(Translation)

Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the 6th Term District Council (Full Council)

Date: 7 July 2020 (Tuesday) Time: 9:30 a.m. – 12:10 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Kwun Tong District Office, Unit 05-07, 20/F Millennium City 6, 392 , Kwun Tong,

Present Arrival Time Leaving Time Mr CHOY Chak-hung (Chairman) 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr MOK Kin-shing (Vice-chairman) 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr BUX Sheik Anthony 9:40 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr CHAN Chris Ka-yin 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr CHAN Man-kin 9:35 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr CHAN Yik-shun Eason 10:10 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr CHAN Yiu-hung, Jimmy 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr CHENG Keng-ieong 9:40 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr CHEUNG Man-fung 9:40 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong 9:45 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Ms FU Pik-chun 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr FUNG Ka-lung 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr HSU Yau-wai 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr HUNG Chun-hin 9:50 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr IP Tsz-kit 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr KAN Ming-tung, MH 10:00 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr KUNG Chun-ki 10:20 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Ms LAI Po-kwai 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr LAM Wai 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr LEE Kwan-chak 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Ms LEUNG Jannelle Rosalynne 9:45 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr LEUNG Tang-fung 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Ms LEUNG Yik-ting Edith 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr LI Ka-tat 10:25 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr LI Wai-lam William 9:40 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Ms LI Wing-shan 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr LUI Tung-hai, MH 9:50 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr NGAN Man-yu 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m.

1 Mr OR Chong-shing Wilson, MH 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr PANG Chi-sang 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mrs POON YAM Wai-chun Winnie, BBS, MH 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr SO Koon-chung Kevin 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr TAM Siu-cheuk 9:50 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr TANG Wai-man Raymond 10:05 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Ms TSE Suk-chun 9:40 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr WAN Ka-him 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr WANG Wai-lun 9:40 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr WONG Chi-ken 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Ms WONG Ka-ying 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr WONG Kai-ming 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Mr KO Choar-que, Keith (Secretary) Acting Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Kwun Tong District Office

In Attendance Mr TSE Ling-chun, Steve, JP District Officer (Kwun Tong) Miss CHOI Gi-lam, Britney Assistant District Officer (Kwun Tong)1 Mr WONG Sing-hung, Hansel Assistant District Officer (Kwun Tong)2 Mr Angus Guy PULLINGER District Commander (Kwun Tong), Police Force Mr WONG Kwong-hing District Commander (), Mr CHUNG King-yip Police Community Relations Officer (Kwun Tong), Hong Kong Police Force Mr TAM Yu-hei District Operations Officer (Kwun Tong), Hong Kong Police Force Mr TUAN Ngar-lun Police Community Relations Officer (Sau Mau Ping District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr CHAN Lun-ming Senior Engineer/6(East), Civil Engineering and Development Department Miss HO Fung-yee, Janet Chief Transport Officer/Kowloon 2, Transport Department Mr YIM Ka-ho Chief Manager/Management (Kowloon East) Mr LEUNG Yat-king District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Kwun Tong), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

2 Miss KOO Kwok-lai, Rebecca District Social Welfare Officer (Kwun Tong), Social Welfare Department Ms LAI Mei-ling Chief Leisure Manager (Kowloon), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Miss KAM Yuen-ching Senior Liaison Officer (1), Kwun Tong District Office Miss LEUNG Yin-ping, Pammy Senior Liaison Officer (2), Kwun Tong District Office Mr CHAN Hoi-ming, Peter Senior Liaison Officer (3), Kwun Tong District Office Miss CHOW Tak-sum, Amy Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Kwun Tong District Office Miss LEUNG Hau-ying, Megan Executive Officer (District Council)(1), Kwun Tong District Office

The Chairman welcomed all the Members and government representatives to the 6th meeting of the Full Council (“FC”) under the 6th Term Kwun Tong District Council (“KTDC”).

Item I – Confirmation of Minutes of Last Meeting

2. The Chairman said that he had received a proposed amendment from Ms WONG Ka-ying before the meeting:

Meeting minutes para. no. Record before amendment Proposed amendments 42.23 Ms WONG Ka-ying brought Ms WONG Ka-ying brought up that in the PowerPoint up that in the PowerPoint slides about enforcement slides about enforcement actions taken at designated actions taken at designated streets of Kwun Tong streets of Kwun Tong District… In addition, the District… In addition, the paper said that Kwun Tong paper said that Kwun Tong Police District had arrested 132 Police District had arrested youngsters the previous year. 132 youngsters the previous She would like to know more year. She would like to know about the details, including if more about the details, the police had made changes to including. At the same time,

3 their originally planned she also intended to activities amid the school know if the police had made suspension. changes to their originally planned activities, such as the Green Bird in Action, etc., amid the school suspension.

3. Members raised the following proposed amendments at the meeting:

Meeting minutes para. no. Record before amendment Proposed amendments 38.8 Mr Kevin SO remarked that Mr Kevin SO remarked that the paper said that there the paper said that there would be five green minibus would be five green minibus routes plying to the four routes plying to the four MTR stations near Hong MTR stations near Hong Kong Children’s Hospital. Kong Children’s Hospital. However, some of the However, some of the minibus routes only had minibus routes only had stops at Cheung Yip Street. stops at Lam Chak Street. Besides, Cheung Yip Street Besides, Lam Chak Street was far away from Hong was far away from Hong Kong Children’s Hospital… Kong Children’s Hospital…

42.2 Mr HSU Yau-wai hoped that Mr HSU Yau-wai hoped that the police could step up their the police could step up their patrol in light of the teenage patrol in light of the teenage gang problem at gang problem at On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate… Estate and On Tai Estate… Besides, at an area around Besides, at an area around the hill at the back of On Tai the hill at the back of On Tat Estate, an arson case Estate, an arson case committed by a teenage gang committed by a teenage gang had happened before. had happened before. Therefore, he hoped the Therefore, he hoped the police could step up police could step up uniformed patrol. uniformed patrol.

4. Members endorsed the amendments unanimously.

4 Item II – Signature Project Scheme – Construction of Music Fountains at

5. The Chairman said that after the last FC meeting, he had written to the (“HAD”) on 26 May 2020 and requested it to release the works contract to KTDC so that it could think about the next action. He also said that he had received an interim reply from HAD in mid-June, saying that HAD had received the letter and would give a further reply.

6. Members raised views as follows:

6.1 Mr WAN Ka-him related that he had all along hoping that HAD could submit the works contract to KTDC. Yet, HAD had been refusing to reveal the contract on the ground that the contract involved commercial secrets. Therefore, he asked whether KTDC would have other ways to tackle the problem if HAD still refused to provide the document. He took investigation of the vessel collision incident near Lamma Island as an example and said that some of the legislators had signed a non-disclosure agreement for viewing the investigation report of the collision incident. He believed that HAD could draw experience from that approach.

