Speech on opposing filibuster (2015/05/13)

Chairman, I will speak on Amendment Nos 518, 519, 525, 526, 527 and 543. I oppose these several amendments which seek to reduce the estimated full-year subvention to the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB), the Mainland-related subvention to the HKTB, and the estimated expenditure on the Consultancy on the Phase 2 development of the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort.

I do not understand why the Members who propose these amendments have to resist the global trend and repeatedly question the development prospects of Hong Kong's tourism industry, disregarding the importance of tourism development to Hong Kong's economy. Hong Kong has been a very popular tourist destination, with its receiving capacity ranked among the best in the world. According to the latest Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum, Hong Kong ranks 13th, up two places from its last published ranking. In particular, Hong Kong ranks first in ground and port infrastructure among 141 countries and regions, which shows that Hong Kong is fully equipped for further developing its tourism industry.

In addition, Hong Kong's tourism industry has developed rapidly and made remarkable achievements over the past decade. From 2002 to 2012, the average rate of growth in the tourism industry was 10.2%. Its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose from 2.9% to last year's 5%, representing a rate of increase obviously higher than those seen in other industries. The number of people directly employed in the tourism industry has reached 270 000; if other indirectly benefited industries are also included, the relevant employment figure is estimated to be over 600 000. One third of Hong Kong's retail sales are generated by inbound visitors. Not only does the tourism industry give impetus to the business of caterers, hotels, retailers, tourist spots, transport, entertainment, and so on, but other industries such as the logistics, import and export trading, advertising, real estate and financial industries are also affected by the rise and fall of the tourism industry, which has a very extensive cross-sectoral impact, hope that those Honourable colleagues who keep criticizing the Individual Visit Scheme can take an objective view of the problems and recognize the contribution made by the tourism industry to Hong Kong's economy. They should not forget that hundreds of thousands of people in the labour force are relying on the tourism industry to support their families, and they should stop rubbing salt into the wounds of the tourism industry, which has started to fall into the doldrums.

Developing the tourism industry brings with it many advantages, including little pollution and fostering the employment of low-skilled workers. Hence, both developing countries and advanced countries regard the tourism industry as a sunrise industry. A study report on industry trends by Oxford Economics forecasts that over the next decade, the tourism industry will grow at a rate of 5.4% per annum, which is much higher than the anticipated global GDP growth rate of 2%. Given the limitless potential of China's outbound tourism market, all countries will, while developing tourism, devote more resources to seizing the Chinese tourist market. Even the United States and Japan, which in the past considered China an unfriendly nation, have relaxed entry restrictions. To increase their appeal to Chinese tourists, many countries are improving their Chinese guiding signs, hiring Chinese-speaking shopping guides and increasing their investments in promotional activities targeting China, with a view to seizing the world's largest tourism market. For instance, Macao's estimated spending on tourism promotion for 2014 amounted to nearly $1.4 billion, almost double the $700 million expenditure of the HKTB.

In contrast, since the end of the year before last, Hong Kong has seen the continued occurrence of the "anti-locust campaign" which targets and harasses Mainland visitors. Last year, in the midst of Occupy Central, hundreds of protesters staged "shopping tour" protests which dealt a direct blow to shops in tourist areas. What happened in the run-up to the Chinese New Year this year was even worse, with protesters besieging innocent tourists and members of the public in the name of protesting against parallel traders. Some protesters hurled insults at a mother and her daughter who came to Hong Kong to buy books, and some even kicked the suitcases of elderly people. These scenes have been broadcast extensively on the news, media and television in various places, as well as on the Internet, and have been deeply imprinted on people's minds. The image of Hong Kong as a chaotic and uncivilized city has directly affected Hong Kong's tourism reputation. Recently, Yahoo Travel conducted a survey on "the unfriendliest city in the world", in which Hong Kong was ranked fourth in the world and first in Asia. Hong Kong's image as a hospitable city, which we had taken great pains to build up over the years, was completely damaged within a short space of time. This has very negative and far-reaching implications for the development of Hong Kong. 

At present, apart from solving the problem of nuisances caused to certain districts by an excessive number of parallel traders, the most important task of the Government is to rebuild Hong Kong's hospitable image worldwide. The additional allocation of $80 million to the HKTB in this year's Budget is exactly aimed at restoring visitors' confidence in Hong Kong through promoting its positive image. In the face of a confidence crisis, the amendments proposed by Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, however, seek to reduce all the expenses of the HKTB; these amendments are unrealistic. If the HKTB has no funding, how can it carry out the most basic activities such as advertising and external promotions? This would, in effect, mean that we do not want tourists to come to Hong Kong and that we give up tourism, in which case not only tourism investors will be affected, but workers in related trades and their families will be more seriously affected. These amendments, which totally disregard the overall economic interests of Hong Kong, are unscientific, unreasonable and reckless.

