Minutes of the 3Rd Meeting of the Commerce, Industry and Housing Committee (2020-2021) of the Tuen Mun District Council

Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of the Commerce, Industry and Housing Committee (2020-2021) of the Tuen Mun District Council

Date ： 27 August 2020 (Thursday) Time ： 2:30 p.m. Venue ： Tuen Mun District Council (“TMDC”) Conference Room

Present Time of Arrival Time of Departure Mr TSANG Chun-hing (Chairman) TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr CHOW Kai-lim (Vice Chairman) TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms CHAN Shu-ying, Josephine TMDC Chairman 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms KONG Fung-yi TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms WONG Lai-sheung, Catherine TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms HO Hang-mui TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr YEUNG Chi-hang TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr MO Kwan-tai, Michael TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr HO Kwok-ho TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr LAM Ming-yan TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr LAM Kin-cheung TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. 5:17 p.m. Mr MA Kee TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr CHEUNG Kam-hung, Kenneth TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr TSANG Kam-wing TMDC Member 3:05 p.m. End of meeting Mr YAN Pui-lam TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr POON Chi-kin TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms LAI Ka-man TMDC Member 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr CHAU Man-chun, Tony (Secretary) Executive Officer (District Council) 2, Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department

In Attendance Ms TSUI Man-yee, Joanna Assistant District Officer (Tuen Mun)1, Home Affairs Department Mr LEE Kit-wai Senior Inspector of Works, Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms CHOW Tsuen-ming, Anita Liaison Officer i/c Building Management & Town Centre, Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr LIU Wai-hung, Derek Senior Building Surveyor/E5, Buildings Department Mr CHAN Yuen-heng, Jason Engineer/15 (W), Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr CHAN Pui-shing, Michael Engineer/Tuen Mun 4, Drainage Services Department Ms POON Sze-wai Assistant Housing Manager/Tenancy (Tuen Mun 4), Housing Department Ms WA Lei-chun, Winnie Senior Community Relations Officer/ICAC Regional Office (NTNW), Independent Commission Against Corruption Mr HO Chik-tung, Dennis Labour Officer (Workplace Consultation Promotion), Labour Department Mr TAM Kwok-leung Administrative Assistant/Lands (District Lands Office, Tuen Mun), Lands Department Mr YIP Lam-fung Engineer/New Territories West (Distribution 2), Water Supplies Department Mr TSAO Chin-kiu, Isaac Project Coordinator/Design 3, Water Supplies Department

Absent with Apologies Mr LEUNG Ho-man TMDC Member Mr LO Chun-yu TMDC Member

Action I. Opening Remarks The Chairman welcomed all present to the 3rd meeting of the Commerce, Industry and Housing Committee (“CIHC”).

2. The Chairman said that to shorten the time of large gatherings of people in a confined space, he would strive to conclude the meeting before 4:30 p.m. Therefore, he asked all present to keep their speeches concise and avoid repetitive comments.

3. The Chairman reminded Members that those who were aware of their personal interests in any matters discussed at the meeting should declare the interests before the discussion. The Chairman would, in accordance with Order 38(12) of the Tuen Mun District Council Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”), decide whether the Members who had declared interests might speak or vote on the matters, might remain at the meeting as observers, or should withdraw from the meeting. All cases of declaration of interests would be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

II. Absence from Meeting 4. The Secretariat had received a sick leave application from Mr LEUNG Ho-man.

[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat received a medical certificate from Mr LEUNG Ho-man after the meeting, so his sick leave application was approved by the CIHC.]

III. Confirmation of Minutes of Last Meeting 5. The minutes of the 2nd meeting (2020-2021) were confirmed unanimously.

IV. Discussion Items (A) Concern about Rampant Illicit Cigarette Activities in Tuen Mun Where Crime Syndicates Operate Professionally and Attract Customers with One-Stop Services (CIHC Paper No. 15/2020) (Written Response from the Hong Kong Customs and Excise

Action Department) 6. The Chairman said that for the captioned matter, the Secretariat had written to the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department (“C&ED”) inviting them to send representatives to the meeting. Before the meeting, the department replied in writing that it could not send representatives to the session.

7. Mr Michael MO, the proposer of the paper, expressed regret over the absence of C&ED representatives at the current meeting. He suggested that the captioned matter, together with the overall problem of smuggling in Tuen Mun, should be raised with the TMDC. Over the past six months, the C&ED had cracked numerous smuggling cases in the western waters of Hong Kong – especially in the area between Lung Kwu Tan, Tuen Mun and the third runway – and seized items such as cosmetics, frozen meat and tobacco. Pig trotters were also found at Golden Beach and on the Ma Wan shore earlier. He added that the problem of smuggling in Tuen Mun had not been ameliorated but worsened over the past six months. To protect the health of Tuen Mun residents and navigational safety, he opined that the discussion should cover not only illicit cigarettes, heat-not-burn cigarettes, electronic cigarettes and “white licence” cigarettes, but also the overall problem of smuggling in Tuen Mun. Separately, he said that the C&ED did not provide statistics on their anti-smuggling work in Tuen Mun, nor did they follow up on cases of smuggling and duty-not-paid cigarettes. Therefore, he suggested that the Secretariat request the C&ED to provide relevant statistics after the meeting for Members’ reference.

8. Mr HO Kwok-ho asked the Housing Department (“HD”) to provide statistics on complaints and reports about illegal activities such as illicit cigarette sales. He said that he had received two leaflets about illicit cigarette sales at the housing estate he lived in and he believed that the leaflets were distributed by people in the estate. As advised by the HD, he called the C&ED hotline to report the issue but nothing was done to deal with his case. Therefore, he asked how the HD handled complaints, whether there were ways to report crimes to the C&ED directly, and whether the HD conducted joint enforcement actions with the C&ED. Moreover, having received complaints about illicit cigarette and drug problems in public rental housing (“PRH”) estate areas, he asked if the HD took any legal action and how the department would deal with them.

9. Ms POON Sze-wai of the HD said that the department would provide the

Action statistics requested by the Member via the Secretariat afterwards. Upon receiving a complaint, the department would check with estate security staff to see if they had relevant records or had been informed about the suspected cases. After the C&ED instituted prosecution based on concrete evidence, the HD would terminate the tenancy agreement with the person concerned in accordance with the tenancy conditions to combat illegal activities carried out by estate residents. As regards unlawful activities which involved a large number of people, the complainant should call the Police or the C&ED hotline as appropriate. Depending on the circumstances of different PRH estates, the HD would also have its regional offices conduct joint operations (such as patrols) and meet with respective regional C&ED sections to combat illegal activities.

10. Ms Josephine CHAN said that the captioned matter was discussed by the CIHC because it was related to economic and commercial activities. However, the overall problem of smuggling was an issue of law and order which involved the C&ED and the Marine Police. Therefore, she suggested that Mr Michael MO submit a separate paper on the smuggling problem to the TMDC or another committee for follow-up action. She had no views on whether the paper should be submitted to the TMDC or another committee. She added that due to the epidemic, meetings should be finished in two or three hours. Since the agenda of the TMDC meeting to be held on 18 September was so long that an extended meeting might have to be convened, she suggested following up on the matter at the Social Service Committee meeting to be held on 22 September.