6.2 Ms Edith LEUNG said that it had been May when the Chairman had written to HAD and it had provided no interim reply until early June. She enquired about the reasons for HAD to remain unable to provide a substantial reply even after a month.

6.3 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung thought that the music fountains at Kwun Tong Promenade, which would be a local facility related to people’s livelihood, was a controversial project. HAD should reveal the contract to the public so as to enhance the Government’s transparency and guarantee the right to know of members of the public.

7. The District Officer (Kwun Tong) (“DO”) remarked that HAD was currently preparing a reply to the letter. He believed that it would provide a reply formally later. He also said that he would relay to HAD the suggestion of signing a non-disclosure agreement.

8. The Chairman related that he had received an extempore motion moved by Ms LI Wing-shan, Mr William LI, and Mr CHENG Keng-ieong, and seconded by Mr Raymond TANG, Mr LI Ka-tat, Mr FUNG Ka-lung, Mr Eason CHAN, Mr Chris CHAN, Mr HUNG

5 Chun-hin, Mr MOK Kin-shing, Mr WAN Ka-him, Mr LEE Kwan-chak, Ms Edith LEUNG, Mr WONG Kai-ming, Mr IP Tsz-kit, Mr WONG Chi-ken, Ms LAI Po-kwai, Mr CHEUNG Man-fung, Mr CHAN Man-kin, Mr Anthony BUX, Ms TSE Suk-chun, Mr WANG Wai-lun and Ms WONG Ka-yin. The content was as follows:

“Requesting the Home Affairs Department to release all the related construction contracts of the Construction of Music Fountains at Kwun Tong Promenade within 14 days for the Kwun Tong District Council’s viewing.”

9. The Chairman remarked that since the motion was related to the agenda item, he accepted to discuss the extempore motion at the meeting.

10. After deliberations and voting, the motion was carried with 21 votes in favour, zero vote against and seven abstentions.

11. The Chairman said that KTDC would take further actions after receiving HAD’s reply.

Item III – Matters about the Environmental Protection Department’s Proposed Construction of a New Refuse Transfer Station at a Rock Cavern of Tai Sheung Tok, Kowloon East (KTDC Paper No. 22/2020)

12. The Chairman said that he had received a letter from the Vice-chairman on 17 June 2020 requesting discussion on matters about the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”)’s proposed construction of a new refuse transfer station at a rock cavern of Tai Sheung Tok, Kowloon East. The letter had been circulated to Members as a discussion paper before the meeting.

13. The Vice-chairman presented the paper.

14. The Chairman remarked that the related site had originally been designed as a rock cavern park. Without any consultation, its use had been changed to be serving as a refuse transfer station. It was expected that the number of movements of refuse collection vehicles going into and out of New would be high in the future, which residents of housing estates en-route would be extremely worried about.

6 15. Members raised views as follows:

15.1 Mr LAM Wai expressed his opposition towards the project. He said that Clear Water Bay Road had already been extremely overburdened with traffic. Besides, according to the present information, no clear plan from the Government for minimising the impact to the surroundings (e.g. noise) had yet been seen regarding the transport routing.

15.2 Ms FU Pik-chun expressed her resolute opposition to the project. She believed that the area around New Clear Water Bay Road currently suffered serious traffic congestion. Before the Government had formulated a long-term road improvement plan, the local traffic problems would be exacerbated if an additional refuse transfer station was provided.

15.3 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung said that the Government had not conducted comprehensive planning for the related area. Besides, basic facilities for people’s livelihood of the adjacent areas of that location had not been satisfactory yet either. If an additional refuse transfer station was provided, residents’ life would be seriously affected. Therefore, he hoped the Government could suspend the works.

15.4 Mr CHAN Man-kin opined that EPD should clearly explain details of the works to KTDC and not commence the works until the project had been fully discussed in and secured support from KTDC. Moreover, the traffic problems near the proposed refuse transfer station had all along been serious. Before improvement was made to the traffic of Kwun Tong District, if KTDC had any opinions on commencement of local large-scale projects, the department should not commence the project until it had improved the projects and secured support from KTDC.

15.5 Mr HSU Yau-wai expressed his opposition towards the project. He thought that given that the East Kowloon Line could not be implemented at present, the provision of an additional refuse transfer station would bring a serious burden to the traffic.

16. The Chairman remarked that although the proposed refuse transfer station would be situated at , the construction of the project would bring serious impacts to

7 residents of On Tat, On Tai, Sau Mau Ping and Sze Shun Areas, as well as increasing the traffic burden within Kwun Tong District (e.g. at Ping Shek Interchange). Consequently, he was astonished that EPD had not consulted KTDC before changing the use of the site. He also suggested: (i) the Secretariat write to EPD to relay Members’ views on the traffic and environmental hygiene problems of the project; and (ii) KTDC authorise the Vice-chairman to follow up on the project on behalf of KTDC with Sai Kung District Council and Council so that the three district councils could join their hands to voice their views on the project to EPD.

17. Members endorsed the proposals.

(Post-meeting note: the letter to EPD was sent on 31 July 2020.)

Item IV – Follow-up Matters and Figures on Face Mask Scams and Counterfeit Face Mask Cases (KTDC Paper No. 23/2020)

18. The Chairman said that the agenda item concerned had been discussed at the 2nd and 3rd meeting of the Security and Constitutional Affairs Committee (“SCAC”) on 29 May 2020. However, since the police had not assigned any representative to the meeting of SCAC, it had endorsed at the meeting that the agenda item would be transferred to FC for follow-up actions. Besides, the Chairman related that the agenda item was an issue that local residents were concerned about, so he hoped that representatives of the police could provide responses and follow up on the item at the present meeting.

19. The District Commander (Sau Mau Ping) of the Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) responded that the police handled face mask scams mainly in three directions, including law enforcement, publicity and . Targeting scams at social media platforms, the police had launched Singlemount Operation since 14 April, in which the police had arrested a total of 34 people and 148 cases had been involved. Moreover, the Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau had also established an internal coordination center for coordinating investigation conducted by various internal sections of the police. Since there had been scammers committing crimes at social media, the police had conducted publicity and education on 12 April and 25 June through social media. They had aimed at raising people’s awareness towards sammers’ traps respectively at websites and various social media. They had also said that the public could call the anti-scam hotline 18222 for assistance if they found suspected scams.

8 20. Mr HUNG Chun-hin said that the situation that SCAC had transferred the agenda item to FC for follow-up actions was unsatisfactory. If the police were willing to attend meetings of SCAC to explain for the item, that could raise efficiency of meetings of FC. He also believed that SCAC had been discussing local livelihood problems only, but the police had still chosen to refuse to attend meetings of SCAC. Therefore, he regarded the police disrespectful to SCAC. Furthermore, he thanked the Chairman for agreeing to transfer the item to FC for discussion, opining that that could allow local residents to know that KTDC was sincere to collaborate with the police to solve local livelihood problems.

