Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of the Tuen Mun District Council

Date: 21 January 2020 (Tuesday) Time: 2:32 p.m. Venue: Tuen Mun District Council (TMDC) Conference Room

Present: Time of Arrival Time of Departure Ms CHAN Shu-ying, Josephine (Chairman) 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr WONG Tan-ching (Vice Chairman) 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms KONG Fung-yi 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr CHAN Yau-hoi, BBS, MH, JP 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms WONG Lai-sheung, Catherine 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms HO Hang-mui 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr LAM Chung-hoi 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms CHU Shun-nga, Beatrice 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms SO Ka-man 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr YEUNG Chi-hang 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr YAN Siu-nam 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr WONG Tak-yuen 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr LEE Ka-wai 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr MO Kwan-tai Michael 2:53 p.m. End of meeting Mr HO Kwok-ho 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr LAM Ming-yan 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr LAM Kin-cheung 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr CHOW Kai-lim 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr MA Kee 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr CHEUNG Kam-hung, Kenneth 2:33 p.m. End of meeting Mr LEUNG Ho-man 2:37 p.m. End of meeting Mr WONG Hung-ming 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr TSANG Chun-hing 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr TSANG Kam-wing 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr YAN Pui-lam 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr POON Chi-kin 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr LAI Chun-wing, Alfred 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr LO Chun-yu 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms LAI Ka-man 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Ms LAW Pei-lee 2:30 p.m. End of meeting Mr LAU Chun-fai, Lawrence Senior Executive Officer (District Council), (Secretary) Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department

Absent with Apologies: The Hon LAU Ip-keung, Kenneth, BBS, MH, JP

By Invitation: Ms LO Yuen-shan IP, SIP District Intelligence Section (Tuen Mun), Hong Kong Police Force

In Attendance: Ms FUNG Ngar-wai, Aubrey District Officer (Tuen Mun), Home Affairs Department Ms TSUI Man-yee, Joanna Assistant District Officer (Tuen Mun)1, Home Affairs Department Ms LEUNG Chue-kay, Koronis Assistant District Officer (Tuen Mun)2, Home Affairs Department Ms YAN Yuet-han, Fion Senior Liaison Officer (1), Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms YU Mei-yu, Melinder Senior Liaison Officer (2), Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr NG Chi-keung, Vincent Senior Liaison Officer (3), Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr CHUNG Lok-chin Chief Engineer/West 3, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr CHENG Kwok-yan, Brian Chief School Development Officer (Tuen Mun), Education Bureau Mr LEE Kam-ho, Edwin District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Tuen Mun), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr KONG Man-keung District Commander (Tuen Mun), Hong Kong Police Force Ms Angela LEE Police Community Relations Officer (Tuen Mun District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr WONG Pui-chun Chief Manager (Tuen Mun & Yuen Long), Housing Department Ms NG Suet-yee, Joyce District Lands Officer, Tuen Mun, Lands Department Mr TAM Kwok-leung Administrative Assistant, Lands (District Lands Office, Tuen Mun) (Acting), Lands Department Ms TAM Yin-ting, Pat District Leisure Manager (Tuen Mun), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr NG Yuk-man, David District Planning Officer, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long West, Planning Department Mr YU Wai-yip, Ricky District Social Welfare Officer (Tuen Mun), Social Welfare Department Ms YUEN Miu-chun, Christine Chief Transport Officer, New Territories North West, Transport Department Ms YU Tsz-yan, Blanche Executive Officer I (District Council)1, Tuen Mun District Office, (Assistant Secretary) Home Affairs Department

Action I. Welcome and Opening Remarks The Chairman welcomed all participants and government department representatives in attendance to the second meeting of the Tuen Mun District Council (“TMDC”).

2. The Chairman reminded Members that the audio recording of this meeting would be uploaded to the TMDC website, so they were requested to raise their hands before speaking, and switch on the microphones to speak only after she singalled them to do so. The Chairman also reminded Members that Members who were aware of their personal interests in any matters discussed at the meeting should declare the interests before the discussion. The Chairman would, in accordance with Order 39(11) of the TMDC Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”), decide whether the Members who had declared interests might speak or vote on the matters, might remain at the meeting as observers, or should withdraw from the meeting. All cases of declaration of interests would be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

3. Besides, the Chairman reminded members of the public observing the meeting that the press areas set up on both sides of the screen at the back of the conference room were reserved for use by media representatives who had registered and received stickers for identification. Other members of the public observing the meeting should remain in the public seating area.

II. Absence from Meeting 4. The Secretary said the Secretariat had received no applications from Members for leave of absence.

5. Before the meeting moved to the next item, the Chairman said that as there were a total of 30 items to be discussed at this meeting, she expected to spend two hours on agenda items I to VIII, which were related to house-keeping matters, and start to deal with the remaining items at about 4:00 p.m. Therefore, the permanent departmental representatives would join the meeting only at about 4:00 p.m. The discussions of the agenda items specified above would be deferred if they were not yet finished by then.

6. The Chairman further said that if the above timeline was followed, the meeting was expected to end at about 9:30 p.m. As the TMDC and some committees met in the afternoon instead in the current term, she suggested the TMDC and the committees concerned set reasonable closing time for their meetings,

-1-

Action say, 8:00 p.m., and the discussions of outstanding agenda items might be deferred to a special meeting or the next meeting.

III. TMDC Standing Orders (TMDC Paper No. 1/2020) 7. The Chairman referred Members to the paper.

8. The Chairman said the Home Affairs Department (“HAD”) had recently revised the model Standing Orders for the 18 district councils’ further action. Meanwhile, the HAD had also provided the updated Registration Form on Personal Interests of Members of a District Council (“DC”) or Its Committees. Besides, the first TMDC meeting had agreed on the following matters: (i) the abolition of proxy voting; (ii) the non-anonymous approach to minutes writing for TMDC meetings; (iii) the abolition of the co-opted member system; and (iv) the permission granted to observers to take photos, make audio or video recordings, or broadcast live without affecting the conduct of meetings. In view of the above, the Secretariat had made revisions to the Standing Orders accordingly and attached them to the paper for Members’ consideration and endorsement of their coming into effect in the current DC term.

9. The Chairman introduced the paper covering the following seven major revisions: (i) defining a simple majority vote; (ii) clearly specifying that all members of non-standing working groups must be councillors, with at least half of them being councillors; (iii) amending the provision concerning declaration of interests to ensure the procedure for handling conflicts of interests at DC/committee meetings applied to working group meetings; (iv) amending the provision requiring that all cases of declarations of interests should be recorded in minutes, so as to meet the relevant requirement in the Guidelines on the Use of DC Funds; (v) amending the provisions concerning the admission of the public to meetings to ensure the same arrangements applied to working group meetings; (vi) fleshing out the Personal Particulars section in the Declaration of Eligibility by Nominees for Co-opted Member of Committees under a DC; and (vii) introducing a disclaimer in the Registration Form on Personal Interests of Members of a DC or Its Committees to protect the interests of the Government and a DC.

10. As Members had no comments, the Chairman announced that the contents of the paper were endorsed and the revised Standing Orders were adopted.

- 2 -

Action IV. TMDC Funding Guidelines on Implementation of “Community Involvement Projects” (TMDC Paper No. 2/2020) 11. The Chairman said the HAD had made slight amendments to the Manual on the Use of DC Funds in December of the previous year, and the Secretariat had prepared the revised Manual on the Use of TMDC Funds based on the samples of the amendments. Besides, the TMDC had abolished the co-opted member system at its first meeting, and the above revised manual had been amended accordingly.

12. The Chairman added that the amendments mainly covered the following seven items: (i) amending the provision concerning declaration of interests; (ii) amending the provision concerning the levy on insurance premium; (iii) adjusting the expenditure limits on DC-funded activities; (iv) introducing expenditure limits on the purchase of capitalised equipment and furniture goods; (v) amending the provision concerning the role of grantees; (vi) amending the provision concerning non-governmental organisations’ use of DC funds for procurement; and (vii) inserting reference materials about waste reduction in large-scale activities.

13. As Members had no comments, the Chairman announced that the above paper was endorsed.

V. The Committees under the New Term (2020-2023) of TMDC and Arrangements for the Election of the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the Committees (TMDC Paper No. 3/2020) VI. Terms of Reference for Civil Rights Development Committee (TMDC Paper No. 8/2020) 14. The Chairman said that if Members had no objection, she would suggest agenda item VIII, namely “Terms of Reference for Civil Rights Development Committee”, be discussed together with the captioned matter as the two matters were related.

15. The Chairman referred Members to the papers.

16. The Chairman said that at its first meeting held on 7 January 2020, the TMDC had resolved to again set up the six functional committees of the previous TMDC, namely the Commerce, Industry and Housing Committee (“CIHC”), the District Facilities Management Committee (“DFMC”), the Environment, Hygiene

- 3 -

Action and District Development Committee (“EHDDC”), the Finance, Administration and Publicity Committee (“FAPC”), the Social Services Committee (“SSC”), and the Traffic and Transport Committee (“TTC”). In addition, the TMDC had resolved to form the new Civil Rights Development Committee.

17. Regarding the CIHC’s terms of reference set out in the paper, the Chairman said she had just received an impromptu motion moved by Mr TSANG Chun-hing and seconded by Mr LEUNG Ho-man, Mr YAN Pui-lam, Mr Alfred LAI, Mr CHOW Kai-lim and Mr WONG Tan-ching.

18. Mr LAM Chung-hoi said the TMDC had resolved to form the CIHC at its previous meeting, whereas this matter was about the endorsement of the arrangements for the elections of the committees’ chairmen and vice chairmen. In the previous TMDC, for example, the terms of reference for committees had been dealt with by the relevant committees themselves instead of being tabled at TMDC meetings.

19. The Secretary said in response that at its first meeting held on 7 January 2020, the TMDC had resolved to set up the six functional committees of the previous TMDC again, and to form the new Civil Rights Development Committee. Yet, the terms of reference for the above committees had not yet been officially approved. Therefore, the terms of reference for the committees, as well as the arrangements for the elections of their chairmen and vice chairmen, were set out in this paper for consultation with Members. In accordance with the Standing Orders, the TMDC should set the committees’ terms of reference first, after which the committees might make slight amendments as needed and refer them back to the TMDC for final approval.

20. District Officer (Tuen Mun) (“DO(TM)”) said the terms of reference for the six functional committees of the previous TMDC were compatible with the District Councils Ordinance. She reckoned that if the TMDC was to deal with the impromptu motion about the committees’ terms of reference right away, a more prudent approach would be first putting on record the recommendations made in the motion and leaving it to the district office to examine after the meeting whether the wording was still compatible with the District Councils Ordinance. According to section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance, a function of the TMDC was to advise the Government on various matters relating to Tuen Mun.

- 4 -

Action 21. The Chairman said Members needed to deal with several matters under this agenda item, which included (a) considering the approval of the terms of reference for the six functional committees set up again in the current term of the TMDC; (b) proposing the terms of reference for the new committee; (c) considering whether to maintain the decision to appoint the TMDC Vice Chairman and the chairmen of all the functional committees as ex-officio members of the FAPC; (d) considering whether the terms of office of the functional committees were to remain at two years, i.e. ending on 31 December 2020; and (e) considering the arrangements proposed in the paper for the elections of the chairmen and the vice chairmen of the functional committees.

22. Ms HO Hang-mui opined that the previous TMDC had used to leave it to the committees to discuss their terms of reference at their meetings, and if they were tabled at a DC meeting, the discussion would be extremely lengthy. Moreover, she believed the terms of reference for most committees greatly resembled those in the previous term, so she suggested the DC focus the discussion on the terms of reference for the new committee only.

23. The Chairman said that according to the Secretary’s advice, the DC should set the terms of reference for each functional committee. If, after its establishment, a committee wished to make amendments to the approved terms of reference, it might refer them back to the DC for final approval.

24. Ms KONG Fung-yi said the TMDC should process the motion as soon as possible in order not to waste Members’ time.

25. The Vice Chairman suggested the Chairman take this matter forward and discuss how to refer this matter to the committees for follow-up after the committees’ terms of reference were confirmed at the next meeting.

26. The Chairman reminded the meeting that there were a lot of matters to be dealt with at this meeting, so she hoped this matter could be settled as quickly as possible and the remaining business could be referred to the committees as far as possible. She suggested that if there was not much controversy among Members over the existing terms of reference, the terms of reference should be approved first and the functional committees should be allowed to make amendments later. In this regard, she said that as the content of the impromptu motion proposed by Mr TSANG Chun-hing involved the specific terms of reference for the CIHC, she

- 5 -

Action exercised her discretion to agree to process it at this meeting.

27. Mr TSANG Chun-hing said the CIHC had used to be mainly responsible for promoting industrial and commercial development. He proposed the addition of two new functions. The first one was to set directions for the development of the district (including road projects and blueprints, the blueprints for industrial and commercial development and so forth). As the TMDC was an advisory body and Tuen Mun residents had different expectations on the district’s industrial and commercial development, he reckoned the CIHC should have a greater say so that Members could make the voice of the local community heard. The second one was to offer advice on rural public works, because the existing development space in Tuen Mun was mostly concentrated in rural areas.

28. The Chairman said that according to the impromptu motion proposed by Mr TSANG Chun-hing, the terms of reference for the CIHC included: (1) to promote economic, industrial and commercial development in the district; (2) to set the directions and plan the work for the development of the district, including road projects and blueprints, the blueprints for industrial and commercial development, etc.; (3) to advise on issues covering codes of industry and commerce, occupational safety and health protection, as well as labour legislation and policies, etc.; (4) to advise on housing policies and management, improvement plans and maintenance of public housing estates and Home Ownership Scheme housing blocks in the district; (5) to advise on the management of private housing; (6) to advise the Tuen Mun District Office (“TMDO”) on rural public works; (7) to organise publicity activities for work within the ambit of the committee; and (8) to set up working groups in accordance with the Standing Orders and based on actual needs to study specific issues and matters that deserve attention.

29. While not opposed to any amendment motion, Mr LAM Chung-hoi opined that transferring the EHDDC’s function to the CIHC would result in overlapping functions when the terms of reference for other committees were discussed later.

30. The Chairman said she had just received an impromptu motion requesting changes to the EHDDC’s name and terms of reference. As Mr LAM Chung-hoi had said, the terms of reference set out in the two motions might overlap with each other, so she thought Members should deliberate on how to process the two motions.

31. Mr YAN Pui-lam said it was he who had moved the latter motion. He noted

- 6 -

Action that the two motions mainly served to transfer the EHDDC’s function in district development to the CIHC. Regarding the overlapping functions in district development, he said he and Mr TSANG Chun-hing had communicated and agreed that the CIHC would focus more on practical matters, while the EHDDC would focus more on environmental assessment and damage. Therefore, while the terms of reference for the two committees might literally appear to overlap, actually their duties were not the same.

32. The Chairman said none of the Members had received papers on the two impromptu motions, and the two motions had not been notified to the Secretariat 24 hours before the meeting as required by the Standing Orders, so it was difficult to process them. Therefore, she suggested Members first hold the maiden meetings based on the original terms of reference, and raise the matter again at the next TMDC meeting after negotiating for a compromise between the above two committees. She further said some of the matters raised at this meeting involved district development, and her initial idea was that they would be referred to the EHDDC first. The Chairman concluded by saying that she would not process the above two impromptu motions, and the captioned matter would be taken forward.

33. The Chairman consulted with Members again and asked them to consider continuing to use the terms of reference for the six functional committees of the previous TMDC. As Members had no objections, the Chairman announced the contents of the paper were endorsed.

34. Mr MA Kee asked the Chairman whether the DC could rename the committees in the future, as the committees’ names might have a bearing on their terms of reference.

35. The Chairman invited the Secretary to expound on the matter concerned. The Secretary said the TMDC had approved the setting up of the six committees at its meeting on 7 January, but according to the Standing Orders, the DC might rename the committees. Yet, to avoid confusion, the DC should make the changes at the beginning of its term and should not change their names time and again during the term.

36. The Chairman said that as she had just said, the committees would first use the terms of reference in the paper for their first meetings, and the DC could have further discussion at the next meeting.

- 7 -

Action

37. Mr YAN Pui-lam reckoned that the DC should first deal with the names of the committees at this meeting. He suggested the EHDDC be renamed the “Environmental Health, Climate Change and Sustainable Development Committee”. He added that sustainable development covered such matters as environmental assessment, and the original EHDDC function in district development would be transferred to the CIHC.

38. The Chairman asked the Secretary if there was any violation of the Standing Orders if the agenda item on the renaming of the committee was not dealt with at this meeting but deferred to the next meeting.

39. The Secretary said that if Members had reached a consensus on the matter of renaming the committee at this meeting and the new name was compatible with a DC’s functions, the DC might deal with the matter first. But he recommended that to avoid confusion, there should not be further changes after a resolution was passed.

40. The Chairman said that if there was not much controversy about Mr YAN Pui-lam’s proposal, she would agree to use her discretion to deal with it; otherwise she would leave the discussion to the committee. There being no objections from Members, the Chairman decided to exercise her discretion to deal with Mr YAN Pui-lam’s proposal to rename the EHDDC.

41. The Chairman asked Members if they agreed to Mr YAN Pui-lam’s proposal to change the name of the EHDDC to the “Environmental Health, Climate Change and Sustainable Development Committee”.

42. Mr LAM Chung-hoi said that besides climate change, there were actually many items that could be added to the committee’s name, such as fresh water. He held the view that the matters of concern to Members were already covered by the existing name of the committee.

43. The Chairman then put the proposal to the vote. The TMDC voted on Mr YAN Pui-lam’s proposal and passed it with 24 votes in favour, 0 vote against and 6 abstentions.

[Members voting in favour included: Mr WONG Tan-ching, Ms KONG Fung-yi, Ms Catherine WONG, Ms HO Hang-mui, Ms Beatrice CHU, Mr YEUNG Chi-hang, Mr

- 8 -

Action YAN Siu-nam, Mr WONG Tak-yuen, Mr LEE Ka-wai, Mr Michael MO, Mr HO Kwok-ho, Mr LAM Ming-yan, Mr LAM Kin-cheung, Mr CHOW Kai-lim, Mr MA Kee, Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum, Mr LEUNG Ho-man, Mr WONG Hung-ming, Mr TSANG Chun-hing, Mr TSANG Kam-wing, Mr YAN Pui-lam, Mr POON Chi-kin, Mr LO Chun-yu and Ms LAW Pei-lee. Members abstaining included: Mr CHAN Yau-hoi, Mr LAM Chung-hoi, Ms SO Ka-man, Mr Kenneth CHEUNG, Mr Alfred LAI and Ms LAI Ka-man.]

44. Moreover, the Chairman announced the endorsement of the contents of the captioned paper, i.e. approving the terms of reference for the six TMDC functional committees set up again in the current term.

45. Regarding the new committee set up with the TMDC’s approval on 7 January 2020, the Chairman said Mr Michael MO had submitted a paper proposing the committee’s terms of reference. She referred Members to Paper No. 8.

46. The Chairman said that as the TMDO and the Secretariat held that the name of and the proposed terms of reference for the Civil Rights Development Committee fell outside the functions of a DC as specified in section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance, the Secretariat had proposed amendments to the name of the new committee and its terms of reference to ensure their compatibility with DC functions.

47. The Chairman further said the Secretariat recommended the new committee be named “Civic Participation and District Development Committee” with the following terms of reference: (i) To ensure Tuen Mun residents are protected in the district on matters relating to civic participation and district development, and carry out monitoring to ensure the full implementation of the relevant laws; (ii) To monitor the Government’s measures to facilitate Tuen Mun residents’ pursuit of civic participation and district development, and offer advice to the Government; (iii) To carry out studies on the situation of residents in Tuen Mun in terms of civic participation and district development; (iv) To encourage residents in the district to participate in public affairs, and hold open meetings to promote government departments’ and organisations’ communication with residents in the district on policies and measures; and

- 9 -

Action (v) To monitor and effect the funding operation for civic education among Tuen Mun residents.

48. DO(TM) said section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance provided that there were two major principles, including offering advice to the Government, in the functions of a DC, and such advice should be related to Tuen Mun, such as public services and the District Administration Scheme in Tuen Mun. She further said the Civil Rights Development Committee might deal with territory-wide issues and this was not a function of the TMDC. Therefore, she asked Members to consider accepting the name recommended by the Secretariat, i.e. the “Civic Participation and District Development Committee”. Also, she briefly introduced the Secretariat-proposed amendments to the terms of reference as follows: (i) On the first item, the revised clause covered a wider range of issues, which included ensuring the full implementation of the laws relating to Tuen Mun residents’ pursuit of civic participation and district development, as opposed to a few specific laws; (ii) On the second item, after the amendment, the function was mainly to offer advice to the Government, which was more compatible with section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance; (iii) On the third item, the original clause referred to following up on and probing into issues of suspected suppression of civil rights in Tuen Mun, which was not compatible with the DC function of offering advice to the Government. Therefore, the clause was changed to read: “to carry out studies on the situation of residents in Tuen Mun in terms of civic participation and district development”; and (iv) On the fourth and fifth items, the amended clauses were more appropriate.

49. DO(TM) added that the TMDC was not required to make a final decision at this meeting. She suggested Members comment on the amendments proposed by the Secretariat, and the TMDC would put the comments of Members and the TMDO on record for deliberation and follow-up after the meeting.

50. The Chairman said that as recommended by DO(TM), Members might refer to the other committees’ practice of approving the text of the terms of reference first and discussing them in detail at the formal meetings of committees. She invited comments from Mr Michael MO, the proposer of the paper.

- 10 -

Action 51. Mr Michael MO expressed regret about the amendments proposed by DO(TM) and the Secretariat. He said, “You are changing the whole role of this committee. Right to civic participation is fundamentally different from civil rights. This is exactly making this committee paralysed or even shattering its original objective.” Moreover, he argued that if “civic participation” was equivalent to “civil rights”, this would be tantamount to deliberately misrepresenting the original role of the committee. Moreover, while he agreed with DO(TM) that a DC was an advisory body, he said this did not mean the TMDC could not promote civil rights in Tuen Mun, and human rights were something clearly stated in the human rights-related legislation in Hong Kong, including the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the four ordinances against discrimination. He said the principle was that “civil rights” must be included, and if DO(TM) opined that there was no need to promote “civil rights” in Tuen Mun or the TMDC should not “offer advice to the Government” in this regard, this was disrespect for the initial proposer of the functions of the committee. He hoped all Members present would understand that “civil rights” and the “right to civic participation” were completely different, and this concept should not be substituted with something else.

52. Ms HO Hang-mui disagreed with DO(TM)’s recommendations. She reckoned that “civic participation” was inconsistent with the original objectives of the committee, and “civic participation” was already covered by the terms of reference for the DFMC of the TMDC. She further said the new committee mainly focused on civil right issues, and if the Government held that a DC should mainly discuss district affairs, she would suggest the committee be renamed the “District Civil Rights Development Committee” and focus on affairs in Tuen Mun. Even if the Government opined that being just an advisory body, a DC should not deal with such work as monitoring, amendments could be made to the wording of the terms of reference. For example, the first item could be amended to read: “to advise the Government on the implementation of human rights conventions signed and recognised by Hong Kong, the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Law of Human Rights in Tuen Mun, and on the promotion of the enjoyment of such rights”. The other items in the original terms of reference were compatible with DO(TM)’s requirements as they expressly stated that what would be discussed were issues in Tuen Mun. She recommended textual amendments to the terms of reference rather than fundamental changes to the direction for the committee’s work.

53. Mr MA Kee disagreed with DO(TM)’s argument that “civil rights” should not be discussed at a DC because it was a territory-wide issue. He opined that if

- 11 -

Action DO(TM)’s argument was valid, no discussion should be allowed for all TMDC functional committees as all matters involved legal issues. He added that “civil rights” referred to the rights of Tuen Mun residents and should not be seen as a territory-wide issue.

54. Mr LO Chun-yu disagreed with DO(TM). He opined that the five terms of reference proposed in Mr Michael MO’s motion had clearly indicated that the matters were related to residents in Tuen Mun. Besides, he reckoned that if, as DO(TM) put it, the amended clause covered a wider range, the original proposal of Mr Michael MO might as well be accepted first to let the public know more clearly the work of the committee. He added that by reference to section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance, a DC should offer advice on the Government’s inadequacies, so he believed the new committee could advise the Government on matters concerning the civil rights of residents in Tuen Mun. Finally, he pointed out that there were some typos in the original motion.

55. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum reckoned that the previous TMDC dominated by the pro-establishment camp had not focused only on district affairs, as exemplified by the 18 DCs’ passage of resolutions on the “constitutional reform” package in 2015, which was also a territory-wide issue not peculiar to Tuen Mun. He felt that the Government at that time had made use of the 18 DCs to create the atmosphere of the “constitutional reform” package being supported by everyone, and seen the DCs as rubber stamps; but this time around, the Government prohibited DCs from discussing various issues after it had lost dominance. He also recalled that the Government had got the “extradition to China ordinance” passed at DCs. He reckoned that attempts should be made to interpret the English version of the District Councils Ordinance. For instance, section 61 read: “The functions of a District Council are to advise the Government on matters affecting the well-being of the people in the District”. Meanwhile, the term “well-being” was used in article 25 of the United Nations’ international convention on human rights, which read: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.” For these reasons, he could not see why matters relating to human rights could not be raised at the TMDC. Furthermore, he reckoned that if the TMDC could not guarantee the fulfilment of civil rights in Tuen Mun, there would be no grounds for talking about civic participation. He echoed Mr Michael MO’s point that “civic participation” was not equivalent to “civil rights”, adding that “participation” was optional as exemplified by the fact that Members could choose to participate in a vote or not, whereas “right” had nothing to

- 12 -

Action do with choice, which meant that the Government must protect the human rights of the people. A function of a DC was to monitor the Government, and an objective of the new committee was exactly to monitor whether the Government put the human rights conventions it had signed into practice. He concluded by saying that the Government should not downgrade the committee to a working group responsible for civic education.

56. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG noted that DO(TM) had said a DC’s function was to offer advice on policies rather than to monitor or investigate the Government, but DCs engaged in such work as investigation and data research when they advised bus companies on bus routes. He also echoed the point that “civic participation” was not equivalent to “civil rights”, as the two were at different levels. In his view, there was no need for the TMDC to form a committee to make civic participation happen because this function was already covered in part by the six functional committees. He reiterated that, as mentioned by Mr Michael MO, no concession should be made on the bottom line, which was that the committee was to discuss civil rights; otherwise he would rather not set up the new committee.

57. Mr TSANG Kam-wing objected to DO(TM)’s recommendations. He opined that if DO(TM)’s recommendations were adopted for the new committee, its work would be no different from what the DC had used to do, and the purpose of forming a new committee would be defeated. He added that he could not see any parallels between the terms of reference recommended by DO(TM) and those proposed by Members. Moreover, he reckoned that while DO(TM) said the TMDC could not do any work relating to human rights conventions and laws, the vote after the “721” incident in Yuen Long had clearly shown that a DC had the right to carry out an investigation. Therefore, he did not understand why DO(TM) maintained that a DC had no power to investigate. Finally, he opined that the TMDC had always been doing the work in relation to effecting the funding operation for civic education.

58. Mr WONG Hung-ming said the amendments proposed by DO(TM) were a far cry from the version proposed by Members. He further said that if the TMDC could not discuss some laws, including the Basic Law, the human rights law or the discrimination-related ordinances, for the reason that they involved the other 17 districts, then by the same token it could not discuss bus routes between Tuen Mun and Central either. He could hardly accept DO(TM)’s explanation. Besides, he opined that in Mr Michael MO’s motion, the scope of discussion had been narrowed

- 13 -

Action to Tuen Mun-related matters only. He added that civic participation was just an option whereas civil rights were innate.

59. The Chairman said that as Members had made a variety of comments, she wanted to confer with DO(TM) first to see if any amendments could be made to Mr Michael MO’s version to make it compatible with the functions of a DC. As for the name of the committee, the Chairman opined that by reference to Ms HO Hang-mui’s suggestion, it could be renamed the “District Civil Rights Development Committee” in response to the HAD’s view that “civil rights” was a territory-wide issue. The Chairman further remarked that a DC could discuss territory-wide issues by analogy with the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education and the Fight Crime Committee, which had subsidiary committees across Hong Kong. By the same token, the civil rights committee could be interpreted as the civil rights committee in Tuen Mun.

60. DO(TM) said adding the word “district” to the committee’s name was a positive move. As for whether the term “civil rights” should be kept, she suggested Members’ comments be put on record for the TMDO’s further studies after the meeting.

61. The Vice Chairman said he had no intention to comment on Members’ suggestions. Yet, he asked DO(TM) whether the words “Tuen Mun” should be added to the name of the TTC under the TMDC. In his view, at issue was not the committee’s name but whether its functions were really closely related to affairs in Tuen Mun.

62. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum said he could not understand why specifically the word “district” was added to the committee’s name. He argued that if a DC could only discuss the affairs of the district concerned, he would request the HAD to re-consider and void the joint signatures for the “constitutional reform” and the “extradition to China ordinance” in the previous few years. He considered that it was unreasonable for Government to belittle the TMDC by every possible means after the TMDC was no longer dominated by the pro-establishment camp.

63. Mr YAN Pui-lam said records on the TMDC website showed that the TMDC had discussed the “Occupy Central” movement in 2013. He questioned why the TMDC could discuss the “Occupy Central” movement at that time and the then DO(TM) had raised no objection immediately. In addition, he described adding the

- 14 -

Action words “Tuen Mun” before the name of each committee as being self-belittling.

64. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG reckoned that a new committee was formed because a DC believed more time was needed to discuss certain issues. In his view, the amendments proposed by the Government were meant to avoid the term “civil rights” being used. He felt that all matters relating to civil rights and human rights could not be raised for discussion. He added that as other Members had said, the DC had discussed many territory-wide issues before, such as the “constitutional reform”, the “extradition to China ordinance” and the legislation for Article 23, and in many cases, the Government had created an atmosphere of its positions gaining support across all the 18 districts. Moreover, he noted that the Government had said it would consult DCs on the legislation for Article 23. He wondered if DCs should reject the consultation at that time on the grounds that it was of a territory-wide nature.

65. Mr Michael MO said he did not understand why DO(TM) had replaced the word “investigate” in the third item of the original version with “carry out studies”. He argued: “Why can’t we do a fact finding mission? I am just proposing a way out… if this is a way out, you could try this out. If you think that investigation will be provocative, seem provocative, to your boss, fact finding mission is the way out. Point 4, I have seen that you have deleted the term “Bureau”. We want the Bureau, all the Bureaux, to make themselves accountable to us, and I don’t see why we should include a “Department” in point 4, and then take out the “Bureau” wording.”

66. Mr POON Chi-kin said everyone at the meeting was a representative with the mandate of the voters of their respective constituencies, and it was voters who had entrusted councillors to discuss the issue of civil rights. He further said councillors from the pro-democracy camp had become the majority in the 2019 DC elections because voters wanted them to do more under the DC system, including looking into police brutality, promoting democracy and so forth. Therefore, he did not understand why DO(TM) needed to do further studies and put Members’ views on record when Members sought to set up a new committee. He asked DO(TM) since when representatives with people’s mandate had met with so much obstruction that even their expression of views and discussion were subject to red lines drawn by government departments. He also questioned whether the only remaining value of the TMDC was to write “fai chun” during the New Year and serve as a rubber stamp for the Government. He added that he understood DCs had no real power, but for the general public, DCs were their only voice in the system because only DCs were

- 15 -

Action elected on a one-person-one-vote basis in Hong Kong. He said government departments should not obstruct DC discussion.

67. Mr TSANG Kam-wing said that by custom, if the word “district” was added before the name of a committee, that usually meant there was a headquarters above the organisation, as exemplified by the Fight Crime Committee of Hong Kong above the Tuen Mun District Fight Crime Committee, and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) above the Tuen Mun District Environmental Hygiene Office. He asked whether, if the word “district” was added to the Civil Rights Development Committee, that would mean the Government intended to forcefully introduce a similar organisation across the 18 districts.

68. Ms Beatrice CHU said she did not understand why DO(TM) had made the above recommendations, but she reckoned that if DO(TM) insisted the committee had to be characterised by district, she should be aware that residents in the Tuen Mun district needed civil rights. In addition, she opined that DO(TM) was very polite compared to other district officers, but she reckoned that actually there was no strong reason for DO(TM) to prevent the TMDC from passing the motion proposed by Mr Michael MO and Ms HO Hang-mui. Therefore, she suggested the TMDC first vote on the motion in accordance with the agenda, and if DO(TM) could give good reasons later, there could be further discussion at the next TMDC meeting.

69. Mr LO Chun-yu further said he believed that all the human rights-related bills mentioned in the motion proposed by Mr Michael MO and Ms HO Hang-mui were laws in Hong Kong, and the motion was compatible with the law as the Basic Law provided that Hong Kong people should have human rights. Therefore, he opined that DO(TM) should not ask the TMDC to violate the Basic Law.

70. Ms KONG Fung-yi opined that the new Members in the sixth term of the TMDC were outstanding. She said everyone should have human rights, so the HAD should not fret about such words as human rights, and there was no need to rename the committee. Moreover, she felt that she finally managed to make the voice of residents heard, and the HAD should take the lead in speaking for justice.

71. Mr HO Kwok-ho asked DO(TM) whether a district officer’s approval was necessary for a DC to set up of a new committee. He recalled DO(TM) had just said that the name of the new committee was subject to the HAD’s approval, but he reckoned that government approval was never required for a DC’s operation, as

- 16 -

Action councillors’ duty was to speak for the people rather than serve the Government. Besides, having checked the Basic Law and other legislation, he gathered the Government had no reason to argue that the TMDC’s setting up of the Civil Rights Development Committee was not compatible with the Basic Law. Thus, he asked DO(TM) to state specifically which ordinance the committee was not compatible with.

72. Mr LEE Ka-wai said the 18 DCs were very worried after the chief of the Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) had led a walkout at a meeting of the Central and Western DC. He hoped DO(TM) or the Secretariat would make it clear whether the new committee could meet on 7 February as scheduled.

73. Ms LAW Pei-lee said it was perhaps because of superiors’ instruction that DO(TM) had to change the name of the committee, and she was having a difficult time amid objections from Members. But Members’ arguments were sound, so she reckoned that a vote should be taken right away. If the Government thought there was something wrong in the future, it might raise the matter with the TMDC again.

74. Mr Alfred LAI opined that DO(TM) was steering the TMDC’s discussion in a wrong direction, so a vote should be taken immediately without prior study or approval by the Government.

75. Mr LAM Chung-hoi believed the motion would definitely be passed if it was put to the vote. Yet, he was worried that the name and terms of reference passed by the TMDC might violate certain legislation, and the TMDC’s operation would be affected. He added that the TMDC had always been performing the function of monitoring the Government mentioned in the terms of reference. And with regard to the third item, which read: “to follow up on and investigate suspected incidents of civil rights suppression in Tuen Mun”, he was worried about how the TMDC could carry out investigations if relevant government departments did not cooperate.

76. Mr WONG Hung-ming would like to raise a question about rules of order. He reckoned that by procedure, the TMDC should put the motion to the vote and discuss details, such as wording, after the committee was formed. He opined that the power of the TMDC would be weakened if, as DO(TM) put it, the name and terms of reference of the committee were subject to the Government’s consent.

77. Ms LAI Ka-man reckoned that the Basic Law had given DCs an advisory

- 17 -

Action role. But taking the item “to follow up on and investigate suspected incidents of civil rights suppression in Tuen Mun” as an example, she had doubts as to how to define, follow up on and investigate “suspected” incidents. Thus, she opined there was room for changes to the committee’s name and terms of reference. Moreover, she wanted to know the figures on and the cases of violations of human rights conventions in Hong Kong or Tuen Mun, and whether the TMDC had the power to investigate. In her view, if investigations revealed there were cases of human rights violation, the rulings should be given by the court rather than the TMDC. Finally, she asked if the typos in the motion would be corrected as well.

78. Ms Catherine WONG opined that DO(TM) had distorted Members’ original intention in setting up the committee. She could not see how the terms of reference proposed for the new committee ran counter to a DC’s functions, because every member of the public should have civil rights, and the terms of reference proposed by Members were already very neutral and had been narrowed to cover Tuen Mun only. As for the item about suspected incidents of civil rights suppression, she said there were a lot of established facts, and the word “suspected” was used simply because Members did not want to set the tone. Therefore, she reckoned a vote should be taken to decide whether to set up the Civil Rights Development Committee or not.

79. The Vice Chairman said Members used the word “suspected” in the third item of the motion because the court had yet to give rulings despite concrete evidence.

80. Mr POON Chi-kin responded to the point made by Ms LAI Ka-man. He cited Article 97 of the Basic Law, which provided that “District organizations which are not organs of political power may be established in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to be consulted by the government of the Region on district administration and other affairs, or to be responsible for providing services in such fields as culture, recreation and environmental sanitation”, and Article 98, which provided that “The powers and functions of the district organizations and the method for their formation shall be prescribed by law”. He opined that the Basic Law had given DCs extensive power, and the District Councils Ordinance should be looked at for reference. In addition, he hoped DO(TM) would not leave midway through the meeting and would accept Members’ views.

81. Mr Michael MO said he had just spoken in English and Members might not

- 18 -

Action know what he had said. He reiterated that he suggested using “fact finding”, which was not only operable but a normal approach taken in the United Nations’ probes into cases of human rights violation. He further said that while a DC was different from the COI1, there were international standards for “fact finding”. Besides, a Member had said court rulings were required for cases of violation of human rights laws, but he thought this was not necessary, as exemplified by the fact that the EOC2 could give “advice” or “notices” in accordance with the four discrimination-related ordinances in Hong Kong, and the PDPO3 could issue “enforcement notices”. For this reason, he believed that by virtue of the “fact finding” mechanism, a DC could publish “findings” without overstepping its authority as an “advisory body”.

82. The Chairman said she had just specifically mentioned Ms HO Hang-mui’s comments about renaming because the TMDC had agreed on the name of the committee at its meeting on 7 January. If the TMDC wished to make a change, it should have a discussion before decision, as what it had just done for the name of the Environmental Health, Climate Change and Sustainable Development Committee. She concluded from Members’ speeches that most of them disagreed with renaming the committee. Therefore, she asked DO(TM) whether the name “Civil Rights Development Committee” involved overstepping of authority. The Home Affairs Bureau had no reason to oppose the development of civil rights in a district. She said the TMDC stuck to its original decision and would not change the name of the committee.

83. On the committee’s terms of reference, the Chairman summed up Members’ views, saying that the TMDC should not accept DO(TM)’s recommendations, and the original motion should be put to the vote immediately. But since Members were divided even on the five items of the terms of reference set out in the original text, she suggested separate votes be taken.

84. On the first item in the original motion, the Chairman suggested that a slight amendment be made to replace “Hong Kong Law of Human Rights” with “Law of Human Rights” of Hong Kong as the term “Hong Kong” was not included in the ordinance’s title, and that the words “offer advice to the Government” be added to the end. After the amendments, the text read: “to monitor the implementation of human rights conventions signed and recognised by Hong Kong, the Basic Law and the Law of Human Rights of Hong Kong in Tuen Mun, promote the enjoyment of

1 Commission of Inquiry 2 Equal Opportunities Commission 3 Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance

- 19 -

Action the relevant rights, and offer advice to the Government”.

85. Mr LO Chun-yu thanked Mr POON Chi-kin for reminding him. A check found that the official title of Chapter 383 of Laws of Hong Kong was “Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance”.

86. The Chairman said that since Mr Michael MO was the proposer of the paper, she would accept his views. Again, she asked Members if they agreed to the revised first item of the terms of reference.

87. DO(TM) expressed her wish to reiterate the TMDO and the Secretariat’s position before the vote. With regard to the name and terms of reference of the new committee referred to in Paper No. 8, having carried out preliminary internal study, the Government held that the proposed Civil Rights Development Committee and its terms of reference were beyond the scope of a DC’s functions prescribed in section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance. The TMDO recommended that the TMDC revise the name and terms of reference concerned to make them compatible with the District Councils Ordinance. If Members wished to vote on the name and terms of reference proposed in the paper, the TMDO would like to clearly state and put on record its position, i.e. objection to the name and terms of reference of the new committee. If the TMDC adopted the name and terms of reference proposed in the paper, the TMDO and the Secretariat would not be able to provide support for the operation of the new committee, including provision of a meeting venue, preparations for the committee’s meetings and provision of secretariat services.

88. The Chairman said a number of officials had arrived. She suggested the meeting be adjourned for 10 minutes to allow follow-up on relevant issues, so that the approach to this matter could be determined before the meeting resumed. She announced that the meeting would be resumed at 4:25 p.m.

[The TMDC meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. and resumed at 4:24 p.m.]

89. The Chairman expressed her understanding of Members’ views and their doubts about the HAD’s responses. She said the council served to deal with tasks entrusted by the public, so it had to break through the many constraints imposed by the HKSAR Government on DCs. After consulting with DO(TM), she suggested the word “district” be added to the name of the Civil Rights Development Committee to make it “District Civil Rights Development Committee”. In fact,

- 20 -

Action with the precedent of the EHDDC, there was no need to be over sensitive about this. In order to set up the District Civil Rights Development Committee and avoid hindrance to the next meeting, only the first item of the terms of the reference, which had been revised after consultation, would be adopted at this meeting, and the remaining items of the terms of reference would be tabled at the first functional committee meeting on 7 February for adjustment, addition or revision. She said an HAD legal adviser would be invited through DO(TM) to join the meeting on 7 February for direct communication with Members and for specific discussion about the areas with overstepping of authority, in a bid to work out compromise and viable terms of reference. She further said many Members had taken courses on mediation, which was a necessary means to resolve some issues. She added that mediation was possible in politics, or else there was no point of having negotiations. She said she was inclined to deal with the proposal directly and hoped Members would sort out the matter for the above committee to come into operation.

90. Mr MA Kee asked whether DO(TM) accepted the revised name and the first item of the terms of reference. He said that if she did not, he would not accept the amendments to the second to fifth items. He added that the second to fifth items were related to discussion on district affairs, having nothing to do with overstepping of authority and any territory-wide issue that fell outside the scope. And as he had said in his first speech, the discussions would focus only on matters in Tuen Mun no matter whether the word “district” was added or not.

91. DO(TM) said that as far as the name and terms of reference were concerned, since the TMDC was an advisory body that offered advice on welfare of citizens in Tuen Mun, the terms of reference should not involve any investigation-type research, as opposed to study-type research; therefore, the wording could be subject to further discussion. As for the District Civil Rights Development Committee, she expressed respect for the TMDC’s amendment, i.e. adding the word “district” to the name to make the committee specific to Tuen Mun. She agreed with the Chairman that the TMDC might approve part of the terms of reference first and make further amendments in the light of circumstances in the future.

92. The Chairman consulted Members on renaming the functional committee the District Civil Rights Development Committee, and asked those who agreed to raise their hands.

93. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum suggested that in line with DO(TM)’s approach, the

- 21 -

Action name be changed to the Civil Rights Development Committee (Discussion Limited to Civil Rights in Tuen Mun due to constraints imposed by District Office). He sought views from Members.

94. The Chairman said Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum was supposed to propose the amendment in writing. At this point, she would first deal with the first item of the terms of reference, which read: “to monitor the implementation of human rights conventions signed and recognised by Hong Kong, the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance in Tuen Mun, promote the enjoyment of the relevant rights, and offer advice to the Government.” She asked Members who agreed to this item to raise their hands.

95. Mr WONG Tak-yuen said it was difficult to have discussion if relevant comments and the revised text were not provided for perusal.

96. The Chairman stressed that there were three steps in discussing the terms of reference for a functional committee: the text of the terms of reference should first be approved at a TMDC meeting, and might then be discussed and amended at a meeting of the functional committee, after which the amendments concerned should be approved and processed at the next TMDC meeting. Therefore, with regard to the District Civil Rights Development Committee, she suggested adopting only the first item of the terms of reference, whereby the first meeting could be held to elect the chairman and vice chairman, and to discuss, negotiate, enrich or amend the terms of reference. She further said it was time to discuss whether to approve the revised first item of the terms of reference in the paper submitted by Mr Michael MO and Ms HO Hang-mui, which read: “to monitor the implementation of human rights conventions signed and recognised by Hong Kong, the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance in Tuen Mun, promote the enjoyment of the relevant rights, and offer advice to the Government.” She asked Members if they agreed to adopt this item of the terms of reference.

97. Ms Catherine WONG noted that the name of the functional committee was not yet confirmed, so she wondered if it was appropriate to discuss the first item of the terms of reference. If the functional committee’s name was not widely accepted, it would be too early to discuss the terms of reference.

98. The Chairman responded that only the revised version submitted by Ms HO Hang-mui was available for the time being, while another revised version was being

- 22 -

Action awaited. She did not think that the renaming was irrelevant to the terms of reference; otherwise Members would not accept it.

99. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum said this was not a vote on whether to approve the terms of reference for the committee, but a vote on whether to accept the first item of the terms of reference for the committee. Thus, he suggested correction to the way of expression.

100. The Chairman said this was one of the possible ways of expression, and asked Members whether they agreed to the revised version of the first item of the terms of reference set out in the paper submitted by Mr Michael MO. Members had no comments, and the Chairman announced that the first item of the terms of reference was adopted. Then, she said it was time to deal with the name of the committee and asked Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum if any text was available.

101. At this point, the Chairman said she had received an impromptu motion, which read: “This motion is moved to change the “Civil Rights Development Committee” proposed by Mr Michael MO to the “District Civil Rights Development Committee (Discussion Limited to Civil Rights Matters in Tuen Mun as Recommended by Home Affairs Department).”

Moved by: CHEUNG Ho-sum Seconded by: LEUNG Ho-man, TSANG Chun-hing, WONG Tan-ching, LEE Ka-wai, YAN Pui-lam, KONG Fung-yi, HO Hang-mui, Alfred LAI, WONG Tak-yuen, YAN Siu-nam, HO Kwok-ho, YEUNG Chi-hang, LAM Kin-cheung, Beatrice CHU, LAM Ming-yan, LAM Chung-hoi, SO Ka-man, Catherine WONG, LO Chun-yu, MA Kee, WONG Hung-ming, Kenneth CHEUNG, POON Chi-kin, TSANG Kam-wing and LAW Pei-lee

102. The Chairman said this impromptu motion was accepted. There being no objections from Members, the Chairman asked Members to vote on the motion. After the vote, the motion was carried with 27 votes in favour, 0 against and 3 abstentions.

[Members voting in favour included: Mr WONG Tan-ching, Ms KONG Fung-yi, Ms

- 23 -

Action Catherine WONG, Ms HO Hang-mui, Mr LAM Chung-hoi, Ms Beatrice CHU, Ms SO Ka-man, Mr YEUNG Chi-hang, Mr YAN Siu-nam, Mr WONG Tak-yuen, Mr LEE Ka-wai, Mr HO Kwok-ho, Mr LAM Ming-yan, Mr LAM Kin-cheung, Mr CHOW Kai-lim, Mr MA Kee, Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum, Mr Kenneth CHEUNG, Mr LEUNG Ho-man, Mr WONG Hung-ming, Mr TSANG Chun-hing, Mr TSANG Kam-wing, Mr YAN Pui-lam, Mr POON Chi-kin, Mr Alfred LAI, Mr LO Chun-yu and Ms LAW Pei-lee. Members abstaining included: Mr CHAN Yau-hoi, Mr Michael MO and Ms LAI Ka-man.]

103. The Chairman said that on the agenda, there were still a number of matters to be attended to, including by whom the functional committees were comprised of. She then asked Members whether they agreed to the arrangements for appointing the Vice Chairman of the TMDC and the chairmen of the functional committees as the ex-officio members of the FAPC. Members had no comments, and the Chairman announced that the TMDC agreed the Vice Chairman of the TMDC and the chairmen of the functional committees serve as the ex-officio members of the FAPC.

104. On the term of office of the functional committees, the Chairman asked Members whether they agreed that the terms of office of the functional committees should remain at two years, i.e. ending on 31 December 2021. Members had no comments, and the Chairman announced that the TMDC agreed that the terms of office of the functional committees remain at two years, i.e. ending on 31 December 2021.

105. On the arrangements for the elections of the chairmen and vice chairmen of the functional committees, the Chairman asked Members whether they agreed to the arrangements for the elections of the functional committees’ chairmen and vice chairmen as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Paper No. 3.

106. Ms Beatrice CHU said that according to her understanding, the Chairman proposed that the title of Discussion Paper No. 8 submitted by Mr Michael MO and Ms HO Hang-mui be changed to “Terms of Reference for District Civil Rights Development Committee”, and that the first item of the terms of reference on the paper be kept as the direction approved at this meeting. She asked whether Members should vote on this decision. Also, she sought an explanation from the Secretariat.

107. The Chairman said she had asked whether Members agreed to adopt the

- 24 -

Action above arrangements. There being no comments from Members, she had announced the adoption of the above arrangements. She explained that the adoption of the terms of reference for other committees required only consensus, not shows of hands. She further said this approach served to set up the functional committee first. She stressed again that the functional committee could proceed to the second stage to further negotiate, revise and enrich its terms of reference. Other revised versions could be tabled at the next TMDC meeting for approval. She said this approach applied to several other committees, including the CIHC and the EHDDC.

