, has become scanty and many restaurants will cease operation. According to a report, more than 5 000 restaurants will close in a short time or before the Chinese New Year. It has also been estimated that the unemployment rate will slightly exceed 5% and the number of unemployed persons will increase to more than 5 000 people. Certainly, Hong Kong is yet to be in dire straits, but Members should know that if the situation continues, more and more people in Hong Kong will suffer tremendously. Who have caused this situation? This situation is caused by the rioters and opposition Members who have mobilized the people to "burn together". Hong Kong used to be a stable and prosperous society; why do people make it a degenerating society? I tried hard to understand but could not figure out the real objective of these people. However, I finally learnt the answer from the opposition Members and that is, they want to obtain votes in the election. As Mr HUI Chi-fung said earlier, they achieved complete success in the election, but society has lost out. What did the people get? Are they happy? Are they excited? Have they earned more money? No. The current situation is resulted entirely because opposition Members have created terror by false messages and fake news in order to obtain votes. President, I oppose the motions proposed by these Members. The reason is that the Chief Executive has proposed to conduct an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Council which will publish its first-phase report in the beginning of next month. In addition, the Chief Executive has also promised to set up an independent review committee to inquire into the entire incident. It will be wrong to demand for an inquiry that merely inquires into the "12 June" incident. Furthermore, Members clearly knew what happened that day: the current situation is resulted from the charging of the Legislative Council Complex by the rioters. As Mr LUK Chung-hung pointed out earlier, if the Police had not dealt with and stopped the charging acts, the rioters might have set fire to the Legislative Council Complex and the "21 July" incident might have occurred


3825

earlier. Since Members have seen what happened at the time, it will be completely wrong to just inquire into the Police Force. I think the reason for opposition Members to suggest inquiring into the "12 June" incident is to aggravate people's hostility towards the Police. I think what they have done has totally disregarded the causes and development of the entire incident. President, certainly, as the Chief Executive has put forward proposals including setting up an independent review committee to inquire into the incident, I think the inquiry or review should not only cover the "12 June" incident, but also various aspects, including the Police Force, all political powers that disrupt the stability and harmony of society and the mastermind behind the scene, so that we can learn from the experience of the whole incident. This is vital to the future development of Hong Kong. Why is it that so many young people are dissatisfied with the Government? There have been serious problems in the administration of the Government all along; has the Government clearly understood and deeply reflected on the problems? I think there is a need to conduct an inquiry so that the Government can draw reference from it. That is the right and just approach. On the contrary, opposition Members have proposed to set up a select committee for the purpose of targeting the Police. As I said earlier, had the Police not enforced the law, Hong Kong would have been ruled under black terror long ago. President, I believe violence will definitely be spurned by the people, just like Adolf HITLER being denounced by all people. Thank you, President. I so submit. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, today the Legislative Council is debating on whether we should invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to appoint a select committee mainly to inquire into the "12 June" incident. If the Ordinance is invoked, immense powers will really be conferred. On 10 October 2008, I moved to invoke the Ordinance to set up a select committee to inquire into the Lehman Brothers incident. As Members are aware, the committee worked for four years and its findings facilitated a peaceful resolution of disputes between many victims and banks. Subsequently, a comprehensive review on the financial structure of Hong Kong was conducted


and the Financial Dispute Resolution Centre was established following the recommendations of the select committee. For me, invocation of the Ordinance to appoint a select committee is not a scourge, and we have never evaded. The question is whether the seriousness and scope of the incident and its impact on Hong Kong warrant the invocation of the Ordinance. I remember that in the past, the Legislative Council would only consider invoking the Ordinance when the Government was reluctant to set up an independent commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 86). The Government refused to set up an independent commission of inquiry in relation to the Lehman Brothers incident back then. After discussing the matter at the Legislative Council, the motion to set up a select committee was eventually passed. When I think about it now, this will be the second time in 11 years that I have to consider whether the seriousness of an incident and its impact on society warrant the invocation of the Ordinance to set up a select committee. However, the focus of our debate today is the "12 June" incident. I will first discuss the incident and then explain why I think if a select committee is to be established, it should conduct a comprehensive inquiry and not only inquire into individual incidents. I understand that the "12 June" incident is the turning point of the whole movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments. Yesterday and today, I have listened carefully to the speeches of many opposition Members and some pro-establishment Members, they told us what they think and what they saw. I know that many protesters demand to inquire into police brutality. I do not agree to set up a select committee merely to inquire into police brutality, because the term "police brutality" per se is premised on a presumption. I am not excluding the possibility that what Members saw did happen. As we were not at the scene, we could not make comments. The accounts of the protesters might be partly true, but we have also received many video clips on the "12 June" incident from what I consider to be reliable media organizations, including BBC, or even from the website of a "yellow media organization" (i.e. Apple Daily). The foreign reporter of BBC, whom Mr Charles Peter MOK led into the Legislative Council Complex to report the news, used the word "retreat" to describe the response of police officers; he said they were compelled to withdraw into the Legislative Council Complex. Subsequently, many conflicts occurred. From the video clip released to the public by Apple Daily, a police officer, who did not attack, chase after or hit any protester or had not done anything, had blood all over his face as he was


3827

chased after and hit by the protesters. He was finally saved by his colleagues. It is therefore very important to know how and when the events occurred. There were many people at the scene that day; and some of my friends were there too. They said that considering the limited number of police officers at the time, the mass of protesters could easily swarm around them. My friends doubted whether police officers of Hong Kong had the experience of handling such a large-scale protest and mass assembly. These are what my foreign reporter friends told me. I think Dr CHENG Chung-tai made a right remark just now. He asked whether we had gathered any intelligence. In fact, I admitted that we made a wrong judgment. In the entire incident, pro-establishment Members certainly took part in making many decisions before 16 June. Although some political parties had proposed legislative amendments, we were restricted by the objective environment. We have really underestimated the international situation, failing to realize that the China-United States trade war had a direct impact on the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments. We cannot stand aloof from the problem and we must bear responsibility. But, what happened after 16 June? I would very much like to tell Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Dr Fernando CHEUNG what I think. In fact, Dr Fernando CHEUNG was still saying in his speech yesterday that the "peaceful, rational and non-violent" approach was futile and the use of violence was necessary. I am very worried that they are still holding such views today. What is the responsibility of the Legislative Council at present? Its responsibility is to solve the problem; and each of us has to bear our responsibility instead of standing aloof from the problem. After the "16 June" incident, opposition Members should earnestly ask themselves why they have not severed ties with violence; and why they dare not condemn violent acts which have gone beyond the bottom line of Members of the Legislative Council. The reason is that they can gain political benefits in these events. They obtained a big victory in the District Council Election. We must admit failure and we will reflect on ourselves; and those who do not reflect on themselves should not stay in the Legislative Council. We admit that we have underestimated the seriousness of the situation. The Government has not gathered intelligence and we have performed poorly. Nevertheless, after 16 June, opposition Members cannot stand aloof from the problem of violence. It seems that these Members have been absorbed into the camp of "burning together". They have not asked the people to stop violence, and thus they should bear the responsibility.


Opposition Members only told us part of the truth; they did not mention anything about the subsequent violent acts, including shooting arrows at police officers, hurling petrol bombs, etc. As other Members have already mentioned these acts, I will not repeat. I very much wish to point out that at present, some young people have really been put on trial and they may be imprisoned and penalized under the law because of these matters. Is this a case of "smart people make commands while stupid people take actions"? Many young people are preoccupied with the idea of violence and they agree with the view expressed by Members such as Dr Fernando CHEUNG that the "peaceful, rational and non-violent" approach is futile and violence is necessary. This situation is certainly something we would not like to see. These Members who have collaborated with the use of violence maintain the position of being "peaceful, rational and non-violent", so that no legal action can be taken against them, whereas the young people … but are young people the only ones involved? Those people have tightly covered their faces with black masks, are they all young people or are other people also involved? As the crimes were committed with a high degree of professionalism, the Police could not arrest some of the offenders; thus, very often, only the youngest offenders were arrested. Besides, have individual police officers in the Police Force used excessive force? Or, have any of them adopted inappropriate means to deal with the protesters? I think there are such cases. Nevertheless, if Members respect the system, they should let the Complaints Against Police Office ("CAPO") handle the matter before taking it further to the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC"). If the outcome is still unacceptable to them, the Legislative Council is duty-bound to follow up. However, from my experience in contacting more than one Policy Bureau, I think the SAR Government is like a wall in front of us. After we raised problems with government departments, they often take a very long time to address the problems to the extent of missing the golden opportunity. I find this unacceptable. As Members of the Legislative Council, we should not just keep rebuking the Government. If this term of Government has performed poorly, does it mean we have to ruin Hong Kong so that it will never be able to rise up again? No, I think we should assist the Government in solving the problems. In my view, police officers have been very restrained despite the shortage of police manpower. We should appreciate those who have been dedicated to their duties. They have sacrificed their dignity and worked overtime because of


3829

manpower shortage. Should we even propose to disband the Police Force like some young people? Or, should we behave like the camp of "burning together"? In fact, it has been said that the ultimate target of these people is neither the Hong Kong Government nor the Hong Kong Police Force, but the Central Authorities, hoping that the Central Government will deploy the People's Liberation Army to Hong Kong to the detriment of the welfare of 1.4 billion Chinese people. I do not want this to happen. Thus, I have no choice but to maintain that the Hong Kong Police Force have the ability to handle the situation. However, the Police have to increase their manpower so that police officers need not work overtime excessively. Police officers are human beings too. Very often, when I come across wives of police officers on the street, they would complain to me and cry. Although they support their husbands in their work, they do not want them to suffer insults or even attacks and rebukes day in, day out. They cannot accept that their beloved ones, being police officers, are unfairly treated. Therefore, I really must commend the Police Force for their tolerance and restraint. Nonetheless, I also agree that police officers who have performed poorly and used excessive violence should be dealt with under the mechanism based on facts. If some people have really committed serious crimes as alleged by opposition Members, be they police officers or not, they should be arrested, put on trial and convicted. Today, we must discuss whether we should refuse to make the slightest concession. I think the Government has made some concessions, as it at least withdrew the Bill on 4 September, although it had invariably missed the golden opportunity for taking actions. I think opposition Members and the protesters are the ones who have refused to make the slightest concession. After the Government made a concession in withdrawing the Bill, they continued to chant "Five demands". As I have said many times before, the third, fourth and fifth demands cannot be acceded to. The Government cannot promise at this juncture to grant a blanket amnesty. Besides, whether a person has committed the offence of rioting should be ruled by the court. Furthermore, the Government cannot possibly introduce dual universal suffrage next year. However, there are things which the Legislative Council and the Government can do. I think a review committee should be established without delay; and I hope that people from the opposition camp and opposition Members will not censure this proposal right from the start. The United Kingdom did set up a review committee because its bottom line was that society should not "burn together". However, this approach does not work in Hong Kong. We have a large number of people who prefer to "burn together" and insist on their demands. With regard to their


demands, there is no midpoint option, but the options available are not mutually exclusive. I think the review committee which the Government is willing to set up should seriously review recommendations on future policies and ways of compensation to the victims. Up to this day, the Government is still reluctant to set up an independent commission of inquiry, but the Legislative Council can do so. After thinking and making liaison efforts for a long time, I think we have to do some lobbying work. I suggest that we must study the causes and consequences of the incident and inquire whether any external forces are involved. Why do I mention this point? We may not be able to summon those people, as Members may know; but why do I still mention this point? The reason is that it will demonstrate that the commission of inquiry is fair. Members of the public and the protesters have expressed their wish to establish an independent commission of inquiry, not a review committee. On the other hand, the Police have clearly demanded that any inquiry should not target at them. Thus, only by conducting a comprehensive inquiry which covers the causes (there may not be any remote cause, and there may be immediate causes) and consequences of the incident will the truth come to light. Members who have joined select committee before will know that identifying the immediate causes will be included in the terms of reference of the committee. After we have put forward all the points, we have to convince the people. Hong Kong is not only comprised of 60% of the people on one side, but also 40% of the people on the other side. If the findings of the inquiry can convince all the people, then harmony and stability of society can be restored. If the Legislative Council is to set up several committees to inquire into "12 June" incident, the "21 July" incident, the "31 August" incident, etc. one by one, as well as committees to censure certain Members, frankly speaking, those who have participated in such work will know that Members will be weighed down by the workload and cannot possibly handle the workload. Therefore, I hope that we will focus on setting up just one committee and allow the Legislative Council to exercise its powers in properly inquiring into the causes and consequences of the entire incident. This will enable us to give an account to society and provide a reference to politicians and the Government in enhancing the future policies. President, I so submit.


3831

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 11:30 am. 10:45 am Meeting suspended. 11:30 am Council then resumed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have received inquiries from Members of different parties and groupings regarding the arrangements for today's meeting. Given that this is the last meeting of the year and I expect that the current debate will end later this afternoon, and as I informed Members of different parties and groupings on Tuesday, after we have finished dealing with this agenda item, the next debate will not begin immediately so Members can proceed to a full debate at the next meeting. Mr Holden CHOW, please speak. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I strongly agree to Mr LEUNG Che-cheung's remark made before the short break that the "12 June" incident kicked off black violence in Hong Kong because we saw on 12 June protesters digging up bricks on the ground and hurling them at the Police. On that day, we saw the police cordon line retreating continuously from the Drum area. Basically, protesters hurled bricks and used various other weapons including metal rods, etc. The incident can definitely be classified as a riot based on the level of force. Protesters attacked the Police violently and they even charged the Legislative Council Complex. I think this is definitely an act of violent charging. President, in the past two days, many colleagues repeatedly accused the Police of using excessive force to deal with the protesters, but as I said just now, many rioters dug up bricks from the ground and created violent conflicts. What


should we expect the Police to deal with the situation? Should they fold their arms and do nothing? This is also unreasonable. Therefore, we must set the facts straight and find out the real situation at the time, and we should not shirk responsibilities onto the Police. This is the first point that I must explicitly make. President, regarding the black violence that occurred in the past six months, I recently raised a question in this Council about the number of police officers injured while on duty because of black violence in the past six months. A total of 483 police officers were injured, including police officers being burnt by corrosive liquid or injured by hard objects including metal poles, metal rods, bows and arrows, as well as modified weapons. President, if anyone said that the Police used excessive force in dealing with riots that happened over the past six months, we saw something different. Protesters burnt police officers with corrosive liquid, attacked them with metal rods, and shot them with bows and arrows. The protesters also hurled petrol bombs and set fires. Some police officers were being attacked, and a police officer almost died after being slashed in the neck. Apart from police officers, an ordinary person was set on fire because of different political views. Some people even hurled petrol bombs at police stations and school buses carrying children. A cleaner unfortunately died after being hit by a brick while clearing roadblocks. President, having seen such black violence, do we expect the Police to fold their arms and do nothing? The black violence that occurred in the past six months has seriously threatened the personal safety of the public when they go out. Our society has basically plunged into a period of economic stagnation. All industries and sectors have been hit; how many people have lost their jobs and fail to make ends meet? How many shops have failed to operate or have been damaged? All these are targeted actions. If shop owners support Chinese enterprises, support the pro-establishment camp or indicate pro-establishment stances, their shops will be vandalized. Chinese enterprises will also be vandalized. Black intimidation and black violence caused the public to become frightened and worried all the time. Why have opposition Members turned a blind eye to these evil acts? When they were asked to sever ties with violence, they firmly rejected, and even gave some high-sounding excuses to rationalize these acts of violence. They