21. The Chairman related that Members of KTDC had all along wished to collaborate more with the police regarding local livelihood problems. Besides, it was an established practice of KTDC to transfer community and livelihood problems to committees for follow-up actions. Therefore, he hoped that the police could assign officers to meetings of committees in the future to follow up on local livelihood problems (e.g. on-street prostitution, scams, illegal parking, etc.). Moreover, according to his observation, KTDC had not had any actions targeting the police. He hoped that the police could feel KTDC’s sincerity in improving the community.

22. The meeting noted the paper.

Item V – Problems about On-street Solicitation by Sex Workers in the District (KTDC Paper No. 24/2020)

23. The Chairman remarked that the agenda item had been discussed in the 2nd and 3rd meeting of SCAC on 29 May 2020. Nonetheless, since the police had not assigned any representative to the meeting of SCAC, the meeting had endorsed that the agenda item would be transferred to FC for follow-up actions.

24. The District Commander (Kwun Tong) of HKPF (“DC KTDIST/HKPF”) responded that the police had all along attached great importance to tackling local on-street prostitution problems and regularly taken enforcement actions. The police understood that apart from violating related legislation, the on-street prostitution problems had also caused nuisances to local residents. Between January and May 2020, Kwun Tong and Sau Mau Ping Police Districts had mounted a total of six anti-vice operations and arrested 38 people, most of whom had been arrested for breaching conditions of stay. Furthermore, some of the people had been arrested for being suspected of soliciting for immoral purposes. Among the arrested, three of them were Hong Kong residents. At present, after implementation of the regulations concerning COVID-19, local on-street prostitution problems had been significantly relieved.

9 25. Members raised views as follows:

25.1 Ms Edith LEUNG asked the police about the main locations of the anti-vice operations. In addition, she said that when she had provided a street stall in June, she had still noticed that the on-street prostitution activities had still been very rampant, especially at areas around Hong Ning Road, Mut Wah Street and Shui Wo Street. She hoped that the police could follow up on that.

25.2 Mr Chris CHAN related that the on-street prostitution situations at Fu Yan Street and Hong Ning Road were still serious. Although the police had responded that they had taken combatting actions, residents believed that the effectiveness was limited. Besides, amid the alleviation of the epidemic situation and slight relaxation of boundary measures, the number of on-street prostitutes had increased again. Therefore, he hoped that the police’s work could be result-oriented. He said that residents nearby felt very disgusted and annoyed by on-street solicitation of prostitutes. He hoped that the police could enhance their combatting work, particularly during afternoon hours. He also suggested that the police strengthen patrols and identity card checking at areas with rampant on-street prostitution in order to minimise chances for on-street prostitutes to cause nuisances to passers-by.

25.3 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung suggested the police enhance their patrols during afternoon hours and deploy manpower to prostitution black spots so as to combat on-street prostitution, as well as protecting residents.

25.4 Mr Kevin SO related that at areas around Hong Ning Road and Fu Yan Street, apart from on-street prostitution, illegal parking was also very serious. Therefore, he hoped that apart from deploying more manpower to areas around to deal with on-street prostitution problems, the police could handle illegal parking and traffic congestion problems at the same time.

10 25.5 Mr CHAN Man-king suggested HKPF’s representatives provide at the next meeting information about the number of identity card checks carried out at on-street prostitution black spots because on-street prostitution problems had already caused long-term nuisances to residents. Moreover, checking identity cards was an effective method to minimise nuisances brought by on-street prostitution.

26. DC KTDIST/HKPF responded that the main locations for combatting on-street prostitution were areas around Hong Ning Road, Fu Yan Street and Shung Yan Street. Furthermore, the two police districts had also coordinated actions against illegal activities at the boundary between the two police districts in order to avoid the situation that when one of the police districts mounted an operation, on-street prostitutes went to the other police district.

27. The Chairman remarked that Hong Ning Road and Mut Wah Street were situated at the boundary between the two police districts, and therefore the two police districts needed to make a concerted effort to step up combats against the related problems. In view of that, he hoped the two police districts could enhance the intensity of their enforcement actions.

28. Members noted the paper.

Item VI – Matters on District Minor Works (KTDC Paper No. 25/2020)

29. The Secretary presented the paper.

30. The meeting endorsed the paper.

Item VII – Reports of Chairmen of Standing Committees and Task Forces (KTDC Paper No. 26/2020)

31. The Secretary presented the paper.

32. Mr CHAN Man-kin added that at the next meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee (“FAC”), FAC was going to conduct an interim review of the financial position of KTDC Funds. If FAC and its task force had any needs, they could apply to FAC for additional funds.

11 33. Ms Edith LEUNG related that the Working Group under the Kwun Tong Development and Renewal Task Force had already convened a meeting and endorsed the decision of preparing a study report. Therefore, the Working Group would apply to FAC for additional funds as and when necessary.

34. The meeting noted the paper.

Item VIII – KTDC Financial Statement for 2020/21 (KTDC Paper No. 27/2020)

35. The Secretary presented the paper.

36. The Chairman said that due to the epidemic and the fact that some of the reserved funds had been left unused, KTDC’s financial position of the year was relatively favourable. Therefore, he hoped that various committees and working groups could make good use of the resources so that KTDC Funds could be used suitably to make greater contributions to the community.

37. The meeting noted the paper.

Item IX – Any Other Business

(A) A letter from Mr KUNG Chun-ki about matters on application for use of community halls

38. Mr KUNG Chun-ki presented the paper.

39. DO responded that the organisation concerned had applied on 7 January 2020 for use of Community Hall on 18 June 2020 from 9 am to 10 am to hold an activity. The organisation had written in the application form that the name of the activity was “a variety performance” aiming at “fostering harmony in the community through the activity”. After a ballot, the Kwun Tong District Office (“KTDO”) had approved the application on 13 March. The applicant organisation had submitted the activity flow of that day on 15 May without mentioning that the activity name would be changed and that the activity would involve art works exhibition. On the evening of 24 June, KTDO had received a public complaint, saying that a social medium had disseminated a message that the activity name had been changed into “The Story of the First Year - a Variety Performance and Protest Art Works Exhibition (the original in Chinese: “第一年的故事 – 綜合表演及抗爭藝術品展覽”)”.

12 KTDO thought that the applicant had not complied with regulations set out in the “Guidelines on and Conditions of Use of Facilities of Community Halls/Community Centres of Kwun Tong District” that applications for changes to activity nature and details should be made to KTDO at least 14 working days before the activity (to the present case, that meant 5 June). KTDO believed that the amended activity details would very easily lead to conflicts according to the experience of the previous year. KTDO, as the management department of community halls, needed to be responsible for venue safety and venue users. As a result, after due consideration, KTDO had revoked the approval to the use of the venue and informed the applicant of the result on 26 June.

