Minutes of the Third Meeting of Central and Western District Council

Date : 19 March 2020 (Thursday) Time : 2:30 pm Venue : Conference Room 14/F., Harbour Building 38 Pier Road, Central,

Present:

Chairman Ms CHENG Lai-king*

Vice-chairman Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Victor*

Members Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin* Mr HO Chi-wang* Mr HUI Chi-fung* Mr KAM Nai-wai, MH* Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Fergus* Ms NG Hoi-yan, Bonnie* Mr NG Siu-hong* Mr PANG Ka-ho* Ms WONG Kin-ching, Cherry* Mr WONG Weng-chi* Miss YAM Ka-yi* Mr YIP Kam-lung, Sam* Mr YOUNG Chit-on, Jeremy (2:37 pm – 9:05 pm)

Remarks: * Members who attended the whole meeting ( ) Time of attendance of Members

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 1

Item 5(i) Mr LEE Hong-nin, Robin Chief Assistant Secretary (Works) 2, Ms LEE Cho-yi, Joey Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3, Development Bureau The Revd Canon Peter Douglas Provincial Secretary General, Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui KOON Mr Leong CHEUNG Executive Director, Charities and Community, The Hong Kong Jockey Club Mr Philip CHEN Director of Property, The Hong Kong Jockey Club Mr Henry FUNG Executive Manager, Property Project Management, The Hong Kong Jockey Club Mr Kenneth LEE Senior Project Manager, The Hong Kong Jockey Club Mr Brian ANDERSON Culture Heritage Director, Purcell Mr Timothy CALNIN Director of , The Jockey Club CPS Limited Ms Anita LO Head of Facilities Management, The Jockey Club CPS Limited Mr Paul TSANG Director, Arup Ms Katty LAW Convenor, Central and Western Concern Group

Item 5 (ii) Mr Wilfred AU Director (Planning and Design), Mr Christopher WONG General Manager (Planning and Design), Urban Renewal Authority Ms Katty LAW Convenor, Central and Western Concern Group Mr Dare KOSLOW Owner of property in URA’s project H19 Mr YEUNG Tsz-kit Council Member, Alliance for a Beautiful Hong Kong; Founding Member, Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood Mr LAU Yip-ming, Raymond Senior Estate Surveyor/UR2 (Urban Renewal Section), Lands Department Ms CHEUNG Sze-mei, Meicy Estate Surveyor/UR1 (Urban Renewal Section), Lands Department Ms Michelle TONG Senior Manager (Acquisition and Clearance), Urban Renewal Authority Ms Sarah YUN Senior Manager (Community Development), Urban Renewal Authority Ms YU Ying-yi Domestic Tenant, Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street Ms WONG Chi-ying Domestic Tenant, Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street Mr LEE Wing-kin Social Worker, Urban Renewal Social Service Team, Christian Family Service Centre

Item 5 (iii) Mr MA Hon-wing, Wilson Chief Engineer/S3, Civil Engineering and Development Department

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 2

Item 6 Ms LEE Cho-yi, Joey Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3, Development Bureau Ms SIU Lai-kuen, Susanna Executive Secretary (Antiquities & Monuments), Antiquities and Monuments Office Ms WONG Yan-yan Senior Building Surveyor/Heritage, Buildings Department Mr TSANG Kim-chung Acting Senior Building Surveyor/A4, Buildings Department Miss NG Ka-yan Nature Conservation Officer (Lantau), Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department Ms YAM Lai-chun, Cindy Chief Estate Officer (District Lands Office, Hong Kong East, West and South), Lands Department Mr NG Tsz-wing, Ricky Principal Estate Officer/HKW & S (2) (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South), Lands Department Ms Katty LAW Convenor, Central and Western Concern Group Mr YEUNG Tsz-kit Council Member, Alliance for a Beautiful Hong Kong; Founding Member, Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood Mr TSE Ming-yeung District Commander (Central District), Ms WONG Siu-hing, Queenie District Commander (Western District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms Dorothy NIEH Police Community Relations Officer (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms HO Pui-pui Police Community Relations Officer (Central District) (Designate), Hong Kong Police Force Mr YU Kong Police Community Relations Officer (Western District), Hong Kong Police Force

Item 7 Miss CHEUNG Man-yee, Principal Assistant Secretary (Harbour), Development Bureau Rosalind Mr LAI Henry Assistant Secretary (Harbour)1, Development Bureau Ms LEE Cho-yi, Joey Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3, Development Bureau Ms SIU Lai-kuen, Susanna Executive Secretary (Antiquities & Monuments), Antiquities and Monuments Office Ms Katty LAW Convenor, Central and Western Concern Group Mr LAI Chun-wai PhD Student, The University of Hong Kong

Item 8 Mr CHONG Hon-ming Chief Health Inspector (Central/Western) 3, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 3

Item 9 Miss WONG Sze-ki, Carol Assistant District Officer (Central and Western) Miss LO Wai-ling, Fanny Senior Liaison Officer (Building Management) 3, Central and Western District Office Miss CHOI Ting-ting, Chloe Executive Assistant (District-led Actions Scheme), Central and Western District Office

Item 10 Dr Welchie KO Chief of Service, Department of Family Medicine & Primary Healthcare, Queen Mary Hospital Dr S H TSUI Deputy Hospital Chief Executive (Hospital Services), Queen Mary Hospital Ms Mabel M F KWONG Public and Community Relations Officer, Hong Kong West Cluster, Hospital Authority Ms Julia P Y CHIU Hospital Manager (Corporate Communication and Public Relations Section) Queen Mary Hospital

Item 11 Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western) Susanne, JP Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, Grace Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Central and Western District Office Ms BOOK King-shun, Emma Executive Officer I (District Council), Central and Western District Office

Item 12 Mr AU Siu-fung, Kelvin Senior Transport Officer/Central & Western, Transport Department Mr FUNG Wai-yan, Ryan Engineer/Central & Western 1, Transport Department Mr Markus SHAW Chair, Walk DVRC Ms Jennifer FRISINGER CEO, Walk DVRC Ms Y Y PONG Member, Walk DVRC Mr WONG Po-kit Member, Walk DVRC Mr Edmond CHU Technical Director, MVA Mr HO Kin Principal Engineer, MVA Mr LO Chi-wing Flat Owner, Hongway Garden Mr WU Fat-tim Flat Owner, Hongway Garden Mr TSE Ming-yeung District Commander (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms WONG Siu-hing, Queenie District Commander (Western District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms Dorothy NIEH Police Community Relations Officer (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms HO Pui-pui Police Community Relations Officer (Central District) (Designate), Hong Kong Police Force Mr YU Kong Police Community Relations Officer (Western District), Hong Kong Police Force

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 4

Item 13 Mr CHONG Hon-ming Chief Health Inspector (Central/Western) 3, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Ms HO Alice District Leisure Manager (Central & Western), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr TSE Ming-yeung District Commander (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms WONG Siu-hing, Queenie District Commander (Western District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms Dorothy NIEH Police Community Relations Officer (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms HO Pui-pui Police Community Relations Officer (Central District) (Designate), Hong Kong Police Force Mr YU Kong Police Community Relations Officer (Western District), Hong Kong Police Force

In Attendance: Mr TSE Ming-yeung District Commander (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms WONG Siu-hing, Queenie District Commander (Western District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms Dorothy NIEH Police Community Relations Officer (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms HO Pui-pui Police Community Relations Officer (Central District) (Designate), Hong Kong Police Force Mr YU Kong Police Community Relations Officer (Western District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr MA Hon-wing, Wilson Chief Engineer/S3, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr CHONG Hon-ming Chief Health Inspector (Central/Western) 3, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Ms FUNG Miu-ling Chief Leisure Manager (HKW), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr MOK Ying-kit, Kenneth Chief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport Department Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western) Susanne, JP Miss WONG Sze-ki, Carol Assistant District Officer (Central and Western) Mr MOK Chi-kin, Jiv Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Central and Western District Office Ms BOOK King-shun, Emma Executive Officer I (District Council), Central and Western District Office

Secretary Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, Grace Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Central and Western District Office

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 5

Opening Remarks (2:33 pm – 2:50 pm)

The Chairman welcomed all to the meeting. She said that there were quite a number of items on the agenda and proposed that each Member be given two minutes to speak each time to facilitate efficient discussion. Second round follow-up questions and comments by Members would depend on the availability of time. She also reminded Members to declare interests as necessary and appropriate.

2. The Chairman also said that in response to the impact of COVID-19 on Hong Kong, the following arrangements had been made for the meeting to avoid prolonged crowdedness: (i) the meeting would conclude expeditiously; (ii) the meeting would not be open to public; (iii) the Secretariat would only arrange basic manpower provision; (iv) media practitioners entering the conference room to carry out reporting duties and assistants to Members were required to register their real names and mobile phone numbers to facilitate tracing if necessary; (The Chairman remarked that the Secretariat had collected the business cards of guests attending the meeting and the relevant names would be provided to the Department of Health as and when necessary); (v) persons entering the conference room were required to have their temperature taken. The Secretariat had provided an infrared non-contact electronic thermometer; (vi) all meeting attendees were required to bring and wear their own masks; (vii) to ensure hygiene, the Secretariat would not provide tea cups; only packaged drinks would be provided. Members could also bring their own water bottles.

3. The Chairman said that the Secretariat was informed by Mr KAM Nai-wai and Mr YIP Kam-lung before the meeting of their wish to make oral statements. According to section 26 of the Central and Western District Council Standing Orders (Standing Orders), any statement and question put to a meeting of the Council must be compatible with the functions of the Council. According to section 30 of the Standing Orders, a member who wished to make an oral statement should inform the Secretary before the meeting, but the oral statement should not take more than five minutes. She invited Mr KAM Nai-wai to make his oral statement.

4. Mr KAM Nai-wai said that the Central and Western District Council (C&W DC) and its committees had received three letters issued by the Police at different times. He wished to express some views on the Police by making a statement. He said that he had, when the Commissioner of Police (CoP) attended the C&W DC meeting on 16 January, clearly pointed out police officers’ bad deeds on the days of the "612", "721", "811", "831" incidents, etc. He had mentioned at the time that making reference to the case of Superintendent CHU King-wai who had used his baton to strike a passer-by five years ago, at least hundreds of

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 6 police officers would be sentenced to imprisonment for tens of years in total. He said it was a pity that entering the New Year, the illegal acts of police officers continued. The latest example was a youth being intercepted by seven police officers in Tseung Kwan O on 8 March. Although the youth had fully cooperated with the Police and succumbed to their demands, the police officers still verbally abused him in a willful manner. The youth even had to apologise to the seven police officers one by one repeatedly until they were satisfied. Mr KAM opined that the public would see who were the ones that behaved despicably, spiteful in their language and insulted the public, and would also question whether these were the acts of black cops. He said that regarding the 721 incident, members of the public saw in the live broadcast a mob of white-clad men indiscriminately attacking passengers at Yuen Long West Rail Station. At that time, members of the public thought there was still a glimmer of hope by calling 999 for help. But, this had recently been interpreted by Police spokesperson as people with ulterior motives being incited to call to report case in order to paralyse the 999 Console operation. He asked if any 4pm Police press conference in the past six months was without the Police distorting facts and dodging questions like a voice recorder. He asked who the ones having ulterior motives were, blemishing their own image, and dashing the last hope that the public had for the Hong Kong Police. He said that at the meeting of the Traffic & Transport Committee on 12 March, the police officers present said that they were not exercising police powers, and Central and Western District Commanders had written to the C&W DC expressing their support for such remark. Mr KAM opined that the absurd proposition that police officers attending meetings was not an exercise of police powers had overturned the common sense of Hong Kong people. He also said that police’s law-breaking acts were no single incidents, but the collective behaviour of frontline police officers, commanders of the middle rank and the top management. They completely disregarded the Police General Orders and even the laws of Hong Kong, and ignored police-community relations. He believed that only by disbanding and reforming the police force would Hong Kong have hopes. He also said that the public would make a fair judgement on whether police officers were "black cops". In addition, Mr KAM said that recently some police officer had expressed thanks for the 300 000 “likes” received by the Hong Kong Police Facebook page in four years, which had in turn led to a surge of 10 000-odd “likes” received by a Facebook page created to deride Police’s illegal acts in about a week’s time, making the total number of “likes” received by the latter Facebook page to 400 000. He asked if the Police needed to reflect on why this was the case, and what this phenomenon showed. Remarking that police officers had said that only those who had violated the law would be afraid of the Police, he opined that by the same token, only those police officers who had violated the law would be afraid of independent investigation. He asked why police officers did not support an independent investigation to prove that they had not violated the law in order to do themselves justice, remarking that the force was a rotten, undisciplined disciplinary force. Quoting a recent article by Mr LO Chi-kin which stated that leaving aside whether Hong Kong would implement universal suffrage, Hong Kong’s original public administration values,

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 7 governance, lifestyle, personal safety and freedom had also been eroded, he shared the view that this was Hong Kong’s current situation. Mr KAM told the Chairman that he had served residents on for more than a quarter of a century. It was his responsibility not to yield to triad and evil forces, and to speak for the residents. Mr KAM remarked that some people had asked him why he had to get at them in the Council. His response was that he would only challenge triad forces, evil forces and those who did not follow the Council’s rules. Finally, Mr KAM said to Hong Kong Police that “a man must despise himself before others will” and "you must first respect yourselves if you want others to respect you", hoping that the Police would understand what he meant. He said that some police officer had mentioned about the votes for the recent District Council Election in his speech. Mr KAM said that he received 2 781 votes in this term, believing that he and other Members present had received more votes than the police force’s superior, “777”. He hoped that they could respect the Council’s democratic system and the bounded duty of Members to speak for the people.

5. The Chairman said that Members were not required to make any response on oral statement. She then invited Mr YIP Kam-lung to make his oral statement.

6. Mr YIP Kam-lung said that at the meeting of the Traffic & Transport Committee (TTC) held on the Thursday before this meeting, he, as chairman of the TTC, had chaired the meeting in a fair and impartial manner, with a view to giving sufficient time for government departments and Members to discuss the Standing Orders, for he believed that discussion regarding the Standing Orders required detailed studies before implementation. He received a letter from the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) on the Friday before this meeting, condemning him for dwarfing the police force. He said that as chairman of the TTC, he had not directed against any single government department on that day. He only required the staff of government departments present, other than the Central and Western District Office (C&WDO), to wear their staff card, and that police officers should wear their warrant card in a prominent position before entering the conference room. He said that the rule was not directed against the HKPF, it was implemented with a view to ensuring that the meeting could be held in an orderly manner and that the persons attending were indeed the persons entitled to attend in the relevant capacity. He also said that Members should have the greatest power in determining the arrangements for DC meetings. He quoted section 40(1) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1), which stated the common motto of the common law, that is, “Where any Ordinance confers upon any person power to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, all such powers shall be deemed to be also conferred as are reasonably necessary to enable the person to do or enforce the doing of the act or thing.” He said that this meant the District Councils Ordinance empowered the chairmen of committees to implement and make standing orders as well as preserve order at meetings, and officers of the HKPF should not comment on this. He said that officers of the HKPF had been fully allowed to express their views on that day, and he, as the chairman, had drawn a line to stop the

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 8 relevant discussion. He reiterated that it was not directed against any department. In addition, he said that it was utterly unacceptable for HKPF officers, being regular representative, to be late for meetings or leave meetings early. Such behaviours reflected that they did not respect the efforts of the C&W DC as a district administration in the past three decades or so and its contribution to the HKSAR Government in district administration. He hoped that HKPF officers could attend meetings on time, and that the HKPF would account for the officers’ unauthorised absence on that day. Finally, he hoped that in future, the C&W DC would be able to work together with all government departments, including HKPF, to truly serve the public, rather than being insulted, humiliated by self-proclaimed police officers who failed to show their warrant card, and seeing them walked out of meetings in protest, who then transformed to become Members’ “pen pal”. He opined that deliberation of business should be face-to-face rather than in the form of “pen pal”.

7. The Chairman said no discussion and follow-up was required for oral statement, and proceeded to the agenda items.

8. Ms Dorothy NIEH, Police Community Relations Officer (Central District) of the HKPF, spoke while the Chairman was speaking, saying that the above statements had made many false accusations against the department, and although the public would make a fair judgement, she hoped the Chairman could allow the Police to give a brief response.

9. The Chairman discontinued Ms Dorothy NIEH’s speech. She said that she could not allow Ms Dorothy NIEH to respond and asked Ms NIEH not to speak. She said that over the years, there was no arrangement for the concerned parties to respond to Members’ oral statement. She hoped that Ms NIEH would truly understand the Standing Orders. (Ms NIEH intended to continue speaking. The Vice-chairman said that if Ms NIEH repeatedly violated the rules of procedure, she could be driven out of the conference room). The Chairman issued the first warning to Ms NIEH, saying that if Ms NIEH continued to speak without permission, she had the right to drive her out of the conference room. (Ms NIEH continued to speak. Mr YIP Kam-lung hoped that the Chairman would issue the second warning to Ms NIEH. The Vice-chairman suggested driving Ms NIEH out of the conference room and lodging a complaint. Mr HUI Chi-fung suggested driving Ms NIEH out of the conference room.) The Chairman reiterated her hope that Ms NIEH would understand the Standing Orders. Meeting attendees, including the Chairman, District Officer and Police representatives, should not comment on oral statements made by Members so as to respect the freedom of speech. The Chairman said that all five representatives of the Police in attendance should follow the example of CoP, Mr TANG Ping-keung, remarking that Mr TANG had worn his warrant card when attending the last C&W DC meeting. She opined that police officers should not be afraid of showing their warrant card, and said that she had witnessed the relevant Police representatives displaying their warrant card before the start of the meeting just now. She

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 9 also said that all persons entering the conference room for this meeting were required to leave their business card. Due to the outbreak of Wuhan pneumonia, all the business cards collected would be handed over to the Department of Health in the event of an incident. The business cards would be kept by the Chairman for the time being.

Item 1: Adoption of the Agenda (2:50 pm – 3:11 pm)

10. The Chairman asked whether Members had any comment on the agenda.

11. Mr HUI Chi-fung expressed concern that a paper submitted earlier by Mr NG Siu-hong was not included in the agenda. The paper was about conversion of the C&W DC notice boards into Lennon Walls, so that residents of the Central and Western District could put their views down on it. He understood that the Chairman had reasons not to include the said paper on the agenda of the meeting. However, he believed that it was expressly stated in the Standing Orders that papers submitted before the deadline and in accordance with the rules should be included in the agenda, and said it was improper to arrange the discussion of the paper at another meeting. He wished to cite section 13(2) of the Standing Orders and hoped that the Chairman would, after seeking Members’ views, put the relevant paper back on the agenda of the meeting. Finally, he added that since C&WDO was the responding department in the discussion of the relevant paper and it did not require officials from other government departments to respond, he hoped that the Chairman would allow 15 to 20 minutes to discuss the relevant item.

12. The Chairman said that a total of 11 papers were received from Members before the paper submission deadline (i.e. 4 March). She had discussed with the Secretariat about the arrangement of the agenda items and it was considered that five to six papers from Members at maximum should be discussed at the meeting. Regarding the 11 papers received, the first one was submitted by Ms WONG Kin-ching on "Harbourfront site in Kennedy Town". The Chairman suggested and Ms WONG agreed that the paper be referred to the District Works & Facilities Management Committee (DWFMC) for discussion. The second one was submitted by Mr KAM Nai-wai on “Members’ office room”, which had been arranged for discussion at this meeting. The third one was submitted by Mr LEUNG Fong-wai on “Arrestees”, the Chairman suggested and Mr LEUNG agreed that the paper be referred to the Constitutional & Security Affairs Committee (CSAC) for discussion. The fourth one was submitted by Mr NG Siu-hong on “Adding a comment section on C&W DC notice boards”, the Chairman suggested that the paper be referred to DWFMC for discussion. The fifth one was submitted by Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin on “Protest against the Government for ineffective monument protection and turning a blind eye to private owners felling century-old trees,

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 10 pulling down historic stone wall and occupying public road – No. 27 ”, which had been arranged for discussion at this meeting. The sixth one was submitted by Mr HUI Chi-fung on “Walk DVRC”. The Chairman originally suggested that the paper be referred to TTC for discussion, but Mr HUI insisted that it be discussed at this meeting. The Chairman agreed to it as a paper on “Walk DVRC” had also been discussed at full Council meeting of the last term C&W DC. The seventh one was submitted by Ms NG Hoi-yan on “Police’s ineffective law enforcement has in turn condoned sales activities of shops”. Since the issue involved public safety, the paper had been arranged for discussion at this meeting. The eighth one was submitted by Ms NG Hoi-yan on “Salt water main burst incident at Eastern Street”. The Chairman suggested and Ms NG agreed that the paper be referred to the Building Management, Environmental Hygiene & Works Committee (BEHWC) for discussion. The ninth one was submitted by Miss YAM Ka-yi on “There is nothing wrong for healthcare workers to go on strike to save Hong Kong”, which had been arranged for discussion at this meeting; as a paper submitted by the Hospital Authority would also be discussed at this meeting, the two papers would be combined for discussion. The tenth one was submitted by the Chairman on “Sternly request the Government to eradicate the nuisances caused by performances in the style of ‘dama show of Tuen Mun’ at Central Harbourfront”, and she had referred the paper to the Cultural, Education, Healthcare, Leisure & Social Affairs Committee (CLSAC) for discussion. The eleventh one was submitted by Mr WONG Weng-chi on “Request the General Post Office in Central be removed from the Land Sale Programme”, which had been arranged for discussion at this meeting. The Chairman said that Mr NG Siu-hong had expressed his hope for the paper submitted by him on “Adding a comment section on C&W DC notice boards” to be discussed at this meeting. She had also kept in touch with Mr NG and finally decided not to include this issue in the agenda of this meeting, because she had reviewed the content of the paper and considered it more suitable for discussion in other committees. It would be unfair to those Members who had agreed to put their papers for discussion at meetings of other committees for the same reason if the said paper was put back on the agenda of today’s meeting. The Chairman said that she would invite Members to vote on whether the paper submitted by Mr NG should be included in the agenda for discussion before the meeting ended. She also said that should a similar situation arise in future, discussion items on the agenda should be arranged in accordance with the sequence of papers submitted. She indicated that the arrangement this time had taken into account that the Council might need to express its stance expeditiously on the paper “Request the General Post Office in Central be removed from the Land Sale Programme”. Since a Member had raised comment on the agenda, she invited Members to discuss on it.

13. The Vice-chairman said that he had had an unpleasant experience similar to this at the BEHWC meeting held earlier by Ms NG Hoi-yan. He remarked that he had submitted a paper regarding request for monitoring of the street washing work which had been given an allocation of $500,000. He said that there was no monitoring of the street washing work by

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 11 C&WDO staff and corner cutting was noted, as many places had not been washed and only fresh water was used for the so-called disinfection. Hence, he submitted the paper in hope that the Audit Commission or even the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) would review this case of cutting corners. He said this would be an offence of misconduct in public office. If this was the case, he hoped remedial measures would be taken as soon as possible. He said that Ms NG had read the relevant paper and approved the discussion of it at the said BEHWC meeting. However, Ms NG had subsequently put the paper to the BEHWC meeting to be held two months later for discussion without consulting him. He said that he had raised objections, but Ms NG insisted on having her own way and disagreed. He opined that in view of the emergency in relation to the pandemic, and given that Ms NG agreed that street washing was an important and urgent task, he wondered why discussion of his paper had to be postponed for two months. He reckoned that this was an arbitrary decision and changes were made at will. Regarding the paper submitted by Mr NG Siu-hong, the Vice-chairman believed that all Members would regard their own papers as having value and important. He opined that in case the Chairman had views on a paper, it would be better for her to discuss it with the Member submitting the paper in order to reach a consensus. The paper could be put to a meeting of another committee for discussion if the Member agreed. If no consensus could be reached, it was suggested that discussion items on the meeting agenda be arranged in accordance with the sequence of papers submitted and the number of items that could be raised for discussion at each meeting, and that such a system should be maintained. He also said that Mr HUI Chi-fung was entitled to rely on the Standing Orders to request Members to vote by a show of hands on whether they agreed to include the item in the agenda.

14. Mr KAM Nai-wai said that they had many new colleagues in the new term of C&W DC, and there would be an adaptation process regarding the handling of paper submission. He remarked that a principle had been upheld in the past terms of the C&W DC, particularly for the full Council, that if there were many Members submitting papers, the Chairman could suggest referring the papers to other committees for discussion as she saw fit. He said this was a feasible approach. However, he agreed that Members were entitled to insist on putting their papers for discussion at full Council meetings. Remarking that the Chairman of the previous term did not support this practice, Mr KAM believed that this could be adopted in the new term. He also said that he had submitted a paper on “Lennon Wall” earlier in February for discussion at DWFMC meeting. Members could consider whether the paper submitted by Mr NG Siu-hong on a similar subject should be discussed at this meeting. He again expressed support that Members who wished to raise an item for discussion at full Council meeting could have their papers queued in accordance with the Standing Orders. He also hoped that two principles would be upheld in deciding whether or not to hold a special meeting. The first was whether the paper to be discussed was of an urgent nature, and the second was whether the paper was time-sensitive. He hoped that these two principles would be adopted in deciding whether to convene a special meeting and for paper submission.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 12

15. Mr HUI Chi-fung said he also considered the present discussion quite time-consuming, but hoped that the Chairman could be responsive and put the relevant paper on the agenda, remarking that it would only take some 10 to 20 minutes to finish the discussion. He said Members could see during the process that Mr NG Siu-hong had followed the deadline and rules in submitting the paper and did not jump the queue. In terms of importance, he said that in the past few months, Lennon Walls in the Central and Western District and Hill Road had caused many indiscriminate arrests and prosecutions by the Police. He himself had handled many relevant incidents, reckoning that things like that happened every day and the gravity of it was indisputable. He hoped that the relevant issue could be discussed in a brief moment in order to legalise Lennon Walls, so as to prevent further indiscriminate arrests and prosecutions of young people. He suggested the Chairman to take this into consideration.

16. In response to the Vice-chairman’s comments, Ms NG Hoi-yan said that the BEHWC meeting held that day morning was a special meeting. She had drawn up the agenda according to the urgency and timeliness of incidents, and had been in close contact with the vice-chairman of BEHWC in drawing up the agenda. Besides, the agenda had been revised to cater for some items that involved funding and required urgent handling. In revising the agenda, she had successfully contacted six other Members and referred to the comments of eight Members before finalising the agenda. Regarding the Vice-chairman’s remark that she had received and agreed to discuss the paper submitted by the Vice-chairman, she said that prior to the meeting on 12 March (Thursday) at 5:53 pm, she enquired about the paper submitted to her by the Vice-chairman, saying that the paper did not mention about the occurrence of a confirmed case in Chester Court as what the Vice-chairman had indicated earlier before. She had also reminded the Vice-chairman that the discussion time of the paper was 15 minutes. However, she later contacted the Secretariat and learned that the Vice-chairman’s paper was yet to be submitted to the Secretariat at that time (i.e. 5:53 pm), so at that moment she could not regard the paper as being included in the agenda.

17. Mr NG Siu-hong said that his paper on “Lennon Wall” was submitted in accordance with the Standing Orders, which could have been scheduled for discussion at this meeting. He remarked that many other DCs had also discussed papers on Lennon Wall, and the relevant issue was subject to political suppression for different reasons. He opined that the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Leisure and Cultural Services Department, Police and District Office, rather than discussing workable details, had all exercised political suppression, undermining the freedom of opinion of the public. Hence, this was an issue of political suppression. He said that many DCs had discussed the issue at their full Council meetings and considered it necessary to explain their points of views in front of the representatives of District Office and Police. He remarked that many people had been

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 13 arrested for posting propaganda materials in a peaceful manner over the last six months or so. These people risked being arrested for justice, and thanked to young people’s insistence on justice that DC members of this term were elected. He hoped he would be able to do as much as possible for these people and to speak out for them as loudly as possible.

18. Miss YAM Ka-yi agreed that there would be an adaptation process regarding the scheduling of papers, but said it seemed that Members were discussing the content of the paper just now. In order to save time, she asked if the Council could decide right now whether to include the paper in the agenda for discussion, and then proceed to discuss the agenda items.

19. The Chairman said that she had been in close contact with Mr NG Siu-hong, and had discussed with the Secretariat several times. She quoted section 13(2) of the Standing Orders, which stated that subject to the agreement of over half of the members of the Council present at the meeting, the Chairman may at the commencement or in the course of the meeting approve the inclusion of an item in the agenda or adjustment of the order of business on the agenda. The Chairman said that the final submission time of the paper "Add a comment section on C&W DC’s notice boards on pavements to increase opportunities for expression of public opinion" submitted by Mr NG was 4 March, 4:59 pm, and the responding department involved was C&WDO.

20. Ms BOOK King-shun, Executive Officer I (District Council) of the C&WDO, added that since the addition of presenters was not regarded as changes made to the paper, the time of submission of Mr NG Siu-hong’s paper should be 10:59 am.

21. The Chairman asked Members to indicate whether the paper submitted by Mr NG Siu-hong should be discussed at this meeting, and invited Members to vote on whether the item should be included in the agenda of this meeting.

22. 13 Members voted in favour of including the item in the agenda of this meeting, and no Member voted against it. The Chairman also said that she would not participate in the voting as she was responsible for drawing up the agenda. She remarked that the new item would be added as discussion item 14.

23. The Chairman declared the adoption of the revised agenda.

24. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western) (DO(C&W)), respected the power of the Chairman to decide on the agenda and understood that the revised agenda was adopted. She said that in general, for discussion items, responding departments would be notified in advance to allow for preparation. Given that the said discussion item was added on the spot, she could only do her best to respond and if necessary, would discuss

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 14 with other departments. She hoped Members would understand this. Besides, she said that the Government had the responsibility to monitor the crowd flow during the meeting in view of the pandemic, and she had communicated with the C&W DC Chairman before the meeting. It was decided that only two meetings should be held every week according to district practice and each meeting should not exceed four hours. The TTC meeting held a week before this meeting had overrun because there were many items on the agenda. She wished to ensure the safety of C&WDO colleagues and meeting participants. Given the addition of a new agenda item, she hoped the meeting time would be used efficiently so as to conclude the meeting within four hours as agreed earlier as far as practicable.

Item 2: Confirmation of the Minutes of the Second C&W DC Meeting held on 16 January 2020 (3:11 pm – 3:12 pm)

25. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had sent the draft minutes of the second C&W DC meeting to Members on 16 March 2020 by e-mail, and the Secretariat had not received any amendment proposal to the draft minutes from Members before the meeting.

26. Mr KAM Nai-wai said that he did not have time to read the minutes of the second C&W DC meeting and requested that he be given some time to read the minutes before confirming the minutes.

27. The Chairman said that agenda item 2 would be dealt with before the meeting ended.

Item 3: Action Checklist on Matters Arising from the Second C&W DC Meeting (C&W DC Paper No. 56/2020) (3:12 pm – 3:13 pm)

28. The Chairman referred Members to the checklist for the progress of follow-up of different items.

29. Mr KAM Nai-wai asked whether the ICAC had given a reply on the complaint lodged by the Council and whether it was recorded on the checklist. He also asked whether the letter tabled was C&W DC’s reply to the letter issued earlier on by the HKPF.

30. The Chairman replied that the Secretariat had recorded the matters for follow-up relevant to the second meeting, including writing to the Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 15 for Administration, etc. However, reply had yet to be received in respect of many of them. She would deal with the issue regarding writing to The Ombudsman and ICAC later under “Chairman’s Report”.

31. Members had no other comment on the action checklist on matters arising from the second C&W DC meeting.

Item 4: Chairman’s Report (3:13 pm – 3:25 pm)

32. The Chairman said that a letter from Mr TSE Ming-yeung, District Commander (Central District) to BEHWC chairman Ms NG Hoi-yan and a letter from Ms WONG Siu-hing, District Commander (Western District) to TTC chairman Mr YIP Kam-lung were received on 10 March and 13 March respectively. She had also received a letter from the Police. The three letters were tabled for Members’ perusal. She hoped to discuss with Members on how to deal with them. For the well-being of the C&W DC and local community, she hoped that the Police and C&W DC would work together to serve the community. A reply letter drafted by her was tabled for Members’ comment, and she asked if Ms NG and Mr YIP agreed that the letter be issued only in the name of the Chairman. She suggested the reply be addressed to the CoP, who had attended the C&W DC meeting on 16 January. She referred Members to the draft letter, and welcomed Members to pass to her feedback and suggestions if amendment was necessary. She also understood that some Members were of the view that the C&W DC should respond to the three letters received, and agreed that the matter should be addressed. She asked if Ms NG and Mr YIP agreed that she should issue a letter on their behalf to respond to the CoP.

33. The Vice-chairman opined that the reply letter should be endorsed and issued by all Members of the C&W DC. For Members who did not wish to do so, their names would not be put on the list of signatory. For the three letters received, he found it unbelievable after reading them, remarking that things like HKPF issuing letters to condemn and criticise DC and District Councillors had never happened before. He said that it was the duty of District Councillors to advise the Government under section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance. Government departments, including the HKPF, were duty-bound to listen to the views of DCs, rather than criticising their members. He opined that this was ultra vires. Hence, he reckoned that the reply letter should not only be issued to CoP, but also to the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration. He said that although what the result was going to be like was already known, he believed that the matter still required public attention. He asked if police officers nowadays could not accept criticism, for if District Councillors made any criticism against the Police, the Police would write to criticise them, then who else could

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 16 monitor the Police. In addition, he wished to tell Ms Dorothy NIEH, Police Community Relations Officer (Central District) of the HKPF, that the Police attended this meeting in order to facilitate Members’ discussion. He hoped that the Police would listen to Members’ views, not Members listening to the Police’s views and criticisms. He hoped that the Police would not overturn the Council. He suggested that they should raise the matter at a higher level and let the general public know how Police nowadays would not accept criticisms from other people.

34. Mr YIP Kam-lung agreed that the Chairman should issue a reply letter on their behalf, but he would like to reiterate one thing. He said that the three letters looked similar but were by no means identical. While all three letters featured similar content, such as no abusive language should be used, no attempt should be made to dwarf any stakeholder, etc., the last paragraph of each letter was different. He quoted the last paragraph of the letter to Ms NG Hoi-yan: "you are requested to condemn and look squarely at Members’ repeated acts of targetting at the Police at meetings of the committee…”; and that of the letter to him: “Please examine yourself three times each day, and preside over meetings in a fair and reasonable manner as well as condemn the relevant Members…". He pointed out that these were also false information, saying that he did “examine himself three times each day” and so no need to urge him to do so. He also believed himself to be fair, impartial and reasonable. It was only after trying to control his temper for a long time and when making the closing remarks that he condemned the Police. He also believed that he had given sufficient time for the Police to speak, and wondered why the Police had to urge him to “examine himself three times each day”. He opined that the Chairman should mention about this in the letter, saying that the Police should not target at individual Members and dwarf the whole DC and its Members.

35. Ms NG Hoi-yan agreed that the Chairman should issue a reply letter on their behalf. She said that the letter from the Police stated that some Members insulted police officers by calling them “black cops”. But she saw in many Facebook pages and live broadcasts that the Police called journalists and healthcare workers “black journalists" and “black medics". The Police also said that she had not made any rulings on that day and did not understand why she did not do so, but the letter from the Police stated that "find this unfair ruling difficult to comprehend and express regret on it”. She therefore would like to clarify the matter here.

36. The Chairman said the letter she received concluded by requesting her to condemn Members. She believed that regarding remarks made by Members, only if abusive language was used that they should be given condemnation by the Chairman. Besides, remarking that C&W DC as a publicly elected council, she hoped that all Government departments would understand that the Standing Orders did not confer upon the Chairman power to make rulings on the content of the remarks made by Members. She said that she had no such authority as

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 17 she was not a judge and Members did not commit any offence. She asked Members present to indicate whether they would agree for the C&W DC Chairman, TTC chairman and BEHWC chairman to handle the matter regarding the issuance of letters to the CoP, the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Chief Executive. The 14 Members present unanimously agreed and endorsed the proposal; they also agreed that the letters should be signed by the Chairman. The Chairman said that the letters would be circulated to all Members for comments before issuance.