11. Ms KONG Fung-yi said that the captioned matter was closely related to different committees. Since there were many PRH estates in the district and the problem of illicit cigarettes was involved as mentioned by Mr HO Kwok-ho, it was quite right to have the CIHC discuss this matter. She added that having been serving On Ting Estate for 26 years, she would put up posters to encourage residents to report issues to the HD, and the department would have the Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) crack down on prostitution and illicit cigarette sales in PRH units – all these suggested that it was important for the HD to enforce the tenancy agreements. Even though illicit cigarettes were poisonous, they could still attract a lot of buyers with their low prices, so the problem should not be treated lightly. As the matter involved a wide range of things, she suggested that Mr Michael MO submit a paper to the TMDC for in-depth deliberation. Separately, she said that a case of prostitution in a private housing estate had been

Action cracked down because of the leads provided by residents. Therefore, the HD should deal with relevant complaints or reports as soon as possible to combat crime and ensure a good living environment in PRH estates.

12. Mr Michael MO said that he wished to submit a paper to the TMDC for follow-up action and suggested inviting representatives from the C&ED and the HKPF to report on the situation at the meeting.

13. The Chairman concluded by saying that the CIHC decided to write to the Secretariat HKPF and the C&ED. In particular, the latter would be asked to attend CIHC meetings to report on prosecution figures and its work on smuggling in Tuen Mun on a regular basis. As regards the overall problem of smuggling in Tuen Mun, he suggested that Mr Michael MO submit a paper to the TMDC for follow-up action.

[Post-meeting note: The letters were sent on 13 November 2020.]

(B) Request the Housing Department to Redevelop Fu Tai Estate Bus Terminus Expeditiously (CIHC Paper No. 16/2020) (Written Response from the Housing Department) 14. Mr HO Kwok-ho, the proposer of the paper, said that costs related to government premises should be paid by the Government Property Agency (“GPA”), so he could not understand why the HD needed to find out who would shoulder the cost. He heard from unofficial sources that the authorities were considering adopting the “user pays” principle in determining who should pay the cost, and the users included the MTR Corporation, Kowloon Motor Bus Co. (1933) Ltd, Long Win Bus Company Limited (“LWB”), taxis and pedestrians. Perplexed, he asked whether all Fu Tai Estate residents or all Hong Kong people had to share the cost, which meant that each person would pay a few dollars for the re-planning of the captioned bus terminus. He added that the planning mistake made by the HD’s architects left a loophole and now users had to share the cost. In this connection, he enquired about the Government’s current strategy and direction. He also reckoned that the HD should explain why the cost of re-planning the GPA’s premises were not borne by the GPA alone and it was necessary to consider having the cost shared by the users instead.

Action 15. The Chairman said that the HD’s written response was dated 14 July 2020, so he asked if there were any updates on Fu Tai Estate Bus Terminus.

16. Ms POON Sze-wai of the HD said that the current meeting had been convened at short notice. Regarding the HD’s written response dated 14 July 2020, she checked with colleagues from Fu Tai Estate and they replied that there were no updates as of the day before the meeting. In response to a Member’s comment that the cost was shifted to other stakeholders or users despite the captioned bus terminus belonging to the GPA, she said that she would pass this comment to the relevant section after the meeting. She would send preliminary replies to individual Members and submit a written response via the Secretariat.

17. Ms Catherine WONG said that Fu Tai Estate Bus Terminus operated in a disorderly manner and the bus lanes and parking patterns there should be re-arranged. Therefore, she suggested that the Member of the constituency concerned submit a rearrangement plan to the HD. She was baffled by the unclear delineation of ownership and management right. She agreed that the cost should be borne by the land owner. She added that the HD representative was not familiar with the captioned matter and had to provide relevant information after the meeting. Therefore, she suggested that the representative learn more about Members’ requests before meetings and prepare adequately for Members’ enquiries.

18. Ms HO Hang-mui said that meetings would be meaningless if the department only acted like a pen pal and submitted a written response before the next meeting. She pointed out that the population in the neighbourhood was growing and the roads had become more crowded after routes A33P and A33X were introduced. If no changes were made to the layout of the bus terminus, it would be difficult to introduce more bus routes. In this regard, she suggested conducting a site inspection and continuing the discussion at the next meeting so that the HD could make sufficient preparations. Separately, she suggested inviting representatives from the Transport Department (“TD”) to talk about the design of the bus terminus at the meeting.

19. Mr HO Kwok-ho said he heard that the HD failed to transfer the

Action ownership of the bus terminus to the GPA after the facility had been completed, so the ownership remained with the HD at the moment. He suspected that the department explored the idea of cost sharing because it was worried about having to bear all the cost and being unable to ask the GPA to pay. He reiterated that supposedly, there was no need to find out who would shoulder the cost since the captioned property belonged to the GPA. He agreed with Ms HO Hang-mui’s suggestion that the matter be further discussed at the next meeting and the TD representatives and other stakeholders be invited to the session. Before submitting the paper, he had expressed his views to the HD and given them a layout drawing of the re-planned bus terminus. He pointed out that leaving aside demographic reasons, LWB and MTR bus drivers often had quarrels over parking and many residents complained about illegal parking at that location. From time to time, there was information on Facebook about traffic congestion between Fu Tai Estate Bus Terminus and Tuen Kwai Road. He believed that the HD was aware of the problem and was trying to solve it. While the request had been made in May, he had not received any reply from the HD as late as in August. He suspected that the delay was attributed to the department’s short-sightedness or the work-from-home arrangements. He asked whether the Government was willing to bear the cost. He added that Fu Tai Estate might see the introduction of new bus routes and enhancements of services on the existing bus routes in the future. The Government also said that it planned to increase the population and housing estates in Tuen Mun Northeast. He expected that with the lack of space in the existing bus terminus, services could hardly be improved to satisfy people’s needs. He suggested continuing the discussion on the matter at the next meeting and inviting representatives from different government departments (such as officers from the TD and works staff from the HD), LWB and the MTR to the meeting to talk about such issues as the ownership of the bus terminus and the cost.

20. Ms KONG Fung-yi said that as mentioned by Ms Catherine WONG, Fu Tai Estate Bus Terminus operated in a disorderly manner, so she commended Mr HO Kwok-ho for submitting the paper. She said that the HD had the responsibility to tackle the problem for estate residents expeditiously and seek help from other departments; the TD had the responsibility to re-plan the bus terminus to end the bus parking chaos; and the Secretariat had the responsibility to pass papers to relevant government departments. As far as funds were concerned, since the Government was financially sound, she suggested seeking

Action funding from the relevant department to re-plan the bus terminus and improve people’s lives as soon as possible. She suggested that as the owner of the bus terminus, the HD should take the lead in arranging a site inspection with relevant departments. If the committee could not resolve the matter, she suggested raising it with the TMDC and having the Secretariat and the relevant departments rectify the problems described in the paper expeditiously.