40. Members raised views on the paper as follows:

40.1 Mr KUNG Chun-ki said that he had received a notification less than 14 days before the activity from KTDO that there was a limit on the number of people using the venue. At that time, KTDO had asked if the activity would proceed and the organisation had given a positive answer. Yet, due to the limit, the activity details, such as the seat arrangement, seat distancing, etc., had to compromise. Besides, the related changes could not be foreseen within 14 days before the activity. As for the inconsistency between the real activity name and the one submitted during the application, he said that the activity nature and name had been “a variety performance” during the application. Yet, the activity name had to serve a publicity purpose. Therefore, there should be room for slight adjustment. However, he stressed that the activity nature had not differ from the one submitted during the application. According to Wikipedia, “a performance” mainly referred to a performer’s conveyance of a specific incident or non-specific imagery with his/her own skill or specialty so as to achieve an artistic or entertainment end. He opined that the proposed activity had met the definition of “a performance” and therefore he did not understand why the activity would be contrary to public interests.

40.2 Mr LI Ka-tat related that he himself was a creative art therapist and opined that art was one of the forms of performances. In addition, he asked KTDO about the number of complaints about the activity received.

40.3 Mr WONG Chi-ken remarked that in the past, if there had been an activity violating the conditions and regulations for use, KTDO would usually give demerit points to the organsiation after the activity.

13 However, concerning the activity in question, he asked KTDO how it had verified that the accusation about the message at the social medium had been true. If KTDO had cancelled the organisation’s application for use of the community hall before the activity without any concrete evidence, the room for organisations to hold activities would drastically shrink. That was a very unsatisfactory approach. Therefore, he hoped that KTDO could explain the incident clearly.

40.4 Ms LI Wing-shan said that Mr KUNG Chun-ki had related that he had received KTDO’s notification about the cancellation of use of the venue very late that day. Therefore, she asked KTDO if it had tried to learn more about the incident from the organisation or the Member beforehand, or if it had given a chance for the Member to explain. Moreover, she enquired if the related code or conditions of use clearly stated the details about the situation that when the final activity name was inconsistent with the one in the application form, the activity could not be held.

40.5 Ms Edith LEUNG asked KTDO if it had given a chance for the organisation to explain, given that KTDO had not informed the applicant organisation of the revocation of the approval to use the venue until the final working day before the activity. In addition, she said that in a court judgement of a by-election, the court had ruled that a Returning Officer should allow a candidate a reasonable chance to provide an excuse. Otherwise, it would be unlawful for a Returning Officer to rule that a certain candidate was ineligible to participate in the election. She thought that the concept could also be applied to other matters. Besides, KTDO should allow an applicant a reasonable chance to explain the applicant’s situation before making a decision.

40.6 Mr HUNG Chun-hin believed that KTDO’s way of handling the present incident had been unsatisfactory. If KTDO had provided a chance for the applicant organisation or the related Member to explain if the activity nature and details would be changed, that could probably have avoided the incident. At present, there were quite many conflicts in society. In the present incident, KTDO had not provided a chance for the applicant to explain, which might lead to an even more serious confrontation in society. He thought that community halls were mainly used to connect residents or hold activities for residents to join. As for whether participating in the activity would lead to accidents or

14 unexpected conflicts, he opined that that was not a factor KTDO should consider. What was the most important was to assess if the applicant organisation was able to deal with the related problems or maintain the order inside and outside the venue. He also thought that KTDO should explain its decisions to venue applicants.

40.7 Mr Eason CHAN opined that KTDO’s attitude towards the incident had been very problematic. If KTDO had thought that the activity would cause a negative impact to public interests, it should have raised the issue to the organisation earlier. Therefore, he believed that the incident had been political censorship. Besides, KTDO had not shown any sincerity when dealing with the incident. He believed that KTDO had made its decision only based on the activity theme instead of the activity nature, which had purely been a political judgement. He also thought that civil servants should maintain a politically neutral attitude. He was also opposed to KTDO’s judgement that the activity would be harmful to social harmony. He hoped that the press could record and publicise the incident.

40.8 Mr TAM Siu-cheuk said that a prior notice to KTDC would be required if the name or other details (e.g. the venue, time, etc.) of an activity funded by KTDC needed to be changed. He also opined that if there were any changes to details of an activity, the applicant had the responsibility to take the initiative to inform the venue manager. As a result, he understood KTDO’s decision.

40.9 Mr KAN Ming-tung gave an example and asked if an organisation said in its application that the venue would be used to hold Taekwondo training, but the activity was changed to be Yoga training before the activity was held, whether KTDO would allow such a change.

40.10 Mr Jimmy CHAN believed that district councilors should not be entitled to privileges. They should also apply for use of community halls according to related guidelines and regulations. Otherwise, that would set a bad example to other community organisations, or district councilors would also act willfully and irrationally when applying for funds of district councils. He thought that KTDO could have allowed the applicant organisation to provide a reasonable explanation when dealing with the incident. If KTDO had thought that the activity had been different from the one stated in the application, and the applicant

15 organisation had not given any prior notice concerning the matter to KTDO, it would have been reasonable to cancel the application. He also believed that describing the incident as “political censorship” was exaggerated. He also suggested KTDO, KTDC and district oganisations to enhance communication so that it would be easier to handle similar incidents in the future.

40.11 Mr Kevin SO remarked that according to KTDO’s explanation, only the name provided in the application form could be printed in an applicant organisation’s publicity materials in the future. If another name needed to be given to the performance, the applicant organisation should report that to KTDO. However, if the name of the performance remained unchanged, there would be no limits over the activity details. He said that KTDO’s way of handling the incident had differed from its past way. In the past, it had decided to give demerit points to an organisation after the activity had been held. At present, KTDO had cancelled the organsiation’s application only based on information on its poster. Therefore, he asked KTDO if it had communicated with the applicant organisation before making the decision. He said that he had recently found that there were organisations openly violating the group gathering prohibition. KTDO had not stopped those organisations immediately either (the related incidents had also been discussed in a meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee (“DFMC”) held earlier, and KTDO had responded at that time that it would review the situation). If KTDO opined that certain activities could not apply for use of venues, or organisations needed to clearly state activity types in their applications, such requirements should be clearly stated in the related regulations. Moreover, he believed that the definition of a “variety performance” was broad and referred to an example that there had been people who placed easy-mount frames on stages during “variety performance” activities. Therefore, he asked if such an act involved personal publicity and if it was contrary to the code of using venues.

40.12 Ms Rosalynne LEUNG related that she could not understand KTDO’s present mechanism for handling the incident. She was also not sure if the related handling way had complied with the procedure. Furthermore, she thought that the handling way had been political censorship since KTDO had informed the organisation of the cancellation of the venue application only one working day before the

16 activity simply because of publicity of a poster. KTDO had not given any chance for the organisation to defend itself.