3833

said that since the Police used violence, the protesters resisted. They are constantly shirking responsibilities onto the Police. President, this is not fair. I have said more than once that opposition Members, as persons engaged in politics, have the responsibility to lead public opinion and mediate. However, in the past few months, they not only failed to play a mediation role but also continued to stir up conflicts. They even led the public to accept violence and provided excuses for those who used violence, causing the public to agree with them and violence to escalate incessantly. So, the opposition Members in this Chamber are absolutely responsible for the chaos in Hong Kong. However, it seems that they totally believe that they have done nothing wrong. Now, they seek to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to investigate different incidents that happened in the past six months. But as I said earlier, Hong Kong has been plagued by black violence for a long time and I think we should conduct an overall review. For instance, we should find out the causes, consequences, deficiencies or deep-seated problems of the incidents. We should conduct one overall review instead of multiple investigations under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance into different incidents as proposed by some Members today. Obviously, their motions are basically directed at the Police Force and they will not deny this intent. The SAR Government should draw experience from the handling of riots by the United Kingdom and consider setting up a review committee to study the ins and outs of the incident, the deficiencies and deep-seated issues. Today, the opposition party proposes a number of motions, seeking to investigate incidents that happened on individual days. I do not know how much time the Legislative Council has to spend to deal with these motions. Given the limited time and resources of the Legislative Council, I am afraid we may not be able to complete all the work. I also think that the Police should not be targeted. If there are problems with the Police in the past six months, such as individual incidents not being handled inappropriately or individual police officers having problems, investigations should be conducted by the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC") under the existing mechanism. IPCC has not yet published a report, to be fair, I think a judgment should only be made after reading the IPCC report. Another issue is that my colleagues often say that establishing an independent commission of inquiry can solve all problems. President, I would like to take this opportunity to point out: Can the disturbances that lasted for half


a year since the outset of the incident be subsided by establishing the so-called independent commission of inquiry? President, why do I raise this question? It is not true that the Government did not make compromises and concessions in June as it announced the suspension of the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). Since then, opposition Members have stated that they do not accept the arrangement, do not trust the Government, and they have also held a lot of discussions over the terms used; yet we know that no further action will be taken to deal with the Bill. Even if the Government announced that day to suspend the amendments to the Ordinance and officially withdrew the Bill later, the problem could not be solved. As for the five demands, even if the Government compromised and withdrew the Bill, the dissatisfaction or disturbances incited by the opposition camp could still not be quelled. Therefore, we have reasons to question whether establishing an independent commission of inquiry as requested would quell the unrest. I believe there are difficulties. President, in respect of dealing with the social turmoil, there were indeed a lot of deficiencies in the SAR Government's handling of the related matters over the past six months. For example, the SAR Government failed to effectively coordinate all departments to stop violence and curb disorder; hence only the Police Force risked their lives in handling riots at the front line. In addition, the judicial system failed to effectively and speedily handle and hear the relevant cases. The United Kingdom had set up a special court to operate round the clock to institute prosecutions and hear cases as soon as possible. Deterrent effects can be achieved if cases can be heard within one week. We have been suggesting and asking the Government to set up a special court that operates 24 hours but the SAR Government has turned a deaf ear. There are many cases pending prosecution, and as we know, the prosecution and trial processes are lengthy and many people are still on bail. Many members of the public question why these cases cannot be handled as soon as possible in order to give full play to deterrent effects and discourage some people from taking to the streets. However, the SAR Government has not set up a special court that operates 24 hours. This issue needs to be addressed. In addition, over the past six months, our society has been flooded with fake news. Unconfirmed or indiscriminately fabricated news and lies have continued to spread. In particular, concerning the "31 August" incident, it was rumoured at the outset that some people died. This news has kept spreading, making the public think that many people died in the incident. How effective


3835

was the SAR Government in clarifying the news? Given the numerous fake news and alarming lies, right and wrong has been reversed, yet the SAR Government does not have an effective mechanism against fake news. I think the Government has to review the situation. President, in today's motion debate, we have clearly stated that the Police have been working very hard in the past six months and they are now physically and mentally exhausted. While the police officers have been risking their lives in tackling riots, the opposition camp has shifted the responsibilities for violence onto the Police in order to divert attention. In any case, we should not resort to violence, but the opposition camp keeps diverting attention and demanding to identify the reasons for using violence. This is why they connive at violence. For this reason, Hong Kong is in turmoil now as many people are unemployed and financially deficient. I would like to ask if opposition Members have thought about these things. If they continue to connive at violence, the daily lives and financial conditions of the public will be affected. How can the public meet their basic living needs and how can shops run business? Have they turned a deaf ear to all these questions? Some Legislative Council Members, including Mr CHU Hoi-dick, have displayed large placards with the words "Hong Kong people, revenge!" Does he only have "revenge" in his mind? No wonder our society is now filled with hatred and is in turmoil. President, I so submit. MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, three Members have proposed to appoint a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and Article 73 of the Basic Law to summon the Commissioner of Police to inquire into the law enforcement actions of the Police taken in the protest outside the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex") on 12 June this year. Actually, the main intention of these Members is to target at the anti-riot actions taken by the Police. In fact, after every lawful or unlawful protest, some rioters will wreak havoc after the assembly and there will be no alternative but to deploy the Police to maintain law and order, eliminate violence and restore peace in society. I doubt why Members only demand to inquire into the Police but not the rioters who have broken the law and breached the peace of society. If an inquiry is to be conducted, its scope should include ascertaining the masterminds behind the so-called actions without leaders and whether anyone has collaborated with foreign political powers. Besides, we will embark on the


new beginning of 2020 in half a month. Hong Kong people must shake off the gloom over the past six months and move on. We should do positive things which are good for the future of Hong Kong, which are more worthy of our effort. Thus, I think the three motions proposed today are entirely meaningless and unnecessary. The contents of the motions include inquiring into the alleged abuse of power of the Police in executing their duties in the unlawful assembly held outside the Complex on 12 June, including shooting the heads of protesters, group beating of protesters with batons, assaulting reporters, etc. However, the Members have chosen not to ascertain the responsibilities of the rioters in using violence; and their statements about the Police are very biased too. President, I was at the Complex on the day and I watched the live news broadcast on television. I was at the balcony on 5th floor and clearly saw how the rioters charged the Complex. I think I am one of the Members who are most qualified to talk in this Chamber about what happened on the day. According to the chronology of events in the "12 June" incident, people started to occupy the roads near Lung Wo Road from about 7:00 am to 8:00 am and then they blocked the roads in Central, Wan Chai, Admiralty, etc. Later, protesters came from different directions and assembled outside the Complex. I noticed that the protesters at the scene were rather peaceful at first; they only sang songs and chanted slogans. But, around noontime, some of them dug up bricks from the pavement near the construction site opposite the Complex while others went inside the construction site and took away some metal rods. At about 3:00 pm, things started to take a drastic turn. A large number of masked rioters wearing yellow or white helmets started charging the Office of the Chief Executive, the Central Government Offices and the Complex frantically. Some of them dug up a large number of bricks from the pavement outside the Complex and placed them in front of the Complex. Others removed metal rods from the construction site, passed them to a spot outside the Complex and kept hurling them at police officers. As the Police were only equipped with simple accoutrements for maintaining law and order, they could not defend themselves against the bricks, metal rods and mills barriers hurled at them. They had no choice but to retreat from the demonstration area outside the Complex to the so-called Drum area of the Complex, i.e. the place below the Chamber. I was at the balcony on the 5th floor and became more frightened as I looked on. Subsequently, when the Police retreated to the Drum area, the rioters started


3837

charging the front entrance to the Complex. After the Police were equipped with new accoutrements, they dispersed the rioters from the Drum area to the road outside the Complex. The rioters who entered the Drum area started to cause serious damage. At the time, people inside the Legislative Council Complex included eight pro-establishment Members, some assistants of Members and staff members of the Legislative Council Secretariat. At around 4:00 pm, we considered the place very dangerous and so we left. In order to maintain public order, stop violent charging and protect the safety of the precincts of the Complex, the Police had no alternative but to take corresponding actions and arrested the rioters involved. As pointed out by the Secretary, in the "12 June" incident, serious violent incidents occurred in the precincts of the Complex. Although members of the public had the right of expression, the Police were duty-bound to maintain public order and protect the interests of people. When members of the public were violently attacked, the Police had to take corresponding actions to remove the threat of violence. All in all, when there is a problem with order in society, law enforcement officers are duty-bound to stop disorder and restore peace. Thus, the Police will dutifully maintain law and order. What kind of force used by the Police is considered to be proportionate? In order to suppress the increasingly violent rioters, the Police had to use force higher than the proportionate level. Does using proportionate force mean that the Police should hurl bricks at rioters if rioters hurled bricks at them? If the rioters hurled petrol bombs at the Police, should the Police hurled petrol bombs at the rioters? I think people who made such remarks are crazy! It is always right to use force to stop violence and curb disorder. As regards the saying that some reporters at the scene of demonstration were innocently injured, I believe reporters should assess on their own the risks involved in respect of the chaotic situation on 12 June. In the face of various unlawful and dangerous activities, should reporters who decided to stay at the scene bear their own risks? If they chose to stay, they should mind their own safety. In particular, underage protesters should not stay at the scene and leaving immediately would be the best policy. By the same token, reporters should consider their own safety when reporting. Some media workers chose to report the incident in highly risky positions when the rioters confronted the Police. They should professionally assess whether it was appropriate to do so since bricks, petrol bombs or tear gas canisters might land in the wrong place. Thus, I advise media workers to be very careful under such circumstances. In fact, the Police have repeatedly issued such reminders through various channels.


At present, it is most important to stop violence and curb disorder, but the rioters have become increasingly violent. They vandalized various places and claimed that they were "renovating"; they executed vigilante justice on people with different political stances even to the extent of causing injuries and deaths; and they openly damaged the rule of law. To a large extent, they have committed these acts with the support of people with political power. In particular, opposition Members, who have all along openly refused to sever ties with violence, have actually prompted and encouraged street violence and cheered rioters on. Why did rioters hit the man clearing roadblocks in the head by a metal drain cover? Why was a man clearing roadblocks hit by a brick and consequently received five stitches on his wound; and why was another man killed from a similar attack? Why was the man doused with a combustible liquid and suffered from serious burnt injuries after he had expressed different political opinions? Why couldn't the people take photos freely on the street, and why should their mobile phones been inspected or even smashed by the rioters? Yet, the rioters claimed that they were upholding human rights and they were righteous fighters for democracy and freedom. Is it really true that "Murderers and arsonists enjoy great wealth while bridge builders and road repairers died without a proper burial"? I doubt whether we should call those who disrupted social order, did whatever they wanted and committed wanton vandalism rioters; I think we can even call them bandits. As Hong Kong is faced with both external and internal troubles, and people's livelihood and our economy are adversely affected, I hope that all Hong Kong people will whole-heartedly, vigorously and dedicatedly join the Police in saying no to violence and tiding over the difficulties together. Only by stopping violence and curbing disorder can peace be restored in Hong Kong. I hope that the economy of Hong Kong will recover and continue to develop so as to create a better future for ourselves and for the younger generation. President, with these remarks, I oppose all the motions. MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): President, we debate today the motions proposed by Mr Andrew WAN, Mr Jeremy TAM and Dr KWOK Ka-ki. This motion asks this Council to appoint a select committee to inquire into the inappropriate behaviours of the Police in the "12 June" incident. I believe the "12 June" incident originated from the CHAN Tong-kai case. The Government


3839

wanted to handle this case through the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). As a result, 1 million people took to the streets on 9 June, leading to conflicts between the Police and the public on 12 June, and a number of incidents thereafter, such as the "1 July" and "21 July" incidents, etc. President, I believe this case has yet to be concluded and I also believe that all the incidents mentioned above are related. First of all, as what I did at the meeting on 27 June, I would like to sincerely apologize to all Hong Kong people once again. Even though a large number of people took to the streets to express their dissatisfaction with the Ordinance on 9 June, we still wanted to continue to push forward the amendments to the Ordinance. I would also like to apologize to my leaders, including former Members James TIEN, Selina CHOW and Miriam LAU. Owing to the dissatisfaction expressed by so many people, they queried why we should continue to push forward the amendments to the Ordinance. We have always believed that the vast majority of Hong Kong people would not commit an offence under the Ordinance. I asked many people and friends; actually none of them might commit an offence under the Ordinance. However, given that a large number of people took to the streets, no matter the number involved was 1 million, 600 000 or 300 000, since the people did not know much about the amendments, should we actually stop for some time? As we did not stop, a series of incidents then happened. Hence, I am really sorry. I also shared with my elders my thought that such cases might be very rare. My elders told me that members of the public were not worried about the rare occurrence of such cases but what should be done when such cases happened. Therefore, we will learn a lesson and will prudently deal with such issues in the future. Mr WONG Ting-kwong has clearly recounted the "12 June" incident just now. Many pro-establishment Members gathered early that morning, preparing to return to the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex"). As we could not enter the Complex owing to the external environment, we were waiting at a certain place. We were very concerned about the entire situation and had been watching live broadcasts on a number of television channels. In fact, the situation was peaceful at that time. Shortly after 3:00 pm, we saw on Now TV that some protesters went to the Drum area and were prepared to storm the Complex. They hurled bricks, wooden planks and metal poles etc. at police officers. The incident then aggravated, resulting in conflicts between the Police and the public, and the firing of tear gas rounds. This is the subject of today's motion.