21. The Chairman concluded by saying that the CIHC decided to continue Secretariat discussing the matter. Regarding the ownership of Fu Tai Estate Bus Terminus and the financial and other responsibilities derived from the management right, the committee would write to the GPA, the TD and the HD asking them to conduct a site inspection and provide the CIHC with information as to which department was responsible for setting up bus stops after the bus routes were approved by the TD, how the bus parking spaces were designed, and what the arrangements for the ownership and management right of the bus terminus were.

[Post-meeting note: The letters were sent on 13 November 2020 and the GPA’s response is set out in Annex 1.]

22. Ms Catherine WONG suggested conducting a site inspection before the next meeting to obtain more information for deliberation.

23. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to invite Members and representatives Secretariat from the relevant departments to conduct a site inspection.

[Post-meeting note: Relevant Members conducted a site inspection with representatives from the HD and TD on 23 September 2020.]

(C) Request to Renovate and Improve Siu Hong Commercial Centre and Siu Hong Market Extensively (CIHC Paper No. 17/2020) (Written Response from the Housing Department) 24. Ms Josephine CHAN, the first proposer of the paper, hoped that the HD representative would follow up on the issues set out in the paper. She pointed out that Siu Hong Estate was different from other PRH estates: Siu Hong Commercial Centre and Siu Hong Market belonged to the HD while the residential flats in the estates had been sold, as opposed to other PRH estates

Action where residential flats were under the management of the HD while the shopping centres had been sold to the Link Real Estate Investment Trust (“Link REIT”) or GAW Capital Partners. She added that she had met with the HD manager who was in charge of Siu Hong affairs and asked him why Siu Hong Commercial Centre was not included in the department’s annual maintenance plan. The manager told her that the maintenance plan should be undertaken by the HD’s Commercial Properties Support Services Section. The department sent an assistant manager rather than representatives from the section to give a brief response. She guessed that the HD representative had not conducted a site inspection in Siu Hong and therefore could not give any specific reply. On the installation of air conditioners and the issue of water coming out of external outlets from heights, the department gave an irrelevant explanation about waste accumulated on the rooftop. She pointed out that apart from the outsourced management company, a leasing manager who worked in Shui Pin Wai Estate was also responsible for Siu Hong affairs. She had considered taking photos of the problems with the commercial centre and the market for record purposes, but she reckoned that before doing so, it was necessary to find out which section of the HD was responsible for handling the problems, so as to facilitate follow-up action and site inspection. Therefore, she asked the assistant manager to specify which unit of the HD was responsible for handling the issues set out in the paper. Moreover, she opined that representatives from shops in the Siu Hong Court Commercial Centre and Market Mutual Aid Committee should take part in the discussion. The HD should respond by communicating effectively with stakeholders such as shop operators and tenants rather than simply brief her at the meeting.

25. Ms POON Sze-wai of the HD said she was aware that the Member had met with the manager surnamed NG to ask what department was responsible for managing Siu Hong Court. She said that the duty of the Commercial Properties Support Services Section was to provide support to the headquarters; Mr NG was in charge of the frontline and property management duties at Siu Hong Court; and the District Tenancy Management Offices were responsible for renewal of tenancy agreements between shop operators and the Housing Authority (“HA”). Mr NG was responsible for dealing with the seven issues set out in the discussion paper as they were related to property management. Maintenance and repair issues would be referred to the maintenance team of the area concerned instead of the Commercial Properties Support Services Section since there was no

Action maintenance team at the headquarters. Moreover, she believed that what were set out in the written response were the repair items that Mr NG deemed necessary after conducting a site inspection. She would convey Members’ views to Mr NG and suggest that the manager schedule a site inspection with Ms Josephine CHAN to discuss the repair items mentioned in the discussion paper. As for the ageing of the commercial centre, Mr NG would ask the Commercial Properties Support Services Section to work out the repair items and brief Ms CHAN on the details afterwards.

26. Ms KONG Fung-yi thanked Ms Josephine CHAN for her contribution to Siu Hong Court. She was glad that Siu Hong Market was still managed by the HD and not sold to private organisations like the Link REIT. She reckoned that the department’s response to the seven issues listed in the discussion paper was evasive. She suggested that the HD section responsible for the relevant premises perform its duty spontaneously and tackle the problems as soon as possible. While the HD representative suggested that Mr NG deal with the issues, she was worried that this approach would take time. She reckoned that Members might liaise with the HD directly on issues related to its properties to get relevant work started as soon as possible and avoid empty talk. Therefore, she asked Members to take action to lobby the HD for reasonable interests.

27. Ms Josephine CHAN said that the Commercial Properties Support Services Section had sent representatives to discuss matters related to Siu Hong Market at TMDC meetings many years earlier, but now it became more and more difficult to get hold of them. She said that she would talk to Mr NG about the captioned matter, or invite the Commercial Properties Support Services Section to meet with the shop operators. She believed that decisions on matters such as the installation of air conditioners in the market, structural repairs and the management of the loading area at the back of the market should be made by the section. However, as far as management work (such as pest and rodent control) was concerned, she considered that the management office of the commercial centre was even not as professional a restaurant since the former did not carry out any pest and rodent control work whereas the latter would engage the services of a rodent control company on its own initiative. As for the podium garden, while it was taken care of by a cleaning company, there was no department responsible for its management, nor was there any horticulturalist who dealt with the withered vegetation, so she found the performance of the management office

Action poor. If the above issues could be dealt with at the district level, she would continue to follow them up at this level. Otherwise, she would submit a paper to the CIHC again for deliberation six months later.

28. Mr MA Kee said that while some Members were glad that Siu Hong Court was still managed by the HD and not sold to the Link REIT, he was very disappointed. Although the Link REIT did not have very good business ethics, its commercial centres were well-kept and well-managed over the years. On the contrary, the HA did not manage its markets and commercial centres well, and it was still using a backward and bureaucratic approach to tackle problems in this day and age. Although the Government sold its properties at a low price, the sold commercial centres and markets were upgraded; by contrast, Siu Hong Commercial Centre became dilapidated under the HA’s management. Instead of renovating the entire centre, the authority only took ad hoc measures in response to complaints. Even though the sold PRH commercial centres were commercialised, their appearances were good. He suspected that the HD had no plan to invest a large amount of resources in this regard and did not work with other departments to deal with the above issues, so the commercial centres remained dilapidated. He suggested that the Government tackle the matter with its financial surplus and that the HA undertake the financial management of its properties. Also, he suggested that apart from Siu Hong Commercial Centre, the HA should pay attention to other commercial centres too.