40.13 Mr CHAN Man-kin asked about the number of complaints about the incident received, as well as whether KTDO would handle all the complaints to be received in the future regarding applications for use of community halls related to any organisations. Moreover, he believed that KTDO should make no exception when dealing with complaints. It should also clearly state all the irregularities. He believed that under the Common Law, activities that no law stipulated that it was unlawful to hold should be allowed to continue. He also said that if there had been irregularities concerning use of community halls by ogranisations, KTDO had usually handled the situations after the activities. The current handling way had been rare in the past. If KTDO had believed that it had been dangerous for the activity publicity to have contained the word “protest”, or had censored the wording of the applicant organisation’s activity publicity materials, that had been a very dangerous approach.

40.14 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung believed that the incident had rooted from a lack of communication. In the past, he had also rented community halls. When there had been changes to the activities, he had reflected to KTDO so that both sides could have adequate time to communicate. He thought that KTDO’s frontline staff had all along tried their best to assist organisations in smoothly holding activities. Concerning the present incident, he enquired if KTDO had asked the organisation about the related details, such as trying to obtain samples of the exhibits and communicating more, so as to sort out if the activity and exhibits had been contrary to the regulations of use of community halls, as well as if the complaint from residents had been true. He believed that the activity had been comparatively neutral, so he suggested KTDO allow the Member a chance to explain, and clearly state the permissible activity types and related details so that it would be more convenient for Members and local communities to use community halls. Furthermore, he opined that Hong Kong was a place with freedom of speech. If KTDO had cancelled the application for use of the venue due to the exhibits or the activity theme, the approach concerned would be evidence of regression in freedom of Hong Kong. If the activity satisfied KTDO’s requirements in the end, he suggested KTDO allow the activity to be held later. If KTDO had worries over the safety of

17 the activity, the organisation could seek help from the police to maintain the order.

40.15 Mr Raymond TANG related that he had been a member of the cultural field. He himself was strongly opposed to any censorship mechanism against activity themes. He also believed that KTDO had already set an example. If KTDO censored an individual organsiation, it should also censor all the organisations applying for use of community halls (e.g. opera organisation, etc.) so that all the organisations were treated fairly.

40.16 Mr LUI Tung-hai remarked that he understood the Member’s discontent with the incident because the organisation and he had devoted a lot of energies into preparing the activity, but the activity could not be held in the end. He himself had similar experience. Several years before, a dancing class could not be held since the tutor had been unable to attend the class. KTDO had forbidden the organisation from applying for use of community halls for half a year in the end. At that time, KTDO had also said that it had only worked according to the code of using venues and ensured the practice had been fair to all the venue users. At present, KTDO had already explained that the treatment had been no exception. Therefore, he himself could accept KTDO’s explanation and agreed with its ruling.

40.17 Mr FUNG Ka-lung felt regretful that the organisation could not hold the activity since it had also contained elements such as history, art, literature, etc., which had been a rare multi-faceted activity. The activity could have broadened people’s horizons. Yet, due to KTDO’s suppression, the activity could not be held. He enquired if the activity theme had been “The Story of the Second Year”, “The Story of the Third Year”, “The Story of the Twenty-seventh Year from the Last”, etc., whether the organisation could have been approved to use the community hall to hold the activity.

40.18 Mr PANG Chi-sang remarked that he had previously experienced receiving demerit points or being stopped from holding an activity when holding activities at community halls. Regarding the present incident, KTDO should have reserved time for the organisation to explain so that the two parties could have communicated more easily. In the past, KTDO had also handled situations that the activities had

18 been different from the activity natures stated in the application forms and involved personal publicity. If staff of KTDO had had found at the spot that the activity name and organisation of an activity had been different from those stated in the application form, the staff would have stopped the activity at the spot. He hoped that KTDO could explain the related regulations and guidelines clearly to Members so that Members’ and public worries over “political suppression” could be dispelled.

41. Members raised supplementary views as follows:

41.1 Mr HUNG Chun-hin said that the related Member hoped that he could have a chance to explain. Moreover, as regards the concepts, “willfully and irrationally” and “privileges”, which had been mentioned by Members earlier, he said that KTDC had also allocated funding to organisations with poor financial positions, and asked if “The Story of the First Year” could not be accepted, whether KTDO would accept venue applications for activity names “1967 Riot” or “The Story of the Struggle against Persecution by the British Authorities”. He related that in the present incident, if KTDO had given a chance for the organisation to explain, he could have minimised the seriousness of the incident. However, KTDO had cancelled the application for use of the venue without a reasonable explanation, which had deprived residents of Kwun Tong District of a chance to use KTDO’s venue.

41.2 Mr KUNG Chun-ki remarked that KTDO’s approach had been obvious political censorship. He himself had never said that the activity name had been “Protest Art Works Exhibition”. He had only failed to express himself clearly. He also believed that if KTDO had thought “protest” had been a “taboo” word, KTDO should have publicised that honestly. He also believed that KTDO had consciously or unconsciously created white terror. Moreover, most of the Members had many doubts towards application for use of venue. He also opined that KTDO’s explanation at the meeting had failed to answer questions in the letter. The applicant organisation and he himself had devoted a lot of energies into preparing the activity. The content of the activity had also been substantially neutral. The activity had aimed at boosting social harmony. He opined that harmony lay on room for everyone to learn about an incident before discussion and therefore he thought that it had been unreasonable for KTDO to have

19 cancelled the activity, leaving only a single voice in society and limiting freedom of creativity.

42. DO said that since Mr WONG Chi-ken had doubts towards the truthfulness of the message about the activity disseminated at social media platforms, DO hoped that Mr KUNG Chun-ki could clarify that first. Otherwise, the entire discussion would be affected.

43. Mr KUNG Chun-ki remarked that the situation that Mr WONG Chi-ken had referred to had meant that whether KTDO would judge any message disseminated at social media platforms generally speaking. Besides, he admitted that the publicity message about that activity had been publicised at his social media platform.

44. DO gave a follow-up response as follows:

44.1 Reasons for cancellation of the organisation’s venue application: firstly, the applicant had not notified KTDO of the changes to the activity name and content before the deadline. Secondly, considering the consequences that the activity might lead to and their safety risks, KTDO had decided to revoke the approval to the venue application.

44.2 Ways of handling incidents: Members had mentioned that in most of the cases, demerit points had been given before revocation of the related applications. However, KTDO adopted different handling levels having regard to different natures of incidents. If the nature of an incident was minor or unforeseen, KTDO might give demerit points to the organisation; if the nature of the incident was serious, or involved relatively major concern, e.g. being unfavourable to community harmony, safety of the venue and users, etc., KTDO had the responsibility to make a resolute decision.

