(Translation)
Minutes of the 20th Meeting of Sham Shui Po District Council (5th Term) under the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Date: 5 March 2019 (Tuesday) Time: 9:30 a.m. Venue: Conference Room, Sham Shui Po District Council
Present
Chairman Mr CHEUNG Wing-sum, Ambrose, BBS, MH, JP
Members Mr CHAN Kwok-wai Mr CHAN Wai-ming, MH, JP Ms CHAN Wing-yan, Joephy Mr CHENG Wing-shun, Vincent, MH Ms CHOW Wing-heng, Zoé (Left at 6:02 p.m.) Mr CHUM Tak-shing (Arrived at 10 a.m., left at 6:02 p.m.) Mr HO Kai-ming, Kalvin (Arrived at 9:45 a.m., left at 6:02 p.m.) Mr KONG Kwai-sang (Arrived at 10 a.m., left at 6:02 p.m.) Mr LAM Ka-fai, Aaron, BBS, JP Ms LAU Pui-yuk Mr LEE Tsz-king, Dominic (Arrived at 9:35 a.m., left at 4:30 p.m.) Mr LEE Wing-man Mr LEUNG Man-kwong Mr LEUNG Yau-fong (Arrived at 10:35 a.m., left at 6:02 p.m.) Ms NG Mei, Carman (Left at 6:02 p.m.) Ms NG Yuet-lan (Left at 6:02 p.m.) Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, MH, JP (Left at 6:02 p.m.) Mr WAI Woon-nam (Left at 6:02 p.m.) Mr WONG Tat-tung, Dennis, MH, JP Mr YAN Kai-wing (Left at 6:02 p.m.) Mr YEUNG Yuk (Left at 6:02 p.m.) Mr YUEN Hoi-man (Left at 6:02 p.m.)
- 2 - Action by
In Attendance Mr LEE Kwok-hung, Damian, JP District Officer (Sham Shui Po) Miss MAN Ka-wing, Kelly Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 1 Miss LUI Hiu-wei, Michelle Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2 Ms CHAN Tsz-yee, Emily Senior Liaison Officer 1, Sham Shui Po District Office Miss LAU Sze-nga, Vivicia Senior Liaison Officer 2, Sham Shui Po District Office Ms CHAN Siu-ping, Daphne Senior Liaison Officer 3, Sham Shui Po District Office Mr TAM Kin-fai, Simon Senior Liaison Officer 4, Sham Shui Po District Office Mr HO Kai-hin, Tony District Commander (Sham Shui Po District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr LEE Kwok-chung, Clement Police Community Relations Officer (Sham Shui Po District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr LEE Wai-man, Raymond Chief Engineer/South 1, South Development Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr LAI Huen-lam, Stephen Acting District Social Welfare Officer (Sham Shui Po), Social Welfare Department Mr LUK Chi-kwong Chief Leisure Manager (HKE), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LEE Shuk-ling, Agnes District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr SUM Siu-hin District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Sham Shui Po), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr WONG Lap-yan, Ivan Chief Health Inspector 1 (Sham Shui Po), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr CHENG Koon-hang Chief Health Inspector 2 (Sham Shui Po), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr TSE Chick-lam Chief Manager/Management (Kowloon West and Sai Kung), Housing Department Miss PO Pui-man, Karen Chief Transport Officer/Kowloon, Transport Department Mr WONG Chi-tak, Keith Senior Transport Officer/Sham Shui Po, Transport Department Mr WONG Chung-leung, JP Director of Water Supplies, Water Supplies Department Mr TANG Hon-yin Acting Chief Engineer/Kowloon, Water Supplies Department Mr YUEN Tik-hong Senior Engineer/ Kowloon 2, Water Supplies Department Mr FOK Wai-kai, Anthony Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Sewerage Infrastructure), Environmental Protection Department Mr LIU Sai-man, Simon Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Sewerage Infrastructure)2, Environmental Protection Department - 3 - Action by
Ms FUNG Chi-wai, Katy Senior Town Planner/Sham Shui Po, Planning Department
Secretary Ms HO Kam-ping, Jennifer Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Sham Shui Po District Office
- 4 - Action by
Opening Remarks
The Chairman welcomed Members and representatives of government departments to the twentieth meeting of the Sham Shui Po District Council (“SSPDC”) (5th term).
Item 1: Confirmation of minutes of the 19th meeting held on 15 January 2019
2. The minutes of the above meeting were confirmed without amendment.
Item 2: Director of Water Supplies meets with Members of Sham Shui Po District Council
3. The Chairman, on behalf of SSPDC, extended welcome to Mr WONG Chung-leung, JP, Director of Water Supplies, and the representatives of the Water Supplies Department (“WSD”) accompanying him to the meeting.
4. Mr WONG Chung-leung said that he was glad to visit SSPDC to meet with Members for introducing the work of WSD and welcomed Members’ views. He, then, with the aid of PowerPoint, introduced the work of WSD on water supply, exploiting new water resources and promoting water conservation, water main seepage, drinking water safety, and development of renewable energy.
5. Mr YUEN Hoi-man extended welcome to the Director of Water Supplies who visited SSPDC and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he was concerned about the consumption and price of Dongjiang (“DJ”) water; (ii) DJ Water accounted for 70% of local water consumption, undermining Hong Kong’s bargaining power. He enquired whether the Government would gradually reduce DJ Water’s consumption; (iii) he enquired whether the Government had any plans of building desalination plant in other places besides Tseung Kwan O; (iv) he thought that the implementation of seawater desalination in Hong Kong would reduce DJ Water’s consumption, enhance Hong Kong’s bargaining power, and safeguard drinking water safety; (v) he enquired how the Department would exploit water resources.
6. Mr Vincent CHENG extended welcome to the Director of Water Supplies who visited SSPDC and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he noted that the Department intended to surrender the site of Mission Hill Service Reservoir to the Lands Department (“LandsD”). He enquired about the latest position; (ii) he hoped that the Department could consider the needs of morning walkers and hikers and reserve some space for residents to do fitness exercise during the site formation works; (iii) he hoped that the development plan could be announced as soon as possible, and the Department should consider setting up a mechanism to keep residents informed about the latest situation. - 5 - Action by
7. Mr WAI Woon-nam extended welcome to the Director of Water Supplies who visited SSPDC and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) many new housing estates would soon be completed in the district and water consumption would increase drastically. He enquired about the measures taken by the Department to prevent bursting of water main ; (ii) he noted that tenants of sub-divided units (“SDUs”) had to pay higher water charges due to water main leakage in other vacant units. Although the Department had confirmed the situation, the landlords still asked their tenants to take up the cost first. He enquired whether the Department would exercise discretion in dealing with these cases.
8. Mr Aaron LAM extended welcome to the Director of Water Supplies who visited SSPDC and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) Mission Hill Service Reservoir would soon be demolished as it was at risk of rupture. He enquired about the details and schedule of works; (ii) he suggested converting the said place into a sitting-out area or public housing site; (iii) he enquired of the Department about the details of revising the Waterworks Ordinance (“the Ordinance”).
9. Ms LAU Pui-yuk extended welcome to the Director of Water Supplies who visited SSPDC and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) she was concerned about the site formation works of Mission Hill Service Reservoir. She thanked the Director for receiving the petition letters from the morning walkers and arranging the Assistant Director to meet with the Concern Group of Mission Hill (“the Concern Group”) and Members to discuss the works; (ii) she asked the Department to give an account of the details and schedule of works; (iii) the residents hoped that the said place could be converted into a sitting-out area; (iv) she suggested WSD liaise with the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) before the commencement of works to complement with LCSD’s future planning for the said site.
10. Mr WONG Chung-leung gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) At present, DJ water prices were adjusted according to the established mechanism put in place by the Guangdong and Hong Kong sides. Factors considered including the consumer price indices of both sides and changes in the exchange rate between the Renminbi and the Hong Kong dollar, etc. According to the mechanism, the water prices only increased about 0.3% annually in the latest water supply agreement (i.e. from 2018 to 2020).
(ii) Since different water resources had their merits and demerits, for instance, seawater desalination technology involved higher energy consumption and carbon footprint, the Department would consider factors like different water resources’ impact on the environment, cost effectiveness and reliability, etc. - 6 - Action by
when formulating a diversified water supply arrangement.
(iii) The Mission Hill Sham Shui Po Fresh Water Break Pressure Tank was built over 80 years ago. The Department had commissioned a specialist to review the situation of the Break Pressure Tank, and it was concluded that the structure had safety issues. The Department had no use for the Break Pressure Tank anymore and would surrender the site to LandsD for other uses after carrying out land restoration works.
(iv) There would be some difficulties in carrying out land restoration works as vehicles could not reach the Break Pressure Tank directly. The Department had commissioned a consultant to examine the proposal for the land restoration works and would submit the proposal to DC for discussion and consult the Concern Group once it was confirmed. The Department would strive to meet the needs of various parties. Apart from that, the long-term planning for the site would be followed up by departments like LCSD and LandsD, etc.