37. Mr YU Kong, Police Community Relations Officer (Western District) of the HKPF, raised a point of order and would like to make enquiries about the ruling made by the Chairman just now. The Chairman opined that there was no need to raise enquiry, saying that Members were only discussing matters regarding how to respond to the letters just now. Mr YU insisted on making enquiries. The Chairman opined that he could ask the Secretariat for a copy of the Standing Orders for reference if necessary.

38. Mr YU Kong, Police Community Relations Officer (Western District) of the HKPF, continued to speak, saying that he understood the Standing Orders. He pointed out that the Chairman had mentioned that foul language was not allowed and asked if the Chairman could make a ruling. The Vice-chairman said that this was a meeting of the C&W DC, which should not be interrupted by other people.

39. The Chairman then reported on the progress of face mask procurement by C&W DC. She said that the Secretariat commenced the third round of tender invitation for face mask procurement on 28 February, and received a total of three quotations by close of quotation (12:00 noon on 5 March). The results were reported to Members at the BEHWC meeting held on the same day. Acceptance of the lowest tender was endorsed at that meeting. The Council would purchase 80 000 face masks (country of origin: Romania) from the relevant supplier for $320,000. The supplier subsequently indicated that it could supply an additional 15 000 face masks under the same terms and conditions, so the total number of face masks in the order placed by the Secretariat on 10 March was 95 000 (a total of $380,000). However, the supplier contacted the Secretariat recently, saying that the batch of face masks could not be delivered for the time being due to the failure to arrange a flight from Romania to Hong Kong, but indicated that it might be possible to replace it by one of the two alternatives (or by the two alternatives simultaneously to make up the amount ordered). The first one was USA brand face mask from Turkey, and the second was Medicom face mask from USA. Both alternatives were of similar specifications with the original one and the price remained unchanged. The Secretariat had requested the supplier to provide the product specifications. If Members had no objection, the Secretariat would follow up immediately and report on the progress in due course. The Chairman asked Members to indicate whether they agreed to accept the alternative face masks proposed by the supplier.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 18

40. Mr YOUNG Chit-on believed Members were aware that the Government had issued the Red Outbound Travel Alert on many overseas places in the past few weeks. At present, all boundary control points, except that with Mainland China, Macau and Taiwan, were closed. He said he knew that flights from Romania were suspended, and believed that face masks from countries under a Red Outbound Travel Alert could not be delivered to Hong Kong via air freight. Hence, he enquired whether government departments would consider procuring from places not under a Red Outbound Travel Alert, otherwise it would be a long wait. Also, the Government would not procure from two places simultaneously, so he had no confidence that the face masks could be delivered to Hong Kong.

41. Mr KAM Nai-wai said that according to Mr YOUNG Chit-on, the only place not under a Red Outbound Travel Alert was Mainland China. The reason was that it was not permitted to issue a Red Outbound Travel Alert to Mainland China. He suggested that the Chairman should proceed with the procurement through whatever channels available as long as the face masks could be successfully procured. He also said that a friend of his claimed to have purchased 3M face masks, though at about $3 each. He said that he would provide relevant information, if available, to the Secretariat for direct contact. He pointed out that Members had discussed about approving the procurement of individually packed masks. It was opined that if individually-packed masks at a price of less than $4 each were available in stock, they would provide the relevant information to the Secretariat for handling; while masks that were too expensive would not be considered.

42. The Chairman thanked the Secretariat for the information and hoped that the Secretariat could proceed with full speed. Members unanimously agreed with the relevant arrangement.

Standing Items

Item 5(i): Conserving Central (C&W DC Paper No. 59/2020) (3:25 pm – 5:08 pm)

43. The Chairman welcomed representatives of Development Bureau (DEVB), Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (HKSKH), the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC), The Jockey Club CPS Limited (JCCPS), Purcell, Arup and Central and Western Concern Group (CWCG) to the meeting.

44. Mr LEE Hong-nin, Chief Assistant Secretary (Works) 2 of DEVB, said the paper

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 19 submitted earlier had listed the latest development of various projects under “Conserving Central”. Some of the projects had been completed and had been open to the public. The projects included: (i) Former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road had been revitalised into PMQ; (ii) Murray Building had been revitalised into The Murray; (iii) the former Central Government Offices had become Justice Place; renovation works of its West Wing had been completed and Department of Justice and relevant legal bodies were moving in; (iv) renovation works of Former French Mission Building were expected to be completed in mid-2020; and (v) revitalisation works for the 15 historic buildings and works for the two new buildings at the Central Police Station Compound (the Compound) – Tai Kwun had already been completed and Tai Kwun had been open to the public.

45. Mr LEE Hong-nin, Chief Assistant Secretary (Works) 2 of DEVB, said that in addition to DEVB, representatives of HKJC, JCCPS and HKSKH had also attended the C&W DC meeting, in order to further learn about Members’ opinions on Tai Kwun and on HKSKH’s Central Compound. He first asked the representative of HKJC to present the latest situation of Tai Kwun.

46. Mr Leong CHEUNG, Executive Director, Charities and Community of HKJC, said a visit to Tai Kwun had earlier been arranged for Members to inspect the situation of Block 4. The entire Compound had around 170 years of history and included three declared monuments: the former Central Police Station, Central Magistracy and , which were places respectively for law enforcement, judiciary services and correctional services. 16 historic buildings were retained at the original site. He said the situation of Block 4 would mainly be discussed and Block 4 was also one of the earliest buildings in Tai Kwun. He continued that the revitalisation project on the Compound was a non-profit-making project funded by HKJC. The idea of launching the project had begun to grow in 2007 and had undergone a long public consultation. After listening to different stakeholders, HKJC optimised the conservation plan. Most of the buildings in the Compound had already been conserved and revitalised, and the Compound had been open to the public since May 2018. At the moment, Block 4 was the building which still needed restoration and revitalisation. He continued that Block 4 had partially collapsed in May 2016 and since then, HKJC had been looking into feasible recovery plans. Subsequently, HKJC had consulted Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) regarding the recovery plan in 2016 and 2017, and had reported to C&W DC on the progress of the recovery work. In September 2018, HKJC had submitted the recovery proposal concerning Block 4 to AAB. AAB had agreed with the overall approach of the proposal and some individual members had offered comments on specific design details. Besides, HKJC had also invited C&W DC Members and members of CWCG to view the conceptual model at Tai Kwun. He said the plan had gained approval from the stakeholders and the design concept of the recovery plan for Tai Kwun was in line with the international principles in heritage conservation. Three major principles were observed in the plan HKJC wished to adopt: authenticity with

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 20 respect to the original appearance, integration of old and new architecture and public safety. He explained that it was a great challenge to present the original appearance with authenticity during restoration because it was necessary to define what was "restoring a building to the original appearance". Multiple factors including scientific judgement, historical memory, aesthetics and etc. had to be taken into account. He cited “Blue Gate” at Old Bailey Street as an example and explained that the gate, which had been used to escort convicts in the past, was called “Blue Gate" because it had been blue in colour for a long time. However, upon completion of a paint finish analysis, it was found that the gate was green originally. After discussion among the specialists, HKJC had decided to repaint the gate green but had at the same time kept the name “Blue Gate”. A caption had also been installed at the gate entrance so that the public could know about the stories behind the designs. Mr CHEUNG continued that it was necessary to think about how to integrate new buildings with old buildings when building the new ones inside the Compound. Designers of Tai Kwun had built two new buildings in Tai Kwun and their facades were made of aluminum blocks from recycled alloy wheels, which resonated with the brick walls of the other 16 buildings. The designs had their own style, and while they could be differentiated from the old buildings, they could at the same time resonate with the original Compound. Mr CHEUNG continued that the top priority was public safety. In the past, Tai Kwun had been under heavy guard and was an enclosed area. Then, it had become a cultural and art space open to the public and so, it was necessary to comply with the current Buildings Ordinance and retain its authenticity and sustainability with safety being the primary concern. The whole team of consultants had spent extra effort when installing additional structures. He said some inconspicuous black metal frames had been installed under the arch of a social enterprise restaurant for strengthening, so that the safety requirement could be met and the architectural features could at the same time be retained. Mr CHEUNG said Tai Kwun had encountered many different challenges, including the ones related to the works and the constraints imposed by the site. As a complete record had not be kept for many of the buildings over the 170 years of history, it was necessary to carry out an extensive and thorough investigation to learn about the structure of the building and to formulate a safe recovery plan. Against all the odds, HKJC still insisted to stick to the three conservation principles to implement the whole project. He continued that through concerted efforts, HKJC had won the Award of Excellence of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation, which was the award's highest honour. The jury composed of international conservation experts opined that the technical quality of the restoration work of Tai Kwun was standard-setting on an international level. Mr CHEUNG opined that it was the greatest encouragement. He said Tai Kwun had been transformed into an energetic heritage and art museum after revitalisation, and had become an important platform which connected the community. 3.4 million visitors had visited Tai Kwun in 2018, the year when Tai Kwun had reopened it gates. HKJC had organised many activities like public programmes, accessible guided tours, heritage guided tours, school guided tours and education outreach programmes.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 21 Almost 20 000 students had been involved in the activities in 2018. Moreover, Tai Kwun had become an important platform for art and exhibitions. Most of the performances had been produced together with local performers and organisations in 2018. In 2019, Tai Kwun had invited 36 famous artists in total to take part in exhibitions in Tai Kwun. He stressed that HKJC would strive to complete the revitalisation project for Tai Kwun and would invest resources in carrying out the recovery work. HKJC hoped that the revitalisation work for Block 4 could serve as an exemplar of heritage conservation. He also hoped that the recovery work could be completed as early as possible so that the public could enjoy the cultural space as early as possible as well.

47. Mr Henry FUNG, Executive Manager, Property Project Management of HKJC, continued to elaborate on the recovery work for Block 4. He said the plan proposed in 2018 was used as the blueprint for the updated recovery plan. He added that the unstable structure had immediately been removed and supporting scaffolding had been used extensively to support the whole building after Block 4 had partially collapsed in 2016. At the same time, HKJC had always used devices to monitor the building and had engaged a contractor for maintenance and repairs as well as for surveillance data collection. In January and April 2019, HKJC had invited specialists from England to assess the situation of the brickworks and timber structures of Block 4. The specialists said the original structure of the brickworks was unsuitable for a load-bearing wall. The timber structure of the roof had also been damaged severely and the fixing points were unideal. In view of the situation of the roof, the specialists suggested producing a new structure to support the roof. Mr FUNG said HKJC had adhered to several major principles during the process of planning the recovery work and among all, safety was the top priority. For conservation, changes would be made as little as possible according to the Burra Charter. Mr FUNG said the future works would be very different from the works for the other 15 historic buildings because Tai Kwun had already been open to the public and it was necessary to take care of the activities and visitors inside Tai Kwun during the recovery work. The recovery work would be carried out according to the plan submitted to AAB, and public safety and conservation would be taken into account. Regarding safety, in addition to the safety of future users, it was also necessary to ensure the safety of workers, staff, the public and Block 4 itself. He said there were retaining walls on three sides of Block 4 and their margin of safety needed to be enhanced. The design of Block 4 also needed to meet the modern wind code. Mr FUNG played the first video and presented the design of the structure. He talked about all the options that had been considered during the development process and explained how the current plan could meet all the necessary safety requirements. Mr FUNG then played the second video and presented the works procedure. He said works procedure was also very important in ensuring safety during works. To begin with, the collapsed West Wing would be removed floor by floor and temporary hoardings would be installed on the sides to safeguard the internal structure. Then, the fence and metal scaffolding would be removed and a supporting frame system would be

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 22 installed to support the whole building. A temporary roof cover would also be installed at the roof to protect the interior of the building from bad weather when the roof was being restored. The clay roof covering would then be removed, to avoid affecting the existing roof trusses. All floors and internal walls would also be removed, and a cast mass concrete would be installed behind the existing retaining walls before the same was done for the raft foundation. The new raft foundation would be built step by step until works were completed and the internal concrete structure would be built from low to high to support the external brick walls. The supporting frame at the west side would be removed and once the new foundation was built, construction of the upper portion could begin starting from the ground. Internal renovation works and installation of building services would also commence at the same time in the building. Under the works procedure, temporary supporting frames would be used to stabilise the external walls and the brick walls would then be strengthened, to ensure the structural safety of Block 4.

48. Mr Brian ANDERSON, Culture Heritage Director of Purcell, gave a presentation regarding conservation matters. He said it was necessary to first look at the cultural significance and heritage values of the buildings, and to look at the impacts on the heritage values and the justifications for change. Block 4 was part of the group of the buildings and the Compound as a whole created an important group value. The historic and social relationships between those various buildings, the streetscape when seeing from Arbuthnot Road, the internal layout and in particular the domestic skylight of the interior and the interior finishes were all of value. The internal layout was similar to the 2012 approved scheme, except for the rebuilt part. The internal finishes would be replaced but internal joinery and stairs salvaged would be reused. The group value would be retained and the form and the massing of the building would remain the same. There was no outward change either. The facade facing the Parade Ground was altered on the rebuilt part only. He continued that the changes to the interior layout were driven by engineering consideration and safety, and the key was to enable the public to access to the building in future. In order to continue to maintain the buildings, there needed to be some beneficial uses. Purcell opined that changes to the internal layout would enhance the long-term sustainability. It was necessary to think in the long term, say 25 to 50 years ahead, to foresee how the building could remain relevant, not just then or just immediately post-construction, but also in the longer term.

49. The Chairman hoped that a copy of the presentation materials which HKJC had used could be made so that Members could refer to it when necessary. The Chairman invited Ms Katty LAW, convenor of CWCG, to speak.

50. Ms Katty LAW, convenor of CWCG, said CWCG had always had reservations about the new design of Tai Kwun. She pointed out that there would be a big difference between the new building and its original design. Although HKJC said that the Burra Charter

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 23 would be referred to, the building would be different from the original one. Ms LAW took the gas street lamps as an example and asked whether the gas street lamps would be turned into something different during the recovery work. Besides, Ms Katty LAW hoped that HKJC could explain why the original granite staircase, the wooden staircase and the original brick walls had to be removed. For HKSKH’s Central Compound, Ms LAW said after CWCG's hard work, Town Planning Board (TPB) had lowered the building height restriction (BHR) to 80mPD. She said the community was strongly against building a large-scale private hospital at Bishop Hill and she hoped that Members could support the decision made by TPB. In addition, she said it was found after studies that Hong Kong Central Hospital was a modernist building of significance and it was designed by Mr KUO Yuan-hsi. CWCG hoped that Hong Kong Central Hospital could be retained and be converted into a community clinic. She pointed out that two hostels owned by HKSKH were vacant and she suggested that C&W DC supervise HKSKH so that HKSKH would restore the accommodation facilities of the Central Compound as early as possible and open them as youth hostels. She also suggested developing the entire Bishop Hill as a conservation area and conducting a grading assessment of the buildings, Bishop’s House especially, again. She opined that Bishop’s House qualified as a declared monument, although it was only a building with Grade 1 status at the moment. She said a comprehensive conservation proposal was needed. Since an impromptu motion had been adopted in the previous C&W DC meeting to support the conservation of Bishop Hill, she objected to large-scale developments at Bishop Hill.

51. The Chairman invited Members to ask questions and make comments. Members’ comments were as follows:

(a) Mr HUI Chi-fung said he did not agree with HKJC that the internal layout of Tai Kwun had to be changed to ensure safety during the works. He said HKJC had carried out an assessment on heritage conservation before Tai Kwun had partially collapsed. According to the assessment, facilities including the wooden staircase and the stone staircase were of significant conservation value. He opined that it was unacceptable that HKJC sacrificed conservation elements because of the works. He pointed out that the design before the collapse had not stopped the public from gaining access to the building. Besides, he did not understand what "enhance the long-term sustainability" meant and he hoped that HKJC could explain. Mr HUI also asked whether the design of the facades matched with the historic buildings in the Parade Ground. He said he could not agree to the current design. Moreover, regarding HKSKH's Central Compound, Mr HUI asked whether The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON, Provincial Secretary General of HKSKH, would accept the public's opinions, accept the proposal in which a BHR of 80mPD was imposed by TPB and was willing to conserve Bishop Hill

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 24 as a whole, after TPB had rejected the proposal. Mr HUI hoped that HKSKH could finish the conservation project as soon as possible.

(b) Mr NG Siu-hong agreed with Mr HUI Chi-fung. He said both Members and CWCG had some opinions on the recovery plan for Block 4. He opined that only 70% of the appearance remained under the current design and space originally provided to NGOs had become a place for parties. The historical ambience of the whole Parade Ground would be ruined. Moreover, Mr NG opined that the original staircase should be retained in Block 4, as a staircase of historic value was a representation of old-style architecture. Mr NG wished to know how the space would be used and whether it would be leased for profit-making purposes. In addition, Mr NG said the management of bars in Tai Kwun was very bad but still, HKJC allowed them to be open until late night. He disagreed with bars in Tai Kwun operating until late night. Besides, Mr NG pointed out the passage at Government Hill, which the Government had undertaken to open, was closed always when there was a demonstration. He said the Government had undertaken that the passage would be open to the public for expressing views but it was always closed. Mr NG wished to know whether the passage at Government Hill would be closed whenever there was a demonstration. For HKSKH's Central Compound, Mr NG said the original design harmed the original historic value of Bishop Hill and affected residents greatly. He hoped that HKSKH could be aware that Members and TPB were against it and HKSKH would respect residents' opinions. He said there would be no objections if the proposed hospital could be operated like how Hong Kong Central Hospital had been operated.

(c) Mr YIP Kam-lung said he had joined the inspection visit arranged earlier to Block 4. He said the structure of Block 4 had a big problem but every heritage would face the same problem when it was being restored. Mr YIP understood that HKJC had spent considerable effort in developing Tai Kwun but he opined that the original design should be respected when carrying out recovery work. Hence, he opined that when integrity was taken into account, a building should be restored to its original design, and should not become another design like the design of the large-scale viewing window (i.e. design of the skylight). Mr YIP also questioned whether the location would really be open to the public after it was developed as an event space after restoration. He opined that the location could be developed as a gallery and could be open to the public. He asked why it had not been given consideration. He opined that only some people could use the location if it

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 25 was turned into a venue for specific events. He reiterated that it was undesirable to amend the design from the perspective of conservation, and the original character of the facilities should be retained as much as possible. He hoped that HKJC could give it a serious consideration. Regarding HKSKH's Central Compound, Mr YIP said he was dissatisfied with what The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON, Provincial Secretary General of HKSKH, had said about the traffic facilities in a TPB meeting. He opined that he had bypassed C&W DC and he had spoken as if he needed not consult C&W DC and Member of the constituency. Mr YIP said the changes were going to affect the public and he hoped that HKSKH could continue to communicate with C&W DC, listen to Members and work together with them to make the project on Bishop Hill meet the community needs. He also hoped that the Chairman could invite The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON to attend every C&W DC meeting.

(d) Mr LEUNG Fong-wai disagreed with Tai Kwun doing bricklaying work in a new way to highlight the redevelopment. He said many historic towns in Japan had been damaged during the Second World War and Meiji Restoration. Japan endeavoured to rebuild those historic towns by restoring them to their original appearance. Hence, Mr LEUNG disagreed with the new way of redevelopment proposed by HKJC. He said the Compound was special because the whole compound had been retained together and the overall impression was what mattered. He opined that the glass verandah looked out of place in the building. Moreover, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai asked why it was necessary to remove the staircase which was supposed to be retained and build a new one from scratch after Block 4 had partially collapsed.

(e) Mr PANG Ka-ho said it was unnecessary to introduce new modern elements into the recovery work for Tai Kwun. He said conservation should aim at presenting the original appearance of a historic building and should pursue the sameness of the new and old buildings. He did not understand why it was necessary to highlight the rebuilt part. Mr PANG opined that the highest level of conservation did not show traces of recovery work. He opined that HKJC needed not highlight the rebuilt part unless it wished to emulate the city of Kobe, which conserved its port by retaining and presenting the damage. Mr PANG opined that it was unnecessary to introduce modern elements into the heritage. He wished that HKJC would use the current option as a last resort. For HKSKH's Central Compound, Mr PANG opined that HKSKH should maintain the sameness of the buildings and respect Members'

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 26 opinions. He expected that HKSKH would continue to exchange views with C&W DC.

(f) Mr WONG Weng-chi asked whether HKSKH could converse Hong Kong Central Hospital into a community clinic, instead of an expensive private hospital, after TPB had amended the BHR on the site concerning Hong Kong Central Hospital. He pointed out that one of the reasons why the public were dissatisfied with the development project was because they opined that the project was profit-making and the general public might not able to use it. He hoped that HKSKH could operate a hospital which everyone could use.

(g) Mr YOUNG Chit-on said he did not object to the initial proposed height of HKSKH's Central Compound, because there was no correlation between the height of a building and its aesthetic values. He said it was good to provide more medical facilities to address the problem of ageing population in Hong Kong. Medical facilities which were not built and operated with public funds should be especially popular. Even though only some members of the public could afford using the services provided by the private hospital, it would nevertheless benefit the society because of the general increase in the supply of medical facilities. He said Hong Kong was special because there were diverse choices in the free economy and residents of the constituency he represented wished to use the services provided by HKSKH. He was more concerned about the traffic problem and he hoped that HKSKH could take care of it as early as possible. He said Mainland China needed only two weeks to build a hospital and it was disappointing that 10 years had passed but the proposed hospital still had not been built in Hong Kong. He hoped that C&W DC could give comments to HKSKH and support HKSKH in developing the hospital as much as possible. Moreover, Mr YOUNG said Tai Kwun was a project which Hong Kong took pride in and it was also a cultural and artistic tourist attraction which had been transformed from an abandoned land by a charitable institution. Mr YOUNG said he was a member of JCCPS Advisory Committee. He said the response had been positive since Tai Kwun had reopened its gates but there was still room for improvement. For the conservation design, he did not agree that the amendments to the design, such as removing the staircases, were unideal. He opined that "revitalise" was not limited only to "repair", "restore" and "rebuild". He said a forward-looking conservation project would often cause controversy. He said it was good to see that there were different opinions because it meant that many people were concerned about the issue. He hoped that the project could be finished as early as possible. He also hoped that the collapse could be kept on record so

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 27 that the accident could become a case study analysis and a learning opportunity. Mr YOUNG said there were still many projects in Hong Kong which needed to be conserved and revitalised by charitable institutions, and Tai Kwun was a project done very well by HKJC. (The Vice-chairman asked whether Mr YOUNG needed to declare interests, given that The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON of HKSKH was the supervisor of St. Stephen's Girls' College and a daughter of Mr YOUNG Chit-on studied in a school affiliated to St. Stephen's Girls' College. Mr YOUNG said a daughter of his was a Primary 5 student of St. Stephen's Girls' Primary School. The Chairman opined that there involved no conflict of interest.)

(h) Mr KAM Nai-wai said The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON of HKSKH had only attended one meeting in the previous term of C&W DC to present the project on HKSKH's Central Compound. He said the previous term of C&W DC had invited The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON to attend C&W DC meetings multiple times, especially because he had said "heritage conservation is important but nothing is more important than human lives" in a TPB meeting in 2018. Mr KAM said The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON regarded heritage conservation and human lives as antitheses and human lives had to be forgone if heritage conservation was chosen. Mr KAM questioned if it was necessary to put it that way and he said he was the first person who objected to HKSKH building a glazed hospital. He said he had graduated from SKH Kei Yan Primary School and he had also attended kindergarten and primary school there. He had lived there for many years, was familiar with the environment and had a deep affection for the place. He said a glazed skyscraper would not fit in with the environment there and he would object to the conversion. Mr KAM said he was not objecting to HKSKH building a hospital. He opined that HKSKH could build a hospital elsewhere and there should not be a dichotomy between conserving the place and human lives. He said Mr YOUNG Chit-on said it was good to have controversy and he had no opinions regarding the height of the building. Mr KAM pointed out that Mr YOUNG, however, also said he was concerned about the traffic problems. Mr KAM opined that building a hospital of great height would surely make an impact on the community. He opined that the way Mr YOUNG saw things had encouraged the demolition of many buildings such as Lee Theatre and the old General Post Office where World-Wide House was situated. Mr KAM hoped that Bishop Hill could be conserved as a group. Mr KAM supported HKSKH in building a hospital elsewhere, even if it was a hospital which charged. He hoped that The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON would relay to HKSKH that he disagreed with building skyscrapers and glazed buildings

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 28 there. For Tai Kwun, Mr KAM said he definitely did not accept that HKJC still permitted the restaurants to operate and disturb residents after 11:00 pm. He said the facilities should be accepted by the public. He hoped that HKJC could undertake that it would ban the restaurants and bars from selling alcohols and producing noise after 11:00 pm and do the management work properly.

(i) Ms NG Hoi-yan wished to build a historic town district in Central and Western District. She did not want to just conserve a building; rather, she wished to retain the historical background in Central and Western District so that historic values of the existing buildings could be presented. She said there should not be major amendments when the assessments on environment and traffic had not successfully addressed the problems. Ms NG said she had some comments on the design of Tai Kwun. She said the glass curtain wall looked out of place in the building and she did not accept the overall design. Regarding the management of Tai Kwun, Ms NG said it looked like patrons were having their private parties from 11:00 pm to 2:00 am, the time when Tai Kwun was closed but the liquor licence was still valid. She said the public could not accept it. Besides, the noise problem was very serious. Even if there was security personnel, residents nearby were still greatly disturbed. Moreover, as buildings in the vicinity were all taller than Tai Kwun, the residents nearby would still feel it was very loud even if the volume was low. She said she had learnt in a liquor licensing hearing concerning Tai Kwun that some restaurant operators wished to install speakers. She asked whether Tai Kwun was aware of it and whether the installation of speakers would affect the structure and conservation value of the buildings. Moreover, she said as the escalators near Tai Kwun were undergoing renovation works, the footpath which connected Tai Kwun and Marks & Spencer at Hollywood Road was closed. She hoped that the opening hours of Tai Kwun could be in line with the working hours of the escalators during the works, because residents who lived above Caine Road needed to make a detour and go to Caine Road via other roads after Tai Kwun was closed (i.e. 11:00 pm). She hoped that under the special circumstance, the entrances/exits of Tai Kwun could be open for a longer time and be aligned with the working hours of the escalators so that the public could use the escalators and go to Staunton Street via Tai Kwun.

(j) The Chairman agreed with Ms NG Hoi-yan. She hoped that the opening hours of Tai Kwun could be extended when the escalators were under maintenance so that the public could save time by walking via Tai Kwun. For

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 29 Block 4, the Chairman said she saw that the building was in ruins during inspection. She said a major renovation had to be carried out after the collapse because maintenance work had not been done properly before the collapse. The Chairman opined that displaying the state of the collapse could reveal the difficulties encountered when conserving the historic town district in Hong Kong. She added that some places did conservation by retaining the damaged parts. She said an exorbitant price had to be paid for restoring the building and the worst thing was the “binoculars” design. She said Block 4 could be named as “Rioters’ Building” in future because it was the former Central Police Station and people would associate it with the incident concerning the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance in Hong Kong if it was designed in the form of “binoculars” in future. She asked why the verandah was not restored to its original design and to how it had looked like in 1862. The Chairman hoped that Block 4 would not be used for holding mini concerts because other locations in Tai Kwun had already been used for holding concerts. If possible, the Chairman hoped that some captions could be erected to elaborate on the collapse.

52. Mr LEE Hong-nin of DEVB replied to Members regarding Tai Kwun. He said DEVB shared the same view with HKJC and agreed that public safety was the most important factor in the recovery work for Block 4. Hence, Block 4 must first be strengthened and enhanced before it could be open to the public. He knew that HKJC, from the perspective of heritage conservation, had tried to recycle materials which were of value so that they could be used during the recovery work. He said there were 16 declared monuments in Tai Kwun and both the recovery work and recovery plan needed to be examined and approved by AAB. The recovery plan for Block 4 had been submitted to AAB four times and the updated recovery plan had also been discussed in the previous AAB meeting. Members of AAB had deliberated on the plan for Block 4, including components which were of heritage value, appearance and the design of the viewing window. The members had also complimented HKJC on its effort, agreed to the recovery option and agreed that public safety was the primary concern.

53. Mr Leong CHEUNG of HKJC replied that the whole project was non-profit-making and hence, public safety, instead of whether profits could be made in future, was the most important factor when considering the overall design and construction. He said safety was especially important because Block 4 had partially collapsed previously. Therefore, all designs had been produced with safety taken into consideration. He added that the whole design had gained recognition from AAB.

54. Mr Brian ANDERSON, Culture Heritage Director of Purcell, replied with respect to conservation. He said Block 4 had partially collapsed before and it would not be the same

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 30 even after recovery work. There was no black-and-white way regarding how to conserve a collapsed building and that was why it was necessary to study what was the most appropriate option. They needed to deliberate with various stakeholders and that was why they attended the meeting. For the design of the proposed new window, he said the original verandah had partially been demolished by a typhoon in 2008. The architects had drawn on historical reference to propose the large window in conjunction with a creation of a larger open-plan room at that level. In terms of the impact on the Parade Ground, he could well understand that Members and the public adopted a variety of views but he said a creation of a large open-plan room was proposed with a clear reference to history coupled with a look towards the future. He added that as a basic conservation principle, it was not appropriate to recreate something that was lost, but instead to reinterpret it for the future. He stressed that it was never a black-and-white situation and there were always shades of grey. Hence, discussion between different parties was necessary.

55. Mr Kenneth LEE, Senior Project Manager of HKJC, replied in respect of the design. He said the team of designers had engaged consultants from all over the world to examine what were the international conservation principles. One of the principles was to change as much as necessary but as little as possible. He said the structure of Block 4 was very unstable and the collapse had made the team re-examine the safety of the building. He said the team had submitted eight options and consulted AAB since 2016. The team had accepted AAB's comments and came up with the current hybrid option. Regarding the granite staircase, he said the original staircase was quite narrow and steep, and was unsafe. Hence, HKJC had always considered removing and rebuilding it during the planning process. He said HKJC would try to retain the components and use them again when possible. He also said that as the original staircase was rather steep, it was necessary to find a space with sufficient width and spacing if a staircase which complied with safety regulations was to be built. He added that Block 4 had partially collapsed and the remaining materials could not be completely restored. Besides, HKJC did not wish to make a “fake antique”. He said HKJC had learnt that the verandah had been used by police officers previously after taking different opinions into account. HKJC wished to use the space for exhibitions or mini concerts in future. The space could also be used by the public to oversee the Parade Ground. It was hoped that the location, which could only be enjoyed by a small amount of people previously, could be open to the public in future.

56. Mr Timothy CALNIN, Director of Tai Kwun of JCCPS, replied in response to the operations management of Tai Kwun. He said all restaurants and bars in Tai Kwun needed to comply with the regulations, closed their windows and stopped outdoor services after 11:00 pm. Tai Kwun’s security personnel would carry out patrols to ensure that tenants were in full compliance with the regulations. He said Tai Kwun was sensitive to the neighbourhood as well and made sure Tai Kwun caused no disturbance to the neighbourhood. Tai Kwun also

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 31 initiated disciplinary actions if there was a tenant who breached the regulations. He added that Tai Kwun had never closed its gates except in the case of typhoon, and there were two occasions (i.e. 25 December 2018 and 1 January 2019) when Tai Kwun needed to institute crowd control. He continued that Block 4 was at the central location of Tai Kwun and would be a natural gathering place for the public. The visitor centre at Block 3 and the main heritage gallery would be relocated to the ground floor of Block 4, which was the original plan. The other two floors would be open to the public. For the upper floors, Tai Kwun would work with other external partners to create programmes for public enjoyment. Furthermore, he said the great majority of the programmes across contemporary art, performing art or heritage were often free of charge to the public and Tai Kwun had no intention of changing that.

57. Ms LEE Cho-yi, Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3 of DEVB, said TPB had made decisions in respect of the proposed amendments to the draft Central District Outline Zoning Plan in December 2019. A BHR had been imposed on the Central site concerned and the proposed amendment would change the site's development parameters. Pursuant to the statutory plan-making process, TPB had gazetted the latest proposed amendments for further representations. DEVB would continue to keep in close touch with HKSKH and deliberate on how to implement the preservation-cum-development proposal for the Central site with regard to the latest BHR amendment.

58. The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON, Provincial Secretary General of HKSKH, said he had accepted the invitation extended by the previous term of C&W DC and attended a meeting. Besides, although the development proposal had not been finalised, he had also accepted the Chairman's invitation and attended the meeting. He said HKSKH planned to develop a non-profit-making hospital to provide medical services which the public could enjoy for free. Hence, he opined that the intention of HKSKH should not be interpreted as making profits. He added that HKSKH had been in Hong Kong for more than 160 years and it was a sizeable community organisation. The hospital had been there for long and HKSKH wished to redevelop Hong Kong Central Hospital to meet the needs of the society. In response to Mr YIP Kam-lung's view, The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON wished to clarify that he had no intention to bypass C&W DC to air his views to TPB. He explained that as TPB prepared to amend the draft Central District Outline Zoning Plan, he needed to attend the TPB meeting to take care of related procedures. C&W DC would be consulted again to collect Members' views after TPB completed the procedures and HKSKH finalised the new design.

59. The Chairman asked The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON whether C&W DC could still invite him to meetings through DEVB in future. The Revd Canon Peter Douglas KOON said he would gladly attend C&W DC meetings and listen to Members when substantial progress was made concerning the development proposal.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 32 60. The Chairman asked when would TPB's public inspection on the latest proposed amendments end. Ms LEE Cho-yi of DEVB replied that TPB's public inspection took three weeks and would end on 3 April 2020.

61. The Chairman asked whether the proposed recovery design for Block 4 could be changed.

62. Mr Kenneth LEE of HKJC replied that although the glass verandah looked like a contemporary design, it adhered to the conservation principles and was an important element of the project. He added that the verandah was designed based on the original size of the building. As HKJC wished to open the building to the public, an air-conditioning system had been installed and glass had been used to make the place look like a room. He said HKJC was working on the detailed design and many parameters could still be adjusted. He said it was still a preliminary design and could not show how transparent the verandah would be. He said HKJC had always taken the views of Members and of AAB into account.

63. Mr NG Siu-hong again brought up the problem of the closure of the passage at Government Hill.

64. Mr LEE Hong-nin of DEVB replied that Former Central Government Offices had become Justice Place and would be managed by Department of Justice.

65. The Chairman said the motions concerning C&W DC Paper No. 59/2020 had entered the voting stage and she invited Members to vote on the motions. The following motions were adopted after voting.

Motion: (1) This Council strongly condemns the Government for breaching its undertaking to open up the public passage at Government Hill by repeatedly closing the passage between Lower Albert Road and Queen's Road Central during public processions, thereby impeding freedom of expression and public participation. This Council urges the Government to honour its undertaking to open up the passage as well as the square off Justice Place (former Central Government Offices) upon completion of the rectification work, and not to close the public space where for years citizens can demonstrate freely to avoid alienating itself from the people.

(Proposed by Mr NG Siu-hong and seconded by Mr HUI Chi-fung)

(2) This Council expresses strong dissatisfaction with the Jockey Club for

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 33 deviating from the original intent by allowing restaurants in Tai Kwun to apply for sale of liquor and operate until late at night; requests the Liquor Licensing Board to reject the relevant applications; and requests Jockey Club to put things right immediately by introducing feasible restrictions in the management clauses and lease terms in order to maintain peace and order in the neighbourhood.

(Proposed by Mr NG Siu-hong and seconded by Mr HUI Chi-fung)

(3) This Council strongly opposes the demolition of the original granite staircase and other monumental structures in Block 4 of Tai Kwun by Jockey Club and disapproves nondescript recovery options that destroy the ambience of the century-old Parade Ground and contradict the conservation intention of Tai Kwun, and requests that the restored portion be open to the public to the greatest extent possible on the premise that the original conservation works are structurally safe.