President, in the following few days, many people actually still had no idea what had happened. Had the Police taken the initiative to attack protesters or had protesters attacked the Police first with the intent of storming into the Complex? The situation at that time was chaotic. Mr Joseph WONG pointed out that he only saw the Police beating protesters and protesters had not hurled bricks. I believe that after verification by many radio stations, the media and the public, the time sequence that I just mentioned should be correct Why should the Police station outside the Complex? In fact, many pro-establishment Members and staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat were in the Complex that day. If a large number of protesters, even rioters, stormed into the Complex, I reckoned that the consequences would be disastrous if no police officers were stationed at the scene. On 1 July, the Police did not stop the protesters. I believe the public can see clearly what happened to the Complex. This place has now been renovated; in fact, it cost tens of millions of dollars to renovate the Complex after it had been vandalized. Nevertheless, we only suffer property loss on 1 July but there might be casualties on 12 June. For this reason, the Police had to immediately stop the protesters from entering the Complex. I think this is the right approach. However, does this mean that there is no problem with the behaviours of all police officers? President, we discussed last week what happened on 21 July. I originally prepared to make certain points and I usually discussed with my colleagues before drafting my speech. I discussed with two colleagues whether some police officers had behaved inappropriately. I mentioned a case in which three police officers arrested a man, tied him to a hospital bed and assaulted him. I asked them if these police officers had misbehaved. I also cited another case which I witnessed, i.e. though two police officers had already held down a protester, another police officer still dashed forward and beat the protester's legs a few times. Why did the police officer beat the protester? Later, other police officers came forward and dragged the officer in question away. Was it because he was hit by the protester during a previous fight, and in return, he now beat the protester with a baton? In fact, I believe most people would not approve of these behaviours and I believe the senior management of the Police would not approve as well. After listening to these cases, my two colleagues said that on 21 July, the Police arrived at the scene 38 minutes after receiving the report and they asked me for my views. Of course, I found this really odd and wondered why police


3841

officers could only be deployed to arrive at the scene 38 minutes after receiving the report? A large number of people were involved in a fight that day, why did the Police arrive so late? Was it that the Police had to deploy police officers from Hong Kong Island or was it due to some special arrangements? Members of the public really want to know the answers to these questions and we also need to know the answers. After these two colleagues heard my views, they became really scared and they asked me, "Do you support the Police?" I told them that I supported the Police in enforcing the law stringently and in accordance with the law. How come Hong Kong has come to such a pass today? The reason is that many people think that the SAR Government is sheltering offenders, but is this really the case? I believe the Police and the SAR Government will handle such matters seriously but the problem is that the investigation has yet to be completed. Concerning the cases I just mentioned, would pro-establishment Members say that it was right for the three police officers to assault the person lying in bed? I do not believe Legislative Council Members would say that these police officers have doing something right, but we have not yet discussed the issue. We have actually started discussing the issue today, is that right? Two weeks ago, I had a meal with friends who belonged respectively to the "yellow" and "blue" camps. My "yellow" friend kept calling the Police "dirty cops", while my "blue" friend said people of the "yellow" camp were "cockroaches". I was asked whether police officers were "dirty cops" and whether people of the "yellow" camp were "cockroaches". I told them that a friend who returned to Hong Kong after emigration to a foreign country said to me that Hong Kong people were rioters. I asked him why he made that comment. He said that Hong Kong people threw objects, set fire and hurled bricks. I told him that some but not all Hong Kong people were rioters. I also told my two friends that some police officers might misbehave but most police officers were good. I have never used the word "cockroaches" to describe certain people. Some people but not all Hong Kong people are rioters, and words such as "cockroaches" and "dirty cops" should not be used. This actually will not help resolve the diversion of Hong Kong today. If some police officers have not done a good job or may have even violated the law, we should understand what happened and leave such cases to the court. If some protesters are rioters, they should be brought to justice. However, Hong Kong will go downhill if all of us resort to a verbal war. How come the


conflicts between the yellow and blue camps have intensified? It is because each side thinks that the other side is shielding its supporters. During the meal, my "blue" friend asked my "yellow" friend about his views on the incident of setting a person on fire. The "yellow" friend said it was definitely wrong to do so. Then my "blue" friend asked why no condemnation was made if such act was considered to be in the wrong. The "yellow" friend replied that there was no platform for him to do so. The "blue" friend then queried if he really belonged to the "yellow" camp. According to my "yellow" friend, being "yellow" did not mean that he supported setting a person on fire. Similarly, he asked the "blue" friend whether he supported the Police beating people. The "blue" friend also said he did not support such acts. In fact, if we understand the ins and outs of an incident, there will not be so many controversies. We can focus our discussion on the problem. President, you also understand that Hong Kong will have a poor economy as some 1 000 restaurants in the catering industry and 7 000 to 8 000 shops in the retail industry may close down. Do you know how serious the wave of unemployment will be? If we continue to protest and abuse one another but fail to find a solution, Hong Kong will be doomed. Many wage earners will not be able to find jobs in the future. In fact, the crux of this incident is the "five demands". First, withdraw the amendments to the Ordinance; the amendments had actually been withdrawn. Second, set up an independent commission of inquiry. In fact, the Chief Executive has said that an independent review committee will be established. However, I would like to remind the Chief Executive of her previous experience in which she "suspended" the bill when she was asked to "withdraw" the bill. Although we now understand that suspension is actually withdrawal, as Hong Kong people have lost their trust in her, she will be targeted if she makes some mistakes. She should specifically explain the difference between the independent review committee to be set up by her and the independent commission of inquiry. Do they have the same functions? Can Hong Kong people be convinced that she is not shielding and she sincerely wants to conduct an investigation and being the case to court? Only in this way can people's anger be cooled. As for retracting the "riot" categorization, more than 100 people were vandalizing and rioting outside the Legislative Council Complex that day while tens of thousands of people were singing hymns. The Chief Executive's remark


3843

that this was a riot would certainly infuriate many people. Actually, people should be handled differently. As the Police might not have loudspeakers at that time, they should learn a lesson and in future, they should use loudspeakers to call on people to leave. Before firing tear gas rounds, the Police should allow the people to retreat safely first, instead of encircling thousands of people, as this would infuriate more and more people. Let us think about this: more than 100 people were hurling bricks and stones, who would shield them against such illegal acts? But what should be done when all those people were encircled and shot with tear gas rounds? I think better deployment should be made in future. As for the implementation of dual universal suffrage, I think Hong Kong always has a mechanism to implement dual universal suffrage. If the proposal had been passed by the Legislative Council last time, direct elections might have been implemented gradually. We can continue with the discussion because the Basic Law has express provisions in this respect. As for the withdrawal of prosecutions, we must really hold a serious discussion. If in future some people hurl bricks or beat non-establishment Members and they ask me to withdraw their charges, I do not know what to do. Do colleagues agree? If colleagues do not agree … President, more than 6 000 people have been arrested, many of them are students, and I do not know what to do. Lastly, people often ask me if I support the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry. Let me give a simple example. If your company is vandalized or set on fire, and you are asked to ignore the damage, you cannot possibly agree. However, if the investigation only covers the management staff but not the neighbours and clients, you also cannot possibly agree. As I said at the outset, this incident was caused by CHAN Tong-kai and this is still true today. The problem is that as the office is still burning, how can an investigation be conducted? We should at least put out the fire first. President, we must conduct an investigation but we cannot just investigate the Police, and we must conduct investigation to get a full picture. Thank you, President. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, having heard the speeches of the pro-establishment royalist Members, especially Mr Holden CHOW, I think I must make a response. Of course, I speak in support of the motions proposed by


three democratic Members, namely Mr Andrew WAN, Mr Jeremy TAM and Dr KWOK Ka-ki, to appoint a select committee to inquire into what happened outside the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex") on 12 June, i.e. the so-called "12 June" incident", under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and to summon the Commissioner of Police to produce papers and testify under Article 73 of the Basic Law. President, on the day of 12 June I was in the Complex and I also went to Tim Wa Avenue. Hence, I am well aware of what happened that day. After hearing the speeches of the pro-establishment Members, I found that they seemed to get the time and space wrong as they accounted all incidents that happened over the past more than six months to the "12 June" incident. It boggled my mind why the President did not stop them but allowed them to continue to speak. I must point out clearly that the pro-establishment royalist Members, especially Mr Holden CHOW, have described all the incidents over the past more than six months as if they happened on 12 June, totally ignoring the sequence of events. As a matter of fact, the examples they vividly described, including a man being doused with inflammable liquid and set on fire, a cleaning worker being hit by a brick and died, a police officer being shot with an arrow and people hurling petrol bombs, etc., were all violent acts, yet such acts did not happen on 12 June. President, we all know that the "12 June" incident" was caused by the "China extradition bill", which had aroused great controversies in the Legislative Council and stirred up great resentments among the public. On 9 June, 1.03 million people took to the streets to protest against the bill being directly submitted to the Legislative Council for passage. We all remember why the bill could bypass the Bills Committee and be submitted to the Legislative Council directly. President, you were involved in making the decision. Members of the public were aware that 1.03 million people took to the streets on 9 June. In any cities in the world, if 1 million people take to the streets in protest, the local government would step down immediately to form a new government. One should not forget that the 1.03 million-strong rally on 9 June was absolutely peaceful and no violence had occurred. Given that 1.03 million people took to the streets peacefully in opposition to the bill, how could the pro-establishment camp and SAR Government insist on scrutinizing and voting on the bill on 12 June at the Legislative Council meeting? How could the Government and the royalists disregard public views to such an extent, completely ignoring the peaceful protest of 1.03 million people? How could they put themselves above the people, paying no heed to the aspirations of the people?


3845

As the 1.03 million-strong peaceful protest on 9 June was of no avail, people were anxious since the Government stated that it would submit the bill to the Legislative Council for scrutiny as scheduled. Hence, on 12 June, we as Members of the Legislative Council, returned to the Complex. When we arrived, we saw many people gathering outside and besieging the Complex. Did incidents described by Mr Holden CHOW, such as hurling bricks, setting fire on others, killing others by hurling bricks or hurling petrol bombs, happened that day? No petrol bombs had been hurled, yet countless tear gas canisters were fired. Hence, stop speaking nonsense and mess up the sequence of events. On that day, we saw on television that a small number of people, with bricks in hand, were having small-scale clashes with the Police within the Drum area of the Complex. But outside that Drum area, people were protesting peacefully. What weapon did they have? They had no weapon except umbrellas, the so-called weapon as defined by pro-establishment Members. Hongkongers are very familiar with umbrellas. In 2014, there was the Umbrella Movement. The only weapon they had in hand was an umbrella. Strictly speaking, it was not accurate to consider umbrella a weapon. At most it could only be a tool to protect oneself from pepper spray and tear gas rounds fired by the Police. While most of the people gathered outside the Complex, some stayed at Tim Mei Avenue, Tim Wa Avenue and Harcourt Road. We judged that there were over 100 000 people besieging the Complex and gathering in the vicinity of Harcourt Road. They were all peaceful protesters. Do not depict the "12 June" incident as a riot and the protesters as rioters based on the small-scale clashes in the Drum area. The public highly resent such a description. None of us consider the protesters at the scene rioters. What weapons did the Police have? They had large amounts of weapons and we were also victims that day. On the day of 12 June, I was in the Complex. In the afternoon, some people asked Members to go outside as some clashes had erupted. Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and I thus went outside to see what happened. We saw many people outside and we went to Tim Wa Avenue, the place where some clashes broke out and mediation was needed. When we arrived, we learned that the protesters had some clashes with the Police earlier but we did not find the protesters holding any weapons. All they had were umbrellas to shield themselves. When Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and I arrived at the scene, we did not have any protective gear. I had an eye surgery in mid-May,


what was not even a month before 12 June. When I went outside the Complex, I did not put on my glasses; neither did I wear any protective gear such as goggles or gas mask. The assistant accompanying us only took a loudspeaker. As we proceeded, people made way for us. When we arrived at Tim Wa Avenue where the protesters clashed with the Police, we told the Police loud and clear that we were Legislative Council Members Helena WONG, Andrew WAN and LAM Cheuk-ting and we asked them to stay calm. We also asked members of the public to stay calm. We hoped that the protest could be held peacefully, we did not wish to see any clashes between the people and the Police or anyone getting hurt. When we said we were Legislative Council Members Helena WONG, Andrew WAN and LAM Cheuk-ting, we were unarmed. Someone gave me an umbrella earlier, but I had closed it, lest the Police would be mistaken that I was going to attack them. When we told the Police we were Legislative Council Members, how did they treat us? There was no fighting at the moment and the situation was calm. Why did the Police not listen to what we wanted to say first but pepper-sprayed us in the face right away? As I had closed the umbrella, I had nothing to shield the pepper spray. Is that reasonable force? Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and I lodged a complaint with the Complaints Against Police Office in September but we have heard nothing from it so far. It just keeps telling us that the complaint is still under investigation. Also, we were unable to tell the names of the police officers who pepper sprayed us as they had not displayed their police identification numbers. At a time when the Police and the public were not at war, but were confronting each other in a calm manner, how come Members wishing to step in, to communicate, to understand the situation and to mediate, were pepper sprayed by the Police once they identified their names? Had we done anything to suggest we were about to charge the Police? No. The situation was tranquil at that time. Why did the Police pepper sprayed Legislative Council Members who only intended to mediate for no reason at all? Should weapons be used for such a purpose? Was the force used by the Police reasonable? If we charged police officers, hurled abuses at them or attacked them with umbrellas, we might deserve to be beaten or sprayed at but we did nothing of that sort. Hence, the pro-establishment Members should stop making false accusations. No protesters hurled petrol bombs that day.


3847

The problem was that the Police did not just attack people indiscriminately at Tim Wa Avenue. When we were sprayed with pepper based solution, some kind-hearted members of the public (i.e. the so-called rioters by the Police) immediately helped us to rinse our eyes with saline solution. As our bodies, arms and legs had been sprayed with pepper based solution, we wanted to return to the Complex to clean up. While we were walking from Tim Wa Avenue to Tim Mei Avenue, we saw a team of Special Tactical Squad ("raptors") charge forward and fire tear gas canisters. As all entrances to the Complex were locked by the Police, we were unable to enter the Complex. We were thus trapped outside and were forced to inhale the tear gas. It seemed that we were trapped in a battle field. What had we, Members, done wrong? What had the people who participated in the peaceful protest done wrong? Why was it necessary to hurl so many tear gas canisters? Worse still, the "raptors" squad split into two groups and fired tear gas canisters from the two sides to the middle. People were trapped in the middle with no escape. Many were forced to rush into CITIC Tower. They could not go into the Complex; even we, Members of the Legislative Council, were shut out, let alone the protesters. We have yet to complain to the Legislative Council Commission ("LCC") and hold them accountable for what happened that day, as there were no reasons to deny Members from entering into the Complex. Moreover, Red alert was not in force that day and even if the Red alert was issued, Members could still be allowed to enter. Were the keys of the Complex kept in the hands of the Police, LCC or staff of the Secretariat? How come Members were denied entry to the Complex? A thorough investigation must be conducted into the whole incident. We must inquire into what exactly happened at Tim Mei Avenue and Tim Wa Avenue on 12 June. What was the Police's strategy: to disperse the crowds or to round them up and arrest them? Under the Basic Law, we are endowed with the right to participate in peaceful protests. This is our civil and political right, and also our human right. Why were such peaceful protests being unreasonably handled by the Police? We must find out who gave those orders that day and hold them accountable. Mr WU Chi-wai, Chairman of the Democratic Party, was also at Tim Mei Avenue that day. Seeing the indiscriminate firing of tear gas canisters by the Police, he demanded to meet the Police commander on scene. The commander on scene refused to meet Mr WU because he thought that the Police had acted appropriately and thus refused to


have any communication or dialogue. Whether we challenged the Police for pepper spraying people at Tim Wa Avenue or for firing tear gas canisters at Tim Mei Avenue, the Police refused to respond. President, the queries raised by the pro-establishment or royalist Members are totally unreasonable. They confused the time and space. The biggest problem was that they laid the blame of the whole incident on the democratic Members' connivance of violence and refusal to sever ties with violence. Yet, they have never reflected on the fact that the whole incident was attributed to their support for the "China extradition bill" and their connivance of police brutality. When we demand the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry to find out who should be held responsible or what had happened, the royalists insist on supporting the Government and the Police and refuse to set up an independent commission of inquiry. They only consent to setting up a so-called review committee, which is totally off focus. Hence, the Government and the royalists are culprits of today's chaos. We demand a thorough investigation into the incident. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, this debate today covers three motions, two for appointing a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and one for summoning the Commissioner of Police to produce papers and testify under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law. The themes of the three motions are all related to the "12 June" incident. In my opinion, the "12 June" incident has become a very meaningful symbol of the current social movement. As I will deal with the matter seriously, I will only talk about incidents that happened on or before 12 June, so please do not lump together such incidents and incidents that happened after 12 June. My evidence and discussion shall only confine to the incidents that happened before midnight of 12 June. The "12 June" incident was serious enough to justify the formation of a select committee for investigation. Last week, I received a group of members of a non-governmental organization in Korea. Thirty years have passed since the Gwangju Uprising; however, people have been persistently tracing cases of abnormal death and ascertaining the government's responsibility over the years. I cannot see why we can easily give up the investigation on the "12 June" incident. Actually, it was the current-term Government which originated the "12 June" incident. The Government only used a few months to handle the "China extradition bill".