(v) The Department had already made plans before the development of new buildings to ensure that the water supply system in the district could cope with the increased water demand after completion of new buildings.
(vi) If a consumer’s water charges increased due to leakage from inside service pipes and certain conditions were fulfilled (for instance, financial hardship, the Department believed that the consumer had no knowledge of the leakage, etc.), the user could apply to WSD for reducing the water charges, and the Department would exercise discretion as appropriate.
(vii) To safeguard drinking water safety, WSD was planning to revise the Ordinance in order to enhance the control of inside services’ installation and construction and strengthen the supervision of plumbing materials. The Department was consulting the industry at the moment and would conduct public consultation after formulating a specific plan.
11. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he suggested WSD setting a target (e.g. within ten years) to reduce the proportion of DJ water in local water consumption; (ii) city development in Guangdong province would increase water demand, and Hong Kong’s over reliance on DJ water might easily create conflicts between the two sides; (iii) he hoped that the Department would examine the way to improve the - 7 - Action by calculation of SDU tenants’ water charges, for example, by calculating the water charges separately; (iv) he hoped that relevant departments such as WSD and LCSD, etc. could discuss the site’s long-term development with the morning walkers of Mission Hill.
12. Ms Carman NG extended welcome to the Director of Water Supplies who visited SSPDC and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) area around Nam Cheong Street would soon carry out waterworks. She was concerned about the impact on traffic; (ii) water main burst incidents occurred quite often from Woh Chai Street to Nam Cheong Street in recent years and had caused much inconvenience to the residents of Pak Tin Estate and Chak On Estate. She hoped that the Department could expedite replacing aged water mains; (iii) WSD’s works site at Tai Wo Ping Service Reservoir had created environmental hygiene and illegal parking problems. She had sought help from various government departments but problems remained unsolved; (iv) as the works site was adjacent to housing estates, she suggested the Department strengthen management by installing a front gate to ensure the safety of nearby residents; (v) another service reservoir near Tai Wo Ping was situated in a scenic environment. She suggested the Department open it for public use.
13. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) residents had been doing morning exercise in Mission Hill Service Reservoir for years and had installed fitness facilities by themselves. Residents and WSD had not reached a consensus on keeping the facilities all along; (ii) residents were very disappointed that the Department had decided to surrender the site to LandsD and arranged to demolish the fitness facilities; (iii) he hoped that the Department could communicate with the residents and discuss solutions.
14. Mr CHUM Tak-shing extended welcome to the Director of Water Supplies who visited SSPDC and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he was concerned about SDU tenants being overcharged by landlords for water usage. He enquired about the Department’s enforcement statistics in the district, for example, the regular and surprise inspections; (ii) he enquired whether the Department would consider subsidising residents of SDUs or tenement buildings to install separate water meters; (iii) the valves of tenement buildings were mostly installed at the ground floor shops. He hoped that the Department could consider subsidising owners or Owners’ Corporations to relocate the valves to avoid them being turned off by owners of the ground floor shops.
15. Ms NG Yuet-lan extended welcome to the Director of Water Supplies who visited SSPDC and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) last year, water main burst incidents occurred frequently at Lai King Hill Road. She enquired about the details of relevant waterworks; (ii) water supply was interrupted frequently in area around Mei Foo due to water main bursts. She enquired about the progress on water main replacement; (iii) residents had been doing morning exercise in Mission Hill Service Reservoir for years. - 8 - Action by
She hoped that relevant departments would consider allowing residents to visit the said place during the transitional period.
16. Mr WONG Chung-leung gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) To ensure stable water supply in Hong Kong, the Department would consider the merits and demerits of different water resources before formulating a diversified water supply arrangement.
(ii) If SDU tenants fulfilled relevant conditions, for instance, the provision of a proper mailing address for receiving the Department’s correspondences including water bills, the installation of water meters in buildings’ communal areas for meter reading by WSD, etc., they could apply for installing separate water meters. Besides, the Department was examining measures (e.g. remote meter reading) to facilitate SDU tenants to install separate water meters.
(iii) The Department was concerned about water cost overcharging by SDU landlords. However, it was difficult for the Department to press charges as tenants were unwilling to come forward. To step up publicity, the Department would distribute leaflets, provide a hotline to tenants when inspecting SDUs and follow up on relevant cases proactively.
(iv) To fully utilise the space on the service reservoirs’ rooftops, the Department had already opened up a number of service reservoirs’ rooftops as sitting-out areas, etc. If government departments or private organisations had suitable plans and complied with certain conditions, they might submit an application to the Department and District Lands Offices.
(v) At the request of LandsD, the Department had to demolish the structure concerned and carry out land restoration works before surrendering the site of Mission Hill Sham Shui Po Fresh Water Break Pressure Tank to LandsD. The Department was willing to discuss the land restoration plans and maintain communication with the Concern Group. Besides, the Department could attend relevant departments’ meetings with the Concern Group for discussing the long-term development of the said site in order to co-ordinate the land restoration plans and the long-term development of the said site.
(vi) Regarding the water main improvement works at Woh Chai Street, Lai King - 9 - Action by
Hill Road and Mei Foo, the Department would discuss in detail with the Members of the constituencies concerned after the meeting.
17. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) the works site at Tai Wo Ping Service Reservoir had generated many problems which caused nuisance to residents. She had discussed the issues at the DC meetings many times but the problems remained unresolved; (ii) she suggested installing a gate outside the works site and strengthening management; (iii) she hoped that the Department could conduct a site visit.
18. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) whether the Government had any plans on reducing the proportion of DJ Water in local water consumption; (ii) he suggested the Department reviewing the procedures of collecting water samples from consumers’ taps for testing; (iii) he was glad to see that the Department intended to meet with local groups on the issue of Mission Hill.
19. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he hoped that the Department could provide the enforcement statistics on SDU inspections after the meeting; (ii) whether the Department would subsidise SDU tenants to install separate water meters; (iii) whether the Department would combat the practice of turning off the valves without permission by the ground floor shops of tenement buildings and provide a complaint hotline.
20. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following enquiries: (i) whether the Department would subsidise SDU tenants to install separate water meters; (ii) whether the Department would enhance the existing meter reading procedure by remote meter reading.
21. The Chairman said that water main burst incidents had occurred frequently in Mei Foo and Lai King Hill Road last year. He hoped that the Department could give an account to the Member of the constituency concerned after the meeting.
22. Mr WONG Chung-leung gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) For drinking water sampling tests of new buildings, the Department would let drinking water stagnate for six hours in inside services before taking water samples. Besides, a two-tier sampling protocol was adopted by the Enhanced Water Quality Monitoring Programme. For Tier 1-Random Day Time sampling, unflushed sample would be randomly taken from a consumer’s drinking water tap. For Tier 2 sampling, the tap would first be flushed for five minutes and then stagnated for 30 minutes in inside services before taking water sample, which would determine the metal exposure of - 10 - Action by
consumers’ drinking water.
(ii) The Department did not intend to subsidise SDU tenants to install separate water meters. At present, there were assistance schemes available to help consumers repair their buildings, including water mains. The Department could provide information after the meeting if necessary.
(iii) If members of the public found that the valves of their buildings were turned off for no reason, they could call WSD’s 24-hour customer service hotline for follow up.
(iv) The Department was promoting Automatic Meter Reading System and would install smart water meters in new buildings to automatically collect water consumption data of consumers.
23. Mr WAI Woon-nam said that some SDU tenants could not install separate water meters as water mains were managed by landlords.
24. Mr WONG Chung-leung responded that SDU tenants needed to seek landlords’ approval for alterations to water mains as they were owned by landlords.
25. The Chairman concluded that he thanked the Director of Water Supplies for attending this meeting. He hoped that the Department would continue to consider the views of the District Council (“DC”) and the public and further enhance Hong Kong’s drinking water safety.
Item 3: Matters for discussion
26. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that he would like to change the order of the discussion items in accordance with Order 13(2) of the Sham Shui Po District Council Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”) and requested to make a verbal statement now.
27. The Chairman said that he had received requests from eleven Members for making two types of verbal statements before the meeting, namely, a thank-you statement and procedural statements. He would like to make his thank-you statement first, and the content was as follows:
“Over the past three years or so, problems in Sham Shui Po District (“SSP District”) have been progressively solved owing to the keen efforts of the District Officer and various departments. The street sleeper problem at Cheong San Lane Footbridge and underneath - 11 - Action by the Tung Chau Street Flyover has achieved initial results. Transitional housing will be built at Tung Chau Street. The district’s cityscape has been enhanced, in particular the four streets including Pei Ho Street. The development directive of the Cheung Sha Wan Cooked Food Market has been set out. As regards healthcare, the redevelopment plan of Shek Kip Mei Health Centre has been finalised. The Food and Health Bureau will set up a temporary health centre and a temporary District Health Centre to ensure a seamless transition. On recreation and culture, the construction of Lai Chi Kok Sports Centre has been implemented successfully. A piece of vacant land in the district will become a pitch. In respect of transport, the authorities are considering building a car park in Mei Foo and examining an underground public car park development in the district. Moreover, they will continue to follow up on the parking arrangement in the vicinity of Yen Chow Street and Tung Chau Street. Lastly, I would like to thank Members and various government departments for their hard work.”