(Proposed by Mr HUI Chi-fung and seconded by Mr NG Siu-hong)

Motion (1) (15 affirmative votes: Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr NG Siu-hong, Mr PANG Ka-ho, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Miss YAM Ka-yi, Mr YIP Kam-lung, Mr YOUNG Chit-on)

(0 dissenting vote)

(0 abstention vote)

Motions (2) and (3) (14 affirmative votes: Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr NG Siu-hong, Mr PANG Ka-ho, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Miss YAM Ka-yi, Mr YIP Kam-lung)

(1 dissenting vote: Mr YOUNG Chit-on)

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 34 (0 abstention vote)

66. The Chairman said the first motion needed to be passed to Department of Justice for follow-ups.

67. The Chairman consulted Members regarding whether “Conserving Central” should be discussed in Working Group on Historic Town District and Heritage Conservation and should no longer be a standing item for discussion in full council meetings.

68. Ms NG Hoi-yan opined that it was more ideal to keep “Conserving Central” as a standing item in full council meetings because there would not be a working group meeting which all Members attended.

69. Members agreed with keeping “Conserving Central” as a standing item in full council meetings.

70. The Chairman ended the discussion on this item.

Item 5(ii): Progress Report on Urban Renewal Authority’s Projects in Central & Western District (C&W DC Paper No. 57/2020) (5:08 pm – 6:32 pm)

71. The Chairman welcomed representatives of URA, CWCG, Alliance for a Beautiful Hong Kong and Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood, as well as the owner of a property in URA’s project H19, to the meeting. The Chairman invited the representatives of URA to present the paper.

72. Mr Wilfred AU, Director (Planning and Design) of URA, said that as of March 2020, progress of some projects had been affected or slowed down because of the epidemic. He invited Mr Christopher WONG, General Manager (Planning and Design) of URA, to report on the progress of various projects.

73. Mr Christopher WONG, General Manager (Planning and Design) of URA, reported on the progress of the projects. He said the epidemic, to a certain extent, affected the progress of the projects. At that moment, there was only one redevelopment project being carried out in Central and Western District; other redevelopment projects were either still at the acquisition stage or were about urban renewal or revitalisation, etc. URA had drawn up a series of measures to minimise the epidemic’s impact on the projects. It was hoped that

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 35 Members could have a broad understanding of the projects and obtain more information after listening to the progress report. The main points of his presentation on various projects were as follows:

(a) Regarding H18 Peel Street/Graham Street Development Scheme, foundation works were being carried out within Site A and were expected to be completed in 2022. Site B’s Public Open Space (POS) had been opened and linked to the wet market which had been in operation. Foundation works and conservation-related protective works were being carried out continuously at Site C. Strengthening works for the internal area of No. 120 Wellington Street were expected to be completed in May 2020. Upon completion of works at Site B, URA would install some more signs so that the public knew how to go to the wet market from Peel Street/Graham Street. He said it was suggested in the previous meeting that Members could browse “H18”, the website of Graham Market, to obtain more information about Graham Market and to order ingredients from the shop operators. Besides, the activity about art creation, which was supposed to be co-organised by local organisations and the hawkers in the market and to take place at Graham Market, would be postponed owing to the epidemic. The date had yet been confirmed but Members would be invited to participate in the activity.

(b) The planning of Queen’s Road West/In Ku Lane Development Scheme (C&W-006) had earlier been approved by TPB. Some of the existing facilities at Li Sing Street Playground, In Ku Lane Refuse Collection Point and public toilets would be re-planned and reprovisioned under the scheme. URA wished to optimise the connectivity of the entire public space under the development scheme. In the past six months, URA had listened to C&W DC’s opinions and discussed with relevant government departments. URA preliminarily suggested that in addition to and before the redevelopment works, the existing Li Sing Street Playground be improved by phases through revitalisation initiatives, in which the basketball court and relevant facilities would first be redesigned. Upon completion of the works for the basketball court, URA would then carry out enhancement and improvement works by phases for the facilities of Li Sing Street Playground between Sutherland Street and Li Sing Street. The arrangements allowed the public to continue to use the soccer patch and the playground when works were being carried out in the basketball court, and use the renewed basketball court when the playground was being optimised and redeveloped. URA would subsequently engage a design consultant team by mid-2020 to produce a preliminary design for the revitalisation works which would be carried out before the

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 36 redevelopment project commenced. During the process, local consultation would also be conducted. URA would report to DWFMC of C&W DC and collect views after obtaining approval from relevant government departments on the preliminary design. He continued that the number of facilities and the area of public space would not be reduced after reprovision, and carrying out the works by phases could also enable the public to use some of the facilities even during the works. Besides, during the redevelopment works when the refuse collection point and public toilets were being reprovisioned, corresponding temporary facilities would be supplied to continue to provide services. URA said it would work on revitalising the community gradually before the redevelopment commenced, and there would be more benefits.

(c) For progress of Urban Renewal for H19 and its Vicinity, URA had conducted a study on community making in 2019 and came up with several possible short-term community making trial schemes, including community murals and community farming. Regarding community murals, the mural on the hoarding at Shing Wong Street co-created by the stakeholders and students in the district had been completed. In addition, URA had organised “Shing Wong – Local Character”, an exhibition introducing the history of Shing Wong Street, outside the building at No. 90 Staunton Street, which was situated in the vicinity of the mural. Meanwhile, the Community Farm Project was underway. Hardware was mostly ready; URA would continue to listen to the views and expectations of the stakeholders, and recruit volunteers. At that moment, the stakeholders’ response to the planting activities was rather enthusiastic. As for the nine old buildings under H19 project which were owned by URA and which URA had undertaken not to demolish, URA had commissioned a design consultant and a conservation architect to prepare for the subsequent rehabilitation and revitalisation works. It was expected that the works could commence in the fourth quarter of 2020. During the process, the consultant team would contact community stakeholders to explain to them the design and ask them to work in concert on the study on community making. H19 project was no longer a redevelopment project. TPB had amended the draft Sai Yung Pun and Outline Zoning Plan (OZP), including the approved URA Staunton Street/Wing Lee Street Development Scheme Plan into the OZP and amending the land uses of the area. TPB was supposed to hold a meeting to discuss the amendments in March or in April 2020 but owing to the epidemic, TPB was still trying to schedule a meeting. URA needed to wait for TPB’s notification.

(d) Central Market Revitalisation Initiatives were still underway. Excavation

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 37 works were being carried out by phases at Jubilee Street and Queen Victoria Street for electricity and drainage connection works for the building. Concrete rehabilitation, mechanical and electrical installation works and various renovation works for the building were also being carried out. The progress of the works had been affected by the epidemic but URA and the contractor would endeavour to complete Phase 1 works on time in the third quarter of 2020. URA would continue to coordinate with relevant government departments, hoping that the inspection process for the first phase of the project could commence in the third quarter of 2020, a tendering exercise could be carried out by the first quarter of 2021 and the operation could commerce in the first quarter of 2021.

(e) In connection with Urban Renewal Initiatives of H6 CONET, H6 CONET had been closed on some days from late January to early February 2020, to minimise the risk of spreading the virus in the community. H6 CONET had been re-opened to the public on 3 February. The public booking system of the multi-function room had temporarily been suspended and a review of the arrangements would be conducted in late March. An activity had just ended in early March and an exhibition would be held in mid-April. For the time being, activities organised would mainly be passive, with a view to minimising social contact. Regarding the beautification works for the external walls surrounding H6 CONET, a mural at Hing Lung Street had been finished earlier and another mural would soon be finished as well. The mural at Gilman’s Bazaar was expected to be finished in mid-2020. A building at Tit Hong Lane had joined the “Pilot Scheme on Local Building Partnership for Community Making” and the entire building would be beautified through collaboration. It was expected that a tendering exercise could be carried out within 2020 to implement the design.

(f) Regarding , Lands Department (LandsD) had extended the land lease of Western Market for URA for another two years to 2022.

74. The Chairman invited Ms Katty LAW, Convenor of CWCG, to speak on the item. Ms LAW said she had tirelessly asked URA in the previous meetings to submit the design proposal concerning Site C under H18 to C&W DC for Members’ reference. She said there were many monuments within the site and she was very concerned about whether the design proposal made by the developer met the conservation requirements. In addition, she asked URA whether the criteria for selecting the operator of Central Market could meet the public’s and C&W DC’s long-standing demand for conservation and operation, and whether C&W DC could offer opinions during the selection. For H19, she said there was a piece of government

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 38 land behind the mural that was painted by the primary school students and had just been presented by URA. “Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood”, a community group, had prepared in 2018 to apply to the Government to use that public space to build a community living room but the attempt was unsuccessful. She opined that it was very undesirable when the space could not be open to the public and remained locked. As for URA inviting architects and conservation consultants to conduct a study on tenement buildings, she had always commented that stairs, alleys and trees within H19 all had very rich historical value, and the entire area was of research value. She was very disappointed that URA had not taken her views in account. She said the community had high expectations for the project and hoped that it could become a very desirable conservation and revitalisation project in the old town district in future. She expected that C&W DC could also conduct a similar study.

75. The Chairman invited Mr Dare KOSLOW, owner of a property in URA’s project H19, to speak on the item. Mr Dare KOSLOW said he had lived in the community for 25 years and he had owned the property for over 15 years. He wanted to share some of his views on URA in the meeting. He opined that the active participation of URA was just for show. No one from URA had attended any of the meetings that he had attended when the community was involved; URA hired a research company. He opined that none of the community’s ideas were heard and none would be put into action. Open space was still unused and blocked by railings. He continued that in the building, he had heard rumours of URA’s plans to work with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for social housing. He blamed URA for never sharing details until the actions had been completed. Nothing was transparent and so, he still had no clear idea of what to expect for the building. He could only passively wait for a reply from URA. He hoped that C&W DC could assist the building with setting up an owners’ corporation, so to give owners a platform to make comments or put some limits on what URA could do. He said it had been a long time since URA had used the building for non-residential uses. He hoped that there could be some fresh thinking from URA because from what he had seen in TPB meetings and C&W DC meetings in the past 15 years, URA had always come up with the same solutions. He opined that Hong Kong deserved better.

76. The Chairman invited Mr YEUNG Tsz-kit, council member of Alliance for a Beautiful Hong Kong and founding member of Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood, to speak on the item. Mr YEUNG said the public had been in close contact with URA and were concerned about the work of community farming. He hoped that upon completion of the farm, the area would not become claustrophobic. He was delighted to see that students had participated in the creation of the mural at Shing Wong Street but he opined that users and children should be allowed to express their views on community design in a bottom-up approach. Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood had organised a community envisioning activity in mid-2018 to garner views in the community. He continued that the community living room at Shing Wong Street was supposed to be open to the public in mid-2019.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 39 However, it was enclosed by fence at the moment and the public could not realise the community design. He said there were many examples around the world and as long as space was open to the public, the community could be improved and become very desirable, even if there were no large buildings. The key was whether there was space for the public to build and design the community in person. Hence, he hoped that the Government and URA could open the space to the public as early as possible so that the public could participate in designing the community. He was also worried about whether the works conducted in future would harm the trees inside. He hoped that the space would be utilised, the streetscape could be improved and would not be destroyed.

77. The Chairman invited Members to ask questions and give comments. The main points of Members’ comments were as follows:

(a) Ms NG Hoi-yan agreed that the space under H19 project should be open as a community living room as early as possible. She suggested opening the area to the public first if the area had no other special uses, as many people wandered at Shing Wong Street. As for community farming, she worried that there would be problems with the execution and she wished to know about the actual operation of the farm. For instance, she wished to know if the plants cultivated would be ornamental or edible. She wondered whether the plants, if they were edible, would be given to the public as food or to nearby restaurants as ingredients, and whether the restaurants would list in the menu that plants harvested in community farming were used. She wished to let the residents know about the information.

(b) Mr KAM Nai-wai said H6 CONET and Central Market were the most suitable places for setting up “Community Lennon Walls”. He said another name could be adopted if the name “Lennon Wall” was politically sensitive. He hoped that the Government would allow the public to express their views there. Regarding Western Market, he asked whether URA had informed the tenants at Western Market that the land lease had been extended for another two years to 2022, and whether tenants needed to extend their contract and pay a higher rent or the rent had been reduced because of the epidemic. For the In Ku Lane scheme, he was in favour of reprovisioning the park completely and carrying out the works by phases. He hoped that more measures of high protection specifications could be adopted when carrying out the works by phases, so that facilities which were in normal operation and residents in the vicinity would not be affected. He also hoped that instead of being consulted in a top-down approach, the public could participate in the consultation and express their views.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 40

(c) Mr HUI Chi-fung said URA had only reported a little on the status of H18 project and had given little information to C&W DC on the status of Wing Woo Grocery, sites A, B and C at Graham Street, and the site of Cochrane Street, etc. and on how to use them. He had suggested inviting the conservation architect of the contractor to attend C&W DC meetings. He sincerely invited URA and the conservation architect to proactively attend meetings of Working Group on Historic Town District and Heritage Conservation and give a specific explanation. As for the tendering exercise concerning Central Market, he asked how URA would manage the public space inside Central Market, how long would the public be allowed to stay there and what kind of activities would be available there. He said the public were very concerned about them and he also hoped that there could be an occasion to express to URA their expectations regarding how to manage Central Market. He said he had confidence in URA about its management of the public space at H6 CONET and he hoped that URA could provide more information to C&W DC regarding other projects.

(d) Mr YIP Kam-lung hoped that URA could provide more information regarding the Central Market Revitalisation Project. He suggested that URA consider combining H6 CONET and Central Market together in future to produce a bigger synergy effect, as they were adjacent to each other. For Queen’s Road West/In Ku Lane Development Scheme, he had received feedback from some members of the public; they hoped that the local historic factors could be retained and that URA would not let those historical memories fade during the redevelopment.

(e) The Chairman suggested planting, for example, some herbs and tomatoes there at H19 so that the public could derive great satisfaction from planting. Regarding Site C under H18, as many monuments were at the heart of Central in Central and Western District, she hoped that those treasures in the historic town district could be retained. Besides, she was in favour of setting up “Community Lennon Walls” at H6 CONET and Central Market. She hoped that URA could give it some consideration.

78. Mr Wilfred AU of URA said the issue concerning setting up “Community Lennon Walls” had been passed to URA and URA was addressing it. He asked Members to wait for a written reply. For H18 project, he said the plan had recently been submitted to Buildings Department (BD) for approval. He opined that URA should first seek approval from the Government, ensure that URA could fulfil its promises made in the C&W DC meetings and

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 41 URA’s contract requirements could be met, before the plan was submitted to C&W DC for discussion. He hoped that a proposal could be submitted to C&W DC for discussion within 2020. For H19, he thanked Mr YEUNG Tsz-kit for proposing letting the public participate in community farming in person. He said that for the time being, URA could only do some basic work such as studying where to place the soil and planters, analysing which locations received the most sunlight, imposing various safety measures and recruiting gardeners to manage the farm, etc. He noted that the Chairman and Ms NG Hoi-yan wanted to cultivate edible plants while some elders and children wanted to cultivate flowers. Hence, URA had also considered using the walls to plant flowers and food. He continued that in the coming six months, URA would study with volunteers about what to plant and how to operate the farm; then, interested operators would be invited to operate the community farm. He hoped that the community would be allowed to have an increased participation in community making, including revitalising the nine buildings at Staunton Street/Wa In Fong West owned by URA and optimising Li Sing Street Playground outside C&W-006. However, the prerequisite would be that various parties were also willing to participate in community making, in addition to making comments. For the Central Market Revitalisation Project, he commented that no matter how the contractor would operate the market in future, the contractor had to stick to the principles laid down by C&W DC and the advisory committee, which were to manifest the uniqueness of the market, let the public enjoy the public space for free and open some places round-the-clock, etc. He said what Mr YIP Kam-lung had just said was also what URA thought. URA planned to connect H6 CONET, Central Market and H18 together, and build a community network. For Western Market, as far as he understood, shop operators had known that the land lease of Western Market had been extended for another two years to 2022. Yet, information regarding whether rent had been reduced during the epidemic was not available for the time being. For revitalising Li Sing Street Playground, he said protective measures regarding the works must be handled properly. Moreover, he wished to garner the public’s comments on community making before sequencing the implementation of different designs.

79. The Chairman said it was necessary to wash hands more often during the epidemic. She said she would suggest later in the meeting of BEHWC that additional wash-hand basins be installed in each park. She also said some members of the public had reflected to her that they could not wash their hands at Li Sing Street Playground. Hence, she suggested that URA consider installing additional wash-hand basins at Li Sing Street Playground.

80. Mr Wilfred AU of URA said if C&W DC’s suggestion of installing more wash-hand basins was recorded in the minutes, it was easier for URA to discuss it with other government departments.

81. The Chairman ended the discussion on C&W DC Paper No. 57/2020. She said they then proceeded to discuss the paper titled “Resumption of land for implementation of

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 42 development scheme C&W-005 by the Urban Renewal Authority at Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong” (C&W DC Paper No. 58/2020), which was submitted by LandsD.

Item 5(ii): Progress Report on Urban Renewal Authority’s Projects in Central and Western District — Resumption of land for implementation of development scheme C&W-005 by the Urban Renewal Authority at Sung Hing Lane/ Kwai Heung Street, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong (C&W DC Paper No. 58/2020)

82. The Chairman welcomed representatives of LandsD, URA and Christian Family Service Centre, as well as domestic tenants residing at Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street, to the meeting. The Chairman invited representatives of LandsD and URA to present the paper.

83. Mr LAU Yip-ming, Senior Estate Surveyor/UR2 (Urban Renewal Section) of LandsD, said the paper was resubmitted to consult Members regarding resumption of land for implementation of development scheme C&W-005 by URA at Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street in Sai Ying Pun in Hong Kong. He referred to the site plan in Annex I of the paper and said the buildings there, including Nos. 1-1A, Nos. 3-7, Nos. 2-4A Sung Hing Lane, Nos. 12-16 Kwai Heung Street and Nos. 216-218 West in Sai Ying Pun, had been built for 40 to 60 years, and they were mostly dilapidated. According to the preliminary proposal submitted by URA, 165 residential units, commercial floor area of 400 square metres and open space of 150 square metres would be supplied under the development scheme. The scheme was expected to be completed in 2026 or 2027. Under the development scheme, eligible owner-occupiers could participate in URA’s Flat-for-Flat (FFF) scheme and purchase a unit in the future new development scheme at the original site or purchase a unit in Kai Tak Development. Regarding the ground floor shops which operated the dried seafood and associated business, URA had introduced the Local Shop Arrangement (LSA) for operators who had met specified criteria. He continued that URA had started to acquire property interests from affected owners through private negotiation since May 2018. Out of 101 affected private interests, 80 property owners had accepted the acquisition offer. The registered owner of the remaining scavenging lane was a company. As the company had been disbanded, the scavenging lane went to the Government. At the moment, URA was still proactively negotiating with or contacting the remaining 20 owners, including 4 ground floor shop owners and 16 upper-floor owners. Owing to the society’s overall interests and because the existing buildings under the development scheme were dilapidated, URA had suggested to the Secretary for Development (SDEV) on 12 March 2019 invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance to resume the remaining properties which had yet been acquired. Relevant property information could be found in Annex II. The SDEV was considering URA’s

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 43 application for land resumption and the department would report to the SDEV and the Chief Executive-in-Council the comments made by Members on the land resumption proposal in the meeting. Regarding compensation, a notice concerning the land would be published when the Chief Executive ordered the land resumption. In general, the land would revert to the Government after three months and affected owners would be compensated pursuant to the Lands Resumption Ordinance. If agreement on the amount of the compensation could not be reached between the two parties, the former owner could submit a claim to the Lands Tribunal for a determination of the amount of the compensation. In addition, according to the policy approved by Finance Committee of Legislative Council (LegCo) in March 2001, eligible owner-occupiers of residential units could also get the ex-gratia Home Purchase Allowance (HPA), in addition to the statutory compensation. Provision of HPA and the statutory compensation aimed to enable the affected owner-occupiers to purchase a replacement unit which was of similar size and was relatively new in the same district. Assessment of HPA was based on the value of a notional replacement unit which was of seven years old. Eligible occupiers could receive an ex-gratia allowance and a brief introduction to the Government’s compensation arrangements for land resumption could be found in Annex IV. In connection with the rehousing arrangements, eligible households could be rehoused to domestic rental units provided by Hong Kong Housing Authority or Hong Kong Housing Society, or alternatively, they could opt for the ex-gratia allowance in lieu of the rehousing arrangements.

84. Ms Michelle TONG, Senior Manager (Acquisition and Clearance) of URA, added that out of 40 owner-occupiers, two owners had applied for the FFF scheme. However, as one of them had withdrawn from the scheme and the other had not attended the balloting for residential units, the two applications were not completed in the end. For LSA, URA had made offers to the 8 ground floor shop owners and tenants who operated the dried seafood and associated business but URA had received no applications before the deadline. As for whether the owners had accepted the acquisition offer, all upper-floor owner-occupiers, out of 80 properties, had accepted the acquisition offer and had delivered vacant possession of the properties to URA; 16 ground floor shops (5 self-use shops and 11 shops being either rented out or vacant) had also accepted the acquisition offer. 20 property interests, including 4 ground floor shops and 16 upper-floor residential units (either rented out or vacant) had not accepted the acquisition offer. URA had proactively negotiated with other owners since the application for land resumption had been submitted in 2019, and 8 owners had accepted the acquisition offer. At the moment, 20 owners had not accepted the acquisition offer owing to various reasons: 4 owners had passed away and the inheritance issue had yet been settled, such that legal documents could not be signed even if the owners had accepted the acquisition offer; 3 owners, for health reasons, could not sign any legal documents; 9 property interests were owned by 2 investors and they both opined that the acquisition price should be higher and requesting, for example, the acquisition be made based on HPA; and 4 owners did not accept the acquisition offer. The 20 property interests involved 22 tenants (20 domestic tenants and

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 44 2 ground floor shop tenants). As the owners did not accept the acquisition offer and URA therefore could not make rehousing and compensation arrangements accordingly, it was hoped that DEVB would approve the resumption of land.

85. The Chairman invited Ms YU Ying-yi, domestic tenant residing at Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street, to speak on the item. Ms YU said she wanted to be rehoused as early as possible because of four reasons. (1) There were 10 households residing at Nos. 1-1A Sung Hing Lane; other than the 3 property interests that had yet been acquired, the other 7 households had move out. She was worried about the hygiene condition of the 7 vacant properties. She said there were spiders, rodents and ants, etc., and there were also worms on the walls and inside her home. (2) In general, the tenancy agreement would be renewed in January or in February every year. However, she still had not been contacted by the property company in mid-February 2020. She had later found that the owner intended to leave the property vacant, and had no intention to renew the tenancy agreement or let the property be acquired by URA, as the building was almost 50 years old and demanded a large sum of time and money for maintenance. She said the recent social condition and the epidemic had made it difficult for her to afford the expensive removal fees and living expenses; even if the tenancy agreement had been renewed after twists and turns, the owner might force her to move out anytime. She hoped that URA could communicate with the owner and the owner could offer rent concessions. (3) A lot of noise and dust had been created because many new developments were in progress in the vicinity. The works had also greatly shaken the nearby buildings which were almost 50 years old and it seemed that the buildings were about to collapse. (4) As the building had been built for almost 50 years, there were cracks and flakes on the ceilings and walls inside her home and in the common areas, posing a potential danger to the households. She asked whether URA would take responsibility for the casualties caused as a result of building dilapidation.

86. The Chairman invited Ms WONG Chi-ying, domestic tenant residing at Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street, to speak on the item. Ms WONG said she had written a letter about the problems of the construction site opposite to Kwai Heung Street and so, she was not going to repeat it again. She wanted to express her concern over environmental hygiene problems. During July and August in 2019, the crazy police had fired rounds of tear gas crazily at Des Voeux Road West and many insects had fled to everywhere because of tear gas. Some rodents had climbed to the 5/F and her neighbours had caught four to five rodents after spending the whole night catching them. She wanted to emphasise that the several units in the building which had no occupiers were not vacant, and no one lived there because of various reasons. Yet, there was still stuff inside, presenting a very serious environmental hygiene problem. She hoped that URA could proactively communicate with the owners and acquire the properties because even FEHD washed the streets every day, environmental hygiene in the upper floors could not be improved.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 45

87. The Chairman invited Mr LEE Wing-kin, social worker of Urban Renewal Social Service Team, Christian Family Service Centre, to speak on the item. Mr LEE said the presentation given by URA just then had shown the core problem: the owners who were renting out the properties were unwilling to sell them. According to the current policy, the compensation for the first property an owner owned in a district would be deducted by 15% to 25%; the compensation for the second property and for the third property in the same district would be deducted by 30% to 40% and by 50% to 60% respectively. The deductions had made owners unwilling to sell their properties to URA, and URA’s practice of rehousing the tenants only after the properties had been acquired had also made grassroots tenants suffer. As mentioned in the paper concerning land resumption, the existing buildings at the development site were dilapidated and owners were not willing to spend money on maintaining them. In the meantime, URA insisted to rehouse the tenants only after acquiring the properties and as a result, a vicious cycle was created. URA had been established for more than 10 years and similar incidents had happened in every district again and again. Although URA claimed that it had no authority to address the issue, according to URA’s ordinances or the resolution adopted in Finance Committee of LegCo in March 2001, no conditions or regulations stipulated that the properties must be acquired before rehousing the tenants. Besides, URA had also, in the past, rehoused tenants before acquisition. The issue had not drawn much attention because URA had fewer redevelopment projects in recent years and affected residents might not be many. However, comments made by the two tenants were very true. He hoped that C&W DC could, through different means, urge URA to revise the policy and rehouse the tenants as early as possible. Tenants should not suffer because of the entanglements between owners and URA.

88. The Chairman invited Members to give comments. Main points of Members’ comments were as follows:

(a) Mr KAM Nai-wai first condemned Mr LAU Yip-ming, Senior Estate Surveyor/UR2 (Urban Renewal Section) of LandsD and Ms CHEUNG Sze-mei, Estate Surveyor/UR1 (Urban Renewal Section) of LandsD, for their dereliction of duty. They had walked out of the previous C&W DC meeting and as a result, Members had to waste time on discussing the issue again in the meeting. He opined that the two were suspected of committing the offence of misconduct in public office. He hoped that they, as public servants serving the public, would not only follow their superiors’ instruction and would listen to the public. He wished to put the condemnation on record. In addition, he said he had mentioned in the previous meeting that he would not support URA in invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance. On account of private property rights, URA had the responsibility to reach acquisition

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 46 agreement with the owners as early as possible. Besides, he would like to respond to the issue concerning the tenants. He opined that URA had not been willing to change its bureaucratic policies in the past and as a result, tenants suffered. He opined that the Government should rehouse the tenants at the same time when the Government gazetted the acquisition, because in the end, the Government would invoke the Lands Resumption Ordinance to resume the properties and had to address the problem of rehousing the tenants even if the owners were unwilling to sell their properties. Hence, he hoped that government departments could rehouse the tenants as early as possible, make special arrangements for environmental hygiene work and address the issue as early as possible, especially when environmental hygiene was very important in time of the epidemic.

(b) Mr HUI Chi-fung wished to follow up the plight of the nearby residents. He said that on account of the redevelopment and acquisition, some units had become vacant, exerting an impact on environmental hygiene and affecting the existing occupiers. He hoped that the department could give a reply regarding how many resources had been invested to improve the problem, which department handled the problem and whether the department had received, handled and followed up any complaints. Besides, he asked whether URA stuck to the policy in which URA would rehouse the tenants only after acquiring the properties, and whether there was any explicit provision stipulating that it must be executed that way. He said he was against the non-people-oriented policy. He opined that rehousing tenants simultaneously had not violated any principles.

(c) Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin said it was not very ideal whenever the controversial Lands Resumption Ordinance was invoked in the past under URA’s various redevelopment projects. Regarding the acquisition, URA had so far reached acquisition agreement with around 80% of the owners; compared to the redevelopment projects carried out in other districts in the past, the percentage should be higher. She was also aware that the properties could not be acquired by URA mostly because investors were involved or the owners could not, for health reasons, sign the agreement. She asked whether it was possible to invoke the Lands Resumption Ordinance and rehouse the tenants separately, such that the tenants would not be sandwiched between URA and the owners and become the biggest victims. In connection with the problem, she said URA had responded that the arrangements had been made in the past only for a special case, in which a building had collapsed at Ma Tau Wai Road in Hung Hom. She said she was not requesting special arrangements for the

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 47 acquisition; she only opined that the handling should be applicable to all URA’s redevelopment projects. She said there was also an acquisition at In Ku Lane in Central and Western District, and she believed that the existing tenants living there might also encounter the same situation in future. Thus, she hoped that URA could review the entire acquisition policy and separately handle land resumption and rehousing arrangements for the tenants. She opined that the arrangements would be more desirable to URA, the owners and the tenants.

(d) Mr YIP Kam-lung said the vicinity of the acquisition site had the cultural ambience of the district. He opined that it would be a pity if such character disappeared as a result of the redevelopment project. Some residents hoped that he could reflect to C&W DC that local character must be retained, and he personally opined that the cultural ambience should be retained. As for invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance, he commented that it was necessary to be prudent because the Lands Resumption Ordinance was like a “sword of state” and improper use of it might cause the loss of self-interest of some private property rights. Hence, he hoped that the department could consider it with prudence and avoid invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance to complete the acquisition.

(e) The Chairman asked Members whether the comments they had made in the meeting directed at LandsD or at the Chief Executive-in-Council. She also asked how many tenants were still residing there and whether URA could, to reassure the tenants, rehouse them by making special arrangements if there were not many tenants left, as properties would be acquired no matter how unwilling the owners were once the Lands Resumption Ordinance was invoked.

(f) Mr WONG Weng-chi said there were many old buildings in Sai Ying Pun. In the past, he had heard that many members of the public wished that urban renewal could be implemented as early as possible, and he himself had not heard of voices opposing to redevelopment so far. He opined that tenants were usually the ones who were affected the most during urban renewal. He hoped that the Government could come up with ways to improve tenants’ rights.

89. Mr LAU Yip-ming of LandsD responded to the Chairman’s question. He said URA had made an application to the SDEV on 12 March 2019 to request invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance for land resumption. After consulting Members in the C&W DC

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 48 meeting, Members’ comments would be relayed to the SDEV and the SDEV would decide whether recommendations would be made to the Chief Executive-in-Council for the resumption of land.

90. The Chairman asked whether Members’ comments could be relayed to the SDEV in time. Mr LAU Yip-ming of LandsD replied that the Executive Council had not had a meeting yet and LandsD would relay Members’ overall comments to the SDEV after listening to Members in the meeting. A meeting would be held for discussion after the SDEV had submitted an Executive Council memorandum.

91. Ms Michelle TONG of URA gave a consolidated reply in response to Members’ comments. Regarding Ms YU’s and Ms WONG’s comments on envrionmental hygiene and Mr HUI Chi-fung’s question concerning the manpower for maintenance, she said arrangements for washing public staircases had already been made because of the epidemic. If refuse or miscellaneous household items left behind by residents during relocation were spotted, cleansing contractors would be arranged to clean it, to avoid blocking public passages. In addition, buildings’ management and maintenance were handled by a dedicated department of URA. She said there was a security control room on the ground floor of the building; while security personnel patrolled the building regularly, residents could also reflect problems to security personnel if they found any. In relation to discussing with the owners rent reduction, URA could ask the owners to consider reducing the rent when discussing the acquisition with them but URA could not undertake that the owners would definitely reduce the rent, as tenancy agreement was a contract signed between an owner and a tenant, and URA could not really intervene. As for whether the Lands Resumption Ordinance would be abused, she said URA had been negotiating with the owners since the application had been made in March 2019, and URA had not terminated the negotiation with the owners once the application had been made. She said 8 more owners had accepted the acquisition offer since 2019 and so, the Lands Resumption Ordinance would not be abused. 7 of the remaining owners could not sign the acquisition documents because of inheritance issue or for health reasons, meaning that rehousing arrangements could not be made for affected tenants even if URA did not invoke the Lands Resumption Ordinance. She hoped that Members could also take that situation into account. Regarding the investors, she said that the policy was not drawn up to deduct the investors’ allowances. In fact, LegCo had approved HPA to compensate owner-occupiers so that they could purchase a replacement property in the market. As investors’ demand for housing was not as high as that of owner-occupiers, 50% of HPA would be provided. She believed that LegCo opined that it was more appropriate to use public funds that way at that time and there existed no concept of deduction. As for whether it was possible to first rehouse the tenants and then discuss with the owners the acquisition, she said URA wanted very much to assist tenants with rehousing and compensation arrangements as early as possible but according to the current policy, URA must first acquire the properties before making

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 49 rehousing and compensation arrangements for the tenants. It could be comprehended in a legal manner: tenants could be compensated and rehoused only after they relocated, meaning that they needed not pay the rent to owners, and if the owners had not agreed with the acquisition, they might accuse URA of making them lose the tenants. Hence, URA wished to assist the tenants by resuming the land. She said URA had been reviewing the policy throughout the years and had made compassionate rehousing arrangements for tenants who were forced by the owners to move out. If owners did not renew the tenancy agreement with tenants before the acquisition, URA would make special rehousing or compensation arrangements to eligible tenants. However, the offer of compensation could be provided only after URA successfully made the acquisition.

92. The Chairman asked whether there were 7 remaining tenants still living there. Ms Michelle TONG of URA replied that there were still 22 tenants living in the properties which had not been acquired.

93. Mr KAM Nai-wai opined that the explanations given by the department were all excuses. He said owners could still rent the properties to another household after rehousing the existing tenants. He opined that it was URA’s moral obligation to rehouse the tenants and URA should rehouse the tenants as early as possible.

94. The Chairman believed that all the 15 Members would not support the Government in invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance. She asked whether Members should vote on the issue. The Vice-chairman opined that a vote was not necessary but C&W DC should take its stance and the stance should be put on record.

95. The Chairman understood that the tenants had been put in a dilemma after listening to various parties’ comments. At the moment, 22 tenants could not be rehoused because some owners had not accepted the acquisition offer. The situation was pitiful. Still, C&W DC, as Members, did not support the Government in invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance and the Chief Executive-in-Council in deciding whether the land should be resumed.

96. Ms Sarah YUN, Senior Manager (Community Development) of URA, said URA would discuss again how to handle the problem related to the tenants. Regarding the environmental hygiene problems, she added that the security control room was open round-the-clock and residents could reflect any situations, including those related to the environmental hygiene, to the security control room. She also said a similar situation had also arisen under a redevelopment project in City and URA would immediately follow it up.

97. The Vice-chairman opined that URA could handle the issue in a more proper

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 50 manner. He said he had recently received a case in which the acquisition price was lower than the market price. The owner was very helpless because he had to pay an expensive price for a surveyor report if he wanted to dispute the acquisition price, and he had not received any compensation for removals. Hence, he opined that the acquisition price offered by URA should be close to the market price, so that the problem might be resolved.

98. The Chairman reiterated that C&W DC did not support the Government in invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance. The Chairman ended the discussion on the item.

Item 5(iii): Lantau Tomorrow (C&W DC Paper No. 27/2020) (6:32 pm – 6:54 pm)

99. The Chairman welcomed representative of Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) to the meeting and invited him to present the paper.

100. Mr MA Hon-wing, Chief Engineer/S3 of CEDD, said CEDD had presented Studies related to Artificial Islands in the Central Waters (the Study) in a C&W DC meeting. CEDD noted Members’ comments and would take them into full consideration in the Study. C&W DC would again be consulted timely when a preliminary proposal was available. He continued that details about the latest progress had been contained in the paper and he asked Members to note them.

101. The Chairman invited Members to speak and ask questions. Main points of Members’ comments and questions were as follows:

(a) Mr LEUNG Fong-wai said many Members were against Lantau Tomorrow and according to the paper on the Study, CEDD would conduct a traffic study. However, as far as he understood, the Government had already conducted a study on roads connecting the artificial islands in the central waters to Kennedy Town in 2016. He asked what the differences between the Study and the previous study were, and why it was necessary to spend a sum of public funds amounted to $5 million on conducting a study again.