29. Ms KONG Fung-yi explained why she was glad that Siu Hong Commercial Centre and Siu Hong Market were not sold to the Link REIT, saying that even though commercial centres and markets were well refurbished after being sold to the Link REIT, their rent increased. Since Siu Hong Commercial Centre and Siu Hong Market were not sold, government departments could discuss issues related to the commercial centre and market with a view to improving people’s lives. She did not support Ms Josephine CHAN’s suggestion of submitting a paper to the CIHC again six months later and said that the discussion paper should be dealt with immediately. If there was no progress, the matter should be passed to the TMDC for follow-up action.

30. Ms Josephine CHAN added that the HD made improvements in its management of commercial properties and it did quite a good job in managing Yan Tin Estate. Siu Hong Court was opposite Yan Tin Estate. In comparison,

Action Siu Hong Commercial Centre must be fully renovated to maintain its competitiveness. Otherwise, residents from Siu Hong Court or rural areas would shop at Yan Tin Estate instead. As some Members said that the agendas of TMDC meetings were too long, she suggested that matters which could be handled by the committees should be left to the committees. She added that since the Commercial Properties Support Services Section did not send representatives to the meeting, she would contact them on her own. With the Chairman’s consent, the CIHC could continue to discuss the matter. If the problem remained unresolved after six months, she would submit a paper again to follow up on them.

31. The Chairman concluded by saying that as mentioned by Ms Josephine Secretariat CHAN, Siu Hong Commercial Centre was not the only commercial centre managed by the Commercial Properties Support Services Section of the HD. In the future, Tuen Mun would see the completion of new PRH estates which were expected to be accompanied by commercial centres. Therefore, he suggested that the section contact the Members of the relevant constituencies via estate offices in Tuen Mun to deal with issues related to commercial centres. The Chairman added that the CIHC would write to the section asking the HD to explain how it would work better with estate offices in Tuen Mun to deal with issues related to cleanliness, security and hygiene in the HD-managed commercial centres. He said no one wanted to see that the captioned matter took six months to resolve, or that it remained unresolved six months later and another paper had to be submitted to follow it up. Therefore, he suggested that the HD submit a written response to the CIHC to solve the existing and potential problems.

[Post-meeting note: The letter was sent on 13 November 2020. The HD’s written responses are set out in Annex 2 to Annex 4.]

V. Reporting Items (A) Work Reports by the Working Groups under the Commerce, Industry and Housing Committee (CIHC Paper No. 18/2020) 32. Ms Josephine CHAN asked the Working Group on Housing Affairs and the Working Group on District Economic Development about the progress on inviting partner organisations to organise activities.

Action

33. The Secretary said that the Secretariat would invite partner organisations after the captioned reports were endorsed.

34. The Chairman announced that the work reports in the paper were endorsed.

(B) Work Report on Private Building Management in the Tuen Mun District (CIHC Paper No. 19/2020) 35. Members noted the content of the above report.

(C) Report by the Buildings Department (CIHC Paper No. 20/2020) 36. Mr Michael MO commended the classification of removal orders in item (x) of the paper. Presuming that areas G01 to G16 were not classified by DC constituencies, he enquired about the criteria used for demarcation.

37. Mr Derek LIU of the Buildings Department (“BD”) said that the demarcation of areas G01 to G16 were similar to that of DC constituencies. Tuen Mun had always been divided into 16 areas such as Tuen Mun Northeast and Tai Hing in the BD’s documents throughout the years.

38. Mr Michael MO suggested that the BD should update the demarcation of G01 to G16, and if it was not possible to do so, the department should provide information about the boundaries of G01 to G16.

39. Mr Derek LIU of the BD said that it was not possible to update the demarcation frequently. However, the department could enclose a boundary plan in the report for Members’ reference.

40. Ms HO Hang-mui said she noted that removal orders had been issued in many areas, but in practice few people complied. She pointed out that some removal orders had been issued as early as six years before, but the individuals concerned still did not comply. Therefore, she asked the BD why it did not issue summonses.

Action 41. Mr Derek LIU of the BD said that the removal orders mentioned by the Member were for village houses. After the meeting, he would check the issue time of the 24 removal orders for further action. He added that the prosecution work in the district was handled by the prosecution department in chronological order. Also, the above removal orders only represented the situation of unauthorised building works (“UBWs”) in village houses but not in private buildings.

42. Mr TSANG Kam-wing enquired about the types of the 62 target buildings mentioned in item (v) of the captioned paper and asked whether residential and commercial buildings were included. He pointed out that Nan Fung Industrial City in Tuen Mun was over 31 years old and its structure was quite dangerous, but the owners had not received any notice under the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme (“MBIS”) yet. Therefore, he asked whether the owners should wait for the MBIS notice or take action on their own immediately.

43. Mr Derek LIU of the BD said that the report set out two tables which showed information about private and BD buildings respectively. The industrial building mentioned by the Member was a private one. Under the law, buildings aged 30 years or above were included in the MBIS, and the BD would select and issue notices to around 400 target buildings in Hong Kong annually. For buildings which were included in the MBIS, their owners could appoint inspectors to carry out inspections any time and submit reports to the BD. The department would process their cases under established procedures. The issue of notices was only an administrative measure. If necessary, building owners might engage inspectors on their own to carry out building inspection work under established procedures.

44. Mr TSANG Kam-wing said that if owners did not receive any notices, they were not required to arrange inspections, and the buildings would remain dilapidated. However, concrete would decompose and become more brittle over time. He doubted whether the issue would remain unaddressed until spalling concrete caused casualties and the owners were held legally liable.

45. Mr Derek LIU of the BD said that building inspection covered a wide range of areas. Cases of spalling concrete could be reported to the BD at any time. The department would send its staff to carry out inspections and,

Action depending on circumstances, issue repair orders or conduct emergency repairs immediately. This had nothing to do directly with the MBIS.

46. Ms Josephine CHAN asked the BD whether there were established criteria for issuing removal orders and when the department would prosecute individuals who failed to comply with the issued removal orders. According to item (ix) of the report, no summonses had been issued in 2020 but removal orders had been issued in 2005 and 2006. She therefore asked whether there was no need for prosecution because the orders had been fulfilled, or the parties concerned were still given a chance to comply with the orders in the above cases. On the drains repair works report, she said that five repair orders had been fulfilled in 2011, and out of the 30 repair orders issued in 2018, only nine had been fulfilled. She suspected that the BD did not institute prosecutions for failure to comply with the orders. Also, the signboard works report stated that between January and May 2020, the department had inspected a total of seven signboards without issuing any dangerous structure removal notices. Therefore, she asked whether the signboards in Tuen Mun were safe in general.

47. Mr Derek LIU of the BD said that repair orders for building safety issues such as concrete spalling were commonly known as “Order 26 or 26A”; those for drain seepage were called “Order 28”; and removal orders for UBWs were referred to as “Order 24”. In view of the epidemic, the department had issued more repair orders in respect of drainage issues in 2020, but owners were rarely prosecuted for this type of repair order. Since drainage issues and health were closely related, the department would follow them up with the owners actively. If the problems worsened because the owners failed to take active steps to tackle them, the department would appoint government contractors to fix the problems first and recover the relevant costs from the owners under the Buildings Ordinance afterwards. As for building safety issues such as concrete spalling from external walls, the BD would issue a repair order to all owners or the owners’ corporation of the building concerned as appropriate. In that case, since all owners were involved, and they often had to gather a large amount of money and make a lot of preparations, it would take them longer to fulfil the order. Therefore, the BD would keep in touch with relevant parties such as representatives from the owners’ corporation and the management company to keep close tabs on how the order was fulfilled. The department would not bring a prosecution against all owners or the owners’ corporation of the building rashly.

