(Translation) Minutes of the 1 Meeting of the Environment and Hygiene

(Translation)

Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the Environment and Hygiene Committee under Sham Shui Po District Council (5th Term)

Date: 19 January 2016 (Tuesday) Time: 4:24 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Sham Shui Po District Council

Present

Chairman Ms LAU Pui-yuk

Members Mr CHAN Kwok-wai Mr CHAN Wai-ming, MH Ms CHAN Wing-yan, Joephy Mr CHENG Wing-shun, Vincent Mr CHEUNG Wing-sum, Ambrose, MH, JP Ms CHOW Wing-heng, Zoé Mr CHUM Tak-shing Mr HO Kai-ming, Kalvin Mr LAM Ka-fai, Aaron, JP Mr KONG Kwai-sang Mr LEE Tsz-king, Dominic Mr LEE Wing-man Mr LEUNG Man-kwong Mr LEUNG Yau-fong Ms NG Mei, Carman Ms NG Yuet-lan Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, MH, JP Mr WAI Woon-nam Mr WONG Tat-tung, Dennis, MH, JP Mr YAN Kai-wing Mr YEUNG Yuk Mr YUEN Hoi-man

- 2 - Action by

In Attendance Mr MOK Kwan-yu, Benjamin, JP District Officer (Sham Shui Po) Miss CHAN Pui-ki, Kiki Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 1 Mr WAI Chun-yin, Mickey Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2 Ms CHEUNG Ching, Jenny Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Sham Shui Po District Office Mr LAI Kah-kit District Environmental Hygiene Superintendant (Sham Shui Po), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr LI Kam-hung, Joe Principal Estate Officer/Kowloon West (North) (District Lands Office, Kowloon West), Lands Department Ms YIP Yuk-ying Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator/Police Community Relations Office of Sham Shui Po District, Hong Kong Police Force Mr LAM Wing-yiu Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional West) 5, Environmental Protection Department

Secretary Miss CHEUNG Ching-yee, Jennifer Executive Officer (District Council) 1, Sham Shui Po District Office

- 3 - Action by

Opening Remarks

Mr Ambrose CHEUNG welcomed Members to the first meeting of the Environment and Hygiene Committee (“EHC”). He remarked that he would preside at the meeting until the Chairman of EHC was elected; following which he would turn the meeting over to the newly elected Chairman for the remaining agenda items.

Agenda Item 1: Election of Chairman of the Committee

2. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG asked the Secretary to announce the nominations received at the close of the nomination period.

3. The Secretary said that the Secretariat received a nomination form for the office of EHC Chairman before 8:30 a.m. this morning. The candidate was Ms LAU Pui-yuk, whose nomination was made by Mr LEUNG Man-kwong and seconded by Mr CHAN Kwok-wai and Mr CHAN Wai-ming. Besides, the Secretariat received another nomination form for the office of EHC Chairman after 8:30 a.m. this morning. The candidate was Mr WAI Woon-nam, whose nomination was made by Mr CHUM Tak-shing and seconded by Mr Kalvin HO and Mr YEUNG Yuk.

4. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG remarked that only one received nomination was valid and he therefore declared that Ms LAU Pui-yuk was elected as EHC Chairman of the Sham Shui Po District Council (“SSPDC”).

5. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong opposed the rulings of Mr Ambrose CHEUNG and disagreed that there was only one valid nomination.

6. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) his nomination was sent to the Secretariat at 9:15 a.m. this morning, i.e. about 7 hours before the actual start time of the meeting, or 1 hour and 45 minutes before the scheduled start time of the meeting. He expressed his regret on the rulings handed down by Mr Ambrose CHEUNG of not accepting his nomination; (ii) besides, in respect of the election of DC Chairman and Vice-chairman held on 5 January, the District Officer had not yet released relevant documents regarding the opinions of the Department of Justice. Therefore, he questioned the election procedure of that day as well as the capacity of DC Chairman and Vice-chairman.

7. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG noted Members’ views.

8. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong asked for an adjournment of 5 minutes.

- 4 - Action by

9. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG declared that the meeting would be adjourned for 5 minutes.

(The meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes.)

10. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG declared the resumption of the meeting and announced that a provisional motion was received. The motion, moved by Mr LEUNG Yau-fong and seconded by Ms Carman NG, was as follows:

“Object to SSPDC Secretariat’s submission on 11 January regarding the guidelines for the election of Chairmen and Vice-chairmen, which was in contravention of the District Councils Ordinance (“DCO”). Request to elect Chairmen of the Committees and their Working Groups in accordance with DCO (Cap. 547) and following the procedure stipulated in Schedule 5 (nominations may be given at any time before the person presiding at the meeting calls for the closing of nominations.)”

11. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) in order to express his objection to Mr Ambrose CHEUNG’s decision by action, he decided to move a motion as he did at previously held committees’ meetings; (ii) the decision was unreasonable and against the electoral procedure. It was based on one’s own interpretation of the electoral procedure. He could not sway the election result but reckoned that all individuals should be allowed to participate in the election in a fair, just and open manner; (iii) he urged Members, regardless of their political affiliations, to take this opportunity to show their stance if they agreed to his views.

12. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG suggested that the provisional motion, moved by Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, be voted on by open ballot. Members had no objection.

13. The voting result was as follows:

For: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (10)

Against: Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing

- 5 - Action by

(12)

Abstain: (0)

14. The Secretary announced the voting result: 10 Members voted for the motion, 12 Members voted against it and no Member abstained. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG announced that the provisional motion was not passed.

(The meeting was chaired by Ms LAU Pui-yuk as EHC Chairman.)

Agenda Item 2: Endorsement of the structure and terms of reference of the Working Groups under the Committee (EHC Paper 1/12)

15. The Chairman said that environment and hygiene issues in Sham Shui Po (“SSP”) District had all along been the concerns. She hoped that the Committee would join hands to improve the environmental hygiene in the district.

16. The Chairman said that with reference to the structure of the fourth term SSPDC, three working groups were set up under EHC, i.e. the Working Group on Markets, Street Traders and Food Safety (“WGMST”), the Working Group on Environmental Protection (“WGEP”) and the Non-Standing Working Group on Wild Bird and Poultry Market Problems (“WGWB”). Their structures and terms of reference were at Annexes 1 and 2 of EHC Paper 1/16. Members were requested to consider and approve the structures and terms of reference of the above Working Groups on the basis of the structure of the fourth term SSPDC, their past experience and future responsibilities of the Committee.

17. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views and suggestions: (i) WGMST and WGEP had all along been promoting various activities in the district and achieving the goals set upon their establishment; (ii) as a non-standing working group, WGWB only conducted site visits to the Cheung Sha Wan Temporary Wholesale Poultry Market every year in the past District Council (“DC”) term. Since Members were concerned about the wild bird issue and the Committee had, from time to time, discussed and followed up the wild bird and avian influenza issues, he suggested that the discussion be escalated to the committee level from the working group level and WGWB be abolished until further discussion if necessary.

18. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views and suggestions: (i) he disagreed to some of the views of Mr CHAN Wai-ming. He opined that the wild bird issue remained unsolved, and the Chairman of the Working Group concerned of the new term may lead the Working Group to perform better. In case of an epidemic outbreak, the Working Group if

- 6 - Action by retained might convene meetings and take follow-up action more flexibly. Therefore, he did not support the abolition of WGWB; (ii) he suggested that the wordings “hawker stalls” be added to the name of WGMST or its term of reference because there were a lot of “hawker stalls” in SSP District. Besides, environmental hygiene and license renewal issues thus involved had been discussed at DC meetings. Therefore, he suggested that hawker stalls be included in the discussion under the Working Group in order to tackle the issue in respect of the operation of hawker stalls.

19. Mr Vincent CHENG raised the following views: (i) he agreed to Mr CHAN Wai-ming’s views that WGWB’s work in the past was not effective and could not help improve the wild bird issue in the district; (ii) WGWB failed to perform its functions and one of the reasons was the comparatively low level of the Working Group. Since the wild bird issue was getting worse, he suggested that the issue be escalated to the committee level for discussion and regular reports be made for follow-up purpose.

20. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) if the wild bird issue was rampant, WGWB should be changed from a non-standing working group to a standing working group instead; (ii) the terms of reference of WGWB included giving attention to the management of poultry markets, and Members cared about the relocation of poultry markets in the past. Since the competition for land use in the district was rather keen, it was necessary to deal with the land use issue of the poultry markets through various means. If the Working Group was to be abolished and reports would be made to EHC regularly by relevant government departments, the Committee would be put in a more passive position; (iii) currently, the wild bird issue was not confined to individual areas. Yau Yat Chuen and SSP West also faced the wild bird problem. Therefore, it was necessary to strengthen the efforts in this respect. He did not mean to criticise the past performance of the Chairman of WGWB, but he considered it worthwhile to review the operation of WGWB or even upgrade WGWB to a standing working group, if necessary, to enhance its functions.

21. The Chairman added as follows: (i) she had been the Chairman of WGMST. The first bullet point in the terms of reference of WGMST was to make suggestions in respect of markets and street traders in the district. Market practitioners were market traders and hawker stall practitioners were street traders. Therefore, the terms of reference of WGMST already covered matters pertaining to the management of markets and hawker stalls; (ii) as regards WGWB, since the relocation of poultry markets involved a number of government departments, it was often discussed at the level of DC meetings.

22. Mr YEUNG Yuk raised the following views and suggestions: (i) he had no comments on the existing three working groups and hoped that their operation could be maintained; (ii) he hoped to add a standing or non-standing working group to express the

- 7 - Action by concerns over the odour issue in the coastal areas of SSP District. In the past, Members submitted papers to the Committee or DC on the relevant issues every year. However, improvement had not been made over the years, and various coastal areas in SSP West were greatly affected. In addition, starting from 6 January this year, Tseung Kwan O (“TKO”) Landfill no longer received domestic waste, which would then be transferred to other refuse transfer stations, including the West Kowloon Transfer Station adjacent to Stonecutters Island. The odour issue might get worse, and when winds veered to southwest in summer, the issue would become more obvious. In the past, papers on the odour issue were submitted for discussion from time to time. Also, DC would visit sewage treatment plants and refuse transfer stations every year and followed up on the effectiveness of odour mitigation measures as well as all issues relating to refuse transfer stations and sewage treatment plants. Therefore, he hoped that a working group could be set up under EHC to continue following up the odour issue in the district.

23. Ms Zoé CHOW raised the following views: (i) she agreed to Mr YEUNG Yuk’s suggestions. Residents living in the “Four Little Dragons” region had been bothered by the odour issue. Instead of visiting refuse transfer stations and sewage treatment plants, the Committee should make efforts on identifying the sources of the odour and face up to the issue seriously; (ii) similar to what had been mentioned by Mr CHUM Tak-shing, she did not agree to the abolition of WGWB. She was a co-opted member of EHC in the last term. She noted that the Committee had discussed the wild bird issue on many occasions, but the issue had not been resolved so far. Currently, local residents were still being disturbed by the wild birds, and from their viewpoints, the Committee should look into the issue seriously instead of abolishing the working group concerned.

24. Mr Dominic LEE raised the following views: (i) regarding WGWB, he agreed to Mr CHAN Wai-ming’s views. He did not mean to criticise the Chairman of WGWB of the last term, but his constituency also faced the wild bird issue. When he liaised with the government departments concerned, they always shirked responsibilities among each other. It was unwise to do the same thing again and again in the hope of getting different results. As WGWB could not help the affected residents in the past few years, why EHC would spend another four years to help solve the issue by using the same method. Therefore, he hoped that the wild bird issue could be escalated to the committee level for discussion; (ii) there were a lot of relocation issues in SSP District which even involved land use issues, and they could not be solved effectively at the working group level. Therefore, he suggested that these issues be discussed and handled at higher-level meetings or inter-departmental meetings.

25. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) he agreed to the views of Mr CHAN Wai-ming and Mr Dominic LEE. In the past, whenever EHC needed to follow

- 8 - Action by up certain issues, it would request the government departments concerned to submit papers or attend meetings. For example, the Housing Affairs Committee (“HAC”) adopted a similar method to handle the issue regarding the redevelopment of Pak Tin Catholic Primary School; (ii) he did not mean to degrade WGWB, but he reckoned that EHC could follow up the issue more closely; (iii) in the past, in case of emergency such as an outbreak of bird flu, the issues would be followed up by DC or the Committee, which were at a higher level compared to the Working Group and would follow up the issues more effectively; (iv) the term of the Working Group lasted for two years, and even if it was to be abolished, this could be reviewed in two years.

26. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) in the past, EHC almost followed up the wild bird issue at every meeting. She questioned whether it would be necessary to escalate the issue to higher-level meetings. If the work in the past was not effective, it should not only be discussed at this moment; (iii) previously, EHC had passed the odour issue to WGEP for follow-up. However, WGEP encountered difficulties as the government departments concerned had never sent representatives to its meetings and only provided progress reports instead. WGEP needed to spend a lot of time to urge the government departments concerned to collaborate or arrange visits at sewage treatment plants, etc. If a working group on the odour issue was to be set up, it would definitely be more effective.

27. Ms NG Yuet-lan said that starting from January this year, 300 refuse collection vehicle counts would divert refuse, which was originally transported to TKO, to West Kowloon. Therefore, the odour issue in SSP District would worsen. If a working group on the odour issue was to be set up, its function should include expressing concerns over the impact on the district resulted from the above change and arrangement.

28. Mr LEE Wing-man raised the following views: (i) he had all along been a member of WGWB. The Working Group had invited the government departments concerned to the meetings, but the efforts were in vain. This might be due to the low level of the Working Group that it was difficult for it to deal with the issue; (ii) the Working Group did set up a hotline for reporting the wild bird issue before but that was not effective; (iii) he agreed that the wild bird issue should be handled by EHC because it would be easier to invite representatives from government departments to the meetings.

29. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views: (i) there should originally be a purpose for setting up WGWB. As many Members coincidentally pointed out that WGWB was not effective, he opined that the cause of its ineffectiveness should first be identified, whether it be the Chairman, the non-standing nature of WGWB, or the lower level of authority of WGWB compared to that of EHC. Having reached a consensus on

- 9 - Action by the cause, EHC could then decide whether the Working Group should be abolished; (ii) as many residents in the coastal areas of SSP District were concerned about the odour issue in the district, he agreed to set up a working group on the odour issue to respond to the requests of residents.

30. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) work effectiveness was not necessarily related to the attribution of committees or working groups. Members had previously submitted papers to committees or even to DC and on many occasions, government departments did not attend meetings and only provided brief response documents; (ii) the effectiveness of a working group was subject to its chairman. It also depended on whether the working group had closely mediated with government departments. The wild bird issue was within the terms of reference of various government departments, like the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (“AFCD”), the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”), the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”), etc. Among those government departments, the response of FEHD was the most encouraging while the others were not responsive at all; (iii) if a working group was ineffective, its level should be escalated, for example, to a task force directly under DC, instead of abolishing it; (iv) the wild bird issue was largely related to poultry. In mainland China, there were continuous mutations and outbreaks of avian influenza. In case of cross-infection leading to an epidemic outbreak in densely populated SSP District, the consequence would be disastrous; (v) initially, WGWB focused on the wild bird issue only. Its terms of reference were later expanded as poultry markets had not been relocated yet; (vi) there could be many different reasons to adjust the number of working group, however the effectiveness of a working group depended on whether its chairman was people-oriented. He opposed to the abolition of WGWB, and opined that the Working Group should not only be retained but should even be escalated to operate directly under DC; (vii) the odour issue bothered residents in the coastal areas, causing adverse effects on their safety and quality of living. Assistance should be given to residents in these areas regardless of whether they were rich or poor. Therefore, he reckoned that a working group on the odour issue should be set up.

31. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views: (i) in respect of handling the wild bird issue, joint effort by EHC and WGWB should be more effective than the sole effort by EHC; (ii) the functions of government departments should not be blotted out. He believed that they would not have different practice towards committee meetings and working group meetings; (iii) the new Chairman and members of WGWB might be able to perform better. Therefore, EHC should try to retain the Working Group first.

32. Mr Vincent CHENG said that the effectiveness of a working group should be subject to its chairman as well as the inputs of members and the work of government

- 10 - Action by departments. EHC had previously passed the wild bird issue to the Working Group for follow-up. However, representatives from the government departments concerned who attended WGWB meetings were not the same as those who attended Committee meetings. Although some Members suggested trying to retain the Working Group, its effectiveness had yet to be seen even after a lengthy trial in the past. The wild bird issue had yet to be resolved, and had to be followed up further. If WGWB was to be retained, it was necessary to consider the involvement of Members. To conclude, he insisted on the views which he had raised earlier, i.e. it would be more suitable for EHC to handle the wild bird issue.

33. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and suggestions: (i) he wondered whether the Vice-chairman’s suggestion of the abolition of WGWB was out of consideration of DC resources. As he could not grasp relevant information prior to the meeting, he could only discuss the issue itself; (ii) WGWB should not be abolished because of its ineffectiveness. Instead, resignation of relevant position-holders should be considered; (iii) as the issue in question involved various government departments, WGWB could focus their attention on discussing the issue. If the issue was to be discussed in EHC, the focus of the discussion would become blurred as every Member would want to discuss issues regarding his/her own constituency; (iv) he did not want to criticise the former Chairman of WGWB. However, DC Chairman and the District Officer should be held responsible if the attendance of government departments was far from satisfactory. Therefore, the attendance rate of government departments should be followed up; (v) WGWB took a more proactive role than EHC, and the latter had to wait passively for the response from government departments; (vi) if it was necessary to re-allocate DC resources, he suggested abolishing WGMST or changing it to a non-standing working group. It was because FEHD, as a standing department, would attend each EHC meeting. The work of WGMST was rather regular in nature. Instead of understanding the business conditions of street traders, it mostly carried out activities such as distributing environmentally friendly bags in markets etc., which originally could be done by district organisations through funding arrangement. Therefore, it was unnecessary to waste the resources of the Secretariat. Instead, it was necessary to retain WGWB because several constituencies were beset by the wild bird issue; (vii) in summary, he did not object to modifying the level of the three existing working groups, i.e. escalating individual working groups to standing working groups while changing some others to non-standing working ones. Additionally, given that the odour issue greatly affected residents in the coastal areas, he supported the suggestion of setting up a task force to follow up the odour issue.

34. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) it was believed that all Members agreed that the wild bird issue had yet to be resolved. As the issue remained unresolved, it should find the solution beyond WGWB rather than abolishing it; (ii) a unique feature of

- 11 - Action by

WGWB and its edge over EHC was that it could flexibly invite relevant experts for advice. Therefore, WGWB should be retained.

35. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views: (i) the difference between working groups and committees was that working groups required more time to discuss and to explore the details of the issues. For example, the Working Group on Public Transport Services (“WGPTS”) would discuss the bus route rationisation issue and would require a prolonged period to discuss and study the issue; (ii) as to the odour issue, it was actually very obvious that the crux was how the department requested relevant regulatory authorities to improve the odour pollution. The issue could not be resolved by a working group and therefore should be discussed at committee meetings or even DC meetings so that appropriate representatives from government departments could understand Members’ requests and coordinate the relevant work; (iii) most people were aware of the wild bird issue. Wild birds could not be killed with poison, hurt or shocked. So, it had been unable to reach a consensus on the balance between humanitarian grounds and dispersing wild birds. Hence, the wild bird issue should be discussed in EHC; (iv) he suggested that the issues of wild birds and odour be included in the agenda of each EHC meeting and be closely followed up and updated by relevant government officials.

36. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) Members were aware that the wild bird issue was not resolved, but there were many ways to solve the issue. Now he only suggested using alternative ways to solve the issue, i.e. to discuss the issue at higher-level meetings. He welcomed EHC Chairman to put the wild bird issue and even the poultry market relocation issue under the discussion of EHC; (ii) as a Member of DC in the past, he witnessed that WGWB Chairman had tried his best to handle the issue. However, it was not his fault if representatives from government departments did not attend the meetings. He did not wish that the incumbent Members misunderstood and misinterpreted that previous Members were incapable to fulfill their duties.

37. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) Members’ suggestions were not exclusive of one another. The question was whether a new committee could find a new approach to handle the issues of wild birds and odour. Discussing the issues in the Committee did not mean that the issues were not handled; instead, they were being handled at a higher level. However, it was not guaranteed if the issues could be resolved; (ii) last year, DC Members had met with Legislative Council Members to discuss the wild bird issue, and the latter also agreed that the issue was thorny. He agreed that the wild bird issue should be handled by experts. It was difficult for Members to become experts in different issues at different levels. Moreover, WGWB had difficulties in inviting representatives from government departments and experts as well. Therefore, the level of handling the issue should be escalated; (iii) at the end of last term, EHC discussed the odour

- 12 - Action by issue and provided clear views to relevant government departments. The latter had already handled the odour issue for years and believed that they knew the crux of the issue. However, the number of odour-related complaints did not decrease. Additionally, the waste being diverted from TKO posed a risk. Therefore, he had suggested relevant government departments appoint experts with the resources of the government and to provide formal professional reports after investigation; (iv) it was not necessary to use DC’s limited resources to handle the issue. On the contrary, views could be reflected to the Government and the relatively abundant government resources could be used to seek advice from experts; (v) Members should have more confidence in the new DC and should strengthen their collaboration with government departments in the hope of reaching a consensus; (vi) it should be more effective to handle the issue by escalating it to a higher level. EHC might not be the most suitable platform to discuss the issue, however, it would be the first step at least.

38. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) the handling of the odour issue could not rely on government departments only. For example, the bi-annual Harbour Area Treatment Scheme was the work resulted from a report by the experts hired by the Government; (ii) the work of WGEP was too heavy, and the odour issue was so extensive that WGEP was unable to examine the odour issue in detail. Therefore, setting up an additional committee on the above issue should even be considered; (iii) Members should not only consider the status quo to determine whether an additional working group should be set up. Many housing estates would be completed in the coastal areas. The odour issue was related to a very wide range of issues, involving the operation of sewage treatment plants, refuse transfer stations, nullahs and refuse collection vehicles. Therefore, the new term DC should plan ahead prior to an increase in the number of residents in the coastal areas. She hoped that DC Chairman and EHC Chairman would handle the odour issue seriously and prudently.

39. The Chairman said that a provisional motion was received.

40. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu asked whether WGMST would be amended or even abolished. He reckoned that FEHD’s top officials in SSP District had already reported to EHC on the market issue. If WGMST was not currently following up any particularly important issues, it could be abolished first and be set up at a later time if necessary.

41. The Chairman responded that there were many markets and hawker stalls in SSP District. In the past, WGMST had all along been concerned about the progress of Hawker Assistance Scheme and had carried out activities to promote food safety. It was a suitable platform at an appropriate level to handle matters relating to markets and hawker stalls. In addition, WGMST had previously invited many representatives from markets and hawker

- 13 - Action by stalls to attend meetings and to provide advice. Its work was effective and there were no other Members suggested abolishing WGMST.

42. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that there was a market management committee in each market and its meetings would be attended by DC Member of the relevant constituency. Therefore, there was already a channel for market traders to express their opinions. In addition, the District Environmental Hygiene Superintendant of FEHD would also regularly attend EHC meetings to handle the issue. He opined that there was no obvious issue relating to markets and hawker stalls in the district. On the other hand, the issues of wild bird and odour would affect the health and the living of the public and should be given top priority.

43. The Chairman responded that WGMST was still following up many specific projects, for example, the Hawker Assistance Scheme mentioned earlier on, the Fire Fighting Plan, and the recent issue relating to the relocation of Yen Chow Street Temporary Hawker Bazzar (commonly known as “Pang-tsai”). Although EHC could also discuss these issues, their details would be discussed in WGMST.

44. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) markets and hawkers were involved in the overall hawker policy. In respect of implementing the hawker policy, WGMST could help contact different hawkers in a more comprehensive manner. Therefore, WGMST had its existence value; (ii) having the market management committee did not mean that it needed to abolish the related working group. Every housing estate had its own estate management committee, but under HAC, there were the Working Group on Public Housing (“WGPH”) and the Working Group on Private Premises and Urban Revitalisation (“WGPPUR”). He opined that the platform of WGMST should be retained.

45. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that WGPH was involved in the redevelopment of public estates, and the estate management committee would not discuss this type of issue. It would be left for discussion in HAC. Hawker policy could be discussed in EHC, and FEHD could even send more senior officials to attend the meetings to report on policy issue. The issue of “Pang-tsai” had already been escalated to DC meetings for discussion. As the issues being handled by WGMST were not urgent, it could be changed to a non-standing working group and the resources could be re-allocated to WGWB and the working group on the odour issue.

46. Mr Vincent CHENG said that there were many market traders and hawker stall traders in SSP District. They were the key stakeholders in the district and therefore their opinions should be taken seriously. The projects previously carried out by WGMST, like the Fire Fighting Plan, were related to the livelihood issue as well. Moreover, WGMST

- 14 - Action by had been following up the relocation of hawker stalls. Currently, the relocation of hawker stalls was yet to complete, and the Working Group was still needed to serve as a communication platform.

47. Mr YEUNG Yuk raised the following views: (i) some Members reckoned that the wild bird issue was serious, and suggested escalating the issue to the Committee for discussion. Some Members reckoned that issues relating to markets and hawkers were yet to complete and the Working Group should be retained. He wondered whether important issues be discussed at the committee level or at the working group level; (ii) some Members mentioned that DC resources was limited, and it should be utilised in areas of utmost concerns. The hawker policy could be handled by the Committee, and comparatively speaking, other works of WGMST were of a routine nature. He wondered whether it would be necessary to retain the Working Group; (iii) some Members considered that the odour issue was very obvious. However, the issue had been followed up for years and all relevant government departments indicated that the issue was not related to them. The crux of the issue was actually not obvious. Therefore, if a working group was set up to identify the sources of the odour and to follow up the issue, the work process would certainly go more smoothly and more representatives from relevant government departments would attend meeting to report the progress and to assist in dealing with the issue; (iv) if all the issues could be discussed in the Committee, it would be unnecessary to set up any working groups. The reason for setting up working groups was that the Committee could not solve the issues. Given that the odour issue was unable to be resolved in a short time, it was necessary to set up a working group on the odour issue.

48. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views: (i) he reiterated that working groups, such as the Working Group on District Works and WGPTS, would have in-depth discussions on various issues of a particular area by means of discussions within the working groups as well as participation of the public. This explained the existence of the working groups; (ii) residents and Members of SSP had all along been concerned with the operation of the sewage treatment plant and the refuse transfer station on Stonecutters Island and had been making painstaking efforts to ask for improvements. For example, the sewage treatment plant had no covering initially, and improvements had been made later on. In addition, he inspected the location on four occasions. Previously, odour was emitted from the dripping of foul water from refuse collection vehicles when they were lining up to enter the refuse transfer station. It was much improved now when refuse collection vehicles with an enclosed type design were introduced. In short, having issues for regular discussion in the Committee would definitely help urge relevant government departments to follow up and explain the issue. It was necessary to ask the Government to identify the sources of the odour, which could not be done by Members alone. Therefore, he hoped that the level of discussion on this issue could be escalated and he also requested the

- 15 - Action by

Government to make improvements.

49. The Chairman said that he received another provisional motion, i.e. two motions were received. The first motion (“Motion 1”) was moved by Mr YEUNG Yuk and seconded by Mr YUEN Hoi-man, Ms NG Yuet-lan and Ms Zoé CHOW; the second motion (“Motion 2”) was moved by Mr Dennis WONG and seconded by Mr YAN Kai-wing. The Chairman invited Mr YEUNG Yuk to introduce the contents of Motion 1.

50. Mr YEUNG Yuk proposed to slightly amend his motion. The contents of the amended motion were as follows:

“Currently, the coastal areas of SSP District are frequently affected by the odour coming from Stonecutters Island. The odour may come from the West Kowloon Transfer Station or the nearby sewage treatment plant. Given that domestic waste are no longer received by TKO Landfill and domestic refuse collection vehicles have to divert the waste to other refuse transfer stations including the one in West Kowloon, it is expected that the odour issue will deteriorate in the future. In this connection, it is suggested that a “Working Group on the Elimination of the Odour in SSP Coastal Areas” be set up under EHC.”

51. Mr YEUNG Yuk believed that the setting up of the Working Group would help handle the odour issue in the coastal areas of SSP District more effectively and in a more target-oriented manner. He hoped that Members would support the motion.

52. Mr CHUM Tak-shing inquired the meaning of “issues for regular discussion” in Motion 2.

53. Mr Dominic LEE said that he understood that some Members hoped to set up working groups for certain issues in the district. Currently, the issues being handled by the working groups under DC were issues encountered by most of the areas in SSP District. However, Motion 1 only targeted at certain areas and even particular circumstances, such as the odour issue arising from domestic waste not being received by TKO Landfill. Its scope was relatively narrow in terms of time and area covered. He opined that when setting up working groups, whether the issue would affect most of the residents in the district and the continuity of the issue should be taken into consideration.

54. The Chairman then invited Mr Dennis WONG to introduce the contents of Motion 2.

55. Mr Dennis WONG introduced the contents of Motion 2: “This Committee understands that residents are very concerned about the issues of wild birds and odour. In

- 16 - Action by order to strengthen follow-up efforts, it is suggested that these two issues be designated as issues for regular discussion in EHC.” He continued that “issues for regular discussion” referred to relevant issues which would be included in the agenda of each meeting. This would ensure that the issues would be followed up and that representatives from appropriate government departments would reply to Members’ questions and report on the progress of the issues concerned.

56. Mr CHUM Tak-shing further asked whether “issues for regular discussion” as mentioned in Motion 2 would be designated as follow-up items of the meetings and in a passive manner, updates on which would be reported by representatives from government departments, or would they be treated as individual agenda items or handled in some other ways.

57. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) regarding the set-up of a working group, she wondered whether it would be necessary to take generality and continuity into consideration, i.e. the abolition of WGWB should depend on whether it was set up to handle issues district-wide or for specific areas. So, on the basis of this, it would be necessary to review whether all the existing working groups met this requirement; (ii) according to the contents of Motion 2, any issues could be designated as “issues for regular discussion”. If this was the case, Members needed not submit any papers in the future because all issues, no matter whether they were related to SSP District or Hong Kong, could be discussed in a committee as issues for regular discussion, which meant DC’s established procedures would be changed.

58. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the paper submission procedures adopted by the Committee was similar to that of DC. Basically, papers were submitted by either Members or government departments. It seemed that Sham Shui Po District Council Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”) did not mention anything about issues for regular discussion; (ii) if “issues for regular discussion” were to be allowed, Members needed not submit papers by a deadline. This arrangement should also be extended to all other committees. However, government departments should submit their written replies in response to “issues for regular discussion” to facilitate Members’ discussion; (iii) he asked whether the relocation and management issues of poultry markets would not be discussed as the contents of Motion 2 did not mention anything about poultry markets.

59. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) she questioned Mr Dominic LEE’s viewpoints. She pointed out that the odour issue in the district was very serious, and a total of 300 vehicle loads of refuse would be diverted to West Kowloon. In fact, odour was formed by toxic gases, such as hydrogen sulphide, and affected the health and well-being of more than 100,000 residents in the coastal areas. It would be ridiculous that

- 17 - Action by a working group could only be set up if the issue concerned was district-wide or related to all Members; (iii) regarding “issues for regular discussion”, she wondered whether it meant that government departments such as FEHD and the Drainage Services Department would send representatives to each meeting. If so, the duration of each meeting would be very long.

60. Mr CHAN Wai-ming reiterated that it did not mean that he was not concerned about the wild bird issue, but instead the level of discussion should be escalated. He reckoned that Motion 2 represented the concerns over the issue. It would allow EHC to include the issue in the agenda so that relevant government departments could continuously follow up, respond to and report on the issue at each meeting. There was similar practice in the past. Motion 2 meant to express concerns over the issue.

61. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) what SSPDC Members were concerned about was not restricted to the constituencies they belonged to. None of the existing working groups had their terms of reference covering the whole district, and therefore, DC Members were responsible for handling district-wide issues. There were not many markets in the district and not every constituency had markets and hawker stalls, but WGMST was set up. Wild birds flew everywhere, and it was difficult to define whether the issue was area-specific. Therefore, EHC should consider whether the WGWB should be abolished or not; (ii) the odour issue did not affect Mei Foo area only. An increase in refuse collection vehicles would affect the overall vehicular flow of the district, resulting in heavier traffic and higher probability of accidents. The odour issue would also become more serious; (iii) EHC could not act passively and only rely on government departments to handle the issues. Also, the District Officer could not force representatives from government departments to attend meetings. Therefore, the so-called “issues for regular discussion” did not exist. Members should be concerned about the well-being of residents in the district. No matter whether or not the issues occurred in their constituencies, they should take the initiative to submit papers on the issues.

62. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) in the past, government departments such as FEHD, the Lands Department, the Police, etc. did submit reports to EHC. The data provided in these reports represented the responses from the government departments concerned. As to whether the responses and reports were detailed or not, Members could do nothing about it; (ii) apart from the wild bird issue, the Working Group should also follow up on the issue of temporary poultry markets. In case of an outbreak, if the issue was not followed up by a working group, it would be difficult to explain to the public; (iii) the so-called “issues for regular discussion” was meaningless. If there were a lot of issues for discussion and the duration of the discussion was long, Members might not be able to focus their attention on the discussion. It was the function of the Working

- 18 - Action by

Group to urge government departments to respond to and follow up on the issues; (iv) some working groups might not have its value of existence. For example, WGPH requested the Housing Department to conduct site visits with Members in the past, but the efforts were in vain after all these years. If working groups would be abolished due to ineffectiveness, all working groups should better be abolished with committees being set up directly under DC so that all issues would be handled at the committee level.

63. Mr LAM Ka-fai raised the following views: (i) the district had all along been bothered by the issues of wild bird and odour. If these issues would be escalated to the committee level, it could help handle the issues to a certain extent by making the government departments concerned pay more attention to the issues; (ii) government departments such as FEHD always submitted comprehensive reports at each Committee meeting. EHC could also request AFCD and EPD to submit similar reports on the issues of wild bird and odour. Currently, sewage treatment plants were in the process of eliminating odour pollution in phases. Improvements to odour elimination materials were also being made. These reports would enable Members to understand and monitor departmental progress, and EHC would pay more attention to the issues; (iii) the wild bird issue had not been resolved after years of effort, and other alternatives could be explored to handle the issue. If the results were not satisfactory, other alternatives could further be explored.

64. Mr Vincent CHENG said that EHC was not effective in handling the wild bird issue previously, and there was room for improvement. The Committee should not avoid the issue because it had to handle a lot of issues. Therefore, he agreed that the Committee should follow up on the issue by means of “issues for regular discussion” until the issue was resolved.

65. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views: (i) Members had diverse views towards the criteria for setting up working groups. If generality of issues was taken as the criteria for setting up working groups, he wondered whether it meant that WGPH could be abolished as public housing was not found in all the areas of SSP District. On the contrary, the odour issue affected many areas, for example, Lai Chi Kok Central, Lai Chi Kok South, Mei Foo, Fortune, Nam Cheong, etc., which represented nearly one third of the areas of SSP District. He wondered whether a working group should be set up to handle the issue; (ii) he kept an open mind as to whether the issues should be discussed by the committees or working groups, but he hoped that consistent principles could be applied when handling the issue regarding the setting up of working groups; (iii) he suggested adding the issue of temporary poultry markets to Motion 2.

66. Mr YEUNG Yuk raised the following views: (i) the contents of Motion 2 changed

- 19 - Action by the Committee’s active role to a passive one. If the department did not respond to paper submissions on each and every occasion, relevant discussions would become meaningless; (ii) he still wondered whether handling the issues at the working group level or in the form of “issues for regular discussion” at the committee level would be more effective in resolving the issues; (iii) according to the logic of Motion 2, the Transport Affairs Committee (“TAC”) could designate the issues of bus routes, minibus routes and service frequencies as “issues for regular discussion” whereas HAC could designate the issues of urban revitalisation and private premises as “issues for regular discussion”. He wondered whether it meant that relevant working groups could then be abolished and the resources could be re-allocated to more important initiatives, such as efforts to alleviate poverty.

67. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that “issues for regular discussion” as mentioned in Motion 2 might involve amendments to the Standing Orders, and papers should be submitted to the Committee so that the issues could be put on the agenda. If such issues were designated as “issues for regular discussion”, views from relevant government departments had to be sought beforehand because only some of the government departments were DC’s standing departments. This issue could be further discussed at the second DC meeting. Given that this meeting had been conducted for a few hours, he was worried that some Members were not in a fit state. He suggested that the Chairman consider terminating the discussion today to allow Members to have more time to consolidate their views. In addition, he highlighted that the Chairman did not respond to his enquiry yet, i.e. whether “issues for regular discussion” as mentioned in Motion 2 involved amendments to the Standing Orders and that the issue needed to be discussed at DC meetings first.

68. The Chairman responded that after examination and confirmation by the Secretariat, the Standing Orders did not define “issues for regular discussion”. However, according to the practice of previous HAC and TAC meetings, some issues were designated as follow-up items.

69. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that designating such issues as follow-up items did not guarantee that relevant government departments would send representatives to the meetings or submit papers.

70. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) she did not agree to the practice of handling issues under “issues for regular discussion”; (ii) given that 300 refuse collection vehicle counts would be diverted to West Kowloon, SSP District would definitely face more challenges. Therefore, it was necessary to establish a working group on the odour issue.

- 20 - Action by

71. Mr YAN Kai-wing raised the following views: (i) he suggested that “The Committee understands that residents are very concerned about the issues of wild birds and odour” in Motion 2 be amended as “The Committee understands that residents are very concerned about the issues of wild birds, temporary poultry markets and odour”; (ii) the provisional motion aimed to provide directional views in principle instead of specific implementation details. As regards how the issues would be handled, this would be discussed at Committee meetings after discussions between the Chairman and government departments and the Secretariat. If “issues for regular discussion” was renamed as “standing issues for follow-up”, it might be easier to understand but it would forfeit the flexibility of handling such issues; (iii) the scope of discussion covered by the existing working groups were wide. For example, the scope of discussion of WGPH covered a wide range of housing estates as well as other issues. If the issues concerned were more specific but could not be handled at the working group level, such as redevelopment projects, they had to be followed up and discussed at committee meetings. The issues of wild birds, poultry markets and odour were more specific and the crux of the issues was clear. Government departments were only required to report the progress of their follow-up to the Committee and needed not collate more information or conduct any surveys or studies. Therefore, he supported Motion 2.

72. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) if the issues were not resolved yet, efforts should be made to solve them. Amendments to Motion 2 were unable to cover Members’ views, and the quality of the paper contents was poor. What Members said was not consistent; (ii) discussion papers had to be submitted 10 clear working days before the meeting. If there were no paper submissions from government departments, Members would be unable to follow up the issues. He questioned the feasibility of “issues for regular discussion” in practice; (iii) regular reports submitted to each Committee meeting by government departments were mostly information updates and did not involve policy changes. Policy issues had to be dealt with by higher authorities within departments.

73. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) although the Standing Orders did not mention “issues for regular discussion”, it was unnecessary to question its proactivity or lose confidence on it. Even if departments did not submit papers on the issues, Members could still turn issues as “issues for regular discussion” by submitting discussion papers or making enquiries. Departments could be invited to follow up on the issues through EHC Chairman or even DC Chairman and Vice-chairman or other means. The mover and the seconder of the motion were also responsible for ensuring that relevant issues would be discussed at each and every meeting. He hoped that Members would give it a try; (ii) resources included finance, manpower, time etc., and each of these resources might have its own restraints. Therefore, it was necessary to make a decision on the

- 21 - Action by priorities. Members were concerned about certain issues, but when issues were repeatedly handled with the old practice and the results were far from satisfactory, new initiatives should be explored in the hope of achieving better results.

74. The Chairman suggested that Motion 1 moved by Mr YEUNG Yuk be voted. Members had no objection.

75. The voting result was as follows:

For: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (11)

Abstain: (0)

76. The Secretary announced the voting result: 11 Members voted for the motion, 12 Members voted against it and no Member abstained. The Chairman announced that Motion 1 was not passed

77. The Chairman suggested that Motion 2 moved by Mr Dennis WONG be voted. Members had no objection.

78. Mr Dennis WONG said that Motion 2 was amended as follows: “The Committee understands that residents are very concerned about the issues of wild birds, poultry markets and odour. In order to strengthen follow-up efforts, it is suggested that these three issues be designated as issues for regular discussion in EHC.”

79. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu enquired whether the mover and the seconder of Motion 2 would submit papers at each and every meeting to ensure that these issues would be designated as “issues for regular discussion”.

80. Mr Dennis WONG said that the motion was direction in principle. Procedurally speaking, if these issues could not be discussed at each and every meeting, papers would be

- 22 - Action by submitted to ensure that they would be designated as “issues for regular discussion”.

81. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong said that the principle was the main element and all others were secondary. He wondered why the mover of the motion talked about the principle and the specific details at the same time.

82. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that the Standing Orders did not mention “issues for regular discussion”. Submissions by Members for the purpose of ensuring that those issues would be designated as “issues for regular discussion” was only an option for consideration in the interim. The mover should undertake to ensure that there would be “issues for regular discussion”, otherwise he was being irresponsible.

83. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG said that if Motion 2 was to be carried, DC Chairman and Vice-chairman as well as EHC Chairman would follow up the issue proactively. There were various ways to make an item a discussion item. As regards whether to add “issues for regular discussion” to the Standing Orders, it could be discussed later.

84. The Chairman suggested that Motion 2 moved by Mr Dennis WONG be voted. Members had no objection.

85. The voting result was as follows:

For: Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing (12)

Against: (0)

Abstain: Mr Kalvin HO, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (8)

86. Ms NG Yuet-lan reiterated her request that the mover and the seconder should submit papers.

87. The Secretary announced the voting result: 12 Members voted for the motion, no Member voted against it and 8 Members abstained. The Chairman announced that Motion 2 was carried.

- 23 - Action by

88. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu asked the Chairman to follow up on “issues for regular discussion” by requesting DC to make corresponding amendments to the Standing Orders in response to the motion, and the handling of such should not violate DCO.

89. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG said that “issues for regular discussion” as mentioned in Motion 2 would only be discussed at the committee level, and therefore the Standing Orders needed not be amended. If the Standing Orders needed to be amended, efforts must be made to ensure that such amendments did not violate DCO. He would consider taking follow-up action by discussing at DC meetings whether this concept needed to be included.

90. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that the operation of committees was similar to that of DC. Therefore, the procedures in respect of committees handling “issues for regular discussion” should not violate the Standing Orders.

91. The Chairman noted Members’ views, and Agenda Item 2 was endorsed.

Agenda Item 3: Inviting Members to join the Working Groups

92. The Chairman noted that the Secretariat would distribute forms after the meeting to invite Members to join the Working Groups. Members were requested to return the reply slip to the Secretariat on or before 22 January 2016 (Friday).

Agenda Item 4: Election of Chairmen of the Working Groups

93. The Chairman requested Members to make nominations for the office of the Chairman of WGMST.

94. Mr CHAN Wai-ming nominated Ms LAU Pui-yuk for the office of the Chairman of WGMST. The nomination was seconded by Mr CHAN Kwok-wai and Mr LEUNG Man-kwong. Ms LAU Pui-yuk accepted the nomination.

95. Mr CHUM Tak-shing nominated Mr KONG Kwai-sang for the office of the Chairman of WGMST. The nomination was seconded by Mr Kalvin HO and Ms Carman NG. Mr KONG Kwai-sang accepted the nomination.

96. The Chairman said that the previous method used to elect Chairmen of the Working Groups would be adopted. An open ballot by a simple show of hands was conducted immediately afterwards to elect the Chairman of WGMST, and the voting result was as follows:

- 24 - Action by

Ms LAU Pui-yuk: Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui -yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing (11)

Mr KONG Kwai-sang: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (11)

Abstain: (0)

97. The Secretary announced the voting result: 11 Members voted for Ms LAU Pui-yuk, 11 Members voted for Mr KONG Kwai-sang and no Member abstained.

98. The Chairman said that since the two candidates received an equal number of votes, a further ballot had to be held. A ballot was conducted immediately afterwards and the voting result was as follows:

Ms LAU Pui-yuk: Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui -yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing (12)

Abstain: (0)

- 25 - Action by

99. The Secretary announced the voting result: 12 Members voted for Ms LAU Pui-yuk, 11 Members voted for Mr KONG Kwai-sang and no Member abstained.

100. The Chairman announced that Ms LAU Pui-yuk was elected as the Chairman of WGMST.

101. The Chairman continued to request Members to make nominations for the office of the Chairman of WGEP.

102. Mr CHAN Wai-ming nominated Ms Joephy CHAN for the office of the Chairman of WGEP. The nomination was seconded by Mr CHAN Kwok-wai and Mr Vincent CHENG. Ms Joephy CHAN accepted the nomination.

103. Mr Kalvin Ho nominated Ms Carman NG for the office of the Chairman of WGEP. The nomination was seconded by Mr YUEN Hoi-man and Mr YEUNG Yuk. Ms Carman NG accepted the nomination.

104. An open ballot by a simple show of hands was conducted immediately afterwards to elect the Chairman of WGEP, and the voting result was as follows:

Ms Joephy CHAN: Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui -yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing (12)

Ms Carman NG: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (11)

Abstain: (0)

105. The Secretary announced the voting result: 12 Members voted for Ms Joephy CHAN, 11 Members voted for Ms Carman NG and no Member abstained.

106. The Chairman announced that Ms Joephy CHAN was elected as the Chairman of

- 26 - Action by

WGEP.

107. Mr YUEN Hoi-man said that since WGWB had not been abolished, an election for the Chairman of the said Working Group should be conducted.

108. Mr CHUM Tak-shing said that since the meeting had not discussed the abolition of WGWB nor moved a motion in this respect, it should conduct an election for the Chairman of the said Working Group. He nominated Ms Zoé CHOW for the office of the Chairman of WGWB.

109. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong asked for an adjournment of 5 minutes.

110. The Chairman declared that the meeting would be adjourned for 5 minutes.

(The meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes.)

111. The Chairman declared the resumption of the meeting and requested Members to make nominations for the office of the Chairman of WGWB.

112. Mr Vincent CHENG nominated Ms Joephy CHAN for the office of the Chairman of WGWB. The nomination was seconded by Mr CHAN Kwok-wai and Mr CHAN Wai-ming. Ms Joephy CHAN accepted the nomination.

113. Mr CHUM Tak-shing nominated Ms Zoé CHOW for the office of the Chairman of WGWB. The nomination was seconded by Mr LEUNG Yau-fong. Ms Zoé CHOW accepted the nomination.

114. An open ballot by a simple show of hands was conducted immediately afterwards to elect the Chairman of WGWB, and the voting result was as follows:

Ms Zoé CHOW: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (11)

Ms Joephy CHAN: Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr Aaron LAM,

- 27 - Action by

Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing (11)

Abstain: (0)

115. The Secretary announced the voting result: 11 Members voted for Ms Zoé CHOW, 11 Members voted for Ms Joephy CHAN and no Member abstained.

116. The Chairman said that since the two candidates received an equal number of votes, a further ballot had to be held. A ballot was conducted immediately afterwards and the voting result was as follows:

Ms Zoé CHOW: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (11)

Ms Joephy CHAN: Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing (12)

Abstain: (0)

117. The Secretary announced the voting result: 11 Members voted for Ms Zoé CHOW, 12 Members voted for Ms Joephy CHAN and no Member abstained.

118. The Chairman announced that Ms Joephy CHAN was elected as the Chairman of WGWB.

Agenda Item 5: Any other business

119. Mr YEUNG Yuk hoped that WGWB could continue to raise the concerns about the wild bird issue in the district, while at the same time EHC would express its concerns over the issue by putting it under “issues for regular discussion”.

- 28 - Action by

120. The Chairman noted the comments.

Agenda Item 6: Date of next meeting

121. The next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 3 March 2016 (Thursday).

122. There being no other business, the meeting ended at 7:10 p.m.

District Council Secretariat Sham Shui Po District Office February 2016