Minutes of the 4th Meeting of the HKSAR Fourth Term of Wong Tai Sin District Council (Summary Translation)
Date: 15 May 2012 (Tuesday) Time: 2:30 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Wong Tai Sin District Council, 6/F, Lung Cheung Office Block, 138 Lung Cheung Road, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon
Present:
Chairman:
Mr. LI Tak-hong, MH, JP
Vice-chairman:
Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH
Wong Tai Sin District Council Members:
Ms. CHAN Man-ki, Maggie Mr. CHAN On-tai Mr. CHAN Wai-kwan, Andie Mr. CHAN Yim-kwong, Joe Mr. HO Hon-man Mr. HO Yin-fai Mr. HUI Kam-shing Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH Ms. KWOK Sau-ying Mr. LAI Wing-ho, Joe Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH Mr. MOK Chung-fai, Rex, MH Mr. MOK Kin-wing Mr. MOK Ying-fan Mr. SHUM Wan-wa Mr. SO Sik-kin Ms. TAM Heung-man Ms. TAM Mei-po Mr. TING Chi-wai, Roy Mr. WONG Kam-chi, MH, JP Mr. WONG Kit-hin Mr. WONG Kwok-tung Mr. WONG Yat-yuk Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH Mr. YUEN Kwok-keung, Stephen
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 1 Absent with Apologies:
Ms. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP Mr. WONG Kwok-yan
In attendance:
Mr. LEUNG Cheuk-man, Director of Food and FEHD ) Re.: Clement, JP Environmental Hygiene ) Item III(i) Mr. FAN Yung-kai Assistant Director (Operations)2 FEHD )
Ms. HO Wing-yin, Winnie Deputy Head Pre-Kowloon East ) Re.: Development Office ) Item III(ii) Ms. LAI Man-foon, Vivian Senior Town Planner Pre-Kowloon East ) Development Office )
Mrs. TAM CHEUNG Regional Officer/ ICAC ) Re.: Kwai-ying, Dorothy Kowloon East/ Sai Kung ) Item III(v) Ms. MING Yuen-man Senior Community Relations ICAC )
Mr. SHIU Wai-chuen, District Officer (WTS) WTSDO William, JP Mr. CHOW Oi-wang, Toby District Commander HKPF (Wong Tai Sin) Ms. Lily NG District Social Welfare Officer SWD (Wong Tai Sin/Sai Kung) Mrs. SUNG CHEUNG Chief Housing Manager HD Mun-chi (Wong Tai Sin, Tsing Yi, Tsuen Wan and Islands) Mr. CHUI Si-kay, Peter Senior Engineer/6 (Kowloon) CEDD Mr. AU Siu-fung, Kelvin Senior Transport Officer / TD Wong Tai Sin Mr. HO Ming-tong District Environmental Hygiene FEHD Superintendent (Wong Tai Sin) Mr. LAM Hok-hay, George District Leisure Manager LCSD (Wong Tai Sin) Mr. CHUNG Chan-yau, Senior Executive Officer WTSDO Patrick (District Management) Mr. TING Tin-sang Senior Liaison Officer 1 WTSDO Ms. PANG Suk-wah, Phyllis Senior Liaison Officer 2 WTSDO Ms. TANG Wai Lan, Cecilia Executive Officer I WTSDO (District Council)
Secretary:
Ms. LAM Pui-fun, Maggie Senior Executive Officer WTSDO (District Council)
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 2 Opening Remark by the Chairman
The Chairman welcomed all to the 4th meeting of the Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC), in particular Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene (DFEH) Mr. Clement LEUNG, JP and Assistant Director (Operations)2 of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) Mr. FAN Yung-kai who attended the meeting for agenda item III(i).
2. The Chairman welcomed Mr. Toby CHOW, the newly appointed District Commander (Wong Tai Sin) of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) who replaced the outgoing Mr. David Michael GUNTON; as well as Mr. HO Ming-tong, the newly appointed District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Wong Tai Sin) of FEHD who replaced the outgoing Mr. WONG Wai-wan, MH. He also welcomed Transport Department (TD)’s Senior Transport Officer/Wong Tai Sin Mr. Kelvin AU and Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD)’s Senior Engineer/6 (Kowloon) Mr. Peter CHUI, who stood in for Mr. Vincent FAN and Mr. Anthony LO respectively.
3. The Chairman informed Members that Ms. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, MH and Mr. WONG Kwok-yan were absent from the meeting with apologies.
4. The Chairman drew Members’ attention to the revised agenda and a list of proposed discussion time for agenda items of the 4th meeting tabled. Members raised no objection to the list.
5. The Chairman informed Members that the group photo taking session before the meeting had to be postponed due to the rain. Members would be informed of the new date in due course.
I. Confirmation of the Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of WTSDC held on 13 May 2012
6. The Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) requested that the minutes of meeting be amended as follows:
(i) The entire Para. 62(ii) should read as –
“LCSD noted that WTSDC supported the open space in north of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory be reserved for the development of TWGHs HCYD. The department would shelve the 11-a-side football pitch project before an alternative site was identified.” (ii) The entire Para. 62(iii) should read as -
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 3
“Open spaces in San Po Kong were planned to be the wind channels, which would improve environment of the area and support the development of KTDA. The development plan in question was underpinned by long and extensive discussion and consultation involving various stakeholders. Also, HD would adopt a PRH design that was compatible with the surrounding, and would develop the open spaces concurrently to improve the environment. The cooperation between LCSD and HD in this regard would improve the quality of open spaces.”
7. The Chairman commented that the minutes should be a faithful record of the meeting and Government departments should propose amendments before the papers were issued. The amended minutes of meeting were confirmed.
II. Progress Report on Matters Arising from the 3rd Meeting of the Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC Paper 40/2012)
8. The Chairman informed Members that both duty visits to Eastern Guangdong, one by WTSDC alone and another jointly with local representatives from various sectors had been cancelled.
9. Members noted the paper.
(Mr. Joe LAI and Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH arrived at the meeting at 2:40 p.m.)
III(i) Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene’s Visit to the Wong Tai Sin District Council
10. The Chairman welcomed DFEH Mr. Clement LEUNG, JP.
11. Mr. Clement LEUNG, JP said he was glad to visit WTSDC and brief Members on the work of FEHD. He looked forward to discussing local food and environmental hygiene matters with Members. FEHD was the largest civilian department within the Government, with an establishment of about 10 000 civil servants and nearly 10 000 staff employed by its service contractors. FEHD provided a wide range of public services, including food surveillance and control, public market and hawker management, crematorium and cemetery management, licensing and
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 4 supervision of food premises, street cleansing and refuse collection, pest control, etc. He briefed Members on FEHD’s major tasks in 2012 as follows:
(i) Food Safety
The Food Safety Ordinance had become effective on 1 February 2012. The Ordinance required all food importers and distributors to register with FEHD and keep records of the movement of food to facilitate food traceability in case of food safety incidents. To date more than 8 000 food importers and distributors had registered with FEHD. It was hoped that full operation of the Ordinance would improve food safety.
FEHD would also table the Pesticide Residues in Food Regulation in the Legislative Council (LegCo). The proposed Regulation aimed at regulating the maximum concentration of pesticide residues, including insecticide and chemical plant growth promoters, permitted in food. The Regulation would set out maximum residue limits based on the available standards adopted by major food exporting countries to Hong Kong including China, Thailand, the United States, etc., thus affording better protection to the public.
Reportedly green groups criticised that the standard adopted in Hong Kong was not up to international ones. He emphasised that existence of pesticide residues below the prevailing standards would not affect human body, and the introduction of the Regulation aimed at aligning these standards with international ones, so as to protect people from excessive pesticide in food;
(ii) Hawker Management
After the No.4 alarm fire at Fa Yuen Street last year, FEHD had been criticised by the public, who had also requested the department to improve hawker management. Besides stepping up enforcement efforts, FEHD had also launched two consultation exercises after the fire. One of them was on the proposed introduction of a mechanism for cancellation of hawker licences, which would allow the Administration to take the initiative to suspend or cancel the hawker licences of repeat offenders. The other one was on medium to long term management of hawkers.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 5 Both consultation exercises had been ended. FEHD was now consolidating public opinions received, with a view to publishing the findings in the nearest future. FEHD had also consulted DCs on the said matters, in a bid to strike a balance between hawkers’ livelihood and the need to protect residents from fire risk related to hawking;
(iii) Columbaria
FEHD noted the public concerns about the inadequate supply of ossuary niches, which had resulted in the long waiting time for public niches. FEHD had carried out district-level consultation exercises on the provision of new columbaria but most respondents were against the idea. FEHD would increase the supply of public niches and draw public attention to certain points to note when purchasing private niches. The Development Bureau (DEVB) had published information on private columbaria which were in compliance with the user restrictions set out in the land leases and the statutory town planning requirements; as well as those occupying Government land illegally, breaching the statutory town planning requirements and/or user restrictions set out in the land leases, to assist the public to make decision with sufficient information. The consultation exercise on the proposed licensing scheme for private columbaria had been ended. After consolidating the views received, FEHD would formulate the legislation for regulating private columbaria, and the relevant licensing procedure as soon as possible.
He thanked WTSDC for supporting FEHD to provide 1 500 new niches at the Diamond Hill Columbarium. The works concerned were in good progress and would soon be completed. These niches would be available for public procurement together with the 40,000 niches to be provided in Wo Hop Shek.
(Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH arrived at the meeting at 2:45 p.m.)
12. The Chairman said two submissions were tabled. One of them had been made by ten DC members of DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch (Annex I) and the other by the East Kowloon District Residents’ Committee (EKDRC) (Annex II). He asked Mr. Stephen YUEN to introduce one of the submissions. 13. Mr. Stephen YUEN introduced DAB’s submission (Annex I) requesting for
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 6 improvements to facilities and management of public markets. The four suggestions were as follows:
(i) Improving the Ventilation Systems of Markets
It was rather hot inside markets, in particular in summer. Without adequate ventilation, people were staying in a sauna room. Hence, FEHD was requested to retrofit air-conditioning systems in markets, or improve the existing ventilation systems so that comfortable shopping places should be provided to the public. However, installation the cost to be incurred should not be shifted to stallholders or the public;
(ii) Expediting Other Improvement Works
Many market fixtures, such as walls, floor tiles, lighting, fire safety installations and drainage, etc., had to be improved;
(iii) Improving Cleanliness and Environment Hygiene
Old-fashioned markets were uninviting as they were dirty and wet. FEHD should strengthen the management work in cleansing and environmental hygiene in the market for public safety; and
(iv) Other Measures
Enhanced management and introduced diversity into markets were suggested. For instance, large-scale promotional campaigns might be launched, and new commodities could be introduced to attract the customers.
14. Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH thanked DFEH for attending the meeting, and had passed EKDRC’s submission to DFEH before the meeting. He then introduced the submission (Annex II). Wong Tai Sin had the most aged population among the 18 districts in Hong Kong, and was thus more demanding in the provision of food and environmental hygiene services. As FEHD was responsible for provision of such services, as well as the authority governing matters concerning ossuary niches, illegal graves, etc., he had the following comments:
(i) Market Management
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 7
It was hot inside a market, so shoppers kept on sweating when they shopped. Therefore, EKDRC suggested that FEHD install air-conditioning systems in markets so that housewives could shop comfortably.
Choi Hung Road Market had been built long ago and was a popular market before the commencement of Tai Shing Street Market. Due to the lack of facilities, 90% of the stalls were now vacant, and many stalls were used as storerooms. Some stallholders had even told DC Members that FEHD should either close down the market, or lift the restriction on the type of permitted commodities. To make their stalls commercially viable, holders of some vegetable stalls had to use the stalls for waste collection and recycling, and some grocery stalls sold snacks such as pig skin, fish balls, etc. as well. FEHD’s restriction on the use of the stalls, and the meagre pedestrian flow in Choi Hung Road Market, had made these stalls commercially unviable. EKDRC hoped that FEHD would pay a site visit to the market and consider whether it should remain open. In consideration that office space was much sought by Government departments, closure of the market would make space available for them. He drew again FEHD’s attention to the fact that Choi Hung Road Market was now only used as storerooms and for selling snacks;
(ii) Street Management
He often raised concerns about street management and had been discussed related issues with LegCo Members for many years but to no avail. FEHD’s street management policy was inappropriate, and few prosecutions were made. Effectiveness of the policy was further weakened by the provision of appeal. With the assistance of DO(WTS), the hawking problem had been alleviated. However, some restaurants put more than 20 tables on the streets, and the owners even considered “penalty fine” as “rental payment”, and “suspension of licence” as “opportunity for overseas excursion”. He thus suggested that FEHD review the existing legislation and step up its enforcement and inspection efforts. Since residents in San Po Kong had been suffered from noise emanated from restaurants during small hours, he hoped that
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 8 FEHD would consider the restaurants’ impact and the residents’ views when approving applications for licence with outside seating accommodation.
Some shops extended 3-4 ft towards pavements or carriageways, and FEHD failed to enforce stringently. To facilitate the improvement works to the Kai Tak Nullah, the Government had to narrow the pavement. However, Members had received phone calls from shops owners against this arrangement, on the grounds that they needed to place commodities on the pavements. He commented that FEHD should look at the problem squarely, and he would relay his views to LegCo.
15. Mr. Andie CHAN thanked DFEH for attending the meeting, and then put forth the following views:
(i) Diamond Hill Crematorium Columbarium
EKDRC supported the extension of Diamond Hill Crematorium Columbarium, but suggested that FEHD evaluate impacts of the said extension on residents and local traffic. Also, the department should control illegal and private columbaria, and establish long-term development of columbarium facilities;
(ii) Private Columbaria in the District
EKDRC suggested that FEHD should prosecute offenders more stringently and settle the outstanding application formalities in private columbaria, so as to ensure legal operation of these columbaria;
(iii) Illegal Graves on a Slope North of Diamond Hill Urn Cemetery
On 8 May 2012, FEHD had reported to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Committee (FEHC) on the progress of handling of illegal grave. Members showed their support and appreciation to FEHD’s efforts, including the actions taken, the handling procedure, timeframe, etc., and urged the department to follow up the matter meticulously;
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 9 (iv) Extension of the Chinese Christian Cemetery (Kowloon) at Junction Road
FEHD said the application was being processed. At an FEHC meeting, FEHD had undertaken that in view of the grave impacts on pedestrian and vehicular flows, environment and residents’ mentality in Wong Tai Sin in particular Lok Fu, it would consider the extension, which would provide 10 000 new niches, with the consent of WTSDC;
(v) Mosquito Infestation in Wong Tai Sin
The hilly neighbourhood in Wong Tai Sin was vulnerable to mosquito infestation, which was also a much concerned issue in the district. With the efforts of FEHD and other Government departments in the past few years, the situation has been improved. Residents appreciated the Government’s efforts in this regard; and
(vi) Environmental Hygiene Issues of Ngau Chi Wan Village
Shops in the Ngau Chi Wan Village often occupied rear lanes for business. In consideration of the adverse impacts on environmental hygiene, EKDRC hoped that FEHD would conduct joint operations with other departments and enforce the irregularities more stringently.
16. Mr. HO Hon-man said Members had already presented their submissions. As the Chairman of FHHC, he said FEHD representative had presented the department’s work plan in 2012-13 at the FEHC meeting held on 8 May 2012. FEHC Members were concerned about street and market management, in particular management of Tai Shing Street Market. The market was the second cheapest place to shop in Wong Tai Sin, and was very popular among the residents. Although FEHD had injected enormous resources, it failed to manage the market properly and the stallholders lacked self-discipline. Stallholders displayed goods at aisles after 7:00 p.m., and Members often received complaints against this problem. Regarding street management, irregularities involving restaurants and shops were often found in San Po Kong, Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH’s constituency, as well as in Tsz Wan Shan. Despite the Government’s publicity, no improvement of illegal occupation of public places could be seen. As mentioned by Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH, shop owners occupying pavements illegally had even requested the Government not to use the pavements for public works.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 10 Therefore, he requested FEHD to pay more efforts in street and market management. On the other hand, he appreciated FEHD’s performance in managing the Diamond Hill Urn Cemetery. During site visits in Ching Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals, he had found that FEHD’s crowd management was effective and worked well with HKPF. However, despite the fact that FEHD had further improved the management during the Ching Ming Festival this year, he thought that more could be done. The large number of niches and burials attracted grave-sweepers every year, affecting residents in Tsz Wan Shan and Fu Shan Estate. To alleviate the impacts on residents nearby, he hoped that road improvements could be made, such as converting cul-de-sacs into roads or building new roads, to facilitate pedestrian and vehicular traffic and alleviate congestion at bus stops and other bottlenecks.
17. Mr. Joe CHAN was concerned about the problem of illegal graves. FEHD had requested owners of such graves to exhume the remains as soon as possible. However, a few people had sought assistance from him in this regard, saying that the burial had been made some four to five decades ago and the concerned persons were either dead or aged. He enquired about how FEHD would handle these cases. It was out of question that actions should be taken against new illegal graves, but discretion could be made to the existing ones as there had been plenty of land in the past and the bereaved families had no intention to do anything illegal. In addition, he requested for information about niches. He owned niches provided by the Board of Management of the Chinese Permanent Cemeteries and religious bodies, as well as non-compliant niches. He commented that members of the public were forced to buy expensive niches in private columbaria because the Government failed to provide adequate niches. He would rather buy niches from the Government even if he had to pay 10 times more, because Government columbaria would not be closed down. People were afraid that sellers of private niches merely wanted to make quick money. Unless private columbaria were backed by large companies or supply of new niches, they would be closed down whenever they became unprofitable, even though they might be financially viable at present. As a result, niches in these columbaria would be abandoned. Private columbaria involved issues of legality and the need for regrant premium. Despite these concerns, the public had to buy niches in private columbaria as the Government could not provide adequate niches. He had learnt from the mass media that the Government intended to provide niches in industrial areas. He supported the initiative, and commented that this was similar to have church activities in schools for the sake of resource sharing. Transportation should be considered when determining locations of columbaria. Otherwise, columbaria might be built on outlying islands. As most grave-sweepers would go to columbaria on holidays, they would not cause much traffic impact to the industrial areas in which the niches were located. Public acceptance would be gained gradually if a mall-like design was adopted for the exterior of columbaria and burning of joss sticks was banned.
(Ms. TAM Heung-man arrived at the meeting at 3:00 p.m.)
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 11 18. Mr. Joe LAI supported the improvements to be made by FEHD, but commented that the reality was worrisome to WTSDC. FEHD would not install air-conditioning system in a market unless the majority of stallholders supported the initiative and agreed to pay air-conditioning charge. Therefore, none of the markets in Wong Tai Sin was air-conditioned to date. He urged FEHD to review the arrangement concerned, and hoped that air-conditioning systems could be installed in all markets. Also, he concurred with the majority of stakeholders on the view that the cost should not be passed to the public and the stallholders. He also opined that the Government might, as a pilot scheme, install air-conditioning systems in some markets in Wong Tai Sin, including Ngau Chi Wan Market, Tai Shing Street Market, Sheung Fung Street Market, etc. However, consideration should be made to change the usage of Choi Hung Road Market. FEHD kept liaising with market management consultation committees, but still failed to launch the above initiative for various reasons. On the other hand, WTSDC had previously supported that more than 10 000 new niches, rather than 1 500, be provided. A new columbarium should be supported by a sound traffic management plan, to avoid traffic problems in the future. WTSDC could not support or endorse any niche proposal casually. For instance, the proposed provision of 10 000 new niches at Junction Road was objected by the public as they knew nothing about its traffic and environmental impacts, exterior design, as well as management and operation arrangements. If FEHD endorsed the proposal before adequate information was released to the public, it would certainly face opposition. He thus urged FEHD to listen to the people.