Action Depending on circumstances, owners were also encouraged to deal with the repair orders and the MBIS notices concurrently. Furthermore, he said that there were many UBWs in Hong Kong, and the BD would issue removal orders under the UBW-related laws and institute prosecutions against the relevant owners when appropriate. If the UBWs posed danger, the BD would engage government contractors to remove them, and recover the relevant costs from the owners under the Buildings Ordinance afterwards.

48. Mr YAN Pui-lam said that as Tuen Mun had developed since the 80s and 90s, some housing estates in the district were already aged 30 years or above. Therefore, he asked if the BD would increase the number of target buildings under the Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme (“MWIS”). He pointed out that there were two incidents of falling windows in Siu Lun Court, but fortunately no one was injured. According to item (viii) of the paper (the drains repair works report), 11 repair orders had been issued in 2011 and the number only rose slightly to 26 in 2019. Therefore, he asked why the number jumped to 93 in 2020.

49. Mr Derek LIU of the BD said that the department would issue MWIS and MBIS notices to around 400 buildings annually. The target buildings were chosen by the Selection Panel (Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme and Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme), which comprised representatives from professional institutions, relevant non-governmental organisations, property management professionals, DCs and relevant government departments. The Panel advised the BD on matters related to the selection of target buildings under the MBIS and MWIS. The selected buildings would receive MWIS and MBIS notices from the BD. Under the law, buildings aged 10 years or above were required to carry out window inspections while those aged 30 years or above should undergo building inspections. In addition, the department would keep a record of individual housing estates with frequent incidents of falling windows as a reference for future selection of target buildings. He added that DC members, district organisations and estate management companies could also ask the BD to issue MWIS notices to specific buildings. Moreover, since drain seepage was a particular concern during the epidemic, the department had issued more repair orders of this kind in Tuen Mun in the first half of 2020.

50. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG asked whether requests and enquiries from village

Action houses were covered in the BD’s report. He added that he had written to the department talking about leakages from septic tanks in village houses at higher levels in Tuen Mun to those at lower levels, with some houses even suffering from seepage of yellow water on walls. He pointed out that even though the letter had been sent more than a month earlier, he still had not heard back from the department. He doubted whether this was because of the BD’s work-from-home arrangements. Separately, he asked the department whether the above problem was covered in the report and what category it fell into.

51. Mr Derek LIU of the BD said that problems related to village houses were recorded in the last page of the paper, which only contained information about removal orders but not seepage cases.

52. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG asked if leakages from septic tanks could be classified under water seepage and whether it could be dealt with the same way as the leakages occurring in private buildings. He also enquired whether assistance should be sought from the BD or other government departments.

53. Mr Derek LIU of the BD said that a septic tank was subject to regulation by the BD if it was built with an application and a plan submitted under the Buildings Ordinance. However, experience showed that septic tanks in village houses fell under the purview of the Lands Department, whereas the BD mainly dealt with UBWs at village houses.

54. Members noted the content of the above report.

(D) Progress Report of Local Public Works and Rural Public Works as at June 2020 (CIHC Paper No. 21/2020) 55. Mr Michael MO said that the values of the term contracts for environmental hygiene improvement works remained roughly the same every year. He enquired about what items were included in the contracts and whether relevant work was affected by the epidemic.

56. Mr LEE Kit-wai of the Tuen Mun District Office (“TMDO”) said that the term contracts covered Tuen Mun East and Tuen Mun West, with services ranging from cutting grass in rural villages, clearing drains, carrying out

Action miscellaneous repairs to cleaning village ground two times. Work did not reduce during the epidemic, and the Office would provide special support where necessary.

57. Mr MA Kee said that the captioned paper only set out rural public works which were in progress or already completed, but he opined that projects to be commenced or scheduled and projects suspended due to disruption should also be listed with classification in the paper.

58. Mr LEE Kit-wai of the TMDO said that the captioned paper only set out rural public works which were already completed, in progress or under new contracts and, additionally, seven or eight projects were about to commence. The Office would discuss whether to change the current practice having regard to actual circumstances.

59. Mr HO Kwok-ho asked about the approximate time for the completion of the drain improvement works at Fu Tei Sheung Tsuen.

60. Mr LEE Kit-wai of the TMDO said that with the current meeting being postponed several times, item 4 (Works to Improve Footway and Drains at Fu Tei Sheung Tsuen, Tuen Mun near Lingnan University) was already completed in the meantime.

61. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said that as regards item 7 (Works to Improve Notice Boards in Tuen Mun Villages), some of the new notice boards had turned mouldy even before notices were put up. Moreover, he asked whether the removed stainless steel notice boards would be sent to the landfill, or to other districts for re-use.

62. On the issue of water seeping into the notice boards, Mr LEE Kit-wai of the TMDO said that at the acceptance inspection of the first batch of the notice boards, the TMDO found that the board doors had not been fully installed yet and, therefore, reminded the contractor that the cork boards would definitely turn mouldy if it rained. The contractor replied that it would follow up on that as well before the works contract ended. Since the works for some notice boards were not completed yet, the contractor had the responsibility to follow them up. He reminded his subordinates to not only see whether there were cracks and

Action seepages on the sealant-filled joints, but also check whether installation works were properly done at the previously-defective parts of the board doors. He added that all notice boards enjoyed a warranty of six months. If there were any issues, the contractor had responsibility for sorting them out by, for example, replacing the mouldy cork boards. Under the contract, the removed notice boards belonged to the contractor. Since the materials of the boards had resale value, he expected that they would not be sent to the landfill.

63. Mr TSANG Kam-wing asked if the projects which had not yet undergone acceptance inspections were subject to indefinite delays, and whether the contractor’s charging of extra fees was dependent on the attitude of the department concerned. He also asked if that department refused to pay the additional fees, whether the works would end up being unfinished, or other departments would pay the fees.

64. Mr LEE Kit-wai of the TMDO said that the Office definitely would not accept substandard works. Under the contract, the contractor had no right to charge extra on the grounds that the Office refused to accept the works. Therefore, the situation described by the Member would not occur.

65. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said that regarding item 10 (Works to Improve Carriageways on Tsing Yick Road and Mak Yuen Wai Road), many residents told him that a lot of heavy vehicles passed by the roads, whose surfaces were rather uneven. When the weather was bad earlier, many parts of the roads were flooded and pedestrians were splashed by passing vehicles. Moreover, many cars were parked illegally in the vacant area under the bridge next to the petrol station. He had reported the problem to the TMDO but no reply had been received yet.