3849

Certainly, I have mentioned numerous times that the "China extradition bill" had actually not gone through extensive consultation and normal procedures, and the Government had not duly listened to the views of the public. Scholars, professional bodies or the business sector had expressed unprecedented worries about the "China extradition bill". All trade associations opined that the "China extradition bill" would do all harm but no good to Hong Kong as an international financial centre and a business hub. However, why did the Government hurriedly submitted the "China extradition bill" directly to the Legislative Council for scrutiny without being deliberated by a Bills Committee or without undergoing genuine consultation? We were administratively pressed to pass the bill by the end of June. This arrangement could neither be accepted nor practically enforced. The main culprit of the matter is certainly the Government, therefore, if a select committee is to be formed, investigation should be conducted, amongst others, on why government officials had totally ignored public opinions and worked behind closed door during the process of consultation, collection of public opinions and introduction of legislative amendments. Not only government officials but also Members of the Executive Council should be subject to investigation. The Government is duty-bound in this regard. Let us go back to the "12 June" incident. On that day, others democratic Members and I gathered in the Ante-Chamber of the Legislative Council Complex at around 7:30 am to prepare for the resumption of Second Reading debate on this bill and to discuss how to defy the evil law. There was an assembly outside CITIC Tower for which a notice of no objection had been issued. In the small hours or even at an earlier time, members of the public kept assembling around the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex"), because this was after all a major matter of public concern that might be considered a very important event since the 1967 Riot. The assembly was held in a peaceful manner, during which many different non-governmental organizations, Members of the Legislative Council and people who cared about the issue spoke. The atmosphere was very good. Although some 100 000 people gathered at around 1:00 pm, the assembly was in very good order. Unfortunately, a lot of minor storming incidents happened at around 2:00 pm. The Police did not deploy appropriate force to maintain order, because it fired several hundred rounds of tear gas, rubber bullets, sponge bullets, etc. At that time, bullets were flying around, and we really did not know what had


happened. Why did the Police deploy such a level of force? We have to investigate whether the Police had received the Government's order that the Second Reading debate of the bill should be resumed on 13 June. Had the Government set a deadline such that the scene had to be cleared by such a level of force? This is precisely one of the directions for investigation. Moreover, when many police officers enforced the law―I only refer to the incident that happened on 12 June but not thereafter―they did not display their police identification numbers. How come some members of the Special Tactical Squad and even anti-riot police officers did not display their police identification numbers? The Police explained―that was the remarks made in July―that police identification numbers were not displayed to prevent doxxing. The question is: How come the Police have not maintained a good record of the data relating to police identification numbers? Are the security measures all failures? How many people in the Police's establishment know about the data relating to police identification numbers? Which department of the Hong Kong Police Force is responsible for maintaining the record? Suppose only 20 people know about the data, how can these 20 people allow the leakage of such data? I reiterate that a police officer must display his police identification number in any circumstances―unless he is an undercover agent or a member of the Counter Terrorism Response Unit. If the Police consider that there are problems with the current identification numbers, can a computer program be used to re-designate the numbers, so that members of the public can follow up in case they are dissatisfied with the Police? President, there is no way to follow up at present. As a matter of fact, a lot of incidents can be avoided. Why did the Police use some very brutal means to handle the arrested protesters? For instance, why did the Police kneel on the back, chest and head of the protesters? As the protesters' hands were tied, was it still necessary for the Police to do so? Did the Police want to portray an image of mightiness or what? In the past, I have never seen a policeman kneeling on the body of an arrested protester. What explanation can be offered by the authorities? I think the Under Secretary can give an explanation. From 2:00 pm to 6:00 pm on 12 June, the situation was indeed very chaotic. While many colleagues of the democratic camp could not enter the Complex, a lot of police officers took over for use many places of the Complex. Certainly, according to the regulation of the Legislative Council Commission ("LCC"), police officers may enter the Complex and use its places with approval


3851

of LCC. However, Members did not receive any relevant information on that day. Besides, some Members mentioned to me that some offices of the Secretariat staff were also taken over by the Police. How could this happen? Staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat have the right to use their offices for official duties in a reasonable and lawful manner; why could their offices be taken over by the Police? May I ask the Security Bureau to offer an explanation? What was the justification? I ask the Police for an explanation. If no explanation can be given, I think a select committee must be established. Just the "12 June" incident justifies the formation of a select committee. On 9 June, 1.03 million people took to the streets to express their demand in a peaceful and rational manner. However, at about 11:50 pm, the Government issued a statement saying that "you protested peacefully, we have seen your act and heard your voices; but sorry, we will proceed with the Second Reading as usual". Not only did members of the public find this statement totally unreasonable, many colleagues in the civil service also queried why the Government had taken such an attitude to ignore the strong views expressed by more than 1 million people. Even colleagues in the civil service stated that the handling was totally inconceivable. If the Government said at the night of 9 June that it withdrew the legislative amendments, all other incidents would not have happened in the subsequent six months. Let us think about it. How bad was the situation in the subsequent six months or so? Why did the Government not make a prompt decision? What on earth was in the government officials' mind? I want to find out what the government officials were thinking on 9 June. Were there some political plots that could not be disclosed, such that they ignored the views of more than 1 million people? Apart from the Government and the Hong Kong Police Force, the third targets of investigation are the President of the Legislative Council and the Secretary General of the Legislative Council Secretariat. When 20-odd Members were waiting inside the Complex that day for the commencement of meeting, how could the President and the Secretary General disappear and lost contact? I found this very weird. The Complex belongs to Legislative Council Members and is a solemn venue. However, we did not receive any information or messages that day; the Secretariat only sent us message on an hourly basis that the commencement of the meeting would be delayed. We waited until 6:00 pm or so, and by then the Secretariat informed us that the meeting of that day would be cancelled. Why not announce the cancellation of meeting at 9:00 am? How come some Members could be in another location but pan-democratic Members


are kept in the dark? Why did the Secretariat provide some asymmetric information to Members? Different Members had received different information that day. The President and the Secretary General are absolutely duty-bound to explain to Members why there was asymmetric information. This is a fact and we must hear their explanation. Since Members from the pro-establishment camp claimed that Members were duty-bound to attend meetings, why did they not come back at 7:30 am and wait for the commencement of meeting? Why were they not seen? I did not know their whereabouts. On that day, we stayed in the Complex and its vicinity for almost 12 hours, trying our best to dissuade confrontation or alleviate the situation. This was what we had been doing for the whole day. However, we had no idea about the operation of the entire Council, we knew nothing about what had happened, what we should do or the whereabouts of other Members. All these are the directions for investigation. I hope a judge can be appointed to chair the select committee, so that the executive authorities and the legislature will both be subject to investigation. Furthermore, we are now focusing on the "12 June" incident. Later there are motions on the "21 July" incident, the "31 August" incident, etc., yet the "12 June" incident is significant in that it triggers the entire social movement. The Government's disregard for public opinions and the views of stakeholders such as the international community and the business sector had resulted in the social incident that spanned six to seven months. Members might find that there are also many problems in other incidents, hence if an investigation is to be conducted, it might indeed take several years. The authorities might say that other means could be adopted to review deep-rooted conflicts, such as setting up a review committee. However, the investigation of the "12 June" incident must be conducted. President, I so submit. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, what we are hearing today is only one of the many requests of a similar nature, as many opposition Members have proposed to appoint a select committee to conduct an inquiry, or to summon government officials concerned to produce papers under the Basic Law. We should not examine this request separately, as many similar requests need to be dealt with later. I basically do not mind conducting an inquiry, but if an inquiry


3853

is to be conducted, it should be a comprehensive one, rather than an inquiry into the "12 June" incident only. However, opposition Members are fond of playing with numbers. We should also examine the political situation in Hong Kong, neighbouring places or foreign countries before and after the introduction of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). We should not take things out of context. I rather like the motion set out in Appendix 21 to be moved by Dr Priscilla LEUNG later. That motion proposes a comprehensive inquiry into the events that have happened in Hong Kong since June, rather than a separate inquiry into the "12 June" incident. Why do opposition Members propose a separate inquiry into the "12 June" incident? They have given a lot of reasons, such as the President had inappropriately handled the matter; only a few people hurled bricks in the Drum area of the Legislative Council Complex while no problem occurred in the outer area that day, and it was wrong for the Police to fire. For these reasons, they wanted to identify the persons concerned and conduct a restrictive inquiry into the incident to determine who were in the right and who were in the wrong. This contravenes the principle of using public money to seek truth under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. If an inquiry is to be conducted, events that happened earlier should also be covered. On 16 February, the Executive Council agreed to commence the consultation on amending the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. Then on 28 February, the Consul General representing the United States to Hong Kong and Macau blatantly talked about the Bill of Hong Kong against the backdrop of the trade war between China and the United States. Did he attempt to interfere in our internal affairs? We wonder which airline opposition Members took and whose money they used when they flew to Washington D.C., to discuss the Bill of Hong Kong with officials such as the Vice President and the Secretary of State of the United States, and even invited others to impose sanctions on Hong Kong. All sorts of things happened long before the "12 June" incident, but why do opposition Members only choose to inquire into the "12 June" incident, the "21 July" incident or the "31 August" incident, as if only such incidents took place, while being indifferent to the whole picture? I agree that when things have somehow settled, we must inquire into the causes and consequences of all incidents. Have Hong Kong's own conflicts coupled with Taiwan's presidential election added fuel to the fire? Moreover, some people would rather take a long-haul flight to faraway Washington D.C. in


the United States than travel to Beijing or communicate with the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the Western District. They said that it was meaningless to hold meeting that engaged in inconsequential chats; yet they were willing to fly to the East Coast and West Coast of the United States and Europe. Why did they do so? President, an inquiry must be conducted, but as I have already told Members in the Council, this is a "colour revolution", and opposition to amending the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the consequent inflammatory "anti-extradition to China" are only a pretext. Regarding the numerous violent incidents, opposition Members have acted like "yellow" media organizations, focusing only on law-abiding police officers who have taken stern law enforcement actions, and accusing them of acting wrongly. However, have they ever examined the behaviour of rioters? I am not saying which of the two sides is absolutely in the right or in the wrong, but we should not only examine the "12 June" incident. A comprehensive inquiry should instead be conducted. Opposition Members said that an inquiry must be conducted into Dr Junius HO's handshaking with the white-clad people in the "21 July" incident. They wanted to deal a death blow to me. After they had hurled petrol bombs and splashed ink in the Western District, they wanted to exploit the incident of Junius HO shaking hands with the white-clad people on his way home and make Dr HO a scapegoat. I appreciate their first-class publicity effort, but they have directed their effort to the wrong direction and have targeted at the wrong person. Truth can be ascertained through debate. For this reason, I have gladly accepted their proposal to conduct an inquiry into Dr Junius HO, but they have made a wrong assessment of the situation, saying that no one supported Dr Junius HO. Why did pro-establishment Members render no support? They did not bother to support me on that occasion, and did not mind establishing an investigation committee to commence an inquiry. Opposition Members have been hyping the connection between Dr Junius HO and the "21 July" incident, as if over the past several months, nothing other than the "21 July" incident has happened. If a person's finger tip is stained by a drop of ink, they would describe that this drop of ink has stained his whole body. This is their forte. That person will become the victim of character assassination. If an inquiry is to be conducted, it should be a comprehensive one, and we must get to the bottom of the matter, thus fulfilling our oath of


3855

upholding the Basic Law as Members. Although they are not losing the substance by grasping at the shadow, their description of an incident is exaggerated and inaccurate. To play to the gallery and make sensational remarks are opposition Members' forte, but to do constructive things is their weakness, and such weakness has even reached the state of being retarded. In terms of politics, it is most sensational to criticize others. I am also now criticizing opposition Members, but at the same time I am righting the wrongs, and seeking changes through unconventional means in the Council. In respect of the inquiry requested by them, I certainly agree that an inquiry should be conducted, but we should not merely inquire into the "12 June" incident, the "21 July" incident and the "31 August" incident. If they have the guts, they should withdraw all these motions that request an inquiry into a single incident, and instead conduct a comprehensive and thorough inquiry covering a period from 18 February, when the Government introduced the Bill, to the upcoming weekend. I believe that in this weekend, some people will hurl petrol bombs and black-clad rioters will execute vigilante justice on others, breaking people's beautiful hearts and dissipating their energy. Their objective is to break people's beautiful hearts and dissipate their energy. At a press conference, Ms Claudia MO pounded the table and said that she would not sever ties with rioters, would not snitch on rioters and would not condemn them. As a Member, she should know that violence is violence, and even if in the case of police officers … Mr SHIU Ka-fai is right in saying that one should not use violence simply because he is a "martyr". Former Member Alan LEONG is now a Senior Counsel. Supposedly he should uphold the rule of law, but he said that violence might sometimes be the solution to a problem. Was this the stance of a practising lawyer, a friend of the court, or was he, like Karl MARX or MAO Zedong, intent on staging a revolution? He should ascertain his own stance. If his stance was that of a revolutionary, he might use all means in a revolution, but he was equivocal and dared not say so. That said, his words have hurt and misled members of the public, including the future masters of Hong Kong. These young people are enthusiastic and aspire to serve the community. I certainly agree with this, for we all have our youthful days. Young people are invincible, as they are quick to put new ideas into practice. However, if young people are not provided with proper guidelines, their whole life will be victimized. They plunge young people into an abyss, but their own children or they themselves will not plunge to death. These days, some people often


propose to commemorate a student of The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology who died after falling from height or mourn for a woman whose body was found at sea, as if they were own children. But this is hypocrisy, feigned pity, or acting pretentiously to piggyback on their death. We feel sorry for the loss of any life in Hong Kong. They tend to make judgment before trial and make a mountain out of a molehill. Hong Kong has returned to the Motherland for 22 years. They preached so eloquently in the Martin LEE years, and even if they are now old and feeble, suffering from shaky hands and stammering, they still make the same remarks that mislead Hong Kong people. We have got used to all this. I would like to urge them to awaken or stop hypnotizing the younger generation of Hong Kong. They request an inquiry into the "12 June" incident, which is a typical riot. As for their five demands, the first is the withdrawal of the Bill, to which the Chief Executive has acceded. Second, what is their justification for demanding the release of lawbreakers? They have no power to make such a demand, let alone make a decision. Third, when the incident is classified as a riot, it is a riot, and the Crimes Ordinance already provides for this. If the arrestees are aggrieved, they may, as stipulated in the law, argue their cases in the court upon their arrest. They have the right to argue and reply, and lawyers will provide assistance … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, please return to the subject of the debate. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Okay, President, I referred to the five demands in response to their remarks, as the "12 June" incident … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council is now debating whether a select committee should be appointed regarding the "12 June" incident, and whether the Commissioner of Police should be summoned to produce papers and testify.


