(Confirmed minutes) (Translation) Sai Kung District Council Minutes of the Second Meeting in 2016

Date: 8 March 2016 (Tuesday) Time: 9:30 a.m. Venue: Conference Room of the Sai Kung District Council

Present From To Mr. NG Sze-fuk, George, GBS, JP 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. (Chairman) Mr. SING Hon-keung, BBS, MH 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. (Vice Chairman) Mr. AU Ning-fat, Alfred, MH 9:30 a.m. 2:46 p.m. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. CHAN Pok-chi, Jonathan 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. CHAU Yin-ming, Francis, BBS, MH 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. CHEUNG Chin-pang, Edwin 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun 9:33 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Hon Gary FAN Kwok-wai 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Ms. FONG Kwok-shan, Christine 10:14 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. HIEW Moo-siew 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. HO Man-kit, Raymond 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. KAN Siu-kei 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. LAI Ming-chak 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. LAM Siu-chung, Frankie 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. LAU Wai-cheung, Peter, MH 9:30 a.m. 3:43 p.m. Mr. LEUNG Li 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. LI Ka-leung, Philip 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. LING Man-hoi, BBS, MH 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. LUI Man-kwong 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. LUK Ping-choi 9:30 a.m. 12:30 p.m. Mr. TAM Lanny, Stanley 9:30 a.m. 3:15 p.m. Mr. TSE Ching-fung 9:30 a.m. 2:45 p.m. Mr. WAN Kai-ming 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. WAN Yuet-cheung, MH, JP 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Mr. WONG Shui-sang 9:30 a.m. 12:00 noon Mr. YAU Yuk-lun 9:30 a.m. 3:52 p.m. Miss LAU Tang, Moira Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Sai Kung District Office

In Attendance Ms. SIU Mo-lin, Maureen, JP District Officer (Sai Kung), Sai Kung District Office Mr. KWOK Chung-kai, Peter Assistant District Officer (Sai Kung) 1, Sai Kung District Office

- 1 - Mr. WAN Sheung-him, Frankie Assistant District Officer (Sai Kung) 2, Sai Kung District Office Mr. CHU Chi-ho, Marco Assistant District Officer (Sai Kung) 2 (Designate), Sai Kung District Office Mr. POON Kwok-leung, Timmy Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Sai Kung District Office Mr. NG Wing-keung, Henry Senior Liaison Officer (1), Sai Kung District Office Ms. LAM Yee-lai, Decem Senior Liaison Officer (2), Sai Kung District Office Mr. WU Tat-chee, Mike Executive Officer I (District Council), Sai Kung District Office Ms. TAM Yin-ping, Donna District Planning Officer/Sai Kung and Islands, Planning Department Ms. Lily NG District Social Welfare Officer (Wong Tai Sin/Sai Kung), Social Welfare Department Mr. Barry John SMITH District Commander (Kwun Tong), Hong Kong Police Force Mr. SIU Kit-hung, Tony District Commander (Wong Tai Sin) (Stand-in), Hong Kong Police Force Mr. YEUNG Yuk-leung Divisional Commander (Sai Kung), Hong Kong Police Force Ms. LAI Siu-wai, Avina Police Community Relations Officer (Wong Tai Sin), Hong Kong Police Force Mr. CHIANG Nin-tat, Eric Chief Engineer/New Territories East 1, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr. LUK Hing-chuen, Steve Chief Manager/Management (Tai Po, North, Shatin and Sai Kung), Housing Department Ms. LEE Yik-ming Senior Housing Manager (Ma On Shan and Tseung Kwan O), Housing Department Ms. CHOI Kwok-chun, Jane District Lands Officer (Sai Kung), District Lands Office/Sai Kung Mr. TSANG Ka-lok Administrative Assistant/Lands (Atg) (District Lands Office, Sai Kung), District Lands Office/Sai Kung Mr. TSUI Chun-fai, Joseph Chief Transport Officer/Goods Vehicle, Transport Department Ms. FUNG Ka-wai, Annie District Leisure Manager (Sai Kung), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr. TSE Lai-chi District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Sai Kung), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Dr. CHUI Tak-yi Cluster Chief Executive, Kowloon East Cluster, Hospital Authority Dr. TOM Kam-tim Hospital Chief Executive, Haven of Hope Hospital, Hospital Authority Mr. WONG Kwok-sing Technical Director, Architecture Design and Research Group Limited Mr. Tony TSUI Associate, Architecture Design and Research Group Limited Mr. WONG Siu-shun Senior Engineer 5/Central Wanchai Bypass, Highways Department Ms. Connie CHAN Deputy Project Manager, Meinhardt Infrastructure and Environment Limited

- 2 -

The Chairman welcomed Members and other attendees to the meeting, in particular:

. Mr. Marco CHU, Assistant District Officer (Sai Kung) 2 (Designate), Sai Kung District Office . Ms. Donna TAM, District Planning Officer/Sai Kung and Islands, Planning Department . Ms. Lily NG, District Social Welfare Officer (Wong Tai Sin/Sai Kung), Social Welfare Department . Mr. SMITH Barry John, District Commander (Kwun Tong), Hong Kong Police Force . Mr. Tony SIU, District Commander (Wong Tai Sin) (Stand-in), Hong Kong Police Force . Mr. YEUNG Yuk-leung, Divisional Commander (Sai Kung), Hong Kong Police Force . Ms. Avina LAI, Police Community Relations Officer (Wong Tai Sin), Hong Kong Police Force . Mr. Eric CHIANG, Chief Engineer/New Territories East 1, Civil Engineering and Development Department . Mr. Steve LUK, Chief Manager/Management (Tai Po, North, Shatin and Sai Kung), Housing Department . Ms. LEE Yik-ming, Senior Housing Manager (Ma On Shan and Tseung Kwan O), Housing Department . Ms. Jane CHOI, District Lands Officer (Sai Kung), District Lands Office/Sai Kung . Mr. TSANG Ka-lok, Administrative Assistant/Lands (Atg) (District Lands Office, Sai Kung), District Lands Office/Sai Kung . Mr. Joseph TSUI, Chief Transport Officer/Goods Vehicle, Transport Department . Ms. Annie FUNG, District Leisure Manager (Sai Kung), Leisure and Cultural Services Department . Mr. TSE Lai-chi, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Sai Kung), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

2. The Chairman said that Mr. Frankie WAN, Assistant District Officer (Sai Kung) 2, and Mr. Henry NG, Senior Liaison Officer (1), Sai Kung District Office (SKDO) would leave their current posts soon and he thanked them for their concerns about the local affairs in Sai Kung district and their contributions to the district. The Chairman also thanked the following representatives from various government departments, who had been transferred or had retired, for their contributions to the district. They included:

. Mr. CHUNG Man-kit, Ivan, former District Planning Officer/Sai Kung and Islands, Planning Department . Mr. WANG Sin-wing, Simon, former District Lands Officer (Sai Kung), District Lands Office/Sai Kung . Mr. CHAU Cho-kei, former District Commander (Wong Tai Sin), Hong Kong Police Force

3. The Chairman reminded Members of the following:

- 3 - . Each Member might speak twice on each item for two minutes at each time. . A motion or an item would neither be discussed nor be carried forward to the next meeting if its mover was not present at the meeting when discussion about it got under way. In view of this, he asked Members to remain in the meeting when motions and items were tabled for action. . Any Member, if unable to attend a meeting, should submit an application for absence to the Secretariat prior to the meeting for the Sai Kung District Council (SKDC) to decide whether the application would be approved.

I. Confirmation of Minutes of the 1st SKDC Meeting held on 5 January 2016 and the 1st Special Meeting held on 19 January 2016

4. The Chairman said that as the Secretariat had not received any proposed amendment prior to the meeting and no comments were raised at the meeting for amendment, he declared that the minutes of the captioned meetings and the respective voting records were confirmed.

5. Mr. Francis CHAU agreed to the minutes of the two meetings. He added that the meeting held on 5 January 2016 resolved that no co-opted members would be appointed to each committee, but working groups would make their own arrangement in the interests of flexibility. He pointed out that DCs had joined the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities. According to WHO guidelines, the SKDC had signed the Age-friendly Hong Kong Portocol, in which it was stated that one fourths of the members of the working groups should be the elderly. As things stood, no co-opted members would be appointed to working groups, except the Age-Friendly City Working Group (AFCWG) whose membership could be flexibly handled by the relevant committee. He learnt from the Secretariat after the last meeting that technically speaking, members of working groups, if not co-opted members, were only attendees. He hoped that the meeting could follow this matter up.

6. The Chairman said in order not to hold colleagues from other government departments up in the meeting, the matter would be discussed under “Any Other Business”.

II. Progress Report for Expansion of Haven of Hope Hospital (SKDC(M) Paper No. 16/16)

7. The Chairman welcomed:

. Dr. CHUI Tak-yi, Cluster Chief Executive, Kowloon East Cluster, Hospital Authority (HA) . Dr. TOM Kam-tim, Hospital Chief Executive, Haven of Hope Hospital (HHH), HA . Mr. WONG Kwok-sing, Technical Director, Architecture Design and Research Group Limited (AD+RG) . Mr. Tony TSUI, Associate, AD+RG

8. Dr. CHUI Tak-yi, HA introduced the paper with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

9. Mr. Stanley TAM hoped that the funding application and the construction works

- 4 - would proceed as planned as this would bring about enhanced healthcare services in the district. The medical wards in HHH were now running beyond capacity. He wondered if the expanded HHH would help alleviate pressure on other acute hospitals, especially if medical wards would be provided in the new hospital block or if any of the 160 additional beds would be set aside for medical wards. In addition, the infirmary wards were part and parcel of the Tiu Keng Leng history. He hoped that a reasonable number of the cottages would be retained or conserved for other purposes. Even if some of them had to be demolished, he enquired if consideration could be given to making use of the site on which the cottages stood, for the provision of additional facilities for subsidised care homes, such as long stay care homes for the handicapped or care and attention homes or infirmaries for the elderly, with a view to strengthening the relevant services in the district for the good of the local residents.

10. Mr. WAN Yuet-cheung pointed out that HHH had a history of 60 years since its establishment in 1955. During their previous visits to HHH, Members found that as far as the facilities were concerned, the equipment was relatively dilapidated, especially the hospital beds in the infirmary block where buckets had to be set up to catch rain drops on rainy days. . It was an obvious signal that the building had aged. Hospital beds were also not adequate, lagging far behind today’s health care requirements. He was pleased to note that the expansion project was scheduled to be submitted to the Legislative Council (LegCo) Panel on Environmental Affairs for approval in 2016. As HHH had all along been a district hospital serving the Sai Kung District , he strongly supported this project and hoped that the works would commence as soon as possible.

11. Mr. LAI Ming-chak said that many people had reflected to him that access to HHH was quite difficult and hence was pleased to learn about the enhanced transport arrangements for HHH. He hoped that the arrangements could be rolled out as soon as possible without having to wait till the completion of the new block. Besides, now the infirmary wards would be demolished according to plan and he asked the hospital about the use of the site on which the infirmary wards stood, and if consideration would be given to refurbishing it in such a way that it could serve as a living memory of the HHH history.

12. Mr. LUI Man-kwong said that the infirmary beds, which were already in short supply in Tseung Kwan O (TKO), would be transferred to the new hospital block, and in this connection he wondered if the hospital would consider providing more beds in HHH.

13. Mr. Jonathan CHAN declared interests as a member of the Hospital Governing Committee of HHH under the HA. He expressed his support for the expansion of HHH for the following reasons: (i) A number of building services installations in the hospital were worn out as some of them were built in as early as the 1950s and 1960s, and indeed its supporting facilities were simply unable to meet the requirements of today’s healthcare services; (ii) Provision of 160 additional beds would help alleviate the current overload situation in the hospital; (iii) Building a Day Medical and Rehabilitation Centre could provide integrated outpatient, day medical, nursingcare and rehabilitation services, and this could spare precious space for inpatients required long-term care; (iv) An integrated carers’ support centre would be built to provide training for staff and carers on caring with a view to fostering co-ordination among home care services, community support and nursing home, and enabling more infirmed patients to recuperate at home; (v) The link bridge to be built between the new block and the existing main block would enhance the efficiency and safety of patient transportation. Where healthcare investment was concerned, it was stated in paragraph 129

- 5 - of this year’s Budget Speech that recurrent expenditure on medical and health at present amounted to $57 billion, accounting for 16.5 per cent of recurrent government expenditure; this represented an increase of more than 90 per cent over a decade ago. To cope with an ageing population, the Government had set aside a dedicated provision of $200 billion for a ten-year hospital development plan to enable the HA to expand and upgrade healthcare facilities in a more flexible manner from a long-term perspective. It was stated in paragraph 131 that the plan would cover the redevelopment and expansion of a number of hospitals including HHH. He hoped that the expansion project would be rolled out according to the works progress and schedule as mentioned in the paper, and completed as soon as possible in order to improve the healthcare quality in the district.

14. Mr. Peter LAU remarked that HHH had significant historical value, but situated in a remote location. In the past, Members had raised concerns about the fact that Tseung Kwan O Hospital (TKOH) was inaccessible to patients who came to the hospital from rural areas by New Territories (NT) taxi, and that they could only reach as far as the Accident and Emergency (A&E) department but not the main block of TKOH directly. He thus enquired if the service facilities for transportation under the expansion project of HHH had made provision for NT taxis to gain access to the traffic interchange of HHH, hence removing the obstacle for patients who came to seek medical treatment. There were only two pick-up/drop-off points now available for green minibuses and urban taxis at HHH. As a DC Member from rural areas, he was gravely concerned about the inconvenience to visitors or patients who came to HHH from rural areas and other districts, especially to those who went to the hospital with the elderly and small children, and generally had no other alternative but to take urban taxi to HHH which was inaccessible to NT taxi.

15. Mr. YAU Yuk-lun supported the project. This item had been under discussion in the last two terms of the DC and a site visit had also been conducted. He was respectful to the nursing staff in infirmary wards of HHH in view of the very poor conditions of the passageway and the need for them to climb staircases from time to time in the course of their work. He opined that the hardship they were facing was greater than that of other nursing staff; and their contributions were much valued. He agreed to the idea of relocating the infirmary wards to the new hospital block. In addition, he raised concerns about the transportation problems in relation to HHH. The project did not mention any provision of additional parking spaces. He held that public transport services might not be able to cope with the need, and hence suggested that the authorities concerned consider providing more parking spaces. Finally, he hoped that the expansion would be completed as soon as possible in the interests of the local community.

16. Mr. Edwin CHEUNG said that at present there were three hospitals in Kowloon East, namely United Christian Hospital (UCH), TKOH and HHH. The geriatric unit of UCH would now transfer TKO residents to the Kowloon Hospital Rehabilitation Building (KHRB) for treatment. He asked if TKO residents would have priority use of HHH’s services upon the completion of the expansion project, and if patients from the KHRB would be triaged for treatment to HHH in future. In addition, the briefing only mentioned the addition of 160 hospital beds and 116 infirmary beds but was silent about any addition of healthcare staff. There were many cases where public hospitals had facilities but were short of necessary manpower, leading to a situation where many patients could not receive proper medical attention; on top of that, many nurses were also under heavy workload and this explained their poor attitude. In this connection, he enquired if there were any long-term programmes which would be put in place to boost staff training, and so on, to couple with the expansion of

- 6 - the hospital.

17. Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung held that the additional 160 beds to be provided would help relieve the acute demand for hospital beds in the district while the new block would also provide patients with a better treatment environment. As the DC Member of the Kwong Ming constituency, he hoped that acoustic facilities would be installed to the exterior wall of the 8-storey new block of HHH as a means to help minimise the noises affecting Kwong Ming Court, which were rebounded from vehicles running along the main road outside of the block.

18. Dr. CHUI Tak-yi, HA made the response as follows:

. Many facilities of the infirmary wards were worn out due to years of operation. Certain fund allocation would be channeled towards their maintenance yearly. Despite this, the hospital had still been plagued with problems in the form of water seepage, concrete spalling and inadequate facilities. Therefore, the authorities concerned came to the view that redeveloping the hospital was the only viable long-term solution to the problems. The block in question must be demolished as they were quite dilapidated but not to the extent that they could be classed as a monument. . The infirmary beds, if relocated to the site adjoining the existing block, would greatly boost their utilisation rate and efficiency. It was believed that the relocation would go some way towards relieving the problem arising from the short supply of hospital beds as a whole. . Regarding transport, the NT taxi issue was governed by the existing legislation under the purview of the Transport Department (TD). The authorities concerned would continue to liaise with the TD over this matter. As regards parking facilities, the authorities concerned would make necessary adjustments in the light of the hospital bed ratio or the overall service ratio. . Regarding the co-ordination of the use of acute wards in the cluster, as an interim measure, some patients would be transferred to Kowloon Hospital (KH) for rehabilitation. Patients would be triaged mainly according to the types of illness and specialties provided by KH, instead of districts of residence. For instance, stroke patients or those who had received orthopaedic surgery would be transferred to KH for rehabilitation. However, special requests by patients on the grounds of residential environment would be dealt with on individual merit by the cluster. . The authorities concerned had attached great importance to healthcare staff training. With the completion of the new block in sight and the hardware in place, the authorities concerned would submit manpower plan to run the services in accordance with the existing procedures. . The authorities concerned would pay closer attention to the design of the wards and the building materials, and would also convey the views about the need to minimise impacts on residents in the vicinity to the project consultant

19. Mr. Francis CHAU declared interest as a member of the Hospital Governing Committee of HHH under the HA. He said that the issues just mentioned by Members had been a concern of residents in the district. They had long fought for more infirmary beds, and the DC of last term and indeed the DC since its inception had been urging the authorities concerned to redevelop HHH as soon as possible. The Chairman had also approached the

- 7 - Secretary for Food and Health, and it helped expedite the project. The SKDC had made known its support of the project to the HA and the Food and Health Bureau (FHB) so that the needs of the district could be clearly brought to the attention of the relevant committee of the LegCo. Furthermore, he hoped that the relevant committee of the LegCo would approve the funding application as scheduled. Timely improvement on the transport service should also be made to tie in with the expansion project and this should be done without having to wait till its completion, as a number of traffic problems had now already been identified. For example, the rather late start of the first bus of the mini-bus services in the morning, HHH’s inaccessibility to NT taxis or inadequate accessibility to HHH, poorly designed routes, and so on. In this regard, he asked Mr. Joseph TSUI from the TD to assist. He also suggested that the authorities concerned take the initiative to approach the works departments with a view to bringing about immediate improvement on the barrier-free facilities at the pedestrian crossing outside the hospital.

20. Mr. HIEW Moo-siew said that before the development of TKO, NT taxis could gain access to HHH and serve residents in Sai Kung, Tai O Mun and the surrounding areas. He hoped that the authorities concerned could press the TD to address the problem, given that now NT taxis were not allowed to carry passengers to TKO, Metro City and the surrounding areas. He said that NT taxis, even if a green light was given for them to enter the hospital, would not undermine the business of urban taxis.

21. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai said that HHH had a long history in TKO, and the problems of water leakage, peeling ceiling and moldy ceiling were indicative of the resources problem of the Kowloon East cluster. He described the expansion of the hospital as a belated but definitely welcomed project. Regarding the proposals just now made by Members to strengthen ancillary transport facilities to cater for the anticipated growth of users and visitors in future, he remarked that there were also some other relevant structural problems, such as, those in relation to the entrance and exit of the access road. For example, motorists driving along Ling Hong Road to TKO had to cut across two lanes sharply at the intersection of Ling Hong Road and Po Shun Road to reach the Po Lam Road North roundabout before joining the traffic flow in the direction of Metro City, Hang Hau or Tiu Keng Leng. It would be quite difficult to take this route at peak hours, not to mention the potential hazard involved, when there was traffic congestion in TKO Tunnel. Even if more bus routes were provided in the days to come, the problems in relation to the entrance and exit of the access road would persist, only turning the spot into a bottle neck. Furthermore, the Traffic and Transport Committee (TTC) passed a motion about a year or so ago, in which it was agreed that a mini-bus route should be added to run between Kwun Tong and HHH. He opined that bidders would find this commercially viable mini-bus route attractive, and hoped that the TD would assist in the tendering exercise. Moreover, owing to the inadequate ancillary transport facilities, many visitors decided to turn to bicycles to get to the hospital and parked their bicycles in a pedestrian subway nearby. To deal with this problem, he suggested that parking spaces be provided for bicycles to avoid obstruction to the subway.

22. Mr. LING Man-hoi described HHH as a footprint in the history of Sai Kung. HHH was situated in a position close to the old Tiu Keng Leng Police Station, and he considered that the SKDO should work with the departments concerned to explore if the two historical buildings could be jointly developed into monuments in a heritage trail. The SKDC had organised fund-raising events and activities to sell lottery tickets for HHH about five or six years ago; and DC’s contribution in this regard was well recognised, given that HHH was now scheduled to be fully redeveloped in 2021. Thus, he was in total support of the project. He added that the TD, the bus company and the minibus operator had to figure out how to

- 8 - improve the ancillary transport facilities because quite a number of people would spend the last leg of their life journeys in this remotely located hospital, and improved ancillary transport facilities would bring convenience to their visitors.

23. Mr. LAI Ming-chak enquired about how the site left vacant upon the demolition of the infirmary wards would be put to use.

24. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung shared the view about preserving the historical footprints and enquired about how the site left vacant upon the demolition of the infirmary wards would be used. In addition, it was quite important for the hardware (the site area) and software (the manpower) of the hospital to interface with each other; and in this connection, he hoped that a detailed briefing on matters relating to the increase in manpower would be given.

25. Mr. Frankie LAM asked if the 116 infirmary beds were enough to meet local needs and if it meant that there were still patients who would be placed on the waiting list. Moreover, considering that some of the bus-stops were now located in positions quite far away from HHH, he asked if considerations would be given to providing a pedestrian cover over the walkway.

26. Mr. Francis CHAU expressed his thanks to the locals who had assisted in the previous fund-raising events for HHH. While the fund raised was not a large amount, it was sufficient to meet some expenses of HHH, instrumental partly in the redevelopment of the hospital. He thanked the Chairman for his leadership regarding the fund-raising events. In addition to infirmary services, HHH also provided other specialist treatment such as tuberculosis and chest, geriatric and palliative services. He called on Members to concentrate their efforts first on the fight for funding for infirmary services, and then the enhancement of other services, or else it would only drag down the project. In addition, the medical services of HHH had played an important role in the history of TKO, Tiu Keng Leng and Hang Hau. He hoped that the Signature Project Scheme Committee would discuss how to follow up on this matter by adopting a “point-line-surface” approach to align HHH with the Heritage Information Centre and home-stay lodgings and guesthouses in the surrounding areas, while ensuring the support of ancillary transport facilities. Also, transport services would require manpower support but staff might not be willing to work in such a remote place, resulting in recruitment and retention difficulties.

27. The Chairman invited Mr. Joseph TSUI, Chief Transport Officer/Goods Vehicle, TD to respond to the traffic problems surrounding HHH and how the problems could be improved in the short, medium and long terms.

28. Mr. Joseph TSUI, TD responded that HHH had approached the TD lately to discuss problems about the road facilities and ancillary public transport facilities, and that no detailed response could be made for the time being.

29. The Chairman asked Mr. Joseph TSUI, TD to expedite the matter as development project would soon be carried out in the surrounding areas of HHH.

30. Dr. CHUI Tak-yi, HA made the response as follows:

. The authorities concerned would maintain close liaison with the stakeholders and would hold discussions with them when proposals were available that

- 9 - could help enhance the accessibility of the hospital. . The redevelopment would be completed in 2021. The authorities concerned had kept tabs on the healthcare needs of the local community, and had maintained communication, and made plans, with the relevant government departments and institutions on how to use the site to be vacated following the demolition of the infirmary wards, in addition to enhancing operating services by submitting plan for additional manpower or other resources according to the established procedures of the annual plan. . The 116 infirmary beds were “local infirmary beds” reserved for the district and would primarily serve the locals in need. The infirmary beds, together with the acute beds, medical beds and rehabilitation beds, would form a “one-stop” service. They could be made available to patients in need flexibly. In addition, the relocation of the old infirmary beds to the new block would help increase efficiency substantially, and be more acceptable to patients who might otherwise refuse to stay in the dilapidated environment in the old block thereby would raise the beds’ utilisation rate.

31. Ms. Christine FONG remarked that apart from the problems in relation to ancillary hospital facilities, parking spaces, bicycle parking spaces and shortage of hospital beds as mentioned by Members, there were management problems over the lawn in Ling Hong Road along HHH. The canopy of the trees on the lawn often reached out beyond the curbs on both sides of the road. HHH staff had been seen to tend the lawn but was not frequent because the area was not within the purview of the Highways Department (HyD). She hoped that more could be done to manage the situation. She also hoped that actions would be taken to expedite the delivery of services to meet the needs of the local community, including day-care, medical and integrated care services.

32. Dr. CHUI Tak-yi, HA responded that HA would keep in view of the situation and follow it up.

33. The Chairman asked the authorities concerned to take note of Members’ views, and would write to the FHB and Legislative Councillors, requesting them to expedite the process of the funding application as far as possible. He concluded by saying that the SKDC supported the expansion project.

34. The Chairman requested the HA representative to take Members’ views on board.

III. Hiram’s Highway Improvement Stage I (SKDC(M) Paper No. 17/16)

35. The Chairman welcomed - . Mr. WONG Siu-shun, Senior Engineer 5/Central Wanchai Bypass, HyD . Ms. CHAN Ho-yee, Deputy Project Manager, Meinhardt Infrastructure and Environment Limited (MIEL)

36. Mr. WONG Siu-shun, Senior Engineer 5/Central Wanchai Bypass, HyD said that the HyD had commenced the tendering procedures as soon as funding approval was granted by the LegCo Finance Committee (FC) on 15 July 2015. The Central Tender Board had completed the vetting of the tender report and the works would start in the latter half of March

- 10 - 2016. The HyD and the MIEL were currently making preparations for commencement of construction works.

37. Ms. CHAN Ho-yee, Deputy Project Manager, MIEL introduced the project and the progress report with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

38. Mr. HIEW Moo-siew said that he had been following the Hiram’s Highway Improvement Stage I project for over ten years. However, he had not been able to reach the HyD since the funding approval for the project was granted by the LegCo FC on 15 July 2015. He pointed out that traffic built up every morning in the section of Hiram’s Highway running from Nam Pin Wai to the bus-stop which was not far away from Ho Chung Bridge, and hoped that MIEL and the contractor could discuss with the SKDC about putting in place temporary transport arrangements when construction works were underway. He also hoped that arrangements could be made by the Government for dedicated departments to discuss reasonable compensation proposals with those affected by the works. He remarked that it had been a long annual tradition hailing back more than six decades for residents of Sai Kung and Hebe Haven to celebrate the Yu Lan Ghost Festival and Jiao Festival within works sites, and he hoped that government departments would bear the needs of residents in mind.

39. Ms. Christine FONG said that a public consultation exercise on Hiram’s Highway Improvement Stage I was conducted last August and views from local residents were collected. She hoped that the HyD would respond to her enquiries as follows:

. During the construction period, whether there would be any mitigation and prevention measures to deal with the traffic congestion on Hiram’s Highway such as congestion on Sai Sha Road and the bottleneck formed with traffic building up from Choi Hung and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology to TKO; . Whether a speed arrester bed would be built adjacent to Nam Pin Wai and if such a works project would be incorporated into the Hiram’s Highway Improvement Stage I project; . Whether an additional carriageway would be built at the roundabout near Sai Kung Central Primary School; . Whether coordination action would be taken to address problems such as “land resumption” in Ho Chung and Luk Mei Tsuen, and if timely public announcement would be made on the latest works progress.

40. Mr. Francis CHAU hoped that two-lane traffic could be maintained on Hiram’s Highway during the construction period and pointed out that matters in connection with the works progress could be left to the Working Group on Hiram’s Highway Improvement Project (WGHHIP) for further discussion and follow-up. He also hoped that government departments would work with the WGHHIP to properly address the “land resumption” matters. To forestall any negative impacts on people’s livelihood, the HyD, the MIEL and the contractor should join hands with the WGHHIP to deal with matters such as the Yu Lan Ghost Festival when the construction works were underway.

41. Mr. LING Man-hoi remarked that within the proposed works sites, some stakeholders still pursued for reasonable compensation, and hence he hoped that government departments concerned would first address the fundamental problem by communicating with

- 11 - the stakeholders in order to avert social conflicts and divisiveness. In addition, if works were to be implemented during morning peak hours, he hoped that the department concerned would provide the WGHHIP with traffic diversion proposals for reference.

42. Ms. Maureen SIU, District Officer (Sai Kung) said that several years ago, the department concerned had conducted a freezing survey and had made a record of occupants and business operators affected by the project. Since then, the conditions with respect to the occupants/business operators might have changed. The departments concerned would deal with the cases based on their records. They had maintained close liaison with each of those affected by the project, explaining to them and looking into their demands. Where possible, departments would try to meet their demands but everything had to be done according to the established rules. Ms. SIU emphasized that while it was expected that some people would try to fight for what they thought they deserved, government departments were also required to follow rules and set procedures in their response and follow-up. She did not wish to see misunderstanding of the situation or misleading statements regarding the cases involved.

43. The Chairman responded that the government department concerned had made efforts since 2008 to get to know and address the demands of the affected people according to the works schedule. Last week he attended an event at Ho Chung, and after that he and others such as Mr. HIEW Moo-siew also talked to the stakeholders to understand their concerns in order that follow-up actions could be taken. Furthermore, the government department concerned would set up another meeting with those affected by the project on 14 March 2016 to discuss compensation with them.

44. Mr. Philip LI said that he was very pleased with the impending commencement of the Hiram’s Highway Improvement Stage I project and hoped that the Hiram’s Highway Improvement Stage II project would make reference to the experience of its Stage I such that the “land resumption” and compensation matters could have been successfully settled before the start of the works in order to avoid any potential misunderstanding. He hoped that the MIEL and the contractor would stay in touch with the SKDC to discuss temporary traffic arrangements when the works were underway. Moreover, Mr. LI pointed out that at an earlier meeting, the SKDC had agreed to drop the proposal pertaining to the introduction of speed arrester bed, and to go back on the issue would achieve nothing but causing delay to the works.

45. Mr. WONG Siu-shun, HyD responded that the HyD had met and communicated with other government departments, Members and stakeholders in respect of the Hiram’s Highway Improvement Stage I project. The department would also make timely reports to Members on the temporary traffic arrangements during the works period, and would minimise nuisance to residents in collaboration with relevant government departments. He pointed out that the HyD had stipulated in the works contract that no disturbance should be made to the celebration of the Yu Lan Ghost Festival, in addition to the fact that under the project, Luk Mei Tsuen Sitting-out Area would be expanded to facilitate celebration of the Yu Lan Ghost Festival by local residents in future. Mr. WONG Siu-shun reiterated that the proposal of introducing a speed arrester bed had been dropped at an earlier SKDO meeting and hence it would not be included in the Hiram’s Highway Improvement Stage I project. He remarked that the traffic congestion of Hiram’s Highway at present was attributable to the single-lane traffic in the Kowloon-bound direction, and Hiram’s Highway would have its capacity doubled to cope with the traffic flow upon completion of the works to widen the highway to

- 12 - two-lane traffic. Furthermore, the contractor would take into account views of the TD, the Police, Members and stakeholders when temporary traffic arrangements were developed during the works period.

46. The Chairman expressed hope that the WGHHIP would invite representatives from the Police, the TD and the SKDO to attend its meeting, and hold the first meeting as soon as possible. The Chairman also hoped that the SKDO would serve as a coordinator and set up an inter-departmental task force to provide assistance and follow up on the demands of those affected by the project.

47. The Chairman asked the representative of the HyD to take Members’ views on board.

I V. District-led Actions Scheme (SKDC(M) Paper No. 18/16)

48. Mr. Frankie WAN, Assistant District Officer (Sai Kung) 2 introduced the District-led Actions Scheme (the Scheme) as set out in the Paper and showed Members a video about the Scheme, which was produced by the Home Affairs Department (HAD).

49. Mr. Edwin CHEUNG enquired about the total estimated appropriation for the Scheme. He remarked that the Paper had identified four common problems in the district and the meeting could first discuss the item regarding “capitalising on local opportunities” which would help add value, and bring about new opportunities, to Sai Kung (SK) district. He also hoped that Members would discuss “emission reduction” along with “waste reduction”.

50. Mr. Peter LAU said that traffic congestion was also a common problem in SK district and suggested to include the widening of Clear Water Bay Road as one of the discussion items.

51. Mr. YAU Yuk-lun remarked that New Clear Water Bay Road and Clear Water Bay Road suffered from frequent congestion, and hence he hoped that the SKDC could set up an inter-departmental task force jointly with the Wong Tai Sin District Council and Kwun Tong District Council to mitigate traffic congestion through coordination efforts. In addition, a concern group could be set up under the Scheme to tackle hygiene problems in rural areas, given the fact that walkways in rural areas were generally infested with overgrowth.

52. Mr. LAI Ming-chak remarked that illegal place skips on the roads was a chronic problem in TKO and he threw his support behind the idea of stepping up law enforcement against the problem under the Scheme. He also hoped that a task force would be set up to address the noise problem associated with illegally converted vehicles at late night.

53. Mr. LUI Man-kwong remarked that illegal parking was a serious problem in TKO district and this item should be incorporated into the Scheme so that enhanced actions could be taken against it. In addition, he enquired about the total estimated appropriation for the Scheme and hoped that resources would be equally distributed between SK and TKO by the relevant government departments. For TKO, measures could be strengthened to address problems affecting people’s livelihood such as illegal deposit of skips and mosquito nuisances,

- 13 - whereas for SK, promotion of tourism could be stepped up with a view to adding value to the local community as a whole.

54. Mr. LEUNG Li wished to enquire about the division of labour between the Scheme and the District Management Committee (DMC) or the working groups under the SKDC. He also hoped that the SKDO would, in collaboration with other government departments such as the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), the Police and the Housing Department, step up actions against environmental hygiene problems, illegal parking and unlawful recycling activities, while providing means for lawful recycling to meet local residents’ needs.

55. Mr. Stanley TAM enquired how the SKDC should work with the DMC in addressing local problems in the context of the Scheme. He was of the view that the Scheme should not only deal with matters in relation to the day-to-day work of government offices but also provide additional services such as bicycle hiring services which would promote healthy life and bring an end to the problems involving unauthorised bicycle parking in the district.

56. Mr. Raymond HO pointed out that unlawful recycling activities were rampant in Choi Ming Street. Despite his repeated referrals of the problem to a number of government departments, the irregularities had not been rectified. He hoped that under the Scheme, priority would be accorded to tackling the problem and eliminating unlawful recycling activities in Choi Ming Street.

57. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun enquired how efficiency could be enhanced if a new District-led Actions Scheme was to be implemented. He cited the problem of skips as an example: since the skips would be removed as soon as the department concerned activated the clearance procedures. He enquired if enforcement actions could be expedited under the new Scheme. In addition, he opined that night-time illegal parking problems and noises generated by vehicles at night time were also an area which could be followed up under the Scheme. He would also like to know more about the modus operandi of the Scheme and its advantages before deciding at the meeting what items should be undertaken by the Scheme.

58. Mr. Philip LI observed that the SKDC(M) Paper did not cover matters relating to illegal bicycle parking, whereas enforcement would be stepped up against illegal bicycle parking under the Scheme for Yuen Long district. However, he opined that heightened enforcement efforts against illegal bicycle parking alone could not solve the underlying problems: short supply, and continued occupation, of parking spaces for bicycles. He hoped that as well as enforcement, the Scheme could introduce other measures to solve the problems. He referred to the case cited by Mr. YAU Yuk-lun to drive home his point that cutting down the overgrowth alone could not solve the problem in rural areas; to cement walkways would be most effective in restraining the overgrowth. Finally, he hoped that proposals raised by the district could really be put into practice.

59. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung opined that the Scheme should aim at tackling problems which had not been successfully dealt with by government departments, such as those required multi-departmental efforts or the solution of which was in need of district councillors’ involvement. In this connection, he agreed with the discussion paper as regards the four district problems highlighted therein. He cited the skips as an example. Skips were often found on the pavement in his constituency, leaving pedestrians or joggers with no choice but to use the carriageway. Therefore, he dialed 1823 to report the problem but failed

- 14 - to receive any reply despite a lapse of considerable time. As far as he knew, matters relating to skips must be referred to the Lands Department (LandsD), the FEHD, the HyD and other government departments before they could be dealt with. As a last resort, he called the Police. Two days later, the skips were removed by a contractor commissioned by the LandsD. He was of the view that as well as a hygiene hazard, the skip problem posed risks to pedestrian safety and road safety. Another problem was to do with recovery yards. People suspected that recovery yards in the district were controlled by unscrupulous syndicates. There was a recovery yard sitting next to LOHAS Park, which was commonly known as the Ten Brothers, and the LandsD had not been able to deal with it. The problem had also been referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for follow-up, but up to now no solution was in sight. He hoped that the focus of the Scheme could be placed on tackling these problems.

