MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") seeks to introduce certain technical amendments. On the face of it, there is not much controversy.

 

I notice that some corporates will be removed from the functional constituencies ("FCs") under the current amendment exercise, and I think this is open to question. The Peak Tramways Company Limited will be removed from the Transport FC, possibly because the peak tramway had been placed under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau instead of the Transport and Housing Bureau, and hence the Company is no longer eligible to be an elector of the Transport FC.

 

The issue of changing the regulatory authority of the peak tramway was first raised by me. I proposed at a meeting of the Bills Committee on the Peak Tramway (Amendment) Bill 2013 that the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau should replace the Transport and Housing Bureau as the Policy Bureau in charge of the peak tramway. The Government accepted my proposal and the peak tramway was moved from the ambit of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in the Peak Tramway (Amendment) Bill 2015.

 

The reason for my proposed change was that the peak tramway had changed from being a mode of transport to an ancillary facility at the tourist attraction spot. When the peak tramway was built over a century ago, it was intended to be a mode of transport for residents travelling up and down the Peak.Following the improvement in road and transportation networks, today the residents usually travel by private cars, buses and minibuses instead of the peak trams. Nowadays, very few residents still use the peak tramway as a daily means of transport; nearly all passengers who take peak trams are tourists.

 

According to a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Tourism Board, the Peak ranks the second in terms of popularity among all tourist attractions in Hong Kong. The famous peak tram ride is popular among tourists, and the peak tramway has therefore been widely recognized as an ancillary facility essential to the tourism activities at the Peak. If the Transport and Housing Bureau still regulated the peak tramway purely as a mode of transport, this approach would absolutely be outdated. Putting the peak tramway under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau as a tourist project would facilitate the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau's coordinating work, as it could consider all tourist facilities in the Peak area as a whole, including tourist attractions, entertainment venues, restaurants, eateries, shopping facilities and the peak tramway. When planning tourism development or conducting publicity and promotion activities, the Government or the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau should give play to maximum synergy from the peak tramway and its associated facilities from the perspectives of tourists and local people. This will help lift the overall image of the Peak. Ngong Ping 360 is currently regulated as a tourist facility. Similarly, if the peak tramway is regulated as a tourist attraction, the Policy Bureau concerned can then focus on its work and develop the potential of the peak tramway to a fuller extent.

 

As the peak tramway of Hong Kong is a notable attraction with a century-old history, its development calls for a multi-perspective approach that combines tourism development, conservation and planning, and makes reference to advanced management experiences. This is to ensure that the facilities and services of the peak tramway is effectively monitored and improved, so that better experiences can be provided to tourists and members of the public.

 

There should be no dispute that the regulation of the peak tramway as a tourist attraction instead of a mode of transport can bring a lot of advantages. However, I have not expected that the peak tramway would hence lose its elector status in the Transport FC. I find this regrettable. The change in the positioning or responsible bureau for the peak tramway does not make it ineligible as an elector of the constituency. Suppose an elderly person has settled in the Mainland and seldom returns to Hong Kong, he should not be deprived of his elector status in Hong Kong. Did the Government deprive the peak tramway of its elector status due to the change in its responsible bureau?The peak tramway still maintains the characteristics of being a means of transport. I do not know how the Government would explain its measure, but I hope the Government can allay my doubts.

 

President, Mr Vincent CHENG also mentioned that the Electoral Affairs Commission ("EAC") has received 6 540 complaints in the just-concluded District Council ("DC") Election, which is a 1.7-fold increase over the 2 429 complaints received on the polling day in 2015. This reveals that a number of problems have surfaced during the Election. Many of my counterparts in the sector hope that I can take this opportunity to reflect the situation to the Government. While the Bill intends to make only technical amendments, the Government is duty-bound to address the glaring problems that have arisen during the DC Election. This will help me make a decision on whether I would support the Bill.

 

Regarding the first problem, as mentioned by Members earlier, when some electors arrived at the polling station, they found that their identity card numbers had been registered by someone else. As a result, their ballot papers were regarded as invalid. According to the Presiding Officer, the records indicated that ballot papers had already been issued under their identity card numbers. Was this a human error? Or did the polling station staff make a mistake in verifying the identity, hence the identity had been fraudulently taken up by some other people? Although these electors could still be issued a ballot paper by the Presiding Officer, the ballot paper was stamped with the word "tendered", meaning that the vote would not be counted. These electors hence lost their voting rights to the impersonators. The EAC Chairman Barnabas FUNG admitted that the problem could not be resolved at the scene, and EAC could only refer the problem to the law enforcement agency for follow-up action.