19. Mr. MOK Ying-fan hoped that FEHD would rectify shortcomings in it myriad of duties. WTSDC had discussed problems relating to Choi Hung Road Market on a number of occasions, but no follow up action had been taken by FEHD. This was a waste of taxpayers’ money. The market was no longer viable. FEHD, the management body, should consider changing the usage of the market to reduce the Government subsidy, in view of the meagre rental income. The absence of any follow-up actions showcased FEHD’s dereliction of duty. He hoped that FEHD could look into the market’s management and ventilation problems carefully, so that the public would not suffer any more. Street obstruction by shops was also worsening. At first, only fast-food shops occupied public places, but now vegetable stalls did so as well. Some shop owners even sublet their shop extensions to make profit. This should not be tolerated. FEHD should take actions jointly with other departments and amend the legislation to facilitate enforcement actions. Contrary to people’s expectation, the Joint Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints (the Joint Office) established by FEHD and the Buildings Department (BD) a few years ago, had failed to solve the water seepage problem. In view of the fact that the Joint Office and its contractors could seldom find the cause of water seepage for the residents affected, he urged FEHD to press the Joint Office to work more effectively.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 12 20. Mr. MOK Kin-wing was concerned about hawker and street management. Hawker management required a unified yardstick, so that the hawkers would not think that their irregularities were acquiesced. The department should consult hawkers both through their trade associations and hawker groups in Wong Tai Sin, in a bid to draw up a mutually accepted management strategy. Suspension of licence and imposition of penalty fine were acceptable measures, but he had reservation to cancel the hawker licence. As most hawkers had difficulty to find a job, their livelihood should be considered. Since there were other penalties, there was no need to cancel their licences. Regarding illegal occupation of Government land by shops, he pointed out that some people used the rear lane as workshop or sublet space beside or in front of their shops to hawkers. Therefore, he requested joint actions be taken by FEHD and other departments to curb the prolonged occupation of Government land by shops for profit-making purposes. In view of the presence of rubbish and cigarette ends in flower pots, he urged FEHD to clarify with LCSD their respective roles in watering, maintenance and cleansing. He hoped that the two departments would co-ordinate with each other and manage flowerbeds and green belts in the district satisfactorily.
21. Mr. SO Sik-kin was concerned about water seepage in private buildings. The public had cherished high expectation to the Joint Office upon its establishment, but most of them had then been disappointed. Without intervention of Government departments, the management office, owners’ corporation and owners would find it difficult to communicate with each other as those trouble-causing occupants would try to shift their responsibility to someone else. The Government’s involvement would make them more co-operative. On the other hand, as the “one-directional” colour water test could not solve the problem, Government experts should identify better investigation methods. He also hoped that BD and FEHD would further improve the functions and services of the Joint Office, so that it could make positive respond to complainants. The extension of the Chinese Christian Cemetery at Junction Road was also a much concerned issue, as many people lived in the Mei Tung Estate nearby. The cemetery had retrofitted more than 10 000 niches previously without consultation, and now FEHD was carrying out a consultation exercise on another extension project. He queried if FEHD understood the extension’s impacts on traffic and residents’ emotion. Junction Road was so narrow that it might not be able to cope with the traffic volume during Ching Ming Festival and Chung Yeung Festival. Therefore, FEHD should consider the needs of residents nearby and take appropriate traffic management measures. He was also concerned about problems relating to stray animals. Sometimes stray monkeys would take things from and throw stones in public estates. He suggested that fruit trees be planted around reservoirs so that the monkeys could survive on their own. Also, since boars would come down from the hill for food in autumn and winter, he advised FEHD to educate the people not to feed stray animals. Insecticidal spray might be harmful to the environment, but it could still be used if necessary. Besides, DEHS(WTS) was requested to continue the department’s anti-mosquito endeavours.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 13 22. Mr. CHAN On-tai hoped that performance of the Joint Office could be improved. Water seepage was a nuisance to residents but the Joint Office’s performance was unsatisfactory and questionable, and it could seldom identify the source of water seepage. However, under the request of complainant via legal letter, the occupant allegedly causing water seepage would take remedial action immediately. Besides fair judgement, legal proceedings were also essential in a free society. If the Joint Office was familiar with the water seepage problem as if it was a plumber, it should be able to identify the source of water seepage easily. If an occupant being complained did not know that his flat was the source of water seepage, he would not take action immediately after receiving a legal letter. The Joint Office’s letter stating that no source could be found would only encourage the occupant not to take repair action, and prolong the suffering of the complainant. Most buildings in Wong Tai Sin had been built two to three decades ago, so the Joint Office should improve its work to solve water seepage problem in the district. On the other hand, he suggested that markets be used optimally by revitalisation, as the vacant markets was a waste of resources. He suggested that the markets be used for other commercial purposes. Tin Ma Court Market managed by the Link, and had been revitalised into a market-cum-commercial facility to have optimal use of space. If a supermarket could pay less rent, it could sell its commodities in a low price and benefit the public. He hoped that the vitalised markets could serve the same purpose. In fact, with improved design and management, Tin Ma Market had become more attractive to tenants. Provision of ossuary niches was an important livelihood issue. He had reservation over the provision of columbaria in factory buildings as these buildings might be used for other purposes some day, causing confusion and affecting livelihood. As slopes near the Tseung Kwan O Chinese Permanent Cemetery were mostly undeveloped, he suggested that columbaria be built on these slopes to meet people’s need for niches, and a new road be built to share the pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
(Mr. WONG Kit-hin left the meeting at 3:30 p.m.)
23. Ms. KWOK Sau-ying said Tai Shing Street Market was famous but it was stuffy, crowded and thieves were active inside. She hoped that WTSDC and FEHD would join hands and improve the markets, so as to establish a positive brand name to Tai Shing Street Market. She was a member of the Tai Shing Street Market Management Committee and supported the retrofitting of air-conditioning system. The committee had also endorsed that air-conducting fans would be installed before installing the air-conditioning system. However, even though relevant funding approval had been obtained, the works had never been commenced. As far as she knew, the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) had failed to make the necessary works arrangements. She requested DFEH to render assistance to expedite the works. On the other hand, stallholders hoped that FEHD would set aside some places in
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 14 markets for use by trade associations/committees. These organisations which were a bridge between the Government and the stallholders, had many ex-co members. Also, she requested FEHD to inject more resources into Tai Shing Street Market which, being the only market jointly developed by the ex-Urban Council and the Hong Kong Housing Society, was problematic. There were dilapidated facilities. Also, it was difficult to repair the pipes serving the market’s toilets as these pipes were located at the car park of Kai Tak Garden. Therefore, she requested FEHD and ArchSD to joint hand and improve the market.
24. Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH said even though WTSDC had supported the provision of additional niches, individual Members would undoubtedly reflect the views of their own constituencies. He reminded FEHD that if no detail was disclosed to the residents before the project was announced, the residents would keep on speculating about the project, or even discuss the subject with DC members, who could not but to raise objection on behalf on the residents, making it impossible for FEHD to solve the problem through negotiation. Information on the Diamond Hill Crematorium Columbarium had been provided to DC members concerned at a very early stage. He commented that similar arrangement should be made for the construction of columbaria in other areas. In other words, draft proposal of a project should be provided to DC members concerned. The DC members would then analyse the proposal in a rational manner, and then informed FEHD of residents’ concerns. A consultation exercise without a detailed proposal would certainly meet objection by residents, and it was difficult to change their mind then. On the other hand, he objected to provision of niches in factory buildings, in consideration of the fire safety and the possible worsening of the situation resulted from the provision of columbaria in these buildings. Instead, consideration could be made for building columbaria in industrial areas. The SAR Government always said there were inadequate niches but it was not willing to provide land plots. For instance, the secluded Sunny Bay near Disneyland accessible by MTR, as well as the huge, readily accessible area in the vicinity of the immigration and customs facilities in Shenzhen Bay might be used to build columbaria but apparently the Government had no intention to do so. Even though 300 000 niches were needed in Hong Kong, the Government only considered building columbaria in the vicinity of residential properties. He queried if it was right to do so. If FEHD wanted to build columbaria in every district, it should accord priority to local residents who wanted to use the niches in their respective districts. The crux of the problems concerning the Joint Office was the outdated testing methods. Moreover, the Joint Office would only investigate the flat immediately above the complainant’s, and stop investigation and close the case immediately if no source of water seepage could be found. In fact, water seepage might come from two to four levels’ flat above the complainant’s one. Therefore, if the Joint Office stopped investigate further upward because owner of the flat immediately above the complainant’s did not lodge further
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 15 complaint, it would never find the source. He suggested that more advanced testing methods be used, such as infrared or ultrasonic tests recognised by the court. In addition, the investigation should cover flats other than the one immediately above the complainant’s. The public did not only settle their cases , but they would like to find the sources of water seepage.
25. Mr. HO Yin-fai understood that FEHD’s public services ranged from birth, death, daily lives and even pest control. Regarding market management, he enquired about the cause of the high vacancy rate of markets. As it was a waste of public money for people to use the vacant markets as warehouses, he requested FEHD to provide air-conditioning in the markets and improve the environment. Currently, FEHD would install air-conditioning system in a market with the consent of 85% of stallholders. He enquired about the determination of the rate. As elections were decided by simple majority of votes, he queried why installation of air-conditioning system required a supporting rate of 85%. If FEHD did not provide air-condition in the markets proactively, competitiveness of these markets would be worsened. Also, he discovered that HAD had reserved an elevator for DFEH despite the other two elevators had been full. He commented that a leader should behave in a fair, open and impartial manner, and should not be bureaucratic.
26. Ms. TAM Heung-man expressed her appreciation to FEHD’s anti-mosquito efforts in Diamond Hill. Following WTSDC’s discussion on illegal graves in Diamond Hill last year, some residents had told her recently that there were new graves on the concerned site. She enquired if the allegation was true. Some residents had sought her assistance in handling the illegal graves. The graves had been establisled for more than one decade and they had difficulties in exhuming and relocating the ash as requested by the Government. She asked if FEHD could provide assistance to them. On the other hand, many people said the Joint Office was slow in handling water seepage cases, and some cases might even take one or two years, before the complainants sought assistance from lawyers as the last resort. She commented that the Joint Office was a “toothless tiger” and could not provide any assistance to the public. DC members were also disappointed because they could not help residents to solve their water seepage problems. In her constituency, many residents suffered from water seepage, so she requested FEHD to review the performance of the Joint Office.