3857

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, you should not forget that after 12 June, some people immediately raised the five demands. I have just mentioned the third demand, and the fourth demand is to set up an independent commission of inquiry. The motion today virtually demands the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry to inquire into the "12 June" incident, mainly targeting the Police. Dr Helena WONG has surprisingly said that she only saw a handful of people acting violently violence in the Drum area of the Legislative Council. This explains why I often say that she has her head in the clouds. The fifth demand was originally the stepping down of Carrie LAM, but it changed a few days later to the expeditious implementation of universal suffrage. President, seeing such a situation on 12 June, the Chief Executive was still a "good fighter" or an iron lady, and decided to proceed with the resumption of the Second Reading debate of the Bill. However, an abrupt change took place on 13 June, as Marco RUBIO, a Senator of the United States, proposed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. The Executive Council was shocked, saying that the Chief Executive would not only handle this issue in the coming three years. Then, on 15 June the Chief Executive went along with the wishes of the public and announced the suspension of the Bill. The Chief Executive announced her decision at 3:30 pm, and Jimmy SHAM expressed his discontent at 4:00 pm, saying that a march would be held again. After holding the so-called 1 million-strong march, they further held a march joined by 2 million plus one people on 16 June. If I ask my brothers and sisters for a tea gathering the next day, they may possibly not be available. How could 2 million people be instantly mobilized to take to the streets in less than 24 hours? Was Jimmy SHAM really a "good fighter"? Could Mr Andrew WAN mobilize so many people? As such, President, I absolutely agree that a comprehensive inquiry must be conducted. Those people are basically all proxies, and we must ascertain their detailed background. I so submit. Thank you. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, you are quite lenient in handling this debate. Just now, you only reminded Dr Junius HO of his digression after he had spoken for 12 minutes. In order to speak to the point, I have done some preparation for this debate so that I can explain clearly why today we should support the motions proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Andrew WAN.


First of all, we should understand why the "12 June" incident warrants an inquiry and what is to be inquired about. President, the scope of inquiry will indeed be narrow. We saw on television or at the scene that some police officers hit the subdued protesters with batons, but members of the Special Tactical Squad (also known as "raptors") did not display their identification number. How could we hold them accountable? They had obviously broken the law. The "Seven Cops", who had acted the same way, were sentenced to imprisonment and Franklin CHU was also put to jail. These judicial precedents rule that police officers are not allowed to have such behaviour or else they will be put behind bars. Regrettably, such misbehaviour happened in the public eye on 12 June. That is why the motions under discussion are proposed to summon the Commissioner of Police and appoint a select committee. We cannot accept the Police abusing public powers and imposing extrajudicial punishment with impunity. We cannot accept such misdeeds. If we turn a blind eye to them, Hong Kong will remain as a police city and everyone in Hong Kong will be put on the chopping block. That is why we urge for an inquiry. Second, why should the Commissioner of Police be summoned and a select committee be set up in the Legislative Council? That is because all other existing channels are ineffective in handling the issue just said. The first existing channel is the Complaints Against Police Office ("CAPO"). Assume that I want to complaint about being beaten up by a raptor who has not displayed his identification number, I will indeed be wasting my time to lodge a complaint to CAPO because I will certainly be asked who the assaulter is. But how can I know? Only the Police can tell. CAPO is set up for the Police to investigate their own peers. Without knowing the police identification number, the complainant cannot file a complaint as in the case of CHENG Chung-hang questioning why Franklin CHU hit him. There is no way for the complainant to make his complaint. The second channel is the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC"). Similarly, in the absence of police identification numbers, how can IPCC tell from the videos which police officer is the assaulter and judge whether the complaint of police assault is substantiated as it did in the case of Franklin CHU? There is no way that IPCC can handle complaints of this kind. It has its hands tied for what happened on 12 June.


3859

The third channel is the so-called "fact finding" exercise, or Thematic Study, currently conducted by IPCC to cover the incidents on 9 June, 12 June, 1 July, 21 July, 1 August and 31 August. However, when Dr Anthony Francis NEOH, Chairman of IPCC, spoke of this study, he expressly stated that "IPCC has taken note that we do not have investigation power under current setting hence support from the Chief Executive and the Commissioner of Police have been solicited for the Thematic Study". This channel will eventually lead back to the Police because a lack of investigation power will require IPCC to hand the case back to the Police. As such, the whole issue will be back to square one, i.e. without the police identification numbers, complainants cannot possibly tell the identity of the officers concerned and hold them accountable. When the Chairman of IPCC was so candid about IPCC's lack of investigation power, how can this powerless organization conduct an investigation? I fail to see why Dr NEOH claimed that IPCC could uncover the truth when investigation was out of the question. That is simply not possible. Besides, Dr NEOH oddly depicted IPCC as a weak and useless body in his reply to journalists a few days ago, saying that "I am just a small wheel, a very small potato, a small character". When the Chairman of IPCC described himself as a small potato, how can we rely on him? The fourth channel is the independent review committee proposed by Carrie LAM. Soon after Carrie LAM announced the establishment of the independent review committee, Matthew CHEUNG clarified that the committee would not have summoning power. In other words, it will be powerless because, according to Matthew CHEUNG, the committee is set up to dig out deep-rooted conflicts rather than targeting individuals. I must show this photo again since Matthew CHEUNG said that the committee did not mean to target individuals. In this photo, a group of black-clad unidentified raptors were assaulting a young man. If the independent review committee proposed by Carrie LAM is set up with no intent to target individuals, how can it do justice to the man lying on the ground in this photo? After explaining why the Legislative Council should set up a select committee as all other channels are ineffective, I will now proceed to explain why we are so keen to appoint a select committee under the Council. The reason is that we need to have an inquiry committee conferred with compulsory inquiry powers. We need to have a compulsory inquiry backed by statutory powers. Why? Firstly, while it is our wish to hold the Police accountable for their


wrongdoings through an inquiry, Chris TANG, the Commissioner of Police, has expressly stated that the Police will not cooperate. Recently, it has been reported that Chris TANG stated in an internal meeting that the Police had no obligation to attend meetings which were irrelevant to the maintenance of law and order and which targeted the Police unreasonably. There is no doubt that the Police will be targeted, but are they targeted unreasonably? That can only be told after an inquiry. Yet, Chris TANG has declared that he will not attend any meetings which are irrelevant to stopping violence and curbing disorder or maintaining law and order. A compulsory inquiry is hence necessary when he clearly will not cooperate. Secondly, the Police are not afraid of IPCC at all, not in the slightest. Last Monday, an open question and answer session was held during which IPCC put questions to the Police representatives. We are now in mid-December, but IPCC representatives were still asking the Police why the raptors had not displayed their identification number. I am most shocked and surprised as this question has been asked since June. What the hell! Tammy MAK, Chief Superintendent of Police (Complaints & Internal Investigations Branch), continued to repeat the excuse that there was no room in the tactical vests of raptors to display the new "blue card". President, I think you are also bored to hear people asking why there is no identification number on raptors. Is that right? We raised this question months ago, and now IPCC members are still asking the same question. In the meantime, the Police continue to give the same answer to brush IPCC off. It shows that the Police are not afraid of IPCC at all. We must hence conduct a compulsory inquiry to make it mandatory for the police officers concerned to answer our questions. It will be an offence if they refuse to cooperate. Thirdly, the Police have kept raising the threshold for pursuing responsibility of police officers. This point in fact leads us back to the issue of police identification numbers. It has been more than two months since the Indonesian female journalist was shot in the eye. Her lawyer wrote 10-odd letters to the Police on her behalf, asking for the identity of the police officer who used rubber bullets or similar weapons at the spot. However, the Police did not respond to any of those letters and the Indonesian female journalist was forced to apply for a court order. On 29 September, I was pepper sprayed by a police officer who did not display his police identification number. I have sent two letters through my lawyer to urge for a reply. It is now mid-December, but I still do not know the identification number of the police officer in question. How


3861

can I lodge a complaint without knowing the police identification number? From these cases, we can see that the Police have intentionally raised the threshold, thereby forcing the complainant to apply for court orders. Who will foot the bill? President, will you foot the bill? Of course not. The Police are using this means to escape liability. The fourth point concerns the royalists. Many people may have switched off the television as the earlier speeches of the royalists were too annoying. They may also have difficulty understanding the royalists. President, after making an analysis, I find that the royalists only have four tricks to help the Police escape liability for abuse of power and extrajudicial punishment. The first trick is to obscure the inquiry by expanding its scope. Dr Junius HO has just demonstrated how this trick is played. He questioned why some other people were not inquired and suggested inquiring the Americans as well. Matthew CHEUNG, on the other hand, said that the Government intended to dig out deep-rooted conflicts rather than targeting individuals. They tried to expand the scope of inquiry to involve more people. The second trick is to make things complicated, the approach most commonly adopted by the bureaucracy. People listening to my speech may find themselves bombarded by names such as CAPO, IPCC, International Expert Panel and independent review committee. While reading out these names has taken me 30 seconds, the people's wish is actually simple. They just want to know when the "dirty cops" assaulting or imposing extrajudicial punishment on protesters will be held accountable and when they will have to face criminal investigation and legal liability. The pro-establishment camp has, however, made things complicated. They present a picture as if the Government has done a lot, yet in reality it has not responded to the most direct request and obvious wish of the people. The third trick is to procrastinate as far as possible, telling us to first wait for the fact-finding report of IPCC. This report, however, will be issued in phases. While the first part of the report may be released in late January, the last part may not be released until next summer. By then an independent review committee will be set up, and some time will be taken to commission foreign experts. If things drag on like this, when Carrie LAM leaves office, we may not even start … President, to start what? Let me show this photo again. We may


not even start inquiring into the "dirty cops" who imposed extrajudicial punishment, identifying these cops, requiring them to give evidence before the court, holding them accountable, and so on. That is their delaying tactics. President, regarding the scope of and reasons for inquiry, the reasons for mandating police officers to face the Council and the people, as well as the tactics employed by the pro-establishment camp to shield police officers from court trials and liability for extrajudicial punishment, are all crystal clear. Yet, I have to present them nicely in an organized way for members of the public to be aware of the challenges facing us. President, lastly I would like to respond to an astonishing remark made by Mr LEUNG Che-cheung earlier. He said, "Even if you, the democrats, are right in saying that Hong Kong is now under totalitarian rule, to where will you guys lead Hong Kong? You speak profusely about democracy and freedom, but isn't Hong Kong democratic enough? People are now free to set fire, right?" President, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung has indeed pointed out the crux of the issue. Many Hong Kong people believe that Hong Kong is now under the totalitarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party ("CCP"). It is human nature for Hong Kong people to fight back in the recent protests. We want to have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". We hope the future direction of Hong Kong will be mapped out under a democratic system. May I ask Mr LEUNG Che-cheung where the CCP's authoritarian rule that he supports will lead Hong Kong to? I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now first call upon Mr Jeremy TAM, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and the public officer to speak again, and afterwards Mr Andrew WAN will reply. Then, the debate will come to a close. Mr Jeremy TAM, please speak.


3863

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Just now I have heard the speeches of many Members. I am particularly concerned about the contents of the speeches delivered by pro-establishment Members. Only a few of them spoke yesterday. Although several pro-establishment Members spoke this morning, it seemed to me that they merely gave speeches on behalf of their political parties and then called it a day. They did not want to mention the "12 June" incident as if it had not happened, and they continue to sweep the incident under the carpet. In fact, the SAR Government has all along swept all problems under the carpet, be it the "12 June" incident or the Umbrella Movement in 2014. The "12 June" incident was more than just a confrontation as it marked the start of incessant police brutality. If the "12 June" incident had not happened, Hong Kong society today would have a very different view on the Police, as we simply could not imagine that things that happened on that day could have ever happened in Hong Kong. What exactly happened on 12 June? Specifically, what happened inside the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex")? It is, in fact, a mystery. The incident took place some time ago and even to this day, I am still perplexed why such a decision was made on that day. I have just finally picked up some hints from Members' speeches. Mr LUK Chung-hung said he arrived at the Complex as early as around 8:00 am, but was unable to enter the vicinity as it was packed with people. Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok also said that at around 8:00 am he arrived in the vicinity of the Complex as a meeting of the Public Works Subcommittee was originally scheduled that morning. Since he was also unable to enter the Complex, he cancelled the meeting. However, they did not reveal what I am most eager to know, which is, where did they go then? Where did they go? On that day, the President did not announce the meeting arrangement. We only received an SMS message, saying that the meeting could not be convened as scheduled, and we were told to wait until further notice. We waited all the way until confrontations broke out and tear gas rounds were fired. Where did pro-establishment Members go? Where was the President at that moment? We have in mind an assumption: Had they reached an agreement with the Police that the Police would take all possible actions to make way for pro-establishment Members to enter the Complex to pass the "China extradition bill"? Was it because of this agreement that the Police launched tear gas barrages and assaulted protesters outside the CITIC Tower and in the Drum area? Could the President, not the Police, be the culprit behind the trouble? On that day, did the President decline the cancellation of the meeting in order to forcibly pass the "China


extradition bill"? Did the pro-establishment camp ask the Police to clear the traffic so that they could force their way into the Complex to defend the Government, to support the Carrie LAM Administration and the "China extradition bill"? This is unknown to us, as neither the President nor the pro-establishment camp was silent on where had they been during those hours. Were they all at the police station, as rumour has it? Were they inside police vehicles, planning to have the Police seek a fastest way into the Complex and vote in haste? If that was the case, the responsibility should not be shouldered by the Hong Kong Police Force and the Hong Kong Government alone, perhaps those pro-establishment and royalist Members now present in this Chamber but went missing that day should also be held largely responsible. Hence they do not want to investigate the "12 June" incident. Dr Junius HO has left the meeting again. What he said just now was interesting. He questioned why we only talked about the "12 June" incident, and whether there were other incidents that we did not want to investigate. I believe he could not even grasp the basic facts and sequence of events. This motion on the "12 June" incident proposed under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance was placed on the Agenda of the Council meeting of 3 July 2019. In order words, many Members and I had written to propose this motion after the "12 June" incident, and the motion was placed on the Agenda of the meeting dated 3 July. Had the "21 July" incident taken place when we submitted the motion? Had the "31 August" incident taken place? Does he need a time machine? Naturally, these incidents were not included in the motion. Would he please stop making himself a laughing stock by questioning why we do not talk about the "31 August" incident in the next motion debate. Would he please take a clear look at the sequence of events, for he lacks basic logic. Mr LUK Chung-hung's basic logic was most brilliant, and I have written down what he said. He accused the Civil Human Rights Front ("CHRF") of asking the assembly participants outside CITIC Tower to go inside the Tower, instead of to Tim Mei Avenue, thereby almost causing a stampede. Therefore the Police had no option but to fire canisters of tear gas at the people. Is there something wrong with Mr LUK's sequence of events, or is there something wrong with his brain? What happened at Tim Mei Avenue at that time? Tim Mei Avenue was blockaded and the Police were firing tear gas canisters incessantly. Where else could the people go if they did not go into CITIC Tower? I have no