108. The Chairman said that after the meeting, as proposed in Paper No. 3, Members might fill out the forms to join the functional committees, and they should return them to the Secretariat by 6:00 p.m. on 23 January. Besides, nominations for chairmen and vice chairmen should be provided for the Secretariat by 6:00 p.m. on 31 January for follow-up. The Secretariat would prepare the lists of members of all the committees and send them to the committees’ members by e-mail for reference, so that Members could make nominations for the committees’ chairmen and vice chairmen. In order not to affect nominations, applications submitted later than 6:00 p.m. on 23 January for joining or withdrawing from the committees would be recorded first, and would come into effect only after the elections of the committees’ chairmen and vice chairmen. Moreover, the nominations for the elections of the committees’ chairmen and vice chairmen should be returned to the Secretariat by 6:00 p.m. on 31 January. The Secretariat would send the lists of validly nominated candidates to Members by email for reference, so as to facilitate the elections of the committees’ chairmen and vice chairmen at their first meetings on 7 February. In addition, she suggested the committees form working groups and elect convenors at their first meetings. She would like the Secretariat to make preparations for this.

[At this point, the Chairman left the meeting venue and the meeting was temporarily chaired by the Vice Chairman.]

VII. The Financial Position of TMDC Funds as at 8 January 2020 (TMDC Paper No. 4/2020) 109. In response to Mr Michael MO’s enquiry, the Vice Chairman said the captioned paper was provided for perusal.

110. Participants perused the contents of the above paper.

- 25 -

Action VIII. TMDC Funds Applications for Activities to be Held or to Commence between February 2020 and March 2020 (TMDC Paper No. 5/2020) IX. TMDC Funds Applications for Activities to be Held or to Commence between March 2020 and February 2021 (TMDC Paper No. 6/2020) 111. Participants perused the contents of the above paper.

112. The Vice Chairman said that during the discussion on the applications for TMDC Funds, if any Members found that their posts or capacity were related to any partner organisations or other district organisations of activities in the applications, the Members were required to make declarations even if they did not intend to speak or vote on the matters concerned. Members should refrain from speaking on any matters in which they had interests; however, if they wished to speak or vote on the matters concerned, they should make a request beforehand. The Chairman would, in accordance with the Standing Orders, decide whether the Members might speak or vote on the matters concerned, might remain at the meeting as observers, or should withdraw from the meeting.

113. The Vice Chairman asked Members to note that as it took time to examine funding applications and organise activities, the funding applications set out in the above two papers had been endorsed in principle by the previous TMDC, and were submitted to the current TMDC for final approval.

114. Ms Catherine WONG said she would not vote on Paper No. 5 as she was the chairman of Sun King Residents Association, the applicant of activity item 12 on the paper.

115. Ms KONG Fung-yi said she would not vote on the papers concerned as she was the chairman of Tuen Mun Elderly United Association and Tuen Mun Forth Viewers.

116. Mr YAN Pui-lam spoke on the paper print-outs. He said prices and breakdowns had been set out in Paper No. 4 of the meeting on 7 January, but this time around two of the items were missing on Paper No. 5. He opined that the Secretariat should have printed the entire paper for Members, and that examination was not possible at this meeting. He said it was not fair on Members if they did not know the papers had been updated.

- 26 -

Action

117. The Secretary explained that some organisations had withdrawn their funding applications between the two meetings, so Paper No. 5 in question was slightly different from Paper No. 4 of the previous meeting and set out only the activities requiring the TMDC’s approval for funding at the meeting.

118. Mr YEUNG Chi-hang said he would not discuss or vote on the papers as he was the chairman of Butterfly Estate Residents Services Association.

119. Ms LAI Ka-man said she would not vote on the papers as she was the chairman of Po Tin Residential Right Association.

120. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum noted that as shown on Paper No. 5, there were many overlaps between activities, such as items 5, 6, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 33, so the paper should hardly be approved at this meeting. Taking items 10 and 11, which were two activities held by Leung Tin Resident Association, as an example, the amounts of funding applied for were $4,500 and $14,000 respectively. He knew neither how the funding would be used nor whether there were duplicate members from the associations involved in the above items. He needed further information to ensure proper use of public money. He reckoned that the Secretariat should prepare PDF files showing the list of members, the background and the objectives of each organisation, the records of the previous applications they had made for their activities, and how the funding concerned had been used. He said it was difficult to approve the funding when he only knew $18,000 was needed to hold a carnival but had no idea about how the funding was used and where the residents’ money was spent.

121. The Vice Chairman said he had raised questions for the Secretariat about the papers at the first meeting. He would like the Secretary to give a response again.

122. The Secretary responded that the Secretariat had earlier sent an email to Members, and the application forms concerned had been stored in compact discs (“CDs”), which had been put in Members’ mailboxes at the Secretariat for their reference.

123. The Vice Chairman said he knew that it was only on the day of the meeting that many Members had obtained the CDs kept in TMDC white envelopes.

- 27 -

Action 124. Mr TSANG Kam-wing said that as mentioned by Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum, there were many overlaps between the activities set out in Paper No. 5, and the amounts of funding applied for in respect of similar activities varied greatly. He asked which was more appropriate: to decide to generally approve the funding on the paper as a whole, or to examine and approve the funding for the items one by one.

125. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said he could not read the CD over the previous week or so because he had neither funding for purchasing a computer nor a councillors’ office. He noticed that the same amount of funding, i.e. $11,412, was applied for under both item 19, which was about a New Year celebration concert organised by Tuen Mun Tsing Chuen Wai Village Office, and item 35, which was about a New Year celebration concert organised by Tuen Tsz Wai Village Office. He questioned whether the two duplicated each other or their members were the same. He also asked whether the vote should be conducted on a one-off or an item-by-item basis. Besides, he requested the Secretariat to provide the print-outs of the applications in respect of items 19 and 35 for his perusal, and said he was curious about the amounts of funding in the two applications being the same, which was $11,412.

126. Mr HO Kwok-ho said Fu Tai Residents’ Association and the United Association Of Fu Tai, which were two associations of a former Member, would hold activities with the same name, i.e. Tour of the Year of the Rat, on the same day, and the amounts applied for were the same, which was $4,810. Both had been recommended by the Secretariat. He said he had lived in that area for 20 years but had never seen the two associations openly invite residents to join their activities. He wanted to know what criteria the Secretariat had used to recommend all of them. He believed the so-called “co-organising” meant organising activities on the same day. He asked how the criteria for DC funding had been defined.

127. Mr Michael MO said that while the Vice Chairman had said the two papers were discussed together, he believed Members would comment more on Paper No. 4 than on Paper No. 5, so he suggested the two papers be dealt with separately. He also said CDs were products of the previous generation, and he did not know why the CD could not be opened after being placed in a computer. He further said today’s technology was quite advanced, and if the TMDC provided funding for the Secretariat to perform duties, he would like them to move with the times and use network technologies to compare different versions of papers, because Papers No. 4 and 5 in question were much different from what they had been at the first meeting.

- 28 -

Action He considered that version was a very important thing as Members needed to see the changes. He suggested voting on Paper No. 5 first.

128. Mr YAN Pui-lam said the tablet he was using did not have a CD player. He said he could not see the details about the three projects in Siu Tsui. He opined that it would be more convenient if details were emailed in PDF files to Members. He asked when the Secretariat could email PDF files to them.

129. Mr POON Chi-kin said it was 2020 where basic technologies were enough to handle matters a DC needed to face for its routine meetings, and no exceptionally high technology was needed. He said putting records on CDs was something of the past. If simple PDF files were stored on Google Drive or a similar online cloud platform, Members could download and read the files themselves in an environment-friendly and convenient way, and there was no need to send the documents again after they was updated, or to print the documents and then make CDs. He opined that as different Members had different needs, CDs could continue to be provided for those who thought they were better. He opined that the Secretariat could prepare the documents needed for a meeting in a better way, so that Members could encourage participation by voters in their constituencies and, thus, by more members of the public. He said a Google account could cope and there was no need to use the complex blockchain technology. He hoped the Secretariat could make arrangements accordingly to facilitate Members’ meetings.

130. Ms HO Hang-mui said she suggested the TMDC open an account on Google Drive. Given the large amount of the documents involved, photocopying was not environment-friendly. She opined that what needed to be done was simply putting the documents on Google Drive, and everyone could view the details of each document after logging in to Google Drive. She believed Google Drive should have sufficient capacity for files, as long as documents were removed after each meeting in order for the documents of the next meeting to be uploaded.

131. The Secretary responded that according to the previous practices, the Secretariat’s examination and approval should be carried out in accordance with the TMDC Funding Guidelines on Implementation of Community Involvement Projects and the Manual on the Use of DC Funds to ensure that relevant requirements were met when each organisation submitted an application. The Community Involvement Projects was open for application in three rounds each year, and the annual number of applications received in Tuen Mun was as high as more than 1

- 29 -

Action 000. In the previous few terms, the TMDC had entrusted the Secretariat with the task of pre-examination to ensure that, for example, each organisation could not hold the same type of activities in the same round of application. As each activity had its own expense items, if there were duplicate expenses or the amounts applied for exceeded the caps, the Secretariat would make adjustments in accordance with the TMDC Funding Guidelines on Implementation of Community Involvement Projects and the Manual on the Use of DC Funds. But the reality was that it was difficult for Members to carefully examine every expense item at a meeting. Due to time constraints (e.g. the fact that some activities were to be held in February after this meeting), unless there were individual activities that violated the above two sets of rules, the Secretariat recommended Members give blanket approval to the paper, and Members might also single out and discuss individual activities that violated the above two sets of rules. The Secretary further said the Secretariat could not use Google Drive, but could send split PDF files to Members in separate emails. He opined that technical issues could be dealt with after the meeting.

132. With regard to the two sets of rules, Mr TSANG Kam-wing said that according to his experience in making applications, the proposals should contain a condition clearly stating that the public should be given equal opportunities to participate in the DC-funded activities. Members of traditional organisations were given priority for the organisations’ activities, and they learned about the activities earlier than others. In his opinion, this was tantamount to giving publicity to specific candidates. He asked the Secretariat if there was a way of preventing this. He reckoned there would be security problems if documents were sent by e-mail and uploaded to the website. He believed documents could be encrypted and sent by email, or alternatively Google Drive or other means could be used to deal with the matters concerned.

133. Mr YAN Siu-nam said links to the Secretariat’s hard drive could be provided by reference to the practice in the previous term.

134. Mr WONG Tak-yuen suggested discussing Paper No. 4 at another meeting.

135. Ms LAW Pei-lee said that hopefully the public would not feel that the current TMDC was deliberately making things difficult and refused to provide funding. She would have no objection if all activities were good for the public. She hoped public money could be used properly and Members could know more about the activities for ease of funding. She hoped the Secretariat would provide sufficient

- 30 -

Action information in the future to facilitate Members’ approval of funding. She said she did not understand why CDs were provided.

136. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said he did not accept the point about usual practice. He asked whether the funding criteria could be updated and revised. Residents had told him that singing activities at village offices were held every year. He noted that according to the Secretary, an organiser should not repeat the same type of activity in a season, but the organisation held singing activities at Lunar New Year (“LNY”), Mid-Autumn Festival, and the end of the year. He asked if this was a repetition, and said that if it was not, the funding criteria could be reviewed and revised so that the activities were open not only to villagers or indigenous residents, but also to other residents and non-indigenous residents.

137. Mr YAN Pui-lam asked if it was possible to single out the items with problems for case-by-case examination, and said that if it was not possible, he would suggest the approval process be modified, whereby each Member would be allowed to find out items with problems, and the other activities would be bundled up for more efficient funding approval.

138. The Vice Chairman said that as mentioned by the Secretary, Members might single out the activities that they considered more special and approve the remaining funding applications. The Secretary said in response that the Vice Chairman’s explanation was correct.

139. The Vice Chairman went on to say that he had only heard some Members raising questions about certain activities, but they had not expressed the need to single them out. Therefore, he asked Members if there were any items that needed to be singled out.

140. Mr Michael MO said that without sufficient information and time for thorough discussion, it was not appropriate to take a consolidated vote. He suggested the paper be referred to the FAPC or a special meeting to be held, so that more time could be allowed to examine and vote on the items one by one. He believed there should be no big problems with the applications made by the TMDO, the TMDC and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”), so the paper concerned could be processed first. Yet, it took more time to peruse the other paper that covered a larger number of applications.

- 31 -

Action 141. The Vice Chairman said that while the two papers were discussed together, they could be voted on separately, so he suggested Paper No. 5 be perused first. The Vice Chairman asked Members to specify the highly problematic funding items. Also, he understood that Members did not have sufficient information, and the Secretary had a full set of documents available for Members’ perusal. But he believed one set of documents was hardly enough for many Members.

142. Mr LAM Ming-yan asked whether it was reasonable for more than 20 Members to peruse a document with more than 100 items at the same time in the meeting.

143. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG wanted to have priority in reading the document as he had expressed the wish to examine items 19 and 35 in his earlier speech. Also, he expressed the hope that the new TMDC would come with a new culture and move with the times. Therefore, he asked whether it was possible to revise the funding criteria so that the items could be examined one by one instead.

144. The Vice Chairman said that due to limited time for the meeting and insufficient information, he would like to consult Members on whether to defer the vote or take the vote at this meeting. He reckoned that the time for the deferred vote could be subject to further discussion.

145. The Secretary said that according to the Standing Orders, the TMDC could approve a document by circulation of papers. The Secretariat could resolve technical issues first by sending documents to Members by e-mail for circulation, so as to seek the consent of not less than two-thirds of the Members and thus get the funding approved. The Secretary added that it was allowable for organisations to make separate funding applications in respect of the same type of activities in three seasons. The TMDC had always examined and approved the applications of all organisations in an unbiased manner. As long as the applications complied with the two sets of rules mentioned earlier, and the individual breakdowns did not exceed the caps for funding, only the non-compliant application breakdowns would be removed. He said Paper No. 5 could be approved by circulation of papers, whereas Paper No. 6 involved the Secretariat’s staff recruitment. Due to a shortage of staff, he invited the TMDC to consider approving Paper No. 6 first to prevent understaffing in the new TMDC.

146. Mr LEE Ka-wai suggested this matter be put aside for the time being, as it

- 32 -

Action was difficult to approve the funding when many Members had not yet seen the information they wanted. He asked if another meeting could be held in the month to deal with the funding in question.

147. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum said he agreed that the TMDC needed a new culture, and funding should be used properly as it was taxpayers’ money. This was the reason why residents had elected them. While he did not know when the coming FAPC meeting would be held, he considered that it was necessary to examine the details of the activities carefully. Therefore, he suggested the funding matter be deferred until the coming FAPC or TMDC meeting, while Paper No. 6 be approved first at this meeting.

148. Mr POON Chi-kin said the first point was how to ensure open and fair participation by all organisations without oligopolies in funding applications. Second, he said the Secretariat had not explained clearly why Google Drive could not be used. He reckoned that the documents could be encrypted if there was security concern. He said it took only 15 minutes to open a Google Drive account, upload documents and send out a link. Third, the funding should not be approved or rejected hastily as there was no sufficient information available. In his view, the FAPC should first have discussion and then make recommendations to the TMDC for approval.

149. Ms Beatrice CHU said that first, Members should not grant approval without perusing the documents, as public money was involved. Second, she invited the Secretariat to deliberate on how to improve the media for sending information to Members, and whether to cling to such an old-fashioned medium as CDs. Third, she did not agree to using circulation of papers as a means to seek the consent of not less than two-thirds of the Members for approval of funding, because this practice had always been highly controversial in the TMDC before. Fourth, she agreed that the paper should be referred to the FAPC for follow-up.

150. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said he had glanced at the information about the two items. The budgets in the two items were exactly the same, with the cost of hiring singers being $6,350, which accounted for more than half of the total expenditure of $11,000. He did not know what singers the organisers were going to hire, nor was he sure if the activities could serve 600 residents. He said he could approve them grudgingly to avoid criticism, adding that he would certainly attend the two activities, which would be held on 2 and 3 February respectively, to see if there was

- 33 -

Action a turn-out of 600 people and whether the singers were worth being paid $6,350.

151. Ms Catherine WONG asked the Vice Chairman whether she could generally speak on how to deal with the papers despite her earlier declaration of interest. The Vice Chairman said the discussion was about approval of funding, so he thought it was not appropriate for her to speak on this matter.

152. Ms HO Hang-mui said she did not understand why it was not possible to upload documents to Google Drive. She believed documents could be encrypted and uploaded so that each time the Secretariat only needed to provide a link for Members to read the documents. She further said that while she did not know when the FAPC would meet next time, most of the activities set out in the paper could be referred to the FAPC for approval as they involved several thousand dollars to $10,000. As some activities of specific organisations and committees involved more than $100,000, they needed to be dealt with at this meeting. She disagreed with approving the papers by circulation of papers, as this was a means involving no discussion. Therefore, she hoped the activities involving more than $100,000 would be discussed at this meeting and the rest would be left to the FAPC.

153. Mr LEE Ka-wai asked the Secretariat to provide the documents for Members’ consideration as soon as possible. He suggested the papers be put aside for the time being and put up for discussion at the earliest possible time in the month. And in response to Mr YAN Siu-nam’s suggestion of sending documents via hyperlinks, he reckoned that by reference to the practice of the Legislative Council (“LegCo”), documents could be sent via hyperlinks to Members and the public for perusal. He believed the TMDC could try to upload the documents to its website for Members to read them more easily.

154. The Secretary said he had nothing to add on technical issues such as Google Drive but, as far as he knew, all computers in the entire building of Tuen Mun Government Offices had no access to Google Drive. If necessary, details could be sought from the information technology section of the HAD. Besides, a system was in place to monitor DC funding, under which councillors took turns monitoring activities that involved funding of more than $20,000 to see whether they complied with the rules on DC funding. If Members agreed to this approach, the Secretariat would prepare a duty roster for Members to monitor activities involving more than $20,000 starting from February. He added that the FAPC would meet for the first time on 7 February to elect its chairman and vice chairman, and this discussion item

- 34 -

Action was currently covered by the meeting. It was possible to have an additional item covered by the meeting if the TMDC so wished, and the funding concerned could come up for discussion on 7 February at the earliest. However, if the funding for some applications was not approved in January, it would be basically impossible to hold the related activities because, according to the rules, applicants must obtain DC funding before incurring expenses. If Members discussed the funding concerned on 7 February, some organisations would be unable to obtain DC funding for their activities to be held in February. In addition, activities involving more than $100,000 must be examined and approved at TMDC meetings after they were endorsed by the FAPC. He suggested Members first approve the applications that involved more than $100,000, i.e. the six items numbered 126, 127, 129, 130, 131 and 132 on the paper, at this meeting.

155. Referring to the activities to be held in February and March as shown on the paper, Ms KONG Fung-yi asked whether the funding applications in respect of these activities would not, as mentioned by the Secretary, be approved even if they were discussed next time at the FAPC meeting. She reckoned that a clear expression was necessary and, if that was the case, a decision should be made at this meeting to cancel the activities.

156. The Vice Chairman said that as Ms KONG Fung-yi had declared her interest and would not vote on the paper, he had been negligent in not restraining her from speaking. He further said that due to insufficient information, he suggested applications involving more than $100,000 should be approved at the TMDC meeting, while those involving lower amounts should be referred to the FAPC for consideration.

157. Mr Alfred LAI wanted the Secretariat’s clarification as to whether all the applications for February would be cancelled automatically and the activities concerned could not be held if the activities involving less than $100,000 were referred to the FAPC for consideration at its meeting on 7 February.

158. The Secretary responded that applicant organisations should not incur any expenses until they received the letters of approval, so theoretically they had to obtain the TMDC’s approval letters before starting their activities. If it was only at the FAPC meeting on 7 February that the activities to be held in early February were scrutinised, the organisations concerned should not be able to hold the activities as scheduled, though ultimately it was up to the organisations to decide whether to

- 35 -

Action proceed with their activities or not.

159. Before the discussion of the matter, Ms LAI Ka-man had declared her interest and said she would not speak, so the Vice Chairman asked her about the nature of her speech. She said she wanted to generally speak on the matter, just like some Members who had declared interests. The Vice Chairman said he had interrupted the speeches of those Members and admitted his negligence earlier.

160. In response to the Secretary’s explanation, Mr Alfred LAI asked whether the organisations could apply to the FAPC for reimbursement after the activities.

161. The Secretary responded that the organisations should not incur any expenses until they received the letters of approval. If the organisations assumed that the TMDC would approve the funding, and incurred expenses before receiving the approval letters, they would not be reimbursed for the expenses concerned.

[At this point, the Chairman returned to the conference room and resumed chairmanship of the meeting.]

162. The Chairman said she knew Members had a lot of comments on funding applications, with some suggesting the discussion be deferred to 7 February. However, most of the applications set out on the paper were made by general rather than specific organisations, while applications for substantial funding were usually made by specific organisations. The Chairman said a line could be set to address Members’ doubts about the substantial funding, and the funding to general organisations could be approved first. While Members reckoned that funding of relatively large amounts should be discussed in detail, the FAPC could not deal with such funding since activities involving more than $100,000 had to be dealt with at TMDC meetings. Nothing would be achieved if Members wanted the FAPC to discuss the funding to specific organisations. The Chairman quoted some examples: the $12,000 funding that Tuen Mun Sports Association Limited applied for to organise the Tuen Mun New Year Football Carnival as shown in item 124 on page 8 of the paper; the $8,150 for the Chinese Orchestra Annual Concert organised by Tuen Mun Arts Promotion Association; the $269,500 for the Free Meal for the Elderly organised by Tuen Mun Respect for the Aged Association, which was a relatively large amount; the $157,213 for the civic education committee; the $174,000 or so for the fire safety committee, and the activities jointly held by partner organisations and working groups. The Chairman said it was quite difficult

- 36 -

Action to leave it to the FAPC to discuss all the funding, so she suggested the applications from general organisations should be approved first, but those from specific organisations should not be referred to the FAPC. She asked Members to discuss at this meeting the items which they had doubts about to see whether the funding concerned should be put aside; otherwise Members should first deal with the items on the paper to avoid uncertainty. Again, she invited Members to decide whether to approve the funding at this meeting, because referral to the FAPC was not much help. She added that the applications made by general organisations were highly trivial and complicated, so unless Members had read them one by one when preparing for the meeting, referral to the FAPC would serve little purpose except to prolong the uncertainty. She reiterated that the FAPC could not handle substantial funding, so she told Members that if they had doubts about and did not want to approve the substantial funding, they might take such a decision at this meeting.

163. Mr LO Chun-yu said he had read the application for funding of $269,500, which was made by Tuen Mun Respect for the Aged Association to host the Free Meal for the Elderly. The largest expense was the elderly allowance amounting to $216,000 for a fee-charging “pun choi” feast, which seated 12 people per table. He asked whether there were ways of monitoring the ticket situation to ensure benefits to people in Tuen Mun, if the whole activity was open to 3 600 persons.

164. Mr Michael MO said he did not agree to the approach proposed by the Chairman. They could not read the CDs concerned, and hoped they could have enough time for reading before voting on the budgets provided by the general organisations. He reckoned that it was not fair on taxpayers if the vote on the funding to general organisations was taken hastily. He suggested Paper No. 6 be approved right away at this meeting, and other funding be open for Members’ discussion at the FAPC.

165. Mr LEUNG Ho-man said he did not agree to approve the funding, as Members had no time to read the information. He suggested an additional meeting be held at the end of January (e.g. on 31 January), and invite Members to think about compromise solutions.

166. The Chairman said Mr Michael MO had also proposed a compromise solution, which was to deal with the substantial funding at this meeting and refer funding of less than $100,000 to the FAPC. She hoped Members could really read the information and process the applications at the FAPC. She had not been in the

- 37 -

Action TMDC over the preceding four years, but as far as she knew, the Secretariat had basically followed the DC funding guidelines in dealing with funding to general organisations and acted in a non-discriminatory manner in making recommendations for funding. In her opinion, Members only needed to see whether the Secretariat had followed the guidelines in making recommendations to ensure no discriminatory treatment. She added that if Members agreed to Mr Michael MO’s suggestion, funding of large amounts would be dealt with first, and that of less than $100,000 would be referred to the FAPC. She put forward three options. The first was to confirm at this meeting the funding approved in the previous term as recommended by the Secretariat; the second was to deal with and decide on the funding of more than $100,000 at this meeting, and refer the funding of less than $100,000 to the FAPC; the third was to reject the funding of more than $100,000 and refer the funding of less than $100,000 to the FAPC. The Chairman hoped a consensus could be reached by choosing one of these three options rather than by continued discussion. She said that if Members had a fourth option, they might put it forward; otherwise they should select an option by a show of hands after a minute.

167. Mr LEE Ka-wai said Mr LEUNG Ho-man had expressed his wish to hold a special meeting on 31 January or another day in the month to discuss all the items. This was the fourth option put forward by Mr LEUNG Ho-man.

168. Ms Beatrice CHU said the Chairman could not hear what Members had spoken on the matter, perhaps because she had not been in the conference room earlier. She added that even when the Chairman had been present, Mr Michael MO had only said Paper No. 5 should be put aside and Paper No. 6 should be approved at the meeting, rather than suggesting, as the Chairman had put it, that the relatively minor funding should be dealt with first. She said she just wanted to ensure the correct understanding of the point that Paper No. 5 should be put aside and another date should be chosen to examine the applications concerned. As Paper No. 6 concerned the funding for government departments hiring staff to maintain operation, she hoped Paper No. 6 could be approved at this meeting.