27. Mr. Clement LEUNG, JP thanked Members for their advice. DEHS(WTS) would take follow up actions. His response to Members’ comments was summarised as follows:
(i) FEHD managed a variety of public sevices. Success of its work hinged on people’s sense of social responsibility, which would
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 16 also help to improve the environment. Even though FEHD enforced against shops and stalls for illegal occupation of public places, it was impossible for its staff to provide round-the-clock surveillance. Shop owners and stallholders would rectify their irregularities upon FEHD staff’s warning or prosecution. Once the staff left, the irregularities returned. Hence, FEHD encouraged the public to exercise self-discipline and social responsibility. The department would also enforce more stringently;
(ii) Market Management
FEHD would only install air-conditioning system in a market with the consent of 85% or more stallholders and availability of sufficient infrastructures, e.g. power supply and transformer room, etc. In the past decade, the Audit Department had reviewed FEHD’s market management endeavours on a number of occasions and commented that FEHD had not used its resources optimally. It had also pointed out that the provision of air-conditioning might not improve market viability. FEHD would not install air-conditioning system in a market unless overwhelming support from the stallholders was secured. As stallholders had only needed to pay a meagre amount of rent before the installation of air-condition, they needed to share the electricity charge and maintenance cost afterwards. FEHD had no intention to make money this way. Instead, the department considered that public money should not be used to subsidise stallholders’ operation. A large amount of public money, about tens of million to a hundred million dollars per market, would be involved in the installation of air-conditioning systems. FEHD considered that markets could be air-conditioned in a self-financed manner, rather than using taxpayers’ money. In fact, the Government had subsidised the management of markets, and would not recover the installation cost of air-conditioning systems from stallholders. Moreover, when installation works were being carried out, operation of certain stalls might have to be suspended for a few years. As FEHD could not require all stalls to suspend operation concurrently or close the market concerned, it had reservation over the retrofitting of air-conditioning systems unless strong support from the stallholders was obtained. On the other hand, air-conditioning was not the only way to improve ventilation
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 17 in markets. FEHD would consider installing ventilation systems, among other alternatives. He had visited various markets, in particular those without air-conditioning, and found that while markets with chilled air fans only were less comfortable than the air-conditioned counterpart, but it was much better than in “sauna rooms”. FEHD would keep in touch with DC and stallholders’ association on market management, and would pay more efforts to improve ventilation of markets that were not yet ready for air-conditioning. FEHD spent more than ten million dollars to improve infrastructure and operation of markets every financial year. A case in point was the promotional campaigns during festivals. FEHD also endeavoured to increase pedestrian flow around vacant stalls through the introduction of Chinese medical service, property agents, domestic helper agents, etc. These endeavours were well received, but FEHD would also consider application for selling snacks at stalls, so as to improve market management.
Regarding Members’ requests for revitalising the Choi Hung Road Market and closing the market if revitalisation was impossible, FEHD would listen to the views of WTSDC carefully. If WTSDC opined that the market was commercially unviable, FEHD could consider turning the market for other uses even though the occupancy rate was above 90%, as the stalls might actually be used for storage of goods. However, if FEHD decided to close the market, some people would try to voice their grievances through DC members or certain organisations. Hence, the change could not be justified unless there was strong local support. WTSDC might also propose alternative ways to use the markets more effectively for FEHD’s consideration;
(iii) Street Obstruction
FEHD had to handle street obstruction caused by restaurants, unlicensed hawkers, items that hindered street cleansing and illegal easy-mount frames, in accordance with relevant legislations. Although control of street obstruction was a routine duty of FEHD, people’s sense of social responsibility played a part too. FEHD would listen to Members’ advice, draw up the action plan and work on the blackspots in the district. WTSDO would co-ordinate various departments to take action in locations that
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 18 street obstruction was serious. HAB had also established a steering committee to co-ordinate efforts against this problem. The steering committee was reviewing the current legislation, with a view to identifying ways to curb the problem more effectively. Findings of the review would be presented to Members by WTSDO and HAB. On the other hand, the Ombudsman was now reviewing FEHD’s licensing procedure with outside seating accommodation. Generally speaking, the department would consult residents when considering an application for outdoor seating, and would not approve the application if residents’ objection was received. FEHD had changed its enforcement strategy against irregularities. However, a restaurant operator whose licence had been cancelled, could ask someone to apply for a restaurant licence. FEHD was seeking ways to plug the loophole, and would co-operate with other departments and DCs to curb street obstruction more effectively;
(iv) Illegal Graves in Diamond Hill
He thanked Members for their support and recognition to FEHD’s handling of illegal graves. FEHD understood that residents hoped the department could expedite actions to settle the problem. He also knew that Members were concerned about the possible opposition triggered by the removal of the 800-odd illegal graves. In the past year, some people had confirmed with FEHD that they would remove the illegal graves, but hoped that more time could be given. WTSDC supported gradual, voluntary exhumation by the bereaved families. FEHD would allow more time for the people to rebury their ancestors at appropriate places.
FEHD had failed to see the problem in the past, and was now taking remedial actions proactively. To date more than 100 illegal graves had already been removed by the bereaved families. FEHD would postpone the deadline to allow time for the public to apply the exhumation permit and arrange with a mason to exhume the remains. Urn spaces were still available in Wo Hop Shek. FEHD would review the arrangement in a timely manner, to ensure proper exhumation and provide assistance to people in need. FEHD would also liaise with Members and inform WTSDC before taking an action. FEHD thanked Members for their support for the extension of funeral facilities and
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 19 columbarium in Diamond Hill, and undertook to manage these facilities properly. Also, the department would co-operate with other departments during Ching Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals to alleviate the pedestrian traffic caused by grave-sweepers;
(v) Extension of Chinese Christian Cemetery (Kowloon) at Junction Road
Chinese Christian Cemetery (Kowloon) at Junction Road was a private cemetery. The existing ordinance required that Government approval be obtained for building any structure in a private cemetery. During the vetting process, the Government would check if the works were in compliance with relevant legislation, and look into traffic impact of the works. Regarding Members’ request for liaising with HKCCCU, to increase the public understanding of the project, FEHD had arranged and asked HKCCCU to attend meeting and provide information on topics concerned by WTSDC;
(vi) Infestation of Mosquitoes
Mosquito prevention was one of the major tasks of FEHD. The department started its mosquito prevention endeavour before the rainy season. In March every year, FEHD would ask other departments to take relevant actions. In addition, it published Ovitrap indices every month. If high Ovitrap indice was recorded in a district, the DEHS concerned would be asked to urge private companies, Government departments and persons-in-charge of estates to take anti-mosquito actions. Despite the high Ovitrap indices recorded in certain districts, the Ovitrap indices in Hong Kong last year had been the lowest one in ten years. FEHD would continue its anti-mosquito efforts;
(vii) The Joint Office
Performance of the Joint Office might not fully meet the public’s expectation. However, management of private buildings should be the responsibility of flat owners. After studying the department’s handling of water seepage, the Ombudsman shared this view as well.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 20
The Joint Office and FEHD was not responsible to manage the properties concerned and to help owners to identify the sources of water seepage. Instead, it looked into nuisances relating to environmental hygiene. If water seepage caused environmental hygiene nuisances, FEHD might prosecute the culprits according to the ordinance. FEHD was responsible to identify and prosecute persons causing nuisances, instead of identifying the sources of water seepage. It could not make any prosecution if no one causing the nuisance could be found.
Water seepage could have infinite number of sources, including seepage at exterior wall of the flat, as well as the flat above. FEHD would normally inspect the flat immediately above, to find the person causing the nuisance. Prosecution could only be made when the court was satisfied with the evidences. Hong Kong people today had a very strong sense of civil rights, so they would defend in court when being prosecuted. Therefore, FEHD would not make any prosecution unless it possessed evidences that could fully satisfy the court. Regarding the suggested use of new technologies to replace colour water test, certain DCs had appointed consultants to study the feasibility of adopting new technologies, but found that they failed to locate the source of water seepage accurately. Colour water test was a traditional method, but it was rather accurate and acceptable by the court. FEHD would continue to improve the work in this regard, such as replacing contract staff with Health Inspectors, and increasing its manpower.
Handling of water seepage hinged on people’s social responsibility. If the occupants of the affected flat and the one above could co-operate with each other, it would only take a few weeks to solve the problem. If the alleged person refused to admit staff of the Joint Office into his home, it would take longer to process the case. Although the Joint Office could apply for a search warrant if necessary, it might not be helpful in solving the problem. Even with the increased manpower, FEHD could not handle 20 000 cases received every year. Therefore, FEHD had launched a pilot scheme to invite property management companies to participate in the work. As these companies knew the residents well, they could handle water seepage more effectively
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 21 than Government staff did, because the latter needed to enter flats to perform colour water test. He hoped that the property management companies would assist in this work. For other matters, he would reply to Members after discussing with DEHS.
(Mr. WONG Kwok-tung arrived at the meeting at 3:45 p.m.)
28. The Chairman summarised Members’ comments for FEHD’s follow-up actions, and said Members might put forward further comments in writing. Members’ comments were summarised below:
(i) The Joint Office was established with the Government’s response to the public’s needs and thus the latter cherished high expectation. The Joint Office should make use of the latest technologies and update its testing methods;
(ii) WTSDC had stated clearly its views on ways to improve Choi Hung Road Market. Members might follow up this topic at FEHC meetings;
(iii) FEHC had discussed and would follow up the problem of illegal graves in Diamond Hill;
(iv) He shared DFEH’s views on the extension of Chinese Christian Cemetery (Kowloon). Conventionally, no consultation exercise was conducted for development of private columbaria, but this practice was problem-prone. The provision of niches would not cause any impact on the cemetery, but the niches would attract grave-sweepers, causing additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic and visual and environmental impacts that warranted local attention. If the ordinance did not require organisations or departments concerned to consult the public on the proposed development, the ordinance should be amended. FEHD was responsible to vet and approve the project, thus it should be responsible for consulting local stakeholders. The Government had to amend the ordinance to meet the actual needs. FEHC would monitor the situation and invite Government departments to attend its meetings; and
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 22
(v) There had been heated debate about the provision of additional niches. Having discussed the issue with other DC chairmen during that time, he understood that those districts did not object to the construction of columbaria, but hoped that FEHD would consider locations proposed by DCs, rather than deciding the locations of columbaria by itself. Some DCs raised objection not because of the construction of columbaria, but the location insisted by FEHD, which refused to adopt DCs’ counter-proposal. Given the CE-elect’s avocation of “district matters should be solved by the respective districts”, he suggested that FEHD let individual districts to determine the location of columbaria, so that less objection would be met.