66. Mr LEE Kit-wai of the TMDO said that the illegal parking mentioned by the Member took place outside the site of the current project, but could be prevented by enclosing the area with stone bollards. The Office would further deal with the issue after the meeting.

67. Members noted the content of the above report.

(E) Progress Report of Water Main Laying Works in Tuen Mun District

Action by WSD (as at 30 June) (CIHC Paper No. 22/2020) 68. The Chairman said that the captioned paper set out information as at 30 June 2020, so he asked the representatives from the Water Services Department (“WSD”) to report on the latest progress of each project.

69. Mr Issac TSAO of the WSD said that item 6 (works on Pui To Road) was 25% complete after the excavation-free works; item 12 (works on Hong Fai Road near Tai Lam) was 60% complete after 300 metres of pipes were laid; and item 13 (works at Kar Wo Lei Tsuen) was 80% complete.

70. Mr YEUNG Chi-hang said that as both fresh and salt water mains in Tuen Mun showed signs of ageing, extensive works had been commenced to replace the water mains, especially those for salt water. The previous-term TMDC created a WhatsApp group comprising DC members and WSD engineers, and WSD officers responded to councillors’ questions promptly. A water main burst at the junction of Wu Chui Road and Tip King Road (i.e. opposite Mei Lok Light Rail Stop) on the previous Saturday, but that section of water main had only been replaced in late 2018. Therefore, he asked whether the department had finished replacing the salt water pipe at the section of Wu Chui Road between Lung Mun Road and Mei Lok Lane. He pointed out that residents were dissatisfied about the burst in the new pipe and asked whether the cause of the incident was related to the quality of the works, the materials of the pipe or other problems. In this connection, he asked the WSD whether there were bursts or leaks in the new water mains that were laid using the same construction method in districts other than Tuen Mun. Moreover, he asked how the WSD would deal with a water main burst outside Butterfly Estate and how it would prevent leakages from happening again in new water mains.

71. Mr YIP Lam-fung of the WSD said that extensive works had been conducted to replace, lay or rehabilitate water mains in Tuen Mun over the previous decade or so. The works were highly effective, as suggested by WSD statistics which showed that the number of water leakage cases across the territory dropped significantly from over 20 000 in 2000 to around 7 000 in 2019, whereas the number of water main burst cases decreased from more than 2 000 to 40 or so. He pointed out that the water main opposite Wu Chui Road and Butterfly Estate was still under repair and the source of the leakage remained

Action unknown at the moment. However, the above problem did not occur in other newly laid or rehabilitated pipes, so this incident was considered as an isolated case. After looking into the causes of the above incident, the department would report back to Members. He added that water supply to the leaking part had been cut off and no further leakage had been detected so far. Nonetheless, the repairs had been hindered because the water main was four to five metres underground, so the works were expected to last longer. The WSD would minimise the impact on the road and the public as far as possible. If there was any progress, the department would report back to the Member of the constituency concerned immediately.

72. Mr CHOW Kai-lim said that with regard to the problem of low water pressure in Wu King Estate, Butterfly Estate and Siu Shan Court, the WSD had conducted a site inspection and implemented temporary measures such as installing water pressure meters. He asked what caused the above problem and whether those temporary measures were still in place. On the leakage in a salt water main on Wu Chui Road, he said that the relevant location was the entrance/exit of the estate and many residents were affected. Therefore, he hoped that the problem could be sorted out as soon as possible. Moreover, he asked the HD when it would replace water pipes in Wu King Estate.

73. Mr YIP Lam-fung of the WSD said that with regard to the problem of low water pressure in Butterfly Estate, Wu King Estate and Siu Shan Court, the department had contacted the HD and inspected whether there was a problem with the pipes in the estates. However, the cause could not be identified. The water pipes of the three estates were relatively complicated because they were interconnected. If the valve was turned on or turned off, or if there was a problem with the pipes, the nearby estates would be affected. During the inspection, the external water pressure was normal in the estates. The department turned on an additional valve to provide water to the affected estates as a temporary measure, and water pressure became very stable. Therefore, the measure would remain in place. After the meeting, the department would see when other measures would be implemented to strengthen fresh water supply, and a reply would be given to Members. As for the leakage in the salt water main at Butterfly Estate, the department understood that carrying out repairs at that location would affect the only exit/entrance of the estate. Therefore, the road closure at the location concerned had been lifted the day before the meeting.

Action To reduce the impact on traffic, the WSD would seek alternative access to reach the pipes for the repairs.

74. Mr POON Chi-kin said that the Highways Department had earlier applied joint stabilising sealer to fix paving blocks to the ground and resurfaced pavements with concrete at certain locations. He asked if those locations were involved in the works set out in the captioned paper and whether the above measures would hinder the WSD’s works.

75. Mr YIP Lam-fung of the WSD said that generally speaking, it was necessary to remove road surfaces in water main works. Works progress would hardly be affected by the application of joint stabilising sealer or concrete resurfacing.

76. Mr MA Kee said that four escalators on the ground level of Tuen Mun West Rail Station had been damaged. He asked whether the damage was related to a water main burst.

77. Mr YIP Lam-fung of the WSD said that a water main had burst opposite Tuen Mun West Rail Station in the previous month. At that time, the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department had finished the repairs within a short period of time. The WSD had not received any report from the MTR about escalators being affected by the water main burst. However, he would look into the situation and report back to the Members after the meeting.

78. Mr TSANG Kam-wing said that a water main burst on Tin Hau Road earlier and he thanked the WSD for finishing the urgent repairs in eight hours. Nonetheless, Tin Hau Road was the only access to Lung Yat Estate, so he hoped that the department could keep one lane open for vehicle access during repair works in the future.

79. Mr YIP Lam-fung of the WSD said that the department tried its best to minimise the impact of water main repairs on traffic. However, since the leaking part of the water main on Tin Hau Road was near both bounds of the road, it was necessary to close all the lanes. The department apologised to all affected citizens and would minimise the impact of works on roads in the future.

Action 80. Mr YEUNG Chi-hang asked again whether the department had finished replacing the salt water pipe at the section of Wu Chui Road between Lung Mun Road and Mei Lok Lane. He also asked the WSD to submit the report on the review of water main bursts to the CIHC for deliberation.

81. Mr YIP Lam-fung of the WSD said that item 1 (works between Lung Mun Road and Wu Chui Road and between Wu Chui Road and Mei Lok Lane (Stage 1)) had been completed with all pipes repaired or replaced. Moreover, the review report could be submitted to the CIHC upon completion.

82. Ms POON Sze-wai of the HD responded to Mr CHOW Kai-lim’s enquiry about the replacement of all underground salt water pipes in Wu King Estate, saying that the estate maintenance unit of the department did not have any plan for the replacement in 2020, but it expected to conduct a study on the matter in the following year. She would ask the unit to speed up its study and report back to Mr CHOW.