169. The Chairman said this was the fourth option. She asked Members to consider it as well and make comments.

170. Ms LAW Pei-lee said that according to the Chairman, having discussion at the FAPC was not a feasible option, so she agreed that a special meeting be held to deal with the funding.

- 38 -

Action

171. Mr Alfred LAI said he hoped a meeting would be held before 31 January. He believed what Members wanted was to examine rather than reject the funding, so he hoped the meeting could be held earlier.

172. The Chairman said the TMDC resolved to approve Paper No. 6 and recommended calling a special meeting on Paper No. 5. As it was still unclear how many matters at this meeting would remain to be dealt with and need to be taken forward, she suggested the discussion about the special meeting be deferred to Any Other Business on the agenda.

X. TMDC Funds Application for Activity to be Held in February 2020 (TMDC Paper No. 7/2020) 173. Participants perused the contents of the above paper.

174. As Members had no comments, the Chairman announced that the applications for TMDC funding set out in the paper were approved.

XI. Urge the Government to Reinstate Municipal Councils (TMDC Paper No. 9/2020) 175. The Chairman said item 8 had been discussed together with item 2, so it was time to deal with item 9 on the agenda. She asked if there was any department representative present for this matter. After consulting with the Secretary, she proceeded with the meeting.

176. The Chairman said the matter was “Urge the Government to Reinstate Municipal Councils” and, according to the advice from the Secretariat, Regional Council should be included because the TMDC was in New Territories. Thus, the Secretariat had recommended Members consider modifying the motion, making it read: “This Council urges the Government to Reinstate the Urban Council and the Regional Council”, since the TMDC was supposed to discuss TMDC-related matters. She asked whether Members agreed to the inclusion of Regional Council, and said that if they agreed, they would have to move amendments.

177. Mr MA Kee said that though there was only one LegCo, there had been two separate municipal councils back then, and might be only one municipal council for territory-wide discussion, or five separate municipal councils (e.g. New Territories East, New Territories West, the urban area, islands and so forth) in the future. He

- 39 -

Action said it was too early to talk about that, so there was no need to modify the agenda.

178. The Chairman invited the mover, Mr Michael MO, to explain his motion to Members first.

179. Mr Michael MO said Articles 97 and 98 of the Basic Law stated that after 1997, “the powers and functions of district organizations and the method of their formation shall be prescribed by law”, and the former Chief Executive, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying had said so. He further said Article 97 stated that “District organizations which are not organs of political power may be established in Hong Kong, to be consulted by the government of the Region on district administration and other affairs, or to be responsible for providing services in such fields as culture, recreation and environmental sanitation”, which, to put it simply, meant municipal organs like the Urban Council and the Regional Council. He noticed that when handling or carrying out councillors’ business, Members found that it took strenuous efforts to push the LCSD and the FEHD to act. Taking the issues in Tuen Mun Park as an example, he said Members had put a great deal of time, thought and efforts into dealing with LCSD officers before. He believed that if a local municipal authority (whether the Urban Council or the Regional Council) was in place, the duties would be carried out by the Urban Services Department or the Regional Services Department in accordance with an “accountability chain”. He pointed out that when the municipal councils had been abolished years back, it had been said that DCs’ functions and roles would be enhanced. But he opined that the promise to enhance the functions and hierarchy of DCs had yet to be fulfilled. Therefore, he urged the Government to reinstate the municipal councils. In response to the Secretary’s advice, he said he was ready to accept Members’ modification, be it the inclusion of the “Regional Council” or using “regional municipal authority” instead. Finally, he stated that the motion was compatible with the functions of a DC prescribed in section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance.

180. The Chairman asked if any Member would propose that the motion, which read: “This Council urges the Government to reinstate municipal councils”, be amended to read: “This Council urges the Government to reinstate the Urban Council and the Regional Council.”

181. Mr YEUNG Chi-hang said that in response to the Chairman’s suggestion, he moved to add “and the Regional Council” to title of the discussion item. His

- 40 -

Action motion was seconded by Mr YAN Siu-nam and Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum.

182. The Chairman said a vote was to be taken on whether to adopt the amendment to the motion. There were 25 Members in favour of the amendment.

183. The Chairman said that with the amendment to the motion passed by a simple majority, the original motion was superseded by the amended motion. Then, the Chairman invited Members to vote on the amended motion. After the vote, the amended motion was carried with 26 votes in favour, 0 against and 3 abstentions.

[Members voting in favour included: Mr WONG Tan-ching, Ms KONG Fung-yi, Ms Catherine WONG, Ms HO Hang-mui, Ms Beatrice CHU, Ms SO Ka-man, Mr YEUNG Chi-hang, Mr YAN Siu-nam, Mr WONG Tak-yuen, Mr LEE Ka-wai, Mr Michael MO, Mr HO Kwok-ho, Mr LAM Ming-yan, Mr LAM Kin-cheung, Mr CHOW Kai-lim, Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum, Mr Kenneth CHEUNG, Mr LEUNG Ho-man, Mr WONG Hung-ming, Mr TSANG Chun-hing, Mr TSANG Kam-wing, Mr YAN Pui-lam, Mr POON Chi-kin, Mr Alfred LAI, Mr LO Chun-yu and Ms LAW Pei-lee. Members abstaining included: Mr CHAN Yau-hoi, Mr MA Kee and Ms LAI Ka-man.]

184. The Chairman said she would send the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Secretariat Bureau through the Secretariat a letter about the TMDC’s passage of the motion and offer views to the Government. She asked whether Members agreed to this approach. As Members had no comments, the Chairman invited the Secretariat to follow up on this matter.

[Post-meeting note: After the meeting, the Secretariat forwarded the motion to the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau for consideration.]

XII. Adjustment to or Cancellation of Existing Smoking Areas in Tuen Mun Park (TMDC Paper No. 10/2020) 185. Mr LO Chun-yu, the first proposer of the paper, said this motion was very simple. He said the smoking area of Tuen Mun Park was currently located in an open area in the centre of the park, and residents had often told him that undesirably, many people could smell cigarette smoke in other parts of the park. Therefore, he reckoned that there were two approaches to the above situation: either moving the

- 41 -

Action existing smoking area from the centre of the park to a suitable location, or even removing the smoking area in Tuen Mun Park. He invited comments from relevant officials and Members.

186. The Chairman asked other Members if they had any comments on this paper.

187. Mr TSANG Kam-wing agreed that the smoking area should be removed rather than moved to another place. He cited foreign practice as an example, saying that Japanese smoking areas were enclosed areas fitted with ventilation equipment inside. From his observation in Tuen Mun Park, the smoking area located in the centre of the park existed in name only, and Members could still smell smoke. The cigarette smoke could absolutely be smelled outside the smoking area if several people smoked there at the same time. Given the semi-enclosed design of the smoking area, he asked whether the LCSD would enforce the law if members of the public smoked on the border of the smoking area. He said that when reminded by Members, the elderly people would cross the border into the smoking area; when Members went away, they would come out again. He wondered if it was suitable to retain the smoking area. Besides, he said the park was a place for family enjoyment, with an inclusive playground opened in recent years. Smoking in the venue could affect not only the health of every facility user, but also their mood about using the park. Therefore, he suggested the smoking area should be removed directly, and those who wanted to smoke might go to smoking-permitted venues.

188. Ms Pat TAM, District Leisure Manager (Tuen Mun) of the LCSD, said an amendment to the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance had been passed in late 2006 to expand the statutory no-smoking areas, and the relevant laws and anti-smoking measures had been implemented in LCSD recreation venues starting from 1 January 2007. But having regard to the habits of users of certain venues, the LCSD had set up smoking areas in a few large venues. In December 2006, the DFMC had resolved to set up two smoking areas in Tuen Mun Park, one next to the hexagonal pavilion and the other next to the pool pavilion bridge. She believed what Members described as the smoking area in the centre of the park was the smoking area near the toilet beside the pool pavilion. The LCSD held an open mind about adjusting or removing the existing smoking areas in Tuen Mun Park. If the TMDC passed the above motion, the department would launch a public consultation and report to the TMDC on its results.

- 42 -

Action 189. The Chairman said this matter was about adjusting or removing the existing smoking areas in Tuen Mun Park. She suggested the motion be processed immediately and, if carried, be referred to a relevant committee for further follow-up and handling with the LCSD. She believed that with very high support among the public, the total removal of the smoking areas was something that set to be achieved. Alternatively, if gradual progress was preferred, a flexible approach could be taken where one smoking area would be removed first while the other would be retained. She asked whether Members agreed to process the motion first.

190. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said that if smokers or members of the public in the consultation expressed the view that the smoking areas could be retained, the LCSD might still modify their design by, for example, following other countries or regions in setting up enclosed smoking areas. He believed it was not difficult to arrange to set up an area of about 50 feet fitted with a door and a ventilation system for members of the public to smoke and discard cigarette butts inside without affecting other people in the park. He said that if the motion was passed at this meeting, the above proposal could be offered to the public in the subsequent public consultation.

191. The Chairman said consideration could be given to some alternatives proposed in the paper, such as erecting screens to hide the smoking areas, which could serve the same purpose as the solution just proposed by Mr Kenneth CHEUNG. She said it would be more ideal if a sealed room, i.e. a more enclosed structure, could be set up. The Chairman then processed the motion. After a vote, the motion was carried with 28 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

[Members voting in favour included: Mr WONG Tan-ching, Ms KONG Fung-yi, Mr CHAN Yau-hoi, Ms Catherine WONG, Ms HO Hang-mui, Mr LAM Chung-hoi, Ms Beatrice CHU, Mr YEUNG Chi-hang, Mr YAN Siu-nam, Mr WONG Tak-yuen, Mr LEE Ka-wai, Mr Michael MO, Mr HO Kwok-ho, Mr LAM Ming-yan, Mr LAM Kin-cheung, Mr CHOW Kai-lim, Mr MA Kee, Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum, Mr Kenneth CHEUNG, Mr LEUNG Ho-man, Mr WONG Hung-ming, Mr TSANG Chun-hing, Mr TSANG Kam-wing, Mr YAN Pui-lam, Mr POON Chi-kin, Mr Alfred LAI, Mr LO Chun-yu and Ms LAW Pei-lee. The Member abstaining was Ms SO Ka-man.]

192. The Chairman said this matter was referred to the DFMC for further follow-up.

- 43 -

Action XIII. Concern over Noise and Management Problems of Tuen Mun Park and Request for Enhanced Regulation of Unauthorised Music/Dance Performances (TMDC Paper No. 11/2020) 193. Mr Alfred LAI, the first proposer of the paper, said the day of this meeting marked the one-month anniversary of the programme of meeting the public in Tuen Mun Park. In the previous month, both Members and the public had been hoping that tranquillity could be restored in Tuen Mun Park. Therefore, this agenda item was raised at this meeting with the hope that the Government would give an explanation to the TMDC and the public. He said the current situation in Tuen Mun Park was not satisfactory, particularly with confrontations or conflicts seen in the park in recent days; however, there was still no clear approach to the problems. He hoped government departments, especially the LCSD, would step up law enforcement. Second, a number of Members had pointed out in their earlier dialogue with the Government that the problems in Tuen Mun Park were found in none of other parks in Hong Kong. In addition to the problems about singing and smoking, there were also hygiene problems caused by park users who drank and then littered. In his opinion, Tuen Mun Park was the worst park in Hong Kong, but also a top-notch park in northwest New Territories. From a historical perspective, Tuen Mun Park, Tin Shui Wai Park and Yuen Long Park were all located in the heart of new development towns and mainly used by residents. Therefore, he hoped government departments, especially the LCSD, the HKPF and the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”), would pay more attention. He said tackling the problems in Tuen Mun Park was a cross-departmental responsibility that should not fall solely on the LCSD. Therefore, other departments should have the same responsibility and work together to redress the situation in Tuen Mun Park.

194. The Chairman said several questions and recommendations were put forward in the paper. At the first TMDC meeting, Members had asked DO(TM) to arrange an inter-departmental meeting to tackle the entrenched problems in Tuen Mun Park.

195. Ms Pat TAM, District Leisure Manager (Tuen Mun) of the LCSD, responded as follows: (i) There had been 10 to 12 singing groups in Tuen Mun Park at the peak time. After TMDC Members had launched the “meet-the-public programme” in Tuen Mun Park a month earlier, more members of the public who had felt annoyed by noise when using the park were willing to come forward to act as witnesses, leading to a rise in the

- 44 -

Action number of prosecutions in Tuen Mun Park. As a result, there had been only one to three singing groups still attending the park in the previous week, and sometimes there had been even no singing performers in the park; (ii) Over the previous three years, the department had invoked section 25 of the Pleasure Grounds Regulation (“PGR”) to carry out a total of 25 prosecutions in Tuen Mun Park, and there had been six cases of conviction by the Magistrates’ Courts, with fines ranging from $800 to $1,200; (iii) While the department mainly used section 25 of the PGR for prosecution, section 32 of the PGR had also been invoked to deal with a noise issue in Tuen Mun Park in January 2020. On that occasion, the offenders had not stopped after being prosecuted in accordance with section 25, so the LCSD officers had given the offenders a warning, but they still had not stopped. Therefore, in the police’s presence and with their assistance, the LCSD officers had invoked section 32 to expel the persons concerned from Tuen Mun Park; (iv) The proposal to ban loudspeakers in Tuen Mun Park from morning to noon might not be feasible. Under the existing PGR, there was no restriction on the use of loudspeakers in parks. In 2013, the LCSD had introduced “Park Rules” that regulated noise activities in Hoi Sham Park, under which park users carrying oversized loudspeakers had been restricted from entering the park. But in a court case in 2015, the magistrate had ruled that the LCSD’s measure to restrict users from carrying loudspeakers was in conflict with section 25 of the PGR. After seeking legal advice, the LCSD had repealed the previously introduced “Park Rules”. Therefore, the LCSD had mainly invoked section 25 of the PGR for prosecution since then; (v) Beer was on offer at the kiosk in Tuen Mun Park, but the contract for the kiosk would end on 31 January 2020. The new operator would not be allowed to sell alcoholic beverages under the new contract, which would commence on 1 March 2020; (vi) As for the Tuen Mun Park hotline, the park had assigned additional staff to answer public calls in the office; (vii) More security guards had been hired for the park. Park users who felt annoyed by noise might seek assistance from the black-uniformed security guards, who could use walkie-talkies to communicate with the park staff for more speedy handling of complaints; and

- 45 -

Action (viii) The HKPF, the Immigration Department (“ImmD”), the Tobacco and Alcohol Control Office (“TACO”) of the Department of Health, the EPD, the Labour Department (“LD”) and the LCSD had joined an inter-departmental meeting on 20 January at the invitation of DO(TM). The government departments had reached a consensus that joint raids should be launched from time to time with a view to tackling the noise nuisance in Tuen Mun Park more effectively.

196. Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), said the HKPF was well aware of what role it played and what appropriate action it should take on the issue of noise in Tuen Mun Park. Regarding the noise, Members might think there were no policemen on the ground when no uniformed officers were in evidence, but actually the Police were already standing by there to respond. Police officers had turned up quickly to offer assistance when incidents had happened during Members’ earlier visits to the park. Generally speaking, when an incident happened in Tuen Mun Park, the LCSD would handle it in accordance with the PGR; when there was a criminal case or a breach of public peace, the Police would come within a short time to offer assistance. Also, the LCSD had requested the HKPF’s support before. For example, when people on the spot refused to show their identity cards at the requests of LCSD officers, police officers at the scene would see to the matter and help the enforcement along. Moreover, DO(TM) had set up a platform for inter-departmental collaboration, and the Police would certainly play an active part and cooperate with different departments to solve the problems.

197. DO(TM) said the TMDC had passed a motion on 7 January urging DO(TM) to coordinate inter-departmental joint operations, so the TMDO had earlier met with relevant departments (including the LCSD, the HKPF, the EPD, the ImmD, the LD, the TACO and so forth). The government departments were aware of Members’ concerns about the issues of noise, smoking, drinking and indecent activities in Tuen Mun Park. Also, the departments concerned had agreed to carry out irregular inter-departmental joint operations to combat offences.

198. Ms HO Hang-mui said that currently only the park manager could enforce the law in Tuen Mun Park, which was not enough given the vast area of the park. Earlier on, she had made a complaint immediately upon seeing a person smoking in a non-smoking area. While the phone call had been answered immediately, it had taken six minutes from her call to the park manager’s arrival, upon which the smoker had already stopped smoking and discarded the cigarette butt. According

- 46 -

Action to the park manager, he could not issue a summons immediately without being witness to what had happened. At that time, she had said she had already taken photos in the first instance and could give a witness statement shortly afterwards. The park manager had replied that he had to seek legal advice to study whether prosecution could be initiated based on her witness statement and photos. She said the effectiveness of law enforcement would be affected if there was only one officer for prosecution, so more prosecution staff was necessary.

199. Mr POON Chi-kin thanked the LCSD representative for providing information that enabled Members to better understand the situation in Tuen Mun Park. He said many Members were disappointed upon hearing the prosecution figures for the previous three years and the consequences faced by the offenders being no deterrent to them. There were many noise makers in Tuen Mun Park, but only 25 prosecutions over the previous three years. He said the department had finally invoked section 32 of the PGR to carry out a prosecution in January. From late December to early January, Members in Tuen Mun Park had kept asking the LCSD manager surnamed TAM and other staff to invoke the ordinance for enforcement. While the LCSD had used to claim that it had to study how to invoke the ordinance, it had finally used the ordinance for law enforcement. He expressed appreciation for this, which showed that the LCSD was receptive to the TMDC’s opinions. Besides, he said the department had just mentioned that the park’s kiosk would not be allowed to sell alcoholic beverages under the new contract for the kiosk, but he expected that given the exceptionally high alcohol usage among Tuen Mun Park users, some people would smuggle alcohol into the park for consumption. He opined that the problem of alcoholism in Tuen Mun Park could hardly be tackled at its root, no matter whether alcohol was smuggled into the park for sale or personal consumption. In this regard, he asked if any legislation was in place for the LCSD’s staff to exercise control and how the department would cope when they saw park users carrying alcoholic beverages into the park. Moreover, he asked about how frequent the irregular inter-departmental joint operations mentioned by DO(TM) would be, what departments were involved, and whether the minutes of the above inter-departmental meetings were available for reference by Members and the public. He said the problems in Tuen Mun Park were a matter of concern for the entire Tuen Mun, and the inter-departmental meeting was a milestone.

200. In response to a Member’s earlier request for an expansion of LCSD prosecution staff, Mr TSANG Kam-wing said there was recently another officer-grade staff member enforcing the law in the park. He noted that the two

- 47 -

Action LCSD staff members who could issue tickets took enforcement action against the same offender at the same time. He wondered if such action was effective. In this regard, he asked the LCSD if the provision of additional staff was coupled by prosecution materials enough for two persons. Second, the manager was always accompanied by a group of staff in law enforcement actions, so offenders would leave when seeing them from a distance. As for the sale of alcoholic beverages at the kiosk, he said the problem of alcoholism remained unsolved as he had seen elderly people bringing their own alcoholic beverages into the park. He expected that after the kiosk reopened in March, some park users would also bring their own alcoholic beverages along to drink in the park. He asked how the problem of alcoholism could be solved, and suggested an outright ban on alcohol in Tuen Mun Park, whereby the public would be prohibited from holding alcoholic beverages in the park.

201. Mr LAM Ming-yan said the LCSD required witnesses to put down their addresses immediately when they filled out statement papers, but if the witnesses did so, their addresses might be seen by others as there were many people in the park. Therefore, he asked if it was possible to cancel the requirement of immediate provision of address and allow witnesses to provide their addresses only when they went to the office later to give statements. In addition, he said that when on duty at Tuen Mun Park on 10 January, he had noticed the LCSD being unable to deal with some situations (e.g. clashes). Members of the public had called the Police at 5:01 that day, but the Police had still not responded an hour later at about 6 o’clock. He had called the report room of Castle Peak Police Station. The Police had responded that staff arrangements had to be made. It was only at about 7 o’clock that officers had arrived at Tuen Mun Park, and the plate number of one of the police cars was AM9840. He asked why the Police needed two hours to arrive at the scene that day.

202. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum was glad to hear that DO(TM) had called an inter-departmental meeting in response to the passage of the Tuen Mun Park motion at the first TMDC meeting. He expressed concern about the frequency of the raids mentioned at the above meeting, saying that he had been following up on issues in Tuen Mun Park since June or July. From his observations, the raids were not effective in that the performers would take chances after evading one or two raids, and “horse-racing and dancing would carry on as usual”. Therefore, he had reservations about the effectiveness of the raids. Besides, the LCSD was unable to ban users from bringing loudspeakers into parks after the 2015 case, so he proposed

- 48 -

Action an impromptu motion: “This Council urges the LCSD to apply for a court injunction banning persons who have repeatedly violated the Pleasure Grounds Regulation in Tuen Mun Park from bringing loudspeakers into the park for performance or self-entertainment.” He hoped the LCSD or DO(TM) would respond to whether the proposal on injunction was feasible. As the court had issued a number of injunctions since June the year before, he asked whether it was possible to use an injunction to improve people’s lives.

203. The Chairman said the impromptu motion just mentioned by Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum, which read: “This Council urges the LCSD to issue injunctions banning persons who have continuously violated the Pleasure Grounds Regulation in Tuen Mun Park from using loudspeakers for performance and self-entertainment in the area of Tuen Mun Park”, was moved by Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum, and seconded by nine Members. She said that while it was up to Members to decide whether to process the impromptu motion immediately, she did not encourage Members to move impromptu motions at meetings because, according to the Standing Orders, a motion should be submitted three days in advance and an amendment to a motion should be submitted one day in advance. The Standing Orders also provided that the Chairman should accept an impromptu motion that was agreed to by more than half of the Members.

204. In response to the LCSD representative’s comment, Mr CHAN Yau-hoi said he reckoned that the key to the issues lay in the revision of the PGR. Members had all along proposed the PGR be revised to give law enforcers the power to enforce the law. He said the current light-touch regulation with a lenient penalty of a fine ranging from $800 to $1,200 only was not much of a deterrent, as performers could earn more than that a day. As the legislation concerned was under prolonged revision, he asked the LCSD about the progress of the legislative amendment.

205. Mr LO Chun-yu wanted to share with the LCSD what he and Tuen Mun residents had seen and heard in Tuen Mun Park. He said many female performers had sung endlessly there, and they even had sung louder and displayed flags in the presence of LCSD officers. The situation had been very bad. He had asked Mr TAM of the LCSD to enforce the law, but the officer had said he could not enforce the law immediately due to the chaotic situation. He questioned why the law enforcement department could not enforce the law, and said the situation was so poor as to possibly cause dangers. He asked whether Ms TAM of the LCSD knew Mr TAM’s work and had ever monitored the enforcement by Mr TAM and his

- 49 -

Action subordinates on-site.

206. Ms Catherine WONG said money was at the root of the dispute that day. It was reported that the performers earned up to $5,000 to $6,000 per day, and the incomes of some performers might be even higher. For instance, “Nana” received almost $30,000 for performing a dance. She opined that since the performers knew the black-clad LCSD security guards, only some responsible security guards would appeal to the performers to lower their volume when there were complaints. But after the security guards left, the performers would raise their volume again. She described what the performers had done during her visit to Tuen Mun Park one day as provocative. When stopped from singing, the performers had covered their mouths with clothes and put their microphones inside. She said that while knowing that the performers had been singing, the LCSD officers could not enforce the law. She opined that park users were annoyed by the performers’ singing, but when they decided to complain, they often found that neither was the LCSD able to enforce the law, nor would it take witness statements or stop the performers from using loudspeakers, and the department would take action only after councillors’ complaints. This was what many park users had experienced. She said that as enforcement powers had been vested in the LCSD under section 32 of the PGR, this was a matter of law enforcement. She did not hope that the LCSD would omit to enforce the law when no Member was at the scene.

207. Ms KONG Fung-yi said Tuen Mun Park was commonly dubbed the “obscene park”. She said the LCSD did not have sufficient staff and resources to bar performers from attending the park and hanging banners. She further said that the performers could call elderly people to the park, whereas the LCSD could just clearly separate supporters and opponents. She said gathering crowds sometimes spilt onto slopes, which could cause dangers, and the LCSD should be held responsible for this. As Tuen Mun Park was managed by the LCSD, other government departments could do nothing even if they came to its assistance. For example, the Police could only maintain order at the scene of clashes and might not intervene in other situations. That day, police officers had stepped in but, to the delight of the performers, they had demanded to check the identity cards and backpacks of Members instead. She opined that the LCSD was culpable for this and should put things right. In addition, she hoped other government departments would render assistance.