 

Votes are kept confidential under our electoral system to ensure electors' anonymity. Once an elector's name has been crossed out by the polling station staff, there is no way to trace the impersonator. This problem has become quite serious, and we have no idea the number of cases involved. Obviously, the electors concerned have been deprived of their right to vote. Is this problem attributed to human errors or deliberate rigging? I think the Government should address this problem seriously.

 

Mr CHENG said earlier that the voting system in Hong Kong was very backward and there were various ways to rig an election. If the polling station staff did not check the identity card, an impersonator could give a false name and returned the identity card to its genuine holder, who could then obtain another ballot paper to vote again. The situation could get worse in the last half hour of voting. By then, the polling station staff would know how many electors have not yet voted, and who might not show up. If one wanted to rig an election, he could arrange certain electors to go to the polling stations and issue ballot papers to them.

 

It could be said that this deceptive act was a success. While it was a serious crime to deceive, verification was not easy. The main difficulty was a shortage of manpower, and this problem also revealed a loophole in the current system. As the operation of the voting process was based on papers and manual work, it was prone to errors even when no deliberate fraud has actually taken place. This loophole was unfair to the unsuccessful candidate, particularly when the election result was very close, with a difference of a few votes.

 

The second problem that my counterparts in the sector are relatively concerned with and have asked me to voice their view is related to the triage arrangements at polling stations. This Election has an unprecedented high turnout rate. Long queues of electors were formed at polling stations since early morning, many of whom queued up one to three hours to enter the polling station. As Members have pointed out, some elderly electors who made a special trip to the polling station had to give up voting reluctantly when they saw the long queue. People who were in a hurry to get to work were also turned away by the long queue and might not be able cast their vote that day. Few Members have mentioned the situation of those who had to leave Hong Kong on that day. They might have made plans to arrive at the airport at 11:00 am, and expected that they would be able to vote before heading off to the airport; yet, they decided not to vote at the sight of the long queue. Consequently, many electors could not cast their votes and no priority passage was arranged. So, what could be done? Some people on the Internet came up with a smart idea. They got people to queue up repeatedly to create an illusion. This has been reported in the media. Their purpose was to keep people who really wanted to vote from voting. These problems have disrupted the normal functioning of the election process.

 

It was stated on the Internet that at first the Government intended to arrange priority passage for some electors, but when electors arrived at the polling stations, they were told that there was no priority passage. The Government has turned a blind eye to the difficulties faced by some electors, restricting their voting rights in disguised form.

 

The third problem is the nuisance during the counting of votes. In the Yau Tong West constituency, a Presiding Officer was chided by a crowd after his decisions were challenged by a candidate. He clarified repeatedly that the candidate could file a petition if he was dissatisfied; nevertheless, the chiding would inevitably affect the Presiding Officer's decision. Should he serve as a Presiding Officer again, he would undoubtedly feel the pressure. In the Tai Wai constituency, a polling station was surrounded by people during the counting of votes, blocking candidates and their supporters from entering the polling station. As candidates and their supporters had no idea what was happening in the polling station, what could they do? I think the Government should face up to these problems as they are related to unfairness in election.

 

President, while candidates may lodge election petitions to raise issues that occurred during the election, the process is extremely long. Members would remember that the election petition for the Legislative Council Election took two years to obtain a decision in the first instance. The process could drag on for three to four years if an appeal was lodged, and by the time the trials were concluded we would be approaching the end of the current term. I do not think election petitions can achieve results. Even if a by-election was held following a successful petition, it would cost huge sums of money from the public coffers. The Government should, of course, expect people to abide by the rules, but it must also make efforts to close the loopholes. I hope the Government will reflect on the experience gained from this complicated matter.

 

With less than one year to go, the Legislative Council Election will be held in September next year, which will be a tougher battle as more electors will be involved when compared to the DC Election. If the loopholes of this DC Election are not plugged, the consequences will be irremediable. I hope the Government will carry out a specific review and learn from the experience, so as to ensure these loopholes will not affect the Legislative Council Election in 2020. Will the Government consider improving the existing manual-based process by making reference to overseas experience and digitizing part of the process to minimize human error? Will it be possible to set up priority passage in the light of the actual circumstances for the elderly, people with disabilities and other people with proof of special needs, such as those having air tickets to prove that they are in a hurry to the airport, or people in a hurry to work? This will eliminate unfairness in the election process by ensuring that everyone can cast their votes in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner.

 

Of course, I hope the Government will conduct a review on the harassment faced by Presiding Officers during the counting of votes, in order to prevent any misjudgment made under pressure by the polling station staff.

 

President, I so submit.