(b) Mr YIP Kam-lung said DEVB had published a relevant traffic impact assessment on the Internet, but later claimed that the information contained in the assessment was outdated and it was necessary to conduct a study again. He expressed concern over the cost of the project. He opined that the arrangements were very undesirable and wasted public funds, given that on

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 51 top of the expected amount of $1 trillion, another sum of money had been spent on carrying out studies again and again. He remarked that C&W DC would definitely be against Lantau Tomorrow because the constant studies were fruitless.

(c) Ms WONG Kin-ching said that in accordance with the information, Lantau Tomorrow greatly affected the life of residents in Western District. While C&W DC held limited information, CEDD, by only conveying a vision, wanted C&W DC to support the funding application for conducting a feasibility study. She said CEDD had applied to LegCo for a funding of $500 million for carrying out relevant studies but the application was not successful. She continued that after reading carefully the paper, she discovered that the department applied for funding not just for conducting studies, but also for carrying out works which were ready to commence. She hoped that CEDD could clarify which items were works that were ready to commence. She asked why a funding which was supposed to be applied for conducting studies covered works in which advance work had been done and works which were ready to commence. She also asked how C&W DC could support a funding application that involved works which were ready to commence, when there was no transparency and when C&W DC only held limited information.

(d) Mr WONG Weng-chi said he was against conducting the feasibility study. He said all previous pre-condition surveys and assessments for major infrastructure in Hong Kong were wrong. For instance, several hundred billion dollars had been spent on constructing the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) in Hong Kong but few people used them; even though HZMB was free-of-charge at the moment, no vehicles used it. He was sure that public housing would not be built on the artificial islands as expected in the end and the artificial islands would only become a playground for the rich. He said government departments should first reflect on which infrastructure had gone wrong at the planning stage in the past, resulting in no one using the infrastructure upon completion of the works. He opined that it was necessary to first find out why such mistakes had been made. He continued that the Government should first consult nearby residents and carry out a feasibility study for the works before increasing land supply. He opined that infrastructure which received no public support would be used by no one.

(e) Mr PANG Ka-ho stressed that even if the paper was discussed in the C&W

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 52 DC meeting, it did not mean that the paper was reasonable. He said he, as a representative of the public, could not accept the project of artificial islands. He said that according to the department, an impact study would be conducted but he opined that there must be impact certainly. He asked the department based on what criteria and review mechanism would the feasibility of the project be evaluated, and whether the project would go on even if the project would damage the ecology greatly. In addition, he said feasibility and cost-effectiveness were two different matters, and he opined that public funds should not be wasted. He opined that the main points of the study were to examine if there was a pressing need for the project and whether the project was cost-effective.

(f) Miss YAM Ka-yi said many people in the society were against Lantau Tomorrow and she did not understand why the Government still continued the study despite so many objections. She continued that some people in the society had suggested developing brownfield sites and she asked why the Government insisted to opt for reclamation, which was irreversible, without taking developing brownfield sites into consideration. She hoped that the Government could think twice before taking action and would respect public opinion. She said it was ridiculous to say in the report that 70% of the land on the artificial islands would be used for public housing, as the latter part of the paper also mentioned that the Core Business District on the artificial islands would provide a large number of diversified and high value-added employment opportunities. She said it was contradictory that on one hand, people who lived in the public housing on the artificial islands went out to work and on the other hand, people living outside the artificial islands went to the artificial islands to engage in high value-added production. She also pointed out that sustainable development was very important and Lantau Tomorrow would cause irreparable damage to the ecology such as coral reefs. She hoped that the Government could think clearly whether other alternatives, instead of reclamation works, would be considered.

(g) Mr HUI Chi-fung hoped that a clear record could be kept to show that he had in-principle objection against the funding allocation for Lantau Tomorrow and the entire project. He believed that other Members also held the same opinion. He said the Government had proposed Lantau Tomorrow at the beginning, with a view to building houses and resolving the housing problem. However, he remarked that many measures, including utilising the existing military sites and brownfield sites which had yet been developed, had been proposed in the society, and it was impossible to ask all Hong Kong people to

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 53 gamble with the Government, not knowing if the housing problem in Hong Kong could be resolved after spending trillions of dollars. Hence, he said Members would not accept the proposed development option just because the Government had jumped the gun to apply for funding, conducted the Study which was made up of technical details and said the result was positive. He emphasised that C&W DC had in-principle objection to the project. He continued that an impromptu motion against the project of artificial islands under Lantau Tomorrow would be put forward in the meeting. He hoped that C&W DC would write to the SDEV and Finance Committee of LegCo after the motion was endorsed, to clearly express that C&W DC had in-principle objection to the project and to ask the Government not to coerce the public into accepting the option. He opined that no one would trust the Government after the “anti-extradition to China” movement, especially not when 80% to 100% of the reserve in Hong Kong would be needed to build the artificial islands. He opined that the proposed development option was unacceptable.

(h) The Chairman said the paper mentioned by CEDD contained little information and the estimated cost of the Study alone was already $500 million. She said many industries were in distress because of the epidemic; the Government could not assist the public no matter how much money it had. She anticipated that Hong Kong would not have much reserve in future. She worried that Lantau Tomorrow would finally be undertaken by companies in some regions and they would make profits out of it. She worried that the project would become an utter waste of money. She opined that resolving the housing problem should start with the population policy and she questioned the Government had built so many public housing units for whom. She said the population policy should be formulated by government departments together but not by CEDD. She also pointed out that the Government’s practice of giving multiple infrastructure works to contractors was underhand but C&W DC could not monitor them. She continued that the Study cost $500 million and in addition to Hong Kong people, there were also flora, fauna and marine life in Hong Kong; there must be reasons why the islands in the central waters had not been developed over the years. She said that the public living in Tin Shui Wai, Tseung Kwan O and Tuen Mun, etc., which had been developed in the past, also needed to take transport to urban areas to work. She believed that when residents living on the artificial islands went out for work in future, carbon emissions from transport would also be a problem and the public might need to bear a heavier burden of travelling expenses. She questioned if the land developed would really be used to build public housing as planned and would benefit the public. She

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 54 also asked whether the Government had considered the future development of waterborne transport. She stressed that she was against Lantau Tomorrow.

102. Mr MA Hon-wing of CEDD said he understood that Members had concerns over the environment, ecology and etc. Hence, to address C&W DC’s concern, the department suggested conducting relevant studies, hoping that a full consideration could be given to the proposed development option. He said the cost of the Study was around $550 million and the funding had to obtain approval from Finance Committee of LegCo.

103. The Chairman invited Members to give comments again. Members’ comments and questions were as follows:

(a) Mr PANG Ka-ho said the department had not answered the question concerning the criteria and he requested the department to answer either “yes”, “no” or “I don’t know”. He understood that the representative of CEDD was only frontline staff and had no decision-making power in relation to the project. He hoped that the representative of CEDD could discuss with the government personnel concerned after the meeting and relay C&W DC’s concerns. He said no way would C&W DC Members let Lantau Tomorrow be endorsed in C&W DC meetings.

(b) Mr WONG Weng-chi suggested holding a public hearing when the epidemic subsided in future, so that the Government could listen to the public and know that the public were against the project.

(c) Mr YOUNG Chit-on said he held reservation to Lantau Tomorrow at the moment and he took no stance when details had yet been available. He pointed out that the power of endorsing the allocation for the Study did not rest with C&W DC but he would wait and see how the situation would unfold. He opined that Hong Kong needed development and it was still uncertain if the project was one of the feasible options. He opined that further understanding could be acquired and it might not be necessary to make a final decision at the moment. He neither agreed with nor objected to the project, and he held reservation to the project.

(d) Miss YAM Ka-yi said there were many ways to increase land supply and reclamation was a practice which was irreversible. She was dissatisfied because the Government still implemented the project even though it was aware that the public deemed the project infeasible. She asked how the Government could give back the money to the public after wasting public

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 55 funds. She hoped that the Government could listen to the public. She agreed with Mr WONG Weng-chi that a public hearing should be held, so that the Government could listen to the public.

104. The Chairman said Lantau Tomorrow would be a standing item for discussion in C&W DC. She said the impromptu motion concerning C&W DC Paper No. 27/2020 had entered the voting stage and more than one-third of Members agreed with voting on the impromptu motion. The following impromptu motion was adopted after voting.

Motion: Given that land formation by reclamation will bring irreversible environmental impacts, and global warming may lead to rising sea levels and pose a threat to coastal areas, which may render the Government’s project estimates for the proposed Central Waters artificial islands inaccurate and consequently result in project cost escalation; the Government has failed to optimise land supply options that are more ready for utilisation and infrastructure provision, including brownfield sites in the New Territories and idling military sites, for housing development; the Government has yet to give an account of the infrastructure arrangements for connecting the proposed artificial islands and assess the impacts on the Central and Western District, in order to safeguard the living environment of residents in their original neighbourhoods, minimise the risk of massive public spending and observe land justice, this Council opposes the construction of artificial islands under Lantau Tomorrow.

(Proposed by Ms WONG Kin-ching, seconded by Mr YIP Kam-lung and Mr HUI Chi-fung)

(13 affirmative votes: Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr NG Siu-hong, Mr PANG Ka-ho, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Miss YAM Ka-yi, Mr YIP Kam-lung)

(1 dissenting vote: Mr YOUNG Chit-on)

(0 abstention vote)

[Mr KAM Nai-wai subsequently indicated support for the impromptu motion.]

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 56 105. The Chairman said the motion would be submitted to the SDEV and Finance Committee of LegCo. She ended the discussion on the item.

Item 6: Protest Against the Government for Ineffective Monument Protection and Turning a Blind Eye to Private Owners Felling Century-Old Trees, Pulling Down Historic Stone Wall and Occupying Public Road. Defend the House at No. 27 Lugard Road, a Grade One Historic Building (C&W DC Paper No. 64/2020) (6:54 pm – 7:37 pm)

106. The Chairman welcomed representatives of DEVB, Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO), BD, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), LandsD, HKPF, CWCG, Alliance for a Beautiful Hong Kong and Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood to the meeting.

107. The Chairman invited Ms Katty LAW, convenor of CWCG, to speak. Ms LAW said Lugard Road was a historic and renowned trail which Hong Kong people greatly valued. CWCG had continuously expressed concern over the conservation issue there, and she noticed that there were many more developments at Lugard Road recently. She said although No. 27 Lugard Road was not redeveloped as a hotel, there were renovation works recently and the old buildings at Nos. 28 – 29 Lugard Road had already been demolished and replaced with new buildings. She remarked that the developments had severely damaged the places nearby. She said No. 27 Lugard Road had always been a public road and the public could admire the scenery there. However, in the past few weeks, it was found that a sign reading “No Trepassing, No Soliciting and Dog on Premises” had been erected there; CWCG members had also discovered that a large part of the stone wall had been knocked down and trees had been felled and placed on the ground. She said the workers working there had dispersed CWCG members and another member had also requested police intervention and handling there. She pointed out that the site was a public road but some private property owners dispersed the public. She continued that No. 27 Lugard Road was a mansion with Grade 1 status and the roads, the stone wall, the trees and etc. near Lugard Road were all heritage. She opined that the Government turned a blind eye to the situation and she said the reply of the Government had not mentioned how people who damaged public assets were investigated and penalised. She emphasised that the site was government land, and the stone wall and the old trees were also public property. She asked whether the Government would replant trees and use the original materials to repair the stone wall. Besides, she said CWCG members had recently noticed that the Government had used chain link fence to seal off the site. She asked how would the place damaged be taken care of to safeguard Lugard Road, and how would private property owners be stopped from damaging the public place.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 57 108. The Chairman invited Mr YEUNG Tsz-kit, council member of Alliance for a Beautiful Hong Kong and founding member of Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood, to speak. Mr YEUNG said Lugard Road, which was rich in historic value and drew international attention, was recently under threat. He said there had been many trees at Lugard Road in the past but it was discovered recently that a sign reading “Enter at Own Risk Dog May Bite” was placed at Lugard Road, which was supposed to be a public road. Further down the road, it could also be found that the stone wall was damaged and there was a big crack. He said the stone wall had been built for over a century and had historic value. Some workers had been carrying out works inside when the situation was discovered. He also said many trees had been felled but he was not sure why. He said the owners of No. 27 Lugard Road had used a wooden board and barbed wire to seal off the site and a government department had replaced them with chain link fence. Members had enquired some government departments regarding the incident and received some replies. He said AFCD replied that no suspect or witness had been identified so far in relation to the removal of the trees. However, he opined that some people had definitely removed the trees and he asked whether the Government would penalise the offenders and replant trees. He also said that according to the consolidated reply from Commissioner for Heritage’s Office of DEVB, AMO and BD, the building with Grade 1 status was not damaged. However, he opined that the site should be conserved in the “point-line-plane” approach and so, the historic stone wall and the trees nearby should also be conserved. He said District Lands Office/Hong Kong West and South (DLO) replied that the illegal occupation of government land had already been stopped successfully. He opined that those who had intentionally damaged the historic stone wall should be penalised. He asked when would the chain link fence be cleared and when would the repair to the stone wall be completed.

109. The Chairman invited discussion on the paper. Main points of Members’ comments were as follows:

(a) Mr YIP Kam-lung said the location where the stone wall had been built during the British Hong Kong era was possessed by LandsD and so, the stone wall was government property. He said that according to HKPF, strict law enforcement actions were taken against vandalism of public property. He asked HKPF and DLO whether damaging the stone wall and the trees was criminal damage, and whether an investigation would be carried out in view of the incident. Besides, he opined that it was necessary to conserve the century-old stone wall tree and he said the site was close to the top 10 must-see tourist attractions of Hong Kong. He asked whether AMO had any proposal to repair the stone wall. He reiterated that the site should be protected.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 58 (b) Miss YAM Ka-yi said the incident involved departments including AFCD, DLO and Tree Management Office. She was glad to see that C&WDO was responsible for coordinating the incident and she hoped that C&WDO would later hold an inter-departmental meeting to carry out a special investigation into the incident. In addition, she commented that HKPF should take the initiative to carry out an investigation when there had been a crime and the stone wall tree planted at government land had been damaged. HKPF should not handle a case only after someone had reported it. She remarked that the whole case was obvious and she did not understand why HKPF, instead of taking initiative to carry out an investigation, said the department could handle the case only when a member of the public reported it. She hoped that the departments could work together to handle the incident.

(c) Mr YOUNG Chit-on said a Liberal Party Member previously working in the Peak constituency had already collected comments from the residents and concern groups, who were against transforming No. 27 Lugard Road into a boutique hotel, a few years ago. He said the government departments had added many provisions and had protected users and residents at Lugard Road by working on the traffic. He said No. 27 Lugard Road was private property and a building with Grade 1 status and so, it was necessary to see if regulations had been violated. He said while some departments replied that the incident was handled by other departments, some departments said they needed more time to find out the details of the incident, and some departments wished to investigate the case until it all came out in the wash. He opined that it was necessary to penalise offenders and public interest should not be harmed. He said government land should not be occupied and he hoped that the incident could be investigated thoroughly as early as possible. He could report the case to the police as early as possible if the incident could be handled only if somebody reported it. He thanked C&W DC colleagues for paying great attention to the incident, and he hoped that the government departments could follow it up.

(d) Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin remarked that the works which had damaged the stone wall tree and the trees could not be completed in one day. She asked how frequent a relevant department patrolled that site and what the mode of management was. She also asked why a major works project that would impact the government land was allowed to take place there, and why some departments followed it up only when the public found that the works had been completed and C&W DC had been informed. Furthermore, she asked whether the departments possessed information on the number of trees

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 59 damaged. She said the Government sealed off the government land with chain link fence such that the public could not enter for the time being. However, sealing off the nearby land for a long period would impact the entire scenery, as there was a building with Grade 1 status nearby. She opined that the Government should not merely seal off the area and pretend nothing had happened whenever there was a problem with government land. She asked how the departments would manage the site in future and what the proposals to handle the damaged stone wall tree and trees were.

(e) The Vice-chairman questioned why HKPF said the incident would not be handled if the public did not report it to the police. He said HKPF’s duty was to proactively investigate crime but HKPF, after learning of the incident, replied that it had not taken any follow-up action because no relevant reports had been received. He asked how HKPF would follow the situation up and he opined that HKPF neglected its duty in this regard.

(f) The Chairman said No. 27 Lugard Road was a building with Grade 1 status. She asked whether it was necessary to seek approval from the owner concerned before grading a building and declaring it as a monument, given that it was privately owned. She said the situation was undesirable and would lead to severe consequences when the owner concerned could determine himself if works could be carried out in a case concerning a building with Grade 1 status. In addition, she said HKPF replied that no report on No. 27 Lugard Road being damaged had ever been received, and HKPF would definitely look into every report received in accordance with the law. She said Mr YOUNG Chit-on had said he would go to report the case. She asked the representative of HKPF whether the discussion held in the meeting could be regarded as a report, or Members needed to go to a police station and report the case in person. Besides, she asked whether HKPF had not discovered that the stone wall and the old trees near No. 27 Lugard Road had been damaged because police officers only stayed inside police vehicles when patrolling. She knew that some hikers had seen workers damaging the trees but they were either not courageous or had no time to report the incident. She said she would go to the police station in Central District, which was open 24 hours, and report the case after the meeting, if it would be counted as a report only if she went to a police station and made a report in person.

(g) The Vice-chairman suggested that the Secretariat write a letter to report to HKPF, as HKPF needed to conduct an investigation after receiving a complaint. The Chairman responded that she could go to report the case.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 60

110. Ms LEE Cho-yi, Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3 of DEVB, said AAB had accorded Grade 1 status to the mansion at No. 27 Lugard Road at the Peak in Hong Kong in March 2017, and had carefully considered including the portions which had an important heritage value into the grading boundary. The dwarf wall outside the lot and the trees at the surrounding areas were not within the grading boundary. She said although all buildings with Grade 1 status would be accepted as providing a “pool” of highly valuable heritage buildings, it did not mean that all buildings with Grade 1 status would be declared as monuments in future. She said the Antiquities Authority (i.e. SDEV) could consider whether some of the buildings might have reached the “high threshold” of monuments after consulting AAB, before deciding whether to put them for statutory protection under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance. She said the Government could unilaterally declare some private buildings with Grade 1 status as monuments but it was not the established practice under the Government’s heritage conservation policy. The Government aimed to strike a proper balance between respect for private property rights and heritage conservation and so, a building would be declared as a monument only after gaining approval from the private property owner concerned. She said Commissioner for Heritage’s Office of DEVB and AMO had contacted the representative of the owners at the end of 2019 regarding the works inside the mansion.

111. Mr NG Tsz-wing, Principal Estate Officer/HKW & S (2) (DLO) of LandsD, said DLO was not a works department and hence, DLO possessed no relevant skills or professional knowledge concerning the repair to stone walls, and DLO needed to seek assistance from relevant departments. As DLO had no information or record on the history of the stone wall, DLO had, on 2 March 2019, enquired Architectural Services Department (ArchSD), CEDD, Highways Department (HyD), AMO, C&WDO and etc. about the stone wall, and had asked the departments for assistance in repairing the damaged wall. Yet, DLO had not received replies from all departments. Regarding erecting a temporary fence on-site, he said DLO, for safety reasons, had erected a temporary fence at the damaged portion of the stone wall. When a department/unit carried out repair works of the stone wall, DLO would facilitate the repair works of the stone wall and remove the fence. As for the illegal felling of trees on government land, DLO had referred the case to AFCD on 26 February 2020 for follow-up action. Moreover, regarding some people sealing off the government land with a wooden board, DLO had posted a notice on 28 February 2020, requesting the occupier to cease the illegal occupation of government land before the notification period ended. Later, staff of DLO had conducted a follow-up inspection at the location and found that the wooden board had already been removed and the occupier had ceased the illegal occupation of government land. If the illegal occupation of government land continued, DLO could prosecute the occupier in accordance with the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Chapter 28). In connection with vandalism of public property, other relevant departments were responsible for

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 61 initiating prosecutions under relevant Ordinances.

112. The Chairman asked whether AMO knew in which year had the stone wall been built. Ms SIU Lai-kuen, Executive Secretary (Antiquities & Monuments) of AMO, said information concerning the year when the stone wall had been built was not available. She said AAB had taken everything into account and had included the portions which had an important heritage value in the grading boundary when discussing the grading of the mansion at No. 27 Lugard Road in December 2016.

113. Ms Katty LAW, convenor of CWCG, added that some CWCG members had reported to the police regarding some people blocking the public road. She said the owner had used HKPF’s properties (i.e. traffic cones) to block the road. She said she did not know if HKPF allowed the practice.

114. Mr TSE Ming-yeung, District Commander (Central District) of HKPF, expressed regret over not having a chance to respond to the unfounded statement just then. He opined that justice would prevail. For No. 27 Lugard Road, he said HKPF had said in the written reply that no one had reported to HKPF on vandalism there. However, some people had quarrelled with the workers over the use of the road there on 22 February, and a relevant report had been received. The police had arrived on the scene and had subsequently taken away HKPF’s traffic cones that had been placed on the road. He said HKPF placed traffic cones there because HKPF sometimes needed to control the traffic at Lugard Road. Since HKPF did not keep an eye on the traffic cones all the time, it was possible that they would be moved. However, as long as no one damaged or occupied the traffic cones for a prolonged period, HKPF would not usually take follow-up action. In addition, he said whether HKPF would take the initiative to investigate a case depended on vital factors including whether someone had reported the case, whether there was a victim, and whether somebody could confirm that public property had been damaged. As far as he understood, AFCD had launched an investigation into Ms Katty LAW’s complaint to investigate if anyone had felled trees illegally. He added that the department would refer the case to HKPF for crime investigation if the department found that public property had been damaged.

115. The Chairman hoped that the investigation could be completed as early as possible so that persons who had caused the damage could be arrested. She again invited discussion on the paper and main points of Members’ comments were as follows:

(a) Mr YIP Kam-lung said the reply of the department was puzzling. HKPF always said it would proactively carry out investigations. However, when there was criminal damage outside a boutique hotel at Mid-Levels, the case would be handled only if a victim reported it. He said the stone wall and the

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 62 trees at the government land were possessed by the Government but HKPF said no investigation had been carried out because the victim (i.e. the Government in the case concerning Lugard Road) had not reported the case. He said HKPF always talked nonsense, saying that it had the powers to gather evidence and to prosecute, and the police needed not produce their warrant card. He asked whether it meant that HKPF would not handle a case if no one reported it. He opined that the practice was unreasonable. He said HKPF had always criticised and arrested protesters but there was no informant either. If HKPF’s words were true, protestors should not be arrested when no one had reported them. He said the media had covered the incident and Member of the constituency had also said it was an illegal act. Still, HKPF said it did not handle the case because no one had reported it, meaning that the case would not be taken care of if LandsD had not notified HKPF. He said HKPF even said it was not a problem even someone took away HKPF’s properties without permission. He asked if it meant that HKPF’s properties could be taken at will as long as they would be returned afterwards. He said the explanation given by HKPF in the press conference was not like that. He stressed that the incident showed that HKPF had double standards when enforcing the law and that HKPF did not confront the rich but only protesters.

(b) Miss YAM Ka-yi wished to know if C&WDO would coordinate with different departments to take care of the incident. Besides, she did not understand why HKPF said it would follow up the case only with DLO’s referral. She said HKPF had seen many photos that could be used as proof and she asked whether HKPF could carry out an investigation once it witnessed crime. She commented that the dignity of the police lied in combating crime and so, HKPF needed to preserve the dignity and handle the incident. She hoped that HKPF would not handle a case only after a victim reported it. She could not accept that HKPF had double standards when taking law enforcement actions.

(c) Mr NG Siu-hong said the property owners were very cooperative according to the representative of DEVB. However, he questioned whether they were really cooperating when they damaged public property and occupied government land. He opined that government departments needed to review the regulations and restrain such behaviours. In addition, he said that according to HKPF, even a member of the public took away HKPF’s traffic cones, the individual would not be held accountable as long as the traffic cones could be retrieved in the end. He asked whether it could become an ordinance and future guidelines, and whether the practice could be publicly announced. He said HKPF was obviously selective in taking law

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 63 enforcement actions. HKPF did not investigate personages even if C&W DC had submitted a paper and reported them but HKPF stopped and searched young people on the streets for no reason. He said the public did not call HKPF names without reasons and he hoped that HKPF could stop being selective in taking law enforcement actions.

(d) The Chairman asked HKPF again if the discussion in the meeting could be regarded as a report, or if it was necessary to go to a police station and report the case in person.

116. Mr TSE Ming-yeung of HKPF said HKPF would investigate every case professionally but HKPF could not simply lead a professional investigation just because the public or Mr YIP Kam-lung said the land was government property. HKPF would work with AFCD and DLO to see whether the damaged property there belonged to the Government. Then, HKPF would take follow-up action again. He said he did not mind Members reporting the case and HKPF would follow it up and carry out an investigation. Regarding taking away and using the traffic cones, he said that from a legal perspective, HKPF needed to see if there were crime-related factors, such as whether someone had deprived of another person’s property permanently, when handling relevant cases (e.g. traffic cones being stolen). If HKPF’s traffic cones could be found on the streets and there was no evidence showing that the properties were deprived of permanently, HKPF could not criminalise a case arbitrarily.

117. The Chairman said the government departments had replied that the roads, the stone wall and the trees there were all publicly owned. She did not mind reporting the case after the meeting but if Mr TSE, as District Commander (Central District), could establish a case and start an investigation, she needed not go to a police station to report it. Moreover, she said that according to the representative of DEVB, the owners were willing to work on conservation when discussing with DEVB and hence, she doubted if it was the renovation workers working for luxurious residential units who had damaged the road. She wished to pass the clues to HKPF and wished to know if the owners damaged the public property to protect the mansion.

118. Ms LEE Cho-yi of DEVB said DEVB had communicated with the representative of the owners regarding the renovation works within the grading boundary of the mansion at No. 27 Lugard Road. The owners had also been reminded that they needed to apply to relevant departments in accordance with the legislation if they wished to carry out any alteration works inside their mansion. She added that relevant information on the stone wall or on the trees nearby was not available.

119. Mr YIP Kam-lung clarified that it was not him who said the stone wall and the

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 64 trees were government property; rather, it was confirmed in the replies of the government departments. He hoped that HKPF would not vilify him.

120. Mr NG Tsz-wing of LandsD said that according to the land status record, the passage outside the private lot at No. 27 Lugard Road was government land unleased; no information indicated that the stone wall and the trees there were private property.

121. Mr KAM Nai-wai said the meeting would be held under a very safe condition because four police vehicles and many plainclothes police officers were stationing on the ground floor at Harbour Building. Regarding the issue, he said Mr TSE Ming-yeung, District Commander (Central District), “was not exercising police powers in the meeting”. He said Mr TSE had not responded to Members regarding whether it was necessary to go to a police station and report a case in person. He asked whether Members needed to go to the police station in Central District to report the case because the representative of HKPF was not exercising police powers in the meeting. He hoped that Mr TSE could give a reply. Moreover, he said he only knew that “to take without asking is to steal”. If the representative of HKPF was to explain the intention of the people who took away the traffic cones without permission, he hoped that the standards on law enforcement would be applicable to all Hong Kong people, but not only to the people HKPF disliked. He requested HKPF to enforce the same standards consistently when taking law enforcement actions.

122. The Chairman asked DO(C&W) whether the incident could be included in District Management Committee so that C&WDO could coordinate and handle it. She hoped that the historic building could be protected because the site was important in the historic old town of Hong Kong.

123. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), said she would follow the inter-departmental coordination work up. She suggested following the situation up with various departments after the meeting and she said it was not a must to set up a group to follow up the issue. She would report to C&W DC if there was any action taken.

124. Mr TSE Ming-yeung of HKPF said Members would not be stopped from reporting the case but Central District under HKPF would take the initiative to contact DLO and ask whether there was property loss on the government land. In addition, he responded to Mr KAM Nai-wai and said HKPF carried out all investigations and law enforcement actions in accordance with the legislation. He cited taking away traffic cones without permission as an example, and said the incident needed to be investigated in accordance with Cap. 210 under Hong Kong legislation. The intention of the suspect, for example, had to be investigated and a case could not be concluded by simply saying “to take without asking is to steal”.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 65 125. The Chairman said the motions concerning C&W DC Paper No. 64/2020 had entered the voting stage and she invited Members to vote on the motions. The following motions were adopted after voting.

Motion: (1) Strongly condemn relevant government departments for ineffective monument protection, which resulted in serious damage to the historic stone wall, century-old trees and public road next to the house at No. 27 Lugard Road. Request for the Police to track down the culprit.

(2) Request for government departments to carefully examine the damage done to the historic stone wall and century-old trees next to the house at No. 27 Lugard Road, and to ask those causing the damage to provide a detailed recovery works plan for restoring them to their original condition for public and stakeholder interest.

(3) Request for the Antiquities and Monuments Office to upgrade the house at No. 27 Lugard Road from Grade 1 historic building to statutory monument in order to protect this 104-year old historic building.

(Proposed by Ms CHENG Lai-king and seconded by Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin)

Motions (1) to (2) (15 affirmative votes: Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr NG Siu-hong, Mr PANG Ka-ho, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Miss YAM Ka-yi, Mr YIP Kam-lung, Mr YOUNG Chit-on)

(0 dissenting vote)

(0 abstention vote)

Motion (3) (14 affirmative votes: Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr NG Siu-hong, Mr PANG Ka-ho, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 66 WONG Weng-chi, Miss YAM Ka-yi, Mr YIP Kam-lung)

(1 dissenting vote: Mr YOUNG Chit-on)

(0 abstention vote)

126. The Chairman ended the discussion on the item.

Item 7: Request for Development Bureau to Remove the General Post Office (GPO) in Central From the Land Sale Programme and Conserve the GPO Building (C&W DC Paper No. 67/2020) (7:37 pm – 8:23 pm)

127. The Chairman welcomed representatives of DEVB, AMO, CWCG and the public to the meeting.

128. Mr KAM Nai-wai said he had not been in the conference room when a vote had been held on the impromptu motion concerning “Lantau Tomorrow” just then. He wished that a record could be kept to indicate that he was in favour of the impromptu motion.

129. The Chairman invited Ms Katty LAW, convenor of CWCG, to speak. Ms LAW said Site 3, where the GPO was located, was included in the Government’s latest land sale programme and so, she opined that the Government planned to demolish the GPO. She commented that the GPO, however, had been built in the 1970s, when the Hong Kong economy boomed, and it was one of the major modernist buildings in Hong Kong. She said the society and C&W DC had always strived for conserving the GPO, and an international conservation body had also included the GPO in the list of “Heritage in Danger”. She remarked that the Government only aimed to sell the site and address the issue of conserving the GPO half-heartedly. The Government did not carry out any conservation study and refused to grade the GPO. She said the GPO was a colossal building which had been built in 1976. At night, it was a remarkable landmark. The GPO had served the public for decades and so, the public had a deep affection for it. She said the interior of the GPO Building was very spacious and people could, by the window, see the beautiful cityscape of Central District, which comprised a series of buildings built in different decades. She said the GPO had been listed as heritage on a harbourfront by many foreign magazines and it should be conserved. She had also invited specialists to carry out a heritage assessment. She said the GPO Building was a very important heritage and a milestone which showed that Hong Kong was Asia’s world city in the 1970s. She said there was a series of modernist buildings in the vicinity of the GPO, including the former Central Government Offices built in the 1950s and

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 67 Murray Building and Hong Kong City Hall built in the 1960s. She said the Central harbourfront would lose a modernist building built in the 1970s if the GPO Building was demolished. Besides, the GPO was an icon and was also the only remaining general post office in Hong Kong. She said the design of the GPO was safe and open and so, ample space was available and could be put to adaptive re-use. The architectural heritage could also be retained for the next generation in Hong Kong. She said many general post offices all over the world had also been conserved. She cited the old Chicago Main Post Office as an example, and said it had gained its landmark status in 2018 and had been open to the public since November 2019 after renovation. The architect of the old Chicago Main Post Office had also been chosen as one of the Chicagoans of the Year. Ms LAW said the modernist style of the old Chicago Main Post Office built in the 1930s was similar to that of Hong Kong. She said Hong Kong would suffer the loss of a very important modernist building built in the 1970s if the Government still refused to listen to public opinion, went on with selling the site and did not conserve the GPO Building. She agreed that C&W DC had always strived for retaining the GPO Building but she opined that the Government did not listen to C&W DC.

130. The Chairman invited Mr LAI Chun-wai, PhD student of The University of Hong Kong, to speak. Mr LAI wished to discuss, from the academic perspective, the values of the GPO Building in the history of architecture. He said he had mentioned in different occasions and interviews that some people opined that the GPO Building was merely a building which looked like a white box and had no architectural value. However, he opined that there was such a misunderstanding because of a prolonged absence of relevant studies and knowledge. He commented that on the academic front, both the GPO and Hong Kong City Hall were symbolic representations of modernist designs in Hong Kong. He presented to the attendees the photos taken when the American artist Andy WARHOL visited Hong Kong in 1982, and said the GPO Building had caught the attention of the artist, meaning that the building was of value aesthetically. Moreover, he said the GPO Building was five-storey high and the logistics of the whole postal operation had been carefully designed. He added that the GPO had built a dedicated pier for loading and unloading mails at the harbourfront. Hence, he opined that the GPO was a building which operated in a precise and mechanical manner, demonstrating the “form follows function” philosophy highlighted in Modernism. Besides, he said the GPO had been the talk of the town; more than 25 construction companies had participated in its construction and the GPO had been designed by Mr K M TSENG, a famous architect of Works Bureau. He said it reflected that Chinese professionals had started to gain recognition among technical personnel in British Hong Kong. Lastly, he said the significance of the GPO did not purely lie in the area of architecture; the GPO also connected the whole generation of Hong Kong people in terms of cultures and collective memories. He said “The Mighty Peking Man” (1977) produced by Shaw Brothers ended with a shot of the GPO, showing that the GPO had its historical significance and values in Hong Kong’s modern culture. He opined that there was a pressing need to study and reassess the GPO, whose

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 68 historical significance had been underestimated. He was happy to organise a visit to the GPO for C&W DC.

131. The Chairman invited discussion on the paper. Main points of Members’ comments were as follows:

(a) Mr LEUNG Fong-wai was extremely disappointed that the Government did not formulate a conservation proposal for the GPO. He did not understand why AAB refused to carry out a grading assessment on buildings built in 1970 or later. He said even though the history of post-war buildings was not very long, the building had a considerable historical significance in Hong Kong, as the building was important on both the architectural and cultural fronts. Hence, he did not understand why the decision made by AAB in 2013 still had not been reviewed even after seven years. He remarked that the GPO, together with adjacent buildings such as Connaught Centre, Star Ferry Car Park and Low and High Blocks of Hong Kong City Hall, formed a highly modernist compound, and he opined that such compound was rare in Hong Kong. He said it would be impossible to find a similar building in Hong Kong if the GPO was demolished. He questioned whether it was what Hong Kong would gladly see. Moreover, he said Planning Department (PlanD) planned to use Site 3 for low-density development and retaining the GPO would not exert a profound impact on the development as expected. He said the case concerning the GPO showed that development and conservation were not mutually exclusive. Besides, he hoped that the attendees could also pay attention to Star Ferry Car Park adjacent to the GPO. As the car park had an even longer history, had been completed at the same time as the third-generation Star Ferry Pier had been and was the first public car park in Hong Kong, it was a very important building in the traffic history of Hong Kong. He hoped that the Government could carry out conservation work for landmarks.

(b) Miss YAM Ka-yi opined that the Government should address issues with respect and reason. The Government might opine that history of the GPO Building was not rich enough and it was therefore unnecessary to conserve it. However, she opined that the GPO formed a part of the collective memory of a generation. If the GPO was demolished, a landmark in Central would be gone. She added that there was the observation wheel adjacent to the GPO and the whole landscape could not be replaced. She wished that the Government would not erase the collective memory shared by the generation and she hoped that the Government could bring forward a proposal to retain

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 69 the GPO.

