Motion Debate on Leisure, gaming and entertainment complex (22 November 2006)

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, the wording of the motion proposed by me today is as follows, "That this Council urges the Government to actively study the feasibility of establishing a leisure, gaming and entertainment complex on Lantau, and to conduct extensive consultation in this regard." I would like to draw the attention of Honourable colleagues to two phrases, that is, "actively study the feasibility of establishing" and "to conduct extensive consultation in this regard".

Madam President, why do we bring up this proposal again now? Perhaps it is because we notice that the Government has mentioned in both the policy address and the Budget that it worries about how the required money can be generated in view of the ageing population and the excessively narrow tax base. Meanwhile, many Honourable Members from the labour sector, in their attempts to fight for the cause of minimum wage and other labour interests, often ask how workers can find jobs with better incomes and how they can identify the sources of such jobs. We think that these two are the most pressing issues in society. If we can study the possibility of establishing a leisure, gaming and entertainment complex on Lantau, many of the problems mentioned by me earlier on can be solved.

For example, with regard to how the required money can be generated, the Government has proposed to introduce a Goods and Services tax (GST), thus subjecting all the 7 million Hong Kong people to the payment of this new tax, and ultimately, all the money involved comes from Hong Kong people. On the contrary, if a gaming and entertainment complex is established, we can see that money will be generated from external sources, which are just similar to our export and tourism industries. Where do we hope that Hong Kong's money is generated? I think the Government should endeavour to make money from external sources, instead of making it from among Hong Kong people.

Besides, with regard to creating employment opportunities, if we consider establishing such a complex on Lantau, it will become possible for us to create a lot of employment opportunities for such professionals as architects and engineers, and on the other hand, many job openings can also be created in the construction industry. Most important of all, we think it can also create many job opportunities for the grassroots.

Insofar as our economic development is concerned, as reflected in the unemployment situation in Hong Kong, we can see that people with high academic qualifications, such as university graduates, do not have to worry about finding a job. Professionals who have high educational standards or who work in the information and technology sector also do not have to worry about getting a job. Ultimately, cleansing workers and security guards would definitely find themselves among those who face the highest unemployment rate or the lowest wages since they are the group of people with a lower level of skills or educational qualifications. If we have such an entertainment complex, as shown in the case of Macao now, many unemployed or relatively impoverished people would have already been offered employment. Since we do not want them to become CSSA recipients and they also do not wish to rely on CSSA and would instead very much like to have better jobs, we think such jobs are quite suitable for them.

Besides, we also notice that there are divergent views in society on the issue of whether such a gambling complex should be established. The first consideration is whether this would constitute an impact on Macao, and the second consideration is whether it would promote gambling in Hong Kong, thereby making more people become addicted to gambling.

Deputy President, I would like to first speak on how great the impact it would have on Macao. The casinos in Macao have been operating for a certain period of time. In the meantime, let us take a look at the situation in the Asia-Pacific Region and see which countries and territories have established casinos. We have Macao, South Korea, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Australia. We also know that Singapore decided in 2005 to build two entertainment complexes that would include casinos, and they would become operational in 2009. We also know that Japan, Thailand and Taiwan, and so on, are also actively examining the possibility of establishing casinos. Since so many countries have already done that, and many are studying the possibility, so the impact on Macao can never be avoided since all these countries are within Southeast Asia. If we also actively study such a possibility, will we be the only place taking away business from Macao?

Let us take a look at the situation of Macao today. The total number of hotel rooms in Macao was 11 300 in 2006, and it is expected that the number will be increased by 17 600 in 2007. After the completion of several large hotels in 2009, some 21 000 new hotel rooms will be built. By 2009, Macao will have as many as 50 000 hotel rooms. Under such circumstances, if Hong Kong starts studying this possibility now, regardless of the outcome, that the people may agree or disagree with going ahead, we shall not be taking away the business of Macao all at once, insofar as the impact on Macao is concerned. Since such projects will take at least eight to 10 years before they can become operational, so even if it just take 10 years, our first casino will not be operational until 2016 and, at least in terms of the number of hotel rooms, Macao is already enjoying an enormous lead ahead of us.

As illustrated by some other data of Macao, we can also find out how money can be generated. Macao collected $10.4 billion in betting duty in 2003, $15 billion in 2004, $17.2 billion in 2005; and for this year, that is 2006, it is estimated that $17.2 billion can be collected from betting duty, which is similar to that of last year. The total expenditure of Macao this year is $30.8 billion. From this, we can see that the revenue generated from betting duty accounts for two thirds of the gross revenue of the Macao Government, that is, over 60%. It is indeed a very substantial figure. By 2016, this figure may be accumulated to $100 billion. With respect to the Government of the Macao Special Administrative Region which has a population of several tens of thousand, since its expenditure of the year is $30 billion, and it has a fiscal reserve of several hundred billion dollars, I do not worry that Hong Kong may immediately pose any substantial competition; and even if such competition does exist, it would not affect the operation or stability of Macao.