44.3 The number of complaints received regarding the activity: KTDO had received a total of 30 complaints as at the evening of 24 June, which had been one working day before the activity day. Therefore, KTDO had informed of the venue user of the revocation of the approval to the venue application as quickly as possible so that the organisation could make arrangements as soon as possible in order to avoid the situation that participants only came to know that they could not take part in the activity when it started.

20 44.4 Matters about other organisations’ irregularities: Members had mentioned that there had been community hall users violating the group gathering prohibition. He admitted that KTDO’s staff had had faults in terms of handling the irregularities and KTDO would follow up on that seriously. Yet, he pointed out that those incidents did not mean that KTDO accepted those irregularities.

44.5 Cases in which approval to use venues had been revoked without any demerit points given: KTDO had checked the record and found no similar situations. Organisations usually applied for use of venues to hold activities that benefitted residents mentally or physically. Local communities also did not want activities causing conflicts or inharmonious situations to be held.

45. Members raised supplementary views as follows:

45.1 Mr Jimmy CHAN said that Members should have empathy and see things with a peaceful mind instead of singling out individual persons. Members might also serve as role models to district organisations. Therefore, he thought that Members were not entitled to any privileges. He emphasised that what he had just said had not meant that individual Members had acted willfully and irrationally. He had only wished to say that all the Members should think twice before taking any actions. Moreover, the department should have more communication with organisations and Members so that district work could be done more smoothly in the future. In regard to use of venues, if there were problems with the related guidelines, KTDO might consider providing a clear explanation about the guidelines in order to minimise unnecessary misunderstanding.

45.2 Mr Raymond TANG hoped that DO could give a response concerning whether there were any guidelines available so that local organisations could avoid violating the related guidelines on use of venues and “breaching the law inadvertently”. Furthermore, he also enquired if it was feasible for an organisation to hold an exhibition about the recent 50 years’ history of the People’s Republic of China, including its economic policy.

45.3 Mr LI Ka-tat remarked that the activity had all along been named as “The Story of the First Year” without any changes. The organiser had

21 only added supplementary activity details. In addition, he believed that naming an activity with the word “protest” would bring substantial risks. He also said that there had earlier been an exhibition themed as “protest” in the district and an assault incident had happened in the end. Yet, he opined that any activity might also cause the same situation. If KTDO considered the feasibility of an activity from the perspective of risks of the activity, he wondered if KTDO would forbid any activity from being held in the district. He also hoped that DO could explain the relation between “protest” and public safety and whether the related judgement was based on any guidelines. Besides, he related that one of the functions of art was to pacify people’s emotions. The activity in the present incident had been comparatively mild. If KTDO could not tolerate the activity, that would disappoint residents.

45.4 Mr TAM Siu-cheuk opined that the word” protest” itself was not peaceful and easily led to conflicts. Therefore, he thought that it had been reasonable for KTDO to revoke approval to an activity application that would easily cause conflicts.

45.5 Ms LI Wing-shan asked KTDO why it regarded “protest” as vulnerable and thought that “protest” did not imply anything vulnerable. The word had been used only because of its use on the art level. Moreover, KTDO said that it had received the complaint on 24 June, but it had failed to communicate with the organiser all along. She wondered if the approach complied with the established procedure. Besides, regarding the incident of changing the activity name, she asked if an organisation’s final activity name was not the same as the one submitted in the application (e.g. the name became longer) in the future, whether that would contravene the related guidelines and whether the application would be cancelled or handled according to other procedures because of that.

45.6 Ms Edith LEUNG enquired if the “danger”, mentioned by KTDO, had been a subjective feeling or an objective guideline. She also took the name “Looking back at the May 4th Movement” as an example and asked if an applicant organisation used that name, whether the activity would involve danger too. She asked that because the May 4th Movement contained a “reform” element and the establishment of “Restoration Society (“光復會” in Chinese), related to the movement, also contained elements like “riots”, “assassinations”, etc.

22 46. DO added that he had already addressed the handling of the incident in his previous response. The considerations had been changes to the activity nature and potential consequences of the changes. KTDO had considered the situation comprehensively before making the decision. Instead of considering changes to the wording of the activity name, KTDO had considered the objective facts that conflicts had arisen from different political views in Hong Kong over the past year. The community hall was a facility under the purview of KTDO. KTDO had the responsibility to guarantee safety of the venue and it users, particularly when the activity would be open to public participation. As regards Members’ doubts that whether the activity would lead to danger, he understood that Members’ views were different from KTDO’s. However, he reiterated that KTDO had made a responsible decision in terms of trying its best to ensure community harmony.

47. The Chairman concluded Members’ aspirations voiced to KTDO: i) under the circumstances that the two sides held different views towards an incident or activity, KTDO should communicate with the organisation first so that the two sides could negotiate and avoid “abrupt” cancellation of the organisation’s application and it would be less hurtful to the organisation; ii) Members were concerned about the enforcement standards of the regulations because KTDO believed that it had the power to make any decisions as the manager of community halls (e.g. taking back a venue instantly). However, even if KTDO had that power, that would not be a satisfactory approach; iii) Members also hoped that KTDO could give clearer guidelines on “taboo” words. The Chairman hoped that KTDO could explain whether it had cancelled the organisation’s application in the present incident on the ground that the activity could easily lead to conflicts or the organisation had changed the activity nature. Lastly, regarding Mr KUNG Chun-ki’s written enquiries, the Chairman hoped that KTDO could provide a written reply. He would also pass the matters to DFMC for follow-up actions.

48. The meeting noted the paper.

(B) “Hong Kong Pride Parade 2020”

49. The Chairman remarked that he had received a letter on 12 May 2020 from the organising committee of Hong Kong Pride Parade, inviting KTDC to support “Hong Kong Pride Parade 2020” and give its consent to use of KTDC’s logo at related publicity items and activities. Moreover, he said that the police had not issued any no objection letter (“NOL”) to the activity yet.

23 50. Members raised views as follows:

50.1 Mr KAN-Ming-tung said that he respected views of different people in society and their ways of expression, but it would be very controversial to support the organisation in the name of KTDC.

50.2 Mr IP Tsz-kit remarked that in regard to the issue, there were different controversies in society at the moment. However, he said that even the website of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau (“CMAB”) had mentioned sex orientation issues. The website said that CMAB promoted and boosted equal opportunities on grounds of sexual orientations and gender identities through various publicity and educational measures, or provided support services for the sexual minorities. Meanwhile, it had also established the Advisory Group on Eliminating Discrimination against Sexual Minorities aiming at raising awareness towards discrimination faced by sexual minorities and nurturing a culture of diversity, tolerance and mutual respect in the community. He thought that after the Government had put forward related policy, it usually could not be rolled out at the district level, causing discrimination in society and allowing misunderstanding towards sexual minorities to continue to exist. If KTDC could become a supporting organisation of the activity, that would be very meaningful. That would reflect that starting from the current term of KTDC, discrimination against sexual minorities could gradually be eliminated. He stressed that sexual minorities had been existing all along in Hong Kong. They could not be ignored due to individual biases. Therefore, he hoped that KTDC could support the plan so that true social inclusion could be achieved.