3865

idea which television channel he was watching or what he was doing at that time. Was he inside a police vehicle, waiting to storm into the Complex any time? He even accused CHRF of not asking the people to go to Tim Mei Avenue but go into CITIC Tower. This shows that he does not understand what was happening at that time. He spoke without having a clear idea of the basic facts and the situation at that time. Mr LEUNG Che-cheung queried if anyone was shot dead as only tear gas canisters but not live ammunition were fired. Does he think tear gas canisters cannot be lethal? People can be shot blind by tear gas canisters. He seems to consider the use of tear gas canisters a minor matter. If properly used, it will certainly not pose any major problems. However, the Police fired tear gas canisters not to produce smoke or disperse the crowd. They used tear gas canisters as bullets and fired them into the crowds, hitting people. Dr Priscilla LEUNG said that their defeat in the District Council Election was due to political reasons. One who did not know how to conduct a review should not stay in the Legislative Council. Was Dr Priscilla LEUNG's remarks meant for the respectable Mrs Regina IP? Some people in this Council did not know how to conduct a review and even dared say that the total number of votes they got was more than that received by the Liberal Party. How could she have the nerve to say that? If she sends 100 candidates to run in the next election, even if all 100 of them lose, they will still get more votes than the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. If she sends 200 candidates to run in the election, they may even receive more votes than the Communist Party. I really cannot quite understand her logic; nevertheless, she considers that she does not have any problems at all. She would not have thought that the New People's Party won zero seats. Mr Michael TIEN, who left the New People's Party to form the Roundtable, won against Mrs Regina IP as his party scooped up two seats in the Election though he lost his seat. Mrs Regina IP did not think she had to conduct a review for she thought that her defeat in the District Council Election had nothing to do with her, but it was the Government's fault. The Government was definitely in the wrong, but the royalist camp is reaping what it has sown. Dr Priscilla LEUNG said just now that by 16 June, they were not quite supportive of the "China extradition bill" due to strong public sentiments. In fact, what determines the right or wrong of a bill should be its nature, but not whether it has extensive public support or by a social movement. We should not


take effect for cause. A mistake the Carrie LAM has been repeating is to say that the "China extradition bill" was withdrawn or suspended due to mass demonstrations. This was a remedy but not the right thing to do. The right thing to do was not to introduce the "China extradition bill" at the outset. Besides, the bill violates the existing systems that are protected under "one country, two systems". This is totally wrong. As to the "12 June" incident, Mr CHU Hoi-dick said earlier it was pathetic that the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC") was still discussing the police identification numbers to this day. In fact, I would like to tell him that he should not feel pathetic. I also lodged a complaint about the police identification numbers on 13 June. It was not until half a year later that the Complaints Against Police Office completed the investigation report last week, and submitted the report to IPCC. Do Honourable colleagues think that investigations would be conducted on more complicated cases such as those related to San Uk Ling or the recent Hong Kong Polytechnic University incident? Will investigations be conducted? The Government commissioned five foreign experts, and asked us to listen to what their comments first. So what did they say? They said that IPCC, at its present state, was incapable of performing its duties due to its lack of investigation and summoning powers. What did royalist Members say? They said the foreign experts were not familiar with affairs in Hong Kong. These are the experts they commissioned. When the experts said something they did not like, they said the experts were not familiar with affairs in Hong Kong and ignored their remarks. The royalist Members do not think they have any problems at all. Did they treat the experts as rubber stamps? Did they expect the panel of foreign experts commissioned by the Government to act like rubber stamps as royalist Members do, and casually concluded that the Police did not have any problems? Since the occurrence of the "12 June" incident, royalist Members have all along been helping the evildoer by supporting the Government, but today they want to sever ties with the Government. Does it not occur to them that they themselves are accomplices? The royalist Members are accomplices. They have all left the Chamber. Both they and the Government will be abandoned by more and more people. In fact, there have been many voices of dissent within the Government, but Carrie LAM has all along turned a deaf ear. As I said earlier on, the "12 June" incident marked the start of all police brutality, because on that day royalist Members did not come forward to testify against the Police and, worse still, they have been shielding the Police. Why are


3867

they shielding the Police even on the issue of police identification numbers? Why did identification numbers appear on "raptor" uniforms a few days ago? Have they changed uniforms? No. It is obvious that they were instructed or given tacit approval to hide their police identification numbers. Who would that person be? Who made the decision on that day? These questions remain unanswered to this day. Whenever this question is brought up, public officers would say there is no space on their uniform to display the identification number. How come there was space in the past but not now? Is it comparable to money deposited in bank that money deposited one year ago was all gone one year later? Was the identification number printed on stickers that get destroyed in the wash every time? This is completely unreasonable. Fearing that we have not heard enough of their false reasoning, the Police are repeating their lies at 4:00 pm every day. They have twisted the entire system and distorted people's understanding. This is an insult to the people. Hence, I implore Honourable colleagues to support the motion proposed by a number of Members today to conduct a thorough inquiry into the "12 June" incident. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 2:30 pm. 1:30 pm Meeting suspended. 2:30 pm Council then resumed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please speak. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, after listening to the speeches made by a number of pro-establishment Members, I would like to make a brief response. However, the remark was not made by me but MAO Zedong. MAO


said it was important to recognize the enemy and handle contradictions among the people correctly. On 27 February 1957, MAO made another impressive remark. He said that we were confronted with two types of social contradictions, namely those between ourselves and the enemy and those among the people. The two were totally different in nature, and contradictions among the people must be handled correctly and could not be dealt with by violent means. This is the teaching of MAO. Where have those unworthy descendants gone? The use of police brutality to resolve contradictions among the people would make their forefathers rise from their graves and scold them. I found that not only the "dirty cops" have not studied hard, but also Members from the royalist camp and the anti-democracy camp. This idea was proposed when the Communist Party was founded. Secondly, I would like to talk about collusion with foreign forces. In 1927, the Communist Party of China was founded with the help of the International Communist Party. From the end of the world war in 1945 to the founding of the nation in 1949, the Soviet Union had been a major source of assistance for China. Who had colluded with foreign powers? How was China founded? They should go home and look in the mirror instead of talking here. What is more, they have not studied hard. I would like to tell the "poor-quality camp", the royalist party and the anti-democracy camp that it is most important to handle the problems correctly. This lesson has actually been taught by their forefathers. Who is the enemy? Let us examine why Hong Kong has developed to such a state. On the economic front, GDP has dropped by 2%, amounting to tens of billions of dollars. Property prices fell, shops closed down, restaurant staff lost their jobs and the anti-democracy camp suffered a landslide defeat in various elections. Analysing from MAO's perspective, there are three major culprits, namely Carrie LAM, the Under Secretary's supervisor John LEE and "Teresa UBWs". If not because of these three persons, the economy of Hong Kong would not have come to such a state and they would not have suffered such a humiliating defeat. Therefore, it is important for them to recognize the class enemies and then they should stand with us to defeat the enemies. If they had agreed to set up an independent commission of inquiry, a multi-win situation would have been attained. We should be reasonable and should not be bound by human relationship. Our enemy is Carrie LAM or the trio of "777", because they have caused a hell of a mess in Hong Kong. We have given opportunities for those Members time and again, but they did not appreciate. Again, today is a


3869

very good opportunity. If they place righteousness above family loyalty and vote in support of appointing a select committee, they will be applauded by all people of Hong Kong when they go out. They often said that we refuse to sever ties with violence, now we likewise give them an opportunity to sever ties with the "dirty cops", institutional violence, Carrie LAM, John LEE and Teresa CHENG. The best way to sever ties with them is by means of voting today, and then they can turn over a new leaf, right? The royalists can from now on blame Carrie LAM, John LEE and Teresa CHENG for getting them into trouble, making them lose their voters and seats as well as sabotaging the economy of Hong Kong. Various sectors also want them to be shot to death. This is the golden opportunity. The reason for talking so much is to let them see clearly the public views and the contradiction among the people. The contradiction among the people lies in the opposition to the "China extradition bill". I wish to reiterate that the bill was forcibly presented to the Legislative Council for consideration by "777" Carrie LAM, John LEE and "Teresa UBWs". The fact is crystal clear, so what is the point of arguing? Since many points have already been mentioned by Members, I need not repeat them one by one. I just want to say that a lot of famous quotes have been written on the walls in various places of Admiralty; the Under Secretary may go and have a look before the walls are cleared. One of the quotes reads: "If one person breaks the law, it is a law and order problem; if 100 000 people jointly break the law, it is a political problem". In the "12 June" incident, hundreds of thousands of people came to the Legislative Council and used their bodies to ward off bullets. Some people said that it was violent to hurl water bottles and bricks, but the guns held by police officers could kill. What is more, police officers were fully geared with helmets and masks, so how serious could their injuries be? We all know the answer. Allow me to digress a little. The incident of New Town Plaza is a command blunder of the Police. As only a few CID were deployed to rush into the New Town Plaza, they were separated from their colleagues. And yet, these police officers still managed to beat people up, resulting in that state. The entire Police Force is like a tray of loose sand, having no discipline and being hostile to the people. Given the acts of the Police, if the Legislative Council does not carry out any investigation or follow-up action, how can we do justice to members of the public? How can we resolve the contradictions among the people as stated by MAO? Do not think that the problem can be resolved by


brushing the contradictions among the people aside; contradictions will continue to exist until the Government faces them squarely. At present, the youngest street protester is only 10 years old or so. Even a kid of only 10 years old or so knows that the Government is malevolent and uncaring, and police officers using violence are "dirty cops". How come those people still have not wakened up? It is clearly written on the walls of Admiralty: "There is no rioters, only tyranny". A few months ago, i.e. before June this year, there were no rioters in Hong Kong, the so-called rioters were non-existent and there were no masked people storming everywhere. This is because the majority of the people, especially young people, have been struggling in a very difficult environment. Property prices are exorbitant but the Government does nothing to help them, and they have difficulties in their studies due to limited school places. There is actually nothing that makes them happy. The ranking of Hong Kong in the Happiness Index is among the lowest in Asia. Hong Kong is the most effluent city, but the Government has nonetheless reduced it to this state. It should therefore ask itself candidly how the current problem can be resolved. This is how XI Jinping would berate Carrie LAM: You have not only failed to find solutions to the deep-rooted contradictions, but have also created new contradictions by introducing the "China extradition bill". Why would anyone still defend Carrie LAM, John LEE, Teresa CHENG and the "dirty cops"? Just now we said that an investigation should be conducted into the "12 June" incident. I consider that some people in the pro-establishment camp are knowledgeable―Mr Michael TIEN is not present at the meeting now, but what he said was right. In his letter to HAN Zheng in November, he requested an independent investigation because without which the current problem could not be solved. Nonetheless, Mr Michael TIEN changes his mind from time to time. For example, in response to a question raised by a journalist, he said that instead of conducting an independent investigation, something else should be done for the time being. Mr Michael TIEN, it is not good to waver too often because the situation has come to such a pass which is clear to all. We should recognize the enemy and should not sit on the fence. By providing unwavering support to democracy and oppose police brutality, you can show your integrity and hold your head up. Mr Michael TIEN, there is still time and not the entire pro-establishment camp is hopeless. I will wait and see how he is going to cast his vote later, but it is possible that he may not be present at the meeting again.


3871

As we all know, very often, he is either absent from the meeting or not casting his vote. I reckon that he will be absent later, but if he casts his vote, I beg him to support the establishment of a select committee. To be honest, the "12 June" incident was the greatest turning point. As we all know, the motions proposed by Mr Andrew WAN and other Members, including me, should be discussed at the Legislative Council meeting held as early as 3 July given that such motions were put forward in June. However, we understand that after the "12 June" and "1 July" incidents, the community has been torn apart and the Government has become unresponsive, thus no discussion could be held in July. Although a lot of things have happened so far, the Government and the anti-democracy camp still render their unwavering support. This is tantamount to antagonizing the people and being hostile to the majority of Hong Kong people. The majority of Hong Kong people have clearly expressed their views through the District Council Election on 24 November. Regardless of how some people sling mud, condemn the rioters and criticize their wrongdoings, the people of Hong Kong can make the differentiation. Furthermore, another thing to probe into is the so-called undercover operation, something we learn from the Police. We do not know what evil deeds the undercover agents have engaged in. It is possible that these undercover agents are responsible for committing the most violent acts, hurling the largest number of objects and throwing petrol bombs. Given that the Police have employed the lowly tactics of deploying undercover agents, how can we do justice to members of the public without conducting an inquiry? In fact, it is possible that the Police frame charges against the protesters and put all the blame on them. These are not new tactics adopted by the Police, thus no one will believe the Government or the "dirty cops". Turning to responsibilities, I hope that all anti-democracy and pro-establishment Members will return and listen to my speech. If they had not sought to force the relevant bill through the Bills Committee or the Legislative Council in the first place and made the Government feel so secured that the bill could be forcibly passed, the current situation would not have come to this pass. Who are the pro-establishment camp, the royalist party and the anti-democracy camp if they are not accomplices? They should apologize or at least vote in support of the establishment of a select committee, or even go to the streets to call for an independent inquiry.