(Ms. Maggie CHAN arrived at the meeting at 4:00 p.m.)
The Chairman hoped that FEHD would follow up Members’ comments, and said Members might continue the discussion on this topic at FEHC meetings or send their views to FEHD direct. He thanked Mr. LEUNG and the FEHD representative for attending the meeting.
(Mr. Clement LEUNG and Mr. FAN Yung-kai left the meeting at this juncture.)
(Mr. SHUM Wan-wa and Mr. TING Chi-wai left the meeting at 4:05 p.m.)
III(ii) Motion on “Urging the Government for Early Implementation of Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme to the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities at a Concessionary Fare of $2 per Trip” (WTSDC Paper 44/2012)
29. The Chairman said the wordings used in the motion moved by Mr. Joe LAI were different from the paper. He asked Mr. LAI to introduce and read out the motion.
30. Mr. LAI Wing-ho pointed out that Hong Kong people particularly the grassroots has long been suffering from a heavy burden of travelling expenses and financial hardship under the impact of continuous inflation. Although the Chief Executive (CE) had proposed in last year’s Policy Address to provide fare concessions to the elderly and persons with disabilities to travel on public transport at a concessionary fare of $2 per trip (the Scheme), the Scheme had yet to be launched to date. He moved the following motion: “That, as to benefit the people of Hong Kong
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 23 as soon as possible, this District Council urges the Government to discuss with public transport operators the implementation schedule of ‘providing public transport fare concessions to the elderly and persons with disabilities at a concessionary fare of $2 per trip’ (the Scheme) at its earliest convenience, to study the feasibility of extending the Scheme to cover minibus, and to implement the Scheme in individual transport services once the operators concerned are ready.” The motion was seconded by Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH and Mr. Stephen YUEN.
31. The Chairman reminded Members that the phrase “and tram” had been deleted from the motion, and said a reply from the Labour and Welfare Bureau (LWB) (Annex III) was tabled. There was no LWB representative at the meeting. The Chairman enquired if Member would like to propose any amendment, raise any objection, or abstain from voting, and the answers were all negative (i.e. 24 Members supported the motion, no member objected and there was not any abstention.). The Chairman then announced that Mr. Joe LAI’s motion was carried by WTSDC.
III(iii) Briefing on the Conceptual Master Plan of Kowloon East (WTSDC Paper 42/2012)
32. The Chairman welcomed Deputy Head Ms. Winnie HO and Senior Town Planner Ms. Vivian LAI of DEVB’s Pre-Kowloon East Development Office.
33. Ms. Winnie HO made a PowerPoint presentation on the paper. Highlights were as follows:
(i) Background
The Pre-Kowloon East Development Office (Development Office) had been established in mid-February 2012. The Energizing Kowloon East Office would come into full operation in early June.
Supply of offices in Hong Kong had rocketed between 1980 and 2000. However, the growth had slowed down between 2000 and 2010. There was only a meagre increase in the number of offices in conventional commercial areas such as Central, Sheung Wan, Wan Chai, Causeway Bay, Tsim Sha Tsui, etc. On the other hand, a hefty increase of about 1 million m2 of office space was found in Kwun Tong and Kowloon Bay, showcasing the development potential of Kwun Tong and Kowloon Bay. The
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 24 “Outline of the 12th Five-Year Plan for the National Economic and Social Development of the People's Republic of China” (the 12-5 Plan) emphasised the Central Government’s support for consolidating and enhancing Hong Kong’s position as an international financial, trade and shipping centre, and Hong Kong’s development into an international asset management and offshore RMB business centre. In this connection, supply of prime offices should be ensured. Therefore, the Financial Secretary had advocated in his 2011-12 Budget the increase in supply of Grade A offices, followed by the CE’s announcement of “Energizing Kowloon East” in his 2011-12 Policy Address, in a bid to support the long-term development of Hong Kong and enhance her competitiveness. In “Hong Kong 2030 Study”, the Planning Department (PlanD) recommended that another central business district (CBD) be developed as the conventional business districts were about to be saturated. The Town Planning Board (TPB) had started rezoning some “Industrial Zones” into “Other Specified Uses (Business)” (OUB) since 2001. Also, the Government had launched measures to revitalise industrial buildings in April 2010 to expedite transformation of these buildings into offices. Planning and development of the former Kai Tak Airport site had been necessitated by the relocation of the airport to Chek Lap Kok in 1997. Various development projects and works were underway in the site. The Cruise Terminal and the first berth would be commissioned in mid-2013. Development of Kai Tak would propel the development of its neighbourhood such as Kowloon Bay, Kwun Tong, etc. In the Kai Tak Development Area (KTDA) there would be Cruise Terminal, sport facilities, Kai Tak River, Lung Tsun Stone Bridge, etc., as well as 2 million m2 of residential floor area, 2 million m2 of non-residential floor area and green belt, providing homes for 90 000 people. KTDA was newly developed and thus planning would be completed by phases. The entire project would be completed in 2021. Office floor area of 68 hectares zoned as “Other Specified Uses (Business)” in Kwun Tong and Kowloon Bay had increased from 0.4 million m2 in 2000 to 1.4 million m2 in 2010. To revitalise industrial buildings, the Lands Department (LandsD) had approved a number of applications for conversion or redevelopment of industrial buildings in Kwun Tong and Kowloon Bay. There were many Grade A commercial buildings in the two districts, such as Landmark East, Enterprise Square V
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 25 (MegaBox), Hong Kong International Trade and Exhibition Centre, etc. In a survey conducted by PlanD, it was revealed that 80% of commercial entities either set up their offices in industrial buildings, or use such buildings for office-related uses. Many commercial entities had relocated their offices from CBD to Kowloon East. The survey also revealed that 90% of the commercial entities would stay in Kowloon East if relocation was required. The affordable rental level had made Kowloon East an ideal place for development of small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
(ii) Conceptual Plan of “Energizing Kowloon East”
The conceptual master plan of the commercial area in Kowloon East comprised four major elements, namely connectivity, branding, design and diversity, or collectively “CBD2”, which also epitomised the status of Kowloon East as another feature-rich and attractive central business district. The new concept was well-received by local stakeholders.
(a) Connectivity
Inter and intra-connectivity of Kowloon East was vitally important. The existing Kwun Tong, Ngau Tau Kok and Kowloon Bay MTR Stations, as well as the Shatin to Central Link (SCL) to be completed in 2020 would connect Kowloon East and other commercial areas effectively. DEVB also proposed a 12-station monorail system and was now conducting Stage I Public Consultation. Stage II Public Consultation would be conducted in late-2012 after consolidating views collected in Stage I. At present, provision of pedestrian facilities in Kwun Tong and Kowloon Bay were unsatisfactory and there was not much greening too. Therefore, a people-oriented design would be adopted to improve the pedestrian facilities. In consideration that the three existing MTR stations served as “magnet points” and attracted people living in hilly area to the stations, DEVB was studying to make use of MTR stations to attract people to the waterfront. Even though KTDA was adjacent to the Victoria Harbour, the waters around the former Kwun Tong Cargo Working Area were
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 26 not open to the public. As the cargo working area had ceased operation and part of the waterfront promenade had been open for use by the public, DEVB would continue to seek ways to make the best use of the promenade to improve connectivity between different areas. DEVB would also study the feasibility of building a walkway system in Kowloon Bay similar to the one in Central. There would be five privately-developed walkway systems. Matters concerning additional premium was being processed and the works would be completed in two years after commencement.
(b) Design and Branding
Despite the existence of lots of old industrial buildings in Kwun Tong and Kowloon Bay, new Grade A commercial buildings springing up would improve the image of the two districts and attract more companies to set up headquarters there, facilitating development of enterprises of all sizes. Under the “people-oriented” concept, DEVB would identify ways to establish branding and improve the environment. The 11km waterfront promenade allowed the public to gain access to the large and calm waters of the Victoria Harbour near KTDA and engage themselves in various leisure activities. Also, a continuous green belt could be provided along the promenade to improve the environment. Phase I of the waterfront promenade had been open to the public. DEVB would continue to study the feasibility of providing public mooring zone or aquatic sports facilities. Furthermore, the Zero Carbon Building with open space being built near MegaBox would be completed in June 2012.
(c) Diversity
Various activities, such as dragon boating, would be held at the natural waters. Restaurants and cafes would be provided at the waterfront promenade, whereas the area under Kwun Tong Bypass would be open to organisations for holding activities.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 27
(d) Designation of Two Government Sites as Action Areas
Action Area 1 was a 6.4 hectare site at Hoi Bun Road. The Government suggested that the existing waste recycling centre and vehicle examination centre be relocated to make the area available for comprehensive development, such as offices, hotels, malls or green belt.
Action Area 2 was the site near Kwun Tong Ferry Pier currently used by the bus terminus and the driving school. The Government was considering to relocate the driving school to provide public open space, alfresco dinning area and outdoor performance venue beside the ferry pier. The outdoor performance venue would be available to art groups based in the district.
There were still nine Government sites in Kowloon East undeveloped / underdeveloped. As these sites were scattered around, DEVB would seek ways to make the best use of these sites, so as to complement the overall planning.
(iii) Challenges Ahead
The Government could plan KTDA as a whole, but land lots in Kwun Tong and Kowloon Bay were mostly privately owned and involved lots of owners. DEVB should plan the transformation prudently to protect the interests of the 200 000 working population and 25 000 enterprises in the two districts, and to strike a balance between development of Grade A commercial buildings and SMEs.
(Ms. Maggie CHAN left the meeting at 4:25 p.m.)
DEVB’s Energizing Kowloon East Office (the Office), comprising town planners, architects, engineers, landscape architects and other professionals, would be established in June 2012. The container-turned Office premises and information centre were located under the Kwun Tong Bypass. DEVB attached high importance to public views during the planning stage. After its establishment in February 2012, the Development Office had held a workshop on 5 May, during which Vice-chairman of
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 28 WTSDC and residents of various districts had put forth suggestions about development of Kowloon East for DEVB’s consideration. Participants hoped that the development of Kowloon East would be supported by good pedestrian and vehicular connectivity, as well as diversified activities that would make the area a joyful place to visit.
34. Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH was glad that the Government would develop the former Kai Tak Airport site, which had been left vacant for nearly 14 years. In addition to Cruise Terminal, CE had also announced a development plan for Kowloon East in last year’s Policy Address. According to the development plan, Kowloon East would be developed into a multi-purpose commercial centre. He cherished high expectation to “Energizing Kowloon East”, and put forth three suggestions about the plan:
(i) The Cruise Terminal in Kai Tak would serve as a “Sea Portal” of Hong Kong. However, DEVB should pay attention to the provision of adequate traffic support necessitated by the development of Kowloon East. Trunk roads in Kowloon East and Kowloon Central, such as Prince Edward Road East and Kwun Tong Road, were severely congested during peak hours, and more so in case of traffic accidents. Development of Kai Tak might worsen the traffic condition in the district. He was concerned about traffic improvements in the district. As development in Kai Tak might outpace the construction of SCL and Central Kowloon Link CKL, he urged the Government to commence the works as soon as possible to improve the traffic condition in Kowloon East;
(ii) There were various tourist attractions in Kowloon East, such as Wong Tai Sin Temple, Chi Lin Nunnery and the upcoming waterfront promenade. These attractions might be integrated into a tourist route. There were also relics in Kowloon East that warranted preservation. The Government should formulate heritage conservation policy, so that the public could know the way Kowloon East had been previously; and
(iii) Tourist facilities in Kowloon East were poor. There were only two hotels at present. Even though the hotel in Cruise Terminal would be completed, he worried that these hotels might not be able to meet the demand, and suggested that the Government redevelop vacant factory buildings into hotels.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 29 As the development of Kai Tak would propel the development of Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon City and Kwun Tong, he suggested part of KTDA be designated under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin to complement the development. 35. Mr. CHAN On-tai was concerned about development of the waterfront, and suggested the part near Kai Hing Road be developed into a semi-circular shore to facilitate water flow. Also, example could be drawn from Australia, which had held a concert in the harbour. A hotel with an underground carpark might also be built at the concert venue. He also suggested that the southern end of the former runway of Kai Tak Airport be developed into a semi-circular shore which, together with hotel development and landscaping, would become a landmark of Hong Kong. He understood that a hospital would be built near the Cruise Terminal, and commented that the hospital would not be compatible with the tourist attractions. He suggested the site be developed into a leisure complex, and the hospital be built elsewhere. Also, floating restaurants as seen in Spain might be built in the waters along the walkway joining the seashore of Kwun Tong and the former runway.
36. Ms. TAM Heung-man welcomed “Energizing Kowloon East” and said it would trigger the development of Kowloon East. She pointed out that the footbridge joining Kowloon Bay Station and Kai Yip Estate was narrow at the end near Exit B of the station. As the volume of pedestrian flow was very large during peak hours, she enquired if the proposed pedestrian connectivity system would improve the situation. Also, there was a bottleneck at Kwun Tong Road westbound near Caritas Family Crisis Support Centre, at which four traffic lanes were merged into three, causing traffic congestion. Hence, she urged DEVB to improve the road when implementing “Energizing Kowloon East”.
37. Mr. WONG Yat-yuk said “Energizing Kowloon East” could facilitate economic development but requested DEVB to provide restaurants and other supporting facilities, and to improve traffic and environment. He opined that it was difficult to vitalise factory buildings in the area to dovetail the development because of the complicated property ownership, and thus enquired about how the old factory buildings could be used to support commercial development. He also advised that DEVB should attach importance to environmental protection in its attempts to improve the traffic condition of old industrial areas. Many people who worked at Hoi Yuen Road complained about the severe traffic congestion and expensive meals. As such, he was concerned about the lack of competition between restaurants in the area that resulted in meal price hike and hardship of the grassroots. As property prices in the area kept rising after the announcement of “Energizing Kowloon East”, he worried that SMEs would be affected, thus urged the Government to strike a balance between interests of various stakeholders when implementing the development plan.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 30
38. Mr. Joe LAI was concerned about “Energizing Kowloon East” and made a few suggestions about the plan. The construction cost of the Environmentally Friendly Linkage System (EFLS) estimated by the Government was HK$12 billion, whereas professionals estimated only around HK$6 billion. He was puzzled about the difference, and urged the Government to minimise the cost and consequently the fare. On the other hand, although the Government had planned to extend EFLS to cover San Po Kong, the plan had yet to be confirmed and it failed to “propel development of old districts by developing new districts”. The Government needed to look squarely at the gradual transformation of the factory buildings in San Po Kong, development of the former Tai Hom Village site, and dissatisfaction of residents of Rhythm Garden towards the traffic condition. In addition, it should consider extending EFLS to cover San Po Kong. There was not any specialist clinic, specialist hospital nor A&E room in Wong Tai Sin, so he hoped that the regional hospital to be provided in KTDA could meet Wong Tai Sin residents’ needs. Finally, he said some middle-class people had commented that the 40m headroom of the Kwun Tong Transportation Link (KTTL), an integral part of EFLS, was too high, as the heights for both Tsing Tsuen Bridge and Ap Lei Chau Bridge were both 17m only. As initial estimation had revealed that a headroom of only 22m was required for KTTL, he asked the Government to listen to local stakeholders and revise the proposal.
39. Mr. MOK Kin-wing welcomed “Energizing Kowloon East” and said establishment of another commercial centre would be beneficial to the development of economical activities in areas around Kowloon East and alleviate the traffic problems in CBD. He asked DEVB to strengthen the connectivity between old and new districts and install passenger conveyors, elevators and escalators at footbridges and pedestrian subways. He worried that the design of EFLS would be biased towards commercial and industrial areas as well as luxurious residential properties in KTDA, but failed to meet the needs of residents of old areas and public housing estates in Wong Tai Sin. In consideration of EFLS’ low anticipated rate of return and rate of utilisation, he suggested that the Government should extend its coverage to increase the volume of pedestrian flow between old and new districts. Also, the extension could be useful to residents of old districts who worked in the new commercial area. The Government had planned to build the Centre of Excellence in Paediatrics in KTDA, but it failed to allocate adequate resources to the medical services in Kowloon East. Utilisation rate of the United Christian Hospital was high, and no specialist or A&E services were available in the Our Lady Maryknoll Hospital. Therefore, the Government should provide a general hospital in KTDA to meet the needs of residents of Wong Tai Sin. Furthermore, he enquired if the walkway between the former apron area and the runway
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 31 would be demolished, so that the waters concerned could be used for water sports and development of water sports centre. He also suggested cycling tracks be built in Kowloon East. 40. Mr. HO Hon-man supported the proposed development of Kowloon East into a commercial area, and commented that there was no conflict in the development of the regional hospital and commercial area. He reiterated that despite the different views on development of the commercial area, Wong Tai Sin had an eminent need for a regional hospital. DAB had previously met representatives from the Hospital Authority and requested for establishment of A&E department in Wong Tai Sin, as well as establishment of regional hospital or paediatrics hospital in KTDA. The Government planned to redevelop the Queen Mary Hospital and the Kwong Wah Hospital but failed to identify suitable sites. As residents of Wong Tai Sin hoped that medical facilities could be provided in KTDA, he suggested that the Government implement the redevelopment plans in the area.
41. Mr. SO Sik-kin supported “Energizing Kowloon East” but pointed out that the plan only focused on Kwun Tong and Kowloon Bay but not Wong Tai Sin. He commented that the plan should cover Kwun Tong, Wong Tai Sin and Kowloon City, and urged the Government to consult relevant DCs in a timely manner.
42. Mr. WONG Kwok-tung said the plan was mainly about Kwun Tong and the design concerned was beautiful. However, he expected that implementation of the plan would be subject to problems and challenges because of the fragmented ownership of private buildings, which had also troubled the Urban Renewal Authority for many years. Given the proximity of Kwun Tong, Wong Tai Sin would also be affected by the plan. He thus suggested that the Government consult the Wong Tai Sin district more extensively to realise DEVB’s “people-oriented” approach in planning.
43. Ms. TAM Mei-po supported “Energizing Kowloon East” but requested the Government to perfect the plan and improve traffic and other supports. She agreed that EFLS could improve connectivity within Kowloon East, and requested that connectivity between old districts, grassroots’ communities and Kai Tak be enhanced. Therefore, she suggested EFLS be extended to cover Choi Wan Estate and other public housing estates. On the other hand, despite the aging population, there was no general hospital in Wong Tai Sin and most of the residents had to go to the United Christian Hospital to seek medical services, so she requested the Government to build a general hospital in KTDA.
44. Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH advised that the Government might adopt cycling as a form of transport in Kowloon East, and develop Kowloon Bay and Ngau Tau Kok in an environmental friendly manner as in KTDA. He also support the concept of
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 32 diversified development in “Energizing Kowloon East”. Diversifying lives hinged on various district-specific factors. He hoped that the rise in rental level would not pose any adverse effect to the numerous small art groups based in Kowloon Bay and Ngau Tau Kok. Instead, he hoped that the “B” in the development concept of “CBDD” could have the meaning of “Breeding Ground”. In other words, Kowloon East should be developed into a breeding ground of art groups, which would make the area a lively and vivid place.
45. The Chairman said as the chairman of WTSDC he was glad to see that the plan would propel the development of Kowloon Bay and Kwun Tong, but was disappointed that the plan had nothing to do with the development of Wong Tai Sin. The present situation of San Po Kong was similar to the situation in Kowloon Bay before the construction of Megabox and other commercial buildings. He urged the Government to listen to the district-based stakeholders and develop the districts around KTDA, including Wong Tai Sin. To enhance the effect of “using new districts to propel the development of old districts”, some Members suggested that part of Kai Tak be designated under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin, so that the development of Kai Tak could propel the development of Wong Tai Sin, Kwun Tong and Kowloon City. He asked DEVB to comment on Members’ views.