28. The Chairman said that Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Mr YUEN Hoi-man, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Ms Carman NG, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr YAN Kai-wing, and himself would make verbal statements.
29. Mr Kalvin HO said that he had informed the Secretariat earlier of his wish to make a verbal statement.
30. The Chairman said that Mr Kalvin HO’s request was noted.
31. Mr CHAN Wai-ming read out his verbal statement, and the content was as follows:
“Members should respect the Standing Orders and move motions in accordance with the terms of reference of DC. Any conflicts or disputes should be settled by the Chairman, who will make decision according to the responsibility and powers conferred on the Chairman under Order 6 of the Standing Orders. Some Members intended to submit a paper which was incompatible with the functions of DC for discussion in DC meeting on 15 January 2019. The Chairman’s decision complied with the stipulations in the Standing Orders. However, Members intended to move motions on revising Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders and reprimanding the Chairman at this meeting. I think that the motions aimed at depriving the Chairman of his reasonable rights to manage the agenda and smearing his reputation. I hope that Members could make good use of the DC platform and continue to voice out on livelihood issues.”
32. Mr YUEN Hoi-man read out his verbal statement, and the content was as follows: - 12 - Action by
“I express my deepest regret and dissatisfaction over the approach adopted by the Chairman of SSPDC in handling the UGL case. I think that the Chairman was unfair in his execution of duties. When Members moved a motion regarding the UGL case, the Chairman said that the case was not compatible with DC’s functions. When Members requested to discuss the issue at the meeting in accordance with the Standing Orders, and over half of the Members present at the meeting voted for it, the Chairman still refused by interpreting the Standing Orders in his own way. When over half of the Members moved a reprimand motion, the Chairman did not excuse himself; he even prohibited Members from submitting the paper. When Members tried to define clearly the Chairman’s powers by revising the Standing Orders, the Chairman stood in the way again. Issues of DC should be resolved through discussion at the meetings. We will keep on fighting to the very end when dealing with unreasonableness and injustice.”
33. Ms NG Yuet-lan read out her verbal statement, and the content was as follows:
“According to the District Councils Ordinance (“DCO”), our rights to move a motion are reasonable, fair and appropriate. We moved a motion to revise the Standing Orders in accordance with Order 18 of the Standing Orders, but our request was refused by the Chairman. I think that there was no reason for the Chairman to refuse our request. According to Section 61(a) of DCO, the duty of a district member is to advise the Government on matters affecting the well-being of the people in the District. Why can’t we discuss the UGL incident as it has affected Hong Kong’s judicial independence? Besides, it is our duty to enhance the Standing Orders. We are strongly dissatisfied that the Chairman has unreasonably refused the papers submitted and motions moved by us on numerous occasions.”
34. Ms Carman NG read out her verbal statement, and the content was as follows:
“As the Chairman has repeatedly violated the rules of DC, deprived Members of their rights to move a motion, and taken legal action to threaten and prevent Members from speaking up, I reprimand the Chairman for his behaviour. I hope that the Chairman could learn from the former DC Chairmen so that Members of SSPDC could respect each other and tolerate different views. The Chairman’s conduct has severely damaged our working relationship.”
35. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong read out his verbal statement, and the content was as follows:
“I am making this statement on behalf of the Members of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong. We respect the Chairman’s rights to execute the Standing Orders and his decision on the agenda. We also respect that the Chairman chose to - 13 - Action by discuss issues relating to people’s livelihood, in particular for revising the agenda so that matters concerning district welfare could be discussed at the meeting. We respect and support the Chairman’s ruling on the agenda of the last meeting and his action to safeguard his reputation. We should respect the rule of law. If necessary, Members should resolve their differences under the legal framework and should not attack other people in the capacity of Members.”
36. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu read out his verbal statement, and the content was as follows:
“The Chairman’s conduct has seriously undermined the system of the Council and Members’ rights to move a motion, contravening the Standing Orders and DCO. The Chairman has repeatedly refused to include the papers submitted by Members in accordance with the Standing Orders in the agenda. DCO stipulated that the Chairman’s duty is to preside at DC meetings. It is up to DC to decide whether the paper submitted contravenes the functions of DC. Discussing UGL incident at the DC meeting is fully compatible with the functions of DC. It was an abuse of power for the Chairman to refuse to include the paper in the agenda. According to Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders, the Chairman must have the consent of more than half of the Members of the Council present at the meeting for including an item in the agenda or changing the agenda items, rather than being determined by the Chairman himself. To safeguard DC’s operation and Members’ rights to move a motion, I strongly reprimand the Chairman for his conduct and request him to preside at meetings in accordance with the Standing Orders.”
37. Mr WAI Woon-nam read out his verbal statement, and the content was as follows:
“In the previous terms of DC, Members from different political parties were chosen to be the Chairmen of committees and working groups. However, these positions are all taken up by the pro-establishment Members in this term. Livelihood issues in the district such as the relocation of “Pang Tsai” and the street sleepers at Tung Chau Street have yet been resolved, but the pro-establishment Members and the SAR Government have turned a blind eye to the issues. I am also concerned about the fact that the Chairman refused the pro-democracy camp’s request to discuss the UGL incident because the Secretary for Justice and the Chairman are both lawyers, and he would cover for her. I hope that SSPDC could become a Council which speaks and fights for the public.”
38. Mr CHUM Tak-shing read out his verbal statement, and the content was as follows:
“Fighting corruption has been the core value of the residents in Sham Shui Po. However, the Chairman refused to discuss the UGL incident as he thought that the matter was not - 14 - Action by urgent, failing to meet the expectations of the public. The Chairman’s administration of the Council and self-interpretation of the Standing Orders have seriously undermined the reputation of DC and contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of the District Council stipulated in the Annex of the Standing Orders. When Members of the pro-democracy camp moved a motion to reprimand the Chairman, he refused to discuss the paper and even took legal action. We express our extreme disappointment and regret over it.”
39. Mr YAN Kai-wing read out his verbal statement, and the content was as follows:
“It was unacceptable for the DC Chairman to refuse twice in a row a paper submitted by more than half of the Members for discussion at the meetings. As Chairman of the working group on reviewing the Standing Orders in 2007, I clearly understand the powers vested in DC under Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders. It allows the Chairman to add or change the agenda items as long as he has the consent of more than half of the Members present at the meeting, rather than being determined by the Chairman himself. Besides, DC should be able to discuss territory-wide issues.”
40. Mr Kalvin HO read out his verbal statement, and the content was as follows:
“The Chairman has repeatedly violated the system of DC, deprived Members of their rights to move a motion, and taken legal action against Members to silent them. At the last DC meeting, more than half of the Members had requested to discuss the UGL incident, but the Chairman refused because he thought that it was not urgent. However, extradition agreements are allowed to be discussed at this meeting, which is an example of double standard. The Chairman even excluded Members’ reprimand statement from the agenda. The word “可” in Order 13(2) of the Standing Order should be interpreted as shall do so. However, the Chairman interpreted it as shall approve or shall not approve. Members are protected by law and have rights to move a motion. Therefore, I strongly reprimand the Chairman for abuse of powers and autocracy.”
41. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong said that he would like to make a verbal statement.
42. The Chairman responded that Members should follow Order 29 of the Standing Orders and inform the Secretariat before the meeting. Since Mr LEUNG Yau-fong had failed to do so, he could not make a verbal statement.
43. The Chairman responded as follows: (i) he would not respond to Members’ accusations one by one as they were not valid; (ii) according to Orders 6(1) and (5) of the Standing Orders, the Chairman should preside at DC meetings, approve agendas of DC meetings, and ensure that the agenda items were compatible with the functions of DC as - 15 - Action by stipulated in section 61 of the DCO. As such, the Chairman had various responsibilities; (iii) according to Orders 16 and 25 of the Standing Orders, any motion, statement and question made at or put to a meeting should be compatible with the functions of DC. Therefore, Members’ rights to move a motion were not absolute; (iv) if the word “可” in Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders was changed to “must”, the Chairman would be required to act in accordance with the decision of more than half of the Members present at the meeting, rendering him unable to comply with the Standing Orders and perform his duties; (v) Members should submit a reprimand statement in accordance with Order 45 of the Standing Orders. The motion moved under the said Order should require the consent of not less than three-fourths of all members of the Council to be carried. Now that the motion was moved by Members in accordance with Order 18 of the Standing Orders, which only required the consent of more than half of the Members to be carried. He considered it tricky and was seeking legal advice in this regard; (vi) he had asked the Vice-Chairman to make a decision on the reprimand statement in order to avoid conflict of interest; (vii) if Members considered that the Standing Orders should be revised, they should do so in a comprehensive manner instead of submitting a paper to move a motion; (viii) according to Order 44 of the Standing Orders, DC Chairman should ensure observance of all the Standing Orders.