50.3 Mr HUNG Chun-hin related that the letter briefly introduced the aim of the parade, which was “allowing Hong Kong society to be directly exposed to sexual minorities so as to enhance people’s understanding towards sexual minorities. Through true understanding, misunderstanding and biases could be eliminated. When there were no more misunderstanding and biases, equality and inclusion could be reached”. It was very meaningful. Besides, CMAB had produced an advertisement of 30 seconds to convey the message “Eliminate Discrimination, Embrace Inclusion, Equal Opportunities for People of Different Sexual Orientations and Transgenders”. The Government strongly supported publicity in that respect. Therefore, he agreed to

24 allow KTDC to become a supporting organisation of the activity concerned in order to eliminate biases.

50.4 Mrs Winnie POON remarked that as a Christian, she had reservations towards the present activity. She believed that under any circumstances, different people should be respected. She also agreed that KTDC could hold different activities to eliminate misunderstanding towards sexual minorities. Yet, she had reservations towards using KTDC’s name to support the organisation. She also suggested KTDC consider setting a baseline for giving support to different activities. In addition, she had received views from the public on the activity and related issues. Although she respected views from members of the public and Members who supported the activity, she needed to represent members of the public who opposed or had reservations towards the activity. She also said that if not all the district councils agreed to become supporting organisations of the activity, that might make district councils that were against the activity bear the infamy.

50.5 Ms Rosalynne LEUNG agreed to allow KTDC to support the activity. She said that she believed any religions that supported equality and fraternity would support compassionate activities. Moreover, she related that she had received emails from members of the public saying that the parade would involve crimes of adultery, indecent exposure, etc. In view of that, she hoped that the public could stop defaming sexual minorities. Before the police lay any charge against or issued an objection letter to the incident, she thought that the public should not make any conclusion over the parade in terms of criminal nature. She also believed that the accusation was unfair. The Government had all along been saying that it would promote equal rights activities. That made KTDC more obliged to support that type of minority people. She had also noticed that the public did not have a deep understanding towards sexual minority activities or people in Hong Kong. Hong Kong needed a more proper concept or more open attitude in that aspect.

50.6 Ms Edith LEUNG remarked that the Equal Opportunities Commission (“EOC”) had all along been conducting equal rights work with an aim to making people with different sexual orientations or sexual minorities could enjoy equal opportunities so as to ensure that the public would

25 not be discriminated due to their sexual orientations or genders. She opined that when EOC conducted its work, KTDC should be in line with EOC. Moreover, at the beginning of the current year, some of the universities had conducted a survey and found that 60% of Hong Kong people agreed to make legislature to protect rights of people with different sexual orientations and only 10% of the respondents opposed that. Therefore, under the support of the majority of people, KTDC should support the activity concerned.

50.7 Mr TAM Siu-cheuk said that he respected different views, and usually, district councilors had unshirkable responsibility to support activities that the Government supported. Nonetheless, different non-governmental organisations had sought KTDC’s support towards their activities (e.g. care for animals, protection of animals’ rights, etc.), so KTDC needed to set regulations towards giving support to that type of activities.

50.8 Mr Eason CHAN related that the focus of the discussion should not be whether same sex marriage should be legalised. Instead, it should be whether KTDC should become a supporting organisation of the homosexual parade. Therefore, supporting the activity was not equal to supporting legalisation of same sex marriage. Members should differentiate the two concepts clearly. In addition, he thought that everyone should be equal in Hong Kong society. The Government had also been conveying the message through different government departments all along. The homosexual parade could allow the public a chance to learn more about stories and feelings of people of sexual minorities. Consequently, he believed that there was not any reason to object to KTDC’s becoming a supporting organisation. Moreover, supporting the homosexual parade was a political judgement. If KTDC needed to set out requirements of different regulations, that would make KTDC lose its flexibility. Besides, Members, as political figures, should shoulder political responsibility when making decision and be held accountable to their electors as and when necessary. Within KTDC, Members should discuss issues according to their own stands, subsequently reach a consensus and come up with a result. If the activity itself involved other situations or matters, those should be left to electors and judicial departments to address. Lastly, he reiterated that he himself supported KTDC’s becoming a supporting organisation of the activity.

26 50.9 Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong said that he respected everyone’s sexual orientations, as well as people’s legal right to demonstration. Nevertheless, regarding supporting the activity in the name of KTDC, since KTDC consisted of 40 district councilors, he thought that each Member had different views. Therefore, he believed that it was not suitable for KTDC to become a supporting organisation. As a result, he did not agree with the proposal.

50.10 Mr WAN Ka-him related that the Chairman of EOC had also participated in the parade in the past, reflecting that the Government or public bodies also supported the activity. No government officials or public bodies had said that they were opposed to equal rights of homosexual people. He opined that, as a district councilor, if most of the Members of KTDC agreed to allow KTDC to become a supporting organisation of the activity, it would be alright for KTDC to become a supporting organisation in the name of KTDC. He himself also supported the decision.

50.11 Mr CHENG Keng-ieong supported KTDC’s becoming a supporting organisation of the activity. He said that he had noticed that there was an uneven distribution of voices supporting versus against homosexual people. At present, many homosexual people dared not show their sexual orientations. Furthermore, after the North District Council had endorsed its becoming a supporting organisation of the activity, he had learnt that many members of the public still had biases and strong emotions towards the decision. Therefore, he believed that there were still many misunderstandings towards sexual minorities in society. Moreover, he thought there such as situation arose from a lack of platforms for sexual minorities to express their views. In view of that, he hoped that KTDC would support the proposal and allow the underprivileged to have a chance to speak and express themselves.

51. The Chairman related that since he had received different views from Members, he decided to decide a vote if KTDC should become a supporting organisation of the activity “Hong Kong Pride Parade 2020”.

52. After a vote, the meeting endorsed KTDC’s becoming a supporting organisation of “Hong Kong Pride Parde 2020” and the use of KTDC’s logo on related publicity materials and at the activity with 20 votes in favour, 10 votes against and 5 abstentions.

27 53. Mr LUI Tung-hai asked if the police issued an objection letter to the activity, whether allowing the parade organisation to use KTDC’s logo for publicity would affect KTDC.

54. The Chairman said that if the activity was conducted without an NOL, the situation would be left to the police to handle.