60. Hon Gary FAN said that he had been serving as a district councillor for 17 years and had not forgotten his original aspirations to be a district councillor. Like other elected Members, senior or not, he would strive to make the community a better place to live and improve its physical environment through engaging in community work; and “addressing district issues at the local level” was self-explanatory. Nevertheless, since the dissolution of the former Urban Council (UC) and former Regional Council (RC) in 2000, district administration reform had been on a bumpy road. He opined that district administration reform would lead to nowhere if DCs were not conferred the authority to formulate policy on community affairs, together with the power of personnel appointment and financial decision-making, and DCs would always perform no more than a consultative role. Mr. Donald TSANG, the former Chief Executive (CE), once said that a greater role should be played by a district officer to exert greater influence, as if serving as the CE of a district; but in the end this idea did not take off. Mr. LEUNG Chun-ying, the incumbent CE, initiated in his Policy Address two years ago that a fund of $100 million would be earmarked for projects under the Signature Project Scheme (SPS), which was designed to test the ability of DCs through injecting a lot more resources to them but not enhancing their role. Some DCs had yielded good results, while others had backtracked. After all, he considered that the SKDC had fared quite good. Looking at the discussion paper as a whole, he was of the view that it served to provide Members with data for discussion, and paragraph 5 was the most important: “to work out the details of the projects and implementation arrangements, coordinate with relevant departments and embark on priority projects emerged as a result of discussions within the confines of available resources”. He hoped that more information could be made available such as the scale of the increased resources, the differences between the roles of the FEHD and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) and those of the dissolved UC and RC, the role of a district officer, or the differences between the DMC and the newly established framework in terms of their responsibilities; all of which held the key to whether the Scheme would be effective in problem solving. He opined that the differences between the Scheme and the existing framework must first be elucidated before any meaningful discussion was possible.

61. Mr. TSE Ching-fung remarked that he supported the Scheme as it echoed the concept of “addressing district issues at the local level”. He agreed that problems such as shopfront extensions and mosquito nuisances had to be addressed. He would like to know more about the budget of the Scheme and how resources would be distributed, bearing in mind that SK district covered both rural areas and new towns. Moreover, illegal parking involving a number of dump trucks and other vehicles was found in the vicinities of LOHAS Park, Bauhinia Garden, Yee Ming Estate and Chi Shin Street, while in the TKO Promenade, noises

- 15 - generated by residents who frequently converged there had been a problem. He hoped that through the Scheme these problems could be dealt with.

62. Mr. Francis CHAU remarked that he was most concerned about the operation of the Scheme and at the moment had no particular views on what issues should be addressed under the Scheme. In the two pilot districts, the Scheme had dealt with problems involving cultural and recreational matters, municipal issues, social welfare and housing affairs; and indeed the former UC and RC were pale in comparison to the Scheme which covered such a wide scope of public affairs. The DMC, which was led by the district officer, merely perform a coordinating role; it was tasked to discharge responsibilities but was entrusted with no power, and it was quite difficult for the DMC to make any real impact. In the past, the DMC would also help the SKDC follow up on DC’s projects since the DC Chairman and other SKDC Members would attend DMC meetings and participated in their discussions. In terms of the overall operating mechanism of the Scheme, he enquired whether it would first work out the criteria for setting the agenda and priority of agenda items before passing them to the DMC for follow-up; and whether, apart from the committee members, consideration would be given to inviting other DC Members to attend relevant forums or focus groups so that they could help take care of the issues emerging from them. In addition, the DMC should establish a mechanism under which it could report to the SKDC. Finally, he said that he was fully in support of working towards the achievement of the above objectives.

63. Mr. LUK Ping-choi remarked that he was entirely in agreement with Mr. CHAU’s views. He opined that Members could actively spell out yet-to-be-solved problems in the district for the SKDO to collect their views and prioritise the problems. He highlighted the problem of illegal shopfront extension, especially the blackspot off Po Hong Road. He said that visitors from other districts or abroad had told him about their impressions of the sports ground and the velodome that the sports ground and the park were very nice, but they shook their heads about the adjacent food market, which he felt ashamed of. As a related matter, the FEHD had recently eliminated some black spots but not this one. Therefore, when matters relating to the agenda items had been sorted out, he was prepared to raise this issue in the full council with a view to streamlining the problem-solving procedures.

64. Mr. WAN Yuet-cheung welcomed the Scheme. He remarked that the DMC, which was attended and advised by government departments and chairmen of various committees, had been tackling the same problems. The difference between them lay in the fact that the Scheme was more practical and effective as it allowed for participation by other Members. In most cases, the DMC might not be able to effectively handle certain projects, and also different government departments were found to be minding only their own business. He was of the view that to tackle problems in a satisfactory manner, it was necessary to enhance the district officer’s power and role, including that in relation to coordination and problem solving. In addition to the four problems laid down in the paper, traffic should be included as another issue. He pointed out that illegal parking was at epidemic proportions during lunch hours, and Chiu Shun Road in particular was a blackspot, where even bus/green minibus (GMB) stops were also fully occupied by other vehicles, creating potential risks as neither buses nor GMBs could pull in the stops to unload/pick up passengers. As far as the vehicles were concerned, dump trucks and private cars were the main culprits at noon time and at night time respectively. He opined that the problem should be tackled with priority, even ahead of the four problems listed in the discussion paper. Also, illegal recycling activities were a daily scene in Chiu Shun Road, which also occupied the whole bus stop.

- 16 - 65. Mr. Frankie LAM pointed out that apart from the four SK district problems pinpointed in the paper, there were still other problems which had to be tackled, such as night-time illegal parking, shortage of parking spaces, traffic congestion in TKO Tunnel, and falling debris from dump trucks. He enquired about what measures under the Scheme would be taken to step up enforcement to address those pressing problems.

66. Mr. WAN Kai-ming enquired how government departments would deal with the district problems differently under the Scheme and under the existing mechanism. To take King Lam Estate as an example, now a lot of bulky garbage could be found deposited on the streets, he would like to know what would be the difference if the problem was to be handled under the Scheme. Besides, he asked if there was any cap put on the number of problems to be handled under the Scheme, and if funding had to be sought for each project or funding would be allocated to the projects from a dedicated fund on a pro-rata basis. He also wondered if there would be duplication of resources when actions were to be taken separately under the Scheme and according to on-going action plans.

67. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai considered that the name of the Scheme did not suggest anything about its content. He enquired if additional resources would be provided under the Scheme and how resources would be distributed and put to use. He pointed out that problems about, among others, illegal bicycle/vehicle parking, and red fire ants were nowhere to be found in the paper. In addition, along the roads in TKO South during lunch hours dump trucks were parked bumper to bumper by the double white lines, and passengers who wanted to alight there were forced to get off in the middle of the road, posing risk to child passengers. Despite repeated complaints about this situation, no follow-up action had been taken by any government department. In respect of the skip problem, he had written to various government departments many times urging them to follow up on the matter. However, it took about three weeks before he received any formal reply from the TD, the Police or the HyD. After that, the skip was placed at another street nearby, yet it was placed at the roundabout again two days afterwards; now it was back to square one. He wondered if problems raised by Members could be taken care of more swiftly under the Scheme. If the Scheme was merely introduced to collect views for referral to relevant departments, it was tantamount to creating merely a complaint referral mechanism. Perhaps complaints lodged by Members might achieve more immediate results in comparison with the Scheme.

68. Mr. KAN Siu-kei pointed out that there were many problems in the district. For example, in Sheung Tak Estate, the whole bus stop was packed with illegally parked vehicles in the morning and school children could not get on school buses from the pavement. He had brought the problem to the attention of the management company, but the reply was that there was nothing it could do about the situation. He had also requested the Housing Department (HD) to install additional bollards but the department said that the proposal was not feasible. As for the Police, they said that it was not within their purview. Hence he would like to know which department was responsible for dealing with this problem. Another problem was about cycling on the pavement by reckless cyclists who used the pavement as if it were their private road. Each time the Police received a complaint about illegal parking involving motor-cycles, they would just carry out occasional patrol and issued fixed penalty tickets where appropriate, but the penalty was only a few hundred dollars, which was pale in comparison with the parking fee. The uneven paving blocks of the pavement posed another problem. He once made a complaint to the telecommunication company about the manhole cover; and the complaint was not handled until three months later, only with the support of the SKDO which made a call to the company about this matter. He

- 17 - asked which department was responsible for handling problems pertaining to underground manholes or electric cables laid down by gas companies and telecommunication companies respectively. He opined that all those problems warranted priority attention.

69. Ms. Maureen SIU, District Officer (Sai Kung) thanked Members for their views. As explained in the video on the pilot schemes in other districts, it was up to the DC of each district to decide what issues to tackle through the Scheme. For Members' reference, paragraph 4 of the discussion paper listed some of the district issues discussed and tackled by the SKDC before. For the Scheme, the SKDO would be provided with an additional staff member to assist in coordination and liaison work as well as preparation of papers and meetings, etc. Other departments concerned would also deploy the necessary manpower themselves if required. The resources allocated to the Scheme were limited, with a couple million dollars for each district mainly for tasks such as commissioning contractors, but not enough to support works projects such as widening of roads or other projects requiring significant resources. The Scheme would be rolled out in all 18 districts starting this year and all government departments would tie in their work with the decisions of DCs. The SKDO welcomed views from Members and would discuss with the DMC and other departments. SKDO would maintain close liaison with the SKDC. The proposals made by government departments and the recommendations of DMC would be submitted to the SKDC for endorsement before implementation, and the SKDC would also be kept informed on the progress of the Scheme. She said that persistent issues involving multiple departments would be identified and given priority. For matters involving individual department only, the department concerned would be requested to follow up on their own so as not to waste the time and resources of other departments.

70. Ms. Christine FONG remarked that she was very pleased to know that Ms Maureen SIU had indicated the SKDO would give updates of the Scheme. Members’ involvement in the Scheme was of importance, particularly when it came to elected Members. All along, for issues which required the involvement of the Ombudsman or various government departments, such as the need to introduce a registration system for skips, as well as illegal recycling activities as mentioned in today’s meeting, they were inter-related. These problems would engender both street cleanliness issues and mosquito nuisance. She said that she had conveyed the problems to the Ombudsman and came to realise that the problems required the involvement of 13 government departments. In the past, the FEHD and the LandsD were up to their ears in work and generally would only invoke Section 26 of the Buildings Ordinance for enforcement and removal of rubbish and debris. She was of the view that these actions were not effective and also put a heavy burden on frontline staff. She hoped that the District Officer and the DMC would work with commitment, with the District Officer playing a steering role in guiding other government departments to tackle district affairs in a coordinated manner, and directly following up on some on-going problems. Skips spawned enormous environmental hygiene problems; and skips in some particular lots might turn out to be a matter that required the involvement of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department and the LandsD, or that the land lot might be on a private property. Finally, she hoped that a road map could be worked out under the Scheme for Members’ participation, and that the Scheme could bring about improvement to the current situation.

71. Mr. Frankie LAM remarked that he noted that the Scheme, now with only a funding of several million dollars, was tasked to deal with inter-departmental problems. Mosquito problems were currently tackled by the FEHD and the now resource-deprived department required more resources to strengthen its manpower support, and he wondered if allocation

- 18 - for the Scheme was precisely made for that purpose. He also quoted illegal parking as an example. As the Police was the law enforcement agency responsible for tackling this problem, he asked if more resources would be deployed under the Scheme to the Police to recruit more police officers. He enquired if government departments were understaffed and if more resources would be allocated for them to enhance their manpower capacity.

72. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun requested the District Officer to clarify the actual resources committed for the Scheme and the future adjustment mechanism, because the number of projects that could be handled by the Scheme could differ significantly if the resource available was, for example, three million dollars versus nine million dollars. As for what issues to tackle, he suggested the problem of overloading of dump trucks and improper covering of materials carried by these dump trucks. Apart from enforcement by the Police, he believed that this issue might also involve a number of other departments.

73. Ms Maureen SIU, District Officer (Sai Kung) said that each government department faced the issue of resources and it was up to each department to consider whether and how to increase manpower to cope with their work. The funds for this Scheme was not for hiring of staff by departments, nor would coordination by SKDO be necessary on such manpower issue. She added that problems to be handled by the Scheme should be ones that were more complicated, such as those involving multiple departments, policy or legislation aspects. If these problems required a review of the policy or legal aspects, the problems would stay unresolved and kept coming back if those aspects were not addressed. Hence, as pointed out by some Members, there were limitations to “addressing district issues at the local level”. Based on the experience of other districts, the allocation to the Scheme and the departmental resources available put the number of projects that could be handled by the Scheme to three projects maximum. However, if some other deserving items with priority emerged later, thus requiring more resources, the SKDO would be willing to discuss with other departments and seek more resources from the HAD so that the matter be tackled under the Scheme.

V. Departmental Annual Programmes 2016/17 and Brief Introduction on the Work of the Sai Kung District Office (SKDC(M) Papers No. 19/16 and No. 20/16)

74. Members noted the above papers.

VI. List of Illegally Displayed Banners (SKDC(M) Paper No. 21/16)

75. Members noted the above paper.

76. The Chairman remarked that thanks to the above list which was prepared by the FEHD upon the SKDC’s request and had been in force for quite some time, irregularities by Members had been rectified. There being no objection from Members, the Chairman declared that starting from the next meeting it would be no longer required to submit the list for Members’ information, and he also reminded Members to show self-restraint and self-discipline in their behaviour, working strictly in compliance with the relevant guidelines and requirements.

- 19 -

VII. Financial Position of District Council Funds as at 15 February 2016 (SKDC(M) Paper No. 22/16)

77. Members noted the above paper.

VIII. Progress Report of District Council Committees

(1) District Facilities Management Committee (SKDC(M) Paper No. 23/16) (2) Finance & Administration Committee (SKDC(M) Paper No. 24/16) (3) Housing & Environmental Hygiene Committee (SKDC(M) Paper No. 25/16) (4) Social Services & Healthy and Safe City Committee (SKDC(M) Paper No. 26/16) (5) Traffic & Transport Committee (SKDC(M) Paper No. 27/16) (6) Signature Project Scheme Committee (SKDC(M) Paper No. 28/16)

78. Members noted and endorsed the above reports.

IX. Progress Report of Working Groups Established under SKDC

(1) Working Group on Organising Festival Celebrations (SKDC(M) Paper No. 29/16) (2) Working Group on Appreciation of Local Personalities (SKDC(M) Paper No. 30/16) (3) Working Group on Tourism & Economic Development (SKDC(M) Paper No. 31/16)

79. Members noted and endorsed the above reports.

80. The Chairman drew Members’ attention to paragraphs 6 and 9 of the Report of the Working Group on Tourism & Economic Development (WGTED) (SKDC(M) Paper No. 31/16). He said that the Sai Kung District Community Centre (SKDCC) was now running the Volcano Discovery Centre. Owing to inadequate transport services to and from East Dam of High Island Reservoir, in particular the return trip, the SKDCC briefed the meeting on the proposed arrangements about providing regular transport service plying between SK Town Centre and East Dam of High Island Reservoir to visitors, coupled with guided tour

- 20 - information and services made available to visitors during the journey. The WGTED had given its support to the plan. Besides, Bishop Lei International House (BLIH), a non-profit-making accommodation managed by the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong, would like to show, on the television in their restaurant, photographs on the “Travel in Sai Kung” website. The WGTED had acceded to the request and suggested that a footnote be added to specify that the photographs could only be used for non-commercial purposes, and that the BLIH should state clearly the source of the photographs. The BLIH had to submit another application to the WGTED if they wished to use the photographs for other purposes.

81. There being no objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the above three reports were endorsed.

X. Progress Report of the Sai Kung District Management Committee (SKDC(M) Paper No. 32/16)

82. Members noted the above report.

XI. Progress Report of the Sai Kung District Fight Crime Committee (SKDC(M) Paper No. 33/16)

83. Members noted the above report.

XII. Progress Report of the Sai Kung District Fire Safety Committee (SKDC(M) Paper No. 34/16)

84. Members noted the above report.

85. Hon Gary FAN asked when the hardcopy of the working report of the last-term SKDC would be made available.

86. The Secretary said that copies of the report would be distributed shortly to Members and organisations in the district when printed and delivered by the contractor.

XIII. Motions Presented by Members

(1) The 16 motions moved by Members

87. The Chairman said that Members had clearly and thoroughly elaborated their views in their motions or question papers, and in order to make the meeting more efficient, Members had agreed at the Special Meeting held on 19 January 2016 that movers/seconders/questioners would allow other Members to speak first in respect of a motion or question and that if they agreed, or raised no objection, to the motion or question, there would be no need for movers/seconders/questioners to speak. If other Members raised objection to or put forward other views on the motion or question, then movers/seconders/questioners would respond or make further elaboration.

- 21 - (i) Request the Government to promptly implement remedial measures for Yee Ming Estate and other estates with fresh water containing lead that exceed safety standard (SKDC(M) Paper No. 35/16)

88. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. TSE Ching-fung and seconded by Mr. LUK Ping-choi.

89. Members noted the written response of HD (SKDC(M) Paper No. 35/16).

90. There being no amendment or objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the motion was endorsed and would write to inform HD of the SKDC’s request.

(ii) Request to step up the inspection and speed up the replacement of worn out water mains in the district, make public the details regarding water mains replacement and the progress, as well as promptly arrange the schedule for replacing the water mains in the remaining parts of Tseung Kwan O (SKDC(M) Paper No. 36/16)

91. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. Jonathan CHAN and seconded by Mr. LING Man-hoi, Mr. WAN Kai-ming, Mr. KAN Siu-kei and Mr. CHAN Kai-wai.

92. Members noted the written response of the Water Services Department (WSD) (SKDC(M) Paper No. 56/16).

93. There being no amendment or objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the motion was endorsed and would write to inform WSD of the SKDC’s request.

(iii) Request to promptly make public the progress and schedule regarding the construction of a standard indoor swimming pool in Tseung Kwan O South (SKDC(M) Paper No. 37/16)

94. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. KAN Siu-kei and seconded by Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung, Mr. CHAN Kai-wai, Mr. WAN Yuet-cheung and Mr. Edwin CHEUNG.

95. Members noted the written response of the LCSD (SKDC(M) Paper No. 65/16).

96. There being no amendment or objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the motion was endorsed and would write to inform LCSD of the SKDC’s request.

(iv) Request to give priority to the construction of a bridge to link up Park Central and Tiu Keng Leng Sports Centre/Tiu Keng Leng Public Library (SKDC(M) Paper No. 38/16)

97. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. Raymond HO and seconded by Mr. LUI Man-kwong.

98. Mr. KAN Siu-kei remarked that Members at the meeting all entertained the hope that the footbridges in question would be built, including a proposed footbridge to link up Sheung

- 22 - Tak Plaza and TKO MTR Station, and in this connection he suggested that the words “to give priority” in the motion be amended as “promptly” and the revised motion should read: “Request to promptly construct a bridge to link up Park Central and Tiu Keng Leng Sports Centre/Tiu Keng Leng Public Library”.

99. Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung seconded the motion. He remarked that the proposed footbridge to link up Sheung Tak Plaza and TKO MTR Station had been on the planning board for 16 years but the project had not yet been commenced. For this reason, he opined that top priority should be accorded to the construction of the footbridge.

100. Mr. Francis CHAU opined that Members should move as few revised motions as possible, and should not amend for amendment’s sake. He was opposed to the revised motion. Furthermore, the construction works regarding the bridge at Tong Ming Street had been established as a project item, and the captioned bridge was part of the Tseung Kwan O - Lam Tin Tunnel (TKO-LT Tunnel) project. On the other hand, he proposed that the SKDC also discuss the relative priority of the development of new cultural and leisure facilities in the district.