208. Mr YAN Pui-lam said Tuen Mun Park was already under the control of the

- 50 -

Action YU Miying syndicate of criminal interests. He said Ms YU Miying had for years been manipulating elderly people into unlawful assembly in Tuen Mun Park since 2006. He said that on 14 January, the syndicate had not only unlawfully assembled but even put up banners. In view of this, he asked the HKPF if any application had been made to the Police for Ms YU Miying’s meeting and procession. He said Ms YU Miying was suspected of having committed the crime of obstructing a public officer in execution of duties, as she had led crowds to form a human chain to hinder Mr TAM of the LCSD from issuing summonses for prosecution that day. Ms YU Miying had been arrested by anti-riot police officers that day but, according to Tuen Mun residents, had been released at 10:00 p.m. on the same day. Thus, he asked whether the Police would mount a prosecution in the above case. Regarding the problem of alcohol drinking in Tuen Mun Park, he noted that Director of the LCSD had said in the LegCo that performing music in a park and accepting rewards in the form of red packets was not a kind of begging. Despite the LCSD’s ban on the sale of alcoholic beverages in the park, the performers could sell beer and ask for red packets from the audience in return. Even if the LCSD banned the sale of alcohol, the performers would still exploit the reward loopholes to sell beer to elderly people, which could lead to some park users’ drunk and disorderly conduct. He hoped the LCSD would pay attention to the above situation. Besides, he said he knew that the Police had the power to issue summonses to people who caused noise nuisances. As the human chain formed by Ms YU Miying had hindered Mr TAM of the LCSD from going to Tuen Mun Park for law enforcement, he asked whether the Police would issue a summon to the YU Miying syndicate of criminal interests directly in accordance with the Summary Offences Ordinance.

209. Mr Alfred LAI asked whether the Police had invoked the Noise Control Ordinance to take action. He also asked the LCSD how many prosecutions had been initiated over the previous six months.

210. Mr WONG Hung-ming said the LCSD representative had just pointed out that a magistrate had ruled that banning users from bringing large loudspeakers into a park was in conflict with the PGR. He asked in response whether the LCSD had proposed legislative amendments immediately after the magistrate’s ruling in 2015. Besides, he said that from his personal experience, the department was very cooperative and enforced the law when he and other Members patrolled the park, but LCSD officers could hardly enforce the law when the performers kept singing with their mouths covered. He asked if the LCSD had explored how to enforce the law under such a circumstance and provided suitable training for its staff. Furthermore,

- 51 -

Action he said the Police had explained that an unlawful assembly took place when three or more persons conducted themselves in a provocative manner and caused others to reasonably believe that the persons would commit a breach of the peace. In view of the performers’ display of banners and provocative acts in recent days, he asked whether the Police would invoke section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance to arrest the offenders for unlawful assembly.

211. Ms Beatrice CHU reckoned that headway had been made, with the department having held an inter-departmental meeting the day before and the LCSD having responded to Members’ questions. She asked Members not to forget that after the previous TMDC’s abolition of the self-entertainment zones, it had been thought that the problems could be sorted out quickly, but the effort had not paid off in the end. She was worried that inter-departmental action would eventually mean no department took action. She said Members had been on duty in Tuen Mun Park for about seven or eight times from 21 December to 21 January, and the total number of hours was more than the time they had spent in the park over the recent 10 years, so they were very familiar with the situation in Tuen Mun Park. While understanding the great difficulty in dealing with noise issues, she believed there was still room for improvement in the performance of Mr TAM of the LCSD. She had once told Mr TAM of the LCSD that Members could not endlessly attend the park for patrols. Yet, Mr TAM of the LCSD had said in response that whether the problems in the park could be ameliorated or not depended on Members’ perseverance. She believed it was the LCSD’s responsibility to tackle the noise problem in Tuen Mun Park. She was worried that the problems could hardly be ameliorated when Mr TAM of the LCSD held such an attitude. From her observations, the existing ordinance was adequate to deal with many existing problems in Tuen Mun Park and legislative amendments were not necessary at all, but the question was whether the LCSD enforced the law or not. She found that LCSD officers would be more active in enforcing the law when Members were present.

212. Mr LAM Chung-hoi said the TMDC had always been following-up on the problems in Tuen Mun Park, which had lingered for more than a decade and boiled down to a matter of the department’s attitude in law enforcement. In previous TMDC discussions on the problems in Tuen Mun Park, the department had used to argue that the issue was about the ordinance, which he did not agree with. The ordinance was still effective to some extent even without amendments, as evidenced by the fact that seven or eight persons had been prosecuted under the unamended

- 52 -

Action ordinance during his patrol in Tuen Mun Park on 14 January. He thanked the new Members for attending Tuen Mun Park to prompt the LCSD’s enforcement, which was exactly the cause of the problems in Tuen Mun Park. He said that from his observations, the management staff in Tuen Mun Park knew the performers very well. Law enforcement officers who knew persons with vested interests too well would have been transferred elsewhere in other cases, lest it would be hard to expect them to enforce the law decisively - this was another reason why the problems were insolvable. He said that whenever the TMDC discussed the problems in Tuen Mun Park, the LCSD always said the legislative amendment was underway, but the department had not put any proposal for the amendment on the schedule of the LegCo Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services. He said that when the problems in Tuen Mun Park had emerged in 2006, the then LCSD manager had proposed the legislation be amended to ameliorate them, but the amendment had not been completed as yet. Therefore, he attributed the existing management problems in Tuen Mun Park to the department’s negligence of duty. A noise problem had also occurred in the park next to Pui To Road before, and had been fixed upon the order of the then management. Therefore, he believed the problems could be sorted out as long as the department was willing to enforce the law.

213. Mr WONG Tak-yuen opined that the LCSD was inflexible in law enforcement. For example, the LCSD could not enforce the law if performers covered their microphones with clothes or used some objects to cover themselves when they adjusted the volume of their loudspeakers. While understanding that the LCSD had no legal power to check the objects covered by the performers, he knew the LCSD had invited the Police to help along its actions before, so he urged the LCSD to enhance communication with the Police, so as to make its raids more effective. Besides, LCSD park managers had the power to expel offenders from parks. Despite this, he had seen some performers playing songs and shouting in the park, and the ladies concerned had admitted responsibility and left the park as instructed, but another group of performers had turned up the volume immediately afterwards. In addition, he raised an issue about the conduct of the meeting, saying that it was 7:52 p.m. and a short break was recommended, though he knew that every Member was very eager to voice opinions.

214. The Chairman said there was a long list of agenda items at this meeting and the similar situation might happen again in the future. She said she had ordered takeaways at 5:00 p.m., but there was some waiting time due to the large quantity of purchases. She wished to adjourn the meeting for at least half an hour after this

- 53 -

Action agenda item was finished. On the arrangements for the resumed meeting, she suggested closing the meeting at about 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and deferring the outstanding items to the special meeting.

215. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said he very much appreciated the presence of the many department representatives at this meeting. He believed noise was not the only problem in Tuen Mun Park. During his some 12 patrols, he had observed management problems in terms of, for example, hygiene, smoking, drinking, toilet hygiene, illegal begging and prostitution. He would like the departments to note that the so-called “Liberating Tuen Mun Park” was aimed at restoring the park to its formal condition as a park just like other parks in the 18 districts. Moreover, he noted that the LCSD had earlier sought legal advice on whether video recordings could be admitted as evidence. He asked about the results.

216. The Chairman said that as many Members had already spoken once on the matter, she would limit the number of speeches after the next Member spoke.

217. Mr MA Kee suggested the LCSD issue an injunction. Besides, he said the magistrate understood the problems in Tuen Mun Park and held that the noise problem could be resolved at the administrative level. It might take half a year or one year for the legislative amendment to take effect, whereas an injunction could give instant results. Therefore, he suggested the department apply for an injunction banning singing and other noise-making activities to restore tranquillity in the park.

218. Mr LAM Kin-cheung asked the LCSD about the legislative amendment. As far as he knew, the LCSD had set about the legislative amendment to section 25 of the PGR years earlier, whereby people other than park users would be allowed to be witnesses. He said the department had initially wanted to adopt the negative vetting approach, where LegCo approval would be obtained before implementation. He asked why no headway had been made at the LegCo so far despite the legislative amendment exercise having been underway for three years. He said he had written to the LCSD for enquiry. According to the LCSD’s reply, the department intended to make a submission to the LegCo after the legislature’s general election (i.e. September). In this regard, he asked if it was possible to pass the PGR amendments using the negative vetting approach. He said that section 25 of the PGR aside, there was no time limit in section 35 so a person expelled by LCSD officers might return to the park immediately after the expulsion. He said the PGR revised in 1998 was very out-of-date. He wondered if another three or four years’

- 54 -

Action wait would be required if further amendments were needed in the future. He hoped Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD would report on the latest progress of legislation, and requested the LCSD to use different means to seek the LegCo’s early passage of the amendments.

219. The Chairman said she had sent a short message to Ms LO Lai-fong, Jackie, Chief Leisure Manager (New Territories North) of the LCSD. She said rodent infestation and hygiene problems were serious in Tuen Mun Park, so she suggested the LCSD carry out more frequent “Operation Tai Ping Tei” in Tuen Mun Park before the year end to support the FEHD’s actions and improve the dense environment in the park.

220. Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD gave a consolidated response to Members’ comments and questions as follows: (i) The department planned to amend section 25 of the PGR. On 29 April 2019, it had given the LegCo Panel on Home Affairs a proposal to substitute “persons” for “park users”. While in support of the LCSD’s amendment to section 25 of the PGR, the above panel had recommended the LCSD undertake a full review of the section, where the penalties, the prosecution approach and the restrictions on loudspeakers and rewards should be examined as well, so that the LCSD could enforce the law more effectively after the legislative amendment. The department was seeking legal advice on the recommendation of the Panel on Home Affairs to optimise its work on the legislative amendment, and planned to submit proposed legislative amendments to the LegCo this year; (ii) The department had decided the year before to adopt the negative vetting approach, so the same approach would be used for this year’s submission to the LegCo; (iii) When LCSD officers were unable to confirm who was singing or controlling the volume of sound, they could hardly identify where the sound came from, hence the difficulty in law enforcement. Members’ understanding was called for. Despite this, the difficulty would not deter the LCSD from law enforcement. Currently, the park staff employed a tactic of interrupting the performers from time to time so that they could not make noise endlessly. The department hoped prosecution of offenders could be more efficient after the legislative amendment;

- 55 -

Action (iv) Regarding the comment about performers’ display of banners, according to PGR restrictions, there would be no violation of the law if the banners were not hung on park facilities. Therefore, the LCSD was unable to initiate prosecutions for hand-held banners; (v) As there was no liquor ban in Hong Kong, the LCSD could not prohibit the public from bringing alcoholic beverages into the park. Yet, the LCSD would prosecute persons who sold alcoholic beverages or anything else in the park; (vi) On the requirement for witnesses to provide addresses, the park staff would contact the witnesses afterwards to take detailed statements, so the witnesses might provide their addresses at that time; (vii) On venue maintenance, as the New Year was approaching, the LCSD had launched a comprehensive clean-up (commonly known as the “Operation Tai Ping Tei”) in the park a week earlier as before; (viii) The LCSD said a carnival had been scheduled to be held from the first to the fourth day of the LNY in Tuen Mun Park at a place where the singing groups used to sing. At that time, there would be no space for the singing groups’ performance and receipt of red packets; and (ix) The LCSD had earlier sought legal advice on whether it was possible to bar repeat offenders from entering the park. The legal advice was that the department had to provide more sufficient justifications for the implementation of such a measure, because a repeat offender might go to the park for sightseeing and might not necessarily perform or commit offences there. But given the injunction successfully sought in relation to Times Square, the LCSD would seek further legal advice to examine the case.

221. Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), gave a consolidated response to Members’ comments and questions as follows: (i) In 2019, the Police had received a total of more than 60 000 reports in Tuen Mun alone, which represented an average of some 170 reports per day. Thus, no immediate responses could be given to some questions without details; (ii) There were restrictions on the Police’s responses on, for example, cases that were sub judice, cases under criminal investigation, or cases about complaints against the Police. No comments should be made on the above individual cases for the sake of fairness and justice. The Police hoped Members would understand the work of the force;

- 56 -

Action (iii) The case on 10 January mentioned by Mr LAM Ming-yan was not a criminal case, so the Police had no information about it. On police deployment, record checking was necessary to find out the time when officers had arrived at the scene. As there had been crowds of people in the incident in Tuen Mun Park, the Police had paid particular attention to the safety of Members and other people at the scene, including police officers. Thus, while eager to arrive at the scene quickly, the Police must also get sufficient information beforehand. According to preliminary information, a total of two persons had reported the incident mentioned by Mr LAM Ming-yan. After being contacted by the Police, the person who had reported the first case had said police attendance had not been required. Later, the Police had attended the scene after receiving the second report. The process had involved deployment of officers and communication between the officers at the scene and the LCSD, only after which the Police could send officers to the scene; (iv) Regarding the comment about the arrived police officers’ selective enforcement, generalised comments on the incident should be avoided. The most senior officer at the scene would, based on the evidence gathered on the spot, determine whether a person had committed a crime, what crime had been committed, and whether an arrest was necessary. Evidence on the spot was given the first priority. (v) In response to a Member’s enquiry on whether the people gathering in Tuen Mun Park had committed the offence of unlawful assembly, he said the Member was very knowledgeable about this area but had only partial understanding of it. The legislation regulated persons who conducted themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner, but the conduct had to be “likely to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace, or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace.” But this was just an example; the Police would take follow-up action based on the evidence collected during their investigation at the scene. If a case involved criminal offences, criminal investigation officers would check the evidence to see if there were other crimes and take follow-up action. Thus, there were different procedures for determining the nature of crimes; (vi) A Member had mentioned a case that involved a particular person. He said in response that as criminal investigation was underway, he

- 57 -

Action could not make any comments, especially when the Member had mentioned the person’s name. But he revealed that a woman had been arrested on that day for the offence of obstructing the work of public officers, and the case was still under investigation; (vii) A Member had asked whether the Police could take action on their own. He said the Police would take action when the LCSD was very busy or an incident happened outside office hours. According to records, the Police would handle the situations by giving the persons concerned advice and warnings; (viii) A Member had asked why the Police had not made arrests. He said there were many reasons; for example, the informants had been reluctant to come forward after reporting cases, or the persons concerned had stopped making noise upon the Police’s advice and warnings. While the Police would follow up on this, he stressed that the actions of the LCSD alone or the joint operations of the HKPF and the LCSD were not enough; and (ix) Some Members and citizens had said there was prostitution in Tuen Mun Park. He said the Police always acted in accordance with the law. According to Chapter 200 of the Laws of Hong Kong, prostitution itself was not unlawful, but it might involve other crimes, which included keeping a vice establishment, control over persons for unlawful sexual intercourse, and detention for intercourse. The Police paid close attention to various issues in the community, especially those Members and citizens were concerned about. It would look at and keep close tabs on the situation.

222. DO(TM) said the departments taking part in the inter-departmental operations included the LCSD, the HKPF, the EPD, the ImmD, the LD and the TACO. She said that at the meeting held recently, the departments concerned had preliminarily scheduled the first inter-departmental blitz operation for February. The exact date would be determined after looking at the post-LNY situation in Tuen Mun Park. She hoped the operation would act as an effective deterrent. After the first inter-departmental operation, the departments would meet again to discuss how to launch the second operation. In response to a Member’s request for the minutes of the meeting, she said that was an internal meeting, so she would provide the Secretariat with a summary of discussion, including the information about participating departments and a summary of agreed actions, for distribution to Members after this meeting.

- 58 -

Action

223. Mr YEUNG Chi-hang said the problem in the park had initially been about noise only, but later intensified with indecent performances and even money transactions on the scene. Thus, there was a consensus in society that the Government should fix the problems. Many Members had just expressed their views on the matter, and he would like to ask again about the staff arrangements in this regard. He said the LCSD had not yet responded to a Member’s question about understaffing. Even if the LCSD had two officers for prosecution, the duo followed up on the same case at the same location, which was not ideal. He recommended the LCSD consider assigning two to four officers to carry out prosecution, who should be assisted by other staff, including officers from the LCSD and other departments, and security guards to keep situations at the scene under control. He considered that it was very important to form a team for action. If LCSD officers were apart, they would find it hard to enforce the law when dealing with people inclined to resist. He hoped that the LCSD would consider adopting the recommendation and, particularly having regard to the current situation, could predict whether law enforcement actions would be met with confrontations, so as to enable flexible and the most efficient deployment of staff. On police arrangements, he said that while the Police had expressed its willingness to help along the LCSD’s law enforcement, he believed greater efforts could be made. The general public wanted changes to Tuen Mun Park, and government departments had also put resources into improving the situation in the park. Therefore, he hoped the Police could be more active in providing strategic support, especially in terms of police deployment. While plain-clothes officers were present at the scene, they often needed to wait and took action only after the attendance of uniformed or anti-riot police officers. He supported uniformed officers in attending the scene for assistance. But from his observations, the anti-riot police officers often targeted young people at the scene and they were often in a state of relatively high emotions. He hoped the commander could cooperate to solve the problems in Tuen Mun Park.

224. The Chairman said a number of Members had already spoken twice. She hoped Members would keep their speeches brief if their comments were repetitive.

225. Mr LO Chun-yu said Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD had just talked about the difficulty in law enforcement. He said singer Ms YU Miying had uploaded evidence of her singing on the Internet, and there were often live broadcasts of her singing online, so there was sufficient proof that Ms YU Miying sang with a loudspeaker in the park. Also, he quoted Ms YU Miying as often saying

- 59 -

Action provocatively: “see you at Tuen Mun Park tomorrow”. He asked whether the authorities had any corresponding measures in place to prevent residents from being harassed by her in Tuen Mun Park. Moreover, in response to the Police’s comment about disruption to order, he said the masked young people had not breached public peace. He questioned why the Police had made arrests and prosecuted them for unlawful assembly. In this regard, he said justice lay in people’s hearts.

226. Ms Beatrice CHU said the LCSD was the main department responsible for tackling the problems in Tuen Mun Park, so she hoped the department would respond to the question of how many additional staff were devoted to the problems in Tuen Mun Park. Besides, she asked whether the department had assessed out-of-control situations. For instance, she had seen someone pushing elderly people in Tuen Mun Park the week before, but the Police had not attended the scene and there had been only a few LCSD staff. She asked how the department would handle clashes. She said many Members believed that if clashes continued to happen, there would be injuries eventually, which was undesirable - no matter which side the injured were on. She hoped the LCSD would talk about relevant measures.

227. Mr TSANG Kam-wing said that according to the Police, there were plain-clothes officers standing by in the park. He noted that plain-clothes police officers had been injured in the big clashes from the previous Monday to Wednesday, but they had neither enforced the law nor taken tough curbing measures. He therefore had doubted as to what purposes the plain-clothes officers had served at the scene. Moreover, regarding the point just made about the performers’ receipt of red packets not being taken as illegal begging or illegal trading, he asked whether barter was taken as trading. As trading was prohibited under section 20 of the PGR, he questioned whether engaging in barter or setting up a booth for collection of red packets in the park was an offence or an act causing obstruction to the street. Besides, he asked why it was possible to ban the use of aerial cameras, drones and kites, but not possible to prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages in Tuen Mun Park. He argued that similarly, the use of aerial cameras, drones and kites was not banned under the Laws of Hong Kong.

228. Ms LAW Pei-lee said Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), had expressed great concern for the safety of Members and the public, but what he had said was not consistent with what Members had seen. She had seen frontline officers losing control of their emotions in Tuen Mun Park. She said that today the public got worried when they saw policemen, and even felt scared when

- 60 -

Action they saw anti-riot officers, and most members of the public felt this way. She questioned why anti-riot police officers had been deployed for such a simple operation, which could make officers’ emotions more uncontrollable. She said the attending anti-riot police officers had seemed to deliberately harass young people, rather than to maintain order. She further said some Members had just mentioned that some front-line police officers had checked councillors’ identity cards and handbags. The Police might claim that the officers had carried out the searches since they had not known the Members’ councillorship; however, they had still checked the Members’ identity cards after the Members had shown their councillor cards. She said that while Members were willing to cooperate in police operations, she hoped Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), would manage the attitudes of front-line officers who, with their emotions very out of control, would let out foul language and use dehumanising language to scold the public. Such a scene was undeniable, having repeatedly appeared in front of cameras. She hoped Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), would communicate with front-line officers, reflect on their attitudes, and review the arrangements for the deployment of anti-riot officers.

229. The Chairman believed department representatives had clearly heard the opinions of Members. She also expected that the departments, especially the HKPF, would make significant improvements. She said the Police should not only render support in law enforcement and step up efforts, but also avoid causing clashes and conflicts. She believed that to achieve this outcome, it was necessary for Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), to undertake reviews and refinements for better law enforcement.

230. Mr LAM Ming-yan said he understood that the HKPF had no information at hand about the incident on 10 January. He asked Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), to give a written response to the questions later.

231. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said the department representatives had not responded to the question of whether video tapes could be admitted as evidence in court.

232. Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD said the department was seeking legal advice on whether video recordings could be used as evidence, and it would give Members a reply and follow up on the matter after receipt of a reply. Regarding staff expansion, besides the manager of Tuen Mun Park, there were also assistant

- 61 -

Action managers helping along law enforcement in the district. On security guard arrangements, four additional security guards had been hired for Tuen Mun Park in late December, so there were currently a total of 14 security guards responsible for keeping singing groups in order. As for the proposal of splitting the prosecution team into squads, she would examine the views of Members.

233. The Chairman said she had an impromptu motion requesting the LCSD to issue injunctions to repeat offenders. She hoped that instead of agreeing to process the impromptu motion, Members would treat it as a proposal for follow-up on issues in Tuen Mun Park and refer it to the DFMC for further follow-up.

234. Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), said Hong Kong had been relatively unstable for a long period of time, with many front-line police officers working for long hours and long exposed to unpleasant utterances and varying degrees of verbal abuse. He had been on duty at the scene for a period of time and heard all kinds of unpleasant words. After all, he would remind fellow officers that any language they used must be appropriate and of a mutually respectful nature. He stressed that all derogatory adjectives were undesirable. He said Mr YEUNG Chi-hang had offered many constructive ideas, especially on clothing and uniforms. He hoped Members would understand that police officers had to deal with many different scenes a day, ranging from daily patrols to violent incidents and even the violent clashes in Tuen Mun Park, which were the culmination of disputes at the initial stage. The Police had to assess risks when dealing with any situation. If police officers were already in riot gear, they could save time and attend the scene directly in incidents handled by general uniformed officers, so that police response time could be shortened. He called for Members’ understanding, while he had also heard the voice of Members. He wished to serve the community and handle situations properly.

235. The Chairman announced that the meeting was adjourned for a meal break and would be resumed at 8:20 p.m.

[The TMDC meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. and resumed at 8:24 p.m.]

- 62 -

Action XIV. Request Planning Department to Report Immediately on Detailed Planning Arrangements for Community Facilities Currently Lacking in Tuen Mun (TMDC Paper No. 12/2020) XV. Request Transport Department, Planning Department and Lands Department to Identify Land for Additional Parking Spaces in Southeast Tuen Mun (TMDC Paper No. 17/2020) 236. Ms Beatrice CHU, the first proposer of Paper No. 12, said she was very concerned about the Government’s continuous efforts to search for land and build housing in Tuen Mun in recent years. The population of Tuen Mun was expected to grow from the current 500 000 to 620 000. According to a written record she had at hand, the Planning Department (“PlanD”) had admitted on 28 January 2019 that some community facilities (including general out-patient clinics, sports centres and sports grounds) were currently under-provided in Tuen Mun. At the moment, Tuen Mun Clinic, Yan Oi General Out-patient Clinic and Tuen Mun Wu Hong Clinic were the only general out-patient clinics in Tuen Mun. As far as she knew, based on a population size of 620 000 people, there should be at least six clinics in Tuen Mun, which meant there was a shortfall of at least three clinics. While she knew that the PlanD already had a timeline for the establishment of the fourth and fifth clinics, there were no specific construction schedules as yet. She sought an explanation from the department, and asked whether the PlanD had any specific planning arrangements for the remaining clinic that had yet to be provided. As for sports grounds, the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (“HKPSG”) stipulated that a sports centre should be built for every 50 000 to 65 000 people, though she knew the size of sports centres. The facilities of the existing five sports centres in Tuen Mun were different, with Siu Lun having the latest and most comprehensive facilities. She said that if a population of 50 000 or 65 000 was used as a benchmark, there would be a shortfall of four to seven sports centres in Tuen Mun. In view of such a shortfall, she asked whether the PlanD had set a timeline for the construction of the community facilities that it had agreed to build to answer residents’ demand. She said the provision of many facilities was still nowhere in sight or just empty talk (e.g. a sports ground in Area 16 and a park in Area 27). She opined that the PlanD was not active enough in following up on community facility projects, and hoped the department would not see the HKPSG as a guide. Moreover, she had been voicing opinions on community facilities in east Tuen Mun since 2017. Currently there were basically no community facilities in the area, but its population would grow from the current 30 000 or so to 70 000.