(C) The 8th Hong Kong Games

55. The Chairman related that he had received on 23 June 2020 a letter from the Leisure and Cultural Services Department about the 8th Hong Kong Games. He said that since the matter was related to sports, he decided to pass the matter to the Culture, Recreation and Sports Committee (“CRSC”) for follow-up actions.

56. The meeting noted the paper.

(D) HULU Culture’s “Hong Kong Jockey Club ‘Heritage X Arts X Design’ Walk Project” – Invitation to KTDC to Join the Large-scale Community Arts Programme at and Kwun Tong District as a Programme Partner

57. The Chairman said that he had received on 17 June 2020 a letter from HULU Culture inviting KTDC to be a programme partner of “Hong Kong Jockey Club ‘Heritage X Arts X Design’ Walk Project”, a large-scale community arts programme at Yau Tsim Mong District and Kwun Tong District. He also said that the programme was funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Fund. It mainly involved culture and arts work. It had led 700 tertiary students to have visits and guided tours. It had also published publications to introduce culture and history of various districts.

58. The meeting endorsed KTDC’s becoming a programme partner of the programme and the related organisation’s use of the name and the logo of KTDC.

(E) Matters about Area Committees

59. The Chairman said that there had recently been rumours that HAD would remove nominations of members of the present terms of the area committees from appointments of members of the coming terms of the committees. He also said that in the past, the member lists of the area committees had been released around April. It was rumoured that the member lists had been approved before the former Secretary for Home Affairs (“SHA”) had left his office, but the lists had not been publicised all long, which was an unprecedented situation. Although HAD did not have to inform people who were not

28 appointed, members of area committees were part of community participation. Therefore, KTDC still had to learn more about the situation. He hoped that DO could let KTDC know if the above situation was real.

60. DO related that he would relay the related concern to HAD and give a reply later.

61. Mrs Winnie POON remarked that she could not understand why the appointment lists of the area committees had not been released yet. She also said that local communities (including people who had been appointed as members of area committees in the past) had also made enquiries about the issue. What particularly drew people’s attention was that there were rumours that a new area committee would be established for a nearby area of her constituency, so local communities were highly concerned about that issue. Moreover, if Members of KTDC could not be appointed as members of the area committees, she asked how KTDC could liaise with the area committees. At present, the Government rarely disseminated information about individual issues to district councilors, making district councilors have insufficient information to explain to local residents regarding many issues, which was hard for them to handle district affairs. Therefore, she hoped that DO could relay to HAD that the role of district councilors on the district level was increasingly equivocal. Furthermore, if the area committees did not include district councilors, she suggested using the funding which had originally reserved for the area committees to serve other purposes.

62. Mr HUNG Chun-hin said that if the rumours were true, under the circumstances that Members of KTDC could not take part in the area committees, KTDC should consider the use of resources and whether KTDC should allocate funding to the area committees.

63. Mr WONG Chi-ken related that KTDC had all along reserved funding for the area committees. If the rumours were true, under the circumstances that KTDC did not have any representatives in the area committees, KTDC would not be able to know how the funding would be used. Therefore, he suggested KTDC cancel the funding to the area committees and let HAD directly allocate funding to them. He hoped that the truthfulness could be clarified as early as possible in order to decide on the use of KTDC Funds.

64. Mr LUI Tung-hai opined that the present term of KTDC had changed many traditional practices. Therefore, he also suggested HAD reserve more funding for the area committees to optimise the use of KTDC’s resources.

65. Ms LI Wing-shan remarked that in the past, there had been Members of KTDC in the area committees. They could monitor the use of the funding allocated from KTDC. Therefore, she wished to know how the use of the funding could be monitored if there would

29 not be any Members of KTDC in the coming terms of the area committees. She hoped that HAD could give a response to that too.

66. Mr LI Ka-tat said that the area committees had all along contained members who were elected district councilors. Regarding the rumours, apart from Members of KTDC, even frontline staff of KTDO might not know the truthfulness of the rumours. Currently, half of 2020 had passed, and members of the area committees should have been appointed much earlier for organising activities. At present, it was unknown if those activities could be held. Therefore, he criticised the current SHA for failing to show any sincerity in the incident and felt helpless for the frontlines staff. In addition, he enquired if HAD had not informed DO of the appointment matters of the area committees, how KTDO would follow up on district work.

67. The Chairman remarked that the matters in question had not been included in other agenda items. However, some of the content of the agenda item concerned was related to FAC. If KTDC did not discuss the matters until the next meeting of FAC, it would be too late. Consequently, related views should be raised at the present meeting.

68. Mr CHENG Keng-ieong related that KTDC had all along been very respectful to the area committees. Compared to other district councils, KTDC had still reserved funding for the area committees in order to show the greatest sincerity. He also believed that the related arrangement had been an effective communication way between KTDC and local communities for a long time. In view of that, he hoped that DO could relay to the (“HAB”) the view that Members of KTDC should be appointed as members of the area committees so as to restore peace to the community.

69. The Vice-chairman said that all the Members who had spoken at the meeting hoped that DO could relay their views to HAB and publicise the appointment lists of the area committees. He also said that Members of KTDC had all along been stakeholders of the district. They had actively been communicating with local communities and frontline staff of KTDO in the past to handle district affairs. Therefore, he hoped that the arrangement could be maintained to avoid damaging the relationship between Members of KTDC and KTDO and making district administration ineffective or out of control. Besides, if Members of KTDC were not appointed as members of the area committees, there would be room for discussion if the area committees should be allocated with funding from KTDC. Yet, according to the practice in the past, allocation of funding to the area committees should be discussed at CRSC. Therefore, there would be time and room for Members to have adequate discussion. He believed that if all the funding was directly allocated by HAD to the area committees, such a method would neither be healthy nor beneficial to social progress.

30 70. The Chairman related that since there were too many unknown factors, he suggested CRSC first lock up the funding it had reserved for the area committees at the next meeting. If the member lists of the area committees did not cover Members of KTDC, KTDC would formally cancel KTDC’s related reserved funding at the interim financial review of KTDC in September. The follow-up actions of the matters would be passed to CRSC and FAC for further arrangement.

71. The meeting noted the matters.

(F) Problem of Unwanted Vehicles in the District

72. Mr CHAN Man-kin remarked that there were unwanted vehicles (commonly referred to as “dead vehicles”) or motorcycles being parked at the roads. However, motorcycle and private car parking spaces were scarce resources. The situation concerned wasted parking spaces and that might bring danger and nuisances. On the other hand, it usually took several years to take those vehicles away. Therefore, he hoped that SCAC could conduct coordination and pass the information to the police for follow-up actions.

73. The Chairman said that the matter could be passed to the related committee for follow-up actions.

Item X – Date of Next Meeting

74. The next meeting was scheduled to be held on 1 September 2020 (Tuesday).

75. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

The minutes of the meeting were confirmed on 6 October 2020.

Kwun Tong District Council Secretariat July 2020

31