44. The Chairman announced that the meeting would be adjourned for five minutes.
[The meeting was adjourned for five minutes.]
45. The Chairman announced that the meeting was resumed.
46. Mr Kalvin HO said that Members had moved a reprimand motion by following the Standing Orders and requested that Members should vote on whether to discuss the said paper or not.
47. The Chairman responded that he was seeking professional advice.
48. The Chairman announced that the meeting would be adjourned for ten minutes.
[The meeting was adjourned for ten minutes.]
49. The Chairman announced that the meeting was resumed.
50. Mr CHUM Tak-shing enquired whether item (h) could be moved forward for discussion. - 16 - Action by
51. The Chairman responded that item (h) could be arranged to be discussed after item (b). He enquired Members’ views on it.
52. Members present at the meeting had no objection.
53. The Chairman announced that item (h) would be discussed after item (b).
(a) Presentation on “Further Enhancing Quality of Coastal Waters of Victoria Harbour” by the Environmental Protection Department
54. The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) to the meeting.
55. Mr Anthony FOK said that in order to further enhance the quality of coastal waters of Victoria Harbour and the overall environment, EPD had commissioned a consultant to conduct a study on “Further Enhancing Quality of Coastal Waters of Victoria Harbour”. With the aid of PowerPoint, he then introduced different stages of the study, reported on the condition of near-shore pollution in SSP District and explained the mitigation measures suggested by the consultant. The mitigation measures included continuous follow-up actions taken by various government departments on cases of foul water drain misconnection in the district, urging relevant property owners or responsible organisations to rectify the problems as soon as possible, addition and alteration of dry weather flow interceptors, commencement of a territory-wide campaign on rehabilitation of underground sewers, strengthening collaboration between government departments and public education, prevention of pollution at source, and testing on new technologies such as pollutant traps and hydrogel.
56. Ms Zoé CHOW thanked EPD for the report and raised the following views: (i) the odour problem of near-shore waters had beset residents of the coastal areas for a long time and she was concerned about the issue; (ii) dry weather flow interceptors could not completely solve the problem of sewage entering storm water drains; (iii) the odour problem of seawater was related to the problem of foul water drain misconnection, yet the situation could hardly be identified. Since the number of residents of the coastal areas would increase gradually, she suggested the departments follow up proactively on the issue.
57. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views and enquiries: (i) dry weather flow interceptors could not eliminate the sources of sewage; (ii) the situation of restaurants connecting foul water drains to catch pits was common in the district, yet the consultancy study had identified only a limited number of cases of public sewage outfall - 17 - Action by misconnection. Therefore, he enquired whether the number of cases provided by EPD included the cases which had been identified by other departments. He hoped that the Department would provide relevant figures after the meeting, and consider increasing the penalties to achieve a deterrent effect.
58. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) the odour problem of seawater had beset local residents for years, he hoped that the Department would follow up on the problem of drain misconnection identified by the study as soon as possible; (ii) he suggested EPD and relevant departments step up inspections on areas near markets and restaurants and accord priority of pollution blackspots and the problem of foul water drain misconnection; (iii) he suspected that odour might be produced during silt treatment in the Stonecutters Island Sewage Treatment Works (“SCISTW”) and suggested the Department improve the work procedures.
59. Mr YEUNG Yuk thanked EPD for the follow-up work on the near-shore water pollution of Victoria Harbour, and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) residents were concerned about the odour problem of seawater at the coastal areas in Sham Shui Po (“SSP”), he suspected that it was related to water pollution; (ii) he enquired how odour was measured in the study; (iii) according to the study results, in terms of biochemical oxygen demand and level of Escherichia coli, the odour levels of four sets of outfalls in SSP and one set of outfall in its vicinity ranged from moderate to strong, or at an unacceptable level. He requested the Department to explain the study results in details; (iv) he enquired about the progress of installing dry weather flow interceptors in main storm water drains in the district and the completion date of the works.
60. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) the odour problem of seawater had been a thorn for the residents of coastal areas in Kowloon West, she hoped that EPD would solve the problem as soon as possible; (ii) she hoped that the departments would provide the information about cases of foul water drain misconnection near Mei Foo.
61. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) the Government might not have thoroughly considered the impacts of bay currents and sewage concentration when constructing SCISTW at that time. He requested the departments to conduct relevant assessments; (ii) in view of the worsening odour problem in the district, he suspected that there were still cases of drain misconnection in the district. He hoped that the departments would expand the scope of investigation; (iii) many restaurants in the district discharged sewage into storm water drains. It was noted that EPD could comment on the licensing requirements for restaurant licences. He suggested the Department strengthen the communication with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”), participate in the regulatory work on discharge of sewage and daily operation of restaurants to alleviate the problem; (iv) the situation of illegal discharge of sewage by vehicle repair - 18 - Action by industry occurred from time to time, he requested EPD to step up inspections and law enforcement; (v) he hoped that relevant departments such as EPD and the Drainage Services Department (“DSD”) would strive to improve the quality of coastal waters.
62. Mr Aaron LAM raised the following views: (i) it was common that old buildings and restaurants in the district connected foul water drains to storm water drains illegally, he suggested EPD and DSD set up a joint task force to follow up on the issue; (ii) a large amount of silt had been accumulated in the coastal waters, he suggested EPD carry out desilting works at the seabed by adopting advanced technologies.
63. Mr Anthony FOK gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The Department noted Members’ views. Since it was difficult to identify drain misconnection problems and it took time to carry out investigation, the law enforcement officers of the Department would continue to follow up on the complaint cases concerned, coordinate with government departments such as DSD, the Buildings Department and FEHD, and strengthen relevant inspection work.
(ii) Most of the dry weather flow interceptors in the district were aged, the Department was altering 33 dry weather flow interceptors in the district and adding three dry weather flow interceptors. It was expected that the works would be completed in 2022.
(iii) SCISTW was responsible for treating all sewage from coastal waters of Victoria Harbour. An odour problem had occurred in the treatment works during its initial operation, DSD had implemented various improvement measures such as provision of cover for the treatment facilities and changing to transport the sludge by water in order to reduce the odour as far as possible.
(iv) The Department considered that the silt accumulated in the coastal waters could perform natural purification if there was no discharge of new pollutants. Therefore, resources should be concentrated on intercepting pollutants discharged from storm water drains to prevent the problem from worsening. Besides, if desilting works had to be carried out in the waterways nearby, the Department would collaborate with the Port Works Division of the Civil Engineering and Development Department to enhance the effectiveness of the desilting works. - 19 - Action by
64. Mr Simon LIU added the following in respect of the study results of the overall condition of near-shore pollution in SSP District:
(i) The study had analysed the overall condition of four sets of outfalls in SSP and one set of outfall in its vicinity, and measured the odour, biochemical oxygen demand and level of Escherichia coli of near-shore waters by adopting different methods. To facilitate Members’ understanding, the Department had simplified the study results by presenting them in three levels.
(ii) The study results showed that there might not be a direct relationship between the odour, the biochemical oxygen demand and the level of Escherichia coli of near-shore waters.
65. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong opined that the response of the Department was not comprehensive. He hoped that the Department would follow up on Members’ views, and enquired whether the issue concerned would be followed up at the Environment and Hygiene Committee (“EHC”).
66. The Chairman responded that he did not object that the issue concerned would be followed up by EHC, Members could also submit papers separately.
67. The Chairman concluded that: (i) he thanked EPD for reporting to DC on the result of the study on “Further Enhancing Quality of Coastal Waters of Victoria Harbour”. It was hoped that the Department would implement the improvement works projects and measures suggested in the report as soon as possible; (ii) DC had been concerned about the problems of odour, sludge and drain misconnection at the coastal areas of SSP District. It was hoped that the Department would keep tabs on the issue and conduct further study on it.
(b) Concern over the problem of coach parking arising from the proposed hotel development at 56G-56H and 56J-56K Yen Chow Street in Sham Shui Po (SSPDC Paper 32/19)
68. Ms LAU Pui-yuk introduced Paper 32/19.
69. Ms Katy FUNG introduced Response Paper 58/19.
70. Mr Keith WONG responded that: (i) the Transport Department (“TD”) would mainly consider the traffic impacts of the development project and carry out assessments - 20 - Action by including the assessments on whether the project would provide suitable parking spaces and loading/unloading facilities, and whether the applicant had fully assessed the impacts of the project on the nearby traffic network; (ii) taking into account public views including DC’s views, the Department would request the applicant to submit supplementary information to give an account of the impacts of the project concerned on the traffic of nearby road sections. After collecting relevant views, the Department would relay them to the Planning Department (“PlanD”).
71. Mr Aaron LAM raised the following views: (i) since the occurrence of a fatal traffic accident at Cheung Sha Wan Road near Yen Chow Street, he had discussed traffic improvement measures with TD including painting double yellow lines at Yen Chow Street near Apliu Street to reduce the number of illegally parked vehicles; (ii) traffic congestion was serious in the neighbourhood of the above location, he enquired when the improvement measures would be implemented; (iii) the Town Planning Board (“TPB”) had rejected an application for hotel development at the junction of Castle Peak Road and Kiu Kiang Street earlier due to the market demand for residential development. He hoped that this application would be handled by the same approach.
72. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views: (i) she was dissatisfied with the response paper of the department and opined that there was no direct response; (ii) she requested the department to give a direct response on whether there was sufficient space to park coaches at the location of the proposed hotel development and whether there were sufficient parking spaces in the district.
73. Ms Katy FUNG gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) time was required for PlanD to handle the application upon receipt and conduct an overall assessment on the case after collecting views from all government departments and the public; (ii) TD’s views on the traffic impacts of the application were being sought; (iii) considerations included views of local communities and the public and traffic impacts, while other aspects such as the compatibility of land uses, landscape and environment, air ventilation, urban design, etc. would be considered in a holistic manner.
74. Mr Keith WONG gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) some improvement measures had been implemented at Cheung Sha Wan Road near Yen Chow Street, other detailed information would be provided after the meeting; (ii) TD would also examine the matters of concern suggested by Members and relay the views to PlanD for consideration.
75. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views: (i) PlanD had rejected an application for hotel development at a location at Castle Peak Road in the past as the land was a Residential (Group A) site; (ii) he hoped that TD would consider opposing the application concerned since it might impose pressure on the traffic there; (iii) he hoped that - 21 - Action by
PlanD would consider rejecting the application by taking into account the high-density residential development nearby; (iv) Members had mainly been responsible for collecting views of residents nearby and relaying the views to TPB in the past. He hoped that there would be a mechanism to relay DC’s views in the future.
76. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) it was unrealistic to use the hotel development project at Pei Ho Street near Tai Po Road as reference in the application documents since there was less vehicular flow and the traffic would not be affected even if there were vehicles parking at the roadside; (ii) the traffic was busy at the location of the application concerned, vehicles of the hotel would definitely worsen the traffic congestion; (iii) the streets nearby would also become more crowded due to incoming visitors; (iv) he hoped that PlanD could reject the application.
77. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong enquired about the application procedures, the responses of government departments and the follow-up actions.
78. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) the application concerned had not mentioned the parking location of coaches and the possibility of causing traffic problems in the vicinity; (ii) he was concerned that if this district was considered to be suitable for hotel development, it was inevitable that there would be more hotel development projects and that would affect the nearby residents; (iii) he objected to the approval for the application if the applicant could not solve the traffic problems caused by visitors.
79. Ms Katy FUNG gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) the location of the application concerned was zoned “Residential (Group A) 6” with the planning intention for high-density residential development according to the approved Cheung Sha Wan Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K5/37. PlanD would take into account the planning intention and the nearby development, the compatibility of the purpose of the proposed hotel development with the nearby development; (ii) the views of DCs could also be relayed via District Offices at a timing not limited to the first three weeks of the public inspection period. PlanD would incorporate the views in the documents of TPB as appropriate.
80. Mr Keith WONG said that Members’ views would be relayed to Traffic Engineers for further study.
81. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) he hoped that government departments could provide information for the Council’s consideration before the end of the public consultation period when conducting similar planning consultations in the future; (ii) the meeting had reservation on the application concerned. - 22 - Action by
82. Ms LAU Pui-yuk suggested that a letter be sent to TPB in the name of DC to request for the rejection of the application concerned if there was no proper explanation and handling.
83. Mr CHUM Tak-shing suggested that a letter be sent directly to express DC’s opposition to the application.
84. The meeting opposed the application for hotel development unanimously.
85. The Chairman concluded that a letter would be sent in the name of DC to oppose the application for hotel development.
[Post-meeting note: DC wrote to the Metro Planning Committee under TPB on 15 March 2019 to express its opposition against the planning application for hotel development.]
(h) Motion on “nominating Mr LEUNG Yau-fong to become member of the Housing Affairs Committee” (SSPDC Paper 38/19)
86. The Chairman said that Members present at the meeting had agreed earlier that agenda item (h) would be discussed first.
87. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu introduced Paper 38/19.
88. The Chairman asked members to vote on the motion in Paper 38/19 and said that the motion was moved by Mr TAM Kwok-kiu and seconded by Mr KONG Kwai-sang.
89. The meeting voted on the motion by open ballot and the result was as follows:
For: Mr YAN Kai-wing, Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (12)
Against: (0)
Abstain: Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr LEE Wing-man, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong (7)
90. The Chairman announced that the motion was carried. - 23 - Action by
(c) Follow up on the arrangements for relocating Pang Tsai and the development of the new fabric market proposed by the Food and Health Bureau (SSPDC Paper 33/19)
91. The Chairman suggested adjourning the meeting after introducing the paper so that the representatives of the Concern Group for Hawkers in Yen Chow Street Fabric Market (“the Concern Group”) could raise their views and the representatives of FEHD could then give a response. Members present at the meeting had no objection.
92. The Chairman then introduced the paper and added as follows: (i) he opined that the approaches in handling the issue of “Pang Tsai” included the reissuance of licences and the relocation of cloth hawkers to Tung Chau Street Temporary Market; (ii) the Government had issued Fixed Pitch Hawker (Tradesman) Licences in the past, he suggested making reference to this and issuing licences to unlicensed cloth hawkers. He reiterated that the requirements of licence application could be discussed in details; (iii) since vacant hawker stalls were still available in the district currently, he suggested FEHD handle the resettlement and relocation arrangements for the cloth hawkers properly before reallocation; (iv) 17 assistants of cloth hawkers were currently not on the list of registered unlicensed operators, he suggested the Department make special arrangements for them; (v) the Department suggested that cloth hawkers who would return their stalls could bid for the stalls in Tung Chau Street Temporary Market and enjoy rent concession after successful bidding. Despite the concession, the rent to be paid by the cloth hawkers would still increase substantially. He requested the Department to reach a consensus with the cloth hawkers on concessionary rent and the implementation period, the licence period and the requirements for licence renewal; (vi) he suggested the Government make reference to the resettlement proposal suggested by the Urban Renewal Authority for the redevelopment of Yue Man Square.
93. The Chairman announced that the meeting would be adjourned for six minutes.
[The meeting was adjourned for six minutes.]
94. The Chairman announced that the meeting was resumed.
95. Mr SUM Siu-hin noted the views of Members and the Concern Group, and gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) It was noted that the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau planned to set up a fashion design centre in SSP District to nurture talents of fashion design. It would also make use of the traditional retail outlets of fabric and garment in the district to create new synergy so that the centre - 24 - Action by
would become the focus of fashion design in the district and even in the territory, and facilitate the tourism development of the district.
(ii) The stalls in Blocks 1 to 3 of Tung Chau Street Temporary Market had currently been vacated. The improvement works had also been completed to comply with fire safety requirements. Qualified cloth hawkers in “Pang Tsai” could move into the market to continue their business, while other people who were interested in running cloth business could also move into there through open auction.
(iii) In order to determine the latest rent for the stalls, the Department had requested the Rating and Valuation Department (“RVD”) earlier to reassess the rent for the stalls in Blocks 1 to 3 of Tung Chau Street Temporary Market. It was expected that the work for relocation arrangements would be finalised in the second half of this year at the earliest, and would be reported to DC and the cloth hawkers concerned afterwards.
96. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) the Government had informed the cloth hawkers in “Pang Tsai” of the relocation in 2015, while no consensus on the resettlement and relocation proposal had been reached so far; (ii) the rent for Tung Chau Street Temporary Market was 12 times the current rent for “Pang Tsai”; which was unaffordable for the cloth hawkers. He hoped that FEHD would re-examine the concessionary rent and relocation allowance for the cloth hawkers in “Pang Tsai”, and the bidding arrangements for stalls, etc.; (iii) regarding the resettlement and relocation proposal, he requested the Department to maintain close communication with the cloth hawkers in “Pang Tsai” so that they could make appropriate arrangements in advance.
97. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views: (i) after much discussion, the relocation of “Pang Tsai” to Tung Chau Street Temporary Market had been finalised in the current-term DC eventually. She hoped that relevant government departments would handle the matter of the resettlement and relocation proposal properly; (ii) the Hawker Assistance Scheme (“HAS”), which had been launched by FEHD, provided financial assistance for relocation and reconstruction of stalls in fixed pitch hawker areas in the territory; (iii) she hoped that the Department would fully consult the views of various stakeholders on the allocation arrangements for vacant stalls.
98. The Chairman enquired about the number of vacant hawker stalls available for reallocation in SSP District under HAS.
99. Mr SUM Siu-hin responded that 65 vacant hawker stalls in SSP District were - 25 - Action by currently available for reallocation, FEHD would report to DC later.
100. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the Concern Group had submitted a proposal named “Pang Tsai Community Fabric Fashion Centre” to the Government and the cloth hawkers in “Pang Tsai” had also expressed their requests clearly for many times. However, FEHD had not given any specific response in this discussion; (ii) since the 17 assistants of cloth hawkers had not been recognised as registered unlicensed operators, they could not benefit from the special arrangements under the resettlement and relocation proposal; some old cloth hawkers also hoped to retire. He hoped that FEHD would follow up on the issue properly; (iii) he requested the relevant policy bureau and the Sham Shui Po District Office (“SSPDO”) to collaborate with FEHD to address the issue of “Pang Tsai” proactively; (iv) the issue of “Pang Tsai” remained unresolved as FEHD had not yet reached a consensus with the cloth hawkers on the arrangements for concessionary rent. He hoped that the Department would liaise with the cloth hawkers in “Pang Tsai” before finalising and announcing the resettlement and relocation proposal in the second half of the year.
101. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) since the problem of street sleepers near Tung Chau Street Market had been handled properly, he and the Chairman had submitted this paper and hoped that the Department would give a specific response on the issue of “Pang Tsai”; (ii) the operating environment of “Pang Tsai” was not satisfactory, the accumulation of flammable fabrics would cause fires easily. The relocation proposal should be finalised as soon as possible; (iii) he hoped that the resettlement and relocation proposal to be suggested by the Department in the second half of the year could strike a balance between the benefits of different stakeholders and provide special arrangements for qualified cloth hawkers; (iv) long-term planning was necessary for developing Tung Chau Street Market into a cloth market, he hoped that the Government would consult the views of different stakeholders and maintain close communication with them.
102. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the Department would finalise and announce the resettlement and relocation proposal in the second half of the year, he enquired why it had still not yet discussed the matter with the cloth hawkers; (ii) problems such as high rents after relocation and the issuance of licences for assistants remained unresolved, the Department should reach a consensus with the cloth hawkers as soon as possible so that they could prepare for adjusting the mode of operation in advance; (iii) FEHD was responsible for handling the environmental hygiene problems in the district. He requested SSPDO to handle the issue of “Pang Tsai” actively, and provide a platform to facilitate discussion between relevant government departments and the cloth hawkers.
103. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) she thanked various parties for - 26 - Action by their efforts contributed to the issue of “Pang Tsai”; (ii) she was concerned about the fairness of the reallocation scheme for vacant stalls. She opined that if Tung Chau Street Temporary Market would be developed into a cloth market, applicants for the vacant stalls concerned should possess knowledge about fabric and relevant experience. Some cloth hawkers were old; the experienced assistants of cloth hawkers could facilitate the development of the cloth market; (iii) she suggested the Government take various factors into consideration when working out the resettlement and relocation proposal and provide special arrangements for the assistants of cloth hawkers.
104. The District Officer gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene had mentioned the gathering of street sleepers near Tung Chau Street Temporary Market and suggested that the issue be addressed first during the visit to DC last year. SSPDO, FEHD and relevant government departments had strived to improve the environmental hygiene and law and order of the above location for a period of time.
(ii) The street sleeper problem underneath Tung Chau Street Flyover had been handled for now. SSPDO would support the development of “Pang Tsai” actively. It was encouraging that the representatives of the Concern Group had mentioned that they hoped to discuss a suitable proposal together with the Government. It was believed that FEHD would relay the requests to the relevant policy bureau and provide the cloth hawkers in “Pang Tsai” with a suitable compensation, resettlement and relocation proposal.
105. Mr SUM Siu-hin gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The views of Members and the Concern Group were noted and would be relayed to the Department.
(ii) Some unlicensed cloth hawkers had carried on their business for many years in “Pang Tsai” and contributed to the clothing, tailoring and related industries, the Department was thus willing to work out discretionary arrangements for qualified unlicensed cloth hawkers. However, taking into consideration the fairness of the licensing system, the proposal concerned would not be the same as the one to be provided to licensed cloth hawkers. Under the principle of fairness and public interest, the Department would work out the arrangements for qualified unlicensed cloth hawkers and - 27 - Action by
continue to discuss the details with the stakeholders.
(iii) Tung Chau Street Temporary Market was equipped with toilets, a fire protection system and fans, the overall facilities there were better in general. Therefore, it was a practical and feasible proposal to relocate “Pang Tsai” to Tung Chau Street Temporary Market. This could enable qualified unlicensed cloth hawkers to continue their business in the district as a cluster and help preserve local characteristics.
(iv) The areas of stalls in Tung Chau Street Temporary Market were approximately 10 to 20 times (ranging from approximately 9.5 square metres to 20-odd square metres, which was equivalent to 90-odd square feet to 200-odd square feet) the areas of general hawker stalls. The rents which had been assessed earlier by RVD ranged from approximately over $2,000 to over $5,000 per month.
106. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) the issue of “Pang Tsai” was complicated. FEHD, SSPDO and relevant government departments had strived to improve the environmental hygiene in the neighbourhood of Tung Chau Street Temporary Market and actively explored the solution which would meet the interests of all parties; (ii) the actual occupied area of the existing hawker stalls on the streets was larger than the fixed pitch area approved by FEHD, he requested the Department to review the approach of determining rents by the stall area.
107. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) since “Pang Tsai” had to be closed and demolished due to land resumption by the Government, a reasonable compensation, resettlement and relocation proposal should be provided to the affected cloth hawkers; (ii) the actual occupied area of most of the existing hawker stalls on the streets was far larger than the approved area, while the Government had not charged any extra rent. He opined that it was not fair to charge the cloth hawkers higher rents due to larger stall area; (iii) he requested FEHD to reach a consensus with the cloth hawkers in “Pang Tsai” before finalising the compensation, resettlement and relocation proposal.
108. The Chairman concluded as follows: (i) FEHD was requested to provide the cloth hawkers in “Pang Tsai” before June this year with a new compensation, resettlement and relocation proposal including arrangements for the matter of licences for assistants, provision of concessionary rent to the cloth hawkers and the implementation period, provision of a one-off relocation allowance, etc., and maintain close communication with the stakeholders; (ii) it was suggested that the open space near Tung Chau Street Temporary Market be used for storing fabrics to facilitate the relocation of the cloth - 28 - Action by hawkers in “Pang Tsai”; (iii) the Department was requested to properly handle the matter of compensation, resettlement and relocation proposal as soon as possible before launching the reallocation scheme for vacant hawker stalls to ensure fairness.
(d) Concern over indiscriminate disposal of syringes in the district (SSPDC Paper 34/19)
(e) Concern over the recent law and order situation in Sham Shui Po (SSPDC Paper 35/19)
109. The Chairman said that as the issues in Papers 34/19 and 35/19 were related, he suggested discussing the two papers together. Members had no objection.
110. Mr Vincent CHENG introduced Paper 34/19.
111. Ms LAU Pui-yuk introduced Paper 35/19.
112. Mr Tony HO introduced Response Paper 57/19 and added that according to the investigation result, after the demolition of the illegal structures underneath Tung Chau Street Flyover, the homeless had moved to Tung Chau Street Park and the number of persons gathering there was estimated to be over 30. In addition to carrying out regular patrols, the Police would maintain close contact with LCSD to conduct inter-departmental joint operations. Also, the Police had provided LCSD with security advice such as installation of closed-circuit television cameras at black spots in the park and enhancement of lighting. The cleansing operations of LCSD would have full support from the Police as well. He then introduced Response Paper 61/19 and said that if Members received complaints about drugs, violence or triad societies, they could pass the complaints to the Police for follow up.
113. Mr SUM Siu-hin introduced Response Paper 55/19.
114. Ms Agnes LEE introduced Response Paper 59/19.
115. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) Tung Chau Street Park was managed by LCSD but the Department let people camp and cook freely in the park at night. Excreta, disposed syringes and blood stains were found on the ground and removed by staff only in the next morning; (ii) he requested the Department to list the numbers of syringes found in Tung Chau Street Park from November last year to the end of February this year; (iii) the Department did not put forward any proposal to solve the problem of the homeless moving to Tung Chau Street Park and he was displeased with this. He suggested that the Department carry out patrols and clean-ups with the Police and FEHD nightly to reduce the nuisance to residents; (iv) he had found before that some - 29 - Action by people used objects to occupy space and suspected that it was for “collection of protection money”. He hoped that the Department would step up its patrols in side streets and narrow lanes in the district to prevent unauthorised placement of miscellaneous objects or operation of stalls on the floor.
116. Mr Vincent CHENG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) it was incumbent upon LCSD to solve the problem about the homeless in Tung Chau Street Park. The Department must tackle the problem and find the solution; (ii) residents were very worried about the indiscriminate disposal of syringes in the district. He enquired whether FEHD would carry out joint operations in this regard to prevent such situation.
117. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) after the demolition of the illegal structures underneath the flyover, some of the homeless people had moved to the park. LCSD had to address the issue but staff of the Department had no enforcement power; (ii) she opined that the root cause was that the authorities did not implement a “homeless-friendly policy”; (iii) she suggested that SSPDO and the Social Welfare Department (“SWD”) should find accommodation for the homeless and the Police should patrol the park nightly at irregular times so as to reduce the nuisance to residents and allow residents to use the facilities in the park.
118. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views and enquiries: (i) many residents were concerned about the law and order and hygiene problems of Tung Chau Street Park. To address the conflict between residents and the homeless, she opined that the Department should take follow-up actions and cleanse the park proactively while the Police should step up patrols and arrange more joint operations; (ii) she requested the Police to provide figures on the law and order situation and crime cases in the past three months so that Members could explain the situation to residents; (iii) the problem of illegal marking of space for “occupation of stalls on the floor” was serious but the Police claimed that they had not received information in this regard. She suggested that the Police and FEHD should step up their efforts to communicate with hawkers and implement the Sham Shui Po Hawkers’ Charter (“the Charter”).
119. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) measures mentioned in the response papers could not solve the problem of the homeless. The Working Group on Poverty Problems and Ethnic Minorities of DC had been following up on this issue for some time. He opined that the District Officer should implement the proposal concerned; (ii) the earlier discussion about the development in Yen Chow Street and Tung Chau Street and the land uses concerned was one of the opportunities to address the issue. He hoped that the District Officer would continue to follow up.
120. Mr Tony HO responded as follows: - 30 - Action by
(i) “Operation Sunshine” was a round-the-clock operation and police officers would patrol black spots in the park both in the day and at night. The Police and LCSD would later step up night patrols.
(ii) The drug use problem had existed before the demolition of structures underneath Tung Chau Street Flyover. However, it had been difficult to find the drug users as they had been hiding in the structures. Therefore, in the past, arrest of offenders had been made using an intelligence-led approach. The drug users had now moved to the park and the Police would continue to combat crime through “Operation Sunshine” to keep the community safe.
(iii) The overall crime figure in 2018 was stable. Serious crime cases including those involving violence, burglary, robbery, etc. showed a decreasing trend except for deception cases, which had increased. The Police Community Relations Officer would provide relevant figures to Ms LAU after the meeting.
(iv) If only marking of space occurred and it caused obstruction in a pedestrian walkway, the case would be passed to FEHD for follow up. However, if the act concerned caused a nuisance to others or extortion was involved, the case would definitely be handled by the Police. Anyone who had relevant information could contact the Police immediately. The Police would also continue to maintain close contact with hawkers and members of the Charter. If similar cases happened again, the Police would follow them up.
121. Ms Agnes LEE responded as follows:
(i) The Department had all along maintained close contact with the Police, SWD, SSPDO and voluntary organisations to discuss how to deal with the homeless.
(ii) The Department attached importance to the environmental hygiene condition of the park, and cleaners would take care of syringes as soon as possible once they were found.
(iii) The Department had arranged for cleaners to cleanse the park in early mornings and deployed additional manpower to enhance the service so as to provide morning walkers with a clean park. - 31 - Action by
(iv) The Department had arranged for security guards to patrol at night and would carry out joint operations with the Police in due course.
122. Mr SUM Siu-hin added that since January, the Department had temporarily changed the cleansing frequency of Yee Kuk Street and the back lanes near the methadone clinic from once every two weeks to at least once every week and it would continue to remove syringes, waste and miscellaneous items obstructing cleansing work from streets.
123. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong said that syringes were mostly used by drug addicts and hoped that the Department would remind cleaners to be careful when removing syringes lest they were infected with viruses.
124. The Chairman concluded that: (i) DC had always been concerned about the law and order and hygiene situations in the district and opined that the problem of syringe disposal as mentioned in the paper was very serious. Departments were urged to strengthen cooperation and work together to solve the problem. Also, he reminded the departments concerned to pay attention to personal safety when removing syringes; (ii) in view of the individual cases happened recently in the district, the Police was urged to step up its efforts to ensure the safety of residents.
(f) Concern over the implication of revising extradition agreements (SSPDC Paper 36/19)
125. Mr Kalvin HO introduced Paper 36/18.
126. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) he was dissatisfied that the Security Bureau (“SB”) had not taken the initiative to consult DC on the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (“FOO”) and had not sent staff to attend this meeting; (ii) the Government had proposed the amendment to FOO on the grounds that it wanted to protect public safety and prevent fugitives from escaping justice. However, the grounds had been refuted by the authorities in Taiwan; (iii) he was worried that the extradition agreements might be abused, for example, criminal cases might be packaged as economic crime cases. The amendment concerned might affect those Hong Kong citizens operating business in the Mainland and might even be used to process cases involving the National Security Law of the People’s Republic of China; (iv) Hong Kong was a separate customs territory and protected by the United States–Hong Kong Policy Act. If the laws in Hong Kong were gradually tightened, the treatment enjoyed by Hong Kong might be affected.
127. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) members of the public in Hong Kong did not trust the laws in the Mainland, for example, closed-door trials were held and charges were fabricated for political purposes; (ii) she was worried that the right to - 32 - Action by freedom of speech would be affected after FOO was amended.
128. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) the Taiwan case showed that even though the victim had been a Hong Kong citizen and the suspect was in Hong Kong, the law enforcement agencies in Hong Kong still could not handle the case. He hoped that the Government could plug the existing legal loophole. He also hoped that the Government could uphold justice and maintain law and order in Hong Kong through the amendment to the ordinance; (ii) Hong Kong had a sound legal system and courts could reject the surrender requests that were inappropriate. As long as the Government explained in detail, public doubts could be dispelled.
129. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the legal system of China was different from Hong Kong. However, Hong Kong would be included in the legal system of China after FOO was amended, which was worrying; (ii) the amendment would affect the status of Hong Kong as an international financial centre under the “one country two systems” principle, resulting in Hong Kong losing the advantage of being different from other cities in China, which went against the original intention of the “one country two systems” principle; (iii) he hoped that the said case would be dealt with using a sunset clause and stressed that now was not an appropriate time to amend the ordinance.
130. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) he opined that Members’ remarks showed excessive worry. He, on the contrary, was worried that Hong Kong would become a heaven for fugitives due to the loophole and FOO should therefore be amended; (ii) he supported the issuance of certificates for specified offences by the Chief Executive to prevent the persons concerned from fleeing Hong Kong during the processing of the cases; (iii) during deliberation, courts would strike out political or religious cases or cases in which suspects could be sentenced to death, while the arrested persons could also appeal. The existing legal system of Hong Kong had provided enough protection and the society could also play a monitoring role. Also, he believed that fabrication of charges for extradition of fugitives would not happen in the courts in Hong Kong.
131. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views: (i) courts could only deal with the offences charged and would not judge whether political motives were involved. There was a lack of a mechanism to protect the persons concerned; (ii) this amendment could not extradite people who had fled from Hong Kong to other areas back to Hong Kong for trial and would cause an impact on the parity and fairness of the judicial systems of the two places; (iii) he believed that there were faster ways to deal with the case so there was no need to deal with it in a manner that would impact Hong Kong citizens and international confidence in the rule of law in Hong Kong.
132. Mr YEUNG Yuk raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he opined that there - 33 - Action by were other ways to deal with the case so it was not necessary for the Government to amend the ordinance to cover the extradition between China, Taiwan and Macau. If the intention was to prevent Hong Kong from becoming a heaven for fugitives, the ordinance should be amended to cover all countries, not just the three places above; (ii) up until now, Hong Kong had only signed extradition agreements with 19 countries, showing that Hong Kong and other countries had different legal systems. He questioned that this amendment was hasty and lacked consultation; (iii) the legal system of Hong Kong was different from the ones of other common law countries, and the difference with the legal system of Chain was even bigger. He was worried about the consequences of amending the ordinance hastily.
133. Mr KONG Kwai-sang raised the following views: (i) this situation was similar to the earlier situation in which the Government had tried to push through the legislation of Article 23 and it was a matter of trust in Hong Kong and the central government; (ii) the amendment was complicated and could not be accepted on the basis of trust only. Otherwise, if the ordinance was abused after being amended, there was no way to reverse the situation. Therefore, the amendment could not be dealt with hastily.
134. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) for two places to have mutual extradition agreements, their legal systems should be in parity. Therefore, he did not agree to the proposed amendment to the ordinance; (ii) the Government did not need to include the Mainland and Macau into the scope of amendment to deal with the said case. As the legal systems of Hong Kong and Taiwan were not the same, the case should be dealt with using a sunset clause; (iii) the legal system of the Mainland caused worries. He was worried that after the ordinance was amended, the Mainland government would arbitrarily charge members of the public with offences and extradite them to the Mainland, and that the rule of man culture in the Mainland would affect Hong Kong, causing social instability.
135. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) some people opined that Hong Kong should be integrated into China; (ii) to believe that the ordinance could be amended relying simply on public trust in China but not on the basis of facts, one was deceiving oneself and others; (iii) social panic would be caused if the amendment was approved. Therefore, he could not support it.