(c) Mr YIP Kam-lung said the works for Site 3 had dragged on for a long time because the Government had done insufficient public participation work. He also said the Government had not honoured the promises made by Mrs LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor, the then SDEV, including reconstructing old Star Ferry clock tower, relocating Queen’s Pier and retaining the GPO, etc. He said the GPO was a very important landmark and was still in operation. Hence, there was no reason to demolish it. He had asked how the Government would undertake that it would consult the public concerning retaining the GPO in future, when the Government gazetted a notice concerning the conversion of the carriageways near the GPO into footpaths. He said the Government had only replied at that time that the gazette did not equal a final decision. However, he saw that the Government’s development was imminent and the Government had not listened to the public. Hence, he said he definitely objected to the demolition of the GPO. In addition, he firmly objected to the Government selling Site 3 until the problem concerning Star Ferry Car Park was resolved. Hence, he solemnly objected to including Site 3 in the land sale programme.

(d) Mr HUI Chi-fung said both local and international conservation specialists had told the Government about the historical and academic significance of the GPO in recent years, after the Government had announced that the GPO would be demolished. He said DEVB needed to engage specialists to write a report to explain to the public and a thorough discussion should be held within AAB, if DEVB opined that the GPO had no history, enduring value or purpose of existence. He opined that it was unfair when the Government, without listening to C&W DC and the society, indicated that it was necessary to demolish the GPO purely from the perspective of public administration. Moreover, he said the GPO was one of the heritage at Central harbourfront included in the “point-line-plane” approach and hence, it was stupid if the Government did not handle it simply because it had not been 50 years old. He said Murray Building had only been built for 51 years but 10 years ago, the then Chief Executive had already mentioned that it was necessary to conserve Murray Building. He questioned why the two buildings, having the same architectural style, received different treatments. He said the GPO had been built for 44 years and met the criteria for conservation. In addition, he said no members of the public would be against developing the harbourfront at full throttle but the GPO could still be retained in the development and used for other purposes under the development project. He believed that many

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 70 members of the public adopted an open attitude. He opined that the Government should take into account the wishes of the public by revitalising the GPO and turning it into cultural space and museums, and incorporating the ideas into the development project. He asked the Government to think again whether it insisted to demolish the GPO.

(e) Ms NG Hoi-yan opined that it was worthwhile to conserve the GPO. She said there were buildings representing different decades along the Central harbourfront; if the GPO was demolished after the land sale, a building representing the 1970s would be absent and as a result, there would be a gap in the history of architecture in future. She pointed out that AAB was referring to a decision made in September 2013. She hoped that AAB could hold another meeting and keep up with the times. AAB should review buildings built in which years should be graded to facilitate follow-up action, and should not leave the decision unreviewed for seven years. She requested AAB to hold a meeting as early as possible to discuss buildings built in which years should be graded. She also said it was necessary to retain the GPO, a building which represented the 1970s.

(f) Mr NG Siu-hong said the GPO was a building which manifested modernism in Hong Kong. The GPO, together with Hong Kong City Hall and Star Ferry Car Park, created the modernist ambience. He said modernist buildings used natural light, and some architects also referred to the buildings built in the 1970s when designing green buildings. Hence, he opined that the GPO was a building which followed the past and heralded the future. Moreover, he opined that it was easy to convert the GPO Building. The walls could easily be demolished to align with the new harbourfront development and used for other functions. It was unnecessary to carry out many strengthening works. Hence, he hoped that the GPO could be retained. Besides, he said many Members of the pro-establishment camp had said a consultation concerning retaining the GPO had already been conducted 10 years ago in the previous term of C&W DC, but Members of pro-democracy camp were dissatisfied with the result. However, he opined that the public had gained a different perception of conservation and history and culture over the past 10 years. He said the majority of the public opined that the GPO should not be demolished and its architectural features should be retained.

(g) Mr PANG Ka-ho understood that the society demanded open space and Grade A offices but he questioned whether there was a pressing need to sacrifice the site for them. He opined that a building of historical significance was

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 71 sacrificed in exchange for open space, and open space should have a lower priority than the GPO. He said the Chinese Government had always been criticised when it came to heritage conservation because it used conserving the culture as a pretext for boosting the economy and sacrificed heritage in exchange for economic development. He opined that the Hong Kong Government was using developing open space as a pretext for boosting the economy, and he questioned whether it was necessary to sacrifice heritage in exchange for open space in Central. He opined that the Government could enhance the quality of open space through heritage conservation. He said the quality of open space was not only about trees and air; cultural ambience was also one of the factors which contributed to quality open space. He suggested that the Government look at how other countries conserved heritage. He opined that the Government should no longer think that economy and heritage were mutually exclusive. He said heritage conservation could boost the economy. He hoped that the Government could consider turning the GPO into a tourist attraction. He questioned whether the Government had considered the option from the economic perspective. He said C&W DC would definitely object to including Site 3 in the land sale programme. He hoped that representatives of the Government could discuss how to address the problem after the meeting.

(h) Mr YOUNG Chit-on said development must take place in the course of human history. Hong Kong could enjoy much success in the past years all because the public were willing to take on new challenges and grasp new opportunities. He did not agree that all historic buildings in Hong Kong were being demolished; Tai Kwun and had both been a huge success after revitalisation. However, it was necessary to strike a balance. It was not a must to retain a building when it was about to serve all its functions and especially when some professionals opined that it should not be retained. Even if people did not agree with it, they should anyhow respect the decision. He said inadequate land supply had long been a problem in Hong Kong and it was particularly severe in Central. It was necessary to fully utilise sites and hence, the public should instead think about whether a site could be put to better use. He said residents of the district had indicated to him that when the public were simply being asked if the GPO should be closed and demolished, they might not agree with it; however, if they knew that the site could be put to better use and benefit the next generation, they would agree with the development. He respected that there were different opinions expressed regarding whether the GPO should be retained in the society but at the same time, he observed that Singapore had revitalised the old

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 72 general post office and turned it into a hotel; the building outshone the GPO in terms of magnificence, history and quality. Hence, he opined that comparatively speaking, it was not a must to retain the GPO. He opined that the site should not be used for purposes that were not welcomed by the public but at the same time, he also opined that Site 3 should not be rashly removed from the land sale programme.

(i) Mr KAM Nai-wai responded to Mr YOUNG Chit-on. He said the previous generation had lost the old GPO Building and the site had become World-Wide House. He opined that the public would say they wished to retain the old GPO if they were being asked again. He did not wish to see the next generation feeling regretful about not being able to retain the GPO Building. He said they were not only talking about the architectural style but also the historical significance of the GPO; it was the role it played which mattered more. He said C&W DC had previously concluded that “groundscrapers” would be built at Site 3, as the site was adjacent to the harbour and buildings could not be too tall. As there were building height (BH) restrictions, he opined that the GPO could be retained and “groundscrapers” could be built in the vicinity. He opined that he needed to be a responsible citizen and bear in mind the interests of the next generation. He was open to turning the GPO Building into a facility such as a hotel or a shopping centre in future, but he could not accept the imminent demolition of the GPO. Moreover, he said that the Hong Kong society was not democratic and that the autocratic and useless Government would not listen to the public. He opined that only a democratic government would listen to the public and he said retaining the building might also be a road to democracy.

(j) The Chairman was uneasy because of the reply of DEVB. She said that she used to go past the postal pier every day, which was where the lift of International Finance Centre was located at the moment. However, the pier had disappeared after reclamation. She said it had already been mentioned in 1997 that Hong Kong should be safeguarded, and an activity named “The Blue Ribbon Campaign” had also been organised in 2003. She opined that the Government could reduce the expenditure, and it was not necessary to depend on the revenue generated from the sale of Site 3. She hoped that Site 3, which was one of the most remarkable sites in the world, would only be for leisure use. She said the Government had already used the harbourfront sites to build International Finance Centre and International Commerce Centre. She asked the representative of DEVB to confirm whether only buildings higher than 80mPD could be built at Site 3. She opined that the GPO was not

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 73 a dangerous building and it was well maintained. Inside, there was also much heritage from the old GPO. She said she had not seen the old GPO, which had been situated at where World-Wide House was located, either. As a member of the public, she believed that if the GPO, a renowned landmark, needed to be demolished, the situation would become even direr than the Saving the Star Ferry Pier movement. She said she had participated in drafting the motion in relation to the paper. She said the Central harbourfront was important and it was one of the items under Conserving Central. She stressed that the GPO was an important landmark. She hoped that the GPO could be retained, since the appearance of the future “groundscrapers” could not be known for the time being. She also hoped that the GPO could be revitalised at the original site, and become a museum about Hong Kong historic town district or remain as a post office. She said she had mailed a letter to Hong Kong in an old post office in Vietnam, and she wished that Hong Kong could retain its own culture. She said she would feel worried if she did not spend any effort in halting the land sale. She hoped that the representative of DEVB could confirm the height and appearance of the buildings built at the site. She remarked that it would do Hong Kong good if the GPO, located next to the harbourfront, was not demolished; otherwise, DEVB would remain notorious for years to come if it insisted to demolish the GPO.

132. Miss CHEUNG Man-yee, Principal Assistant Secretary (Harbour) of DEVB, thanked Members for expressing opinions. She said she had gone through the information compiled over the years before attending the meeting, hoping that more information could be provided in the meeting. She said combining all the discussions held over the years, various stakeholders had, to a certain extent, reached agreement on the use of Site 3. Firstly, Site 3 was a piece of very rare land located in the heart of Central and was adjacent to the harbourfront. Hence, it was necessary to properly develop the site to unleash its potential. Many Members had also expressed just then that they did not object to developing the site. Secondly, Site 3 was close to the harbourfront. From the perspective of harbourfront development, the society also expected that the opportunity could be seized and the site could be enjoyed by the public after quality harbourfront development. Thirdly, the society also hoped that the site could be developed as early as possible so that the public could use it. While she understood that some members of the public wished to retain the GPO, many professionals held different opinions and questioned its enduring value. Many architects opined that the GPO was a functional building but it was disputable whether it was a brilliant design and should therefore be conserved. Moreover, the GPO Building was designed with specific functions and there would be many constraints if the interior of the building was converted into other uses. After years of discussion, she said Site 3 had entered the

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 74 implementation stage and the planning brief, which had already struck a balance between different opinions, should be put into action. It would be difficult to finish the project if the project was still at the discussion stage. She added that in the planning brief for Site 3, the design of the future development was greatly valued and the development must provide ample quality public space to the public; commercial floor space should also be provided to alleviate the problem of insufficient commercial floor space in Central. She said although the rental for Grade A offices in Central had been adjusted in recent months, the vacancy rate, being 3.8%, was still very low. Site 3, if developed successfully, could provide a supply of Grade A offices which was much needed in the society and quality public space for Central District. Regarding the Chairman’s great concern over the height of the buildings at the site, she said it was an important consideration in the planning brief. The planning brief for Site 3 had strict BH restrictions and the BH restrictions of 16mPD and 50mPD were respectively imposed on the eastern portion and western portion of the site. She pointed out that the GPO was located at the south-west portion of the site, which had the highest development potential. If the GPO was removed from Site 3, the overall development potential of Site 3 would be greatly affected. For the GPO, DEVB had taken it into consideration previously and had publicised relevant information. DEVB said since the GPO had been built in the 1970s and was decades-old, it was necessary to invest more resources for maintenance. As for whether the GPO could be converted into other uses, she said conversion of the GPO needed to comply with the existing Buildings Ordinance, which imposed more requirements and had a higher demand for space. Additional facilities would also occupy space which could be used for development.

133. The Chairman said that as the meeting overran and the representative of DEVB was not answering the questions, she had to stop her from speaking. She opined that the representative of DEVB had not listened to Members. She said the representative of DEVB failed to reply whether a study would be carried out on the GPO. She also pointed out that the representative of DEVB had wrongly indicated that C&W DC supported the work of DEVB.

134. Mr LEUNG Fong-wai asked whether AAB could review why buildings built in 1970 or later would not be graded.

135. Ms LEE Cho-yi, Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3 of DEVB, said AAB had decided at the meeting in September 2013 that grading assessment on buildings built in 1970 or later would not be carried out for the time being. AAB had discussed the grading assessment on the GPO Building again in the meeting in December 2018 and after deliberation, AAB had reaffirmed its decision made in September 2013, i.e. no grading assessment would be conducted for the GPO Building.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 75 136. The Chairman asked whether C&W DC could again request AAB to grade the GPO one more time.

137. Ms SIU Lai-kuen, Executive Secretary (Antiquities & Monuments) of AMO, said the assessment of historic buildings was carried out by AAB. She added that AAB had discussed the grading assessment on the GPO Building in the meeting in December 2018 and AAB had reaffirmed its decision made in September 2013 after deliberation.

138. The Chairman asked whether Members could seek help from the international conservation body to retain the GPO, as government departments did nothing to conserve the GPO. She said the GPO would be demolished if C&W DC did not strive for retaining it. She asked Mr LAI Chun-wai, PhD student of The University of Hong Kong, to provide her the address of the international conservation body after the meeting so that she could write a letter and let Members sign it.

139. The Chairman said the motion concerning C&W DC Paper No. 67/2020 had entered the voting stage and she invited Members to vote on the motion. The following motion was adopted after voting.

Motion: (1) This piece of land in the Central harbourfront is formed by reclamation in Victoria Harbour, and so it should be given back to the community and not be put up for sale. This Council requests the Government to open up Site 3 of the new Central harbourfront for public leisure and cultural activities and as public open space.

(2) This Council requests the Development Bureau to retain in situ and in its original state the General Post Office (GPO) Building in Central and to consult on the use of the building afresh. This Council also suggests that the GPO Building be used for the purpose of a “Hong Kong Museum of Historic Town District” and be removed from this year’s Land Sale Programme. Respond to the voices of the people and work out a conservation proposal for the GPO Building.

(Proposed by Ms CHENG Lai-king and seconded by Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin)

Motions (1) to (2) (14 affirmative votes: Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr NG

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 76 Siu-hong, Mr PANG Ka-ho, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Miss YAM Ka-yi, Mr YIP Kam-lung)

(1 dissenting vote: Mr YOUNG Chit-on)

(0 abstention vote)

140. The Chairman opined that the GPO could not be retained even if C&W DC aired their views to the Chief Executive. She would consider seeking assistance from the international heritage conservation organisation, and might write a letter and invite Members to sign it later. She ended the discussion on the item.

Item 8: Market Management Consultative Committees of Public Markets under the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (C&W DC Paper No. 18/2020) (8:23 pm – 8:32 pm)

141. The Chairman said the agenda item was supposed to be discussed in the previous meeting. However, it had not been discussed because the departmental representative had followed DO(C&W) and walked out of the previous meeting. She welcomed the representative of FEHD to the meeting.

142. Mr CHONG Hon-ming, Chief Health Inspector (Central/Western)3 of FEHD, said a Market Management Consultative Committee (MMCC) was set up in each market to strengthen communication between FEHD and stall operators in public markets and cooked food markets under FEHD and to improve market management work. He briefly presented the composition of MMCCs in Central and Western District: Chief Health Inspector of the district was the chairman, and respective Members, representatives of ArchSD, EMSD, the market management contractor and the security service contractor were members. He said FEHD would convene MMCC meetings regularly. He added that the terms of reference included advising FEHD on improving market management and business environment, organising promotional activities for the market and advising on increasing and improving the market’s facilities.

143. The Chairman said as mentioned in the previous meeting, Members of the constituencies where the markets were located would join the respective MMCCs.

144. Mr KAM Nai-wai hoped that Mr CHONG Hon-ming of FEHD could tell Ms LI Yat-fung, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central/Western) that she had

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 77 neglected her duties and was suspected of committing the offence of misconduct in public office when she had walked out of the previous meeting. He said Ms LI, as a public servant, served the public but not the Chief Executive, and he hoped that it could be kept on record. Besides, he said that C&W DC had approved the list of Members joining the MMCCs in the previous meeting to facilitate the establishment of the MMCCs as early as possible. Members had also been asked if they were interested in joining the MMCCs by circulation of the paper after the previous meeting. He asked whether the issue needed to be discussed because the number of Members who wanted to join the MMCCs exceeded the quotas set by FEHD.

145. The Chairman said the paper had not been discussed in the previous meeting and C&W DC had only approved Members of the respective constituencies joining the respective MMCCs. Hence, she asked the Secretary to circulate the paper later to see if Members were interested in joining the MMCCs.

146. Mr KAM Nai-wai said as mentioned in the previous meeting, he wished that FEHD could establish MMCCs as early as possible so that meetings could be held promptly. He opined that meetings could not be held because asking if Members were interested in joining the MMCCs by circulating the paper took time and the list of MMCC members could not be finalised within a short period of time. He suggested asking Members if they were interested in joining the MMCCs right away in the meeting, so that MMCCs could be established and meetings could be arranged as early as possible.

147. Mr YIP Kam-lung hoped that Mr WONG Weng-chi could join the MMCC of Shek Tong Tsui Market. He said the family of Mr WONG was a stall operator in that market and he was unsure if there was any conflict of interest.

148. Mr WONG Weng-chi said he would opt out of the MMCC of Shek Tong Tsui Market if there was any conflict of interest. He would join the MMCC of Shek Tong Tsui Market only if there involved no conflict of interest.

149. The Vice-chairman said Members could declare their interest before a meeting and abstain from voting when necessary.

150. The Chairman said she had attended MMCC meetings before and there had been no voting, as MMCCs were consultative in nature.

151. The Chairman announced that the following list of nominations had been approved.

Name of DC No. of Name of Market No. of Members of the nominations Nominated DC

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 78 stalls relevant required Members constituency from DC

Sheung Wan Market 223 Mr KAM 2 Ms CHENG Lai-king Nai-wai, MH Ms NG Hoi-yan Sai Ying Pun Market 102 Miss CHEUNG 1 Miss YAM Ka-yi Kai-yin Centre Street Market 46 Miss CHEUNG 1 Mr WONG Weng-chi Kai-yin Shek Tong Tsui 151 Mr HO Chi-wang 2 Mr YIP Kam-lung Market Mr WONG Weng-chi Smithfield Market 215 Mr PANG Ka-ho 2 Mr LEUNG Fong-wai Ms WONG Kin-ching Queen Street Cooked 11 Mr KAM 1 Ms NG Hoi-yan

Food Market Nai-wai, MH

152. The Chairman asked the representative of FEHD to obtain from the Secretary the list of MMCC members and to notify respective Members before meetings were held. She ended the discussion on this item.

Item 9: Progress Report on the Central and Western District-Led Actions Scheme and Work Foci (C&W DC Paper No. 60/2020) (8:32 pm – 9:00 pm)

153. The Chairman welcomed the representative of C&WDO to the meeting. She invited C&WDO to present the paper.

154. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), briefly presented the Central and Western District-Led Actions Scheme (DAS). She said DAS had been launched in some districts on a trial basis in 2014, and had been officially implemented in all the 18 districts in 2016. District Management Committee (DMC) under C&WDO, which was chaired by her, implemented DAS and worked closely with C&W DC. Regarding the direction of DAS, C&W DC would be consulted on a yearly basis. She said she had learnt in a DMC meeting that both Members and residents in attendance opined that DAS should address the public’s concerns, especially those concerning environmental hygiene, as DAS was implemented with the additional resources given by the Government. Hence, the focus of DAS had always been on some hygiene blackspots. Yet, C&WDO was careful and avoided overlapping of duties between C&WDO and FEHD. Only if a location was uncommonly dirty, DAS resources, in

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 79 addition to the regularised services provided by FEHD, would be used to step up cleaning. Besides, under DAS, more efforts were spent on handling locations which FEHD could not manage, like private rear lanes. She said DAS operated mainly in this manner over the past two years. Moreover, she said under DAS, environmental hygiene problems concerning dog urine, bagged refuse and etc. had also been addressed, and resources had been used to complement the departments. She remarked that the services introduced under DAS were mostly experimental in nature and it was hoped that they, if proved feasible, could be regularised in various government departments. Then, other new attempts could be made under DAS and C&WDO would continue to work towards that direction. She said the public had been asked about the effectiveness of DAS over the past four years and around 80% of them opined that the environment had improved. As she was aware that environmental hygiene work was a never-ending task, she would continue to consult Members regarding different hygiene blackspots, even if DAS had already gained recognition from residents. She hoped that blackspots brought forward by Members and blackspots found by departments could all be handled. The scope would also be expanded in accordance with Members’ suggestions. For instance, more street cleaning had been done as a result of the onslaught of the typhoon “Mangkhut” and the outbreak of COVID-19. She said that with DAS resources, C&WDO could respond to Members and clean some locations with confirmed cases more flexibly.

155. Regarding publicity work, DO(C&W) continued that under DAS, picture books titled “Go Green” had been distributed. Both Members and she had visited schools and distributed picture books and teaching kits. She also mentioned that the Chairman was especially concerned about environmental protection and recycling and hence, under DAS, reverse vending machines had also been placed for recycling plastic bottles. Besides, she said some Members had remarked that the Government’s parks were very monotonous and dull. They opined that compared to developing the hardware of the parks by conducting minor works, the software of the parks (i.e. activities organised) was more important. Hence, she had mobilised a small portion of DAS resources to organise activities. C&WDO identified some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (e.g. Playright Children’s Play Association) mainly by inviting tenders, and the job opportunities arisen from the activities were made available to the youngsters. For example, C&WDO frequently worked with Hong Kong Design Institute under Vocational Training Council. Besides, as she understood that Members were also concerned about idle space, she had invited Playright Children’s Play Association to set up a DIY game corner and organise some workshops using the idle space near the escalators of Kennedy Town Community Complex. She said the feedback given by the residents had been very good in the past. She had asked schools and residents about the activities and found that some activities were especially welcomed by the residents. Some of them had even attracted thousands or even 10 000 participants. Although there were fewer participants due to the pneumonia and social incidents, the feedback given by the residents was

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 80 in general positive.

156. For future development, DO(C&W) said the Government opined that environmental hygiene in the district remained as the primary focus. She anticipated that DAS would still receive a basic allocation of $4 million in the following year. She asked if Members agreed with focusing on environmental hygiene still, and said they could make other suggestions. She suggested using a small part of resources to work on new projects, in addition to environmental hygiene. For example, the previous education programmes could be continued. The public space suggested by C&W DC could be used to organise activities so that residents were given a place where they could regularly participate in activities. She said that although those education programmes were provided by some charitable institutions or NGOs through invitation to tender, clauses in the contract stated that other local organisations could also apply to organise other activities at that venue if they intended to, and the organisation which was in charge of the programme must consider co-organising activities with that organisation or letting the organisation use the venue. She said some NGOs had taken back the venues in the past for organising other activities and the information had been made public on the Internet. She had also tabled a paper which showed that The Council of Central & Western District School Heads supported organising those innovative education activities as long as resources were sufficient.

157. The Chairman invited discussion on the item. Members’ comments were as follows:

(a) Mr WONG Weng-chi wished to learn more about the innovative education activities, as well as the mode of operation between parents and youngsters. He opined that the direction could be considered if resources could be used to make new attempts. He also said he had collected parents’ views on WE Park and they were generally positive. He hoped that they could study how to properly and practically use public space in Central and Western District. He also hoped that space could be open to NGOs and the public for organising some voluntary activities. The space could also be developed in different new modes and used by parents and youngsters.

(b) Ms WONG Kin-ching said cleaning work had mostly been carried out under DAS. She wished to know whether there was a big difference between the remuneration paid by DAS and by FEHD to the cleaning company. She asked whether cleaning workers under FEHD still diligently carried out their cleaning work assigned by FEHD when they learnt about the job which offered higher or additional pay. She also wanted to know more about the scheme concerning reverse vending machines.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 81

(c) Ms NG Hoi-yan agreed with using DAS resources for street cleaning and she opined that cases could be handled according to the current practice. As the outbreak of the epidemic was serious, in addition to street cleaning, cleaning work was also carried out at buildings with confirmed cases. For instance, for the case concerning Queen’s Road West, she saw that staff had gone to the tenement building concerned and carried out cleaning work. She wanted to know if the resources were drawn on from DAS or were from other allocations. She also asked if there were more confirmed cases, how much out of the $4 million allocation (which was smaller than the previous $8 million allocation) would be used and what would be done in response to the reduction in allocation caused by an increase in cleaning work for confirmed cases.

(d) The Chairman said many residents were very worried because many confirmed cases concerning Lan Kwai Fong, Seymour Place and etc. had been reported one day before the meeting. She opined that the situation was serious and she hoped that more street cleaning work concerning environmental hygiene and the problem of mosquito infestation could be carried out shortly (e.g. in the following three months). She hoped that at least residents in Central and Western District would not think that the surrounding environment was dirty. She was especially concerned about buildings with confirmed cases. She said they should emphasise and first carry out street cleaning by phrases. Moreover, she said that as it was necessary to avoid gatherings of people, innovative activities for children would be considered only when the school term started or when summer holiday arrived. C&WDO should focus more on cleaning during the period when residents needed to wear a mask.

(e) Mr YIP Kam-lung said it was necessary to step up street cleaning. In addition to the hygiene problem, he said the problem of rodent infestation had also plagued the residents in his constituency Shek Tong Tsui for long. He believed that the problem of rodent infestation also occurred in other districts. He said ultrasonic devices had been used for rodent control before but it had not been very effective. He asked whether some DAS resources could be used to explore other innovative possibilities which FEHD had yet examined, with a view to resolving the problem. He hoped that DO(C&W) could consider it.

(f) Mr KAM Nai-wai said the cleaning work was mostly handled by FEHD and

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 82 so, he hoped that the paper submitted and the work plan could clearly list the differences between the duties of DAS and of FEHD, and their respective roles. He opined that epidemic prevention work must first be done before addressing the problems of rodent infestation, mosquito infestation, pigeons, wild boars and cleaning of dog excreta, and thinking about how to properly divide the work with FEHD. For instance, C&WDO could carry out more work related to education activities. He opined that one-fifth of the resources or even less should be used on the innovative work, and the resources should mostly be used on cleaning work concerning epidemic prevention, as well as the cleaning work concerning the problems of rodent infestation, mosquito infestation, pigeons, wild boars and cleaning of dog excreta, because the effect of that kind of cleaning work was the most noticeable.

(g) Mr HO Chi-wang hoped that, in addition to the problem of rodent infestation which Members had just mentioned, DAS could also focus more on cleaning private rear lanes which FEHD did not clean, as DAS was led by C&W DC and was different from FEHD. For example, he hoped that the rear lane between Kui Yan Lane and Water Street could be cleaned because there were always stagnant water and rubbish, as well as many abandoned motorcycles. He pointed out that it had been a long-standing problem which Members of the previous term could not handle, and many residents had complained about it. He hoped that the problem could be tackled as early as possible.

(h) Mr PANG Ka-ho said the work foci of DAS in the following year would mainly be discussed in the meeting. He understood that DO(C&W) wished to implement innovative work and perform the role of C&WDO effectively. He opined that it was both worthwhile and necessary to carry out environmental hygiene work like cleaning rear lanes but it was also necessary to note that the work was supposed to be done usually by FEHD or other government departments. He opined that C&WDO could take up more work, instead of working only on street cleaning. He opined that C&WDO should perform its functions and think of how to do more and better. For instance, C&WDO could make good use of the resources given by the Government to introduce work related to civic education or to help the ethnic minorities integrate into the society. He hoped that DO(C&W) could still manage to think about what else could be done, despite the fact that there were heavy workloads concerning epidemic prevention.

158. DO(C&W) thanked C&W DC for being willing to make new attempts. She also agreed with Mr KAM Nai-wai and other Members that the work carried out under DAS should

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 83 not overlap with that of FEHD. She said the original intention of DAS was to complement other departments by working on areas they could not manage or projects they wanted to launch. If proved feasible after the trial, the services would be regularised and carried out by other government departments; allocation would then be used to make other attempts. She opined that it was how a district could improve and hence, DAS would address the problems raised by Members and clean public blackspots which demanded immediate attention. Locations which Members deemed unideal even after FEHD’s cleaning would be cleaned once or twice again. She also wished to take care of the cleaning work at some locations which FEHD was unable to manage, such as private rear lanes. She said C&WDO could contact building management and Members more easily, and work together with them to clean locations which FEHD was unable to manage. Besides, regarding the problem of “glutinous rice dumplings” (i.e. wrapped-up rubbish), she said FEHD would carry out cleaning work and use resources to increase the frequency of cleaning, so to avoid the rubbish staying too long on the streets and causing the hygiene problem of rodent infestation. She stressed that C&WDO targeted areas which Members deemed unideal. She also said she adopted an open attitude towards the direction of DAS. She would gladly provide support if Members opined that environmental hygiene had been improved and wanted to use the resources for other new attempts. At the moment, more resources under DAS would be spent on work which FEHD was unable to handle, like private rear lanes, “three nil” buildings and rodent infestation. She said both the previous and current terms of C&W DC were very concerned about rodent infestation. FEHD Headquarters had tried to use ultrasonic devices for rodent control but it had not been effective. A charitable institution in Shum Shui Po had also tried to use rodent guards. She planned to identify some professional companies to carry out relevant work after completing street cleaning work in relation to the epidemic. If Members agreed, she wished to follow it up later. It was also what C&WDO wished to try concerning environmental hygiene under DAS.

159. DO(C&W) agreed with Mr PANG Ka-ho that C&WDO should try different new modes when handling district administration work. She said there was a concept behind the innovative activities. She opined that public space was not significant if there was only hardware. It was necessary to encourage the public to put that public space in use in the ways they expected. However, the goal could not be attained overnight and before attaining the goal, it was hoped that students of Hong Kong Design Institute could work with small-scale NGOs in brainstorming different innovative ideas and laying a foundation to facilitate the organisation of activities. Hence, residents, when joining activities, could work with different parents and use the venue in accordance with their wills. Families of ethnic minorities could also be invited to join some food-sharing activities. She opined that the space should be fully utilised and there needed to be activities. She said some government projects were not successful mainly because they merely provided public space without contents. The projects did not appeal to the public and so, the places were not bustling. She said it was the

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 84 transitional period and schools liked that kind of education activities very much. The venues, once bustling and well-received, could then be passed to other NGOs or the public for operation. C&WDO could then take care of the use of other venues. By doing so, more public space could be revitalised and it was the original concept. She said the education activities would be carried out at other locations after being carried out at WE Park for a period of time, and WE Park would be reserved for other NGOs and residents in the district for use. She also said many parents had been recruited as volunteers for the activities because some activities would be handed over to parents or some small-scale NGOs after the activities were over. Parents could also form groups and continue to organise the activities. C&WDO supported them in utilising the idle space.

160. DO(C&W) anticipated that in the coming quarter, C&WDO would, starting from April, primarily implement epidemic prevention work. In addition to street cleaning and refuse cleaning, work concerning rodent infestation would also be carried out. In addition, she wished to recommence the work on parenting activities when classes resumed and the epidemic was over. However, she stressed that environmental hygiene should first be taken care of properly before the remaining resources were used to make new attempts. She said only around one-fifth of the resources had been spent on new attempts in the previous DC terms and the resources had mostly been spent on handling work on typhoon and environmental hygiene. If feasible, the work would be continued. She responded to Ms WONG Kin-ching and said the scheme concerning reverse vending machines had been introduced because Members were very concerned about environmental protection. They had noted that plastic bottles had still been thrown away no matter how much publicity had been done on waste reduction. At that time, Environmental Protection Department had taken the issue into the account but a similar scheme had not been introduced and hence, C&W DC had taken the initiative to first identify a supplier and placed reverse vending machines at ten locations on a trial basis. She observed that the reverse vending machine placed on the ground floor of Harbour Building had attracted many people to recycle plastic bottles. She said that under the scheme, the public could earn points on mobile and redeem the points for some presents on the platform after recycling plastic bottles. She was aware that the presents were not very attractive and she would conduct a review. She encouraged Members to air their views so that the platform could be fully utilised and the residents would be more satisfied with the scheme.

161. The Chairman asked whether the service had been suspended because she saw that the reverse vending machine which was originally located near the Mid-levels escalators had been replaced by a MTR fare saver, on account of maintenance works.

162. Miss WONG Sze-ki, Assistant District Officer (Central and Western), replied that the reverse vending machine which was originally placed near the Mid-levels escalators was

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 85 currently placed on the corner near International Finance Centre and the Mid-levels escalators. She said the location also attracted many people.

163. DO(C&W) said the locations of reverse vending machines would be provided in the website later.

164. The Chairman asked DO(C&W) to pay attention again to street cleaning. She said the residents opined that the consequence would be dire if Lan Kwai Fong remained open. She added that the confirmed cases concerning Lan Kwai Fong worried the public and she hoped that the issue could be dealt with flexibly.

165. DO(C&W) replied to Ms NG Hoi-yan. Regarding confirmed cases of COVID-19, FEHD would clean the streets affected and the units of confirmed cases. However, FEHD might not be able to clean a unit immediately, as it was necessary to first obtain approval from the occupier concerned. If FEHD needed assistance when performing a cleaning operation, C&WDO would provide assistance through DAS.

166. The Chairman ended the discussion on the item.

Item 10: Hospital Authority Overall Measures and Service Arrangement to Combat Epidemic (C&W DC Paper No. 61/2020) There is Nothing Wrong for Healthcare Workers to go on Strike to Save Hong Kong; it is Unreasonable for the Government to Suppress Trade Unions (C&W DC Paper No. 66/2020) (9:00 pm – 10:04 pm)

167. The Chairman said that the paper “Hospital Authority Overall Measures and Service Arrangement to Combat Epidemic” would be combined with another discussion paper “There is nothing wrong for healthcare workers to go on strike to save Hong Kong; it is unreasonable for the Government to suppress trade unions” for discussion, and welcomed representatives of the Hospital Authority (HA) and Queen Mary Hospital (QMH) to the meeting

168. The Chairman said that HA had submitted a paper on “Hospital Authority Overall Measures and Service Arrangement to Combat Epidemic”. She invited the HA representatives to present the paper.

169. Dr S H TSUI, Deputy Hospital Chief Executive (Hospital Services) of QMH, said

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 86 that Dr Vincent CHENG, Infection Control Officer of the HA Hong Kong West Cluster, could not attend the meeting as he was engaging in the setting up of first-line quarantine station in the airport. He continued that he would brief Members on the overall measures to combat epidemic in hospitals and the first line anti-epidemic situation. He understood that the Council was very concerned about the development of the epidemic situation and had made various enquiries through different HA clusters. He said he had not been able to attend the previous C&W DC meetings as he was busy dealing with the challenges brought by this new virus and could only provide written replies. He expressed regret for it and hoped Members would understand this. He pointed out that HA had launched different response measures since its activation of Emergency Response Level in line with the Government’s policies in the end of January. He said Members could refer to the papers HA submitted to the Secretariat earlier. His presentation would focus on the situation in the Central and Western District and issues of concern to Members.

170. Dr S H TSUI of QMH presented the paper with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He remarked that the Central and Western District recorded the first confirmed case on 29 January (the fifth day of Lunar New Year). The latest figure on the cumulative number of cases as shown in the PowerPoint materials (17 March) was 12, whereas the latest figure on the day of this meeting (19 March) was 16. Among them, three patients had been discharged from hospital and the remaining patients were hospitalised in QMH, Ruttonjee Hospital and Tuen Mun Hospital respectively, and they were now in a stable condition. He said that the parts shaded in yellow in the PowerPoint materials referred to the cases reported in Hong Kong in the past 14 days. Along with the four cases recorded on the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting, 12 out of 13 patients had travel history, and the places visited by the cases included the United States, Australia, Canada, etc. The remaining one was the driver of a confirmed patient and was regarded as close contact. In general, the cases recorded in the Central and Western District were all imported cases. After tracing, it was found that the two local cases recorded recently were also close contacts of people with travel history, so there were no cases of unknown cause. As several recent cases were related to social gatherings in Lan Kwai Fong, they would keep a close watch on the latest development. He was aware that both Members and the neighborhood were very concerned about the current epidemic situation. The Department of Health (DH) would announce if there were any new confirmed cases on a daily basis, and would inform District Councillors and District Office of the relevant district about the relevant information to facilitate relevant arrangement.