Deputy President, secondly, we would like to discuss whether the establishment of casinos in Hong Kong would promote gambling in the territory. I would like to solemnly state that the Liberal Party does not advocate gambling in Hong Kong. However, from many overseas examples, such as the case of Las Vegas, we can see that very few local people actually patronize the casinos, and all those who visit the casinos are tourists. If such facilities were established on Lantau, I do not think the people would actively go gambling there. In addition, when we enacted the legislation on soccer betting several years ago, and before the legislation was passed, many Honourable colleagues and members of the public worried that soccer betting would promote gambling and a lot of people in Hong Kong would become heavily addicted to gambling. But as a matter of fact, after soccer betting has come into operation for two or three years, no major problems have emerged.

Hong Kong is a pluralistic society. I believe the people can definitely make sensible decisions. If gambling would oblige them to put their entire fortune to stake or it may make them lose a lot of money to the casinos, they may not go there. Even for IPOs (initial public offerings), we can see many people would actively participate in them. The same happens to making investments in real estate. The real gambling activities of course refer to horse-racing and soccer betting. But I do not feel that Hong Kong people would be so ignorant as to indulge in gambling and lose all their own fortune once a casino is established in Hong Kong.

Moreover, we do not feel that the intellectual level of Hong Kong people is lower than that of the Singaporeans, or the peoples of places mentioned by me such as South Korea, the Philippines and Malaysia, and so on. Since their governments can do it and since their countries can do it, and we have not heard of any cases of their grass-roots people having gambled away all of their money originally earmarked for food and school fees, I think the situation may not be as bad as that. Therefore, we think we should conduct a study of the issue, instead of ruling out such a feasibility abruptly.

Finally, Deputy President, I would also like to discuss the people's view on the issue. I have noticed that some political parties have conducted some public opinion polls. The Liberal Party conducted a public opinion survey between 13 and 21 November. In it, we asked several questions. But I would like to mention only one of them, which is, "Do you agree with the Government in establishing a leisure, gaming and entertainment complex on Lantau?" Among 2 500 respondents, those who agree with the proposition account for 49.5%, that is, 1 261 persons; 862 persons disagree with the idea, accounting for 33.9%; and only 10% of the respondents adopt a middle-of-the-road stance; and 6.3% say that they do not hold any view on the issue. The people have explicitly expressed their views on the issue. By and large, they either agree or disagree with the idea, whereas very few people have adopted a wait-and-see attitude. Of course, I also agree that in general many people agree with the idea, and, at the same time, there are also many people disagreeing with it. If the Government is requested to conduct a study, we find it appropriate.

Therefore, Deputy President, my conclusion is, if casinos are established in Hong Kong, it is a good strategy that can kill three birds with one stone - that is, it can solve three major problems all at once: How the Government can generate the required money; how we can create jobs for the grass-roots workers and how we can promote the development of the overall economy. Besides, we can see that the public opinion is by no means overwhelmingly opposing the idea. In fact, there are more people supporting the idea than those opposing it. I really do not think the Government or our Honourable colleagues who are present today can have any arguments to justify why they cannot even support conducting a study of the issue, and what arguments they have in substantiating their stance of not even supporting us in requesting the Government to expeditiously conduct extensive consultation. Thank you, Deputy President.

-------------------------------------------------

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, with regard to the two amendments, if Honourable colleagues would take the trouble of going through the wording of my original motion, they would know that I just intend to urge the Government to actively study the feasibility of establishing a leisure, gaming and entertainment complex on Lantau, and to conduct extensive consultation in this regard.

I note that the greatest difference between my original motion and Mr Alan LEONG's amendment lies in his insertion of such wording as "to first look into the following three issues", and so on, after "establishing a leisure, gaming and entertainment complex on Lantau", and he proposes to conduct "community-wide consultation", whereas I propose to conduct "extensive consultation". Recently, the Liberal Party has interviewed over 2 500 members of the public. Among such respondents, 50% supported the proposal, while 34% opposed it. I do not take issue with "community-wide consultation" and "extensive consultation", and in fact they do not have much difference. Of course, regarding the three points Mr LEONG has added, I actually understand what he means. He thinks that I should not have proposed a study of the three points, that is, Hong Kong should maintain the policy of not encouraging gaming.

In this regard, I absolutely agree with him ─ that the Government should not encourage gambling, and the Liberal Party also does not encourage gambling. However, there is no contradiction between our stance of not encouraging gambling and our support for establishing a casino. The rationale is exactly the same as in our support for soccer betting and horse racing.

