MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the original motion highlights the "three big mountains", namely, the Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT"), the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") and the offsetting mechanism of the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") System. I agree that these "big mountains" are indeed intractable problems. In respect of the issue of Link REIT, the Government had committed a colossal mistake by divesting shopping units and parking spaces to the Link Real Estate Investment Trust, a former entity of Link REIT. Now that Link REIT is a listed company, the damage can hardly be reversed. If the Government heeds the suggestion of some Members of buying back Link REIT, it would only bring about yet more headaches. As we all know, acquiring the properties or shares of Link REIT are market activities that must be kept confidential. Yet, so long as public money is expended by the Government to fund the deal, the acquisition cannot be kept confidential. As soon as the market got wind of the Government's acquisition plan, the share price of Link REIT will skyrocket, lavishing a windfall on the major shareholders who would stand to benefit again. Foreign investors, meanwhile, would accuse the Hong Kong Government of blatant intervention in the market, which would affect the long-standing reputation of Hong Kong as a free economy.

It is thus evident that, with the means of curbing Link REIT sorely limited, the company can only be checked by way of an increase in supply―adding more public markets and parking spaces in the vicinity of the housing estates under Link REIT. While it is not easy to identify sites in various districts for the construction of these facilities―with land being a precious commodity in Hong Kong, the Government must nevertheless find ways to resolve the problem. As a show of the Government's resolve in tackling the problem of Link REIT, any construction proposal that reached maturity should be implemented right away.

Regarding the issue of MTRCL, the public was justifiably outraged by the recent spate of incidents. Under the Fare Adjustment Mechanism ("FAM"), MTRCL recently announced yet another fare increase of 3.3%, which was seen as too steep by the public in general. Indeed, over the period between 2008 and 2017, MTRCL had frozen fares for only three years. Worse still, fares were raised seven years in a row between 2010 and 2017 with the rates of increase averaging 2%. It is no exaggeration to say that the mechanism allows only upward but not downward adjustments. The fare increase, which sparked endless objections, coupled with the recent spate of incidents which attracted widespread criticisms against MTRCL, has certainly put its Management or staff in general in an unpleasant state of mind.

Yet, instead of dismissing the corporation as completely worthless, we should take an objective view in judging MTRCL. Over the past 40 years, MTRCL has played the role of a major public mode of transport, serving millions of passengers daily, maintaining a certain standard in safety or management, while enjoying a renowned reputation overseas. However, ageing components and the failure of the Management in keeping abreast of the times resulted in the frequent occurrence of incidents recently that brought traffic to a standstill and created safety hazards, causing a dramatic deterioration in the public image of the corporation. Under the present circumstances, MTRCL should try all means possible to make remedy. In addition to formulating measures to ensure safety and reduce the occurrence of incidents, the corporation should make a rebate to passengers, and this should prove effective as a public relation strategy.

MTRCL recently announced a fare increase of 3.3% and the provision of fare concession lasting only half a year, a proposal that can hardly assuage public discontent indeed. As a commercial organization and listed company, MTRCL should certainly set its sights primarily on pursuing profits. Yet, with the Government as its majority shareholder and its key function as a public transport mode, MTRCL should not overlook its responsibilities as a public organization. It should make more commitments to FAM and profit sharing measures so as to repair its negative image and restore public confidence in MTRCL as much as possible.

Deputy President, I am deeply worried about the ramifications caused by the removal of the third "big mountain", namely, the MPF offsetting mechanism. The Government has rolled out its proposal for abolishing the offsetting mechanism. All in all, while wage earners would be relieved of the big mountain under the government proposal, it would be shifted to the employers of micro, small and medium enterprises. According to the proposal, the Government will allocate $29.3 billion to the provision of two tiers of subsidy with the duration of subsidy in the second tier extended from the originally proposed 12 years to 25 years. Yet, the business community is convinced that the Government will eventually bail out and wash its hands of the matter, shifting the responsibility to employers ultimately.

While the abolishment of the MPF offsetting mechanism may not strain the large companies and corporate groups very much, it represents a huge burden to micro, small and medium enterprises. With micro, small and medium enterprises accounting for over 90% of the business sector of Hong Kong, the impact would be widespread. Moreover, many companies, confounded by the complexity of the proposal, have a hard time calculating the amount of compensation to be borne by them and the amount of funds that needs to be set aside. Meanwhile, dedicated accounts must be set up, adding to the administrative costs of companies. When the subsidy period expires, companies will have to fork out huge sums for severance payments eventually. Hence, many micro, small and medium enterprises have fiercely opposed the government proposal so far.

The past few years have seen constant enhancements in employee benefits by the Government. While it is understandable from the public perspective, the micro, small and medium enterprises have found it hard to cope. The Government proposed first the abolishment of the MPF offsetting arrangement, then the extension of paternity leave for male employees from 3 days to 5 days, followed by the extension of statutory paid maternity leave from 10 weeks to 14 weeks. Meanwhile, a guideline on standard working hours is set to be introduced in the future, possibly paving the way for legislation. For micro, small and medium enterprises, there seems to be no end to their ordeals.

Given that the micro, small and medium enterprises are struggling to recruit staff and enjoys little flexibility on the credit front, every policy introduced that is beneficial to the labour sector would bring a heavy burden to bear on those enterprises. For big companies and corporate groups with abundant resources, the effects would be limited. In contrast, the more policies that stifle enterprises are introduced, the bigger the brunt micro, small and medium companies would have to bear. Such a situation, if continues, will only help big corporate groups and companies entrench their monopolization of the markets in Hong Kong. Hence, I hope the Government will take this into account when formulating policies and avoid stifling micro, small and medium enterprises by all means.

I so submit. Deputy President.