171. Dr S H TSUI of QMH then explained the Enhanced Laboratory Surveillance Programme (the programme) which tied in with the “containment” strategy adopted by the Government in combating COVID-19. Under the programme, DH would collect deep throat saliva samples for virus testing, with an aim to identifying the patients early and minimising the risk of community transmission. He said that the programme and designated clinics were

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 87 different in nature. The programme was a surveillance programme. It would not conduct testing for persons who were asymptomatic and resources would only be targetted at services for patients with clinical needs. Taking into account the constraints of spaces and specimen transportation logistics, collection points would be set up in 60 General Out-patient Clinics (GOPCs) and 17 Accident and Emergency Departments (A&Es). Laboratory services were also available in six GOPCs in Hong Kong West Cluster, including two in the Southern District and four in the Central and Western District. He suggested that members of the public who were given a specimen bottle should return the specimens to the A&E or GOPC earliest possible the next day for laboratory testing. Patients would be given instructions on how to collect deep throat saliva specimens properly. He remarked that currently dozens of specimens were collected from Hong Kong West every day. The programme would be carried out by phase to target adult patients initially, and would be further extended to cover patients below 18 years old. On test results, the patient would be informed via SMS if the test result was negative to COVID-19 while HA would trace and follow up the patient’s condition if the test result was positive.

172. Dr Welchie KO, Chief of Service of Department of Family Medicine & Primary Healthcare of QMH, briefed Members on the details of designated clinics. He first explained the background of designated clinics. Setting up of designated clinics was a measure put forward in the Preparedness Plan for Influenza Pandemic published in 2005, with a view to tying in with the Government's overall healthcare strategy. If a suspected case was detected in the community, the patient would be sent to hospital for isolation as soon as possible to reduce the spread of the disease in the community and relieve pressure on A&Es during the outbreak of the epidemic, so as to facilitate triaging of patients. He added that there was a designated clinic in each district, and the one in the Central and Western District was located in the Kennedy Town Jockey Club General Outpatient Clinic. He continued that the Secretary for Food and Health had earlier explained that the designated clinics were intended to divert A&E service demand. However, he said that there was no need to set up designated clinics for the time being according to the current situation. The work at this stage was confined to location selection, and the timetable for activation would depend on the future development of the epidemic situation to tie in with the anti-epidemic measures of the Government. He also said that the designated clinics were activated in 2008 and 2009 due to the melamine incident and the human swine influenza. At the time of the swine flu outbreaks, the GOPC in Sai Ying Pun had become a designated clinic; during the outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), the clinic had made preparations but eventually there was no need for its activation.

173. Dr Welchie KO of QMH continued to introduce the hardware and software facilities in designated clinics, including (i) negative pressure ventilation system: air would be trapped inside the clinic to prevent it from discharging outside; (ii) central air exhaust system:

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 88 air would pass through the filter to remove all germs and viruses before discharge. The exhaust air was almost bacteria free; and (iii) settings for segregating patients: patients in serious conditions would be separated from those with less severe conditions and isolated for treatment. He continued to introduce the arrangements for infection control measures and equipment, remarking that the "fever ward" provided at the GOPC in Kennedy Town was aimed to handle patients with fever. In addition, the ward was equipped with negative pressure ventilation system to help reduce the chance of cross-infection when handling patients with fever and upper respiratory tract infection symptoms while also protecting healthcare workers. He reiterated that the designated clinics served to triage patients and handle suspected cases with symptoms. Cases with less severe conditions would be referred to doctors for follow-up, while serious cases would be referred to hospital for further examination.

174. The Chairman thanked HA for its presentation, and invited questions and comments from Members.

(a) The Vice-chairman asked whether the source of infection of the imported cases was related to the relevant countries/places or aircraft, and enquired about the chance of being infected inside aircraft. In addition, he asked HA about the medical strategies it adopted, and mentioned that the UK had adopted a laissez-faire approach in treating the disease. He would like to learn about HA's approach in treating the disease and its effectiveness.

(b) Mr KAM Nai-wai said that regarding the arrangement for setting up designated clinic, HA should have communicated with DC or relevant local community earlier as the public were most concerned about the "unknown", "not being informed" and "lack of information". He pointed out that the HA representatives had cited MERS and swine flu as examples, but he and many people felt that these diseases were different from COVID-19 and believed that the latter was highly transmissible. If designated clinic was used to handle COVID-19, the public would have concerns about whether the patients, on their way to the designated clinic, would cause infection in the local community. He said that HA should explain to the residents about this, and opined that publicity, briefing and listening to public views should start early as it would help prevent public confrontation. He also pointed out that some hotels in the district might be used for quarantine purposes, and hoped that HA would release relevant information to the local community to inform residents about the impact of the arrangement and how residents could cooperate with relevant preventive measures. He understood that HA had been busy tackling the epidemic and thanked the HA representatives for taking time out

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 89 of their busy schedule to attend C&W DC’s meeting. However, he opined that HA must explain the matter to the community, otherwise it would cause public panic and arouse confrontation, which was not a good approach to respond on the matter.

(c) Ms WONG Kin-ching said that she had contacted HA earlier to enquiry about the designated clinic in Kennedy Town, but regrettably she could not get much information. She expected to get more information at this meeting. She first asked what type of patients the users of the designated clinic would be, and remarked that some patients had no symptoms at all. She also enquired whether the risk of infection in the community would increase if patients visiting the designated clinic were suspected cases. She was concerned about the chance of cross-infection and asked if there would be a designated route for patients visiting the designated clinic, and the arrangement for the surrounding shops when the route was in use. As for the activation time of the designated clinic, she wished to know the definition of a wide spread of the disease in the community and the opening arrangement of the designated clinic in case activation was necessary. Regarding the situation of patients recovered from COVID-19, she would like to know whether the virus would have any future impact on them. She also asked whether there was an adequate supply of virus monitoring equipment in hospitals.

(d) Mr HO Chi-wang said he had worked at the Aberdeen Jockey Club Clinic. He said he did not object to the setting up of designated clinic and believed that designated clinic would help prevent a community outbreak. He said that he had the same doubt as Ms WONG Kin-ching on the definition of a wide spread of the disease in the community, and asked about the reason why the earlier plan to activate designated clinics was ultimately shelved. Remarking that the lack of publicity would cause public panic, he hoped that HA could explain to DC expeditiously if information was available, so that DC could inform the public and reduce the voice of opposition.

(e) Miss YAM Ka-yi first condemned the Government for not closing all the boundary control points, resulting in the current epidemic situation. She also enquired about the time required between delivering the specimen and learning the test results, and was concerned about the possibility of delay in treatment. Regarding the setting up of designated clinic, she said that she did not object to it. However, given the current shortage of negative pressure rooms, she asked how HA could ensure that the facilities in Kennedy Town was sufficient in tackling the epidemic. She explained that her earlier

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 90 objection to the setting up of designated clinic was due to poor flow of information and a lack of information transparency among the Government, HA and DH, and it was not an arbitrary objection. She also asked how long the notice period would be before activating the designated clinic, and whether the supply of masks and protective gears for healthcare workers was adequate and how the demand was calculated. She said that an upgrade of the protective gears for healthcare workers was needed. She quoted the World Health Organization as saying that COVID-19 could be present in the air, so she hoped that healthcare workers could be provided with more protective gears. She pointed out that there was news that video consultation would be adopted for the psychiatric specialist services. It worried her a lot as she was concerned that patients might have difficulty being diagnosed accurately via video consultation and about the consequences of misdiagnosis. Regarding the healthcare workers’ strike, she asked how HA would handle it. She said that she had raised many questions in this regard in the paper but did not get a response from HA. She hoped that HA could answer her questions, and opined that it should publicly pledge not to punish those who participated in the strike, otherwise it would violate the Employment Ordinance and the Basic Law. In addition, as Eastern Hospital was suspected of using an unregistered antibiotic manufactured in the Mainland, she asked whether similar unregistered medicines were used in the Hong Kong West Cluster. She also asked what method was adopted by doctors in treating COVID-19 patients and was concerned about whether the right medicine was used to tackle the disease. She also hoped that HA could provide appropriate guidelines for doctors and nurses.

(f) Mr LEUNG Fong-wai said that he had the same question as other Members on the criteria for activating designated clinics, that is, whether it was based on the number of confirmed cases or the waiting time for A&E services. In addition, he said that if HA had information on the operation arrangement of designated clinics, it should explain to the public earliest possible to ensure that the risk of community transmission brought about by patients visiting the designated clinics could be minimised. He hoped that HA would disclose the relevant information as soon as possible. Regarding healthcare workers’ strike, he emphasised that strike action was a right conferred by the Basic Law. The strike also had the objective effect of causing the Government to swiftly shut most of the boundary control points in Hong Kong, thereby preventing a major community outbreak in Hong Kong during the Lunar New Year. Therefore, he asked HA to explain in detail as soon as possible whether the healthcare workers participating in the strike would be subjected

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 91 to reprisals, and if so, what action and punishment had been made.

(g) Mr YIP Kam-lung would like to explain in the first place why he opposed the setting up of designated clinic in the district, saying that political factor was not the sole consideration. The so-called political factor referred to the current expression of stance and subsequent healthcare workers’ strike due to the Government's reluctance to close all boundary control points. The reasons for objection also included technical factors. He remarked that designated clinic was close to residential areas. He referred to Japanese experts who indicated that both Japan and Hong Kong used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test to check for the virus. However, patients at early stage of disease might be tested negative by PCR test. As a result, patients visiting the designated clinic might move around and spread the virus in the community. In addition, he asked whether the designated clinic in Kennedy Town was equipped with laboratory equipment for PCR test and sufficient protective measures to protect laboratory staff from infection. He brought up this question because he noticed a slip in the level of anti-epidemic measures adopted by HA since December. That is, healthcare workers taking saliva samples for patients were required to wear N95 mask before but were no longer required to do so now. He considered this a neglect of the lives of healthcare workers and completely ignored the experience of the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003.

(h) Ms NG Hoi-yan said that she had family member engaging in healthcare work at QMH. She expressed concern about the activation time of the designated clinic, because three people in her constituency had been confirmed with COVID-19, and asked how to define severity or whether a specific number of confirmed cases must be met before activation. In addition, she enquired whether the supply of masks and protective equipment for healthcare workers was adequate, and was concerned that if there was a second or third wave of outbreaks and a shortage of masks and protective equipment for healthcare workers, members of the public would face even greater difficulties in purchasing these equipment.

(i) Miss YAM Ka-yi continued to enquire about cases of dogs infected with COVID-19. She pointed out that there was a second case of dog infected with the virus in Hong Kong. In addition, she said that various countries had lockdown measures and raised alertness, and experts also indicated that the virus was highly contagious. She said that she could not comprehend why Hong Kong was at such a low state of alertness. She suggested that HA

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 92 should discuss relevant measures to raise the Emergency Response Level in relation to COVID-19.

(j) The Chairman said that she had repeatedly relayed the request for closing all the boundary control points to the Government, but the Government did not respond to the request. She went on to say that the healthcare workers’ strike was intended to save Hong Kong, which involved great sacrifices. It would be highly undesirable if they were suppressed. She pointed out that it required a great deal of resources, time and effort to train up healthcare workers; and one must have had strong aspiration and commitment to be willing to join the profession. She expressed gratitude to the healthcare workers for going on strike to save Hong Kong.

(k) Ms WONG Kin-ching suggested the use of chest clinic instead of GOPC as designated clinic as it was more relevant.

175. Dr Welchie KO of QMH responded on the questions regarding designated clinic, saying that he could not give a definite answer for the time being on the circumstances under which designated clinics would be activated. He added that they had colleagues in the headquarters responsible for monitoring the current epidemic situation and making judgement on whether to activate the clinics. Factors taken into consideration included the number of carriers in the community. He indicated that based on the number of saliva samples collected, not many samples were showing symptoms. Test results indicated that among the 1 000-odd samples, only less than 0.2% (i.e. about three people) had symptoms, so it was not within the scope of a community outbreak. He reiterated that designated clinics were set up to manage infected patients, which helped to triage patients from the A&E of public hospitals. According to the current situation, there was no need to activate the designated clinics. As for the timing for activation, it would depend on their colleagues' observation of changes in the epidemic situation and professional advice provided by the expert team. Regarding whether designated clinic would increase the risk in the local community, Dr KO said personally he considered that whether or not the clinic was activated, it was already there. Even if a chest clinic was used instead, the operation arrangement would also involve concentration of patients, so there would be no difference. Besides, designated clinics was a policy formulated earlier, and the facilities therein were also different from other clinics. The main difference was the ventilation system, which might not be available in chest clinics. He explained that the system was designed to reduce the viral load to level. Taking indoor air as an example, the system enabled air exchanges at least 12 times per hour to achieve the standard level. Regarding the facilities at the designated clinic in Kennedy Town, air exchanges could reach 42 times per hour at maximum, which was three times higher than the standard level. In addition, as to whether gas emission from the system would affect the nearby residents, he

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 93 said that the exhaust gas would pass through the filter with the virus removed before discharge, which was in a sterile state, so the filter could ensure the safety of nearby residents. Dr KO continued to respond to Members’ concern about whether people would get infected on their way to designated clinic. He said that even if a designated clinic was closed, members of the public would still pass by the place and visit the clinic for consultation. He opined that in case there was a need to activate the designated clinic, it would not directly increase the number of people visiting the clinic or the speed of infection. Instead, it could centrally manage the patients and reduce cross-infection. He agreed with the need to step up consultation on the operation of designated clinic to ease public concerns. But he had concern that too much consultation would result in more opposing voices against activation of designated clinic, as changing the location of designated clinic was not something that could be done overnight.

176. Dr Welchie KO of QMH responded on the adequacy of medical equipment for healthcare workers. He explained it in terms of hardware and software facilities. For hardware, he said that ventilation systems and special rooms as mentioned earlier were in place. The special rooms were used for collecting deep throat saliva samples, equipping with ventilation systems that enabled air exchanges at least 42 times per hour. Ventilators were also installed in front of the patients to reduce the risk of healthcare workers getting infected through respiratory droplets containing viruses. For software, he said that there were an adequate supply of protective gowns, face masks and N95 masks for the time being.

177. Regarding Members' concerns about the impact of the closure of Kennedy Town GOPC on the public, Dr Welchie KO of QMH said that HA had also attached importance to the situation. He indicated that a designated clinic in Sai Ying Pun had been activated before, and there were currently four GOPCs in the Central and Western District, including Sai Ying Pun, Kennedy Town, Kau U Fong in Central and Tung Wah Hospital. The one in Sai Ying Pun was the largest among the four GOPCs and could accommodate about 400 people. If services of the Sai Ying Pun GOPC were to be suspended and the existing patients had to be diverted to the other three clinics for follow-up consultation, it would lead to overloading of the other three clinics. Also, the Kau U Fong GOPC was too small and could only accommodate about 100 people, so there was no extra space for additional facilities. Taking size into account, after the outbreak of swine flu, it was decided to use the Kennedy Town GOPC, which was smaller than the Sai Ying Pun GOPC, as designated clinic. If the Kennedy Town GOPC was to be closed and used as a designated clinic, patients of the Kennedy Town GOPC would be diverted to the Sai Ying Pun GOPC. HA had in place comprehensive and holistic facilities to handle the diversion of chronic disease patients of Kennedy Town GOPC to Sai Ying Pun GPOC for consultation and examination. Relevant arrangement could be made when it was decided that the designated clinic had to be activated.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 94 178. Regarding laboratory equipment, Dr Welchie KO of QMH said that PCR test was currently used to check the viral load. Testing could be performed in two locations for the time being, including DH’s laboratory and hospital laboratories. Dr KO said that a large number of tests had been carried out and there was still room for more tests; there was also no shortage of laboratory equipment. Dr KO also responded on the provision of designated routes for suspected case-patients visiting designated clinic. He said that even if designated routes were provided, it was difficult to ensure that the routes would actually be used. In addition, he pointed out that at present people would wear mask when going out, and respiratory droplets from coughing or sneezing would not spread extensively. The virus was mainly transmitted through respiratory droplets rather than the air. As long as people did not touch objects contaminated by the virus, the chance of getting infected in open areas was small, so he considered that it might not be necessary to provide designated routes.

179. Dr S H TSUI of QMH answered questions about the mode of transmission, characteristics, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 in terms of scientific substantiation and experience gathered over time. He reiterated what Dr Welchie KO had said that the virus was transmitted through respiratory droplets rather than the air, and explained it by reference to an experiment conducted by Dr Vincent CHENG, Infection Control Officer of the HA Hong Kong West Cluster. He said that Dr CHENG had taken air samples for the first confirmed patient in isolation ward of Princess Margaret Hospital. Air samples were taken when the patient was talking, coughing and taking a deep breath. Test results showed that no virus was found in the samples. On the contrary, virus was found in the environmental samples, such as on window sills. Hence, he opined that the strategy in combating the virus was to wear surgical mask, wash or clean hands frequently, avoid touching objects around us and keep the environment clean. He said that this also concerned protective equipment, remarking that not all healthcare workers needed to wear N95 mask as it was for prevention of infection through the air. For personal protection, doctors and patients should wear masks and wash their hands before eating and touching the eyes, ears, nose and mouth.

180. Regarding symptoms of patients confirmed with COVID-19, Dr S H TSUI of QMH responded that some of them had symptoms of common cold and flu, and some were asymptomatic. For example, some people under quarantine at Chun Yeung Estate were asymptomatic, and were only confirmed with the disease after testing. Also, he pointed out that in addition to X-ray screening, patients would also undergo PCR test for virus testing. PCR test results would be available within 24 hours. For those who were tested negative, they could leave as soon as possible to relieve the pressure on the wards; whereas those who were tested positive would be admitted to hospital for treatment. At present, for confirmed patients showing no symptoms, they would be followed up and managed with supportive treatment. For confirmed patients with symptoms, the treatment team formed by QMH and the University of Hong Kong consisting of university professors and specialists, would conduct

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 95 assessments to provide suitable patients with antiviral drugs such as ribavirin, interferon, or protease inhibitor. At hospital, healthcare workers would regularly monitor the viral load and overall medical condition of patients, including liver function, kidney function, and chest X-ray. He pointed out that there were no cases of death among the confirmed cases treated at QMH, and most of the confirmed patients were discharged after treatment. He continued that antibiotics was not the only treatment approach, though patients with viral infection would be given antibiotics for treatment. As for treatment approach adopted by other hospitals, he had no relevant information and could not respond. He could supplement such information after the meeting if deemed necessary by Members. Regarding the sample turn around time at designated clinics, Dr TSUI said that a large number of virus tests were conducted every day, and persons taking the test only had to wait in the hospital for a few hours for the test results. As for individual test cases referred by GOPCs to DH’s Public Health Laboratory Centre, if the samples were returned to the laboratory centre in the morning, the persons taking the test would be notified of the results on the same day.

181. Regarding the Vice-chairman’s question on getting infected inside aircraft, Dr S H TSUI of QMH responded that the virus was transmitted through contact and respiratory droplets. He learned from newspaper reports that Hong Kong students studying overseas had equipped themselves with sufficient personal protective equipment and had been extra careful on personal hygiene. According to the information released by the Centre for Health Protection (CHP), most of the cases were originated from overseas and were not infected inside aircraft. As to whether there was zero chance of getting infected inside aircraft, he was unable to issue relevant information on behalf of the CHP at this stage. Besides, he urged the public to avoid travelling by air as far as possible during the epidemic, and to maintain good personal hygiene if they needed to take a plane. Regarding protective equipment for healthcare workers, Dr TSUI responded that the current emphasis was on surgical masks, N95 masks, protective gowns and face shields, and the whole world was facing difficulties in sourcing these supplies. He pointed out that public hospitals would take stock of the supplies every day. Among them, the supply of N95 masks was tight. The reason was that healthcare workers and those working in isolation wards were provided with protective equipment of the highest specification when handling confirmed patients. He therefore urged healthcare workers to use the stock prudently on a need basis to ensure that adequate protective equipment was available for use by healthcare workers who were subject to higher potential risk. He added that HA had been very anxious and made use of all means to procure protective equipment. He also thanked those who had been so kind to donate protective equipment, and said that the equipment, if in compliance with the specifications, would be provided for use by staff and patients.

182. Regarding healthcare workers’ strike, Dr S H TSUI of QMH responded that HA put safeguarding public health as its first priority. He believed that healthcare workers were

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 96 caught in a dilemma at that time, and among them, some colleagues wished to pursue higher-level personal goals. However, he pointed out that patients were also facing uncontrollable health emergencies. Hence, public hospitals monitored their limited resources daily to maintain emergency services as far as possible. During the strike, public hospitals had to reduce non-emergency services and some emergency services, and some emergency services were therefore affected. He said that HA’s Human Resources Division had sent letters and emails to ascertain the situation of staff absence. He said that HA would follow up the matter from a logical, reasonable and lawful perspective and maintain communication among colleagues. As the approach in handling this matter would be in accordance with HA’s arrangement, he, as a frontline staff member, was unable to answer all the questions for the time being.

183. The Chairman thanked Dr S H TSUI and Dr Welchie KO of QMH for their detailed response, and said that there would not be a second round of questions.

184. Miss YAM Ka-yi asked if unregistered antibiotics had been used, remarking that the representatives, as frontline staff, should know. She said that there were many questions in the paper which required HA to respond, and hoped that HA would provide supplementary information after the meeting in response to the questions. In addition, she clarified that she was aware that the virus was not transmitted through the air, but according to the recommendation of the World Health Organization, it was necessary to raise the requirement of epidemic prevention to that of airborne infection. She was not sure whether all healthcare staff had sufficient equipment, otherwise, why remarks about insufficient protective equipment would be circulated and published on the Internet. She continued to ask Dr S H TSUI of QMH what it meant by his earlier remark about using the stock prudently on a need basis, saying that healthcare staff would ascertain whether there was such a need before using the protective equipment. She also asked why HA had to accept supplies donated by outside parties and whether it reflected the situation of insufficient stock. She queried that HA was too positive and had not noticed that the virus was spreading through different modes of transmission, not just through respiratory droplets. She suggested that they should consider the matter from multiple perspectives and prepare accordingly.

185. Dr S H TSUI of QMH said that they would provide a written reply on the use of drugs after the meeting.

186. The Chairman hoped that HA would provide supplementary written response on Members’ questions after the meeting. She then proceeded to deal with the motions set out in C&W DC Paper No. 66/2020, and invited Members to vote on the motions below. The following motions were adopted after voting.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 97 Motion: (1) Request for the Hospital Authority to immediately stop all follow-up actions, disciplinary actions or reprisal against healthcare staff for participating in or supporting the strike.

(2) Request for the Hospital Authority to immediately and publicly undertake never to take reprisal against healthcare staff for participating in or supporting the strike.

(3) Request for the Hospital Authority to grant “Dirty Team” members (i.e. healthcare staff deployed to isolation wards to attend patients who are confirmed to have contracted COVID-19) a “wash out” period of at least 14 days after they have finished work in the Dirty Team to reduce the chance of transmission of the virus. Also, annual leave that the staff members are entitled to should not be deducted to compensate for the loss of working hours resulting from the “wash out” period.

(Proposed by Miss YAM Ka-yi and seconded by Mr LEUNG Fong-wai)

Motions (1) to (3) (14 affirmative votes: Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr NG Siu-hong, Mr PANG Ka-ho, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Miss YAM Ka-yi, Mr YIP Kam-lung)

(0 dissenting vote)

(0 abstention vote)

187. The Chairman said that the motions adopted and the questions raised by Members in the paper would also be forwarded to HA for response. She then ended the discussion on this item.

Item 11: Strong Protest against District Officer (Central and Western) and Central and Western District Office for Locking Up, Without Prior Notice to Nor Consent From C&W DC Members, the Room which is For Use by C&W DC Members as Office (C&W DC Paper No. 62/2020)

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 98 (10:04 pm – 10:25 pm)

188. The Vice-chairman welcomed representatives of the C&WDO to the meeting.

189. The Vice-chairman invited Members to raise questions and express views.

190. Mr KAM Nai-wai said that he saw in the reply from C&WDO that C&WDO was responsible for managing the opening hours of the working room for Members (the working room). As the working room was a government premise, he believed that it meant that the C&WDO was in charge and could open and close the working room whenever it liked. He reckoned that since the working room was for Members’ use, they should be consulted before deciding when the room was to be closed or open. Quoting the paper as saying that the working room was locked due to concerns about security in relation to the government premise and supplies therein, he asked whether all rooms in a government building had to be locked when civil servants were working from home. He pointed out that the working room already had a password lock and was therefore not accessible to other people. He asked if C&WDO feared that Members would enter the working room and steal their own belongings. He hoped that C&WDO could explain on this, and said that Members should be given prior notice and consulted before the working room could be locked up. He opined that C&WDO did not know how to respect Members.

191. Regarding this discussion paper, Miss YAM Ka-yi asked whose decision this was. She also asked why Members were not notified in advance, saying that Members would like to get back their personal belongings from the room. In addition, she quoted C&WDO’s reply that Members could contact the Secretariat and it would provide assistance as far as possible. But when she tried to get back the tripod from the working room that day, she found that no one could help her open the working room. She wanted to know what happened that day.

192. The Vice-chairman said the paper stressed that the working room was available for use during office hours, meaning it would be closed during non-office hours. He wanted to know what office hours referred to and whether it meant 9 am to 5 pm. And whether the present moment when the meeting was in progress was regarded as office hours. He hoped C&WDO could answer his questions.

193. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), responded that closure of Members’ working room was not an individual case in the Central and Western District, but was a uniform arrangement after the Government announced the work from home arrangement for civil servants. She pointed out that the work from home arrangement implemented at that time was rather special as it lasted for quite a long period of time (two consecutive weeks). Not only the Central and Western District, the conference rooms and Members’ working rooms

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 99 of all 18 District Councils were also not open during that period. Under the principle that all civil servants were required to work from home, relevant facilities in the 18 districts were also closed. She said that her colleagues in the C&WDO had actually considered the security issues associated with leaving the supplies of Members or of C&W DC in the working room unattended during this long period of time. Given the implementation of the work from home arrangement, these facilities would not be open, which was a practice adopted in all 18 districts. She also said that the Secretariat had issued and circulated to Members a letter regarding the operation of the working room, which stated that the working room would be open during office hours. Members could give views on office hours and further discuss it. She stressed that it was based on the work from home arrangement and security concerns that the decision to close the working room was made.

194. The Vice-chairman asked DO(C&W) to explain what office hours meant and if Members should be consulted before closing the working room, saying that this was a matter of respect.

195. DO(C&W) said that Members should have a general understanding of what office hours meant. However, if Members had a different understanding, it could be further discussed based on Members’ opinion. C&WDO staff had been trying their best to cooperate. Besides, she believed that the letter circulated to Members had already explained the matter, and C&WDO had also posted a notice at the door about closure of the working room. Hence, they did not specifically inform Members about this. Also, the Government had issued a press release announcing the work from home arrangement. She said that communication could be improved, such as by giving prior notice to all Members, should similar cases arise in the future.

196. Ms BOOK King-shun, Executive Officer I (District Council) of C&WDO, said that she was the one who answered Miss YAM Ka-yi’s telephone call that day asking if the working room could be open. Ms BOOK said that there was a computer belonging to the C&WDO inside the working room which was considered as valuable. Besides, under the work from home arrangement, there might not be C&WDO staff attending the offices at 11th and 14th floors of Harbour building for 14 consecutive days. Hence, it was considered safer to lock up the working room. She said that between the time when the working room was locked up and when Miss YAM Ka-yi telephoned her on the day of the said meeting, they did not receive any message from Members requesting for opening the working room. She said they had considered that if Members needed to open the door, the staff would contact their colleagues on duty at the enquiry centre on ground floor of the building to provide assistance. Ms BOOK said that on the day of that meeting, when she received the telephone call from Miss YAM, she asked if Miss YAM urgently required the door be opened. Miss YAM said at the time that she wanted to get back some documents, but did not mention about the tripod.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 100 She had asked if Miss YAM needed assistance from C&WDO staff, but Miss YAM said it was not necessary and she could find ways to resolve it herself. Ms BOOK said that she could try to find some colleagues to help if Miss YAM required assistance.

197. The Vice-chairman opined that C&WDO had handled the matter improperly. He believed that it was not solely the responsibility of individual staff, but also the 18 District Offices and individual District Officers. He also said that DO(C&W) had been evasive and declined to provide an explanation on office hours. He opined that office hours meant whenever the Council was in operation. If a meeting of the Council lasted until 12 midnight, then office hours should also last until 12 midnight. In addition, he considered that working from home was not tantamount to enjoying vacation leave, and the staff members should be performing their duties during such period. Furthermore, he pointed out that Members were holding a meeting during the daytime working hours that day, and civil servants working from home did not mean that the entire office building had ceased operation. Lastly, he opined that the working room should not be locked as Members had long ago indicated that they would come back for a meeting, and he expressed deep regret about it.

198. Mr KAM Nai-wai said he would like to discuss about future operation. He believed that under the direction of the Chief Executive, District Officer would only act against the Council. Even if there was tacit understanding and consensus in the past, now it must be expressly stated that if a working room was provided by the District Office for Members, Members would work inside the working room at any time. He hoped that the Chairman would ask the Government to remove valuable items that were government properties, such as computers. Password of the door lock could be discussed among Members. Members only needed a room accessible to them, with chairs and desk, as well as some place to put documents inside for holding meetings. Members should also be allowed to put materials procured by them in the working room. He considered it unacceptable that Members did not know about the locking of the working room, and that this represented the suppression of elected Council by different means. He pointed out that if this was a unanimous decision, it would mean that the Central Government’s direction was to suppress the elected Council.

199. The Vice-chairman also considered that this was unacceptable and the arrangement showed no respect to the Council at all. He said that C&WDO should consult Members in advance but failed to do so, nor did it respond to Members’ questions.

200. The Chairman said that the conference room was also not open between early February and 20 February, and the Council had arranged to hold meetings at the lobby of the Immigration Department on 2/F. As regards Miss YAM Ka-yi’s remark that she was unable to get back the meeting materials, the Chairman opined that although the working room was under C&WDO’s management, Members should be informed before locking the room. She

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 101 hoped that in case there was a need to implement the work from home arrangement again in future, the working room would not be locked up as Members still needed to work any time.

201. Mr YIP Kam-lung added that it was common for Members to work round the clock. He also pointed out that the password of the working room’s door lock was disclosed when the letter about the working room was displayed on the projector screen just now. He hoped that the Secretariat would change the password for security purpose. (Ms BOOK King-shun of the C&WDO said that the password would be changed in five minutes.)

202. Miss YAM Ka-yi said that she was not against any staff members on this matter. However, she recalled that Ms BOOK King-shun of the C&WDO replied at the time that no staff members of the Secretariat were present in Harbour Building, and since she did not know there could be other ways to resolve the problem, she replied that she would find ways to resolve it herself. She was puzzled that the working room was locked without Members being notified in advance to get back their belongings, remarking that Members had placed many documents inside the working room. She reckoned that such an incident would not happen if Members had been notified in advance, and said that ways to improve the situation should be considered.

203. DO(C&W) explained that the difference in handling the matter in the current term compared with that in the previous term was due to the work from home arrangement for civil servants during this period. All the facilities under C&WDO’s management had to be closed for security reasons. However, she admitted that there was room for improvement in communication and Members should be notified in advance. She did not want Members to have too many unnecessary speculations, and could not accept some Member’s remark that she acted against the Council under the direction of the Chief Executive. She said that the time she spent on contacting Members via phone calls from January till now could prove this. She opined that the Vice-chairman’s remark just now that working from home was tantamount to enjoying vacation leave was an insult to both her colleagues and herself. She pointed out that her colleagues, during the work from home period, had been dealing with anti-epidemic work day and night. She said she had no comment on the overall stance of Members, but hoped that Members could respect civil servants, including those in the police force, saying that they had not stopped working while working from home. As for the use of the working room, she was deeply sorry for not specifically informing Members about its closure in advance. She said she would follow up with the Secretariat on improvement measures. She also welcomed Members’ views in this regard, and said C&WDO would make corresponding arrangements as far as possible.

204. The Vice-chairman explained that the reason he highlighted the issue of working from home was because the department’s reply on this paper did not show any feelings of

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 102 regret and admit its mistakes. It only emphasised that the working room would only open during office hours and would be closed during non-office hours. He opined that the “work from home” period should not be taken as non-office hours in order to close the working room. Also, he said that staff members of the Secretariat had the responsibility to return to the office to open the door as it was still during office hours. In addition, he believed that there was room for improvement in everything, but the current problem was that the working room was closed without Members being notified, which was a disrespect for the Council and Members. He said that the time during which the Council was holding meetings was office hours. Since Members had informed the C&WDO that they would hold a meeting on that day, the Secretariat should provide assistance as the time during such meeting was office hours. In addition, on the security front, he said that the building had security guards on duty. Those who accessed the building were recorded by the security guards, and unauthorised persons would be denied access to the government building. He was puzzled why the working room was locked up when Members had to use it for work purpose. He emphasised that this was office hours instead of vacation leave.

205. The Vice-chairman invited Members to express views on the arrangements that the Secretariat could not lock up the working room and for security guards to check DC Member Cards and staff cards of other departments’ staff before allowing them to enter. Members had no other comments and unanimously agreed the arrangements.

206. DO(C&W) responded that the only reason for locking the room was to ensure safety when there was no staff member working in the office. She understood that Members had to work any time. However, other districts were using keys instead of password lock. C&W DC Secretariat would not specifically lock the door, but was not sure whether it was actually safe to use only the password lock. She said that burglaries had occurred in some other buildings due to the use of only password lock. She was duty-bound to ensure the safety of documents and resources of C&WDO and Members. She hoped Members would understand that C&WDO would not lock the door of the working room for no reason. Also, she had to study whether password lock could provide adequate security and undertook to inform Members of the door locking arrangement.

207. The Vice-chairman said that the situation would not be that bad as the building had security guards. Also, since all Members could access the working rom, he believed that no Member would place valuable objects inside the room. He said that there was no need for further discussion on the issue.

208. The Vice-chairman put the motion proposed in Paper No. 62/2020 to vote. The following motion was adopted after voting.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 103 Motion: The Central and Western District Council (C&W DC) strongly protests against and condemns District Officer (Central and Western) for closing the office room reserved for C&W DC members; and strongly requests the Government to seek prior consent of C&W DC on the use of the office room, including its closing time.

(Proposed by Mr KAM Nai-wai and seconded by Ms NG Hoi-yan)

(14 affirmative votes: Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr NG Siu-hong, Mr PANG Ka-ho, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Miss YAM Ka-yi, Mr YIP Kam-lung)

(0 dissenting vote)

(0 abstention vote)

209. The Vice-chairman ended the discussion on this item.

Item 12: Request for Exploring Trial Closure of Part of Des Voeux Road Central for Designation as Pedestrian Precinct to Improve Overall Pedestrian Environment (C&W DC Paper No. 62/2020) (10:25 pm – 11:36 pm)

210. The Chairman welcomed representatives of the Transport Department (TD), HKPF, Walk DVRC and MVA, and flat owners of Hongway Garden to the meeting. She invited the representatives of Walk DVRC to give a presentation.