83. Members noted the content of the above report.

(F) Drainage Services Department’s Progress Report (CIHC Paper No. 23/2020) 84. Mr Michael MO asked in which month of the third quarter of 2020 the Drainage Services Department (“DSD”) would commence the dredging works at Tuen Mun Typhoon Shelter.

85. Mr Michael CHAN of the DSD said that the department was making arrangements for the above works and would inform the CIHC before the commencement of the works.

86. Mr LAM Ming-yan asked how often dredging works would be carried out between Wong Chu Road and Pui To Road and when the works would be conducted next time.

87. The Chairman said that a post-meeting note of the minutes of the 2nd CIHC meeting indicated that the Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) would measure the depth of Tuen Mun River on a regular basis. He wished to know the progress of work in this respect.

Action

88. Mr Jason CHAN of the CEDD said that the department would measure the depth of Tuen Mun River in the second half of 2020. If the level of the riverbed was expected to affect flood resilience, dredging works would be conducted.

89. Mr HO Kwok-ho said that the DSD was responsible for clearing a nullah in rural Tuen Mun on a regular basis. He asked whether the dredging works were only conducted once a quarter.

90. Mr Michael CHAN of the DSD said that rural nullahs were cleared no less than three times annually. Immediate clearance would be arranged if any problems were found with the nullahs during routine inspections. Members who were concerned about individual nullahs could schedule site inspections with the DSD after the meeting.

91. Members noted the content of the above report.

(G) R eport by the Housing Department (CIHC Paper No. 24/2020) 92. Mr POON Chi-kin asked whether the number of complaints set out in the captioned paper included those related to illegal gambling stalls in Tai Hing Estate. He also asked whether the department had any measures to tackle the above problem.

93. Ms POON Sze-wai of the HD said that the captioned paper did not show statistics on illegal gambling specifically, but the figures could be provided at the next meeting. Generally speaking, if the HD received complaints about illegal gambling, or if security guards came across illegal gambling during patrols, immediate action would be taken to disperse the participants. The department would also check if the location was a usual spot for illegal gambling. If HD staff alone could not eradicate illegal gambling, the department would conduct joint operations with the HKPF and carry out publicity programmes to remind residents that gambling activities were illegal.

94. Mr HO Kwok-ho said that the number of enquiries/complaints received by different housing estates varied significantly, with more cases recorded in

Action housing estates directly managed by the HD and fewer cases recorded in those managed by outsourced management companies. Therefore, he doubted how the statistics were compiled. Moreover, he said that the number of complaints he received about dripping air conditioners, objects being thrown from heights and illegal hawking at Fu Tai Estate was far higher than the figures set out in the captioned paper.

95. The Chairman asked the HD to explain how the statistics in the captioned paper were compiled. He also pointed out that he had received two complaints about objects being thrown from heights at Tai Hing Estate between 1 May and 30 June 2020, but the number of relevant complaints was shown as 0 in the captioned paper.

96. Ms POON Sze-wai of the HD said that there were various channels through which residents could file complaints. The figures in the captioned paper were true, but individual estates might have different interpretations. For instance, cases from DC members might be seen as comments rather than complaints. The department would look into the situation after the meeting.

97. Mr CHOW Kai-lim said that the captioned paper recorded one complaint about objects being thrown from heights at Wu King Estate, which was fewer than the number of cases he had referred to the department. He pointed out that the Marking Scheme for Estate Management Enforcement lacked deterrent effect and there were not enough CCTV cameras to monitor cases of objects being thrown from heights. Therefore, he asked the HD to allocate resources to install more CCTV cameras and enforce the Marking Scheme stringently.

98. Mr TSANG Kam-wing said that a lot of “damas” danced in housing estates with more than ten people gathering at the most, playing music on loudspeakers. He pointed out that such acts not only contravened the gathering ban, but also caused a noise nuisance to nearby residents. Therefore, he asked how the HD would remind the dancers to control their volume and prevent people from gathering.

99. Ms Catherine WONG asked the HD to elaborate on the five fixed penalty notices issued at Leung King Estate in relation to road control. Moreover, PRH construction works were underway at the site beside Siu Lung Court near Area 29

Action West. While that area used to be under the HD’s purview, it was now managed by Chun Wo Construction & Engineering Company Limited (“Chun Wo”), which had no right to issue fixed penalty notices or do anything to deal with illegal parking, posing a serious problem. Therefore, she asked the HD to authorise Chun Wo to impound and drive out illegally parked vehicles.

100. Ms POON Sze-wai of the HD said that regarding objects being thrown from heights, more than ten mobile overhead monitoring devices were available in the area office and housing estates could apply to the headquarters for additional devices as appropriate. On the noise nuisance caused by “damas” dancing, if the relevant locations were under the HD’s purview, the department would step up patrol as appropriate. If the situation was serious, the department would also contact the HKPF to conduct joint operations. Moreover, the five fixed penalty notices issued at Leung King Estate had been handed out in areas managed by the HD. On illegal parking outside the construction site beside Siu Lung Court near Area 29 West, the department would advise the property management company to authorise Chun Wo to issue fixed penalty notices, or it would step up patrol and enforcement by HD staff.

101. Mr YAN Pui-lam said that some residents often pulled down their masks to smoke near Yau Oi Market and many people gathered at the park nearby to smoke and drink. However, there were only six cases of prosecution against smoking offenders, showing that the Marking Scheme lacked deterrent effect. He hoped that the department would deploy more staff to deal with the problem.

102. Ms KONG Fung-yi doubted the accuracy of the figures set out in the captioned paper. She requested that CCTV cameras be installed at all estate buildings to eradicate the problem of objects being thrown from heights. In addition, she reckoned that the HD had the responsibility to issue clear guidelines against dancing in the estate area.

103. Ms LAI Ka-man enquired about the number of households which had been allotted penalty points for throwing objects from heights in 2020. Moreover, she suggested delegating the power to prosecute smoking offenders to other HD staff besides the Mobile Operations Unit.

104. Ms POON Sze-wai of the HD said that if security guards on patrol came

Action across people who were smoking or had their masks pulled down, they would tell the individuals not to do so. She added that apart from the Mobile Operations Unit, staff from estate offices could, depending on the situation, apply to the headquarters for the authority to issue fixed penalty notices within the housing estate area. Relevant statistics were included in the captioned paper. Moreover, the HD noted Members’ views about dancing gatherings and noise nuisance. The department would ask security guards to step up patrol and enforce the law stringently.

105. Ms KONG Fung-yi suggested removing all tables and benches within housing estate areas to stop residents from gathering for gambling activities.

106. Ms POON Sze-wai of the HD noted the Member’s view and would see if there was room for improvement on the public facilities in housing estates.