101. Mr. Raymond HO opined that the words “to give priority” and “promptly” were similar in meaning and suggested that as an alternative, Members might wish to move another motion with a view to following up on the progress of the works regarding the footbridge to link up Sheung Tak Plaza and TKO MTR Station. He went on to point out that funding for the captioned footbridge came from the TKO-LT Tunnel project; and the footbridge was the least complicated part of the project, which should be built with priority, and indeed the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) had also pledged to do so. He hoped that Members would endorse the original motion as this would eliminate any potential misunderstanding by the CEDD over the development direction of the whole project.

102. Mr. LUI Man-kwong was concerned that deletion of the words “to give priority” from the revised motion might mislead the CEDD. He remarked that the captioned item could be dealt with as a separate issue from the TKO-LT Tunnel project. Now Tiu Keng Leng Sports Centre and Tiu Keng Leng Public Library had opened, and the captioned item could benefit residents living within the footbridge network area. Therefore, he came to the view that the wording of the motion should not be amended.

103. Ms. Christine FONG said that the CEDD had indicated at a meeting of the last-term SKDC that development priority would be accorded to the captioned item. Hence she hoped that the CEDD would give an account of the project.

104. In response, Mr. Eric CHIANG, Chief Engineer/New Territories East 1, CEDD stated that the CEDD planned to seek funding approval from LegCo for the TKO-LT Tunnel project in the current legislative year. Under the entire project, the works of the North Bridge (the captioned item) were relatively less complicated. The CEDD would commence the tendering exercise immediately upon securing the funding approval, and pledged to complete the North Bridge at priority for public use as soon as possible.

105. Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung enquired if the government department, which was responsible for implementing and making policy for the captioned item, was the same department for carrying out the footbridge project linking up Sheung Tak Plaza and TKO MTR Station.

- 23 -

106. Mr. Eric CHIANG, CEDD responded that the two projects were under different schemes.

107. Mr. LUK Ping-choi remarked that the two footbridge projects should not be treated in the same breath, and opined that the works of the two projects would not be affected by the voting results of the revised motion and the original motion.

108. Mr. Francis CHAU welcomed the priority accorded by the CEDD to handle the captioned item and pointed out that the Sheung Tak Plaza project in Tong Ming Street was undertaken by the HyD and it should be the HyD to report its progress.

109. Mr. Philip LI remarked it was rather difficult to grasp the mover’s intention merely on the basis of the paper tabled at the meeting, such as what method would be employed to determine the relative priority of the projects. Hence he hoped that Members should explain the background when they moved a motion.

110. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to follow up on the footbridge project in Tong Ming Street at the TTC meetings.

111. Mr. Raymond HO said that he apologised for having failed to provide sufficient information in the motion paper. He went on to ask the Secretariat if the CEDD had made a written response. In addition, he remarked that he had conducted a questionnaire survey on the captioned item among residents in the district and collected 106 questionnaires, of which 93 respondents shared the view that traffic congestion was serious in the district, 100 respondents opined that the TKO-LT Tunnel could solve the traffic problem, and 87 respondents opined that the captioned bridge project should commence with priority. He hoped that Members would pass the original motion in the light of the survey findings.

112. The Secretary said that the CEDD had submitted a written reply in response to Members’ enquiries about the TKO-LT Tunnel and Cross Bay Link projects, which were raised at the SKDC meeting held in January 2016; and also the Secretariat had already emailed Members the document. However, the Secretariat had not received any written response to the captioned motion from the CEDD.

113. Mr. KAN Siu-kei said that he moved to withdraw the revised motion.

114. There being no objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the motion to withdraw the revised motion by Mr. KAN Siu-kei was carried and after that the original motion was endorsed. The SKDC would inform the CEDD of their requests.

115. Mr. LUK Ping-choi asked if the revised motion would be counted towards the number of motions moved by Members.

116. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai asked, as far as withdrawal of a revised motion was concerned, if the mover was the only one who needed to be consulted. On the other hand, he added that it would have taken years before the captioned project could get off the ground, and now the project was advanced ahead of schedule only when it was integrated into the TKO-LT Tunnel project. Hence he supported the captioned motion.

- 24 - 117. Ms. Christine FONG remarked that she felt frustrated by the postponement of the TKO-LT Tunnel project for one year to 2021. As such, she hoped that the relevant works aimed at solving the traffic congestion in the district could be expedited. Also, she enquired about the construction period and the cost of the wind tunnel tests conducted for the TKO-LT Tunnel and Cross Bay Link projects, and if the whole project could be split so as to reduce the construction cost.

118. The Chairman suggested Ms. Christine FONG to seek information about the construction period and the cost of the project by moving a motion at a TTC meeting, while Mr. LUK Ping-choi’s enquiry would be transferred to “Any Other Business”.

119. The Secretary said that under Order 22 of the SKDC Standing Orders, a motion could be withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the Members present.

120. Mr. Francis CHAU asked the Working Group on the TKO-LT Tunnel and the Cross Bay Link to follow up on the captioned project as far as possible.

(v) Request to immediately follow up the pedestrian crossing facilities at the new road of Hemera (SKDC(M) Paper No. 39/16)

121. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Ms. Christine FONG and seconded by Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung, Mr. CHAN Kai-wai and Mr. Edwin CHEUNG.

122. Members noted the written response of the TD and the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) (SKDC(M) Paper Nos. 57/16 and 66/16).

123. Mr. Francis CHAU remarked that he supported the motion in view of the fact that the conditions of the captioned road section were far from satisfactory, and hoped that government departments and the MTRCL would follow it up as soon as possible.

124. There being no amendment or objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the motion was endorsed, and would inform the MTRCL and the TD of the SKDC’s request.

(vi) Request to improve the new temporary bridge at LOHAS Park and look into installing wind and rain shades (SKDC(M) Paper No. 40/16)

125. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung and seconded by Ms. Christine FONG, Mr. CHAN Kai-wai and Mr. Edwin CHEUNG.

126. Members noted the written response of the MTRCL (SKDC(M) Paper No. 67/16).

127. There being no amendment or objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the motion was endorsed, and would inform the MTRCL of the SKDC’s request.

128. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung remarked that he was dissatisfied with MTRCL’s response, and stressed that the captioned bridge should have barrier-free access and that the HyD and the Labour and Welfare Bureau (LWB) should also keep tabs on the above measure.

- 25 - (vii) Request to promptly legislate on the use of fully enclosed construction waste collection vehicles, shorten the operation hours of the South East New Territories Landfill, as well as increase the use of water transport to improve the environment near LOHAS Park (SKDC(M) Paper No. 41/16)

129. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. Peter LAU and seconded by Mr. KAN Siu-kei, Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung and Mr. WAN Yuet-cheung.

130. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung expressed his support for the captioned motion and opined that the problems mentioned in the motion were widespread in the entire TKO district. He went on to propose that water transport be widely promoted; and he pointed out that the number of dump trucks was on the rise and showed no sign of abating in the district, while many works projects were in progress, causing nuisance to local residents. Therefore, he hoped that inter-departmental actions would be taken to follow this up, and remarked that objection against the extension of the landfill over the years had proved to be correct.

131. Mr. Francis CHAU expressed his support for the motion, but opined that its objective should be to improve the environment of TKO in its entirety rather than that of nearby LOHAS Park. He went on to say that the CEDD and the Environment Bureau should foster coordination.

132. Ms. Christine FONG expressed her support for the motion and pointed out that dump trucks in the district caused illegal parking problems and posed road safety hazard to pedestrians. She remarked that since the approval of the landfill extension, no meeting on waste management facilities and environment principles or the Sai Kung District Liaison Group had been convened over the past year. She suggested to write to the relevant departments or set up a task force to help follow up on the above problems. She also urged the CEDD to step up its monitoring of the operation of construction sites and suggested that transport services be provided to workers in the fill bank to facilitate their dining out.

133. Mr. LUK Ping-choi suggested that the captioned motion be referred to the relevant committee for follow-up.

134. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai supported the captioned motion and suggested that the departments concerned enhance the existing legislation by drawing up rules to monitor the performance of contractors at works, in view of the drawn-out legislative process. He cited the method used to deal with noise problem coming from heavy duty works as an example, pointing out that the departments could discuss and draw up contract rules with contractors, such as the requirement to put up posters in prominent places on contractors’ vehicles with the words like “Works Contractor of the CEDD” and that their contracts might not be renewed if irregularities were found.

135. There being no amendment or objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the motion was endorsed, and would inform the Environmental Protection Department of the SKDC’s request while referring the captioned motion to the Housing & Environmental Hygiene Committee for follow-up.

- 26 -

(viii) Request the Government to look into the measures to alleviate the congestion problem of Tseung Kwan O Tunnel (SKDC(M) Paper No. 42/16)

136. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. WAN Yuet-cheung and seconded by Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung and Mr. WAN Kai-ming.

137. Members noted the written response of the TD (SKDC(M) Paper No. 58/16).

138. Mr. WAN Yuet-cheung remarked that the TD’s reply was negative, which stated that the two proposals as mentioned in the motion were not feasible. He went on to point out that with the growth of population in TKO and the successive commencement of major infrastructure projects, traffic congestion during rush hours would be getting more and more severe, and it was anticipated that the situation would not be abated before the opening of the TKO-LT Tunnel and the Cross Bay Link in 2021. He was of the view that the TD should work out solutions to the problem, such as placing traffic cones at the toll plaza of the Tunnel, or running a trial scheme under which three lanes were kept for Kowloon-bound traffic and one for TKO-bound traffic; theories should be put into practice to see if they worked or not.

139. Mr. Francis CHAU was in support of the captioned motion and urged the tunnel company and the TD to make arrangements vis-a-vis the first proposal contained in the motion paper, such as lane realignment and creation of bus lanes in order to alleviate traffic congestion, especially during rush hours and in the aftermath of traffic accidents.

140. Mr. Frankie LAM remarked that traffic congestion in the TKO Tunnel was serious. To alleviate traffic congestion, he cited the introduction of the self-service payment system on superhighways in the Mainland as an example to illustrate his point, and suggested that the TD set aside a tollbooth lane for self-service payment by Octopus card users.

141. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung said that he had thoroughly studied some proposals including the “three lanes for Kowloon-bound traffic” and “one lane for TKO-bound traffic” proposal and also concurred with the self-service payment mode mentioned just now. In addition, he pointed out that traffic congestion in the morning was more serious than that in the evening, and asked the TD to take follow-up actions about the situation. He also suggested that the TD introduce the “one-way double toll collection” arrangement to alleviate traffic congestion; and added that he did not wish to receive a bureaucratic reply from the TD.

142. Mr. Philip LI opined that it was undesirable for the TD to look to the TKO-LT Tunnel and the Cross Bay Link for a solution to the traffic congestion problem since the tunnel would not be completed until six years later. He was dissatisfied with the TD’s response as it rejected the proposal of introducing “tidal flow” simply on the grounds that the arrangement would bring about traffic congestion in Kwun Tong district, and he opined that the response was blind to the traffic congestion in TKO district. Furthermore, he pointed out that where its design was concerned, the tunnel would have the capacity to afford a tidal flow system, and in this connection he asked the TD why the proposal was not adopted as a means to alleviate traffic congestion in the district. Also, he pointed out that the markings at the access roads to the TKO Tunnel were confusing, which would easily lead to traffic accidents and more traffic jams, so he hoped that the TD would carry out a review of the road markings.

- 27 - 143. Mr. HIEW Moo-siew remarked that according to his driving experience, the tolls collection proposals mentioned just now by Members could not solve the traffic congestion problem, and he suggested that the proposal regarding the “three lanes for Kowloon-bound traffic” be introduced on a trial basis during morning rush hours from Monday to Friday in the current DC term.

144. Mr. Raymond HO remarked that he had suggested tidal flow in the past, but his suggestion was met with a response by the TD in the form of a terse reply saying that the proposal was not feasible. In this connection, he hoped that the TD would commission a consultant company to collect data and produce a study report in order to evaluate the feasibility of the proposal. He went on to suggest that to alleviate the congestion, the TD should consider using other roads such as O King Road to divert traffic flow. He also suggested that toll fees be raised during peak hours or lowered during off-peak hours to adjust traffic flow.

145. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun opined that the TD did not submit a detailed traffic assessment report about the tunnel to the SKDC, and this would not help them to identify solution to the traffic congestion problem. He pointed out that there was much room for improvement in terms of the dissemination of information regarding the traffic in the TKO Tunnel, and that there was now only a LED display board installed at the mid-way of TKO Tunnel Road, leading to a situation where motorists would not be able to turn back by the time they realised that there was a traffic congestion. He hoped that the TD would make available information about on-going road conditions online and put in place road use rules according to which priority would be accorded to public transport, hence discouraging private vehicle traffic.

146. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai opined that it was Hong Kong’s core value to promote upward social mobility and safeguard the property interests of the middle-class. Therefore, if the Government was prepared to make use of some private land, it might do so in accordance with the land resumption policy, instead of turning the land of a private housing estate into a tunnel but not paying for the compensation. If the Government proposed to procure Ocean Shores or resume all the roads for $100 billion, it might certainly do so and discuss the proposal with the affected residents. However, if the Government was not going to offer any compensation, it would have a hard time to convince the public; the practice also went against the long-cherished core value of Hong Kong. He considered that the TD should study ways and take measures to deal with the issue from a forward-looking perspective in the coming six years, otherwise it might run the risk of breaching its duty.

147. Mr. Joseph TSUI, TD pointed out that TD’s earlier reply mainly focused on giving reasons for the infeasibility of tidal flow and the “three out one in” proposals , and TD would continue to look into other ways to alleviate the problem; in addition, the matter or agenda item could be discussed and followed up by the TTC. He pointed out that at present there was only one toll-tunnel for external traffic in TKO; and it was difficult to come to a conclusion at this meeting in respect of how to implement proposals regarding tunnel tolls, tidal flow and so on. He believed that traffic congestion problems would not go away in the next few years. As regards whether there would be any short-term measures, he remarked that the proposed measures, if to be introduced to alleviate traffic congestion, such as to provide or how to provide bus lanes, must be scrutinised carefully, while bearing in mind the need to optimise the limited road resources.

- 28 - 148. There being no amendment or objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the motion was endorsed, and would inform the TD of the SKDC’s request and refer them to the TTC for follow-up.

(ix) Request government departments to separate the construction of bus interchange at the toll plaza of Tseung Kwan O Tunnel from other projects and promptly commence the works (The motion was amended to “Request government departments to separate the construction of bus interchange at the toll plaza of Tseung Kwan O Tunnel and some pedestrian connection facilities from other projects upon approval of the funding”) (SKDC(M) Paper No. 43/16)

149. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. LEUNG Li and seconded by Hon Gary FAN, Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun, Mr. LUI Man-kwong and Mr. LAI Ming-chak.

150. Members noted the written response of the CEDD (SKDC(M) Paper No. 59/16).

151. Mr. WAN Yuet-cheung remarked that he originally supported the motion but now he found it difficult to support the motion as the CEDD had stated in its reply that the time required for rolling out the project under the established procedures would be even longer than that under the current arrangement. He moved an amendment to the motion, which read “Request government departments to separate the construction of bus interchange at the toll plaza of Tseung Kwan O Tunnel and some pedestrian connection facilities from other projects upon approval of the funding”.

152. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jonathan CHAN.

153. The Chairman asked Members to vote on the revised motion. The voting result was as follows: 22 votes for it, no vote against it and one abstention.

154. The Chairman declared that the revised motion was endorsed and would inform the CEDD of SKDC’s request.

(x) Request the MTR Corporation Limited to comprehensively inspect the signalling system and speed up the upgrading of the system to reduce the frequency of system breakdown which would affect the public (SKDC(M) Paper No. 44/16)

155. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. CHAN Kai-wai and seconded by Mr. KAN Siu-kei, Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung, Mr WAN Yuet-cheung, Mr. Jonathan CHAN, Mr. WAN Kai-ming and Mr. Edwin CHEUNG.

156. Members noted the written response of the MTRCL (SKDC(M) Paper No. 60/16).

157. There being no amendment or objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the motion was endorsed and would inform the MTRCL of the SKDO’s request.

- 29 - (xi) Request the Government to promptly repurchase the Western Harbour Crossing and reduce the toll of the Eastern Harbour Crossing to alleviate the traffic congestion at the Cross Harbour Tunnel of Hung Hom (SKDC(M) Paper No. 45/16)

158. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. LAI Ming-chak and seconded by Hon Gary FAN, Mr. LEUNG Li, Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun and Mr. LUI Man-kwong.

159. Members noted the written response of the TD (SKDC(M) Paper No. 61/16).

160. Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung expressed his support for the captioned motion. Transport was crucial to Hong Kong, an international metropolis, in the context of the overall development of the economy. At present, traffic congestion in the Cross Harbour Tunnel (CH Tunnel) of Hung Hom was very serious; in the Eastern Harbour Crossing (EHC), traffic would also slightly build up during the rush hours; and the Western Harbour Crossing (WHC) had yet to reach capacity due to its high tolls. As such, if the Government considered buying back the WHC at a reasonable price, arrangements could then be made to ensure that the tolls of the three tunnels would be set at a more equilateral level. He believed this could help alleviate the current traffic congestion in the CH Tunnel and EHC, and would be beneficial to the development of Hong Kong as a whole.

161. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung expressed his support for the captioned motion but found that “西隧” was wrongly typed as “西隊” in the paper (Chinese version).

162. There being no amendment or objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the motion was endorsed and would inform the TD of the SKDC’s request.

163. Mr. Joseph TSUI, TD added that the TD considered that adjusting tunnel tolls was one of the effective mechanisms to achieve traffic diversion among road harbour crossings and tunnels and that the Government had been following up on the tunnel rationalization plan among the three harbour crossings, including the idea of buying back the WHC and adjustment of the EHC tolls to optimise the use of the three road harbour crossings as proposed by Members. However, the Government must take into account a basket of factors, particularly the capacity of the approach roads linking WHC and Hong Kong Island and the potential traffic impacts on related areas. In view of these, the Government held the view that it would be more appropriate to review the tunnel rationalization plan upon the opening of the Central-Wan Chai Bypass so that a more comprehensive and effective plan could be worked out.

(xii) Request the Education Bureau to retrieve the proposal on including simplified Chinese characters in the curriculum of secondary and primary schools and keep the content on “justice”, “human rights” and other universal values in the Key Learning Area Curriculum of Personal, Social & Humanities Education (Primary 1 to Secondary 6) (SKDC(M) Paper No. 46/16)

164. The motion was moved by Mr. LUI Man-kwong and seconded by Hon Gary FAN, Mr. LEUNG Li, Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun and Mr. LAI Ming-chak.

- 30 - 165. Members noted the written response of the Education Bureau (EDB) (SKDC(M) Paper No. 62/16).

166. Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung remarked that according to the EDB’s response, the consultation paper was prepared in the spirit of the past curriculum documents, and that “learning and reading of simplified Chinese characters” was neither a topic nor the objective of the consultation exercise. He shared the view that the content on “justice”, “human rights” and other universal values should be kept, but the consultation paper indicated that the six major learning targets would be retained, and social justice would be highly regarded as a fundamental value; hence no amendment was made to the curricular when it was updated on this occasion. With this in mind, he did not support the motion since the above motion might have been conceived in the light of some false rumours in the public domain or misleading reports.

167. Mr. LING Man-hoi remarked that the EDB’s reply indicated that no strenuous efforts had been made by the Bureau to promote the use of simplified Chinese characters, nor did it attempt or intend to conduct any assessment on students’ academic achievement in the use of simplified Chinese characters. It was only a few individuals who claimed that the Bureau was going to introduce such a policy. Hong Kong people had all along been using traditional Chinese characters in writing and they should decide by themselves whether or not to learn simplified Chinese characters in future. He used to learn traditional Chinese characters but he could read simplified Chinese characters because he also read Chinese books from the Mainland in his younger years. He believed that as China developed into a moderately prosperous society or an even more prosperous society, the market forces would then dictate, so he objected to the captioned motion.

168. Mr. Francis CHAU remarked that he was fond of using simplified Chinese characters which had their historical significance, though he used traditional Chinese characters since his early schooling in Hong Kong. He opined that there was no harm in learning simplified Chinese characters as we should embrace a global perspective. That said, the Member moved the motion because he was concerned whether it was appropriate for children to learn simplified Chinese characters at such a tender age. He appreciated the need to raise the issue; but now the EDB had made the clarification in its reply, and he considered that it would be better if the motion could be withdrawn, and if not, he would abstain from voting.

169. Members were asked to vote on the original motion. The voting result was as follows: 7 votes for it, 7 votes against it and 3 abstentions.

170. As some Members said that they had not pressed the button to cast their electronic vote, the Chairman asked Members to vote again. The voting result was as follows: 8 votes for it, 10 votes against it and 3 abstentions.

171. The Chairman declared that the original motion was not endorsed.

172. Hon Gary FAN asked if the way the motion was handled just now could be avoided procedurally and technically, and said that the issue in question had been discussed at the last meeting. If two votes had been held and the voting results had already been shown on the LCD display, one might query if the vote of the motion was carried out in a fair manner. He asked if the Secretariat would be able to know whether all Members had cast their votes, and suggested that the Chairman verify if all Members had cast their votes before announcing the

- 31 - voting results in order to prevent cases in which individual members might claim that they had yet to cast their votes or had pressed the wrong button as an excuse to adjust their voting intention once the voting result was available.

173. The Chairman said that the Secretariat staff would not be able to know if all Members had cast their votes, so he asked whether Members would agree that even if individual Members had not pressed the button, only one round of voting would be held from the time when the motion was put to a vote as declared by the Chairman himself to the end of the voting process.

174. Mr. LAI Ming-chak suggested that the Chairman and the Secretariat handle the voting procedure in a more paced manner, for example, by asking Members a few more times to make sure that they had understood and received the messages, in order to minimise the recurrence of the case that had just happened because at the moment there was not a standard timeframe for putting motions to the vote and Members might be slow in making response at times as well.

175. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung concurred with Mr. LAI Ming-chak’s remarks and opined that other Members should refrain from labelling the others and that it was a well-known fact that he supported the motion.

176. Mr. Raymond HO remarked that he and Mr. TSE Ching-fung, in fact, could not cast their vote in time on an earlier motion because the vote was carried out in a hurry. He was of the view that the way in which the motion had been carried just now was problematic as individual Members had been allowed to vote again because they said that they had not yet cast their votes, and yet some Members might come in and out of the conference room during the voting process; and attempts to determine whether the first or the second voting should be deemed valid might lead to unnecessary disputes over the rules of order. He suggested that as a means to facilitate the voting, thought be given to setting the alarm to beep for as long as five seconds. Regarding the voting just now, he opined that it was the first vote that should be deemed valid.

177. Hon Gary FAN considered that the issue should be dealt with seriously. Many technical problems could be fixed through the voting system, and in this regard the Chairman could also have asked Members if they had cast their votes when the voting process was supposed to have completed. Technically speaking, there should be signals on the electronic voting system showing that the button lit up when a Member had cast his/her vote to ensure that the Member had indicated his/her voting intention. Further than that, the Secretary might verify or check if any Member had yet to cast his/her vote, or the Chairman might even go a step further and ask individual Members if they had not yet cast their votes or if they had chosen not to vote. The fairest and most foolproof approach was to show the result on the screen only after making sure that all Members had cast their votes, and this way, disputes arising from technical errors could also be avoided.

178. Mr. YAU Yuk-lun suggested that the earlier voting result be accepted, i.e. 7 votes for the motion, 7 votes against it and 3 abstentions and that the Chairman cast the decisive vote.

179. Mr. Stanley TAM remarked that to prevent the recurrence of the same technical problem in future, he suggested that all Members test the voting system before the meeting in order to ensure that the system functioned properly. After that and at the time of voting, if a

- 32 - Member was late to press the button or cast a wrong vote, he/she should be responsible for his/her own actions and there would be no re-voting.

180. Ms. Maureen SIU, District Officer (Sai Kung) said that there was no technical problem as the system had been working well and the voting procedure had also given Members sufficient time to press the button. Instead, more attention should be paid by Members to the Chairman’s instructions. In the circumstances where recasting of votes was requested, it was not a technical matter for the Secretariat to handle but something the DC needed to decide. As for the suggestion of extending the time for members to press the button to cast their votes, it would inevitably lengthen the meeting.

181. Mr. TSE Ching-fung agreed to the views of Ms Maureen SIU. He suggested that 10 seconds be set as the time-limit for pressing the voting button and that the Chairman declare the voting result only after having made sure that all Members had cast their votes.

182. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung opined that the voting just now was conducted in haste, thus he suggested that a device be provided which would sound an alarm during the last five seconds of the voting time to prompt Members to cast their votes. He did not realise just then that the voting had ended. Now the SKDC should decide whether the first or the second voting result should be accepted, and he had no strong views about it. He reiterated his support for the motion.

183. Mr. Raymond HO suggested that the first voting result be accepted and deemed valid. He was of the view that no voting should be held again on the same issue within such a short span of time.

184. The Chairman said that the Secretariat would take note of Members’ views and follow up on how to improve the voting procedure.

185. The Chairman also asked Members to respect the Chairman’s decision, and opined that the result of the second vote should be deemed valid, while asking Members to bear with him if there was room for improvement in terms of the way he conducted the meeting.

186. The Chairman said that the contents of Items 13 and 14 were related; and there being no objection from Members, he declared that they would be discussed en bloc.

(xiii) Request the Education Bureau to promptly abolish the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) for Primary 3 students (xiv) Request the Education Bureau to comprehensively abolish the first stage (i.e. Primary 3) of the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) so that students could enjoy a happy childhood again (The two motions were revised to read: “Request the Education Bureau, upon the completion of the trial scheme, to promptly review the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) for Primary 3 students while monitoring excessive drilling by schools and setting up a mechanism for parents to lodge complaints against excessive drilling by schools in order to help stop excessive drilling”) (SKDC(M) Paper Nos. 47/16 and 48/16)

- 33 - 187. The Chairman said that the first motion was moved by Hon Gary FAN and seconded by Mr. LEUNG Li, Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun, Mr. LUI Man-kwong and Mr. LAI Ming-chak. The second motion was moved by Mr. Frankie LAM and seconded by Mr. LEUNG Li.

188. Members noted the written response of the EDB (SKDC(M) Paper No. 68/16).

189. Mr. Philip LI remarked that “the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) for Primary 3 students” was introduced to assist schools and the Government in understanding the general attainment levels of students in terms of three academic subjects namely Chinese language, English language and Mathematics, and on the basis of the data collected, formulating school-based programmes to achieve enhanced effectiveness of teaching and education policies, but not to subject students to excessive drilling. He opined that if the TSA was to be abolished, the EDB would still have to develop other tests for assessment. As the TSA was not the root cause of the problem, he suggested amending the motion to read: “Request the EDB, upon the completion of the trial scheme, to promptly review the TSA for Primary 3 students while monitoring excessive drilling by schools and setting up a mechanism for parents to lodge complaints against excessive drilling by schools in order to help stop excessive drilling”.

190. The revised motion was seconded by Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung.

191. Hon Gary FAN pointed out that the arguments just now put forth by Mr. Philip LI echoed precisely what the Government was trying to achieve at the moment. Amidst outcry from many teachers’ groups and parents’ groups as well as opposition letters to legislators, the Government had admitted the need to review the TSA and would conduct a mid-term review. According to the EDB’s fine-tuned proposal, 10 per cent of schools across the territory would be selected on a random basis to take part in the TSA on a voluntary basis in this academic year. Some of the selected schools invited parents, teachers and students to hold an in-house referendum to decide whether to participate in the TSA. The facts proved that the predominant view was that the TSA should be completely abolished. Parents’ groups were concerned that they had to wait until 2017 before there would be any changes; and they came to the view that a stronger message should be conveyed to the EDB, pointing out to the Bureau that the system was deviating from its original objective and leading to excessive drilling of students. In the face of the concerns and reality, the EDB had no other options but to introduce the current measures. Thus, Mr. Philip LI’s amendment in fact ran counter to the original motion. He was of the view that Mr. Philip LI might wish to vote against the original motion or move another motion, but as far as his amendment was concerned, it was practically no difference from the Government’s response. As such, he asked the Chairman to make a ruling on whether the amendment was justified.

192. Ms. Christine FONG remarked that the TSA had put enormous pressure on students, parents and indeed their whole family, and hence she objected to the TSA. She supported the original motion in view of the present aggravating social and political polarisation in the community, as well as the pressure on family since parents still had to help their children with their homework and drill them after work. Secondly, the EDB had already put in place some other assessment schemes at schools, and there was no need to continue putting additional pressure on children or their parents. She had also argued this point in a recently published article entitled “Bring back happiness to our children”. Many senior government officials in the neighbouring countries, frustrated by the local educational systems and lack of creativity, would send their children to study abroad as long as they could afford it, with a view to

- 34 - developing their children’s creativity and enlightening them in every aspect. It was a pity that the education system of Hong Kong, in terms of resources, subsidies and indeed the whole thing, was far from perfect. This issue therefore warranted serious attention.

193. Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung opined that excessive drilling was not a problem arising from the TSA, which was designed to assess the overall competency of students and was only a low-risk assessment on students’ academic performance. The TSA was an objective assessment tool and deserved to be retained. If the TSA was to be conducted at Primary 6 level, it meant that even when it became clear that there were certain areas where individual students should make improvement, they would have missed the golden opportunity to catch up with their studies, i.e. from Primary 4 to 6 levels, as they would move to secondary schools soon. Hence he opined that in the absence of any other alternative measures available, it was not appropriate to abolish the TSA at one stroke. He held that Members should concern themselves not with the TSA itself but the excessive drilling of students and the problems in relation to the implementation of the TSA. Therefore, attention should be directed towards how to mitigate the excessive drilling, including withholding the release of the TSA results, introducing a joint charter signed by schools, school sponsoring bodies or student/teacher unions to restrict excessive drilling, or holding briefings for parents at the districts in order to foster communication and to eliminate misunderstandings of and doubts on the TSA.

194. Mr. LAI Ming-chak remarked that another system called the Academic Aptitude Test (AAT) had been in force in the past, which was developed to strengthen students’ reasoning abilities and creativity, on top of the knowledge they acquired in their studies, and to facilitate allocation of school places based on observations on the intellectual growth of students. The AAT was eventually abolished because human nature died hard no matter how good the AAT was; if the system was a form of competition which might have a bearing on students and schools, then there was no doubt that parents and schools would drill and try to push the students; and it bordered on impossibility to persuade them not to drill students out of selfless consideration. Therefore, to successfully tackle the problem, the mechanism must be scrapped and efforts should be made to explore other feasible mechanisms, or to go a step further, there would be no more territory-wide assessment. These matters could be considered in the next stage, but if the mechanism was not to be abolished, it would have far-reaching implications on the next generation. He therefore hoped that the TSA would be abolished as soon as possible so as to free students from continuous suffering.

195. Mr. Frankie LAM remarked that the TSA had been in force for several years, triggering parents to press their children for tough drills. As mentioned by Mr. LAI Ming-chak, as soon as the AAT was abolished, its place was taken by the TSA. Some parents told him that apart from the TSA, study-induced stress and concerns over university-related problems would also result in tragedy; with this in mind, it was all the more necessary to focus our attention on the TSA. He hoped that the TSA would be abolished in one stroke as soon as possible, instead of allowing schools to participate in the TSA on a voluntary basis.

196. To reflect some parents’ views, Mr. Edwin CHEUNG remarked that the greatest drawback of the TSA was that schools could access to the name list of their students participating in the TSA; many parents suggested that the EDB maintain direct contact with parents whose children had been selected to participate in the TSA instead of the children’s schools in order to avoid the situation where the schools would be under pressure to drill their

- 35 - students for fear that poor TSA results would have a negative impact on their schools’ ranking.

197. Mr. Francis CHAU pointed out that before the AAT, we had the Secondary School Entrance Examination, the Joint Primary 6 Examination and many other assessment methods at students’ different learning stages. He was of the view that the introduction of the TSA was putting the cart before the horse, which had failed to achieve its original objectives and therefore a review should be carried out to see if it still had any other viable functions left. He pointed out that apart from assessing students, the TSA was also meant to assess schools. But the fact was that under the current educational system, school inspectors would regularly give various input to schools, particularly in the areas of teaching and learning as well as curriculum development. As such, he doubted that there was a need to put in place a system to help schools set academic benchmarks. By the way, concerns about students’ academic results had bred numerous business opportunities. For the part of schools, they would drill their students as they held that the TSA might have an impact on them in one way or another. He used to think that there was no need to put the two motions to a vote, but now he found it necessary to oppose them so as to urge the Government to conduct another review of the justification of the TSA.

198. Hon Gary FAN remarked that the original motion was about a matter of principle, which was moved to see if the SKDC had listened to the complaints and voices from students or parents. When Mr. Philip LI and Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung described the policy objective and the associated problems, they pointed out that the policy was aimed at testing students, not excessive drilling. He opined that they turned a blind eye to the facts. The hard facts were that Primary 3 students were now under unbearable stress due to excessive drilling by their schools. Everyone should face the problem squarely and so should parents, delegates and Members. The EDB had already reduced the number of schools participating in the assessment scheme to 10 per cent of the original, i.e. 50 schools, but this was only to save the face of the EDB rather than a sincere response to the views of parents’ groups, teacher groups or educators. The SKDC had the responsibility to rectify the problem. He was of the opinion that excessive drilling would only put students under greater pressure, while steeply difficult curriculum would not help build up their learning confidence but only bring exorbitant frustrations to them. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong would only help the EDB torture students if it insisted that the TSA should be retained. He asked Members to go to the students and teachers in the district and listen to their views. The SKDC had the responsibility to address the request through a vote.

199. Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung said that the remarks just now made by Hon Gary FAN did not represent the whole truth, because he himself had also gauged the views of students and parents, and understood the excessive-drilling-induced stress from the TSA. He opined that the crux of the matter was not to do with the TSA itself but the excessive drilling arising from the TSA, the release of the TSA results, as well as the TSA results-induced excessive drilling by schools in the course of the implementation of the TSA, which were the fundamental causes of stress. This being the case, he considered that focus should be placed on tackling the root cause of excessive drilling, and a one-size-fits-all approach should not be adopted when it came to fine-tuning the TSA. If the TSA results were not to be released and hence no more incentive for schools to drill students excessively, then it would help ease the learning-related burden on students and parents.

- 36 - 200. The Chairman remarked that the items under discussion were about two different issues, so he asked Mr. Philip LI which motion he wished to revise.

201. Mr. Philip LI suggested that the motion “Request the EDB to promptly abolish the TSA at Primary 3” be amended first before tackling another motion.

202. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun remarked that the meeting had yet to deal with Order 21 of the Standing Orders: “The Chairman shall determine whether a motion which is to amend the original motion constitutes a direct negation of the original motion”. He pointed out that the problem now was to determine whether “to abolish” and “to review upon implementation” were contradictory in meaning, and there was a big difference between them as it would bring about the issue of whether the TSA would still be in force in the next two years. Therefore, he hoped that the Chairman would make a ruling about it.

203. Mr. Francis CHAU remarked that if the Chairman held that the two motions were contradictory and no amendment would be accepted, Members could be asked to vote on the two motions separately; and conversely, if the Chairman accepted the amendments, he believed that Members would propose amendments to the second motion, but making same amendment to two motions was not admissible since a vote of two identical motions would breach the Standing Orders. He pointed out that in the past the SKDC had allowed similar motions moved by different political parties to be amalgamated, which would ensure a win-win situation for Members from different political camps. Given the afore-said reasons, he was of the view that amendments could be proposed, but advice should be sought from the Secretariat on whether same wording could be used in the two motions. To facilitate Members’ decision-making, he asked if Members would be allowed to use the same wording to propose amendments to other motions.

204. The Secretary said that the Standing Orders did not stipulate whether two different motions could or could not be amended by an identical revised motion. Therefore, this was a matter which should be decided by the meeting.

205. The Chairman opined that the revised motion did not constitute a direct negation of the original motion.

206. Hon Gary FAN remarked that the wording of the original motion was “to promptly abolish” while the meaning, principle and direction of the revised motion were “to defer” and “for further action”. He doubted that the revised motion and the original motion were contradictory. He asked the Chairman to explain why he accepted the revised motion, and enquired why the Chairman considered that the revised motion was not contradictory to, and incompatible with, the original motion which contained the words “to promptly abolish”. In his opinion, the revised motion constituted a direct negation of original one. He remarked that if the revised motion constituted a direct negation of the original motion and was not accepted by the Chairman, then Members could vote for or against it to express their stance, view and attitude. He opined that it was necessary for the Chairman to expound the logic of his ruling.

207. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai remarked that according to his recollection, there were similar precedents in which the original motion partly read: “to close the landfill in 2015”, but a Member proposed that it be amended as “to close the landfill as soon as possible”, without

- 37 - specifying a date. The revised motion was endorsed by the SKDC; and this could serve as a precedent.

208. Mr. LAI Ming-chak said that he could not understand what Mr. CHAN Kai-wai was driving at because the purpose of the revised motion was also to close the landfill and it was different from the original motion only in terms of the closure time. The revised motion now under discussion was different from the original motion which stated: “Request the abolishment of the TSA at Primary 3”, because the revised motion did not seem to carry the intention of the original motion; the fact was that the stance conveyed in the revised motion now moved for a vote was different from that of the original motion. As such the case mentioned by Mr. CHAN Kai-wai was not applicable to the present motion.