211. Mr Markus SHAW, Chair of Walk DVRC, said that Walk DVRC was a non-governmental organisation (NGO) formed to promote pedestrianisation of Des Voeux Road Central and better neighbourhoods. The company had been advocating since 2000 for pedestrian improvements on Des Voeux Road Central. It had a steering committee with experts from the fields of architecture, urban planning, traffic planning and marketing, and had invested over $12,000,000 in research to demonstrate the feasibility of pedestrianisation in Des Voeux Road Central over 20 years. According to the research done by City University of Hong Kong in 2015, Des Voeux Road Central was the most polluted stretch of road on the north shore of Hong Kong Island, with examples of pedestrians fighting with traffic and congestion on the pavements. In no other places of the world would this sort of thing be tolerated, not in Tokyo, Singapore, Taipei, nor Seoul. Sheung Wan and Central had many heritage sites at the moment, but they were very badly connected and the main reason for that was pedestrian congestion and traffic congestion. Mr SHAW said Hong Kong could do better

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 104 than this. He stressed that this was not just about Des Voeux Road Central, it was about the pedestrianisation of Des Voeux Road Central to create a better neighbourhood in our historic CBD, to revive our CBD, and to connect our cultural and heritage sites. With the aid of PowerPoint slides, Mr SHAW gave some examples from around the world, including (i) Times Square on Boardway in New York City, remarking that Boardway was the Des Voeux Road Central of New York City. Two blocks were shut down there to traffic to become a pedestrian area, which was originally a trial scheme but had now been made permanent; (ii) Trafalgar Square in London. There used to be heavy traffic, now it was pedestrianised and had become a wonderful place to be; (iii) Oxford Street in London, very similar to Des Voeux Road Central in Hong Kong. The area was for retail and commerical only with lots of bus routes, so very similar to the situation there in Hong Kong; (iv) the Des Voeux Road Central of Vienna, where two lanes of traffic were taken away and pedestrianised, some traffic was allowed to continue. There was a very good sharing of space between pedestrians and traffic; (v) the Des Voeux Road Central in Tokyo. Roads in Ginza were closed to vehicles and completely pedestrianised on weekends; and (vi) Orchard Road in Singapore, the Des Voeux Road Central of Singapore. Slides showing an event there organised by the Orchard Road Business Association and supported by the Singapore Tourism Board, which attracted over 50 000 shoppers, twice the average Saturday night footfall and was a very successful scheme. Mr SHAW quoted the words of Mr KK LING, Former Director of Planning, that “All global, historic Central Business District regeneration projects have begun with pedestrianisation schemes.” Mr KK LING was now an advisor to the Board of Walk DVRC.

212. Mr SHAW of Walk DVRC continued that their long term goal was to pedestrianise the whole 1.4 km stretch of Des Voeux Road Central from Pedder Street to Western Market. One lane (eastbound) would remain permanently open. Trams would continue to run. Cross streets would remain open. Three lanes became dedicated to pedestrians. Amenities such as seating, shading and greening were added. Slides showing what it would look like. On the right it was the eastbound lane, the other lanes would be closed and pedestrianised. Mr SHAW said Walk DVRC realised that it was highly ambitious to pedestrianise the 1.4 km stretch completely in one go. So, they proposed a phased pedestrianisation. The initial project was called the “Sheung Wan Fiesta”. It was a 90-day closure of two blocks of Des Voeux Road Central from Western Market to Hillier Street. Walk DVRC suggested October to December this year because it coincided with the postponed HK Rugby 7s event and would get Hong Kong Tourism Board’s approval and support. It could also be coordinated with Sheung Wan Promenade and various Christmas markets. During the said period, trams would continue to run and cross streets would remain open. The Sheung Wan Fiesta would run from 10 am to 10 pm. These sections would be open to traffic, deliveries, loading/unloading outside these hours. There would be seating and greening, local sustainable food, tested traffic arrangement and rigorous street management. Slides showing the two blocks of Des Voeux Road Central, Hillier Street and Morrison Street, that would be closed as mentioned.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 105 Eight components were proposed for the Sheung Wan Fiesta: (i) Seating, outdoor shading and greening; (ii) Food and beverage elements, showcasing Hong Kong’s local food production, organic food market, crafted beers, etc., which were for weekends only; (iii) Performance and entertainment, also available on weekends only; (iv) Technology on the street, providing things like free WiFi, pollution measurement, etc.; (v) Walking tours to the heritage sites around Des Voeux Road Central; (vi) Street Management and safety; (vii) Promotion and publicity; and (viii) A heritage and informational app would be provided. Mr SHAW showed the design of the street pavilion and outside seating and shading. There would be planters planted with Chinese medicinal and cooking herbs, spices. The Chinese Medicine Department of Chinese University of Hong Kong would provide programmes and volunteers to give tours of these plants. Mr SHAW showed what the Food Market looked like, which would only be available on weekends. It would be a kind of farmers’ market, hot food stalls, with organic produce and locally produced food, crafted beers, and so on. Although the market only opened on weekends, the seating there would be available to residents for enjoyment on weekdays.

213. Mr SHAW of Walk DVRC continued that there were four frequently raised issues. First of all was traffic management; secondly, street management; thirdly, the effect on retailers and restaurants; and fourthly, why 90 days. For traffic management, Walk DVRC had commissioned a traffic impact assessment (TIA) carried out by MVA, which had examined all issues, such as loading/unloading, relocation and re-routing of bus stops and buses. They had had input from TD, C&W DC, Police, Fire Services Department and bus companies. Mr SHAW stressed that only one single bus stop needed to be moved from those two blocks of Des Voeux Road Central. MVA had also proposed a trial/test run in June or July for one week to test the traffic programme and how it worked. Regarding traffic arrangement, MVA would answer relevant questions in more detail later. For loading/unloading, as the street was open from 10 am to 10 pm, and also all cross streets would remain open, so it would never be more than a block away from where one needed to deliver to. On street management, the Sheung Wan Fiesta was different from the Hollywood Road event; there had been a lot of criticism about the latter. There were no residential buildings in the area where the Sheung Wan Fiesta took place. The nearest housing was Hongway Garden, which was about two football fields away from this section of Des Voeux Road Central. The Sheung Wan Fiesta was different from the Hollywood Road event. The Sheung Wan Fiesta was not a carnival, but a project to promote a walkable Central Business District and encourage retail growth. As it would take place over a length of time, so problems could be identified and corrected. This would not be possible with just a weekend closure. Besides, street management would prevent the ‘dama’ problem from happening. Walk DVRC would have private security, and cooperate with Police and volunteers in this regard. It would have public relations strategies for the use of space, and strict regulations in place regarding noise and permitted activities. These regulations would be posted online and on the site. There would also be an informational app. These set out what could or could not take place on that stretch of Des

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 106 Voeux Road Central. Regarding private security hired by Walk DVRC, there would be 24-hour security guards (10 each day, including Public Holidays, for 90 days). There would be a security command control booth, as well as radio links between the guards.

214. Regarding the impact on retailers/restaurants, Mr SHAW of Walk DVRC stressed that retailers/restaurants would be part of the planning in this event. An app would provide information on all the shops and restaurants, including their history, specialties, special discounts or promotions. Retailers/restaurants would benefit from the increased footfall, especially on the weekends when it was very quiet in those areas. Walk DVRC had done some market research in August 2018. Of the affected businesses on that stretch of Des Voeux Road Central, there was a general majority in favour of their proposal. He mentioned about some market research about the impact of pedestrianisation in these schemes all over the world. The report showed that pedestrianisation could greatly increase footfall and raise revenue of local businesses. An example was the New York City Times Square. Retail sales grew and outperformed that of the entire district. Lastly, Mr SHAW explained why the trial period was 90 days. He said that it took on average 66 days for new behaviour to become automatic, and it took 21 days to break a pattern addiction. So, it took time to measure, readjust and finetune the arrangements. Also, it was an expensive, nulti-million dollar event. So, it was just as expensive to do an event like this for three weeks as it was for three months. Moreover, this scheme had been introduced all around the world, and the trial was much more than three months. In New York City, the Boardway trial scheme lasted for three years. To conclude, Walk DVRC believed that this scheme would bring benefits to the whole society, create cleaner air, increase footfall for retailers, showcase local heritage and culture, and brand the CBD as a destination. Mr SHAW said he had worked on this campaign over three years and given over 70 presentations to all sorts of audiences. In his career in civil society with involvement in many campaigns, this was the first one that he had been involved with where nobody thought was a bad idea, so public support was very high.

215. The Chairman said that many departments had submitted written response on the paper: TD said that it could not respond because it had yet to receive details of road trial run for the temporary traffic arrangement; Highways Department (HyD) replied that this was not within its terms of reference; and HKPF said that it was awaiting relevant information from TD before it could respond.

216. The Chairman invited Mr LO Chi-wing, Committee Member of the Incorporated Owners of Hongway Garden, to speak on the project. Mr LO said that the project had a profound impact, because residents would not be able to enter the housing estate once that stretch of road was closed. Also, given that residents of the housing estate were ageing, in case an accident occurred, emergency vehicles such as fire engines or ambulances would not be able to access the housing estate to provide emergency services. Elders riding on vehicles

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 107 would also not be able to enter the housing estate directly. He said Walk DVRC claimed that cross streets remained open for accessing the housing estate. In reality, cross streets like Wing Lok Street, , and Central were often heavily congested. Mr LO reckoned that the trial closure of the section of Des Voeux Road Central in Sheung Wan for 90 days proposed under the pedestrianisation scheme was too long. He queried that the relevant organisation had only consulted shop operators but not the residents of the nearby developments. He pointed out that many flat owners of Hongway Garden also opposed the project, believing that there would be profound traffic impact.

217. Mr WU Fat-tim, Committee Member of the Incorporated Owners of Hongway Garden, said that there were often many loading/unloading activities along Wing Lok Street. The location was narrow with a lot of traffic. It was therefore inappropriate to close the section of Des Voeux Road Central in Sheung Wan for the pedestrianisation scheme.

218. The Chairman invited Members to express their views on the paper. The main points of their comments were as follows:

(a) The Vice-chairman said that the pedestrianisation scheme sounded good by itself and had many appealing features. However, he cited the example of the Pedestrian Precinct, saying that initially the public had high hopes on it, but the result was disappointing and it was cancelled at last. The subject scheme did not mention how to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct nor provide solution to the problems.

(b) Mr KAM Nai-wai said that the Sheung Wan Promenade, a holiday bazaar, had been held in the Central and Western District for many years since 2003. It was only until last year that the event was suspended due to the social movements. He pointed out that the event was originally held to revive the economy affected by the SARS outbreak. So, it might be a good thing if Walk DVRC’s programme could revive the economy affected by COVID-19. However, he said that although the Sheung Wan Promenade was a good event, there were many problems needed to be solved in its actual operation, just like the situation in the Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct mentioned by the Vice-chairman earlier. Mr KAM would like to know how the streets in the pedestrian precinct were managed. He said that when talking about pedestrian precinct, the Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct would come to people’s mind, thus creating a negative impression. He raised three key questions. The first was that the users of the pedestrian precinct in Central might mostly be foreigners, it was therefore necessary to give thoughts to road management. The second was public transportation. He said that there was

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 108 severe traffic congestion in the area Monday to Friday from 8 am to 8 pm. He considered it a challenge to resolve the traffic problem so that events could be held there Monday through Friday. Besides, the boarding and alighting locations of public transport route, such as buses and minibuses also needed to be dealt with. So, he opined that pedestrian and passenger flows, public transportation services, and vehicular traffic flow should also be taken into account. The third was related to public participation. Mr KAM said that while participation of shop operators nearby was important, the participation of nearby residents was also crucial. Taking the residents of Hongway Garden mentioned earlier as example, it was necessary to engage them and solve the difficulties facing elderly residents in accessing the housing estate. To conclude, issues concerning road and traffic management, as well as public participation must also be resolved; and how they could be resolved was open to discussion. He indicated that he currently opposed to the implementation of this 90-day pedestrian trial scheme, but hoped that the scheme would have a chance to be successfully implemented. He hoped that ways to resolve the three major issues he raised just now could be further explored. As to whether that stretch of road was to be closed for 90 days then, it should be subject to further deliberation, and he did not wish to agree to the 90-day trial scheme at the moment.

(c) Mr YIP Kam-lung said that the concept of pedestrianisation was good, but too many problems were involved in its implementation. Representatives of Hongway Garden had just relayed one of these, that is, the lack of participation of residents of the neighbourhood. Mr YIP said he recalled that the same scheme was launched in 2016, under which a pedestrian precinct of 1.4 km was originally planned, but somehow only ended up with 200 m. Mr YIP said he felt terrified when he visited the site at that time, as it was surrounded by traffic cones. He believed that the person in charge did not want this to happen. He pointed out that in terms of the prevailing road conditions, the said situation would definitely occur if a pedestrian precinct was to be set up at a place with trams running. Coupled with the lack of community participation, residents were not aware of what was happening, dispute might easily arise at the time of implementation. He said that the trial scheme was essential, but there must be proper coordination with other departments. Mr YIP believed that Walk DVRC, the NGO in charge of this project, as well as various stakeholders, including government departments and local residents, should jointly discuss the project. Mr YIP opined that as it seemed that TD, HyD and the Police were shirking responsibilities among themselves, he had reservations about this scheme. Coupled with its impact

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 109 on traffic, he suggested that the matter should be further discussed in detail at meetings of the Traffic & Transport Committee. As far as Mr YIP understood, the C&W DC's position was that it would not approve the leasing out of open space for food establishment. This was a consensus reached earlier at a meeting of the Building Management, Environmental Hygiene and Works Committee. He therefore believed that one of Walk DVRC's suggestions, that is, setting up restaurants at open space was not feasible.

(d) Mr HO Chi-wang agreed that the concept of the scheme was good and was aware that there were many successful examples overseas. However, he pointed out that some people in Hong Kong lacked self-discipline. How to avoid situations like ‘dama’ singing required proper planning. He also cited the example of the ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct, remarking that some companies such as telecommunications companies would exploit the grey area in the law for commercial promotion and to solicit business. He believed that if a pedestrian precinct was to be set up, it was necessary to think about how to prevent these things from happening in the pedestrian precinct in Central. In addition, he said that the traffic problem in the vicinity was also difficult to deal with. It would be meaningless if the place was to be surrounded by traffic cones like what Mr YIP had mentioned just now. Mr HO said that many members of the public were unaware of the pedestrian precinct of that previous scheme during its trial run. He considered that it was mainly because the Government did not attach importance to that scheme. Hence, for successful implementation of the subject scheme, it was crucial for the Government to give recognition and attach importance to the scheme. Otherwise, it would be meaningless if the efforts had gone unnoticed.

(e) Miss YAM Ka-yi said that she would like to raise a few points after examining the proposal. First, she did not know whether the COVID-19 epidemic would be over by the end of the year. Second, regarding traffic issues, she said that while Walk DVRC indicated that a test run was necessary, TD and the Police appeared to have no idea about it at all. She asked Walk DVRC when the test run would take place and whether it had informed relevant departments of the schedule. She considered it somewhat undesirable if the proposal was submitted to the C&W DC for discussion when the test run schedule was not yet available. Third, the duration of implementation was too long. She pointed out that 90 days was too long for Hong Kong people given the large extent of impact, including those who commuted to the Central and Western District for work. Those taking buses or minibuses would pass by Des Voeux Road Central. The closure hours (i.e. from 10 am to 10 pm)

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 110 was also too long, during which participants had to clear up the stalls and crowd dispersal was necessary. She opined that consideration should be given as to whether minor adjustments were needed. Miss YAM said that the proposed pedestrian precinct was close to cultural and historical landmarks and the proposal had listed out many historical landmarks. However, it did not explain how to combine the pedestrian precinct with these historical landmarks. She said that she agreed with the concept of the scheme, but many problems would arise in the course of implementation as Hong Kong was a small place with lots of people. In addition, she opined that there should be a contingency plan to deal with the access of emergency vehicles, remarking that these problems must be resolved first in order to lobby for the nearby residents’ support for the proposal. It would be difficult to implement the proposal if the above questions could not be answered.

(a) Mr WONG Weng-chi believed that the public would agree with the concept of environmental protection and carbon emission reduction embodied in this proposal, but the location of implementation (i.e. Central District) would cause huge controversy. Mr WONG said that it was difficult to understand why the busiest area in Hong Kong was chosen for implementation of the scheme, saying that among all areas across the territory, Central District was the area where implementation of the proposal would meet with the greatest resistance. He said that if Central District was chosen because of the presence of lots of historical landmarks nearby, many similar landmarks could also be found in various other districts. He pointed out that the pedestrian precinct scheme for Mong Kok also ended in failure, and most members of the public were concerned that implementation of such scheme in Central District would have huge impact on the traffic in Western District. Mr WONG said that he would not support the proposal at this stage.

(g) Mr HUI Chi-fung said that the whole scheme had been discussed for over 10 years. The scheme covered a 1.4 km stretch of road from Western Market to Pedder Street, which would affect his constituency the most. As regards the three-month test run, it should affect half of his and half of Mr KAM Nai-wai's constituency. Mr HUI said that, to him, the scheme was an environmental issue, as well as an urban development and design issue. He said that there had been much discussion on previous environmental issues, such as cycling tracks in urban areas, electronic road pricing schemes, municipal solid waste charging, etc. There were also disputes about the technical details. Remarking that the concerns raised by Members just now were justified, he, being in support of the scheme for more than a decade, hoped to treat the

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 111 scheme fairly. He said that the TIA had been completed, and consideration had been given on issues including emergency vehicle access and bus route diversion. There was also ample consultation. Mr HUI said that he had lived in Hongway Garden for two years before and was also a motorist, and he believed that the scheme was feasible. He said that urban development must go through debates, and called on Members to be more imaginative, open-minded, and magnanimous. He pointed out that this was a trial scheme. If there was no opportunity for trial, there would be no way forward nor improvement. Mr HUI cited Gage Street as an example, saying that vehicles seldom travel on this street because it was extremely inconvenient. Gage Street was a place for shopping and frequented by pedestrians, which seemed to have become a pedestrian precinct over time. Even if the street was closed and became inaccessible to fire engines, the public would not object. Mr HUI said that he was not supporting Walk DVRC itself, and the whole scheme was non-works related and could be reversed. He hoped that Members would support his impromptu motion.

(h) Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin said that the paper was submitted by her together with several other Members, in hope to inform Members about the issue and induce discussion. She said that she had also participated in the pedestrianisation of Des Voeux Road Central (DVRC Scheme) held for the first time about two years ago, and had a good experience at the time. She believed that if overseas countries could make it, so could Hong Kong. She said that the scheme had been advocated for 10 years, and newly-elected Members might be unfamiliar with the technical details of the scheme or even the previous reports. She believed that they, as responsible Members, should study the relevant reports first and take into account the views of government departments before considering the scheme and making decisions. Miss CHEUNG asked Walk DVRC if the scheme must be implemented within this year, and whether it was possible for Members and government departments to fully review details of the scheme before making a decision. She opined that Walk DVRC could submit the scheme to the forthcoming meeting of the Traffic & Transport Committee for further discussion, so that Members needed not rely solely on the charts, slides displayed and briefing at this meeting to decide whether or not to support the scheme.

(i) Mr LEUNG Fong-wai said that Walk DVRC had put forward a very forward-looking proposal, which was an important attempt to change the city’s landscape. He also wanted to see how a place bustling with activities could be turned into one that was pedestrian-friendly. However, Mr LEUNG

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 112 had slight concern about the duration of the scheme (i.e. three months), opining that changes brought about by the scheme needed to be dealt with first, such as changes in traffic condition and residents' living habits. Mr LEUNG suggested shortening the duration to one month, which was enough to show people some of the changes brought about by transforming Des Voeux Road Central into a pedestrian-friendly environment.

(j) The Chairman asked who was to bear the costs for security, calculated on the basis of 90 days of trial, 24 hours a day. The Chairman said that she had once set up a ward office at 4/F of 304 Des Voeux Road Central in Sheung Wan, so she was quite familiar with the streets in the area. Quoting Mr HUI Chi-fung’s remark that the scheme had been discussed for over 10 years, she said she only learned about this scheme of Walk DVRC on 25 September 2016 (Sunday). She wanted to know why Walk DVRC had to launch this scheme, remarking that tendering was required for schemes launched by the Government. If TD planned to implement this project, it would select, in a fair manner, a suitable NGO or organisation familiar with traffic matters through tendering procedures to take forward implementation. The Chairman believed that residents in Sheung Wan preferred a quiet Sunday rather than a noisy one, as most residents worked Monday through Saturday and wanted to take a quiet rest on Sunday. She said that noise complaints had also been received against the Sheung Wan Promenade held previously. Besides, she said Walk DVRC had indicated that only one bus stop needed relocation. However, as there were many bus routes plying along the stretch of road covered by the scheme via areas within other districts, she believed that Walk DVRC might need to consult the District Councils concerned. For example, if bus route no. 26 would be affected, it was necessary to consult the District Councils of the areas where the bus route plying through, including the Wan Chai District Council. She said that bus passengers might complain about routing modifications if C&W DC approved this 90-day trial pedestrian scheme, remarking that currently many people enjoying elderly concessionary fare would travel by bus. As regards the closure hours from 10 am to 10 pm, the Chairman asked if it would cause inconvenience to workers engaging in loading/unloading activities. Also, as there were a number of service hotels on the stretch of road covered by the scheme, Walk DVRC might also need to consult them. The Chairman said that she was not opposing to the scheme and she was a supporter of environmental protection, but she would also like to listen to the views of the TD and Police.

219. Mr Markus SHAW of Walk DVRC said they could not answer all the specific

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 113 questions at this meeting, but he assured that all the questions would be dealt with in much detail. He said that Walk DVRC had done a TIA, and was shocked that TD and the Police said that they had not received any detail on the proposal. He remarked that Walk DVRC and the departments had met before, and had a long meeting with the Police and bus companies. They also had several meetings with the Police as well. Citing Hongway Garden flat owners’ remark that Walk DVRC had not done a public consultation, Mr SHAW said that a public forum was held in Hongway Garden in November 2018, where Walk DVRC’s CEO, Ms Jennifer FRISINGER and representatives of their traffic consultant, MVA, were present. Mr SHAW said that pedestrianisation was not shutting up Hongway Garden, as Morrison Street remained open to traffic. So, residents were not going to be blocked off and emergency vehicles would still have access to Hongway Garden. Mr SHAW said MVA would talk about the traffic arrangements afterwards. He stressed that the scheme would only affect one bus stop that a number of bus routes were using.

220. Mr Edmond CHU, Technical Director of MVA, said they had been in contact with the TD and Police to monitor the traffic condition. He said that the scheme would not hinder the access of residents to/from Hongway Garden, and access to the housing estate would be kept clear and unobstructed. He explained that the scheme started at 10 am and ended at 10 pm, in order to avoid the morning peak hour traffic. He said that the project primarily aimed to provide a walkable environment, and vehicles would inevitably be affected. As some sections of Des Voeux Road Central were designated for buses or trams, other vehicles would need to make a detour and longer journey time was required. Mr CHU said that to avoid causing traffic congestion, the consultant had conducted some traffic flow assessments, and had done some research after the opening of the Central – Wan Chai Bypass to collect data. He pointed out that the firm had all along been exploring the matter with the TD. Regarding TD’s remark that the firm did not submit report on the test run, he understood that Members were concerned that the 90-day trial period was too long, and there would be dire consequences if anything went wrong from the very beginning. He said that after seeking Members’ views, a "trial" would be conducted as part of the test run, under which traffic cones would be placed on the road to test the traffic condition. Contingency measures would be formulated to reopen the road if problems were identified; or if traffic congestion was noted, modifications would be made to the scheme. He believed that most Members were in favour of the concept of the scheme, though they had raised many questions about its implementation and considered that there would be great difficulty in handling the traffic. Hence, the consultant would not conduct a 90-day test run right from the start. Instead, it would submit a report to the TD and conduct a test run of seven days or several days; or conduct tests on Saturdays/Sundays and then try running it on Mondays to Fridays. That stretch of road would be reopened if traffic congestion was resulted. The firm would adopt different approaches, and make adjustment after obtaining the data and share it with Members. Regarding the access arrangement of emergency vehicles, Mr CHU said they had also communicated with the

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 114 Fire Services Department. Bus stop relocation arrangement could be explained in detail at the next meeting.

221. Mr FUNG Wai-yan, Engineer/Central & Western 1 of the TD, said that Walk DVRC engaged traffic consultancy firm, MVA, to conduct a TIA on the scheme in December 2018. As the Central – Wan Chai Bypass was about to open at that time, the department asked the consultant to collect traffic data after the bypass was open to prepare a more proper TIA. The consultant had subsequently collected more traffic data in response to the request. In addition to vehicular traffic flow, data on waiting time of passengers at bus stops were also collected. The TIA report submitted by the consultant offered high reference value, which had also highlighted several locations that had greater impact on traffic. Mr FUNG said that currently many public transport vehicles (mainly buses) would pass through Des Voeux Road Central. How to divert public transport services from Des Voeux Road Central to other roads, such as the already very busy Connaught Road Central and Wing Lok Street nearby, would be the most critical and challenging part of the scheme. Mr FUNG said the consultant's report pointed out that traffic would be affected as two bus stops would become busier due to the scheme. If Walk DVRC wished to prove the preliminary feasibility of the scheme by conducting a trial run, the department hoped that it would first conduct a partial trial run at locations near the two bus stops. The reason being that the road sections could be reopened immediately if serious traffic issues occurred. Meanwhile, the traffic impact brought about by the complete closure of the 200 m long road section could also be avoided. In addition, as stated in TD’s written reply, the scheme would affect nearby residents, and picking up/setting down passengers or loading/unloading goods by vehicles would be particularly affected. He pointed out that as the closure hours were from 10 am to 10 pm, picking up/setting down passengers or loading/unloading goods by vehicles could only be carried out outside these hours. Although TD had always encouraged picking up/setting down passengers or loading/unloading goods by vehicles during off-peak hours in busy areas, the public’s needs and habits also had to be considered and balanced. Mr FUNG said that the department had reservation about the scheme at the present stage, and would consider it after receiving the consultant’s proposal on partial trial run.

222. Mr TSE Ming-yeung, District Commander (Central District) of the HKPF, said that the C&W DC of the last term had discussed about the scheme. It was the understanding at that time that 90 routes and over 4 000 vehicle trips would pass through that stretch of road. They had not received the TIA report at that time, and so far the Central Police Station had not received any relevant information on the scheme. He said he was not sure which division of the HKPF was it that TD was following up the matter with.

223. Mr FUNG Wai-yan, Engineer/Central & Western 1 of the TD, said that the department received the draft TIA report from MVA at the end of 2018, and held an

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 115 inter-departmental meeting with MVA afterwards. Representatives of Enforcement and Control Division, Traffic Hong Kong Island of HKPF and the Fire Services Department were also present at that meeting. Taking into account that the opening of the Central – Wan Chai Bypass in early 2019 would change the traffic flow, the department therefore asked the consultant to conduct a traffic survey and re-examine the scheme after the opening of the bypass for its further consideration.

224. The Chairman said that public participation was important, and how various stakeholders could obtain information about the project was also important.

225. Mr Markus SHAW of Walk DVRC said that Walk DVRC did not want to claim ownership to this project. It was a pressure group and only wished to see this happen. He said they were happy for the C&W DC set up a committee to look into this further and to examine all the details of the scheme. Walk DVRC had a lot of information and could pass so onto C&W DC to look at the feasibility of this project. They could help with that process and be involved in that process or not. He said that since C&W DC already had a committee to look at the organisation of the Sheung Wan Promenade, the brief of that committee might also be expanded to look at the feasibility of this project as well.

226. Mr HUI Chi-fung said that being one of the Members who submitted the paper and a proponent of the scheme, he wanted to see the scheme implemented. After listening to the views of Members and government departments, he shared Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin's views that Members should be given more time to peruse the content of the paper and discuss the scheme. The matter could also be discussed more thoroughly at meetings of the Traffic & Transport Committee in future. These would facilitate Members to decide whether or not to promote the scheme. Hence, he decided not to proceed with the impromptu motion.

227. Mr YIP Kam-lung said that if there was need for road closures or trial runs, a paper should be submitted for discussion at the Traffic & Transport Committee first. Remarking that Mr HUI Chi-fung was the chairman of the Working Group on Walkable City and Electronic Road Pricing and member of the Traffic & Transport Committee, as well as a proponent of the scheme, Mr YIP believed that it was more appropriate for the Working Group on Walkable City and Electronic Road Pricing chaired by Mr HUI to coordinate the pedestrianisation scheme for Des Voeux Road Central. He reckoned that many details of the scheme were yet to be discussed, and participation of other departments was essential. To implement the scheme, the most important thing was to dispel the doubts of residents as well as road users.

228. Mr WONG Weng-chi said that the disputes arose from the last time such scheme was launched were not yet resolved. He suggested that trial run of a shorter duration, such as

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 116 a Sunday, instead of a large-scale trial of 90 days, should be considered. This was because such a large scale trial run required significant support from the local community. Mr WONG opined that the scheme lacked community support at the present stage, and suggested that the proponents should collect views from the local community first and take this as an incubation period for the scheme.

229. Miss YAM Ka-yi said that she was not completely opposed to this scheme, but noted that there was a lack of communication among departments and between departments and Walk DVRC. She hoped that the minutes and related documents of meetings between the departments and Walk DVRC could be provided to Members for perusal to allow Members to better understand the entire scheme. She said that regarding the concern on emergency vehicle access Members raised just now, it was just learned that the issue had been discussed among the departments, but residents knew nothing about it. No wonder they did not support the scheme.

230. The Vice-chairman said that Members were not completely opposed to this scheme. They liked the concept of the scheme, but had too little time to digest the information and there was also a lack of specific details. The Vice-chairman believed that this scheme would bring significant impact, especially on nearby residents, shops, those who went to work, and even passers-by. He therefore suggested that Walk DVRC should contact those Members who were interested in this scheme to set up a working group to review the information in detail, for only by doing so could the problems be solved.

231. The Chairman said that the scheme would be referred to the Working Group on Walkable City and Electronic Road Pricing for follow-up.

232. Mr KAM Nai-wai stressed that he was not opposed to this scheme, but did not agree to endorse the 90-day test run at the present stage. He also hoped that the scheme could be implemented, but believed that it should be taken forward in three directions. The first was to conduct a comprehensive assessment on public transport and pedestrian volume, including emergency vehicles, to let Members know how the scheme was implemented. The second was proper road management. He pointed out that Mr SHAW’s proposal of 24-hour security services might not be feasible, because security guards of private organisations could not take law enforcement actions in public places. He did not want the scheme to repeat the same mistakes of the Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct. The third was public participation. It was necessary to consider how to engage the participation of residents of Hongway Garden, residents and shops nearby, as well as all citizens in Hong Kong in this scheme. He believed that only by following these three directions could solutions be found and would the scheme have a chance of success. Mr KAM hoped that Walk DVRC would carefully consider whether the scheme had to be implemented within this year, and whether the duration must be

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 117 90 days, saying that this was a huge challenge.

233. The Chairman hoped that all stakeholders would have the opportunity to express their views, whether they be drivers, delivery workers, bus companies, or residents of Tin Shui Wai or Yuen Long District Council. Besides, Walk DVRC also had to deal with many practical problems. She hoped that the scheme could be handled in a fair, just and open manner. She pointed out that some members of the public might ask why an NGO like Walk DVRC had the right to use the space of Des Voeux Road Central. Walk DVRC needed to answer this question, and respond as to why they were interested in launching this scheme. Whether it was because the success of Trafalgar Square in London that the scheme should also be introduced in Hong Kong. She said that this scheme would be referred to the Working Group on Walkable City and Electronic Road Pricing chaired by Mr HUI Chi-fung for follow-up.

234. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), said that she had assisted the department in handling the event organised by Walk DVRC in 2016. She would assist by contacting TD and Walk DVRC in relation to the provision of required information to the working group for follow-up.

235. The Chairman ended the discussion on this item.

Item 13: Strong Condemnation of the Police for Ineffective Law Enforcement, as this has in turn Condoned Sales Activities of a Shop running for Three days from 19 to 21 January 2020, which Attracted Long Queues of People encircling Blake Gardens and occupying the Children’s Playground therein, as well as blocking the Streets around Kui In Fong, Po Hing Fong, Pound Lane, Po Yan Street and Upper Station Street and Destroyed the Tranquility of the Neighbourhood (C&W DC Paper No. 65/2020) (11:36 pm – 12:09 pm)

236. The Vice-chairman welcomed representatives of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) and HKPF to the meeting.

237. The Vice-chairman invited questions and comments from Members. The main points of their comments were as follows:

(a) Ms NG Hoi-yan displayed photos showing the situation on that day. She said that as shown in a photo, Po Hing Fong was full of people standing; at the same location, some people started to walk on carriageway. There were

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 118 nearly a thousand people queuing up towards the end of Po Hing Fong and near Tung Wah Hospital. When the sales was about to begin, the crowd slowly moved to Kui In Fong; and lots of rubbish, including quilts, slippers, and instant cup noodles containers, was left behind after the crowd dispersed following the sales activities. She also mentioned the situation of Blake Gardens after the event (i.e. on the night of 21 January), saying that the refuse collected by LCSD’s cleansing workers as shown in a photo was only cleared up the following night (22 January). Ms NG also asked Members to pay attention to the right side of a photo, remarking that at about 2:30 pm on 20 January, a police officer wearing a hat refused to explain to her the position of the follow-up actions because she did not shake hands with the police officer. She said that she had visited Blake Gardens seven times between 19 and 21 January, and every time, she would ask the Police to take clearance action, but every time the Police only appealed to the people to leave. When street gambling problem was noted, she had asked the Police to enforce the law and take clearance action, but the Police remained indifferent. Ms NG continued that during her site visit with LCSD in the afternoon of 20 January, she had sent photos of two persons suspected to be leaders of "queuing gangs" to the Police Community Relations Office via WhatsApp. However, the Police’s written reply stated that there were no "queuing gangs" on that day. She would like to know the Police's complaint handling procedures. She added that the sales activity of the shop on that day operated like this: the "queuing gangs" first obtained wristbands through the shop for use as identification for entry into the shop. After entering the shop, lots would be drawn and the shoppers’ clothing would be used to decide whether they could buy limited edition sneakers. Ms NG said that at 12:30 am on 20 January, she and Ms CHENG Lai-king went to Blake Gardens for inspection. She said that the Police did not take clearance action at that time. They just parked their vehicle near the site and observed from Tai Ping Shan Street whether the relevant persons continued to participate in street gambling. She was dissatisfied that many of the 10 questions she raised to the Police were not answered. And even though she had provided the Police with photos of the "queuing gangs", the Police had not followed up either. Ms NG also reckoned that LCSD had not responded to question no. 8 (i.e. why camping and gathering were allowed in the park) and question no. 9 (i.e. whether it had sought Police’s assistance in law enforcement in the park and taking clearance action) raised in the paper. She found it hard to understand the department's approach in handling the matter, and why the Police could respond to the questions half-heartedly. She would like to know how the Police assessed public safety and when it would take clearance action. She also wanted to

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 119 know that apart from firing tear gas rounds, whether the Police had other clearance measures. She also said that she had received many complaints online from residents. A resident said that he called 999 at 10:30 pm on 21 January to report a complaint but was hung up on. After making repeated calls, the 999 Console, however, suggested that he should call the Central District Police Station. Another resident complained that he only received a response two hours later after making the call. In addition, a resident said that he called the Police at 1:35 am on 21 January, and the Police arrived 37 minutes later at 2:12 am. In addition, a resident, during an inspection with her and Ms CHENG Lai-king in the evening, had also asked a police officer about the Police hanging up calls. She wanted to know about the Police’s follow-up actions on this matter.

(b) Mr KAM Nai-wai first asked Mr TSE Ming-yeung, District Commander (Central District) of the HKPF, about the meaning of unlawful assembly. Mr KAM said that to his understanding, when more than three persons assembled together and committed a breach of the peace, they were an unlawful assembly. He welcomed the Police’s advice if he had got it wrong. He pointed out that the photos provided showed that more than three persons had assembled at the scene, and there were continuous complaints from residents about noise nuisance, environmental impact and gambling activities. He asked the Police if this had breached the peace. He also enquired about the enforcement standards of the Police, asking if there was any difference between the said situation and mourning event of Alex CHOW in Tseung Kwan O. On that day, there were many anti-riot police officers on duty in Tseung Kwan O but they took no action. He was dissatisfied with the Police's disregard of the enquiries raised by Members on that day, asking what kind of an attitude this was. He also asked why the Police held double standards in enforcement of order for unlawful assemblies. In addition, he asked LCSD about the problems of people camping, sleeping and gambling in the park. He believed that LCSD’s failure to enforce the law was a dereliction of duty. He said that this was not the first time these happened. The sales activities had seriously affected the lives of residents, which had gone beyond the limits of their tolerance. He asked why LCSD could tolerate this situation, and whether it had asked the Police to enforce the law and take clearance action.