Some people asked when the current situation in Hong Kong will end. Where will this "tunnel" lead to? As a matter of fact, the end point of the "tunnel" is determined by the Government. If the Carrie LAM Government or the Beijing authorities behind her continue to antagonize the people by means of struggle, not only will they fail to ease the situation in Hong Kong, but will also fail to do justice to the forefathers. This is not what the forefather MAO taught his descendants, and they are indeed too disobedient. MAO said the contradictions among the people should not be dealt with by violence, and his words are recorded in the Quotations from Chairman MAO Tse-tung. Members may go home and read the quotations. MAO considered it necessary to first handle contradictions among the people before the entire society could move forward. Why did they refuse to do so? Why did they refuse to bring new opportunities to Hong Kong? Some people say that the Americans and the presidential election of Taiwan have taken advantage of our situation. Are they blind? Did we not know in February that Taiwan's presidential election will be held in January the following year? Discussion was already underway back then, hoping that the issue of the China-United States trade negotiations would not exacerbate the situation. Yet, the royalist party and the pro-establishment camp have turned a deaf ear to this. Hence, they should bear the greatest responsibility as they had prompted the Government to make that move and reduced Hong Kong to this state. If it was not the pro-establishment camp and Carrie LAM, would Hong Kong be in this plight? Would Carrie LAM be scolded by XI? Did the 1 million or 2 million Hong Kong people who took to the streets really have nothing to do? Of course not. We now have a very good opportunity to start with an independent inquiry into the "12 June" incident, followed by the "21 July", "31 August", "1 October" and "11 November" incidents, so as to do justice to members of the public, do justice to the people of Hong Kong and create an opportunity to end the chaotic situation. However, speaking to these "useless people" is just a waste of time as they will not take on board any view. And yet, they should be held responsible at the end of the day. Carrie LAM, John LEE, the pro-establishment camp and the royalist party are culpable for reducing Hong Kong to the present state. I so submit.


3873

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I thank many Members for their speeches just now. I would now like to make several points in response to the issues raised by Members. The first point is the use of force by the Police. A number of Members mentioned the use of force by the Police. As a matter of fact, the use of force by the Police is a prudent decision. The Police will not use force arbitrarily, and will only use appropriate level of force in performing their statutory duties and when there are practical needs. The Police have put in place stringent codes and guidelines on the use of force. The use of force by the Police will cease once the purpose of using force has been achieved. As pointed out by the Secretary for Security in his opening remarks, the violent and illegal acts that occurred in the area around Admiralty on 12 June were very serious. Some radicals placed multiple barricades of mills barriers on the road, dug out bricks from pavements and dismantled roadside fences to build barricades. Some people repeatedly charged the police cordon line in an organized manner, and attacked police officers with dangerous weapons, including bricks, metal poles, mills barriers, wooden planks, etc. The situation was therefore very dangerous and chaotic. Members of the public who were watching the television broadcast could see clearly that public order and public safety at the scene were under serious threats at that moment. In order to control the violent scene, prevent the situation from worsening and disperse the rioters, the Police used appropriate force to perform their duties on that day. The use of force by the Police was directed against the serious violent acts of the rioters at that time, and if the Police had not taken prompt action, the violent acts would have escalated and caused more serious damage and bodily harm. I must stress that if there are no violent acts that undermine public safety and public order, the Police simply do not need to use any force. Since 9 June, there have been more than 1 000 public order events in relation to the amendments of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance in Hong Kong and many of which ended in violence. As of 16 December, more than 2 600 people were injured. The protests and social unrest, which have been escalating in terms of their frequency, extensive implication and level of violence, are a cause for concern and have posed a significant threat to lives and properties. The Police must take decisive measures to stop violence, curb disorder and restore public peace.


Frontline police officers have stood fast to their positions with great perseverance in the series of clashes over the past few months. In the past six months or so, police officers have been subjected to unprecedented threat to personal safety when performing their duties, which includes doxxing or cyber-bullying, causing their families to live in fear every day. As at 20 November, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data received a total of 4 200 cases of doxxing, involving police officers, Members of the Legislative Council and people with different political views. More than 480 police officers have suffered varying degrees of injuries, including finger bitten off, burns caused by petrol bombs and corrosive liquids, neck slashed with a box cutter as well as serious injuries caused by bows and arrows, hard objects and other sharp weapons. In view of the dangerous circumstances, police officers must take effective actions to protect themselves. The use of force in these circumstances is appropriate and necessary. President, we understand the public's perception of the firing of tear gas rounds. Tear gas rounds can be regarded as the lowest level of force used by the Police to deal with large-scale violence. It seeks to disperse the rioters by temporarily depriving them of the ability to charge and cause damage, and create a safe distance between the Police and the radical protesters, thereby minimizing direct confrontations and injuries of the two sides. Symptoms relating to the inhalation of tear gas will disappear within a short period of time, and will not cause permanent harm to human body. According to the information provided by the Hospital Authority ("HA"), there were cases where members of the public attended the accident and emergency ("A&E") departments of HA due to discomfort after exposure to tear gas. Most of them can be immediately discharged after rinsing and receiving treatment at the A&E departments. Regardless of the types of force being used, the Police will as far as possible take into account the safety of people in the community in their operations. The location where the Police would fire tear gas rounds depends entirely on where the violent and illegal acts take place as well as the situation at the scene. Before the operation, the Police will, as far as possible, maintain close contact with the nearby building management offices, commercial tenants or elderly homes through various channels to remind them of the Police's possible actions so that they can make arrangements accordingly. During the operation, the Police will also appeal to residents in the vicinity to pay attention to the situation through social media and press releases, and to close the windows and stay in a safe place indoors if necessary.


3875

The second point is concerned with the relationship between the Police and the media. While Hong Kong enjoys freedom of the press, the Police respect media coverage and have all along been assisting in media reporting as far as possible on the condition of not affecting operations. As mentioned by the Secretary for Security in his opening speech, it is in the interests of both the Police and the media to focus on their respective responsibilities as well as to understand and cooperate with each other. To work in difficult, volatile and critical situations, the Police need to take immediate and appropriate actions to remove the threats and bring the offenders to justice. Journalists present at the scene must maintain an appropriate distance from police officers during operation, so as to ensure their own safety and avoid getting in the way of police work. We respect the work of the media. However, in the operations of the past few months, there are some facts that we cannot ignore. Firstly, during the operations of the past few months, the Police have seized some fake reporter identification. Secondly, during the operations, the Police also found some self-proclaimed reporters who wore reporters' vests but were not employed by the media organizations they claimed, or they departed immediately upon being questioned about reporter credentials. Thirdly, some people wearing yellow vests used their bodies to form a human chain and stood in front of the rioters against whom police action would be taken, in an attempt to obstruct the Police's operation. These are not the behaviour or acts expected of professional journalists, as they have seriously affected police work. In fact, at the scenes of the recent protests and social unrest, despite the immense manpower pressure, efforts have been made by the Police to deploy Media Liaison Teams to facilitate and assist the work of the media. On 12 June, despite the tight manpower, the Police arranged 32 members of the Force Media Liaison Cadre to assist media workers at the scene. The Police will continue to enhance communication and cooperation with the media and deploy Media Liaison Teams to the scenes of public order events or other police operations to provide facilitation and assistance to media practitioners covering the events at the scene. The third point is concerned with the identification of police officers on duty. At present, a police officer can be identified regardless of his post. During the recent major public order events, uniformed police officers on duty would display their unique identification numbers or identifiable operational call


signs. When plain-clothes police officers exercise police powers, they would identify themselves and produce warrant cards, or display identifiable operational call signs, as long as doing so is not infeasible under the operational circumstances. The operational call signs mentioned just now were introduced by the Police as a pilot measure in response to public concerns about the display of unique identification numbers by police officers at major public order events. Operational call signs, being identifiable call signs for all police officers who participate in an operation, facilitate the effective identification of an officer. Apart from enhancing the overall effectiveness of the Police in large-scale operations, this arrangement also strikes a proper balance between ensuring the identification of police officers on the one hand, and protecting their personal data from malicious disclosure on the other. The Police will continue to listen to views of police officers and members of the public, and conduct a review of the arrangement in due course having regard to operational needs. Fourthly, some Members mentioned the work of the Complaints Against Police Office ("CAPO") and the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC"). With regard to the number of complaint cases against the Police, as at 10 December, the numbers of "reportable complaints" and "notifiable complaints" related to major public order events were 493 and 893 respectively. The investigation of all complaint cases would be monitored by IPCC and its group of 120 observers in an independent capacity. IPCC has issued a statement, stating that it is doing its utmost to finalize the first interim report, which focuses on the incidents occurred on 9 June, 12 June and 1 July and will provide a factual, impartial and fair account of the incidents to the public early next year. I hope that this report will enable the community of Hong Kong, the SAR Government and the Police as a whole to consider the plan and direction for next steps. The Chief Executive and the Police have indicated that they will fully support and cooperate in the relevant study. The Government will carefully examine all the recommendations of the report and decide on the follow-up actions to take. In view of the high complexity of the study being conducted by IPCC, I call on the public to give IPCC ample time and space to complete this challenging task.


3877

President, on 4 September, the Chief Executive presented four actions to help society initiate a dialogue, with a view to resolving the deep-seated contradictions and restoring social order. Firstly, at the meeting of the Legislative Council on 23 October, the Secretary for Security formally withdrew the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019. Secondly, the SAR Government fully supports the work of IPCC. In September, the Chief Executive appointed two new members to IPCC. Thirdly, the Chief Executive and the accountability team will continue to engage in sincere dialogue with people from all walks of life and of different political stances and background in the community, so as to get a better understanding of the deep-seated problems in society and find pragmatic solutions. Fourthly, the SAR Government is, by drawing reference from the practices of the United Kingdom and other places, inviting community leaders, professionals and academics to set up an independent review committee to examine and review society's deep-seated problems. It is hoped that through looking into the causes of the social events that took place in the past few months, the committee can make recommendations to the Government. President, since the incident, the Security Bureau has been coordinating the various disciplined services to take concerted actions to stop violence and curb disorder. In order to effectively cope with and expeditiously respond to public order events involving escalated violence, the Chief Secretary for Administration also chairs an Inter-departmental Action Task Force to coordinate the actions that various departments take to monitor, respond to and follow up on the situations, as well as to disseminate and dispel rumours, with a view to fully coordinating all urgent efforts to ensure effective and prompt follow-up actions, and fully supporting and cooperating with the Police in their efforts to stop violence and curb disorder in accordance with the law. In order to effectively cope with the serious situation, all bureaux and departments must work together as a team and in unity. Through high-level coordination, the Government will continue to strengthen collaboration amongst


the departments and closely monitor and react swiftly to the development of the protest actions, with a view to ensuring that the community can be business as usual as soon as possible. The recent violent protests have caused tension between the Police and the public. I notice that there is a lot of fake information and false allegations against the Police in the community. In this connection, the Government has been constantly clarifying the rumours through various channels, and the Police will strengthen communication with various sectors to enhance the transparency of their work, so that members of the public will be informed of and understand the reasons for the Police's actions, thereby reducing misunderstandings and enhancing the understanding between the Police and the public. President, in Hong Kong, no one can override the law or break the law without having to face the consequences. The demand that all arrested persons should be released unconditionally and all law-breakers should not be prosecuted and pursued is apparently in breach of the rule of law, and is unacceptable to any society upholding the rule of law. According to the Basic Law, the Department of Justice's decision relating to criminal prosecutions must be free from any interference, otherwise it is in breach of the rule of law. Over the past few months, violence at protests has been escalating. Rioters have hijacked the peaceful public order events, infringed on the freedom and safety of countless Hong Kong people, undermined people's rights to live a normal life, to travel, to go to work and to school, and threatened the safety of the lives and properties of individuals and businesses. Everyone is equal before the law, and people who have committed serious illegal acts, regardless of their age, sex, occupation or background, should be dealt with equally in accordance with the law under our legal system. The rule of law is the core value vital to Hong Kong's success. Regardless of the principles a person upheld, everyone is equal before the law. No one can resort to violence because any attempt to embellish, justify or in any way acquiesce to violence on the ground of political interests or political considerations is tantamount to condoning and encouraging more violence, which is unforgivable. We must therefore sever ties with violence. Any acts to keep acquiescing to or tolerating violent acts and demanding that illegal acts should not be prosecuted or pursued will send a very wrong message to the community and the younger generation, misleading them to think that violence is a solution to problems. This will only completely destroy the rule of law and core values that Hong Kong has been upholding for many years.


3879

President, Hong Kong has the freedom of speech, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration, but they are not completely unrestricted. The Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance enacted to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights clearly stipulates that these rights may be restricted by law for the need to safeguard public order and protect the rights and freedoms of others. The law is the existing Public Order Ordinance, which provides for assembly, procession and demonstration while safeguards public order, public safety and the rights and freedom of other people. Therefore, all assemblies, processions and demonstrations must comply with the notice of no objection issued by the Police, and proceed in a peaceful and orderly manner in accordance with the law. The public speech made by the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal in 2016 explains this point. He said (I quote): "And the importance of law in a society lies in a very simple concept: law epitomizes the respect for individual rights and liberties, and the respect also for the rights and liberties of other people. This inclusion of other people's rights is important. All too often, the emphasis by some people is only on their own individual rights and liberties, and little or no regard is paid to the rights and liberties of others who also live and work in the community." (End of quote) President, during the protests and social unrest that occurred in Hong Kong in the past few months, rioters have wantonly beaten up people with different views, imposed extrajudicial punishment and created the threats of black terror. Worse still, some rioters have even vandalized shops, set them on fire and caused destruction in a barbaric manner. Instead of downplaying such acts as "vigilantism" or "vandalism", we must speak out righteously and point out that these atrocities are serious and deplorable. I hope that Members will reflect on the atrocities of the past six months or so, which have seriously undermined democracy and damaged the pluralistic society. The overbearing behaviours of some people have overridden the rights of other people to live a normal life. I hope that peace and safety will be restored in society, and people will solve problems in a rational and mutually respectful manner. President, with these remarks, I implore Members to oppose the relevant motions.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr Andrew WAN to reply. MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, police violence has created disorder, this fact is beyond dispute. President, today marks the 35th anniversary of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Yet, Hong Kong has fallen into disarray, with its systems collapsed and core values deteriorated. Today, we meet in the Legislative Council Chamber to condemn the governing team and the Police Force, which were reputed as the world's best and the most efficient respectively before the handover. Twenty-two years later, the Police Force has surprisingly become "a rat in the street" dislike by all people. President, this change is really ironic and miserable. Scenes of police violence on 12 June are still vivid in my mind. Many Honourable colleagues present and people of Hong Kong should feel the same. President, the "12 June" incident was the first wound in the "anti-extradition to China" movement. President, the word "wound" is not used as a metaphor because some people did get hurt or even died. When the situation has come to this pass, the public paid a high price. Many young people were arrested and prosecuted indiscriminately, falling prey to police violence and power abuse. Who were guilty of the bloodshed? The Government, the Police and the pro-establishment camp should bear responsibility. How come they can still argue shamelessly against this motion today? President, if Carrie LAM had listened to the people after the 1 million-strong protest on 9 June, the "12 June" incident would not have happened. The "12 June" incident was the direct cause of the escalation of police violence in the following six months. President, how come the Police could violate the police rules recklessly? How come they did not display their police identification number? How come they acted against the police rules and did not wear their warrant card knowingly? What were they trying to evade and what did they fear? How come there were so many police officers violating the police rules and no one has rectified this problem so far? Given the seriousness of the problem, there must be someone behind the scene giving orders and conniving at this violation. How come the pro-establishment Members say that we should not inquiry into this serious problem?