209. Hon Gary FAN responded that Mr. LAI Ming-chak had highlighted the key points of the revised motion. In fact, where the case cited by Mr. CHAN Kai-wai was concerned, the difference between the motions lay in the closure time of the landfill, i.e. either in 2015 or a later date, and there was no difference between them in terms of their underlying principle. He opined that the Chairman should make a ruling because the stances as reflected through the revised motion and the original motion were different. The purpose of Mr. Philip LI’s revised motion could be summed up in the words as follows: “to promptly”, and there was no mention of “abolish”; in addition, under the revised motion, it was proposed that another review should be conducted in 2017 after the completion of the pilot scheme to determine whether the TSA should be abolished completely. Therefore, given the fact that the two motions were contradictory in terms of the principle they advanced, he hoped that the Chairman would make a ruling and declare that the revised motion went against the principle advanced in original motion.

210. The Chairman remarked that he would handle the motion independently in his capacity as the Chairman and would not be affected by his political background, and that proceedings-wise, the DC and the LegCo might not be on the same plane. He said that he accepted Mr. Philip LI’s revised motion and that for future discussions on motion-related matters, he would continue to make decisions in this approach.

211. Mr. Frankie LAM remarked that Mr. Philip LI’s revised motion went against the principle advanced by the original motion and hence it should not be accepted. With these remarks, he walked out of the meeting in protest.

212. The Chairman said that he would take responsibility for his decision. The Chairman invited Members to vote on Mr. Philip LI’s revised motion. The voting result was as follows: 13 votes for it, 11 votes against it and 1 abstention. The Chairman declared that the revised motion was endorsed.

213. Mr. Philip LI remarked that he proposed an amendment to SKDC(M) Paper No. 48/16 with the words of the same revised motion.

214. Mr. LEUNG Li was of the view that it should not be allowed to use the same words to revise two different motions, otherwise there would be two identical motions once they were endorsed. Order 20 of the Standing Orders provided that “A motion which is to amend another motion (including an amendment) must be decided upon by the Council (if necessary by ballot)”, and hence he objected to the use of the same words to amend the motion in SKDC(M) Paper No. 48/16.

- 38 -

215. The Secretary said that the intent of Order 20 of the Standing Orders was to specify the order the DC should handle when an original motion was amended by a revised motion. Where there was a motion moved to amend an original motion, and that the DC should first deal with the revised motion and it was only when the revised motion was not endorsed, then the original motion should be put to a vote.

216. The Chairman invited Members to vote on Mr. Philip LI’s amendment to the motion in SKDC(M) Paper No. 48/16. The voting result was as follows: 12 votes for it, 9 votes against it and no abstention. The Chairman declared that the revised motion was endorsed, and would inform EDB of the SKDO’s request.

(xv) Request to promptly launch the universal retirement protection scheme (The motion was amended to “Request the Government to promptly introduce a three-tier subsidised retirement protection system”) (SKDC(M) Paper No. 49/16)

217. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun and seconded by Hon Gary FAN, Mr. LEUNG LI, Mr. LAI Ming-chak and Mr. LUI Man-kwong.

218. Mr. WAN Kai-ming remarked that he supported the setting up of a universal retirement protection system under which needy elderly could receive more allowances. He proposed a revised motion which read: “Request the Government to promptly introduce a three-tier subsidised retirement protection system”. He proposed that the Government revamp the existing welfare system for the elderly, by combining the Old Age Allowance (OAA) with the other Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) and redeveloping it into a three-tier subsidised retirement protection plan, i.e. retaining the current system under which the OAA would be payable to elderly aged 70 or above and lowering its age eligibility requirement to 65 years of age so that eligible elderly could receive the allowance without any means test. On top of the OALA, it was proposed that a higher OALA be introduced, which would be set at a level equivalent to roughly 1.5 times of the current OALA, so that more allowances would be payable to needy elderly.

219. The revised motion was seconded by Mr. Peter LAU.

220. Ms. Christine FONG supported the approach of the original motion and proposed a revised motion which read: “Request to promptly conduct a territory-wide consultation, first set the cut-off date regarding the population size and optimise the territory-wide retirement protection system, protect elderly aged 65 with priority, reform the MPF system, strike a balance among the three parties in terms of their contributions, provide a $100 billion-start-up fund and impose tax on consortium, and safeguard sustainable contributions by young people with returns”.

221. The revised motion was seconded by Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung.

222. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun said that he would like to ask Ms. Christine FONG to elaborate her revised motion and provide more details about her proposal. Also, he hoped that under the new retirement protection system there could be less means testing. While some people said that a means test system could enable the Government to pool resources together to provide assistance to the elderly in need, yet the fact was that Members, when

- 39 - helping some elderly in the district with OALA applications, found that the declaration system brought a lot of headache for the elderly in the district and in some cases, some elderly, who were unable to put their assets to immediate use, had long been denied the OALA. Apart from providing assistance to some elderly from the most grassroots level, retirement protection should also prevent other elderly from falling into the poverty net. Some elderly who were frequently visited by Members in the district were targets covered by the current OALA. Nevertheless, many more elderly in the district were not eligible for the Government’s allowance simply because their total assets were slightly over the maximum limit, but they could not rely on their savings for long as the money would be used up gradually. The asset limit of $80,000 was quite low given the fact that the elderly had to keep some savings for emergency use. Yet, under the existing policy, their applications would not be accepted, and to address the problem, the Government should introduce a universal retirement protection system.

223. Hon Gary FAN remarked that the SKDC should treat Members’ proposed amendments seriously. First, the wording of the motion to be revised should be presented in text, for example, it could be written on a paper and shown at the meeting through a projector to give Members a clear idea of the revised content before a vote. Secondly, in the past there were Members whose voting records were improperly handled and then revealed. He thus suggested that when the Chairman accepted a revised motion, he should, at the same time, make sure that Members were fully aware of the content of the motion put to a vote. Hon Gary FAN went on to ask Ms. Christine FONG to elaborate her revised motion and provide more details about her option, especially to clarify her amendment if the tax on consortium referred to progressive profits tax or other taxes, and how to strike a balance among the three parties in terms of their contributions. Before Members cast their votes on the revised motion, the mover must expound the reasons for the amendment.

224. Ms. Christine FONG remarked that Members had a right to propose amendments and speak at the meeting. She could elaborate how to take forward and implement the proposal after the meeting. All parties concerned should continue to discuss how to ensure sustainable contributions and how to avoid a situation where the younger generation would not get any returns from their contributions, and as regards the specific contribution percentage, a consultation was still in progress. Ms. FONG went on to say that she suggested that the Government conduct a territory-wide consultation since nobody could fully represent the general public and youngsters, and represent their views and speak for them in respect of their contribution capacity. If any political group or individual Member would like to learn more about her ideas, she was happy to discuss with them after the meeting.

225. Mr. LING Man-hoi remarked that Members had brought issues used to be deliberated at the LegCo to the SKDC for discussion, making the DC more and more like the LegCo. Perhaps some Members wanted to make their stances known to the larger community by raising issues for discussion through the SKDC, but he hoped that Members would not spend too much time on political issues in the discussion.

226. Mr. Francis CHAU remarked that in the face of an ageing society, Hong Kong should take forward retirement protection reforms without delay. Now the Government had finally decided to conduct a consultation, but it was a pity that no representatives from relevant government departments attended this meeting to take part in the discussion. He supported the original motion. Universal retirement protection encompassed various issues including, among others, financing, funding injection from the Government, corporate profit tax and

- 40 - transfer of MPF, and it was a far cry from a revamp of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme; for this reason, discussion on the related issues was of great importance. Mr. CHAU opined that we needed to provide universal retirement protection in the interests of a stable society. It was hoped that the Government would discuss how to introduce universal retirement protection in a more open manner on the basis of the various options proposed by academics together with its simulated universal option.

227. Mr. Raymond HO remarked that the SKDC should surely strive for the well-being of the local community, but the idea of well-being not only denoted the promotion of some infrastructure projects at district level, but also territory-wide policies like what were now under discussion. He went on to say that Hong Kong might go down the path of a welfare society if cash allowances were handed out to the people. Many countries with poor public finance used up their resources when there was a surplus and raised loans when no surplus was left. Politicians always pledged to fight for more welfare benefits on their political platforms only for the purpose of winning political mileage and short-term recognition, but they would never put forward any proposals to address long-term problems. For years some of these countries had not been able to meet their national debts and had to resort to tax hikes from time to time; this showed that a decision hastily made could lead to a disaster for many years to come. The biggest problem in Hong Kong at present was that since the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) more than ten years ago, budget deficits had beset Hong Kong for five years. If confronted with a structural fiscal deficit, Hong Kong would have no other alternative but to seek assistance from China, and that might lead to the situation where Hong Kong people could not go on ruling Hong Kong. While the budget prepared by the Greece government was passed by its parliament, yet it was the creditors who had the final say at the end of the day. By extension, if something similar happened to Hong Kong, then our future budgets would be passed by the National People’s Congress instead of the LegCo. Therefore, to uphold the principles of “one country, two systems” and “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong”, the Hong Kong Government should not introduce a fiscal system which would lead Hong Kong down the path of a welfare society. With these remarks, he was opposed to this motion.

228. Hon Gary FAN remarked that the wording of Ms. Christine FONG’s revised motion was too lengthy, and held that the wording of a motion was usually concise and precise, and if a motion with lengthy wording was accepted on this occasion, there was a risk that the SKDC would keep on receiving motions presented in paragraphs. Ms. FONG did not clearly explain the content of her revised motion, and if her motion was put to a vote, it meant that Members would have to cast their votes in haste without really understanding the content of the amendment. There were already restrictions on the number of motions to be moved by Members, thus the content of a motion should be made clear to Members to enable them to explain it to the public. This amendment should therefore be dealt with seriously.

229. Ms. Christine FONG added that the motion that she moved was as follows: “Request to promptly conduct a territory-wide consultation, first set the cut-off date regarding the population size and protect elderly aged 65 with priority, optimise the territory-wide retirement protection system, reform the MPF system, strike a balance among the three parties in terms of their contributions, provide a $100 billion-start-up fund and impose tax on consortium, and safeguard sustainable contributions by young people with returns”.

230. Mr. Alfred AU said that the original motion was “Request to promptly launch the universal retirement protection scheme”, the wording of which was concise and precise. He

- 41 - opined that Ms. Christine FONG had put her political platform for the LegCo election into the revised motion and this would adversely affect the order of the meeting.

231. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung remarked that it was going to get them nowhere no matter whether the item was discussed in the LegCo or the SKDC since the Government would not take heed of their advice even if Members supported the retirement protection. On the other hand, no restrictions should be imposed on the wording of the amendment because Members were free to do so.

232. Mr. Frankie LAM objected to the “cut-off” request embedded in Ms. Christine FONG’s revised motion. He said that he was not clear about Ms. FONG’s revised motion as he had just left the meeting.

233. The Chairman remarked that Ms. FONG had read out her revised motion twice and that no restrictions would be imposed on the wording of a revised motion.

234. The Chairman invited Members to vote on Ms. Christine FONG’s revised motion. The voting result was as follows: 4 votes for it, 22 votes against it and no abstention. The Chairman declared that Ms. FONG’s revised motion was not endorsed.

235. The Chairman invited Members to vote on Mr. WAN Kai-ming’s revised motion. The voting result was as follows: 10 votes for it, 8 votes against it and 3 abstentions.

236. Mr. Frankie LAM said that he had voted against the motion, and Mr. YAU Yuk-lun, Mr. Stanley TAM and Mr. SING Hon-keung said that they had voted for it but their votes were not shown in the voting result. The Chairman proposed a re-vote.

237. Mr. KAN Siu-kei remarked that just now one of the voting results was 7 votes for and 7 against and Hon Gary FAN then advised against a re-vote as he pointed out that the voting results must be accurate as the conference room was equipped with advanced equipment. He enquired how things should be handled if the result of the re-vote turned out to be a tie.

238. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung agreed to Mr. KAN Siu-kei’s views that no double standards should be applied.

239. The Chairman invited Members to vote on the revised motion moved by Mr. WAN Kai-ming again. The voting result was as follows: 13 votes for it, 9 votes against it and 3 abstentions. The Chairman declared that Mr WAN’s revised motion was endorsed, and would write to inform the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office and the LWB of the SKDO’s request.

(xvi) Strongly condemn the act of violence and express support to the Police to enforce the law strictly to bring offenders to account as soon as possible (SKDC(M) Paper No. 50/16)

240. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung and seconded by Mr. KAN Siu-kei, Mr. Peter LAU and Mr. WAN Yuet-cheung.

- 42 - 241. Members noted the written response of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) (SKDC(M) Paper No. 63/16).

242. Mr. LAI Ming-chak moved a revised motion on the grounds that the original motion did not mention the causes of the incident nor any solutions. The revised motion read as follows: “Request to set up an independent commission to investigate into the causes of the Mongkok Riot which occurred from the night of the first day to the morning of the second day of the Lunar New Year”.

243. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung remarked that he was opposed to any act of violence regardless of how justified it was. No matter what, the use of violence would not have the support of the majority of the community, and he agreed that those who used violence should be brought to justice. Regarding this motion, he supported the enforcement by the Police and reiterated that the Police were not directing their actions against the demonstrators, only that they were standing on the different sides of the law. That said, the general public and the Government must do some soul-searching to find out why so many youngsters committed such radical acts, despite running the risk of imprisonment. As far as the violent incident was concerned, the only response of the Government or some political groups was to condemn those involved in the incident for their irresponsible behaviour, but hurling abuses against each other would only serve to tear apart the community further, aggravating conflicts and leading to a vicious cycle. This brought to mind the Star Ferry Incident in 1966, which had deteriorated into a series of riots in 1967 because the then British colonial government failed to take the matter seriously and address public grievances in a timely manner. Against this background, he hoped that the Government should carry out a timely review of the relevant policy vis-à-vis the Mongkok Riot. With these remarks, he moved a revised motion which read: “to oppose any violence, support police enforcement and set up an independent commission led by a High Court judge to look into the Mongkok Riot which occurred on the first day of the Lunar New Year and a series of social problems in recent years in order to calm the hostile mood in society”.

244. The revised motion was seconded by Ms. Christine FONG.

245. Mr. LAI Ming-chak amended his revised motion to read: “To request the Government to set up an independent commission to look into the cause of the serious clash between the Police and the public which occurred in Mongkok on the night of the first day of the Lunar New Year in 2016 and put forward specific proposals to prevent the recurrence of similar clashes in future”.

246. The revised motion was seconded by Mr. LUI Man-kwong.

247. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun remarked that no matter which one of the revised motions Members would vote for, it was a must to include a review in the motion. Members certainly would not like to see any violent act and it was quite easy to condemn it, but condemnation must be followed by actions to see what could be done to mend the divided Hong Kong society. In the past, the Government did not listen to public opinions and there was a disconnect between public policy and public sentiment. Therefore, he hoped that Members would join their heads together to work out how to prevent recurrence of similar incidents. Members should go beyond condemnation of violent acts and put forth specific solutions or a road map. He hoped that the Hong Kong society as a whole would move on.

- 43 - 248. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai remarked that members of the public or Members should live up to the values of democracy and strive for our legitimate rights and interests; it was the right of a citizen to voice his views particularly on the undesirable policies introduced by the Government. For instance, they held a hunger strike earlier on against the landfill extension; and they stayed on the site for three nights. In the course of their action they had abided by the law and did not breach any law nor infringe on others’ rights. Mutual respect was a core value of Hong Kong; and one would not be accepted if his behaviour infringed on others’ rights. The Government should move towards a pluralist society and all government departments should reflect on how to handle this incident. The same problem would come back again and again if the Government had not been able to address the core issue. After all he believed that definitely no one would subscribe to the idea of answering violence with violence.

249. Mr. KAN Siu-kei remarked that people who took part in the incident was flaunting the banner of liberalisation of Hong Kong and localism, and he asked Hon Gary FAN if he was involved in the incident on the first day of the Lunar New Year.

250. Hon Gary FAN responded that he had nothing to do with the demonstrators and participants of the serious clash between the Police and the public that took place in Mongkok from the night of the first day to the early hours of the second day of the Lunar New Year in 2016, but he pointed out that the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions was involved in the 1967 Riots. He would not engage in violent protests. A responsible government or a Member, as a responsible delegate, could not turn a blind eye to the now deeply divided society in Hong Kong, otherwise this would drive some people to take risks and break the law or to accept that violent resistance was a way out. It would be irresponsible for us if we did not try to identify the causes of, nor propose any specific measures to resolve, the deep social conflicts. Under the current framework of the Basic Law, the HKSAR Government had stressed the importance of “one county, two systems”, “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” and a high degree of autonomy. Under such circumstances, the governance of Hong Kong could not and should not be at a level lower than that of the then British colonial government. After the 1967 Riots, the then British colonial government was able to adopt all possible means in an attempt to resolve the deep-seated social conflicts at various levels. Conversely, no attempt had ever been made by the current SAR Government to resolve these deep-seated conflicts but rather simply treating the political and social problems as a matter of criminal offence. It was not right to simply call in disciplinary forces to deal with the incident by enforcement action.

251. Mr. KAN Siu-kei remarked that Hon Gary FAN had been promoting localism on different occasions to antagonise the Mainland, but at the same time he organised a number of travel tours to the Mainland every year even though he had voiced opposition to visits by Mainland tourists to Hong Kong; and he opined that this was self-contradictory. He asked Hon Gary FAN about the causes of the 1967 Riots and how the Hong Kong people were treated by the British government. He hoped that Hon Gary GAN would not give a half-truth account.

252. The Chairman invited Members to vote on Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung’s revised motion. The voting result was as follows: 10 votes for it, 15 votes against it and no abstention. The Chairman declared that Mr. CHEUNG’s revised motion was not endorsed.

- 44 - 253. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai asked if the wording of Mr. LAI Ming-chak’s revised motion could be repeated.

254. The Secretary said that Mr. LAI Ming-chak had just submitted his written amendment to the motion, which read: “Request the Government to set up an independent commission to investigate the cause of the serious clash between the Police and the public which took place in Mongkok on the night of the first day of the Lunar New Year and make specific proposals to prevent the recurrence of similar clashes in future”.

255. The Chairman invited Members to vote on Mr. LAI Ming-chak’s revised motion. The voting result was as follows: 12 votes for it, 12 votes against it and no abstention.

256. Mr. WAN Yuet-cheung said that he had voted against the motion but it was not shown in the voting result.

257. Mr. TSE Ching-fung said that he had just pressed the “for” button, but it was not shown in the voting result.

258. Mr. LAI Ming-chak remarked that the voting result was a tie of 13 votes to 13 votes. He therefore asked the Chairman to use his casting vote.

259. The Chairman said that he was against Mr. LAI Ming-chak’s revised motion. Taking into account his vote, the voting result was amended as 13 votes for it, 14 votes against it and no abstention. The Chairman declared that Mr. LAI’s revised motion was not endorsed.

260. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung considered his amendment to the motion highly sensible and justified, and the revised motion not only carried a message in opposition to the act of violence but also represented the views of both parties, while highlighting the need of setting up an independent commission. With these remarks, he walked out in protest. Ms. Christine FONG indicated her support and joined him to walk out of the meeting in protest.

261. The Chairman invited Members to vote on the original motion. The voting result was as follows: 14 votes for it, 1 vote against it and 8 abstentions. The Chairman declared that the original motion was endorsed, and would inform the HKPF of the SKDO’s request.

(2) The two questions raised by Members:

(i) Request the Education Bureau to provide information to address the concern regarding insufficient Primary 1 school place in Sai Kung district (SKDC(M) Paper No. 51/16)

262. The Chairman said that the question was raised by Mr. LAI Ming-chak and seconded by Hon Gary FAN, Mr. LEUNG LI, Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun and Mr. LUI Man-kwong.

263. Members noted the written response of the EDB (SKDC(M) Paper No. 64/16).

- 45 -

(ii) Request the Hong Kong Housing Society to provide details on the progress of the subsidised housing project at Area 73A and explain how the burden imposed by this project on the community after its completion would be dealt with (SKDC(M) Paper No. 52/16)

264. The Chairman said that the question was raised by Mr. LEUNG Li.

265. Members noted the written response of the HKHS (SKDC(M) Paper No. 69/16).

XI V. Any Other Business

(1) CPCE’s Cooperation Scheme with District Councils 2016-17 by the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education - Applications from Local Organisations (SKDC(M) Paper No. 53/16)

266. Members noted the above paper and the declaration of interests therein. The Chairman said that if Members found that there was any incorrect or incomplete information, they were requested to make a declaration immediately and complete the relevant form for submission to the Secretariat for record purpose.

267. There being no objection from Members, the Chairman declared that three applications would be recommended to the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education for its consideration.

(2) “Gender Focal Points” of the Women’s Commission (SKDC(M) Paper No. 54/16)

268. Members noted the above paper. The Chairman said that the Women’s Commission (WoC) invited a representative from the SKDC to serve as a “Gender Focal Point” for its new term. The Gender Focal Point for the last term was Mr. LAM Wing-yin. The Chairman invited Members to make nominations.

269. Mr. Francis CHOW nominated Mr. Philip LI. Mr. CHONG Yuen-tung seconded the nomination. Mr. Philip LI accepted the nomination.

270. Mr. Edwin CHEUNG nominated Ms. Christine FONG. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai seconded the nomination.

271. Ms. Christine FONG said that Mr. LAM Wing-yin attended the meetings of the WoC on behalf of women during the last DC term. As a female, she was definitely concerned about women’s needs and women-related issues. She pledged that if she was nominated to attend meetings of the WoC, she would convey all the messages she received from the WoC to the SKDC. In the same vein, she would convey women’s concerns that she collected from the SKDC and at the district level to the WoC.

272. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai remarked that he had attended the events organised by the WoC during his tenure as the chairman of the Social and Healthy and Safe City Committee for the

- 46 - last term, and found that most of the “Gender Focal Points” in 18 districts were women, which put Mr. LAM Wing-yin in a rather awkward position. That was why he nominated Ms. Christine FONG. He said that if there were a men’s commission, he would certainly support Mr. Philip LI to join the commission.

273. The Chairman remarked that there was no female Member in the current-term North District Council and that discussion of women-related issues was not the exclusive right of women.

274. Mr. LAI Ming-chak suggested that Mr Philip LI be given a chance to respond to Ms. Christine FONG’s election manifesto and the question about the awkwardness.

275. Mr. Francis CHAU remarked that apart from the WoC, the Equal Opportunities Commission was also promoting gender mainstreaming and therefore it was necessary for all Members to have some idea about women issue. He opined that like other Members, Mr. Philip LI held women in high respect. Thus he had high expectations on him to do well if nominated as the representative to the WoC. As some Members had remarked that the “Gender Focal Point” of the last term had not performed as well as one would expect, he hoped that the representative of the current term could foster the tie between the SKDC and the WoC.

276. Mr. Frankie LAM nominated Mr CHUNG Kam-lun. He was of the view that a male representative would not necessarily neglect the needs of women. Mr. LUI Man-kwong seconded the nomination. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun accepted the nomination.

277. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung remarked that everyone was respectful of women and would not neglect the needs of women. He opined that as the only female member of the entire SKDC, Ms. Christine FONG was more representative than other Members, though there was no denying that Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun and Mr. Philip LI were both highly competent and he also believed that they had a thorough understanding of women. In addition, Ms. Christine FONG herself had served on women’s associations for many years and she was the only female among 29 district councillors. The SKDC should give due respect to her and select the appropriate Member.

278. Mr. TSE Ching-fung suggested that Mr. Philip LI and Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun first be given a chance to present their political platforms.

279. Mr. Philip LI remarked that the WoC was not limited to women participants only and it should take on board views from both men and women in the course of its discussion. He pledged to convey Members’ views to the WoC and relay the discussion items of the WoC to the SKDC if he could serve as the “Gender Focal Point” on behalf of the SKDC. Though not a female, he was particularly respectful of female opinions simply because of the fact that all close to him were female, including his mother, wife and daughter. In this connection, he hoped that Members would support him.

280. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun remarked that he shared the view that the post of the “Gender Focal Point” should not necessarily be taken up by a female. On the contrary, just because it was not an issue which concerned a small group of people only but an issue of concern to everyone, he did not share the view that a male could not join the WoC. He hoped that as the “Gender Focal Point”, he could bring more gender items to each discussion session where

- 47 - appropriate. Currently, most government departments would refer to the Gender Mainstreaming Checklist when formulating policies before rolling them out to ensure that the policies concerned were in consistence with gender mainstreaming; and gender mainstreaming concerned not merely with lavatory-related matters. He would like to run for the post and if elected, he would strive to ensure that the SKDC would always refer to gender perspectives when making decisions.

281. Ms. Christine FONG thanked other Members for attaching great importance to women-related policies. However, as a woman, her focus was more on the strategy for women and family-friendly policies such as breast-feeding, enhanced child care services and women-friendly employment, as well as women’s prime concerns such as subsidised cervix cancer vaccinations, body checks and breast cancer. There were a wide spectrum of issues which warranted attention, ranging from the needs of mothers and women who had to look after their children, the TSA at Primary 3, children’s schooling, enhancement of bi-literacy and tri-lingualism, to the provision of female toilet compartments. Where the last mentioned issue was concerned, improvement to the existing toilet compartments would inevitably involve female toilets, and this would create some technical problems in the sense that women might be arranged to use male toilets and vice versa; and she hoped that Members, when discussing women’s issues, should bear in mind the need to work towards a women-friendly environment and place premium on women’s life and health. During the eight years when she served as a district councillor, indeed there had been very few female Members, and this was another reason why she wanted to represent female voices. Finally, Ms. FONG suggested an open ballot.

282. The Chairman asked Members if they would agree to vote on a show of hands and such voting could also be done by an open ballot.

283. Mr. CHEUNG Mei-hung remarked that Members used to cast their vote by pressing the voting button and asked why the practice was suddenly replaced by a show of hands, and opined that the democratic spirit should be upheld.

284. Mr. Frankie LAM suggested that voting on the candidates be done one by one with the aid of the voting button.

285. The Chairman invited Members to vote on whether to appoint Mr. Philip LI as the “Gender Focal Point”. The voting result was as follows: 13 votes for it, 2 votes against it and one abstention.

286. Mr. WAN Yuet-cheung said that he had cast a “for” vote. [Post-meeting note: The voting result should be: 14 votes for it, 2 votes against it and one abstention.]

287. The Chairman invited Members to vote on whether to appoint Ms. Christine FONG as the “Gender Focal Point”. The voting result was as follows: 5 votes for it, 1 vote against it and no abstention.

288. The Chairman invited Members to vote on whether to appoint Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun as the “Gender Focal Point”. The voting result was as follows: 7 votes for it, 1 vote against it and no abstention.

289. The Chairman declared that Mr. Philip LI would be the SKDC’s representative to serve

- 48 - as the “Gender Focal Point” of the new term.

290. The Chairman said that the WoC International Women’s Day 2016 reception would be held in the afternoon on that day at the conference room of the Central Government Offices (CGO) and certificates of appointment as the Gender Focal Points would also be awarded. Mr. Philip LI was requested to arrive at the CGO conference room by 5:30 pm.

(3) Members of the Steering Committee for the Restored Landfill Revitalisation Funding Scheme (SKDC(M) Paper No. 55/16)

291. Members noted the above paper. The Chairman remarked that the Environment Bureau had invited the SKDC to send a representative to sit on the Steering Committee for the Restored Landfill Revitalisation Funding Scheme of the new term from 1 May 2016 to 30 April 2018. The SKDC representative to the current-term Steering Committee was Mr. Francis CHAU. The Chairman invited Members to make nominations.

292. Mr. YAU Yuk-lun nominated Mr. Francis CHAU as the representative. Mr. HIEW Moo-siew and Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun seconded the nomination. Mr. Francis CHAU accepted the nomination.

293. There being no other nominations, the Chairman declared that Mr. Francis CHAU would be the SKDC’s representative to sit on the Steering Committee for the Restored Landfill Revitalisation Funding Scheme.

(4) Attendance of the full SKDC meetings by departmental heads

294. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had sought Members’ views by circulation dated 25 January 2016 on the attendance of the full SKDC meetings by departmental heads. The circulation result had been emailed to Members on 22 February 2016. Members’ views were consolidated as follows: the first to be invited was the Commissioner for Transport; the second were the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services; the third were the Director of Housing, the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene, the Director of Civil Engineering and Development, the Director of Lands and the Director of Planning; the fourth were the Director of Home Affairs, the Director of Social Welfare and the Director of Drainage Services; and the last were the Permanent Secretary for Education, the Director of Highways, the Director of Environmental Protection, the Director of Water Supplies and the Commissioner for Labour. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had asked the HAD to make the arrangements accordingly.

295. The Chairman went on to say that the New Territories East Development Office Project Manager of the CEDD would attend the full council meetings held in May every year to present the progress reports of major projects. Thus, he suggested that there be no need to invite the Director of Civil Engineering and Development to a full council meeting, and the time slot could be given to other departmental heads.

296. There being no objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the aforesaid arrangements were endorsed.

- 49 - (5) The number of motions and questions raised

297. The Chairman said that at the Special Meeting of the SKDC held on 19 January 2016, a consensus had been reached on the maximum number of motions Members could move at full council meetings. After members’ motions and questions were collected for this meeting, there were some particular points for Members to sort out. He invited the Secretary to report.

298. The Secretary said that the following consensus had been reached by Members at the Special Meeting:

 Each Member could move a maximum of six motions each calendar year but could not move more than two motions at each meeting;  The seconder mechanism would be retained, i.e. there should be a seconder for each motion but there was no limitation on the number of times a Member could be a seconder;  Moving an extempore motion would be deemed to have used a quota;  Unused quotas were not transferrable to other Members; and  The aforementioned cap was applicable to full council meetings only on a trial basis for a year, subject to a review in January 2017.

299. The Secretary said that with reference to the running of this meeting, the DC had to achieve more clarity on some details. First of all, whether the number of questions raised should be counted into Member’s yearly quota, and if so, each Member could move/raise a total of six motions/questions at full council meetings within a year but could not move/raise more than two motions/questions at each meeting.

300. Mr. LAI Ming-chak disagreed that the number of questions raised by a Member at a meeting should be counted into his/her yearly quota. He remarked that the time for dealing with a question at a meeting was not long and that Members did not raise too many questions in the past. Putting a cap on the number of motions moved by Members was initially intended to prevent prolonged meetings. Therefore, he opined that there was no need to count the number of questions raised by a Member into his/her yearly quota.

301. Mr. Stanley TAM remarked that to place a cap on the number of motions moved by a Member was initially aimed at preventing prolonged meetings while at the same time facilitating efficient discussion. With the implementation of the arrangement, the number of motions moved had dropped markedly. Although there were only two questions raised at this meeting, he opined that things had to be clarified so as to prevent Members from raising questions which were motions in disguise in future. He suggested that the number of questions raised by a Member be counted into his/her yearly quota.

302. Ms. Christine FONG objected to any amendment to the proceedings of the meeting, including limiting Members’ right to discuss. She said that she had been a district councillor since 2008 and during the past eight years, she had witnessed a lot which went against her principle of bringing public voices to the council as an elected councillor cum delegate, ranging from the cap on the number of speaking turns and speaking time to matters relating to limiting the right to raise motions and questions now under discussion. She considered it not appropriate to limit the time allowed for Members to discuss public affairs and the scope of their discussion. The DC, though only a consultative body, was attended by government

- 50 - officials, to say the least; and even though they might not be very senior government officials, she still hoped that they could convey public sentiment to their superiors.

303. Mr. Raymond HO remarked that the SKDC had not engaged in much discussion on matters relating to questions raised by Members. Questions raised at a meeting were mainly to seek information about the district from the Government, which Members could not get hold of, and on the part of the Government, it could make available relevant data and information in its reply. In most cases, government departments would be able to answer the questions raised by Members via written responses. Therefore, he opined that the current mechanism could be retained, through which they could monitor the work of government departments. He pointed out that when motions were under discussion at this meeting, most of the time went to dealing with revised motions. On the contrary, no amendment to the questions would be raised. Hence he suggested that the existing practice be retained and no cap should be imposed on the number of questions to be raised.

304. Mr. HIEW Moo-siew remarked that he had been a district councillor for over 20 years, and he noted that meetings were not lengthy before 2008 but the scene had changed since then as meetings gradually became longer and longer. He opined that Members must find a solution to the current problem, and that if the number of questions raised was not to be limited, it would only create a situation in which Members would ask more and more questions. He said that a number of motions moved in recent years dealt with matters which could be addressed simply by way of writing to the government departments concerned. He hoped that Members could understand.

305. Mr. Frankie LAM remarked that if the Standing Orders were to be hastily amended on the basis of the discussion of one meeting, this would go against the consensus reached at the Special Meeting. In addition, questions raised by Members took up only minimal time of this meeting, so he opined that it was not justified to drastically amend the Standing Orders. Instead, further discussion should be carried out with reference to the next two to three meetings. Now a cap had been imposed on the number of motions to be moved by Members at full council meetings; if the number of questions to be raised was also to be limited, it would make it very hard for Members to explain the case to the public. He expressed his hope to the Chairman that a review would only be carried out after the SKDC had run its business for one year.

306. Mr. Francis CHAU remarked that it was only after much discussion at the last meeting and thanks to the co-ordination efforts of Mr. Stanley TAM that a consensus had been reached on the above item, and he thus opined that no further changes should be made suddenly under “Another Other Business”. He suggested that the present position be summed up in a paper for Members’ considerations and consensus building before further discussion. He opined that there were no major problems as far as Members’ question time was concerned. On the contrary, it was more controversial over the counting method with regard to the number of revised motions. Problems would arise regardless whether revised motions were counted towards Members’ quota or not, or worse still, the counting method was such designed that it might discourage Members from revising some improper motions; with these in mind, the issue deserved further discussion. He suggested that Members’ views be summed up first and then the Secretariat should make arrangements for Members to discuss this matter ahead of the next meeting. As regards matters relating to questions raised by Members, he suggested to observe the arrangements endorsed at the Special Meeting, and that except for clarity on some minor issues, there should be no amendment to, or toning

- 51 - down, a foregone decision.

307. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai asked if “questions raised” now under discussion referred to those questions which were submitted in writing; and held that if follow-up questions raised in the course of the meeting were to be counted towards “questions raised”, then it would throw the SKDO in crisis since Members would not be able to raise questions at the meeting in future.

308. The Chairman remarked that a number of questions were brought up for discussion again at this meeting since they had not been clarified at the last meeting, and that the Secretariat did not have a predetermined stance. Just now a Member pointed out that some minor issues could be sorted out when Members brought them to the attention of relevant government departments, dispensing with the need to raise them at the full council meetings. He hoped that Members would move only motions which would produce results through discussion, and this meeting was a case in point, in which Members had been discussing district affairs wholeheartedly and actively. If there were too many motions and not all of them could be thoroughly discussed at the meeting, then he believed it was not a situation which Members would like to see.

309. Mr. LEUNG Li remarked that he disagreed that the number of questions raised by a Member should be counted towards his/her yearly quota because there was no mention of imposing a cap on questions to be raised by Members either in the audio recording or in the minutes of the last meeting. Furthermore, he did raise a question at this meeting, but no Members had spoken on it during the question time as the meeting had used some time to handle the motion issue. He pointed out that Members’ questions only took up a small amount of time as far as the meeting was concerned, thus he asked Members to consider if there was a need to deprive Members of their right to raise questions. While Members could write and bring problems to the attention of government departments, in some cases the departments concerned might not give a reply to Members or follow up on the problems; instead when Members raised questions to government departments at the meeting, this would prompt them to give a faster response, and questions like this would not take up too much time of the meeting. He was of the view that it was not a justifiable move to propose amendments hastily to a consensus which was only reached at the last meeting. Therefore, he suggested that this item be discussed together with the motion-related arrangements next year.

310. The Chairman reiterated that this item was aimed at making clarity, not amendment, on the relevant arrangement. As the meeting had rejected the idea that questions raised by a Member should be counted towards his/her yearly quota, a review of the arrangement would be deferred to next year. He also hoped that government departments would make prompt response to Members’ letters and convey Members’ views to the higher-up so that Members would not have to submit the issue to the full council for discussion.

311. The Secretary said that the Standing Orders did not provide if a question raised by a Member could have a seconder, as such it was hoped that Members would decide on whether a question raised by a Member was in need of a seconder.

312. There being no comments from Members, the Chairman declared that to follow the established practice, there was no need to have a seconder to a question raised by a Member.

- 52 - 313. The Secretary said that each Member was now entitled to moving six motions each year and asked in the case where a motion was moved by more than one Member, whether all movers should be deemed to have used one of their respective quotas.

314. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun remarked that no matter a Member was a seconder or a second mover, this would not take up any time of a meeting. He also opined that there would be other methods to count the number of motions a Member had moved; for example, if a number of Members had moved motions on the same subject, then only the first one who signed the paper to move a motion on the relevant subject should be deemed to have used one of his/her quota.

315. Mr. Stanley TAM remarked that in the discussion during the adjournment of the last meeting, Members had reached a consensus to retain the arrangements made by the last-term SKDC for matters relating to seconding a motion. He opined that there was no need for Members to jointly move one motion and that it would be fine for one Member to move a motion on one subject.

316. Mr. Francis CHAU remarked that clarity on the relevant details was required for the sole purpose of facilitating calculation by the Secretariat. The purpose of moving a motion was to invite discussion on a subject at a meeting and it did not matter how many Members moved or seconded it. Supporting a motion was seconding the motion; and thus, he opined that it should be fine if a motion on one subject was only moved by one Member.

317. Mr. Raymond HO said that it went without saying that a motion should only be moved by one Member, and proposed that the Standing Orders be amended so that there would only be one mover of one motion in future to facilitate calculation by the Secretariat. Besides, he asked if a Member would be allowed to move six motions at one meeting.