136. The Chairman concluded that Members’ views would be forwarded to SB for follow up.
(g) Issue of subsidising Members’ legal fees (SSPDC Paper 37/19)
137. Mr YAN Kai-wing introduced Paper 37/19. - 34 - Action by
138. The District Officer said that SSPDO had consulted the Home Affairs Department (“HAD”) regarding the paper and the response of HAD was as follows:
(i) According to the Guidelines on the Remuneration Package for Members of the District Councils of the HKSAR (“the Guidelines”), Members could apply for reimbursement of legal fees relating to leases under Setting-up Expenses Reimbursement. However, other legal fees were not expenditure items of accountable allowances.
(ii) According to the existing mechanism, any change to or expansion of expenditure items and reimbursement scope of accountable allowances must be endorsed by the Independent Commission on Remuneration for Members of the District Councils (“the Independent Commission”). If the motions in the paper were carried, or if Members had other suggestions, HAD was willing to forward them to the Independent Commission according to established procedures.
(iii) According to Section 86 of DCO, a member of a district council or a committee shall not be subjected to any liability, action, claim or demand by reason of anything done bona fide for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of DCO or any other enactment conferring functions on a district council. HAD opined that DCO had provided protection to Members.
139. The Chairman said that item b of Section 61 of DCO specified that funds made available to a district council were used to undertake environmental improvements, the promotion of recreational and cultural activities, and community activities within the district. Therefore, the use of DC funds was regulated by the law. The supplementary information mentioned above could serve as a reference to Members in the discussion about the second motion (Motion 2).
140. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the Guidelines did not cover the legal support mentioned in the paper and he therefore agreed that the matter should be forwarded to the Independent Commission for follow up; (ii) although Section 86 of DCO protected Members from being prosecuted for bona fide performance of duties, no specific support was provided. The Home Affairs Bureau (“HAB”) should review DCO to provide genuine protection to Members.
141. Mr YAN Kai-wing raised the following views: (i) legal fees relating to leases were currently reimbursable. Therefore, it should be possible to cover other legal fees. He opined that the views should be forwarded to the Independent Commission as soon as - 35 - Action by possible and hoped that the suggestions concerned would be implemented in the next-term DC; (ii) he suggested that the content of Motion 2 be amended, changing the function of the non-standing working group on legal support to examine and promote the work concerned in order to make the Guidelines cover Members’ legal fees.
142. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) given the limited allowance amount, even if the Guidelines were amended to cover Members’ legal fees, such amendment would not have much practical effect. Therefore, he suggested that the Independent Commission consider increasing the allowance amount; (ii) he supported the motion to establish the non-standing working group on legal support in the paper.
143. The Chairman said that according to Order 19 of the Standing Orders, except for the Member who moved the motion in the first place, any Member might move to amend the original motion. Also, he opined that whether the performance of duties by a Member was bona fide should be decided by courts.
144. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views: (i) he supported the first motion (Motion 1) in the paper. He opined that the coverage of the Guidelines was too narrow as only legal fees relating to leases were covered and the coverage should be expanded to include other legal fees; (ii) he had an open attitude to the establishment of the non-standing working group on legal support.
145. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) he supported the direction of Motion 1 but opined that the allowance for legal fees should be made an individual item to avoid causing an impact on the resources provided for Members to perform other duties. He hoped that the views could be reflected to the Independent Commission; (ii) establishing the non-standing working group on legal support at this stage did not have much meaning. He opined that the matter could be followed up again after the Guidelines were amended.
146. Mr Dennis WONG supported the direction of Motion 1. However, as it was difficult to determine whether the performance of duties by a Member was bona fide, he suggested that all legal fees incurred due to performance of duties be made qualified for claiming allowances.
147. The Chairman said that he received an amendment to Motion 2, which was proposed by Mr CHUM Tak-shing and seconded by Mr YUEN Hoi-man.
148. Mr CHUM Tak-shing introduced the amended motion, which read as follows: “This Council opines that the Home Affairs Department should establish a non-standing working group on legal support as soon as possible to examine provision of support for the - 36 - Action by legal fees incurred due to performance of duties (excluding election work) by Members using DC funds or designated funds.”
149. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu suggested changing “This Council opines” in the amended motion to “This Council requests”.
150. Mr YAN Kai-wing said that there was no amendment to Motion 1 and he was the mover.
151. Mr Kalvin HO said that he was the seconder of Motion 1.
152. The District Officer said that amendments to the reimbursement scope of the Guidelines fell under the purview of the Independent Commission. If the motions were carried, HAD was willing to forward them to the Independent Commission for consideration.
153. Mr YAN Kai-wing said that the amended motion might fall under the purview of HAB if legislative amendments were involved.
154. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong suggested forwarding the motions, if carried, to the Director of Home Affairs and a copy to the Independent Commission for consideration.
155. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) Motion 1 had to be handled by the Independent Commission; (ii) he opined that allocation of funds to DC by the Government for payment of the legal fees concerned would suffice and it might not be necessary to make legislative amendments.
156. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that the paper pointed out that the legal support received by Members in their bona fide performance of duties was inadequate and he hoped that improvements could be made. That motion aimed to show that DC was concerned about the matter and urged the Government to take follow-up action. He suggested that the Chairman put the motions to a vote.
157. The Chairman asked Members to vote on Motion 1 in the paper.
158. The Chairman announced that Motion 1 was carried unanimously by the Members present at the meeting.
159. The Chairman asked Members to vote on the amended motion by open ballot. - 37 - Action by
160. The voting result was as follows:
For: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Mr YUEN Hoi-man, Mr YAN Kai-wing (11)
Against: (0)
Abstain: Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong (8)
161. The Secretary announced the voting result: 11 Members voted for it, no Member voted against it and 8 Members abstained. The Chairman announced that the amended motion was carried.
162. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu enquired how the two carried motions would be followed up.
163. The Chairman said that the motions would be forwarded to HAD for follow up.
164. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that according to Section 68 of DCO and Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders, he requested that the motion to amend Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders be discussed and endorsed immediately after discussion item (g). He then said that the content was provided in the annex.
165. The Chairman enquired whether the annex submitted by Mr TAM Kwok-kiu in the meeting was a new paper.
166. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that the annex was the paper submitted by 12 Members on 17 February 2019 but the Chairman had not acted in accordance with the Standing Orders to include it in the agenda. Therefore, according to Section 68 of DCO and Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders, he requested that the paper be discussed and endorsed now.
167. The Chairman raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the content of the annex was not exactly the same as the paper submitted on 17 February; (ii) if the Member requested that the paper submitted on 17 February be included in today’s agenda in accordance with Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders, he would give consideration to the request; (iii) he enquired whether a vote should be taken in accordance with Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders for the Chairman to consider whether to agree to include the paper into - 38 - Action by today’s agenda.
168. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that he agreed with the Chairman’s interpretation.
169. The Chairman said that according to Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders, he requested Members to vote on whether to agree to include the paper submitted on 17 February into today’s agenda.
170. The meeting voted on the procedural motion by open ballot.
171. The voting result was as follows:
For: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Mr YUEN Hoi-man, Mr YAN Kai-wing (12)
Against: Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG (8)
Abstain: (0)
172. The Secretary announced the voting result: 12 Members voted for it, 8 Members voted against it and no Member abstained.
173. The Chairman said that: (i) the Chairman needed to decide whether to accept the inclusion of the said paper into today’s agenda; (ii) if the amendment to Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders was endorsed, the situation of the majority view of Members overriding the Chairman’s decision would happen in the Council, making it impossible for the Chairman to ensure that discussion items were compatible with the functions of DC; (iii) as the amendment would give overriding power to Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders making the Chairman unable to discharge his duties and exercise his power and there would be difficulties in the execution, professional advice would be sought first; (iv) he decided not to accept the inclusion of the paper submitted on 17 February into today’s agenda.
174. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that the Council had just discussed the matters concerned and endorsed the amendment to Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders.
175. The Chairman clarified that the vote that had just taken place was only on whether - 39 - Action by to agree to include the paper submitted on 17 February into today’s agenda, but not on whether to endorse the amendment to Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders.
176. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) DCO only conferred the power to preside over meetings on the Chairman and the power to make the Standing Orders on DC, while the power to interpret the Standing Orders was not included; (ii) if it was necessary to seek legal advice in this regard, HAD should be the one to handle the matter; (iii) he requested the Chairman to withdraw the decision just made.
177. The Chairman responded that: (i) the vote that had just taken place was only on whether to agree to include the paper submitted on 17 February into today’s agenda; (ii) according to Order 6(5) of the Standing Orders, the Chairman shall approve the agenda for a meeting of DC and shall ensure that agenda items were compatible with the functions of DC that were laid down in Section 61 of DCO; (iii) according to Order 44 of the Standing Orders, the Chairman shall ensure observance of the aforementioned orders of the Standing Orders. The Chairman’s decision on a point of order shall be final.
178. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that he would walk out of the meeting in protest.
179. The Chairman announced that the meeting was adjourned due to the absence of a quorum.
[The meeting was adjourned for 30 minutes.]
180. Due to the absence of a quorum, the Chairman announced that the meeting was adjourned at 6:32 p.m.
District Council Secretariat Sham Shui Po District Office May 2019