As for the amendments proposed by Members including Ms Claudia MO, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr Gary FAN which seek to reduce Mainland marketing expenses, I do not think that they are justified. Last year, the market share of Mainland tourists was as high as 78%. As over-reliance on a single market is not healthy, I agree that a balanced approach should be adopted in allocating resources for marketing. In fact, taking account of the situation, the HKTB has decided to devote 76% of advertising resources to overseas markets, while the remaining resources will be mainly invested in the non-Guangdong market of the Mainland. This is a more reasonable estimate.

Nonetheless, we must face reality. Let us look back on the situation last year. Of all the 60.8 million visitor arrivals last year, 27 million were overnight tourists, and among them, 19 million were Mainland tourists. If calculated on the basis that each overnight tourist spent as much as $8,000 on average, the total spending of these tourists would exceed $150 billion, which directly benefited various consumer industries. Moreover, as the average spending of Mainland overnight tourists is higher than that of overseas tourists, we should not completely ignore the Mainland market, which makes direct contributions to Hong Kong's economy, while stepping up our promotional efforts overseas. It is indeed unconscionable to reduce all promotional expenses.

As there have been too many unfriendly actions targeting Mainland tourists recently, Mainland tourists (particularly business and middle-class visitors who are comparatively high-end and high-spending) have started to have a negative perception of Hong Kong, and their desire to visit Hong Kong has been reduced. I hope that Members from the opposition camp will stop adding fuel to the fire and refrain from blindly targeting Mainland tourists. These tourists from the Mainland, whom we do not cherish at the moment, constitute a visitor source market that the rest of the world is eyeing covetously. If we do not make any promotional efforts on the Mainland, we are virtually giving this market away to our competitors.

I concur with the proposal made by Mr James TIEN last week. The bulk of the additional advertising funding of $80 million allocated this year should be used on the Mainland, particularly the non-Guangdong market, with a focus on restoring Mainland tourists' confidence in Hong Kong. Apart from introducing Hong Kong as a place that offers great food, great fun and different concessions, our promotional activities should also focus more on the hospitality, civilization and courtesy of Hong Kong people. In addition to enhancing our image, this can help remind tourists to follow our local customs and behave in an orderly manner, so that the misunderstanding between tourists and local people can be gradually eliminated.

This apart, I oppose Dr Fernando CHEUNG's amendment which seeks to reduce the expenditure on the Consultancy on the Phase 2 development of Hong Kong Disneyland, as I think that his amendment is clearly divorced from reality. As we all know, the site of the Phase 2 works was reserved for the development of Hong Kong Disneyland long ago. It is already late to kick off the consultancy study now. The site, if not developed, will only remain exposed to the sun for no purpose, so development should be kicked off as early as possible. The receiving capacity of the two existing major tourist attractions in Hong Kong, namely Hong Kong Disneyland and Ocean Park, is close to saturation. In the face of future challenges, Hong Kong needs to establish new tourist attractions or expand the existing ones. Given the current surplus of Hong Kong Disneyland, it is now the right time to expeditiously press ahead with the Phase 2 works, so as to expand the receiving capacity of Hong Kong Disneyland.

As everyone knows, Shanghai Disneyland is scheduled to open next year; they have recently started to hold some events, and its area is much larger than that of Hong Kong Disneyland. To maintain a stable source of visitors from southern China and Southeast Asia, Hong Kong Disneyland must expand, or else it will only fall farther and farther behind its Shanghai counterpart and lose its competitive edge. While working towards commencing the Phase 2 works as soon as possible, the Hong Kong Government must insist on requiring the Disney Headquarters to establish and launch unique local attractions and products in its Hong Kong theme park. Only through this can the Disney theme parks in Hong Kong and Shanghai complement each other and avoid homogeneity competition, which would lead to a lose-lose situation. I hope that the Government can speed up the implementation of the relevant arrangements.

I note that some Members, in their speeches delivered last week, requested the Government to levy a land departure tax on Mainland tourists. I adamantly object to that. Recently, to solve the problems posed by parallel traders, the Mainland authorities have replaced multiple-entry endorsements with "one trip per week" endorsements for permanent residents of Shenzhen at the request of the Hong Kong Government. The problems posed by Mainland parallel traders are set to be gradually alleviated. Furthermore, if such a tax is introduced in Hong Kong, it is highly likely that the Mainland Government will levy a similar tax on Hong Kong tourists in order to be accountable to the Mainland public. Each year, there are about 60 million entries of Hong Kong people into the Mainland through land boundary control points. If the Mainland authorities impose a land departure tax, the cost incurred by those Hong Kong people who frequently travel to and from the Mainland will increase. In addition, the introduction of a land departure tax in both places would only create more troubles for the boundary control points which are already very busy. It can be said that we would lose more than we would gain.

Chairman, I hope that Members from the opposition camp can be realistic in proposing amendments, and that they will stop making groundless criticisms and stop opposing for the sake of opposition. The filibustering Members should immediately cease filibustering, so that we can devote more energy to dealing with motions on developing the economy and resolving livelihood issues.

Chairman, I so submit.