318. The Chairman responded that a Member could only move up to two motions at each meeting. The Chairman went on to say that the Secretariat was only responsible for implementing decisions made by Members and clarity on the relevant details was required just to avoid unnecessary disputes that might arise in future. He opined that Members should think about this: if moving a motion was tantamount to being accountable to the electors. There being no objection from Members, the Chairman declared the meeting agreed that if a motion was moved by more than one Members, all movers should be deemed to have used their respective quotas.

319. The Secretary asked Members if they agreed that when a Member moved a motion which subsequently was rejected by the Chairman to be included on the agenda under Order 24(2) of the Standard Orders as the SKDC had made a decision on a similar motion within the last six months, then the Member who moved the motion should not be deemed to have used his/her quota.

320. There being no objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the above proposal was endorsed.

321. The Secretary said that at the last Special Meeting, Members had agreed that if neither the mover nor the seconder was present at the meeting when his/her motion or question was to be put under discussion, then the motion or question would not be brought up for discussion, nor the discussion would be deferred to the next meeting. Now the question was if the Member who moved the motion would be deemed to have used his/her quota.

- 53 - 322. The Chairman remarked that the Member who moved the motion had the responsibility to stay at the meeting, and suggested that except for some special cases and subject to the consent of other Members, the mover be deemed to have used his/her quota.

323. Mr. Frankie LAM said that if the mover could not attend the meeting on that day, the seconder should be allowed to speak on behalf of the mover, except that both the mover and the seconder were not present at the meeting.

324. There being no objection from Members, the Chairman declared that it was endorsed that if a motion could not be dealt with when both the Members who moved and seconded a motion respectively were not present at the meeting, the Member who moved the motion would still be deemed to have used his/her quota, and added that if the mover could not attend the meeting, the seconder could speak on behalf of the mover.

325. The Secretary said that Mr. LUK Ping-choi had enquired earlier at the meeting if he would be deemed to have used his quota for moving a revised motion and invited Members for comments.

326. Mr. LAI Ming-chak remarked that it was necessary to clarify this particular detail at this meeting so as to eliminate the possibility that Members might abuse their right of amending a motion in future. He opined that restrictions should be imposed on revising a motion, but further discussion was needed on whether proposing amendment to a motion should be counted towards the six quotas.

327. Mr. Stanley TAM remarked that to handle a revised motion would take up more discussion time, and opined that to ensure efficient meetings, a Member who moved to amend a motion should be deemed to have used his/her quota.

328. Mr. LAI Ming-chak concurred with Mr. Stanley TAM’s view.

329. Mr. Philip LI did not object to the above view but disagreed that amendments made to the motions at this meeting should be retrospective.

330. Mr. LUI Man-kwong suggested to introduce another quota system for revised motions on top of the six quotas for motions/questions. He opined that a Member’s right would be excessively curbed if he/she was only given six quotas each year for raising motions and questions or amending motions.

331. The Chairman suggested to endorse Mr. Stanley TAM’s proposal and give it a trial run for one year before a review next year.

332. Hon Gary FAN remarked that Mr. Stanley TAM’s opinion was worth considering, but he agreed to Mr. LUI Man-kwong’s proposal that another quota system should be devised for revised motions. He opined that the Chairman had failed to fulfil his gatekeeper’s role, leading to an increase in unjustified revised motions and a decrease of the efficiency of the Council. He suggested that revised motions be dealt with in a serious manner and in this regard, apart from the one for motions or questions, another quota system should be put in place for screening out unjustified revised motions, say, a cap should be imposed so that each Member could move up to two motions and two revised motions at each meeting.

- 54 - 333. Mr. Francis CHAU shared Hon Gary FAN’s opinion, and considered that this method could provide a balanced solution to the present situation in regard of raising motions or revised motions, and held that Members should exercise their rights properly to move or amend motions. He also pointed out that a Member to amend a motion was tantamount to moving a motion and thus agreed that he or she should be deemed to have used his/her quota. However, he was of the view that since no advance notification had been made about the relevant rules before the meeting, Members who revised motions earlier today should not be deemed to have used their quotas, and that clarity should be made in future that no matter whether a revised motion was endorsed or not, the Member who moved the amendment should be deemed to have used his or her quota.

334. The Chairman reminded Members that the workload of the Secretariat would be increased if they were required to count the number of times that Members had proposed amendment to motions, and asked Members to consider this point.

335. Mr. KAN Siu-kei remarked that he was from a minority party, and if moving a motion or an extempore motion or amending a motion was going to be counted towards his quota, he would suffer the most because he could not, like other Members, collaborate with any other Members from the same party. As a matter of fact, for a number of issues, there was no need for them to be raised at DC meetings, instead they could be referred to the relevant government departments directly, and this could help make DC meetings shorter. He also said that the prime role of a district councillor was to serve residents and today’s meeting had already been running from 9:30 am to 3:30 pm and excessively long meetings would not only frustrate the discussion efficiency but also impair Members’ health. He hoped that Members would not move a motion for the sake of moving motion or raise an objection for the sake of objection. Instead they should do more practical work.

336. The Chairman remarked that at the last Special Meeting, Members had reached a consensus on a cap to be placed on the number of motions moved by Members, and proposed that the system be put in place for one year on a trial basis before a review.

337. Mr. Raymond HO shared the Chairman’s opinion that a review should only be made one year later. He opined that imposing restrictions on raising revised motions was more a gentlemen’s agreement than a hard-and-fast requirement. If Members proposed amendments to each and every motion, it would be nothing but another form of DC-style filibustering. He opined that even if preventive measures were put in place to stop Members from moving unnecessary revised motions, chances were that there might be another way of stalling a meeting in future. He said that as long as a motion was moved and placed on the agenda, the motion had become a matter which should be dealt with by all Members, not an individual mover or seconder. Therefore, Members had the right or responsibility to move a revised motion which was in need of amendment. And any amendment carried significant implications, he therefore suggested to carry out a review one year later.

338. The Chairman proposed that Mr. Raymond HO’s suggestion be endorsed, that the cap on revised motions should be reviewed one year later, and the review would cover whether there was a need to seek funding to employ more contract staff.

339. Mr. LAI Ming-chak remarked that if a review was to be carried out one year later, it would not help solve the existing problems in relation to excessively long and unfocused meetings.

- 55 - 340. Mr. Philip LI suggested that detailed arrangements for restricting the proposal of revised motion be reviewed one year later, but the practice that moving a revised motion should be deemed to have used the quota could be put in place for one year on a trial basis.

341. The Chairman remarked that if a motion was worth discussion, certainly Members should focus on the motion, but discussion of a motion at DC meetings would become meaningless if a motion was moved just for the sake of moving motion, and he hoped that Members should think twice about this. The Chairman went on to say that too many restrictions would stifle flexibility, but the absence of them would invite chaos. If meetings went on too long in future, Members might consider dividing a meeting into two sessions and the meeting would resume after the lunch break. He opined that the Secretariat had already set the meeting time and if he tightened the time allowed for Members to speak, it would restrict Members’ right to discuss; and if he was too lenient, Members would find the consequences unbearable. Therefore, Members should exercise self-discipline, honour their roles and stay away from unnecessary disputes.

342. There being no objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the meeting endorsed that to amend a motion should not be deemed to have used a Member’s quota and such practice should be put in place for one year on a trial basis before a review.

(6) Shooting of DC group photos and Members’ individual photos

343. The Secretary reminded Members of the shooting of DC group photos and Members’ individual photos from 2 pm to 6 pm on 15 March 2016 (Tuesday) at Hang Hau Community Hall. Members were required to wear the SKDC tie/scarf and dark suits on that day. As no other shooting activity would be arranged, Members were requested to be punctual for the shooting.

(7) Members of the Age-Friendly City Working Group

344. The Chairman said that the meeting would now discuss appointment of co-opted members to the AFCWG as mentioned by Mr. Francis CHAU earlier at the meeting.

345. Mr. Francis CHAU remarked that the SKDC had endorsed at its meeting held on 5 January 2016 that matters relating to the working groups would be handled by the respective committees in the interests of flexibility. One-fourth of members of the AFCWG should be elderly. However, Order 40(4) of the Standing Orders provided that “Members of a ‘standing working group’ shall be either a member of the Council or a co-opted member appointed under Order 34(1) with the proviso that at least half shall be Members of the Council”. Despite this, it was endorsed at the last meeting that no co-opted members would be appointed to any committee and other working groups, but members of a ‘standing working group’ should be either a Member of the Council or a co-opted member. As such, if one-fourth of members of the AFCWG were to be elderly representatives, then the Standing Orders would have to be amended accordingly. The existing Orders of the Standing Orders were binding with each other, which had created some technical problems. In addition, he said that following a discussion with Mr. Stanley TAM ahead of the meeting, he suggested that in the AFCWG, DC Members and one-fourth of members who were elderly representatives be addressed uniformly as “members” to avoid confusion.

- 56 -

346. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun said that he had also discussed it with Mr. Stanley TAM on the fringe of the meeting. He hoped that broadly speaking, the composition of the AFCWG should abide by the Standing Orders and at the same time, it was equally important that the elderly should be allowed to be actively involved in the working group. He opined that Members, the elderly and institutional representatives should have equal rights. Opinions voiced by the elderly representatives should be put on record, and they should enjoy a status and the treatment commensurate with that of a DC Member, instead of merely attending meetings or speaking at meetings. This would ensure a better cooperation among members of the AFCWG.

347. Mr. Raymond HO said that 20 years ago he had been a member of the Working Group on Education and Youth Affairs under the Sha Tin District Council and that there were not too many restrictions on the composition of the working group at the time. The working group accepted representatives of the youngsters as official members even though they were not co-opted members, and engaged them in the discussion of youth affairs and organisation of activities. He opined that it would be better to adopt a lenient, instead of stringent, approach when it came to the composition of the working groups, and that the SKDC should delegate authority to committees to impose restrictions on the composition of the working groups as they saw fit. As no co-opted members would be appointed to any committee, in other words, under the Standing Orders, membership of working groups was restricted to DC Members. Therefore, the Standing Orders should be amended accordingly to the effect that committees under the Council could be allowed to exercise discretion and decide on the composition of their working groups.

348. The Secretary said that both Members and the Secretariat held the elderly’s views in high regard, who should not be worried that their opinions would not be valued. Elderly representatives could convey their opinions, if any, to the SKDC through Members or by themselves. The Secretariat would not belittle their opinions because of their status as members in attendance. The convener and members of the working group would convey their views to the Secretariat and the relevant departments for follow-up. Also, the Secretariat would notify both Members and elderly representatives in attendance of upcoming meetings at the same time. It was clear from this that there were practically no differences between representatives of the elderly as members in attendance and official members, and the only difference lay in how they were addressed. The Secretary also shared with Members how the WGTED was operated, which had a number of members in attendance; they provided valuable advice from their expertise which was highly valued at the meetings of the WGTED, and they could even lead unofficial group discussions and put forth their opinions to the WGTED for discussion. As the WGTED had been operating very smoothly, it was suggested that the AFCWG make reference to its operation. The Secretary went on to say that views from elderly representatives were received earlier, indicating that they would like to serve as members so as to enjoy the rights to vote and move motions. However, voting was not common at the working group level. Elderly representatives were free to express their opinions even if they were not official members. Besides, it was believed that Members would take views from elderly representatives into full account before casting their votes.

349. The Chairman remarked that Members should make reference to the operation mode of the WGTED.

- 57 - 350. Mr. Francis CHAU said that he stood firm on his views about the composition of the AFCWG. According to the Protocol signed in the district, it was stipulated that one-fourth of members of the AFCWG had to be the elderly. He remarked that he had two worries at this stage. First, through what channel to invite elderly representatives, and second, worries of the Secretariat; and both of them warranted close attention. However, he did not understand why it was necessary to impose self-restrictions. He cited the Policy Address to illustrate his point, which was also in support of the age-friendly policy; and the Government would soon announce the allocation of a funding to the tune of over $50,000 to each district for its use. He opined that as far as the AFCWG was concerned, the most important thing was to engage the elderly, but at the moment the minutes of the working groups only included the final decisions and did not record the views of individual Members or elderly representatives, and the decisions of the working groups, unless endorsed by the relevant committees or the SKDC, were not deemed to be the decisions of the SKDC. Therefore, as a means to safeguard the interests of all parties concerned, if the AFCWG was to be recognised as a standing working group, he would urge the Secretariat to solve the above problem and take follow-up actions regarding the Standing Orders, and he reiterated that the AFCWG should encourage more elderly’s involvement, instead of imposing self-restrictions on the working group, and give participants due respect.

351. The Chairman remarked that today’s meeting was running out of time and given that the item was not urgent in nature, he proposed that more time be given so that he could have a better grasp of the item from different perspectives, and he would strive to ensure that elderly representatives would become members of the working group as far as possible.

352. Mr. Francis CHAU remarked that it was decided at the last meeting that matters relating to the working group would be left to the relevant committee in the interests of flexibility, and opined that in the light of this understanding, there was no need to put this matter to a vote.

353. The Chairman remarked that the Social Services & Healthy and Safe City Committee (SSHSCC) had yet to hold any meeting and proposed that this item should be left to the SSHSCC for discussion at its meetings, and he believed that Members would support the result of the discussion, if any, at the full council meeting.

354. Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun remarked that it was not easy to reach a consensus on this item, but allowing the elderly to participate in the meeting on an equal footing with other members was a show of respect to them. He hoped that Members would lend their support and work to solve the technical problems so as to engage both elderly representatives and Members in policy making. He suggested that the system be implemented on a trial basis before a review to examine its effectiveness in due course.

355. The Chairman remarked that the above issue was no more than a matter of nomenclature and that the SKDC had been holding working group members’ views in high regard, regardless of whether they were co-opted members/members or not. He opined that the SKDC had its own Standing Orders, thus he had to look at different guidelines therein from various perspectives. The work of the AFCWG under the SKDC was well recognised across the territory. He stressed that each elderly representative’s views were held in high regard, and suggested that the issue be further pursued after the meeting.

- 58 - 356. In response to Mr. CHUNG Kam-lun’s views, Ms. Maureen SIU, District Officer (Sai Kung) said that she noticed many elders were observing the meeting at the spectator balcony. She hoped they would not have the wrong perception that the title by which they were addressed in the working group would affect their right to speak or would lead to their proposals not respected. As already explained by the Secretary and the Chairman, the SKDC had been inviting members of the local community, other than District Council Members, to serve on various working groups such as the WGTED. Their views were listened to and fully respected by the working groups because of their familiarity with the issues discussed. They were even invited to lead some items. She said affirmatively that regardless of the participant's title or status, the meeting would respect his/her involvement and views and they would be treated the same by other government departments.

357. The Chairman remarked that he would definitely support the consensus reached by Members and suggested that the above item be further pursued after the meeting.

358. Hon Gary FAN remarked that Members had reached a consensus, agreeing to respect elderly representatives’ views, as such it was all the more necessary that issues about their rights at the meeting such as the right to raise questions and the right to vote must be dealt with and solved. He was of the view that Members could explore the idea of addressing the elderly representatives and Members uniformly as “members”. If Members could reach a consensus on this matter, then it would make it easier for the SSHSCC to put the proposal into practice and implement it. In addition, he opined that to trial-run the proposal before a review of its effectiveness would also help solve the existing problem.

359. The Chairman remarked that the SKDC had introduced a number of pilot schemes and established an open image, hence Members should not be worried too much about the challenges to the above matter in the course of its implementation. He went on to say that as Mr. Stanley TAM, the chairman of the SSHSCC, was not present at the meeting, he proposed that the item be referred back to the SSHSCC for its handling and discussion. As a member of the SSHSCC, he promised to rationalise the nomenclature of the elderly representatives. Moreover, he was of the view that the WGTED was a case in point, showing that the SKDC would not exclude other people from taking part in district work, and proposals from the locals in attendance at meetings would be fully taken on board and implemented. He hoped that Members would put their worries behind them.

360. Mr. Francis CHAU remarked that if the Committee endorsed the working group under it as a standing working group and one-fourth of its members being the elderly, it would then have to bring the technical problems back to the SKDC for the latter to tackle them. Conversely, if the Committee did not endorse the above, then the issue under dispute now before the meeting would not materialise. He found that the Orders of the Standing Orders were setting restrictions on one another, stipulating on the one hand that no co-opted members should be appointed to any Committee and on the other, members of any working group must be Members or co-opted members. It was for this reason that he drew this to the DC meeting’s attention and to facilitate Members’ consideration. He said that he entirely respected the final decision of the Committee, and he did so simply in the hope that a situation could be forestalled, where the above matter, though with the blessing of the Committee, was rebutted by the Secretariat in accordance with the Standing Orders. Now if Members had been able to reach a consensus on this technical problem, then the Committee would not be hampered by the Standing Orders when it convened meetings to discuss the above.

- 59 - 361. The Chairman reiterated that the above discussion would only be applicable to the AFCWG, and this was not to do with other working groups.

362. The Secretary enquired that in the event the SSHSCC agreed that one-fourth of members of its working group should be the elderly and thus the Standing Orders had to be amended correspondently, and in that case, if the SKDC would authorise the Secretariat to seek Members’ agreement to the amendments by way of circulation.

363. There being no objection from Members, the Chairman declared that the Secretariat was authorised to ask Members by way of circulation if they would agree to matters relating to the amendment to the Standing Orders.

(8) Use of public money, the role of Members and DC notice boards

364. Ms. Christine FONG remarked that she was concerned about the SKDC Standing Orders, and further than that she also noticed that a number of new Members, especially the young ones, had joined the current-term SKDC. She opined that more attention should be paid to monitoring DC resources, in particular those for works projects. She went on to say that the work of a Member should go beyond approval of funding to include raising questions on, and monitoring, public schemes introduced by relevant government departments. For instance, Members should raise questions about the relative priority of the schemes to be introduced and their implementation methods, and monitor cost overrun, progress of project works, and so on. She opined that at the DC level, work on improvement of people’s livelihood was seldom touched upon. She suggested that for works projects, particularly those with a price tag of over $10 million or $100 million, the HAD or relevant representatives clearly set out the scale and details of the projects and brief Members on the details of the projects in the working groups set up for the purpose, and Members’ assistants, and interested parties could observe the meetings from the public gallery. Finally, she hoped that the new-term SKDC would thoroughly discuss, and pay close attention to, matters relating to works projects to ensure that public money was put to good use.

365. The Chairman said that Ms. Christine FONG could raise the issue for discussion at the District Facilities Management Committee if necessary.

366. Mr. CHAN Kai-wai added a few remarks under the Any Other Business item and said that a number of DC notice boards were posted with advertisements and leaflets, and he urged the relevant departments to take note of the problem and clean them up.

X V. Date of Next Meeting

367. The Chairman declared that the next meeting would be held at 9:30 am on 3 May 2016 (Tuesday).

368. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:52 p.m.

Sai Kung District Council Secretariat April 2016

- 60 -