(c) Ms CHENG Lai-king said many residents had indicated that their calls to police station were unanswered. She had also conducted a site inspection with Ms NG Hoi-yan in the area that night; there they saw a person dressed in

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 120 green who looked like a police officer. They thought that the person would disperse the crowd in the park. However, he only advised the crowd in the park to keep their voice down as it was late at night, and continued to issue advice in the park subsequently. Ms CHENG said that from her perspective, those who assembled in the park were an unlawful assembly, and she would prefer the Police to disperse them. She also pointed out that most of the people assembled there spoke Mandarin and were very noisy. Poker cards of unknown use were also found and illegal gambling activities were suspected; but a police officer pointed out that they were only playing games instead of gambling. The police officer also explained to them that the persons dressed in black inside the shop were security guards hired by the shop. However, Ms CHENG opined that those several persons in black had not maintained crowd control, but only guarded the properties inside the shop (guessed to be sneakers). Ms CHENG said that the environment was noisy that night, which had reached an intolerable extent. This was like ignoring the presence of law enforcing agents, with no one managing the crowd, nor did staff of the LCSD restore order. She compared the situation in Blake Gardens to that of Victoria Park, where large crowds of people gathered to participate in public processions. Even the activity of Kwun Yam Je Fu (觀音借庫, that is, Kwun Yam (Goddess of Mercy) lending treasure to ordinary people) was not as noisy as that. She said that LCSD should manage the park, remarking that the park itself was first-rate but its management was at the bottom of the scale. She doubted whether the police officers attending the scene were to assist the people gathered or disperse them. Elders living in nearby residential dwellings said that they could not sleep as the noise nuisance lasted till late night. The activity had a negative impact on the tranquility of the neighbourhood and it was like a repeat of the Lan Kwai Fong stampede.

238. Mr CHONG Hon-ming, Chief Health Inspector (Central/Western) 3 of the FEHD, said that he had nothing to add in response to Members’ comments.

239. Ms HO Alice, District Leisure Manager (Central & Western) of the LCSD, said that until 19 January, the department had not received any prior notice or application for activities to be held in Blake Gardens. Until 19 January, security personnel saw 10-odd persons using the park’s facilities and sitting on park benches. The security staff had reminded them not to cause nuisance to other park users. Subsequently, whilst on duty on 19 and 20 January, the security staff did not see any person camping or engaging in illegal activities in the park. The security staff had all along been communicating with the Police and sought Police’s assistance in monitoring the situation in the park to ensure that no nuisance would be caused to nearby residents.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 121

240. The Vice-chairman said while LCSD’s representative indicated that they were not aware of the situation on that night, since Members had provided photos as evidence of the actual situation of that night, LCSD needed to reflect on the future arrangement and proactively deal with the problem.

241. Mr TSE Ming-yeung, District Commander (Central District) of the HKPF, said that it was not the first time the Police dealt with sales activities of shops. He indicated that sneaker-selling activities were already held at the time when the shop opened in October 2019. The Police usually learned about the event near the event time, and would then deploy manpower to follow up on crowd control arrangements. He said that sales activities of this kind were common at Wellington Street in Central District, including activities such as getting brand-new notes, setting up street stations, distributing face masks, etc. The Police had adopted a unified approach in handling these activities and would facilitate as far as possible. However, regarding the incident, the Police received nine complaints about noise and disturbance between 19 and 21 January, which did not meet the threshold of unlawful assembly leading to a breach of the peace. According to the Public Order Ordinance, the threshold of unlawful assembly and a breach of the peace was very high. In addition, in response to the question raised by Ms NG Hoi-yan, he said there was no record of receipt of photos about “queuing gangs”. He would follow up to see if other colleagues had received relevant information. He added that to his understanding, there were card games going on at the subject location, but they could not be regarded as illegal gambling as no money was involved. As regards phone calls failed to reach the Police, Mr TSE said he had no relevant information for the time being. He said that the Police deployed its manpower by getting information from the police radio channel that night. He would look further into how the radio channel handled the complaints. He said that in handling this kind of sales activities, the Police would usually liaise and communicate with the shop to understand its sales model. He understood that the sneaker shop had adopted a sales model of queuing and then drawing of lots. The Police had advised the shop that its sales model might cause inconvenience to people nearby, and suggested that it should hire security guards to maintain order. Meanwhile, the Police would offer facilitation in maintaining order on a regular basis or on-site. He was aware that at the night of 21 January when Ms CHENG Lai-kin and Ms NG Hoi-yan went for a site visit in the area, the Police had also received many comments, including paying attention to crowds gathering on carriageway, ensuring that school buses would not be blocked. He continued that on the whole, a balance had to be struck for the relevant sales activities as both queuers and residents were road users. Hence, the matter would be dealt with on the principle of reasonableness and proportionality.

242. The Vice-chairman remarked that Mr KAM Nai-wai had asked why this incident was different from the mourning event of Alex CHOW in Tseung Kwan O in terms of

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 122 standards in enforcement of order and definition of violation of the Public Order Ordinance. He hoped the Police would respond.

243. Mr TSE Ming-yeung of the HKPF pointed out that mourning event of Alex CHOW in Tseung Kwan O was not an issue of the Central and Western District, so he would not respond to it.

244. The Vice-chairman said that although it was not an issue of the Central and Western District, it was an issue of double standards in law enforcement. He enquired whether law enforcement standards adopted by the Police varied across districts.

245. Mr TSE Ming-yeung of the HKPF remarked that the subject under discussion was sales activities. He had nothing to add.

246. The Vice-chairman invited discussion on the paper. Members’ comments were as follows:

(a) Ms NG Hoi-yan pointed out that the Police had not responded as to why they refused to take clearance action against the sales activities of the shop that sold sneakers. She said that she had requested the Police to do so for seven times in the past, including 17 and 18 October last year on which the shop had organised similar sales activities. Also, during the election period on 24 October, a restaurant closed Upper Station Street for its opening ceremony. She had also requested the Police to take clearance action but in vain. She said that at 8:19 pm that night, the Police had been at the scene for about half an hour but no enforcement action was taken. She was surprised that the police officers did not take any action only because the restaurant’s public relations had said "I support the Police". She queried whether any person who supported the Police could do whatever he wanted and no law enforcement was necessary. She said that she had enquired with the Police about the matter via WhatsApp but received no response. She further asked when a sales activity led to crowd gathering, whether the Police would think there was no problem at all as long as people queued up and kept to the pavement areas, and whether all sales activities were handled in the same way. Besides, how the Police defined and assessed breach of peace, or whether relevant activity posed an immediate danger to the public. She also asked whether there were other reasons behind the non-enforcement, such as whether it was because there was insufficient police manpower to handle large crowds of people.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 123 (b) Mr KAM Nai-wai said that Mr TSE Ming-yeung of the HKPF, whom he derided as “not discharging constabulary duties", dared not respond to the questions because the Police itself was adopting double standards, and they therefore dared not answer the question about the mourning event of Alex CHOW in Tseung Kwan O. He did not understand the definition of "high threshold" mentioned by Mr TSE, remarking that the sales activities had caused a gathering of more than three persons. The impact of the sales activities was so great that a large number of complaints were received from members of the public. He suggested that the Police ask the residents if they agreed that the incident had disrupted the peace of the local community. He had never heard of any complaint against the activity of Kwun Yam Je Fu as no one thought that such activity had breached the peace, and he opined that an event involving queuing arrangements should be like that. He was dissatisfied with the Police for adopting double standards in law enforcement, remarking that the Police had adopted an “arrest first and think later” approach in dealing with protestors, but not so in dealing with those who organised sales activities. He questioned why different standards of treatment were applied, and said that the public would not be convinced. He added that he did not intend to complain whenever a sales activity was held. But, for this incident, with crowds of people camping and gambling in the park and occupying streets illegally, the Police took no action. He said the Police could choose not to respond, but the public would see what had been going on. He was also dissatisfied with LCSD’s response, saying that it was offensive for the department to claim that they did not know what happened after getting off work. While relevant photos had been provided by Members, the department could still say it could not see any problem. He opined that the Council should write to the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services to express their dissatisfaction over the negligence of duty of the management concerned.

(c) Ms NG Hoi-yan said that the reply from LCSD was received the day before the meeting, stating that it would recommend the relevant shop to apply for permission to allow those participating in sales activities to queue up inside the park. She asked if LCSD would actually make such an arrangement, and whether LCSD would approve it if the shop really submitted an application.

(d) Mr NG Siu-hong said that he had been playing ball games in Blake Gardens since he was small and was very familiar with the conditions inside. He remarked that Mr TSE Ming-yeung of the HKPF had not responded as to why the Police adopted such enforcement practices in the mourning event of Alex CHOW in Tseung Kwan O. He said that on Human Rights Day on 8

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 124 December, at the time when he and many residents living in the Mid-levels arrived at the pedestrian escalator link on Queen’s Road Central after participating in a public procession, about 12 police officers suddenly got off from a vehicle and insulted the residents of the Mid-levels with abusive language and pointed guns at them. These were unarmed residents who were peaceful, rational and non-violent. It was unclear as to why the Police would insult them with abusive language and intimidate them with guns. He said this was why members of the public disliked the Police. Also, he was dissatisfied with the Police for not responding to Mr KAM Nai-wai's questions.

(e) The Vice-chairman referred to the incident in Raimondi College. He said that the Police had dispatched dozens of police officers to besiege students who distributed flyers peacefully. This showed the adoption of multiple standards and unfair law enforcement.

(f) Miss YAM Ka-yi asked the Police how they defined the threshold for unlawful assembly. She said that as all police officers belonged to the same Police Force and received the same training, they should enforce the law with the same set of standards and should not shirk their responsibilities. If they encountered problems concerning law enforcement standards of different police districts, they should communicate with relevant colleagues about the standards and thresholds for unlawful assembly. She opined that Mr TSE Ming-yeung should not say that the matter had nothing to do with him as it was not relevant to his police district, and therefore would not respond. She said this was unreasonable, and asked whether Mr TSE could apply a different set of standards in law enforcement if he was posted to other police district.

247. Regarding clearance action, Mr TSE Ming-yeung of the HKPF reiterated that the complaints about nuisance received by the Police regarding this incident was not an unlawful assembly. He said that for unlawful assembly, the circumstances referred to in section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance included: (i) conduct themselves in a disorderly manner; or (ii) in an intimidating, insulting or provocative manner. He said that the sales activities did not meet the above criteria. He continued by citing distribution of bleach by District Councillors attracting queues of over 100 people and people visiting banks to get brand-new notes as examples to explain that these activities did not meet the Police’s criteria for taking clearance action either. He pointed out that what the Police needed to do was coordination and crowd management to avoid affecting other people, and clearance was not a solution to the problem for this matter. He reiterated that breach of the peace mentioned in the Public Order Ordinance was a criminal offence. Hence, the Police had acted in accordance with the law

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 125 and did not adopt double standards. The standard of enforcement was the same across all police districts.

248. The Vice-chairman hoped that Mr TSE Ming-yeung of the HKPF could respond to the incident of police officers besieging students from Raimondi College for distributing flyers peacefully. He asked if the students had breached any of the provisions of the Public Order Ordinance at the time; whether there were complaints against them; why the police officers had to search them one by one; and whether double standards in enforcement were adopted.

249. Mr TSE Ming-yeung of the HKPF said that he had no relevant information for the time being, and would give a reply after consolidating the information later.

250. The Vice-chairman queried that Mr TSE Ming-yeung of the HKPF, as District Commander of Central District, did not have the relevant information to respond. He pointed out that the public had seen the significantly different enforcement standards adopted by the Police. He hoped that the Police would not take political considerations into account in explaining the double enforcement standards.

251. Miss YAM Ka-yi suggested that since it was known that different police districts had different enforcement standards, C&W DC should liaise with Sai Kung District Council to request the two police districts to communicate and give a response on the definition of unlawful assembly. The Vice-chairman believed that this would not be very effective. He said that there was only one set of laws, only that there were variations in the Police’s enforcement actions. He did not expect the Police to give a substantive reply.

252. Ms HO Alice of the LCSD responded to the questions raised by Ms NG Hoi-yan and Mr KAM Nai-wai. She said that when LCSD received the relevant complaints in the morning of 20 January, LCSD staff had immediately communicated with the shop concerned and requested it to make appropriate queuing arrangements, such as hiring security guards and cleaning workers. The shop representative responded at the time that they might not be able to make arrangements the same day. Hence, LCSD immediately deployed more security guards and cleaning workers, and made arrangements for staff coordination. A site inspection was also arranged for the department, the Police as well as District Councillors. To prevent the sales activities from affecting other road users in terms of order and other aspects, the said arrangements were adopted until 21 January. As for application for hiring LCSD venues for queuing activities, she remarked that parks and venues under LCSD's management were mainly for recreational and leisure purposes. In the event that an organisation applied to use a venue under LCSD's management for queuing purposes, LCSD would consult other departments and stakeholders in the vicinity, and assess whether the use would have adverse impact on the environment, other people and residents before making a decision.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 126

253. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), said that the LCSD and Police had tried their best to respond to Members’ questions. She said that although similar sales activities had been held by the relevant shop before, the serious impact caused by the activities at night time this time had never occurred before. Regarding Ms NG Hoi-yan’s enquiry as to how LCSD would handle in the event that a shop applied to use a park under LCSD's management for queuing in relation to sales activities in future, DO(C&W) said she understood Members’ concern about the impact on the neighborhood. She would work with LCSD and other departments to carry out some inter-departmental coordination work, and hoped that Members would allow time and space for the departments to work out an effective mechanism to handle the matter.

254. Ms CHENG Lai-king responded that hiring LCSD venues was not easy, and believed that LCSD venues could not be used for queuing in relation to sales activities. She hoped that LCSD could take resolute enforcement action to prevent parks and the neighbourhood from becoming foul and filthy places.

255. The Vice-chairman pointed out that stop handling work-related matters after getting off work was already outdated.

256. Ms NG Hoi-yan said that DO(C&W)’s way of handling things showed that she had stronger commitment than the Police. She suggested advising the shop concerned to adopt the practice of drawing lots online, so that there would be no need for shoppers to queue up.

257. In response to the reply given by Mr TSE Ming-yeung of the HKPF, Mr KAM Nai-wai pointed out that it was inappropriate for Mr TSE to compare the situation of people queuing up to buy sneakers, which disturbed public order, to that of District Councillors distributing disinfectant, face masks, etc. He said that the Police could conduct dispersal operation if they considered that District Councillors disturbed public order. He opined that the Police had adopted double standards in law enforcement and hoped that this could be put on the record.

258. Ms FUNG Miu-ling, Chief Leisure Manager (HKW) of the LCSD, added that LCSD had to be “legal”, “reasonable” and “compassionate” in managing facilities. She said that if people were not allowed to queue up inside the park, they would do so on the carriageway outside, which might not be an ideal way of handling the situation. Hence, after discussing with Members and the Police the same day, LCSD decided to allow the shoppers to queue up along the facilities for elderly and children, while tai chi area and pitches/courts remained open for public enjoyment.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 127 259. Ms NG Hoi-yan clarified that she did not agree with the arrangement for people to queue up inside the park on that day, so please do not resort to sophistry and say that it was the opinion of Members.

260. Mr NG Siu-hong responded that LCSD’s arrangement ignored the demand of the elders and children for relevant facilities.

261. The Vice-chairman proceeded to deal with the motions set out in C&W DC Paper No. 65/2020, and invited Members to vote on the motions below. The following motions were adopted after voting.

Motion: (1) The Central and Western District Council strongly condemns the Police for ineffective law enforcement, which was tantamount to condoning the sales activities around Tai Ping Shan Street that breached public peace to continue to take place, causing serious nuisance to residents and destroying the tranquility of the neighbourhood.

(2) The Central and Western District Council strongly requests the Leisure and Cultural Services Department to prohibit shoppers from undertaking activities not permitted in parks, including gathering, queuing, tent camping and street sleeping, inside Blake Gardens, and to take resolute enforcement action promptly.

(3) The Central and Western District Council strongly requests the Police to take resolute enforcement action around Tai Ping Shan Street by embarking on dispersal, arrest and prosecution operations against shoppers queuing up overnight for unlawful assembly and breaching public peace.

(Proposed by Ms NG Hoi-yan and seconded by Mr KAM Nai-wai)

Motions (1) to (3) (14 affirmative votes: Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr NG Siu-hong, Mr PANG Ka-ho, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Miss YAM Ka-yi, Mr YIP Kam-lung)

(0 dissenting vote)

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 128

(0 abstention vote)

262. The Vice-chairman agreed that C&W DC should write to the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services to express their dissatisfaction over the negligence of duty of the management concerned, and ended the discussion on this item.

Item 14: Add a Comment Section on C&W DC’s Notice Boards on Pavements to Increase Opportunities for Expression of Public Opinion (C&W DC Paper No. 75/2020) (12:19 am – 12:42 am)

263. The Chairman said the paper was tabled at the meeting. She invited Members to express their views, saying that Assistant District Officer (Central and Western) would answer Members’ questions.

264. Mr NG Siu-hong enquired whether Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), would assist in implementing the proposal if the motion set out in the paper was adopted, or would, like what happened in other DCs, thwart its implementation using reasons such as not in line with policy objectives.

265. Mr HUI Chi-fung said that members of the public had a need to express their views in public. Lennon Walls had been subjected to unreasonable nuisance by the Police in the past, and there were even cases of indiscriminate arrests and prosecutions. Over the past few months, DC had on different occasions expressed their views on the issue, hoping that Lennon Walls could be legalised to avoid confrontation. He opined that a direct approach was to use the existing DC notice boards. Although the notice boards were limited in size, it was still a good starting point. He hoped DO(C&W) could listen to Members’ views and give it a try. Any difficulties in implementation could be raised for discussion. He believed that technical difficulties should be able to be resolved.

266. Mr YIP Kam-lung said that C&W DC’s notice boards on pavements were still not fully utilised, and there were even commercial advertisements posted at the back of the notice boards. He therefore opined that the notice boards should be fully utilised to allow members of the public to post their personal opinion. As for management, Mr YIP believed that the public would act consciously. He opined that restrictions could be imposed on posting personal opinion, such as prohibition of posting of messages implying personal attack. This was because C&W DC as owner of the notice boards also had to bear the liabilities. Mr YIP considered that District Office as a government department and DC as an organisation

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 129 representing public opinion should take the initiative to channel public opinion. Hence, the notice boards should be put to good use if they were not yet fully utilised.

267. Mr WONG Weng-chi said that DC notice boards were often overlooked by people and he was not sure if performance assessment on the notice boards had been conducted. He opined that there was a need to revitalise the notice boards, and suggested leaving some space for residents’ use or for C&W DC members to post notices, saying that this was also an activity for community participation.

268. In response to Mr WONG Weng-chi’s remark that the notice boards were ineffective as no one would read the notices on them, Mr KAM Nai-wai agreed that the notice boards should be revitalised. He also believed that C&WDO would not assist in implementing the proposal after the motion was adopted. He suggested that Members should discuss how to deal with it after the motion was adopted. He opined that Members must be mentally prepared that opinions posted on the notice boards would be set fire, torn off, smeared or damaged. The reason he agreed with the proposal was that he could not bear to see police officers, who adopted double enforcement standards, making indiscriminate arrests and prosecutions against young people for posting their opinion. These young people were arrested despite insufficient evidence and being smeared afterwards. He hoped that the motion would be adopted as soon as possible, and that the newly elected Members would offer new ideas on rules for the posting of opinion on the notice boards and ways to clean up the notices on the boards. He reiterated that C&WDO would not assist in its implementation.

269. The Chairman said that at present information of the 15 current Members and agenda of the day’s meetings were posted on C&W DC’s notice boards. The use of the remaining space was to be discussed by Members. The Chairman said that she was very supportive of freedom of speech. However, if the opinion posted on a notice board by someone was covered up by another person’s opinion, and if disputes arose as a result, how the matter could be resolved. Also, volunteers assisting in cleaning up might be subject to violence. The Chairman also asked how C&WDO could assist in this regard. If C&WDO did not offer facilitation, whether the 15 C&W DC members should take turns to clean up the message slips on the notice boards. In addition, if someone posted insulting remarks against the Police and another person posted remarks supporting the Police, how this should be handled. She reckoned that these must be handled properly.

270. DO(C&W) said that as the paper was added to the agenda on the spot, she had no preparation for it and could only respond based on what she knew. She said that the function of DC notice boards was to convey information on DC to the public, such as informing the public about the date of DC meetings and activities. DO(C&W) agreed with Mr KAM Nai-wai that this traditional approach of conveying information was outdated and had little

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 130 effect. It failed to serve the function of communication and should be improved. She understood that Members hoped the notice boards could be open to public, but she said that three aspects should be considered in doing so. First, as anyone could post message slips containing personal opinions, the notice boards, even though not defined as Lennon Wall, would have the effect of Lennon Wall. Since C&W DC was not a legal entity and C&WDO had to implement this proposal of C&W DC, whether there was a need to clean up the message slips on a daily basis if people kept posting. Given that manpower resources had to be considered, C&WDO might not have the capacity to undertake this work. She said this was the actual situation and not an excuse. Also, it would be very difficult to deal with if the law was involved, such as people accusing each other or even defamation. Furthermore, if unpleasant incidents such as clashes among members of the public occurred near the notice boards, whether they should call the Police for assistance. If they did so, people might blame them, resulting in many problems. DO(C&W) said that if the public wished to express their opinion, they did not necessarily need to resort to posting message slips. There were currently many other ways to express opinion, such as doing it online. They did not necessarily need the notice boards which were originally provided for conveying information of DC. She opined that not making available the notice boards to the public for expressing opinions was not tantamount to not supporting DC or not encouraging the public to express their opinion. Instead, she hoped to provide information to the public and seek their views through information technology or in an environmentally friendly manner. DO(C&W) stressed that she was sincere in encouraging free flow of information, but was not in favour of changing the current operation mode of the notice boards, which would put a burden on the public as well as government departments, and was also difficult to implement and not environmentally friendly. She therefore considered that it should not be implemented at this stage. However, she would be happy to discuss and explore other ways to communicate with residents.

271. The Vice-chairman responded that DO(C&W) often said that DC was not a legal entity. He wanted to clarify that DC was established under the District Councils Ordinance (Cap. 547) and was definitely a statutory organisation. He hoped DC would not be said as not a statutory organisation again, for they were not a ragtag army.

272. Mr KAM Nai-wai said he foresaw that DO(C&W) would not support the motion, saying that the Government would definitely not support the setting up of Lennon Walls. He therefore called on the Members who put forward the motion to, after the motion was adopted, start setting out the rules for the use of the notice boards for endorsement at the forthcoming meeting of the District Works & Facilities Management Committee. He remarked that the Government would not support the work of the popularly-elected Council, so it did not matter whether the Government agreed.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 131 273. The Chairman asked whether Mr NG Siu-hong’s original intention was for members of the public to stick the message slips on the outside the glass door of the notice boards. Mr NG responded that there were many ways to do it. The easiest way was to change the words "Post No Bill" to “Comment”, as long as the rules for posting opinion were set out clearly. He said that at present, there were Lennon Walls at places like the Central Mid-levels Escalator Link, Caritas, Roman Catholic Cathedral and the subway outside the Raimondi College, and no disputes had occurred.

274. Mr YIP Kam-lung agreed that Members should discuss the rules of use of the notice boards and opined that both the front and back of the notice boards could be used as much as possible. He asked what should be done if C&WDO refused to surrender the keys of the notice boards. He also pointed out that no one read the announcement/information on the notice boards because the glass doors were not clean and the size of the text of the documents were too small to read clearly. He considered it necessary to study how to clearly convey messages to the public.

275. The Vice-chairman said that people of different opinions might use the notice boards, but the biggest merit was that it provided a lawful channel for young people to express their views without fear of being arrested by the Police under pretext.

276. Mr WONG Weng-chi said that rules were necessary, and believed that Mr NG Siu-hong’s original intention of submitting the paper was to prevent young people from being arrested by the Police when posting message slips on Lennon Walls. He asked whether it was possible for the Police not to arrest young people for posting message slips on Lennon Walls, saying that they did not breach public peace.

277. Ms WONG Siu-hing, District Commander (Western District) of the HKPF, disagreed with Members’ accusation against the Police for indiscriminate arrest, and she expressed regret about such allegation in the form of generalisation. In response to Mr WONG Weng-chi’s question as to whether it was possible for the Police not to take enforcement action in certain places, she believed that there would be difficulties in implementation as the public might blame the Police for selective enforcement. She said that the Police would not take enforcement action if no one broke the law.

278. DO(C&W) reiterated that she had always wanted to collaborate with Members. But, every time she raised some substantive issues and gave a response after taking into account various perspectives, Mr KAM Nai-wai would reckon that there was no need to discuss with the Government. She said she had the responsibility to take into account and relay views of other residents. DO(C&W) also said that the notice boards were managed by C&WDO on behalf of C&W DC. As District Officer, she had the responsibility to maintain

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 132 the original use of the notice boards, i.e. dissemination of DC information. If Members insisted that glass doors of the notice boards be open for posting of any materials, she had to make it clear in advance that she might not be able to assist if any administrative problems arose. DO(C&W) said she understood that Members would like to facilitate young people to express their opinion. However, in the past few months, she and other government departments had received many complaints from residents, including school teachers and parents, that they were worried about the posting of message slips on inappropriate locations. This showed that residents had their own opinions about this. The said situation would cause panic and hygiene problems, and government departments had to deploy resources to deal with it. DO(C&W) hoped Members would take into account the views of all residents in their respective constituencies, and ponder whether they should insist on using the DC notice boards for posting message slips, instead of achieving the same objective through other means. She stressed that as District Officer, she must make her position clear. While she understood Members’ intention, she hoped they could handle the matter in a balanced manner.

279. The Chairman said that as per Mr KAM Nai-wai’s request just now, the rules for the use of the notice boards should be prepared by the Members who submitted the paper. If application for district minor works funds for cleaning and managing the notice boards was necessary, a paper would need to be prepared and submitted to the District Works & Facilities Management Committee. As for how to handle the issues concerning the notice boards, it would take time to discuss the relevant mechanism.

280. The Chairman suggested that the motion be moved as an impromptu motion since the paper was added to the agenda on the spot. He said that Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr NG Siu-hong, the motion’s proponents, had agreed to this; and more than one-third of the Members present also agreed with voting on the impromptu motion. The following impromptu motion was adopted after voting.

Motion: Addition of a comment section on C&W DC’s notice boards on pavements expeditiously.

(Proposed by Mr NG Siu-hong and seconded by Mr HUI Chi-fung)

(14 affirmative votes: Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr NG Siu-hong, Mr PANG Ka-ho, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Miss YAM Ka-yi, Mr YIP Kam-lung)

(0 dissenting vote)

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 133

(0 abstention vote)

281. The Chairman ended the discussion on this item.

Item 15: Work Reports of the Committees under C&W DC (12:42 pm – 12:43 pm)

282. The Chairman referred Members to the following documents.

(a) Constitutional & Security Affairs Committee (C&W DC Paper No. 68/2020)

(b) Cultural, Education, Healthcare, Leisure & Social Affairs Committee (C&W DC Paper No. 69/2020)

(c) District Works & Facilities Management Committee (C&W DC Paper No. 70/2020)

(d) Building Management, Environmental Hygiene & Works Committee (C&W DC Paper No. 71/2020)

(e) Traffic & Transport Committee (C&W DC Paper No. 72/2020)

(f) Finance Committee (C&W DC Paper No. 73/2020)

283. Mr KAM Nai-wai noted that it seemed some departments had not responded to some issues raised by the Constitutional & Security Affairs Committee (CSAC), and enquired whether the Police would not attend CSAC meetings that dealt with certain issues. In response, the Vice-chairman said he had contacted CSAC’s Secretary and learned that replies from some government departments were yet to be received. Remarking that some of the issues had been submitted to the Home Affairs Department for vetting and approval, he described such situation as terrifying for discussion and speech in legislature had become executive-led. In this connection, he had made it clear that the relevant items had to be included the agenda of CSAC, which might be the reason for the delay in reply from government departments. He said the relevant situation would be dealt with later.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 134 284. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), said she was aware of the communication between CSAC’s Chairman and Secretary, and that a reply would be provided later. As for the meeting agenda issued by CSAC, she said that there was no vetting and approval. It was just that a remark indicating "pending reply from relevant departments on the item and papers" had been added next to some agenda items. The Council would be informed after replies had been received from government departments.

285. The Chairman asked whether meeting agenda should be issued 10 days before the meeting. DO(C&W) said there might be some delay in issuing some of the papers. A consolidated reply would be provided to Members later.

286. The Vice-chairman said that some less politically controversial issues had been included in CSAC’s agenda. For the remaining issues, it was learned that they were still under review by higher-ups and had not been included in the agenda. He did not understand why such issues could only be included in the agenda after receiving reply from government departments, saying that the papers had been submitted by Members in accordance with the Standing Orders for inclusion in the agenda.

Item 16: Reports on the Meetings of the Area Committees of the Central & Western District (C&W DC Paper No. 74/2020) (12:43 am – 12:45 am)

287. The Chairman referred Members to the paper.

Item 17: Any Other Business (12:55 am)

288. The Chairman asked Members’ views on agenda item 2 “Confirmation of the minutes of the second C&W DC meeting held on 16 January 2020”.

289. Mr HO Chi-wang suggested that the matter be left for discussion at the next C&W DC meeting as it would take some time to read the relevant content.

290. The Vice-chairman opined that the rules of procedure should not be changed arbitrarily, saying that a delay would mean two months later. He reckoned that Members had the responsibility to read the draft minutes in advance. He understood that Members might not be able to finish reading all the information within a short time, so he hoped the Secretariat

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 135 could remind Members about this.

291. Mr KAM Nai-wai hoped that the Secretariat would send out the draft minutes of full Council meetings and committee meetings in a single email to make it easier to draw Members’ attention. As for the subject minutes, he suggested that they should be confirmed first. Any Members who wished to propose amendments could do so at the next meeting.

292. Mr HO Chi-wang said that he had read the draft minutes and spotted many problems therein. Also, he had not read the revised version mentioned by the Chairman. He therefore opined that the version not yet read by other Members should not be confirmed.

293. The Chairman said that she had mainly corrected some typographical errors without changing the content of the draft minutes. She hoped that the minutes could be uploaded as soon as possible for public reference.

294. The Vice-chairman suggested giving Mr HO Chi-wang some time to read the revised version. If no other response was received on the day following the meeting, the minutes would be formally confirmed.

295. The Vice-chairman suggested that the draft minutes could be provisionally confirmed if only minor changes were involved. If there was no objection from Members on the day following the meeting, the minutes would be formally confirmed.

296. Mr YIP Kam-lung said he had glanced through the draft minutes. There were repeated mentioning of him interrupting the CoP in his and CoP’s speeches. He opined that amendment might be necessary for the presentation in this regard.

297. Mr HO Chi-wang said that the use of the word “interrupt” in some parts of the minutes was inappropriate.

298. The Vice-chairman suggested that the draft minutes be left to the meeting of Constitutional & Security Affairs Committee (CSAC) to be held one week later for confirmation, so as to allow Members a week’s time to propose amendments.

299. Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, Senior Executive Officer (District Council) of the C&WDO, said that an objective attitude was adopted when drafting meeting minutes to truthfully reflect Members’ views expressed at the meeting. Members could make suggestions, and the draft minutes could be confirmed later and then uploaded online.

300. The Chairman said that the draft minutes could be left to the CSAC meeting to be

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 136 held one week later for confirmation.

301. The Vice-chairman pointed out that Members’ interrupting others was subjective, and interruption also depended on the situation and occasion. For example, interruption was necessary if the other party had kept on beating about the bush. He reckoned that these phrases had a negative connotation, and hoped the Secretariat would be careful about them.

302. Mr HO Chi-wang said that the word “interrupt” had appeared twice in Mr YIP Kam-lung’s parts, and in his parts as well. There were similar situations in other Members’ parts. He believed that other Members might also need to propose amendments. He hoped that the draft minutes would not be confirmed until the next meeting.

303. The Vice-chairman said that at a meeting chaired by him, he also encountered a situation where DO(C&W), in the course of answering a question, invited another colleague to speak. He asked whether it was necessary to put on record that DO(C&W) invited another person to respond without the Chairman's consent.

304. Mr LEUNG Fong-wai said that it would be unhealthy if confirmation of draft minutes was to be handled in this way every time. It would be an unhealthy phenomenon if confirmation of minutes was delayed indefinitely every time because some member had not finished reading the draft minutes. In addition, personally he considered that there was no problem with the word "interrupt". If Members believed that they were acting reasonably in interrupting CoP’s speech at that particular moment, then they needed not worry about the written record in the minutes. He believed that society would be discerning enough to make fair judgment on Members’ replies and remarks on that day.

305. Miss YAM Ka-yi said that this was unhealthy. She opined that the Council was at its teething stage. Members should make it clear if there were any things they considered undesirable, such as words that were considered unsatisfactory and alternative words to replace them. The Council should not waste further time on these issues.

306. Mr KAM Nai-wai said that the Secretariat had already sent the draft minutes to Members for perusal. Members were obliged to read the minutes, and would usually inform the Secretary how they wanted the minutes to be amended in advance. The proposed amendments would then be set out in a table and Members would be consulted as to whether they agreed to the amendments. He said that there were many new colleagues in the current term of the Council and maybe they were not familiar with the procedures. He therefore suggested that the draft minutes be left to the CSAC meeting to be held one week later for confirmation, for this time only. No such arrangement would be made again in future.

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 137 307. The Chairman said that the draft minutes of the previous meeting would not be confirmed at this meeting. She hoped Members would read their respective parts, and the draft minutes would be left to the CSAC meeting to be held one week later for confirmation. Also, the Chairman remarked that Members had filed a complaint with the Office of The Ombudsman after the previous full Council meeting. The Office of The Ombudsman would investigate if there was any dereliction of duties on the part of the various departments. She would keep in touch with the Office of The Ombudsman and wait for the relevant results. In addition, she would follow up on the complaint filed with the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

308. The Vice-chairman asked if a special meeting of the full Council had to be held before/after the relevant CSAC meeting for confirmation of the draft minutes. The Secretary asked whether the draft minutes could be confirmed by circulation. Mr KAM Nai-wai was in favour of confirmation of the draft minutes by circulation to save the need for convening a special meeting.

309. Mr KAM Nai-wai hoped that future meetings of the full Council and committees would not run late into the night as far as possible.

310. The Vice-chairman opined that the time spent on discussing standing items was too long and could be shortened as much as possible.

311. Miss YAM Ka-yi asked whether the Vice-chairman should have the Chairman's consent before speaking, saying she noted that the Vice-chairman had several times spoken without the Chairman's signal of consent.

312. The Chairman said that she had earlier consulted some Members on referring the papers they submitted to other committees for discussion, so as to have a shorter agenda and conclude the meeting within a maximum of four hours. But, she respected Members’ wish for their papers to be discussed at full Council meetings. She said that in future, in the order the papers had been submitted, no more than five papers should be placed on the agenda for discussion at each meeting.

313. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), said that this was a long meeting. In view of the impact caused by the epidemic, she hoped that future meetings could be shorter as far as possible. She hoped that the target of a maximum of two meetings per week and a maximum of four hours per meeting could be maintained.

314. The Chairman thanked the regular representatives of departments in particular for attending this long meeting, which lasted from 2:30 pm to 1:00 am the following day. These

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 138 representatives were from the HKPF, FEHD, LCSD, TD and Civil Engineering and Development Department. Mr KAM Nai-wai said that regular representatives of departments who sat through the meeting should be commended, while those departments that were "loafing on the job" would definitely be reprimanded.

Item 18: Date of the Next Meeting (12:55 am – 1:00 am)

315. The Chairman announced that the fourth meeting would be held on 28 May 2020. The paper submission deadline for government departments would be 7 May 2020, while that for Members would be 13 May 2020.

The minutes were confirmed on 28 May 2020

Chairman: Ms CHENG Lai-king

Secretary: Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, Grace

Central and Western District Council Secretariat May 2020

Minute-第三次會議紀錄-19.3.2020 (final)_eng.doc 139