Regarding the second point, that is, the suggestion of first looking into the cost-effectiveness of establishing a gaming and entertainment complex, naturally we would support it. Why should we look into the all the cost-effectiveness involved? Many Honourable Members have mentioned many issues in their speeches just now, such as whether it would create more job opportunities; whether it would bring more tax revenue to the Government; and whether it would make the people lose all their money including the money for meals. Of course I think these issues must be examined. With regard to the impact on the people and environmental conservation, and the inevitable felling of trees in the course of developing Lantau, I do not have any comments to make. As regards the siting of the casino, or whether it must definitely be situated on Lantau or some other more suitable locations, or whether there is absolutely no suitable site for the purpose, the Government must conduct consultation beforehand. I agree with this.

On the other hand, Mrs Selina CHOW has moved an amendment to Mr Alan LEONG's amendment, which keeps items (a) to (c) of Mr Alan LEONG's amendment and incorporates items (d) and (e) into it because she thinks that we should conduct studies and consultation on other aspects. I think this is reasonable. For example, will it generate enormous revenue for the public coffers? How many job opportunities will be created? What kind of impact it would have on the local economy? Will it upgrade Hong Kong's competitiveness? And about the business of convention centre mentioned just now, I also agree with it. Moreover, about the problems that come "before" and "after" all this, I have the following viewpoint. In fact, if my proposal is adopted to conduct a relatively simple but extensive consultation, then all the problems, regardless of whether they should be raised before or after all this, must be examined. If the findings of the studies are positive, then we should exert our best to implement the project. But if the findings are negative, then we must strike a balance by allowing more people to express their views. Therefore, I support the two amendments and I do not have any viewpoints different from those espoused in them. Thank you, President.

---------------------------------------------------------

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, insofar as the motion debate is concerned, the stances stated by a lot of Members are predictable, but the remarks made by Secretary Dr Patrick HO have turned out to be the least expected. Mrs Selina CHOW has reminded me of the comment often made by the democratic camp, that the Government "merely permits officials to burn down houses while forbidding the common masses to light lamps". The comments made by Secretary Dr Patrick HO today have reminded me of the arguments advanced by government officials in 2003 in lobbying the Liberal Party to support the legalization of soccer betting. All those arguments contradicted what was said by the Secretary today. (Laughter) His entire speech today is about the problem raised by the opposition party in relation to gambling among young people.

For me, the matter can be viewed in this manner: it is easier for people to drink beer and participate in soccer betting in Lan Kwai Fong than gambling in a casino on Lantau. If it is considered that telephone betting will not promote gambling among youngsters, how would the youngsters be expected to visit a casino on Lantau for gambling? Is the Government's so-called strong governance changing constantly? I think it is better for me not to offend the Government anymore. (Laughter) President, I had better respond to the comments made by colleagues earlier.

Of the numerous points raised by them, I think I should mention the one concerning the "division of labour" between Hong Kong and Macao, a point raised by a number of colleagues before. On major policies, I think that there is indeed a certain element of delineation made by the Central Government, though I do not find it necessary to delineate in such a meticulous way. For Hong Kong, there are logistics, ports, and so on. Have the well-developed Yantian port and Shekou snatched away the business of our terminals in Kwai Chung?

As for airports, the airport in Macao is enjoying huge success. Has it snatched away the business of the Chek Lap Kok airport? For these reasons, I do not entirely agree with the saying of "division of labour". While Hong Kong remains a financial centre, Shanghai's stock markets are also prospering. If we operate casinos like those in Macao or smaller ones, will we snatch away the business of others? I disagree.

It is suggested that crime rates will definitely rise with the establishment of casinos. However, we have not seen crime rates in Macao going up. Even Singapore, which is most concerned about crime, has the guts to build casinos. I do not think that casinos will naturally lead to more crimes, or such scenes as the indiscriminate shooting of people by triad societies with machine guns decades ago.

President, I absolutely agree that retraining should be provided to low-skilled or low-income workers to enable them to switch jobs. However, I have also noticed that many of them may not necessarily become financial or technological professionals. On the contrary, Macao serves as an excellent example. Many people in Macao can easily take up the positions offered by the hotels and casinos there after receiving retraining.

Will we put ourselves in a disadvantaged position as Macao has already had a long history of operating casinos and we are a newcomer? Las Vegas has also operated casinos for decades, and yet Macao is enjoying huge success today. Even Singapore is determined to operate casinos in two years. Does it mean that we cannot do what others have already done?

President, while I have great respect for the opinion survey conducted by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, as mentioned by Miss CHOY So-yuk earlier, the survey was targeted at the hundreds of people living on Lantau. Of course, the opinions of Lantau residents have to be respected as well. However, the Liberal Party's opinion survey was conducted among 2 500 members of the public over the past 10 days, and half of the respondents have expressed support. Thank you, President.