46. Ms. Winnie HO’s response to Members’ comments and enquiries was summarised as follows:
(i) “Energizing Kowloon East” emphasised much on connectivity, implying that DEVB attached high importance to the inter- and intra-connectivity of the area. At present, Kowloon East was not pedestrian-friendly. Walkways were narrow and thus it was not unusual to see people walking on the carriageways. DEVB had liaised with a number of departments and organisations, including TD and the MTR Corporation Ltd. (MTRCL) to seek ways to improve Kwun Tong, Ngau Tau Kok and Kowloon Bay MTR Stations. As utilisation rate of Ngau Tau Kok MTR Station was somewhat lower, DEVB considered that it was necessary to diversify passengers. Moreover, the proposed footbridge network to be built by private developers would also improve the connectivity between Kowloon Bay MTR Station and the commercial area. Also, DEVB had been liaising with TD to identify possible traffic improvement measures, such as fine-tuning the traffic lights at junctions, widening the pavements, etc. The pedestrian flow was high during commuting hours, while traffic flow was busy at times. DEVB would examine various needs during different times of a day, and
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 33 adjust the traffic arrangement accordingly. For instance, pedestrian green period would be extended when there was heavy pedestrian flow. Moreover, DEVB would try to improve the traffic condition at Kowloon Bay, Hoi Yuen Road, the area between Lai Yip Street and the waterfront, Tsun Yip Street, etc. The completion of SCL and CKL would further improve the traffic.
(ii) DEVB had received some innovative proposal on the use of the waters. It was pleased to study various iconic designs, such as vitalising the community by building a floating fountain as seen in overseas countries, among the others. To further improve the water quality at Kai Tak, the Drainage Services Department (DSD) had also taken some measures to intercept pollutants at the upstream. The Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) had also carried out some odour removal works, which had significantly reduced the odour of Kai Tak River. People could appreciate the beautiful scene of the Victoria Harbour in the waterfront at Kwun Tong, the former airport runway, as well as the upcoming Cruise Terminal and Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 1.
(iii) It was challenging to deal with fragmented land ownership. With the co-existing of the SMEs and Grade A office buildings might enrich a community, and it was undesirable to have only Grade A offices in a district. To form a diversified community, Grade A offices might be used as a core, surrounded by SMEs around. Tall Grade A commercial buildings and SMEs such as Lan Kwai Fong co-existed in Central, showcasing the vitality of Hong Kong. It took time to transform a district, but gradual, spontaneous changes were keys to an ideal transformation.
(iv) The alignment of EFLS, designed to improve connectivity and alleviate traffic congestion, had been consulted the public in February. DEVB noted Members’ concerns about EFLS’ cost-effectiveness, fare and connectivity with residential area, such as To Kwa Wan. However, some people worried that extension of the elevated monorail to residential areas might create visual impact and noise problem. Therefore, DEVB would consider views of various stakeholders prudently. After the first consultation exercise, CEDD would consolidate views collected and prepare a practicable proposal for public discussion. The height of EFLS’ KTTL was designed with
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 34 maritime safety, including the safety of barges entering the typhoon shelter. DEVB would continue to identify feasible solutions to meet the needs of various stakeholders. (v) The planning of hospitals was part of the territory-wide healthcare policy. DEVB would relay Members’ request for regional hospital to policy bureaux concerned.
(vi) Consideration was being made to build cycling tracks in parks in KTDA, so as to promote cycling as a leisure activity. DEVB could study the feasibility of extending the cycling tracks to the waterfront, too. However, it was complicated to use cycling as a mode of transport. Since the narrow roads in old districts had to accommodate numerous bus routes and huge volume of pedestrian traffic, it would be difficult to retrofit cycling tracks in these districts. While it was feasible to provide cycling tracks in new and large development areas, it might not be possible to do so in old districts.
(vii) DEVB had promoted the workshop held on 5 May by placing advertisements on newspapers. Also, three DCs (Kwun Tong, Wong Tai Sin and Kowloon City), owners’ corporations concerned, schools and professional bodies had also been invited to maximise public participation. More than 100 people had attended the workshop. DEVB would adopt local views, step up publicity efforts, and invite more local organisations to participate in future workshops.
(viii) Development of an area would certainly propel the development of its neighbourhood. To help the public understand the scope of the plan, DEVB had marked the area development on the draft outline zoning plan. However, the marking had nothing to do with people’s activities and connectivity between the area and its neighbourhood. DEVB would continue to identify ways to propel the development of the areas around and to enhance connectivity between these areas. According to “Energizing Kowloon East”, more than 20 connection points would be provided to connect Kowloon East with its neighbourhood. Also, DEVB would study the feasibility of building pedestrian subways, footbridges, etc. Greening and other improvements to the existing pedestrian linkage systems would also be made. However, DEVB would first focus its efforts in Kowloon East before moving on to the development of the areas around.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 35 Members were welcomed to use the Information Kiosk to be set up in the Energizing Kowloon East Office.
47. The Chairman concluded that after the establishment of the Energizing Kowloon East Office, Members might discuss the development plan in detail with Head of the Office. Also, Members might provide written submission to DEVB. The Chairman thanked DEVB representatives again for attending the meeting, and asked the bureau to note and follow-up Members comments.
(Ms. Winnie HO and Ms. Vivian LAI left the meeting at this juncture.)
III(iv) Request for Designating Part of the Kai Tak Development Area under the Jurisdiction of the Wong Tai Sin District (WTSDC Paper 43/2012)
48. The Chairman said the submission was jointly made by five Members of WTSDC, and drew all Members’ attention to the Home Affairs Department (HAD)’s reply (Annex IV).
49. Mr. MOK Kin-wing introduced the paper. WTSDC Members belonging to the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) requested that part of KTDA be designated under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin. In view of the Government’s plan to development Kowloon East into another CBD, FTU opined that the upcoming KTDA should be connected seamlessly with other districts in Kowloon East, such as Wong Tai Sin and Kwun Tong to facilitate the development of these districts. Therefore, FTU requested that part of KTDA be designated under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin on the following grounds:
(i) The former Kai Tak Airport fell under the jurisdiction of Kowloon City, despite its closer proximity to San Po Kong. As a few flyovers, footbridges and pedestrian subways would be built to connect KTDA and San Po Kong in the future, it would be more reasonable to designate part of KTDA under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin;
(ii) Wong Tai Sin, with an area of only 900 hectares, was the smallest one among the five districts in Kowloon, but also ranked last in size among all of the 18 districts in Hong Kong. Moreover, it was the only one without seashore. By designating part of KTDA under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin, demarcation of
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 36 districts in Kowloon will become more reasonable and more balanced; and
(iii) Public rental housing in the north apron area, one of the earliest development projects in KTDA, would be managed by the Housing Department’s Kowloon East Region; and according to the Education Bureau, some schools in Wong Tai Sin would be reprovisioned in KTDA and thus these schools would remain in the Wong Tai Sin school list. Also, the upcoming Kai Tak Hospital would be run by the Hospital Authority’s Kowloon East Cluster. As KTDA would be managed under Kowloon East in the provision of housing, education, and healthcare services, it was appropriate to include part of the area under Wong Tai Sin.
(Ms. TAM Heung-man left the meeting at 5:20 p.m.)
50. Mr. HUI Kam-shing had no comment on the proposed designation of part of KTDA under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin, but pointed out that since KTDA was currently managed by Kowloon City District Council (KCDC), it should first be consulted. Members of WTSDC might comment on this matter, but no decision should be made in this stage. WTSDC should respect KCDC and not to decide unilaterally the inclusion of part of KTDA into Wong Tai Sin.
51. Mr. SO Sik-kin supported that Wong Tai Sin should be involved more closely in the development of KTDA. He pointed out that among the 18 districts Wong Tai Sin was the only one without seashore. In consideration of the mutual dependence between Wong Tai Sin’s Kai Tak River and KTDA, as well as the close proximity between KTDA and Wong Tai Sin’s Rhythm Garden, Choi Hung Estate and the Latitude, he thought it was necessary to use the development of Kai Tak to propel the development of Wong Tai Sin. Therefore, it was very reasonable to designate part of KTDA under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin.
52. Mr. MOK Ying-fan enquired about HAD’s reply.
53. Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH commented that it was normal that the Government had only noted Members’ views but not to provide any response. He understood and agreed with the Government’s stance, i.e. not stating whether it supported the proposal or not. He was neither supportive or against the proposal, and agreed that the proposal should be discussed by WTSDC. Moreover, as the proposal involved demarcation of districts, it should be studied and discussed by DCs concerned such as Kwan Tong District Council (KTDC) and KCDC. In consideration that KTDA currently fell under the jurisdiction of Kowloon City, and re-demarcation of districts might have significant implications, he emphasised that KCDC should also be involved
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 37 in the study and discussion of this matter. WTSDC might put forth further views, and it was acceptable that the Government did not provide any response in this stage. 54. Mr. WU Chi-wai said he did not object to the expansion of Wong Tai Sin’s jurisdiction, but commented that the decision should not be made by WTSDC alone, and re-demarcation might also affect the division of labour of Government departments. He hoped that HAD would look into Members’ views and assess the effects of re-demarcation, including the provision of schools and other facilities. Since WTSDC had been discussing the need for seashore for many years, he agreed that WTSDC might prepare a proposal for HAD’s careful consideration. If HAD rejected the proposal, it should provide detailed explanation, instead of using “technical reasons” as an excuse.
(Mr. HUI Kam-shing left the meeting at 5:25 p.m.)
55. Mr. Joe LAI said designation of part of KTDA under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin was a new idea, as the district’s boundary had never been changed. He shared Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH’s view, viz. WTSDC might discuss the matter and submit its views to the Government. However, historical factors of KTDA should be considered, and it was necessary to discuss this matter with KCDC and KTDC. He did not object to the proposal but commented that since the matter had not been considered thoroughly, it was premature to make a decision in this stage. He commented that further studies and exchange of ideas with departments/DCs concerned should be carried out, and it was necessary to formulate a plan conducive to the development of Wong Tai Sin.