- 63 -

Action She had launched a consultation in the area in 2017, and residents generally wanted a clinic to be set up in east Tuen Mun. Given the significant population growth in the area, she hoped that if an additional clinic was to be built in Tuen Mun, the PlanD would give priority to east Tuen Mun in siting the clinic.

237. District Planning Officer, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long West, said that to put it simply, Tuen Mun would need six clinics and there were currently three in the district (including Tuen Mun Clinic, Yan Oi General Out-patient Clinic and Tuen Mun Wu Hong Clinic). Aware of residents’ demand for clinics, the department, together with the Hospital Authority (“HA”) had already earmarked a site in Tuen Mun Area 3 for building a clinic, and a site had also been earmarked in Tuen Mun Area 29 for the establishment of a community health centre. As for the time when the above plans would be carried out, it depended on the HA’s arrangements, and as the community health centre in Area 29 would be located in a proposed public housing estate, it would be completed in 2024 to dovetail with the public housing estate concerned. He further said Tuen Mun Clinic completed in the 1960s was a low-rise building situated in Tuen Mun Town Centre, and the previous TMDC had discussed a proposal on the redevelopment of Tuen Mun Clinic, hoping that related facilities would be housed in the clinic. He said that in the previous year, the Development Bureau and related departments had introduced to the TMDC the redevelopment plan for Tuen Mun Clinic, which would house a clinic and other facilities; meanwhile, the PlanD was following up on the plan with the bureau and related departments. As just mentioned by Ms CHU, Tuen Mun would need nine sports complexes in the future as per the HKPSG, while there were currently six in the district (including the sports complexes in Yau Oi, Leung Tin, Butterfly Bay, Tai Hing and Siu Lun, plus Yan Oi Sports Centre established by Yan Oi Tong). The department had also earmarked sites in Tuen Mun Areas 3 and 54 for building sports complexes. Yet, there would still be a shortfall of one sport complex in Tuen Mun, so the department would follow up with the LCSD and relevant departments on the suitable location for building the sports complex. Besides, the department had noted Mr CHU’s suggestion of building a sports complex in east Tuen Mun. As for sports grounds, he said Tuen Mun needed two sports grounds: there was already one in the district and the other one would be located in Area 16. Details on the sports ground would be provided by the LCSD.

238. Mr YAN Siu-nam enquired about parking in Tuen Mun in the HKPSG context. He said illegal parking was very serious not only in the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area he worked for, but also across the entire Tuen Mun and even across Hong

- 64 -

Action Kong. Taking the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area as an example, many commercial vehicles were parked in the areas of Yuet Wu Villa and Miami Beach Towers at night. He asked the relevant department about the current planned number of commercial parking spaces in Tuen Mun, and whether the number was sufficient. He further noted that in Tuen Mun, cycle tracks were not fully linked together and cycle parking was not enough. There were perhaps only about a dozen cycle parking spaces in the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area, so he asked about how many cycle parking spaces Tuen Mun should have under the HKPSG and what the current shortfall in cycle parking was.

239. Ms LAW Pei-lee said that while on duty in Tuen Mun Park on the previous Sunday, she had been interviewed by secondary students and social workers participating in the “Strive for Success” programme organised by the TMDO and the Tuen Mun District Youth Programme Committee. One of the topics of concern was play equipment in parks. The participants had compared the play equipment in parks in Hong Kong with those in Japan and South Korea, and local parks in the old days with today’s ones. They had found that play equipment in today’s parks in Hong Kong was not attractive for its relative lack of variety, fun and novelty. According to the participants, the inclusive playground in Tuen Mun Park had become an attraction that drew residents outside Tuen Mun to the park for pleasure - this highlighted the fact that with little novelty, play equipment in other parks in Hong Kong had gone to waste. Moreover, many residents had expressed the view that fitness facilities, including the most basic ones like uneven bars, were not enough in Tuen Mun Park. She hoped relevant departments would pay attention to this in their planning. She further said that despite the current lack of parks, fitness centres and medical centres, she hoped that when providing the above facilities, relevant departments could optimise the design to avoid wasting public money. While there might be safety concerns over the setting up of play equipment in parks, she still hoped the facilities would not be too homogeneous. She and the participants of the above programme shared the view that play equipment in the old days of Hong Kong (e.g. slides) was more attractive, so she hoped relevant departments would give more consideration to children’s opinions when designing and planning additional play equipment.

240. Mr TSANG Kam-wing said that besides clinics and libraries, which were quantified in the HKPSG, community centres were also seriously under-provided in the community. In his constituency, for example, there were more than 10 000 voters and several housing estates, but no community centre. He reckoned that

- 65 -

Action children, the youth and the elderly in the constituency all needed a community centre for social interaction, but there was even no basic gathering point for the elderly there. Moreover, there were 400 vehicles illegally parked all over the pavements and roundabouts in his constituency at the peak time. Double, triple, and even quadruple parking was seen on roadsides. Therefore, corresponding facilities should be provided in the constituency for use by residents to free them from reliance on car parks in private housing estates and Home Ownership Scheme (“HOS”) estates. He further said that in the development of new public housing estates, corresponding ancillary facilities (e.g. markets and shops) should be provided nearby to avoid reliance on existing facilities. He explained that if residents relied entirely on the facilities provided in existing private and HOS estates, they would have no access to such facilities when outsiders were barred from the estates - this was exactly a problem facing his constituency. On barrier-free access, he reckoned that despite relevant government guidelines already in place, barrier-free access was not enough in new public housing estates.

241. The Chairman said the TMDC would discuss Paper No. 17/2020 titled “Request Transport Department (“TD”), Planning Department and Lands Department (“LandsD”) to Identify Land for Additional Parking Spaces in Southeast Tuen Mun” later, which was also about planning. As planning was a matter often touched upon in Members’ comments, she suggested the two documents be discussed together.

242. Ms LAI Ka-man said public housing estates were always short of parking. The shortage of parking spaces in Yan Tin Estate, for example, often translated into illegal parking on roads. Besides, she asked whether the greenery scale would be lowered when a site was used for housing development. She said greening space was abundant in Yan Tin Estate and could be vacated for the construction of other recreational facilities. Regarding the lack of car park spaces, she said that to Yan Tin Estate residents, who were mainly people from the grassroots, vehicles were a means for earning a living, and parking was more a necessity than a luxury, so it was necessary to increase parking spaces. She added that there was still no taxi stand even after almost two years from the occupation of Yan Tin Estate. Residents were inconvenienced as they had nowhere to board when they needed to take taxis for urgent matters. She noted that Tuen Mun Area 54 was about to be developed. She therefore asked when the sports centre just mentioned by the PlanD would be completed, and whether a smart car park would be built in Area 54 amid the current shortage of parking spaces. Moreover, 5 000 public housing units would be built

- 66 -

Action behind Yan Tin Estate, but Lam Tei Interchange was currently very crowded and always congested in the morning rush hours. Therefore, she asked what arrangements would be made in terms of transport facilities if bus stops and several bus routes were provided behind Yan Tin Estate in the future. She requested the department to respond positively.

243. Ms Beatrice CHU, the first proposer of Paper No. 17, said the problem of illegal parking was certainly related to whether the Police had enforced the law, but according to the paper, the problem of illegal parking in question was attributed not only to the Police’s inadequate enforcement, but largely to the shortage of parking in the district. She said she had examined the outline zoning plan and recommended four sites (which were located at Hoi Wah Road, between Myloft and Central Square, below the foot of the Sam Shing Temple hill, and at the end of the So Kwun Wat Road roundabout) to the TD, the PlanD and the LandsD. After learning about the planning intention for the above sites, she believed it should be possible to use the locations concerned as car parks. She was particularly interested in the Government, Institution or Community” (“GIC”) site below the foot of the Sam Shing Temple hill. The site currently housed a temporary car park with about 150 parking spaces. But since the area of Sam Shing Street was a tourist spot, the 150 parking spaces could hardly satisfy the parking demand there. She further said she had carried out an on-site inspection on the evening of 18 December the year before to verify the parking demand in the Sam Shing Street area, where about 400 parking spaces were currently provided in five car parks. The inspection had not taken place on a day within the peak period for the public driving from Tuen Mun to the seafood street. Still, some 390 parking spaces had been in use and more than 100 vehicles had been illegally parked on streets at that time. She hoped this could prove to the PlanD and related departments that there was a genuine parking demand in the area, and the existing 400 parking spaces there were far from enough to meet the demand. Therefore, she hoped the PlanD and the TD would follow up on the matter more actively, and change the use of the GIC site below the foot of the Sam Shing Temple hill, so as to build a permanent car park with more than one storey. She hoped relevant departments would undertake a study.

244. The Chairman said called on Members to keep their speeches brief as there were still more than 10 Members waiting to speak.

245. Mr WONG Hung-ming said the scene of numerous vehicles illegally parked throughout the streets of the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area was not something that had

- 67 -

Action emerged in the recent six months, with the situation in Wu Shan Road in Area 44 exceptionally serious. He said many roads in the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area were for one-way traffic, so vehicles often had to run in the opposite direction. Besides, there were two temporary car parks in Wu Shan Road, and he had been calling for the construction of a two-storey car park there to mitigate the parking problem, but there had been no improvement in the situation as yet, so he asked about this again.

246. Mr MA Kee said that if there were a large number of Members who had questions about this matter, the PlanD should spell out later the plans that already existed and would be implemented in a year or two in Tuen Mun, so that Members did not have to raise questions on different matters. He reckoned that as the previous planning was fraught with mistakes (e.g. a lack of transport support), residents had to travel by private car, hence the mushrooming growth in the number of private vehicles and the shortage of parking spaces. However, the parking spaces built by developers as required by the Government were not enough, so he requested the PlanD to give a detailed explanation and make early plans for sites that could be used as car parks. Moreover, a large piece of land on the one-way road in the furthermost part of So Kwun Wat had been idle for many years. If the department had no plan for the use of the land over the next five years, the land should be used as soon as possible to relieve the shortage of parking.

247. Mr HO Kwok-ho said there was basically no sports centre in northeast Tuen Mun. He had checked the outline zoning plan and noticed that a sports centre might be provided in Area 54 in the future, but this would happen only in 2024 at the earliest. However, a new sports centre would be built in Tai Hing as per the outline zoning plan. He therefore asked what considerations the PlanD had taken into account when making the above plans. He also asked whether the sports centre proposed to be built in Area 54 would come with facilities for ethnic minorities. Moreover, he said the only cricket ground in Tuen Mun was located far away in Shan King and advance booking was required, so it could hardly attract ethnic minorities living in east Tuen Mun. In addition, he asked whether the PlanD would increase parking spaces and car parks in Tuen Mun and even across Hong Kong.

248. Mr YEUNG Chi-hang said Paper No. 12/2020 had clearly stated that lots of community facilities were still under-provided in Tuen Mun by HKPSG standards. He hoped the department responsible for planning could change its attitude and be people-oriented by building community facilities to dovetail with the time for the moving-in of residents when it forecast a population rise, instead of letting

- 68 -

Action community facilities be always outpaced by population growth. He hoped department representatives would pass on the message. Moreover, many HKPSG requirements were outdated, and the ratio of parking to population, in particular, fell well short of reality, leading to a widening gap in the vehicle-to-parking ratio. As it was said that the Government would review the HKPSG, he asked about the progress.

249. Ms HO Hang-mui said there should be a central library for every 200 000 people, but Tuen Mun only had a central library in the town centre, a district library in Tai Hing Estate, and a small library in Butterfly Estate. With a population of more than 600 000, Tuen Mun was eligible for an additional district library. Besides, the existing parking spaces in Hong Kong were mainly supplied by private housing estates. According to the HKPSG, a private car parking space should be provided for every six to eight units. Yet, car parks in private housing estates were unable to accommodate large commercial vehicles, and the right to use these car parks was subject to restrictions under deeds of mutual covenant. As a result, many commercial vehicles were illegally parked on roadsides. Furthermore, she said the standard of providing a private car parking space for every six to eight units failed to match Hong Kong’s economic development. At the previous TMDC, she had requested a review of the vehicle-to-population ratio prescribed in the HKPSG. In her view, the Government should build multi-storey car parks that could accommodate heavy vehicles to mitigate the problem of illegal parking. She said the location of a nursery in Fu Tei had once been planned to be used as a recreation centre, but it had turned into the existing nursery, leaving north Tuen Mun with no sports complexes or recreation centres. She hoped relevant departments would search for land to build a sport complex in north Tuen Mun.

250. Mr CHOW Kai-lim said that with only monthly car parks in his constituency, people who went to schools and non-governmental organisations or relatives and friends who visited residents living there were often confused about where to park their cars. He added that with an acute shortage of hourly and monthly parking in the vicinity, a large number of vehicles were parked on roadsides. Even though the Police was asked to issue summonses for illegal parking, the problem of parking shortage could hardly be solved. He asked whether hourly and monthly car parks were separate items in HKPSG requirements. Besides, he requested the construction of a multi-storey car park in the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area.

251. Mr POON Chi-kin reckoned that under the current speech arrangements

- 69 -

Action where departments were invited to give consolidated responses after the speeches of more than 10 Members, it was difficult for the departments to answer Members’ questions in detail. He suggested that for focused discussion, the Chairman should invite a round of responses from departments every time after a few Members spoke. Moreover, he said Tai Hing was an ageing community that lacked newly completed facilities, but its population kept growing. For example, the soon-to-be-completed Terrace Concerto would add several thousand people to the population, which would be coupled with various growing needs in the neighbourhood and, needless to say, the problem of illegal parking. Also, there was a serious shortage of various cultural and recreational facilities, and residents were inconvenienced as they often found it difficult to book Tai Hing Community Hall and nearby facilities. Worst still, the area had no newly developed land and relied mainly on the redevelopment of Tuen Mun Clinic or other redevelopment projects to free up space for cultural and recreational facilities. A Member had just talked about law enforcement. Some Members had received a message in recent days saying that some police officers had said in factory areas that some district councillors had requested them to attend the areas to issue summonses for illegal parking and drive away vehicles picking up or dropping off passengers. He asked how the above situation had come about and requested an account of what the Police was facing in carrying out prosecutions for illegal parking. In addition, he asked the PlanD about the current numbers of public and private parking spaces in Tuen Mun and whether they met the planning requirements.

252. The Chairman said that as there were a lot of matters to be discussed at this meeting, she believed it was not possible to thoroughly address the matters raised by Members, so she hoped Members would raise matters of common concern. She added that permanent department representatives were present and Members usually thought that DC meetings were attended by government officials of higher rank, so she hoped the department representatives would be allowed time to respond on different matters. She would see how many areas were involved in the matters, and then decide whether to take the matters forward or refer them to relevant functional committees. She said there were still 12 Members waiting to speak, and called for understanding from Mr POON Chi-kin.

253. Mr Michael MO said he strongly supported Ms Beatrice CHU’s proposals in the two papers. He encouraged the TD and the PlanD to consider relaxing laws and policies to allow the use of multi-level parking facilities and thus increase parking spaces on existing land. He said the above facilities were widely used in

- 70 -

Action urban areas across Asia (e.g. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan), and asked whether it was possible to set up such facilities under temporary land leases. He further said the current problem of parking shortage could be traced back to the release of the planning study for east Tuen Mun in 2010, which had been followed by continuous population growth and, thus, increased traffic pressure. In recent days, he and Ms Beatrice CHU had worked very hard to examine the parking problem at Sam Shing Street on-site. Besides, the “single site, multiple use” principle, though not something required under the HKPSG, had been repeatedly mentioned by Chief Executive in Policy Addresses. In line with the “single site, multiple use” principle, facilities could be provided quickly on a number of sites in east Tuen Mun. He said that besides the vacant schools in Sam Shing Estate and Tai Lam Chung, there were also many vacant sites zoned for GIC use in Tuen Mun. Therefore, he asked whether these sites could be put to good use in line with the “single site, multiple use” principle.

254. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum said the shortage of parking was indeed a very serious problem. He said illegal parking was rampant in San Hui and particularly Hung Kiu, where parking was extremely scarce but restaurants providing late night meals were abundant, hence the serious illegal parking problem at Tseng Choi Street. He therefore asked whether the PlanD had any plan to increase parking specifically in Hung Kiu. Moreover, he agreed to the proposal of setting up two-level parking spaces, without which he believed it would be difficult to find enough space for parking. In his view, illegal parking was a clear symptom pointing to the lack of parking and the Police’s inadequate effort to curb illegal parking. There were many dessert shops in the area, but the Police had recently reduced law enforcement activity and no other law enforcement officers had taken action against illegal parking. Therefore, he requested the Police to provide figures on the prosecution for illegal parking in Tuen Mun, and compare these figures with those in the year-ago period to facilitate Members’ discussion. Furthermore, the rampant illegal parking in San Hui had something to do with the habit of shopping at San Hui Market among many Tuen Mun residents. He had met a resident of Tsing Shan Tsuen buying food at San Hui Market at 7:00 a.m., so he wondered if other markets in Tuen Mun were not adequate to meet residents’ needs. Also, he asked if there would be more public markets in Tuen Mun in the future.

255. Mr LEUNG Ho-man said the scene of illegal parking in the Hung Kiu area just described by Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum could be seen across Tuen Mun. While not objecting to prosecution for illegal parking, he reckoned this approach could

- 71 -

Action only treat the symptoms rather than the causes. Taking the Tin King area as an example, he said that to offenders, the fine for illegal parking was still lower than the rental of parking spaces. He added that parking spaces were not enough in the area and it was more time-consuming to park in the neighbouring Tai Hing or Po Tin area, so residents would rather continue to park illegally. As for how to solve the problem of illegal parking, many Members had just talked about the provision of car parks and two-level parking spaces, which were both worth considering. He reckoned that the most effective way to curb illegal parking was to reduce the number of vehicles, but when this was not possible, the only alternative was to provide temporary parking at places suitable for stopping cars, so as to prevent drivers from parking their cars at unsuitable locations. He said bus operation would be affected if cars were illegally parked in the areas of Leung King, Tin King and San Wai. Thus, he agreed that no cars should be parked in the above areas, but he did not object to the provision of metered parking in the areas of Ming Kum Road and Tin King Road. In addition, he asked how the PlanD explained the causes of illegal parking, and whether it had put forward any recommendations when reviewing previous plans and making future plans.

256. Mr TSANG Chun-hing said the crux of the illegal parking problem was not whether land was available, but whether the locations selected were convenient. He said that while the ratio between residential units and parking spaces had been prescribed in the HKPSG, commercial vehicles were the biggest culprit for the serious illegal parking in residential areas. He added that due to the high rental of parking and the limited supply of commercial parking spaces, drivers often parked their commercial vehicles under residential buildings. If the problem with parking of large vehicles was not given priority attention, the above problems could hardly be solved even if additional parking was provided in every community. Moreover, Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link (Northern Connection) would be open soon, and there would be more commercial vehicles passing Tuen Mun, which would make the parking shortage more acute. Besides, there was Tai Hing Library in Tai Hing Commercial Centre, but residents in the area had been suggesting that the library be extended, or even rebuilt near Tuen Mun North West Swimming Pool. He opined that some relatively old community facilities had not been upgraded with the times. Even though Tuen Mun Clinic would house new government departments after its redevelopment, its situation would be no different from that of Tuen Mun Siu Lun Government Complex. Therefore, he asked whether the PlanD and the LandsD had planned to reorganise public facilities in Tuen Mun, or even to sort out the existing problems in the district (e.g. the shortage of parking spaces) at the same

- 72 -

Action time during the redevelopment. He further said Tuen Mun was acutely short of motorcycle parking, but motorcycles were not allowed by law to be parked in private parking spaces. He therefore asked for the PlanD’s response about the shortage of motorcycle and bicycle parking spaces in the district.

257. Mr YAN Pui-lam said several Members had of late distributed leaflets spontaneously in the middle of the night to remind the public not to park at corners and in dangerous positions. Residents had told him that they felt strange having been summonsed by the Police for illegal parking at 5:00 a.m. Many people had also told him that over the previous six months, they had repeatedly called police stations to complain about illegal parking, but had been ignored. After the previous TMDC meeting, several Members had written to DO(TM), and the Police had recently stepped up enforcement. Yet, it had over-corrected. Taking an example, he said that on Siu Lun Street, which was a two-way road, buses on route 506 often had to cross the opposite lane and traffic lights to avoid illegally-parked vehicles, and this suggested that illegal parking had led to a series of problems in terms of planning and even charge hikes at Link REIT’s car parks. He said charges at temporary car parks near Siu Lun and Sam Shing Estate had risen from only $800 to $900 a decade before to the current $1,800 to $1,900. By comparison with car park rentals, a person still had a financial incentive to continue to park illegally even if the person was charged several times a month for doing so. Therefore, if the PlanD did not plan any more temporary car parks and the Police did not further strengthen law enforcement at targeted locations, more people would be encouraged to illegally park their private cars at Hoi Wah Road, and the illegally-parked commercial vehicles there would in turn be driven to the areas of Hang Fu Street, Hang Kwai Street and Siu Lun Street for illegal parking. The Police should be held responsible if accidents happened in that case.

258. Mr WONG Tak-yuen said that while many residents had asked him to see about the problem of illegal parking, there were also many car owners who had asked him not to deal with the problem. He said a large number of vehicles were illegally parked on Tin King Road overnight because the parking spaces removed due to the earlier resumption of two sites near Leung Tak Street (i.e. opposite to Goodrich Garden on Leung Tak Street and the car park on Leung Tak Street near Tsun Wen Road) had yet to be re-provided. The place was narrow in itself and there were many vehicles illegally-parked on the road, so it was difficult for buses to pass there, and a car park was necessary. Besides, he suggested consideration be given to looking for a site in the Leung King area (e.g. the grass near Tin King Light

- 73 -

Action Rail Stop) for the construction of an underground car park. He further said the Sham Shui Po district was reportedly studying the use of a variety of smart car park systems like cylinder-vertical-lifting, lift-sliding, and mechanical parking spaces. He noted that the selected site in that district measured about 6 000 square metres; with a similar size, theoretically the grass near Tin King Light Rail Stop measuring about 5 000 square metres had enough space for the construction of a smart car park. In addition, he believed a cylinder-vertical-lifting car park could be a complete cure for the parking shortage in the nearby area.

259. Ms Catherine WONG said Mr LEUNG Ho-man and Mr WONG Tak-yuen had pointed out the difficulties facing the new Leung Tin area. She said San Wai Court, Tin King Estate and Leung King Estate were surrounded by Tin King Road, which had become very narrow due to illegal parking on both sides of the road. She said there was a zebra crossing next to San Wai Light Rail Stop, but the safety of pedestrians crossing the road was affected by illegally-parked vehicles. A 20-metre long double-yellow line had been drawn at her request, and it had initially been effective after being put in place. But later, drivers ignored the double yellow line and illegally parked their cars again. She requested the Police to deal with illegal parking on the road section concerned; otherwise buses would be unable to enter Leung King Estate. She said she was in a way sympathetic towards the offenders of illegal parking because Link REIT did not let the public rent parking spaces in its car parks by lot, leaving drivers who could not rent parking spaces with no choice but to continue to park illegally. Moreover, she had requested that Tai Hing Library be re-provided in accordance with the “single site, multiple use” principle during the construction of Tuen Mun North West Swimming Pool, but the then district councillor of Tai Hing had objected. She opined that the library policy was already out-of-date. At that time, she had requested that while Tai Hing Library should be retained, an additional library should also be built. But the library policy did not allow the above arrangements, so the dilapidated Tai Hing Library had been preserved. Finally, she asked the PlanD about the completion time of sports complexes and clinics in Tuen Mun Area 3.

260. Mr LO Chun-yu said a disabled person had told him a week earlier that illegal parking in the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area was so serious that the person had to catch a taxi in a wheelchair at the centre of a carriageway. He said pavements in the areas of Richland Garden and Wu Chui Road were completely choked up with illegally-parked tourist coaches, which was very dangerous. He asked whether the PlanD had any plan to build a car park in the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area; if yes, what

- 74 -

Action the details were; if no, what the reason was, and when there would be a blueprint to avoid the above situation. He opined that the public certainly did not want to see illegal parking, but drivers had no choice but to park illegally. A large number of parking spaces were needed in the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area and other parts of Tuen Mun, so the PlanD should respond to Members’ questions.

261. The Chairman said she noticed that most of the Members who had just spoken had talked about illegal parking and insufficient parking spaces. She hoped that the PlanD and the TD could give general responses on the captioned matter in terms of planning standards, the current directions of studies and future plans, while Members should consider whether it was possible to address the issues of illegal parking and insufficient parking spaces together; otherwise the discussion of this matter could not be finished even until 10:00 p.m. She invited a response from the PlanD on parking planning, which would be followed by the TD’s introduction of future plans, and finally by the Police’s response about the approach against illegal parking.