3881

President, in my view, the concealment of identity by police officers is a serious problem in this incident. The general public are now concerned about the Lucifer Effect, i.e. with the concealment of identity, police officers on duty may break the law recklessly as there is no way to hold them accountable for any liability. Police officers even put on masks and helmets so that they will not be investigated and held responsible. Moreover, under the harbouring and connivance of royalists and Directors of Bureaux, they will certainly be fearless. However, under no circumstances should they shoot unarmed civilians, right? How could they hit passers-by with batons and even hit them on their head? How could they fire tear gas rounds at participants of a peaceful assembly? How could they pepper spray Members and civilians who just walked past and wanted to inquire about what was happening? President, I will not go on to describe their countless wrongdoings. As remarked by many colleagues, the Police are up to their neck in crime. After this incident, the Police and top government officials have become completely bankrupt of integrity. The "12 June" incident must hence be inquired thoroughly. President, I will now quote some of the rules in the Police General Orders ("PGOs"). According to Chapter 29 of the Force Procedures Manual, there are six levels of force, namely psychological threats, verbal resistance, passive resistance, strong resistance, violent attack, and lethal attack. Some small clashes did happen on 12 June; no one here will deny this fact. But does it mean that the Police could use lethal force to deal with participants of a peaceful assembly, as well as members of the public waiting to observe the Council meeting? They just wanted to know whether the royalists would join hands with Carrie LAM to force through the "China extradition bill" on that day. The Police's actions were unjustifiable. President, the Police's use of force had jumped from level one to level six. Police officers aimed their guns at passers-by and shot them without prior warning. I am not pinpointing which types of guns were used; in fact, the Police have now fired real bullets, haven't they? At present, I only talk about whether the Police had shot in the "12 June" incident. Since the Police have already provided relevant figures, and the Security Bureau has also admitted, why should we still argue? President, PGO 29-02 provides that police officers shall identify themselves and give warnings before using forces. Did the police officers do so? Did they do so in the "12 June" incident? They not only failed to identify themselves and give warnings in the "12 June" incident, but also failed to right their wrong and even aggravate their fault thereafter. President, I am not


referring to the use of ordinary force. In the incident involving the assault on a member of the public by seven police officers in a dark corner, the use of force was child's play. Nowadays, police officers target the vital part of the civilians' body; they hit the head and shoot to kill. Why are they so cruel? This is the Lucifer Effect. President, pro-establishment Members have accused us of criticizing the Police. Carrie LAM has also made a similar remark, saying that it is right and natural for the Police to engage in lawful law enforcement. I must say that her remark is a load of bullshit that confuses the public. Have we ever asked the Police to stop enforcing the law lawfully? Just now, Mr SHIU Ka-fai was right to say that we were simply asking the Police to enforce the law lawfully. We would not have complained if their law enforcement had been lawful. Yet, the truth is they were not law-abiding or rule-abiding in their law enforcement actions. They violently attacked innocent civilians in breach of laws and failed to act in accordance with the Police Force Ordinance and PGOs. That was why we demanded an inquiry. All is plain and there is nothing to argue about. Are the current PGOs a sham? Is the Force Procedures Manual an empty talk? Have we made up stories to wrong the Police? When the Police have violated the rules, why don't they admit their fault? In this case, how can we not to conduct an inquiry? Why were PGOs formulated in the first place? The objective is to formulate a code of conduct. Pro-establishment Members who are willing to reason should understand why a code of conduct is necessary. The police officers in question are military-trained members of disciplined services. They are given public powers to use lethal weapons and they are equipped with full gear to perform their duties. If they recklessly defy the law when on duty, people may get killed under the disguise of lawful killing. A code of conduct is thus needed to regulate police conduct. Public powers must be confined and regulated. How can you guys serve as Council Members if you do not even have this kind of common sense? When the rules drawn up by the Police were violated by police officers, can we say that the Police are rule-breaking? When we want to hold the Secretary accountable for the rule-breaking Police, are we unfair to him? Are we finding fault with him? Is it right to break the law knowingly? Should we accept unlawful law enforcement? Under Secretary, why didn't John LEE come to the Council? Why did he send you here? Is it right to hurt members of the public?


3883

How come the guilty parties do not have to shoulder their responsibility and get punished? How come more than 6 000 people on their way home were arrested by the Police without sound reasons? Some of them were even charged with riot. Why? Are the Police allowed to enforce the law unlawfully against any alleged law-breakers? If the Police are always in the right even if they have breached the rules, what is the point of having PGOs? Just now, the Under Secretary said that there were fake journalists. If that was true, the Police could arrest and penalize those "journalists" according to the law. They might even institute prosecution. Even if someone was a fake journalist, did it imply that police officers could hit him? What should we do if there are fake police officers? As many police officers do not wear their warrant card these days, can members of the public beat them up? I do not understand the point made by the Under Secretary. Does he know what he has just said? We want to hold the Police accountable for violating PGOs in the "12 June" incident. Under Secretary, do you think we are wrong to do so? Do you think the Police had acted reasonably? Was it reasonable to assault and shoot members of the public indiscriminately? John LEE and Under Secretary, do you have any idea about your remarks? The two of you now get to the high positions of Secretary and Under Secretary after serving in the Police Force for a long time, are you ashamed? John LEE has even said that the motions under discussion are unnecessary and he asked Members to oppose them. In the view of the Secretary, it was not necessary to inquire into the ins and outs of the "12 June" incident and to find out the persons giving orders and conniving at police violence. Such misdeeds had resulted in an uproar, causing havoc in Hong Kong over the past six months and leading us to come to this pass today. Is it right for us to stand aloof and do not try to find out which senior police officers have made such decisions or instructed police officers not to wear warrant cards and display police identification numbers? Isn't it necessary to stop the Lucifer Effect? President, what do you think is truly unnecessary? The existence of John LEE, Teresa CHENG and Carrie LAM is unnecessary. President, I still have some five minutes left and I would like to respond to the earlier speeches given by my Honourable colleagues. Some of their views were so ridiculous that I must retort. As we all know, the shameless pro-establishment Members are never too shy to speak up. Today, we have


more pro-establishment Members in the Chamber with us. Yesterday, I wondered if they dared not speak so that many of them were absent. But I was wrong to think so. Today, many pro-establishment Members have spoken, yet their arguments were either lame or self-contradictory. Just now, Dr KWOK Ka-ki commended Mr Michael TIEN, but I am not going to do the same because Mr Michael TIEN has refused to support our motions after giving some seemingly reasonable views. That is a bit cunning. He considered our approach inappropriate because the motion wording indicated a predetermined stance, hence he did not support us. Buddy, we urge for the appointment of a select committee because we consider the practice of the Police unsatisfactory. Mr TIEN may actually join the select committee. After all, the pro-establishment Members are in the majority and always outnumber us in all sorts of committees. Are they scared even if they are in the majority? If not, I urge the pro-establishment Members to join the select committee after its establishment. Also, Mr TIEN could propose a similar motion if he found our motion wording problematic. Mr TIEN, are you trying to "play two sets of cards"? This practice no longer works. I suppose Mr TIEN would understand that it is unwise to do so after the District Council Election. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan is, however, even more ridiculous than Mr Michael TIEN. Dr CHIANG kept bombarding the Government in her speech for its poor decisions and questioned if it was crazy not to shelve the "China extradition bill" after the 1 million-strong protest on 9 June. Yet, back then, members of Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") were like cheerleaders, showing strong support to the Government for bulldozing the bill through the Legislative Council. DAB members, what is wrong with you? What are you talking about? As for Mr LUK Chung-hung, he said that we intended to oppress the Police by asking for an inquiry into the "12 June" incident. In his opinion, the inquiry should not only go after the Police but should also look into other issues. Mr LUK, please take a look at our motions. These motions have already covered other issues. I wonder if Mr LUK has read our motions. Is he illiterate? He said that we should go after the truth. That is exactly what we have proposed in the motions. As the pro-establishment Members are in the majority, they may join the select committee to go after the truth. "A person of integrity can stand severe tests". Why don't you guys support doing justice to the Police?


3885

I have to spare some time to respond to Dr Priscilla LEUNG. Just now, Dr Priscilla LEUNG nicely said that we should have a comprehensive inquiry instead of targeting the Police. However, I did not find that she has asked for a comprehensive inquiry in her motion, which is listed as the fifth motion for debate on the Agenda. Is she also trying to "play two sets of cards"? It is a cheat to "play two sets of cards" and voters will punish those playing political cheats. She has already been punished once. Isn't it enough? Does she want to be punished again? Just now, Dr LEUNG solemnly demanded a comprehensive inquiry, but she did not ask for the same in her own motion. She could have requested inquiring the Police in her motion. As Mr James TO has proposed an amendment to her motion, let us see if Dr LEUNG will support his amendment. President, I also have to respond to Mr Holden CHOW. He said that the storm over the past six months had affected the livelihood of Hong Kong people, putting our society into great trouble. Mr Holden CHOW, that was true. The pro-establishment Members should have committed hara-kiri. Who was the main culprit that put Hong Kong into this great trouble? Who was the one firing the first shot? Don't put the blame on Carrie LAM. It was DAB who fired the first shot. You were the one who set the ball rolling before she did the "smash". I do not know who else have colluded with Carrie LAM, but DAB definitely had a role to play in today's chaos. How come DAB is so scared of having a select committee? That can actually help uncover the truth. Mr CHOW, didn't you just say that "a person of integrity can stand severe tests"? Are you frightened now? You had better be cleverer this time. First of all, do not receive emails from "689". Or you should read through his emails before forwarding them to others. You will be fine as long as you stay away from the select committee. You were the one putting Hong Kong into trouble and yet you put the blame on members of the public and Members who wish to hold the culprits accountable. Just now, many pro-establishment Members said that the pan-democratic Members had not done much on this issue. How could that be true? We had put forward a number of proposed options, including discussing with Taiwan the surrender of the fugitive offender on a case-by-case basis and proposing amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. Do you agree? Are you willing to agree?


Lastly, President, I must leave some time for countering Dr Junius HO's arguments. Today, Dr Junius HO, the advocate of violence, ironically condemned violence in his speech. He should be the last person to speak on violence, not to mention anti-violence. Since his remark of "killing without mercy" to the "21 July" incident, his ties with violence have been quite clear. Therefore, it was absurd for him to advocate anti-violence. According to him, there should be a comprehensive inquiry and the "12 June", "21 July" and "31 August" incidents should not be inquired separately. Yes, the Pope is Catholic. If the Government had taken the initiative to conduct an inquiry, we would not have proposed these motions. Are there other ways for us to uncover the truth? Dr HO should propose a motion if he has the power to uncover the truth. President, here comes my brief conclusion. If pro-establishment Members are "persons of integrity" who "can stand severe tests", they should do justice to the Police and themselves by supporting our three motions. Members of the public should also pay attention to how the pro-establishment Members are going to vote in order to hold them accountable. Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council now votes on the motion moved by Mr Andrew WAN earlier. (Dr Priscilla LEUNG indicated her wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, what is your point of order? DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): I think Mr Andrew WAN should clarify his remark on "playing a cheat". Was he making an unfound speculation on the motive of another Member?


3887

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG, please sit down. This Council now votes on the motion moved by Mr Andrew WAN earlier. I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew WAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (Members raised their hands) Mr Andrew WAN rose to claim a division. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes. (While the division bell was ringing, Mr Frankie YICK raised his hand in indication) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frankie YICK, what is your point? MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, I declare that I am a member of the Independent Police Complaints Council. (Mr Christopher CHEUNG stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, what is your point?


MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I also declare that I am the Vice-Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Council. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed. Functional Constituencies: Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the motion. Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr LAU Kwok-fan voted against the motion. Mr Frankie YICK and Mr Tony TSE abstained. THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote. Geographical Constituencies: Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Jeremy TAM voted for the motion.


3889

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the motion. THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 9 were in favour of the motion, 17 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 14 were in favour of the motion and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, you may move your motion. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. Mr Jeremy TAM moved the following motion:

"That this Council appoints a select committee to inquire into the Police's alleged violation of the relevant police regulations and abuse of power in its handling of the protest against the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 which took place on 12 June 2019, including shooting the heads of protesters without warning, group beating of protesters with batons, assaulting for no reason reporters who were performing their duties, indiscriminate arrests of injured protesters in public hospitals, refusing to produce warrant cards by police officers in plain-cloth, the Police Tactical Squad not displaying the police identification numbers on their uniforms, and other related matters, and that in the performance of its duties the committee be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance."


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Jeremy TAM's motion be passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (Members raised their hands) Mr Jeremy TAM rose to claim a division. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed. Functional Constituencies: Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the motion. Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok,


3891

Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr LAU Kwok-fan voted against the motion. Mr Frankie YICK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG and Mr Tony TSE abstained. THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote. Geographical Constituencies: Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Jeremy TAM voted for the motion. Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the motion. THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 9 were in favour of the motion, 18 against it and 3 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 14 were in favour of the motion and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you may move your motion.


Stand-over item: Member's motion under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law (standing over from the meeting of 10 July 2019) MOTION UNDER ARTICLE 73(5) AND (10) OF THE BASIC LAW TO SUMMON THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TO PRODUCE PAPERS AND TESTIFY DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. Dr KWOK Ka-ki moved the following motion:

"That, pursuant to Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, this Council summons the Commissioner of Police to attend before the Council at its earliest meeting after the passage of this motion to produce all relevant papers, books, records or documents and to testify or give evidence on alleged use of undue violence by the Police against peaceful protesters in its handling of the large-scale protests in Admiralty on 12 June 2019, including the use of tear gas and bean bag guns, abuse of police power, violation of the Police General Orders, brutality against the media, and alleged unauthorized access to the computer system of the Hospital Authority to obtain information of the people injured in the aforementioned protests and arrests of those injured people in public hospitals, etc., and other relevant matters."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Dr KWOK Ka-ki's motion be passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands)


3893

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (Members raised their hands) Dr KWOK Ka-ki rose to claim a division. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed. Functional Constituencies: Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the motion. Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr LAU Kwok-fan voted against the motion. Mr Frankie YICK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG and Mr Tony TSE abstained. THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.


Geographical Constituencies: Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Jeremy TAM voted for the motion. Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the motion. THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 9 were in favour of the motion, 18 against it and 3 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 14 were in favour of the motion and 16 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived. NEXT MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fellow Members, this is the last Council meeting in 2019. I hope you will all put down your work for the moment and spend more time with your family. I also wish the people of Hong Kong a peaceful Christmas and a happy New Year. I now adjourn the meeting until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 8 January 2020. Adjourned accordingly at 3:39 pm.

official record of proceedings thursday, 19 december … · 2020-03-02 · legislative council ―...

Documents