56. Mr. Rex MOK, MH said the school lists were based on demarcation of DC districts. The Wong Tai Sin District Secondary School Heads Association was concerned about the distribution of schools on school lists. The public housing estates in KTDA were linked up with Choi Hung Estate by a pedestrian subway or a footbridge, but KTDA fell under the Kowloon City school list. Under the current mechanism, a student living in a public housing estate opposite Choi Hung Estate might be allocated to a school in Oi Man Estate, which was on the Kowloon City school list. He emphasised that KTDA was close to Choi Hung Estate, as compared with Oi Man Estate, thus it was unreasonable to allocate a school place in Oi Man Estate to the student lived in KTDA. The Wong Tai Sin District Secondary School Heads Association had written to the Education Bureau to express their views on the principle of “vicinity”. The public housing estates in KTDA would be ready for occupation in 2013 and school admission arrangement would be made. Therefore, it was necessary to decide on the school list of the students in KTDA as soon as possible, and once it was confirmed and could not be changed any more. He reiterated that the Wong Tai Sin District Secondary School Heads Association was very much concerned about the school list, and requested the Government to assign the students to schools nearby.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 38
57 Mr. HO Yin-fai said on top of Mr. MOK Chung-fai’s concern about school list, it was necessary to consider the geographical factors pertaining to KTDA. The area in question had always been under the jurisdiction of Kowloon City, despite the fact that it had been included into the Kowloon Central and the Kowloon West constituencies previously. However, KCDC had never managed the former Kai Tak Airport which was a restricted area. He opined that to dovetail the development of KTDA, demarcation of districts should be revised according to the geographic factors. He emphasised that WTSDC would only provide advice for HAB or HAD’s consideration, and hoped that they would revise the demarcation of districts according to the geographic nature of the places. Although KTDA was managed by KCDC, the area was adjacent to Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin, and thus there was only a small fraction within Kowloon City. According to past experience, designing the entire KTDA under the jurisdiction of KCDC might not be the most effective way to manage the area, so he hoped the Government would consider revising the demarcation of districts.
58. Mr. William SHIU, JP thanked Members for their comments, and said as advised by HAD he would listen to Members views and provide initial response on behalf of the department. HAD considered that Members had made timely advice on the development of Wong Tai Sin and the demarcation of KTDA, and it would like to provide some information for Members’ reference. As the demarcation of districts was set out in the District Councils Ordinance, any change or revision of demarcation would necessitate amendment of the Ordinance. Before making any amendment to the Ordinance, the Government would consider all relevant factors, such as distribution of population, geographical nature, history, impacts on livelihood, and views of DCs, residents and other stakeholders, so as to gauge the need and timeframe for such amendment. Views of various stakeholders would also be sought and considered. If stakeholders agreed to revise the demarcation of districts, the Administration would proceed with the legislative amendments. In this connection, approval of CE in Council, LegCo and the Electoral Affairs Commission would be sought. The former Kai Tak Airport had been managed by the Civil Aviation Department but the area fell under the jurisdiction of Kowloon City, so stakeholders of Kowloon City, including members of KCDC, residents and organisations should be consulted on the proposed designation of part of KTDA under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin. HAD appreciated Members’ advice, which provided a good opportunity to study how to build on the strength of the KTDA project to facilitate the development of nearby districts, including Wong Tai Sin and San Po Kong. He encouraged Members to discuss and advise on this matter, and would relay their views to HAD.
(Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH left the meeting at 5:35 p.m.)
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 39
59. The Chairman said Members had commented on this matter from various perspectives. Before the closure of the former Kai Tak Airport, stakeholders including residents of Wong Tai Sin and WTSDC Members had been paying close attention to the development of the area. The “Conceptual Master Plan of Kowloon East” discussed just now was about Kowloon East rather than Kowloon West, reflecting that geographically KTDA was more closely related to Kowloon East than to Kowloon West. Kai Tak was an old district, but it was becoming a new one with commercial and residential buildings, leisure and sports facilities, etc. on the former airport site. The Government should consider views of various stakeholders and use the new district to support development of the old ones. The Chairman concluded that Members had suggested re-demarcating the districts on the basis of the new district’s development concept, and hoped that departments concerned would support development of old districts, such as revising the demarcation, when they were developing new districts. WTSDC respected views of all stakeholders, including those based in Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon City and Kwun Tong. Regarding a long walkway at the seashore of the former Kai Tak Airport, he opined that consideration should be made on the jurisdiction of the walkway. WTSDC would like to put forth a proposal, instead of making a decision. However, the Government should discuss this matter as soon as possible because public housing estates in Kai Tak would be completed by phases in the end of 2012 and some schools in Wong Tai Sin would be relocated to KTDA. It would be unfair to both new and old districts if the demarcation of districts was not addressed promptly. He then requested DO(WTS) to relay Members’ views to HAD and report to WTSDC in a timely manner.
III(v) ICAC Regional Office (Kowloon East/Sai Kung) Work Plan 2012/13 (WTSDC Paper 41/2012)
60. The Chairman welcomed ICAC’s Regional Officer/Kowloon East/Sai Kung Mrs. Dorothy TAM and Senior Community Relations Ms. MING Yuen-man who attended the meeting for this agenda item.
61. Mrs. Dorothy TAM thanked WTSDC’s support, and said ICAC would continue its anti-corruption education in the district. Mrs. TAM made a PowerPoint presentation on ICAC Regional Office (Kowloon East/Sai Kung) Work Plan 2012/13. Highlights were as follows:
(i) Strengthening moral education for youngsters
ICAC would continue to launch multi-faceted activities to
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 40 promote ethics among young people. To encourage young people to engage themselves in anti-corruption activities creatively, ICAC would also roll out programmes, such as interactive video competition, to tie in with the trend of youngsters using new media and maximise their creativity.
“Personal Integrity” would be incorporated as a module of general studies in tertiary institutions. ICAC would produce teaching package on “Life and Society” for junior secondary schools.
Moreover, ICAC would organise parenting programmes, through which parents’ assistance was sought to reinforce moral values of integrity, probity, etc. among youngsters. It would also produce a parenting guidebook and a parenting education video for use at parenting education activities held by parent-teacher associations of schools.
To enhance the effectiveness of youth integrity education, ICAC would co-operate with the 18 DCs and district organisations to promote youth probity in the district and foster a new generation of probity. ICAC Regional Office (Kowloon East/Sai Kung) would continue to co-operate with WTSDC, WTSDO and organisations concerned to jointly organise the “Cross-Generation Integrity Building Project of Wong Tai Sin District Council” for the promotion of youth moral education and probity culture through a wide range of activities.
(ii) Consolidating community efforts to maintain a probity culture
ICAC would continue to consolidate liaison with district organisations by arranging “Meet-the-Public Sessions” to enhance public understanding of the work of ICAC and collect their views on the anti-corruption cause.
(iii) Upholding clean elections
Would-be candidates and their helpers were now preparing for the LegCo election to be held in September 2012. Having consulted Members and the public, ICAC had launched a series of educational and publicity programmes on the theme of “Abide by the Rules Support Clean Elections” early this year. Activities included arrangement of briefings for organisations concerned, production of information booklets and reminder leaflets, launching of a dedicated website, setting up of an enquiry and reporting hotline.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 41 ICAC would also explain the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance to the public through mass media publicity. It would also stage roving exhibitions on mobile exhibition vehicle, and distribute leaflets to publicise the importance of clean elections.
(iv) Sustaining efforts to promote clean building management
ICAC would continue to complement the efforts of relevant departments and professional bodies to persistently promote clean building management to owners’ corporations, building management bodies, consultants, contractors, etc. It would also offer preventive education services for the “Operation Building Bright” scheme launched by the Government.
(v) Promoting business and professional ethics and good corporate governance
To provide assistance in corruption prevention to SME entrepreneurs, ICAC would join hands with the Guangdong Provincial Procuratorate and the Commission Against Corruption in Macao again this year to publish a corruption prevention guide for them. The guide, which covered the anti-corruption legislations of the three places, case studies and corruption prevention measures, would be launched in the latter half of 2012.
ICAC was very much concerned about the operation of listed companies, so it would organise seminars jointly with business associations and professional bodies, publish feature articles and incorporate corruption prevention and professional ethics elements in the qualifying examinations and continued professional development courses for relevant professionals, in a bid to promote directors’ integrity and professional ethics.
(vi) Entrenching a probity culture in the public sector
ICAC would continue to capitalise on the Ethical Leadership Programme for civil servants jointly launched with the Civil Service Bureau. It would also promote the recent publication on management of conflict of interest and other training packages.
Mrs. TAM invited Members to comment on the work plan, and sought their continued support to the work of ICAC
(Mr. Joe CHAN left the meeting at 5:45 p.m.) 62. The Chairman said WTSDC supported and was satisfied with the work of
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 42 ICAC. On behalf of WTSDC, he undertook to support the work of ICAC, in particular “Cross-Generation Integrity Building Project of Wong Tai Sin District Council 2012/13”. The Chairman thanked Mrs. Dorothy TAM and Ms. MING Yuen-man for attending the meeting.
(Mrs. Dorothy TAM and Ms. Shermaine MING left the meeting at this juncture.)
IV. Progress Reports
(i) Progress Reports of the 3rd Meeting of the Community Building and Social Services Committee held on 20 March 2012 (WTSDC Paper 45/2012)
63. Members noted the paper.
(ii) Progress Report of the 3rd Meeting of the Finance, General and Economic Affairs Committee held on 27 March 2012 (WTSDC Paper 46/2012)
64. Members noted the paper.
(iii) Progress Report of the 3rd Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee held on 3 April 2012 (WTSDC Paper 47/2012)
65. Members noted the paper.
(iv) Progress Report of the 3rd Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee held on 17 April 2012 (WTSDC Paper 48/2012)
66. Members noted the paper.
(v) Progress Report of the 3rd Meeting of the Housing Committee held on 24 April 2012 (WTSDC Paper 49/2012)
67. Members noted the paper. (vi) Progress Report of the 3rd Meeting of the Food and Environmental
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 43 Hygiene Committee held on 8 May 2012 (WTSDC Paper 50/2012)
68. Members noted the paper.
(vii) Progress Report of the Wong Tai Sin District Management Committee held on 20 April 2012 (WTSDC Paper 51/2012)
69. Members noted the paper.
(viii) Progress Report of the Working Group on Government and Public Utilities Works Projects (WTSDC Paper 52/2011)
70. The three consultants of the Working Group were Dr. LAU Chi-wang, James, Mr. CHAN Chin-hung and Ms. KWAN Po-jen, Helen.
V. Date of Next Meeting
71. The 5th meeting of WTSDC would be held on 3 July 2012 (Tuesday) at 2:30 p.m.
72. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Wong Tai Sin District Council Secretariat Ref: WTSDC 13-5/5/53 June 2012
Note: Should there be any discrepancies between the Chinese and English versions, the Chinese version shall prevail. This English summary translation is for reference only.
[5](1)20120607-4_DC[M4](15.5.12)-e.doc 44