262. District Planning Officer, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long West, thanked the Chairman and Members for their comments. He gave a brief introduction, saying that the HKPSG provided reference standards by which different types of land use, including the scale and locations of basic community facilities, were determined based on population size and other factors to ensure adequate facilities were provided to meet the public’s needs when the Government made plans for different land uses. According to Chapter 8 - Internal Transport Facilities of the HKPSG, the PlanD was responsible for liaison, and the TD and the Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”) were responsible for managing internal transportation facilities, offering advice and recommendations on all matters and updating the standards when necessary. Moreover, the PlanD consulted relevant departments (including the TD) on land use in response to the needs of different people. The TD modified the standards, such as a higher proportion of parking, in accordance with the needs of different users and the HKPSG. The department also provided additional parking spaces in suitable GIC and park facilities in line with the “single site, multiple use” principle. He said the shortage of parking had already been recognised in the redevelopment of Tuen Mun Clinic in San Hui, so more GIC facilities such as clinic and health-related facilities had been included in the construction of the multi-functional medical building, and a public car park would be built underground in line with the “single site, multiple use” principle to improve the area. He said the TD, District Lands Offices and other relevant departments

- 75 -

Action had vacant government sites that could be used as car parks on short-term tenancy (“STT”). He invited additional responses from the TD.

263. The Chairman asked whether the PlanD had anything to add about planning standards.

264. District Planning Officer, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long West, said that according to Chapter 8 of the HKPSG, the matter concerned came within the purview of the TD.

265. Ms Christine YUEN, Chief Transport Officer, New Territories North West of the TD, gave a consolidated response to Members’ comments and questions as follows: (i) On the review of HKPSG standards, the TD was carrying out a “consultancy study on commercial vehicle parking” to assess the supply and demand of parking spaces for commercial vehicles and loading/unloading bays in various districts by 2031 with a view to answering the demand by formulating short, medium and long term measures, such as continuing to increase on-street night-time parking spaces for commercial vehicles, stipulating the provision of specified numbers of parking spaces for goods vehicles and tourist coaches in STT car parks, and reviewing the HKPSG standards for parking spaces and loading/unloading bays for commercial vehicles. The study was underway and would be further followed up on; (ii) As for private cars, the TD was reviewing the existing HKPSG standards to update the requirements for private vehicle parking in housing development, so that more private vehicle parking spaces would be provided in future housing development projects. The TD would consult relevant stakeholders on the proposed amendments in due course, and the amended guidelines were due for release this year; (iii) Regarding the four sites proposed in Paper No. 17 for the provision of additional parking spaces or the construction of car parks, sites suitable for use as car parks usually had the potential for other development purposes. Integrating public parking into development projects was the best way to maximise the use of land and bring the most benefit to the community as a whole. Therefore, when planning development projects, the TD would refer to HKPSG guidelines and consider the traffic conditions around the development projects to set appropriate

- 76 -

Action requirements on parking spaces and request the inclusion of such requirements in the projects, so that appropriate numbers of parking spaces would be provided. And as stated in the 2018 Policy Address, the Government would provide public parking in suitable GIC facilities and public open space (“POS”) projects in line with the “single site, multiple use” principle; (iv) For Site 1 proposed in the paper, namely “GIC site (Hoi Wah Road) to the east of the Tuen Mun River estuary”, the PlanD’s information showed that the site was zoned for GIC use in the outline plan. According to the LandsD’s information, the site was used for cargo handling and works. Yet, it was currently not used for cargo handling but, with the approval of the Drainage Services Department (“DSD”), used as a works area until July 2023. If there was still no plan to use the site for long-term development or other purposes after it was used by the DSD, the TD would keep in touch with the LandsD to explore the short-term use of the site; (v) For Site 2 proposed in the paper, namely “Industrial site between Myloft and Central Square”, the PlanD’s information showed that the site was zoned for “Industrial” use in the outline plan and should be reserved for future industrial development, but it could be used as an STT car park in the short run. Before there was a development project for the site, the TD would keep working actively with the LandsD to consider continuing to use the site as an STT car park; (vi) For Site 3 proposed in the paper, namely “Hoi Wing Road and Castle Peak Road GIC site at the foot of the Sam Shing Temple hill”, the site was currently used as an STT car park. Before the site was used for long-term development or other purposes, the TD would keep working actively with the LandsD to consider continuing to use the site as an STT car park. If there was long-term development in the future, the TD would join the PlanD and relevant departments to explore the construction of a car park in accordance with the “single site, multiple use” principle; (vii) For Site 4 proposed in the paper, namely, “GIC site at the end of the So Kwun Wat Road roundabout, next to Mrs Cheng Yam On Millennium School”, there was a difference of about eight metres between the level of the site and the adjacent road, and such a geographic constraint made it difficult for the site to be used as an STT car park; (viii) The department understood that in addition to the four sites proposed

- 77 -

Action in the paper, there were many other places facing the problems of illegal parking and insufficient parking spaces. Yet, she said the Government’s transport policy was to encourage the public to use public transport as much as possible with a view to minimising the use of vehicles and thus reducing congestion; (ix) In response to concerns about the supply of parking, the TD would take different steps to increase the number of parking spaces. For instance, the TD would provide on-street metered parking spaces and motorcycle parking spaces at suitable locations, provided that road safety and other road users were not affected. Also, the TD always kept in close touch with relevant departments to look for suitable government sites that were temporarily idle but not subject to any plans for long-term development in the future and use them as STT car parks. In the district, a total of 15 government sites that were not yet subject to any plans for long-term development were being used as temporary public car parks to provide 2 000 parking spaces; (x) In line with the “single site, multiple use” principle, the Government would provide public parking spaces in suitable GIC and POS development projects. Under the existing plans for Tuen Mun, the Government would provide public parking spaces at the sports ground in Area 16 and at the POSs in Areas 17 and 27, plus more than 500 parking spaces. The number of parking spaces in the district was expected to increase after the above projects were completed; (xi) Illegal parking was affected by various factors including charges for parking, distances from parking locations to destinations, and traffic conditions at the places concerned. Even if parking spaces were available in a nearby car park, a motorist might still choose to park on the road instead. The TD would give priority to the parking demand of commercial vehicles, and actively implement various short, medium and long term measures to increase the supply of parking. It would also maintain communication with law enforcement agencies such as the Police on the issue of illegal parking; (xii) For the question of whether the Government had reviewed and made any long-term plans for the supply of multi-storey public car parks before, the Government mainly provided public parking spaces in private development projects in various districts through the Land Sale Programme. It would also include public car parks in suitable new projects for GIC facilities. In areas with parking demand, the TD and

- 78 -

Action the LandsD had been looking for suitable government sites that were temporarily idle but not subject to any plans for long-term development, and use them as temporary public car parks. Moreover, the various approaches just mentioned would remain in use to seek more parking and, thus, resolve the shortage of parking spaces; and (xiii) On whether to introduce smart parking systems, i.e. the project being carried out in Sham Shui Po, the TD was conducting a consultancy study on automatic parking systems to ascertain the feasibility and applicability of automatic parking systems in Hong Kong. The study was due for completion early this year. Meanwhile, the TD was implementing six pilot projects on automatic parking systems to acquire and consolidate experience in building, operating and managing different types of automatic parking systems and in making related financial arrangements, so as to pave the way for wider application in government and privately-operated public car parks in the future. The TD had so far identified four sites for launching the pilot projects, having regard to such criteria as parking demand, geographical environment, planning restrictions and impacts on local traffic. The identified sites included an STT site at Hoi Shing Road in Tsuen Wan, a POS site at the junction of Yen Chow Street and Tung Chau Street in Sham Shui Po, and two sites proposed for government buildings respectively on Chung Kong Road in Sheung Wan and on Sheung Mau Street in Chai Wan. For the STT site in Tsuen Wan, the TD had already secured support from the Tsuen Wan DC, and the tender exercise was due to be launched in mid-2020. For the pilot project in Sham Shui Po, the TD was assessing its technical feasibility after securing support from the Sham Shui Po DC. For the other projects, the TD was following up on them with the DCs concerned. It would digest the experience in the pilot projects before considering whether the systems were suitable for application in other districts.

266. The Chairman regretted that no Tuen Mun project was covered by the pilot project. She asked the TD officer to represent the view to the headquarters, and requested that the scope of the major pilot project be widened more quickly to cover a Tuen Mun project. Then, she invited Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), to give a response about the fight against illegal parking.

267. Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), gave a

- 79 -

Action consolidated response to Members’ comments and questions as follows: (i) He was glad to hear that Members were concerned about the lives of people in Tuen Mun. He noted that illegal parking had attracted much attention as a criminal offence since he had been serving Tuen Mun in the previous TMDC, and Members had voiced a lot of opinions on this. He fully agreed with Members about the crux of the problem and the point that law enforcement and prosecution served to address the symptoms rather than the causes. He provided relevant information for the new TMDC’s reference; (ii) In 2018, more than 80 000 summonses had been issued for illegal parking in Tuen Mun, representing a significant increase of more than 10% from the 60 000 or so in 2017. Despite the significant increase in the number of summonses, there had been no great improvement in the situation. Many Members had said illegal parking remained a problem in the district, which proved that the problem could hardly be solved by law enforcement and issuance of summonses alone. Therefore, any suggestions that could remedy the problem of illegal parking in the district, such as increasing parking spaces, were worth considering; (iii) Illegal parking was quite a serious problem at the places mentioned in the paper (e.g. Tsing Ying Road, Kwun Tsing Road and So Kwun Wat Road). Therefore, some Members mistakenly thought that the Police omitted to enforce the law. Taking the three places just mentioned, namely Kwun Chui Road, So Kwun Wat Road and Tsing Ying Road, as an example, more than 1 400 summonses had been issued in 2019, representing a 60% increase from the 870 or so in 2018. In response, he asked Members whether the situation was satisfactory, and said they had the answer in their mind. He said these figures could not only facilitate the discussion of how to tackle traffic problems, but to some extent prove that law enforcement and issuance of summonses alone were not an effective cure for the problem of illegal parking; and (iv) Due to limited resources, police staff were allocated to different tasks according to priority. Serious and other crimes were given attention first and before traffic issues, which were also subject to priority setting: illegal parking that threatened the safety of road users was dealt with first, followed by serious obstructions that made roads impassable. Besides, Members thought the number of prosecution cases had dropped, and it was true that the number of summonses

- 80 -

Action issued had declined to 60 000 or so in 2019. In the previous six months, the Police had to assign staff to deal with the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments. Also, Tuen Mun Police Station had been unable to provide police car services after coming under attack. Furthermore, over 10 baskets of bricks had been thrown to the police station one day and caused damage to vehicles. He asked in response how officers could issue summonses when they were unable to leave the police station. Moreover, with fewer large-scale public events staged recently, the public mistakenly thought the situation had improved. But in fact, the Police still had to tackle many flash mobs and raids. He revealed that a little-known crime case relating to the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments had happened the night before, in which Fung Tei Light Rail Stop had been damaged with power drills. Since all the above situations could affect police deployment, Members’ understanding was called for. The Police had put on record the blockage of So Kwun Wat Road or Tuen Kwai Road, and would assign officers to deal with it as soon as possible according to the priority mentioned above. When the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments calmed down, the Police could spare officers to deal with traffic issues.

268. The Chairman said government departments would give another round of responses after the first round of speeches was finished off.

269. On the parking issue, Mr LAM Kin-cheung said the Police had claimed that it could assign staff to tackle illegal parking in the community after the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments calmed down. Yet, he opined that the two were not related, saying that councillors were still able to handle a large number of cases of assistance during the movement, so he believed the professional police force should be able to deliver routine services. Besides, while the TD had used data to explain that land planning for additional car parks might be required as a solution, he said this problem had been around for more than a decade and the number of parking spaces was lower than the number of vehicles in Hong Kong. He added that with about 780 000 cars currently in Hong Kong, the population-to-vehicle ratio was 10 to 1, and based on this ratio and the current more than 600 000 population of Tuen Mun, there were about 80 000 or 90 000 vehicles. But according to a 2019 LegCo paper, Tuen Mun had only 43 000 parking spaces, so the problem could hardly be solved by conventional means of increasing parking

- 81 -

Action spaces. He recommended the TD use smart parking systems or cylindrical parking systems as soon as possible. He further noted that the TD had kept revising downwards the HKPSG ratio of the number of units in each private building to the number of vehicles, which required that 100 vehicles be provided in a building with 1 000 units. Since the PlanD and the TD kept lowering the ratio, developers preferred building units to providing parking spaces, and the number of parking spaces in Hong Kong was affected as a result. He agreed to the TD building smart parking systems on a large scale or introducing different new technologies to increase parking. Also, he noted that private car parks greatly outnumbered their public counterparts in Hong Kong, so he wondered how the TD promoted smart systems to private developers or car parks. Furthermore, he enquired about the use of technologies to increase parking or remedy parking problems. He said the TD’s “eMobility” application provided car owners with information about available spaces in both public and private car parks. He suggested that to help solve parking problems, the application should be promoted to more than 2 600 car parks across Hong Kong, and legislation should make it mandatory for new public and private car parks to be covered by the application, so that car owners could find parking spaces with ease. In addition, he hoped the TD would give responses on the feasibility of extending the coverage of the “eMobility” application to all car parks and adjusting upwards the HKPSG ratio for parking spaces.

270. Mr LAM Chung-hoi considered imbalanced planning to be the biggest problem. He echoed other Members’ point that the current planning standard was lagging far behind the number of units. He said that for example, illegal parking occurred in Area 39 because a total of 950 units had been built but only 20 parking spaces were provided there. He further said that due to imbalances in overall planning (in terms of medical care, parking, elderly care services, day activity centres and so forth), residents had been facing various thorny problems since their moving-in. Besides, in response to the TD’s proposal to encourage the use of public transport, he suspected that the TD knew little about Tuen Mun’s geographical environment, and wondered what public transport was available on the Castle Peak Road. In addition, transport from Tuen Mun to Tin Shui Wai was extremely inconvenient, and the public could only take taxis when, for example, the services of West Rail and Light Rail were suspended. Even though he hoped the idea of using more public transport could be put into practice, it was not practicable to do so. In this regard, he suggested the PlanD understand Tuen Mun’s geographical environment, adding that plans in other districts might not be applicable to Tuen Mun. While the TD had said efforts would be made to increase

- 82 -

Action parking, he said in response that the previous TMDC had proposed the reactivation of the plan for a car park at the government offices basement, which had been vacant for 30 years, but the TD had been procrastinate on the grounds that an operator was to be sought. He suggested the TD fully use the three-decades-vacant basement as a pilot point in Tuen Mun to deal with parking problems.

271. The Vice Chairman said he was more interested in matters relating to local football. He said that according to the HKPSG, a soccer pitch should be provided for every 100 000 population, and a seven-a-side or five-a-side soccer pitch should be provided for every 30 000 population. But from his observation, there were currently three 11-a-side soccer pitches and around 10 seven-a-side or five-a-side soccer pitches in Tuen Mun, falling short of the standards by about one-third. He guessed the PlanD could not respond to this question at this meeting, so he suggested the department give a detailed reply at the next meeting or a committee meeting.

272. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said that with a population of more than 20 000, Tuen Mun Rural ranked among the top three most populated constituencies in the district, but its facilities were inferior to those of other constituencies with populations of 10 000 or so, where shopping centres, sports complexes, community facilities, libraries, community centres, post offices and banks were provided. Residents had to go to Siu Hong or Hung Shui Kiu for cash withdrawal and Yuen Long or San Hui in Tuen Mun for food purchases, and they found it very difficult to go to a post office. He further said there had been fewer people living in rural areas before but, as everyone knew, with many village houses built after acquisitions of small house concessionary rights, the resident population grew. Consequently, refuse depots were overloaded and, worse still, environmental hygiene was affected by garbage placed on streets or roadsides. In view of this, he asked for the PlanD’s response on how to take care of basic facilities (e.g. refuse depots) in rural areas. He further said that from his observations at night, illegal parking occurred in Tuen Mun, Yuen Long, Sheung Shui, Fanling and the downstairs of residential housing, emerging as a bigger problem than it had been half a year earlier. In his view, the worsening of the situation over the half-year period had nothing to do with the sharp increases in the number of vehicles, the number of licence plates owned by car owners, or the quantity of vehicles imported to Hong Kong. From his observations, parking spaces were available in temporary car parks. Thus, more incentives should be given for using car parks or more efforts should be put into issuing summonses to remedy the problem of illegal parking. He added that vehicles were parked

- 83 -

Action illegally during both the day and night, and illegal parking of heavy vehicles was found on Castle Peak Road - Lam Tei and both sides of Miu Fat Buddhist Monastery.

273. Mr LEE Ka-wai said traffic problems in south Tuen Mun had a domino effect and some Members could not park their cars. Everyone knew that the traffic problems had been around for a long time. But they had never been improved, from his secondary school years to these days when he had already been elected as a district councillor. He agreed that new parking should be provided at the sports ground in Area 16 and a multi-storey car park should be re-provided at Wu Shan Road. Furthermore, he suggested relevant departments provide timelines for their short, medium and long term measures, and take more specific steps to increase parking in the coming three years, so as to ameliorate the traffic problems.

274. Mr Alfred LAI said the additional public parking provided in government departments or buildings in recent years was hourly spaces only, rather than monthly spaces, but problems in parking could hardly be solved without longer duration parking supplied by the Government. Taking the Government’s Trade and Industry Tower as an example, the additional parking provided for visitors at Inland Revenue Tower in Kai Tak was not monthly spaces, but merely 10 or so night spaces for parking in the early hours, so he had doubts as to whether the overall parking problem could be solved. He further said illegal parking was rampant in Tuen Mun as parking was in short supply throughout the day. Vehicles were illegally parked at Waldorf Garden, New Town Mansion, and even at the front of Yan Oi Clinic night and day, obstructing wheelchairs’ entry and exit. Therefore, he suggested the TD and the PlanD take practicalities into account, provide more hourly and monthly parking spaces in line with the “single site, multiple use” principle, and set appropriate opening hours for visitors. Otherwise, even though the public were told about the availability of parking, the reality was that car owners could park at night only (e.g. at the government offices where only 10 or so night parking spaces were provided), which was not very meaningful.

275. Ms SO Ka-man supported these two papers. She noted that Members had talked about the intense feelings among people in their constituencies about planning problems. She said that as stated in the papers, the Government kept increasing population and building public housing in Tuen Mun but community facilities were under-provided. She said Area 54 and San Hing had a combined population of 100 000, adding that the previous TMDC had talked about the shortage of parking spaces

- 84 -

Action and repeatedly requested a multi-storey car park in Area 54. Moreover, the only sports complex and several libraries in the district, which were located in Tuen Mun Town Centre, Tai Hing and Tuen Mun Ferry Pier, were hardly enough to meet residents’ needs. Therefore, she suggested that in line with the “single site, multiple use” principle mentioned by Chief Executive, more libraries be built on the sports complex sites. She further said there should be an optimum plan for land in the newly developed Area 54. Also, some Members had talked about the overloaded Tuen Mun San Hui Market. She suggested a new public market be built in the area to ease the burden on Tuen Mun San Hui Market, so as to free residents from the unreasonable treatment by Link REIT or new landlords, who focused entirely on profits rather than management. Besides, illegally-parked vehicles on Leung Tak Street (i.e. a cross street leading to Po Tin or Kin Sang) could lead to accidents as they affected the view of pedestrians crossing the road. Illegal parking was serious there, so she suggested the commander more frequently tackle illegal parking black spots with safety problems.

276. Mr CHAN Yau-hoi clarified the matter raised by another Member about Tai Hing Library. He had objected to the proposal to relocate Tai Hing Library, which had later been retained, and he had always been in favour of the building of a library in the northwest. Besides, the previous TMDC had discussed the problem of illegal parking and proposed short and medium term measures. He said stronger enforcement by the Police was required as a short-term measure to remedy the situation where vehicles were illegally parked on streets despite the availability of hourly parking spaces. Moreover, he had suggested traffic wardens be hired to address the problem of understaffing. A traffic warden needed to issue only a few penalty tickets a day, so that the fine was already higher than the warden’s daily salary. This could not only create job opportunities but also encourage car owners to use hourly parking spaces in car parks in the morning. He added that the current hourly charge for parking was $20 or so, and parking a car for several hours cost about $100 to $200, but the fine for a penalty ticket was just more than $300. Therefore, a car owner would not park at a car park throughout the day. He suggested using places that could be opened up immediately, such as Cultural Square, which had been talked about for two or three years by Mr LAM Chung-hoi at group meetings in the previous term. Thus, he suggested Members of the current TMDC follow up on the TD’s failure to open up the place that had been idle for three decades. For long term measures, he suggested the PlanD not only redevelop San Hui Clinic in accordance with the “single site, multiple use” principle, but also add two floors to the unloading area next to San Hui Market for immediate

- 85 -

Action amelioration of the parking shortage.

277. Ms KONG Fung-yi lamented the lack of parking and agreed with Mr LO Chun-yu. She said everyone asked the Police to step up law enforcement, but people’s livelihood was overlooked. Some people (e.g. taxi drivers) whose incomes were lower than fine payments supported the Police in enforcing the law for the sake of community safety (e.g. strengthening enforcement in the afternoon), but exercise of discretion was recommended in the evening. She also said the TD had emphasised a long time before that medium and short term plans were in place for future improvement, and the previous TTC had used more than $200,000 to tackle the parking shortage in Tuen Mun, but results had yet to be seen. She added that what the TD had just said ran counter to the content of the reports she had received. In addition, she did not understand why the currently idle space below Cultural Square was not put to good use. She suggested land be sought in the eastern, southern, western and northern parts for the construction of large car parks. Yet, she expressed doubts about the construction of a large car park in Area 16, questioning whether residents going home from different parts of Tuen Mun would need to change after parking their cars there at night. She suggested the TD build a multi-storey public car park in the southeast area to address part of the needs. She said the TD had always provided the same response on the matter, and the PlanD had claimed that it needed the TD’s permission before making plans. Therefore, she hoped the departments concerned would, as said by Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), work for the current TMDC on matters relating to people’s lives and address the serious shortage of parking in a targeted manner.

278. Mr LAM Ming-yan said the Police had created confusion by making attribution to the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments. From his observation, a deployment of 10 officers was already enough to solve problems in Tuen Mun Park, but the Police had sent 50 or 60 anti-riot officers instead. This was a matter of police deployment rather than a matter about the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments and the social situation. Moreover, he said that according to the TD, more than 500 additional parking spaces would be provided in Area 16, but the site was originally a temporary parking area with more than 500 parking spaces. He questioned how parking spaces could increase with such an offset. In addition, he asked whether the department would carefully demarcate Tuen Mun into, for example, the eastern, southern, western and northern parts, and whether it would join Members after the office hours to observe the types and numbers of illegally-parked vehicles in each

- 86 -

Action part.

279. The Chairman thanked Members for finishing the first round of speeches. She suggested Paper No. 17, which concerned the issues of illegal parking and insufficient parking, be referred to the TTC for further follow-up. Regarding the issue raised in Paper No. 12 about inadequate planning for clinics, although District Planning Officer, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long West, had given an explanation in this regard, the issue was within the scope of the HA or the Food and Health Bureau. Therefore, she suggested the matter be referred to the SSC for further follow-up. As for the issue raised in Paper No. 12 about sports centres or sports complexes and sports ground and the issue mentioned by Members about play equipment like cricket grounds and libraries, she would invite a response from the LCSD representative. And the FEHD representative would be invited to respond on matters about banks, markets and refuse depots. She invited responses from department representatives, after stressing that there would be no second round of speeches for the time being.

280. Ms Beatrice CHU told the Chairman that she had worked hard to submit the two papers and did not mind that situations in individual constituencies were raised for discussion, but the departments had failed to respond positively on specific issues raised in the papers. Therefore, she suggested the Chairman invite the departments to answer her questions before responding to those raised by other Members.

281. The Chairman asked Ms Beatrice CHU to specify the questions not yet answered by the departments, and said the TD had given a response about the four sites.

282. Ms Beatrice CHU said that due to the limited speaking time, there had been no reference to the second question in the paper, namely whether the operating hours of metered parking spaces in Cafeteria Old Beach and Golden Beach could be changed to ease the problem of illegal parking in that area, and the question of whether the PlanD had undertaken specific planning after learning about Members’ demands in 2017. She hoped the PlanD would respond positively to the above questions.

283. The Chairman said the departments had just done their best to respond on the issues of illegal parking and parking planning, and it was time to deal with matters

- 87 -

Action on which the departments had not yet responded, so she first invited the LCSD’s response on planning issues. Also, she suggested Members should not dwell on this. If necessary, she would invite District Planning Officer, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long West, to give a further explanation.

284. District Planning Officer, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long West, responded to Ms Beatrice CHU’s questions, saying that the PlanD had designated Areas 3 and 54 for the construction of sports complexes after learning about the under-provision of sports complexes in the district in 2017. Moreover, the PlanD was aware of the lack of clinics in the district, and was building health centres across the 18 districts in Hong Kong as per the 2017 Policy Address. It had joined the LCSD, the Social Welfare Department, the Department of Health and other relevant departments to look for suitable places for the district health centres. In addition, the PlanD had joined the LCSD to look for another place to build a sports complex. He suggested the LCSD further follow up on the matter.

285. Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD gave a response about the plans for sports complexes in Areas 3 and 54, saying the LCSD and relevant departments were doing the pre-construction preparatory work for the projects and would report on the progress to the TMDC in due course. In response to Members’ view that children’s playgrounds were dull, she said that according to the Policy Address announced by Chief Executive the year before, the Government planned to modify 170 LCSD public play spaces in the next five years, and in the process of modification, the department would encourage community participation and listen to more opinions to make the modified playgrounds more interesting. Regarding the suggestion of an additional cricket ground in Tuen Mun, she would look for a suitable place with relevant departments to study the feasibility of providing the new facility. She would refer the library-related matter to the library section for study and give a response at the DFMC.

286. The Chairman said matters relating to LCSD management would be referred to the DFMC for further follow-up. Finally, she invited the FEHD representative’s response on issues about the planning for markets and refuse depots and matters about the department’s plans.

287. Mr Edwin LEE, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Tuen Mun) of the FEHD, started by responding on market-related matters. He said that according to FEHD records, there were a total of 16 markets in Tuen Mun, including

- 88 -

Action three FEHD markets, five Link REIT markets, one Housing Department (“HD”) market and seven privately-operated markets. On future development, there would be no increase in the number of markets in Tuen Mun for the time being, but there would be a new large market in the Hung Shui Kiu new development area, which was the largest-ever FEHD-managed market. This plan was being carried out after being blueprinted and discussed at the TMDC. Moreover, he echoed Mr Kenneth CHEUNG’s point that rural areas in Tuen Mun were developing rapidly. According to records, there were currently 145 rural refuse depots in Tuen Mun. He said the replacement of conventional refuse depots with modern refuse depots would be the future direction for two rural areas in Tuen Mun, namely So Kwun Wat Sam Shing Estate and Tuen Tsz Wai in north Tuen Mun. He added that he planned to visit the areas with two Members for them to offer ideas to the FEHD.

288. The Chairman said this was a question raised by a Member but no paper had been provided, and if the Member concerned would like to follow it up, the Member should submit a paper for processing by the relevant functional committee. She then invited additional remarks from the TD representative.

289. In response to the proposal put forward in the paper by Ms Beatrice CHU to change the operating hours of metered parking spaces in Cafeteria Old Beach and Golden Beach, Ms Christine YUEN of the TD said metered parking spaces were provided as short-term parking facilities for motorists. Charges for parking spaces and the “longest parking period” for each transaction were set to increase the circulation of parking spaces, so that more drivers could use the parking facilities. The current operating hours of metered parking spaces in Cafeteria Old Beach and Golden Beach were 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and 8:00 a.m. to midnight respectively on Monday to Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday and public holidays for both beaches. The above operating hours were the same as those of most other metered parking spaces in Hong Kong. Given the current demand for and usage of parking at the above places, the TD had no plan to change the operating hours of the parking spaces there.

290. The Chairman asked if other government departments had any additional remarks or responses.

291. Mr KONG Man-keung, District Commander (Tuen Mun), said Members had misunderstandings, perhaps because his expression had not been good enough. He reiterated his position, saying that most Members agreed the Police’s law

- 89 -

Action enforcement alone could only treat the symptoms rather than the causes of the illegal parking problem. The Police would try its best to tackle illegal parking according to the priority mentioned above, and did not link the problem to anything. In response to some Members’ point about reduced law enforcement efforts, he said this was just because officers had to deal with other matters.

292. The Chairman said a Member had suggested more traffic wardens be hired to focus efforts on the problem. This was the last matter that could be dealt with at this meeting, but the progress fell far short of the original target.

XVI. Any Other Business 293. The Chairman raised the matter of an additional meeting. She said that according to the Secretariat, a notice of a meeting should be given five working days in advance. A number of funding applications had to be processed before February, and the last day for processing these applications was 31 January, so she might have to exercise her discretion.

294. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said that as he had just assumed office, he asked whether new matters could be raised at an additional meeting and, if not, whether papers could be submitted again only when the TMDC met in March.

295. The Chairman said an additional meeting, which was a special meeting, would deal with existing matters only, not new ones.

296. After consulting with the Secretary, the Chairman proposed a special meeting on 31 January. As for whether to hold the meeting in the morning, she asked Ms LAW Pei-lee if she could attend the meeting on the morning of 31 January. The latter replied in the positive.

297. The Chairman announced that the special meeting would be held on the morning of 31 January.

298. Mr LAM Chung-hoi said rules would be nullified if discretion was exercised too many times. While opining that it was fine to hold the special meeting in the morning, he asked what should be done if only some Members were consulted about their availability to attend the morning meeting but others said they could not make it.

- 90 -

Action 299. The Chairman said that if Members did not agree to her exercise of discretion, she would schedule the special meeting for 2:30 p.m. on 3 February.

300. Mr Alfred LAI asked whether, in case of disagreement, the Chairman should leave it to Members to discuss whether to hold the special meeting on 31 January or 3 February. He said Members should understand that if the special meeting was held on 3 February, some applications for funding in February might be unable to be processed.

301. The Chairman said the consent of two-thirds of the Members should be obtained if the TMDC was to seek approval by circulation of papers. She said the organisations concerned might consider rescheduling within the same funding application period, but they might not be able to do so on 2 February if the TMDC could not hold the special meeting on 31 January to process the funding applications. She believed that if the funding was approved, the Secretariat would take a relatively relaxed approach to the organisations’ applications for rescheduling.

302. Mr TSANG Kam-wing said he had just assumed office, so he would like to enquire about the nature of the meeting to be held later. He also asked whether the officials present at this meeting would attend the meeting at that time, and whether questions could still be raised if some officials or representatives did not join the meeting. He added that it was only 10:30 p.m., and other DCs closed their meetings at 12 o’clock or 1 o’clock. He wondered if it was necessary to close the meeting so early.

303. Ms HO Hang-mui said she did not mind the meeting continued until 12 o’clock, 1 o’clock, or even 2 o’clock. But she added that from a financial perspective, if things were deferred to 3 February, not only would it be difficult for many activities to be rescheduled because they involved advance orders for vehicles and food, it would also be impossible to reschedule the activities for late March, particularly because the current TMDC was nearing at the end of its financial year and the Secretariat would not have enough time to do related work after these organisations submitted information. Thus, the Secretariat usually recommended that this season’s activities be completed in February, but this involved technical difficulties, so it was more appropriate to hold a special meeting on 31 January.

304. Mr TSANG Chun-hing opined that Members were representatives of public opinion. He said there were a lot of matters to be dealt with at each TMDC

- 91 -

Action meeting, and questioned if this meant some matters could be put off or handled in an expedient way and concluded without discussion. He saw this as disrespect for the spirit of the council. In response to Mr TSANG Kam-wing’s point that some DCs met even earlier than the TMDC but had not yet closed their meetings at that time, he said this had nothing to do with whether a meeting was held in the morning or afternoon; what mattered were the degree of importance Members placed on the matters discussed at the council and on the well-being of members of the public in the district. Therefore, he held the view that even if an adjournment was sought, there should be a good reason in order to be accountable to residents.

305. Mr LAM Kin-cheung asked why it was not possible to hold an additional meeting on 31 January and questioned if it was because discretion should not be exercised - even though impromptu motions had often been granted exemptions. He considered that it was important to deal with the existing matters; otherwise the activities might not be able to take place as scheduled if the meeting was held on 3 February. In his view, the matter concerned should be dealt with as soon as possible. He asked if any Members could not attend a meeting on 31 January and, if they could, what the reason was for not holding the special meeting. He said he did not mind the meeting continued until even later - it was up to Members.

306. Mr POON Chi-kin reckoned that this involved three issues. The first issue was whether the TMDC had to close the meeting at this point, i.e. 10:30 p.m. He demurred, saying that there were still many outstanding discussion items and it was rare to have so many government officials present at a meeting. He believed Members still had questions in response to what the government officials had just said. As another Member had said, it was his duty as an elected representative to ask questions on behalf of the public. In his opinion, there was no harm in continuing the meeting all night long if the circumstances of the meeting permitted. The second issue was that the TMDC would process the funding applications for activities to be held in early February. He agreed with other Members that they just wanted to examine the funding applications more carefully, rather than to delay or reject them. Given this and particularly the fact that Members had just assumed office, many things were not handled very well. He agreed that the meeting should continue on 31 January to deal with the funding matter. The third issue was about the discretion over the handling of discussion items. He agreed that provisions in the Standing Orders should be adhered to as far as possible, particularly because the Standing Orders served to help Members to perform their duties, raise questions and carry out discussions at meetings, whereas unlimited exercise of discretion should be

- 92 -

Action avoided. In his view, part of the discretion could be exercised since many Members had just assumed office. But he also hoped Members could gradually learn, so that everything - be it an impromptu motion or an impromptu meeting - could be processed in accordance with the Standing Orders in February and March. He said he had some comments on the Standing Orders and would propose amendments when opportunity arose in the future.

307. Mr LO Chun-yu said it was just 10 o’clock or so and still early, and there were many young people, who would otherwise still have been online or playing at the moment if they had not been dealing with serious business. He said he was not suggesting a race based on the length of meetings, but the discussion was not yet over. Having conferred with Ms LAW Pei-lee, he said the meeting was stopped when the first round of discussion had just been finished and the second round of speeches had not yet started. He felt this was not in the interest of Members or the public. He opined that setting a line was not a problem, but there should be a consensus among Members. It was only halfway through the agenda, with the second round of speeches not yet started. As the officials were still present and had not asked to leave, Members should fulfil their duty and continue to speak.

308. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum said it was only 10 o’clock or so. He reckoned that the meeting should not be adjourned, and what made the meeting so lengthy was not that Members were inefficient at the meeting, but that the long domination by the pro-establishment camp had resulted in a massive backlog of problems in Tuen Mun. With the current TMDC joined by many new Members and having much work to do, it was normal for Members to speak actively. He said what Members had just spoken gave a real picture of the district, and the length of the meeting should not be a reason for suspending, stopping or deferring the meeting. He said that even if the meeting was to be deferred or adjourned, a proposal should be made in accordance with the existing procedure. For example, there should be someone who moved to defer or adjourn the meeting, which should be followed by a discussion and a vote by Members, instead of a hasty exchange where Members were asked when they had time for a meeting. He opined that such a situation was highly undesirable. He noted that several Members had said the meeting could continue, but Members knew neither which agenda item they were discussing, nor how to classify the recordings. He felt very confused about this. Therefore, he opined that the first thing to do should be to put the discussion in order and clarify which part of the agenda was under discussion.

- 93 -

Action 309. The Chairman said that the question at issue was whether to close the meeting and how to arrange an additional meeting. She said Members had raised one or two questions, so after the speeches of Members who wanted to ask questions, she would deal with the issues of whether to conclude the discussion of this matter, whether to close the meeting immediately, and how to arrange an additional meeting altogether.

310. Mr Kenneth CHEUNG said all Members were present at this meeting except the ex-officio Member from the rural sector. He said everything was new this year with the council joined by a new group of Members, but there was a pile of problems in the community. Therefore in addition to engaging in street protests, they should also work hard in the council for the sake of people’s lives. He said more than 13 000 people were watching the live broadcast online, which showed that many residents paid attention to what was happening in the meeting, so he opined that the meeting should continue. Besides, he told the Chairman that if deferring the discussion of funding applications to 31 January or 3 February could affect the activities to be held by applicant organisations in early or mid-February, he would think the Secretariat might need to call to inform the organisations concerned that the situation was different this year. He said the organisations concerned might need to consider whether to hold the New Year celebration activities on 2, 3, 7 and 9 February at their own expense or by other means.

311. Ms Catherine WONG opined that the Chairman suggested closing the meeting with good intent, because she was worried that Members lived a long way away and she had said it was very late. Also, she said she did not mind the meeting went on until dawn. She said that when making their first speeches earlier, Members might prepare to add something in the second round of speeches. Therefore, Members might be deprived of the opportunity for further speeches if the Chairman stopped the meeting at this point. Taking Mr CHAN Yau-hoi’s comments on whether to close Tai Hing Library as an example, she clarified what she meant was that Mr CHAN Yau-hoi had opposed the closure of the library rather than the construction of a library in the northwest swimming pool. She said he had not listened carefully to what she had said, so she wanted to add something, but the meeting was stopped. Thus, she would like the Chairman to continue the meeting if possible.

312. Ms LAW Pei-lee said she appreciated current Members’ diligence in having meetings, and agreed with what Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum had said. In fact, many

- 94 -

Action problems had accumulated, so there was already a stunningly long list of matters to be dealt with at the second meeting. She said Members had already expected the meeting to continue until late and they did not mind, so she agreed that the meeting should continue. She also said that as some funded activities would be held in early February, she agreed that an additional meeting should be held on 31 January. Moreover, she objected to setting a line. She said she had raised her hand for a long time, eager to speak and give responses. But disappointedly she could not respond as a line had been set, so she reckoned that the second round of speeches should be resumed in order to be complete; otherwise she would not have time to speak or respond to officials. Also, she was worried that the officials present (especially the Police) might not attend the next meeting. Besides, she took this opportunity to express her apology, because she wanted to respond to the Police’s point that officers were short and busy due to the social movement. She reminded the meeting that the police force was the largest government department and disciplinary service. According to the statistics of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, with an average of 4 500 police officers per million population, Hong Kong ranked fifth in terms of the police-to-public ratio in the world, after Russia and Turkey. Thus, she reckoned that the point about understaffing was unreasonable, and the key was whether the Police took on matters or not. Furthermore, she echoed the point just made by another Member, questioning why the Police, while able to send 60 anti-riot police officers to Tuen Mun Park, could not assign some officers to other duties. She opined that the Police should stop misleading the public and Members by using lots of follow-up work arising from the social movement as an excuse for its failure to assign officers to other duties. She said only police cars but no policemen were seen on streets these days. She asked about the Police’s duties in the morning, and said they appeared only at night or when there was a demonstration. Therefore, she opined that understaffing was just an excuse.

313. Mr LAM Ming-yan said 15 to 20 minutes had been wasted discussing whether to continue the meeting. He suggested the meeting continue as soon as possible.

314. The Chairman explained that she had proposed using 10 o’clock as the closing time at the start of the meeting and Members had not made any counter-proposal at that time, so she made arrangements according to the proposal. At that time, she had also made it clear that if it was possible to finish the meeting within the day, the TMDC would make every endeavour to finish the agenda and

- 95 -

Action close the meeting. The same arrangements were made for meetings in other districts. For instance, the Central and Western DC had met until the early hours and managed to finish all agenda items. They had not minded continuing the discussion, with the expectation that the entire agenda could be finished on that day. She also said the discussion had just lasted until 10 o’clock, so she had made every effort to finish the discussion of Papers No. 12 and 17. But she also made it clear to Members that the discussion was not an end but an opportunity for the officials present at this meeting, who were of more senior rank, to give responses, after which the matters would be referred to committees for further follow-up. She said she had been following the above procedure. As for whether to exercise her discretion to continue the meeting, whether she used her discretion as the Chairman was not determined by herself. She told Members that no matter whether a special meeting was held on the morning or afternoon of 31 January or on the afternoon of 3 February, she would agree as long as there was a consensus among Members. There was no question of whether the Chairman used discretion or not, and all depended on the opinions of the majority of the Members present because the Standing Orders stated that if more than half of the Members agreed, discretion could be exercised to process an impromptu motion and such.

315. The Chairman further said she wanted to deal with the procedure of the meeting first. She said that with 15 or more agenda items outstanding, there were two options for this evening. The TMDC might continue the discussion and decide until when it would end. She said that based on the progress of the DC meeting, she expected that even if the meeting lasted until midnight, only one more item could be finished, which would be followed by the discussion of several items relating to South Extension. She believed the discussion would last until after the early hours. In this regard, she asked Members whether they preferred proceeding to the next item or closing the meeting at the item under discussion. In addition, she would handle the matter of when to hold an additional meeting. She said that according to the Secretariat, the meeting would be a special meeting, so the next meeting would be the second special meeting of the TMDC. In this regard, she would invite Members to voice opinions or reach a consensus by a show of hands to choose which day to have the additional meeting and whether to hold it in the morning or afternoon.

316. The Chairman said it was time to deal with the question of at which point the meeting would end. She asked whether Members would choose to end the meeting or start a new discussion item after the discussion of Papers No. 12 and 17.

- 96 -

Action

317. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum said that for the items to be discussed later, the most important ones could be discussed by committees, so the most important task at this meeting was the referral of the items. Urgent matters of concern to Members should, of course, be raised and responded to at this meeting. Yet, another question was how to refer the items to be discussed at this meeting to different committees for more in-depth discussion. In fact, it was difficult to discuss so many papers under a total of 30 items at one go. But he did not agree with the Chairman that it would take another one to three hours to discuss one or two items just as what had happened earlier at the meeting. He believed that the agenda could be finished at this meeting if Members focused on urgent matters and then arranged referral to different committees.

318. The Chairman said she still hoped Members would make suggestions on time or discussion item. According to Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum’s suggestion, the TMDC must deal with all the discussion items before closing the meeting. She asked if that was what Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum meant.

319. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum said that if it was not possible to finish all the discussion items at this meeting and the second, and if third TMDC meetings were held as just mentioned, that would only mean the fourth and fifth TMDC meetings would be required.

320. The Chairman said there was no alternative, and the LegCo did the same.

321. Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum said this was not an insolvable problem, as the items could be referred to committees for discussion.

322. The Chairman said she had just applied the above approach to the discussion of Papers No. 12 and 17, but Members who could not speak for the second time reckoned that the Chairman’s approach was inappropriate. Thus, she believed there was no way of controlling the time. She hoped Members would speak on whether to use time or discussion item as the basis for closing the meeting.

323. Mr LAM Chung-hoi expressed his wish to speak on the arrangements for ending the discussion. He agreed with the Chairman’s suggestion that the meeting be closed after the discussion of Paper No. 12, because Papers No. 13, 14 and 15 concerned West Rail South Extension, but no THB representative was present at the

- 97 -

Action meeting and the TD representatives had never responded to matters about West Rail South Extension. The discussion of the above matter could hardly be complete without the presence of relevant representatives.

324. Mr POON Chi-kin said he believed Members reacted so strongly because the second round of speeches was cancelled. Members wanted to raise further questions after speaking for the first time and hearing the responses from the department representatives. He, Mr LO Chun-yu and Mr TSANG Kam-wing had raised their hands to speak for the second time, only to be told that the second round of speeches would be cancelled, which he believed was the root of the problem. He echoed Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum’s suggestion about the arrangements for the remaining discussion items, which would otherwise keep piling up. He said he believed that if Members agreed to refer the items to committees as soon as possible, there would be sufficient time to finish all the discussion items.

325. Mr CHAN Yau-hoi said the Chairman had proposed a cut-off time for discussion at the start of the meeting. He believed a special meeting would still be required after this item was finished, because Members who were unable to read the CDs about funding applications for the time being needed to read the information in the next few days before having discussion at the special meeting; otherwise the discussion could not take place, just as it had been earlier at the meeting. He considered that it would be better to first finish off the discussion of this item and then set a date for the special meeting. He said that if all the items were to be discussed, the discussion could not end even until dawn. Therefore, he considered that it would be better to choose another date for discussion.

326. Ms HO Hang-mui said it was impossible to finish all the discussion items this night because, first of all, Members had not read the details about the funding applications, and only one of the terms of reference had been set for the Civil Rights Development Committee while the others had yet to be confirmed, so it was not possible to decide at this meeting which matters were to be referred to the Civil Rights Development Committee for follow-up. But no matter whether the special meeting was held on 31 January or 3 February, it would be too late for the activity organisers. If it was necessary to exercise discretion to call a special meeting, it would be better to meet on the following day, rather than 31 January, to discuss the remaining items.

327. Mr LO Chun-yu agreed that there was no problem in having a thorough

- 98 -

Action discussion until 12 o’clock, but as Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum and Mr POON Chi-kin had said, the point was that there were not only a backlog of items to be discussed at meetings but also new matters to be raised. He asked whether flexibility could be applied by leaving the remaining discussion items directly to relevant committees for detailed discussion. He said there would be new matters after the New Year, and the progress of this meeting was very slow in terms of its flow or procedure, but the items concerned had to be gone through after all. Therefore, he suggested the discussion items be referred to committees without delay.

328. Mr LAM Kin-cheung said he believed Members were just worried that officials might not have time to attend the meeting on another day. He reckoned that if the meeting continued, the discussion items could, as suggested by Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum, be referred to committees for follow-up after the officials were consulted about whether they were willing to join the committee meetings concerned. If yes, the items might be referred directly to committees for discussion; if no, the meeting could only continue with their presence. He believed that at issue was whether the officials could join the meetings, so he suggested the meeting continue but the progress be speeded up by asking officials whether they could join the discussion of the items. Taking the item about public and housing planning as an example, the matter could be referred to a committee for follow-up if the HD and the PlanD were willing to send officials of the same rank to the meeting.

329. Mr TSANG Kam-wing reckoned that there was no need to discuss whether or how to close the discussion. In his opinion, the Chairman’s suggestion of closing the meeting either at 12 o’clock or 1 o’clock or after the discussion of the item about West Rail South Extension was unrealistic because no one knew the progress of the meeting, just as the Chairman had said she was unable to control the progress of the meeting. He said no Members present at the meeting would be able to control the progress of the meeting when even the Chairman was unable to do so. Thus, he asked the Chairman to think carefully and not to autocratically close the meeting.

330. The Chairman said she did not want to be autocratic, so Members who raised their hands to speak seldom met with her objection. With 29 Members raising their hands, it had taken three hours to deal with the matter that was originally intended to be finished in 15 minutes. If Members agreed to process the remaining 16 discussion items quickly and refer them to committees for follow-up, then Members should neither speak nor ask the officials to give the first and second rounds of

- 99 -

Action responses. There would be no problem at all in practice, but she was afraid some would argue that such arrangements would lead to inadequate discussion. She said many officials were present at the TMDC meeting and Members cherished the opportunity, so they hoped the officials would give responses. Such being the case, Members would definitely not expect the Chairman to act hastily; if she acted this way, Members would make complaints to her. She asked which principle Members wanted to adopt. She added that some Members had said a special meeting was destined to be held as the funding matter had yet to be dealt with. Learning from the experience of this meeting, she would like to follow a timeline designed by her and make every endeavour to finish a discussion item within 15 minutes at the next meeting, in a bid to prevent the backlog growing further. She said this was not about how many matters needed to be discussed, but about the way in which Members wanted a meeting to be conducted. She said Members had to make a choice after all, and if Members agreed to make only the first round of speeches, after which officials would give responses and then the discussion items would be referred to committees for follow-up, then Members would have to follow such arrangements. After Members decided on the procedure, she would act accordingly and hoped Members would neither make complaints nor be dissatisfied with the cancellation of the second round of speeches. She asked whether Members agreed with her, and said she decided to close the meeting at this point and would not allow Members to speak for the second time on Papers No. 12 and 17. Also, she suggested the second special meeting be held at 9:30 a.m. on 31 January. She hoped Members would follow the procedure when dealing with agenda items at the above meeting, so that the second special meeting could be finished within half a day. If it could, the meeting would be considered successful. She said she would reserve a whole day for the meeting, but Members had said that actually it was possible to finish the meeting within half a day if the meeting was conducted efficiently, so she thought there was no harm in trying. She said what she meant was that while expecting to finish the meeting within half a day, she would still recommend a schedule to Members in practice. She would like Members to act in accordance with the above plan first. If she was to act based on the estimate of a whole-day meeting, the Secretariat would invite department representatives to attend the meeting at appointed time. Yet, she hoped all officials could join the meeting in the morning, just in case the discussion of some items started early. She concluded by saying that she would run the meeting in accordance with the above arrangements, and if there were alternative suggestions from Members, she would deal with such suggestions only when they were supported by more than half of the Members.

- 100 -

Action

331. Mr LAM Chung-hoi said that while having no comment on when to hold the special meeting, he noted that the officials present were not relevant to some items to be discussed at the meeting. For example, Papers No. 13, 14 and 15 were related to Tuen Mun South Extension and THB officers had attended previous meetings. For the matter about housing in Area 39, THB officers were supposed to join this meeting but they did not.

332. The Chairman said she could ask the Secretary to invite relevant representatives to the special meeting, but she pointed out that the notice about the meeting would be given less than five days in advance. Even with five days’ notice, non-permanent officials might not be able to attend the meeting, so she would like the Secretariat to invite relevant representatives to the TMDC meeting to make the discussion more fruitful. She said she would invite THB officers to the above meeting. The Chairman thanked Members and said the second special meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 31 January.

333. In addition, the Chairman said the discussion items of the same meeting were being dealt with as suggested by Members. She hoped that when the discussion items of this meeting were dealt with at the special meeting, a balance could be struck as far as possible between the efficiency of the second round of speeches and the thoroughness of discussion. She called for Members’ understanding.

334. There being no further business, the meeting was closed at 11:08 p.m.

Tuen Mun District Council Secretariat Date: February 2020 File Ref: HAD TMDC/13/25/DC/20

- 101 -