107. Members noted the content of the work report.

VI. Any Other Business and Date of Next Meeting (A) Amendment to the Name and Terms of Reference of the Working Group under the Commerce, Industry and Housing Committee 108. The Chairman said that at the meeting on 21 August 2020, the TMDC had endorsed amendments to the terms of reference for the CIHC. In this connection, he suggested that the Working Group on Labour Rights and Interests be renamed the “Working Group on Labour Laws and Policies within Tuen Mun District”, and its terms of reference be amended as follows: (i) to take forward the publicity and education work on occupational safety and health, organise different kinds of occupational safety and health activities, and promote the development of a safe community in Tuen Mun; and (ii) to publicise and promote the labour laws and policies which were related to the district.

109. Mr POON Chi-kin expressed utmost disappointment and regret over the above situation. He could not understand why it was necessary to use “within Tuen Mun District” to modify “labour laws”. He asked the Chairman to clarify whether the TMDC had the power to make laws for matters within Tuen Mun. He opined that the Chairman’s suggestion contradicted the principles and objectives on which the working group was established, so he objected to the amendments to its name and terms of reference.

Action

110. Ms KONG Fung-yi doubted whether the labour laws in Tuen Mun were different from those in other districts across the territory. She objected to the amendments to the name and terms of reference of the working group.

111. Ms HO Hang-mui said that the past DCs had expressed their views on territory-wide laws and policies, but the current-term DC was not allowed to discuss those matters. Therefore, she doubted whether territory-wide laws and policies had become irrelevant to Tuen Mun. In this connection, she suggested the terms of reference for the working group be amended to read: “to publicise and promote labour laws and policies in Hong Kong”.

112. Mr YAN Pui-lam doubted whether the labour laws in Tuen Mun were different from those in Yuen Long or other districts. He added that what the TMDO was doing was inciting the separation of Tuen Mun from Hong Kong and might have contravened the National Security Law. He reckoned that the Office should handle the matter with caution.

113. The Chairman said that he had consulted the Secretariat on whether the words “Labour Laws and Policies within the District” could be used in the name of the working group, but the Secretariat suggested that it would be better to add the words “Tuen Mun”. Therefore, he decided to submit the suggestion to the CIHC for deliberation. Since the related item in the terms of reference for the CIHC had been amended to read: “to advise on the implications of labour legislation and policies and related matters for the district”, he suggested that the terms of reference for the working group be revised in response to the above amendment.

114. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG doubted whether there were special labour laws in Tuen Mun. He added that the second item of the terms of reference for the working group was “to publicise and promote the labour laws and policies which were related to the district”. Nonetheless, labour laws were applicable across the territory, so all of them were related to Tuen Mun. Moreover, instead of promoting and publicising the labour laws, the DC should express views on the relevant legislation to protect the interests of the working class.

115. The Chairman said that if Members were against the words “within Tuen

Action Mun District”, he suggested deleting or changing them. Moreover, he asked whether Members supported revising the terms of reference for the working group in response to the amended terms of reference for the CIHC.

116. Ms Josephine CHAN said that in amending the terms of reference for the CIHC, the TMDC changed the phrase “labour rights and interests” to “labour laws and policies”. Since safeguarding labour rights and interests was also within the scope of “labour laws and policies”, she and the CIHC Chairman found the change acceptable as it could resolve disputes. However, she pointed out that the idea of “within Tuen Mun District” had been stressed over and over again in the terms of reference for the working group, so it was redundant to insist on adding the words “within Tuen Mun District” to the working group’s name.

117. Mr TSANG Kam-wing said that the DC should discuss labour laws and policies to safeguard the rights and interests of employees, but the TMDO said that the DC could not discuss territory-wide matters. Nevertheless, since there were no labour laws and policies which focused on Tuen Mun specifically, he suggested deleting the relevant words.

118. Mr YEUNG Chi-hang said that since the working group was under the CIHC of the TMDC, there was no need to specify “within Tuen Mun District” in the working group’s name. Moreover, not all laws and policies needed publicity and promotion, so the terms of reference for the working group should be amended to read: “to advise on labour laws and policies”.

119. Ms HO Hang-mui said that the CIHC’s acceptance of the proposed amendment to the working group’s name would lead to a misconception that Tuen Mun had its own labour laws and might contravene the National Security Law. Therefore, the words “within Tuen Mun District” should be deleted. Moreover, there was only one set of labour legislation in Hong Kong, and Tuen Mun did not have its own labour laws and policies. Therefore, the words “related to the district” should be removed from the terms of reference for the working group.

120. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said that the wording of the terms of reference for a working group under a committee should be consistent with that for the

Action committee concerned. There was no need to add redundant words. Also, the working group was called “the Working Group on Labour Laws and Policies under the Commerce, Industry and Housing Committee of the Tuen Mun District Council”, so the words “Tuen Mun” were already included.

121. Ms KONG Fung-yi said that accepting the working group’s name could only please the Government. She opined that requests for assistance from the Labour Department would be dealt with promptly even without the working group.

122. As Members had no further comments, the Chairman announced the CIHC decided that the “Working Group on Labour Rights and Interests” was renamed the “Working Group on Labour Laws and Policies”, and the second item of its terms of reference was amended to read: “to advise on labour laws and policies”.

(B) Distribution of Financial Resources among Working Groups under the Commerce, Industry and Housing Committee 123. The Chairman said that under the draft budget of the TMDC Funds 2020-2021, the CIHC had been allocated a total of $800,000, of which $721,376 was general funding and $78,624 was dedicated funding for the promotion of local arts and cultural activities. On the funding distribution among the three standing working groups under the CIHC, he suggested allocating: (i) $500,000 (including $78,624 of dedicated funding for the promotion of local arts and cultural activities) to the Working Group on District Economic Development; (ii) $150,000 to the Working Group on Housing Affairs; and (iii) $150,000 to the Working Group on Labour Laws and Policies.

124. As Members had no comments, the CIHC endorsed the above suggestion Working Group for funding allocation. The Chairman asked the Convenors of the working on District groups to note the relevant arrangements. Economic Development, Working Group on Housing Affairs, Working Group on Labour Laws and Policies

Action (C) Nominations for Selection Panel (Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme and Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme) 125. The Chairman said that the TMDC had accepted the BD’s invitation to nominate a DC member to become a member of the Selection Panel (Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme and Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme) on behalf of the Council. With the formation of the new-term TMDC, the BD asked the Council to nominate a Member to join the Selection Panel again.

126. Mr YEUNG Chi-hang nominated the Chairman to join the Selection Panel.

127. Since there were no other nominations, the Chairman announced that the TMDC decided to nominate him to join the Selection Panel. He asked the Secretariat Secretariat to submit the nomination to the BD for further action.

128. There being no other business, the Chairman closed the meeting at 5:18 p.m. He added that the next meeting was previously scheduled for 18 September 2020. Due to the epidemic, the TMDC Chairman had notified the Secretariat that meetings scheduled for August and September would be postponed. He would discuss with the Secretariat the arrangements for the next Secretariat meeting and notify Members afterwards.

[Post-meeting note: The 4th CIHC meeting was eventually held on 29 September 2020.]

Tuen Mun District Council Secretariat Date: January 2021 File Ref: HAD TM DC/13/25/CIHC/20

Annex 1

Annex 2 Annex 3 Annex 4