LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1309

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 24 November 2016

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.

PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

1310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG#

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1311

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.

IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING

1312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

DR THE HONOURABLE YIU CHUNG-YIM#

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU SIU-LAI#

MEMBERS ABSENT:

DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE NATHAN LAW KWUN-CHUNG#

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1313

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

MR YAU SHING-MU, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

1314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning. Council will now continue with the debate on the motion "Vigorously promoting healthy market competition to counteract the market dominance of Link REIT".

Secretary for Food and Health, please speak.

VIGOROUSLY PROMOTING HEALTHY MARKET COMPETITION TO COUNTERACT THE MARKET DOMINANCE OF LINK REIT

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 23 November 2016

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Ms YUNG Hoi-yan for proposing this motion debate, the five Members who have moved amendments and the other many Members who have spoken, as they have provided us with views for reference. Let me give a brief response to the salient points made by Members.

First of all, although some members of society (including some Members) regard seeking maximum profits by commercial organizations as a matter of course, I take exception to it. I believe operators of commercial organizations should also have regard for corporate social responsibility. In other words, they should not be solely oriented towards commercial decisions to the neglect of the needs of various stakeholders in society.

On this premise, I would like to respond to a few salient points made by Members. Firstly, concerning public markets, in particular new public markets, as there are many uncertain factors in private markets operated by Link REIT and other private operators, the Government believes that public market facilities should be appropriately enhanced. This includes construction of new markets and enhancement of facilities in existing public markets. In the next 10 years, the Tung Chung New Town Extension Area and Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area will be the two largest new development areas. The Government is identifying suitable sites in these two areas for the construction of new public markets. We expect the two new public markets to be strategically located at mass transit points and therefore developed into cross-district leading LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1315 markets through transport connections. They will thus not only serve the Tung Chung New Town Extension Area and Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area, but also the entire Tung Chung and Tin Shui Wai areas.

Secondly, concerning existing markets, as explained at an earlier Council meeting, we have commissioned a consultancy to conduct a study on the existing market facilities. We are now consulting stakeholders of the relevant pilot markets on the recommendations made by the consultancy. The installation of air conditioning in existing markets has been the concern of many Members. I must point out in particular that at least nine public markets have already met the threshold. The Government is now conducting preliminary planning (including feasibility study) on these nine markets, before gradually advancing the plan of installation of air conditioning under its existing system.

As for market management, I noted the different management models suggested by Members, including entrusting the management of markets to non-governmental organizations and statutory bodies. When taking forward the enhancement of market facilities and construction of new ones, the Government will explore the feasibility of different proposals to improve the operation or mode of operation of public markets.

Some Members mentioned that the Government should revise the existing planning standards, so that all new development areas can be considered for the construction of public market. As Members all know, the previous planning standards, which used actual data such as population and number of households as the criteria, were revised to the existing planning standards which take account of a host of factors. I believe the existing planning standards offer more flexibility. For example, in some often-mentioned new towns, even if markets operated by Link REIT or other private operators already exist, factors of uncertainty can still appear due to their mode of operation. The existing planning standards are more flexible in that even though markets operated by Link REIT or other private operators already exist in those new towns, and even if the number meets the planning standards, we can still consider the need of building a new market in those areas in response to other factors of uncertainty. Therefore, I believe these standards are more flexible.

I would also like to briefly talk about the bazaar policy. We are now actively taking it up with the 18 District Councils to follow up on any form of bazaar initiated by the district and we will continue to do so. Once a District 1316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Council and local residents agree on the location and mode of operation, the Food and Health Bureau will assume a coordinating role in facilitating the establishment of these bazaars or market programmes with other government departments.

Regarding competition law and the Competition Commission ("the Commission"), some Members mentioned that they hope the Commission can intervene and carry out an investigation. I would like to reiterate that the Home Affairs Bureau is prepared to convey the opinions of these Members to the Commission. However, as an independent statutory body, the Commission can decide whether it will conduct an investigation depending on the individual case in accordance with the law. When such a decision is made, the Commission will not comment on whether or not an individual case is being investigated.

Finally, the possibility of a district-based pilot scheme to help the public was proposed by a Member in this motion debate. I would like to point out that the District-led Actions Scheme aims at "addressing district issues at the local level and capitalising on local opportunities". The District Offices are actively implementing 39 projects in total on improving environmental hygiene and public space management. These projects deal with livelihood problems such as illegal shop extension in public places, mosquito, environmental hygiene and illegal parking of bicycles. For the time being, I do not believe a district-based pilot scheme can help solve in this aspect the problems posed by Link REIT's mode of operation of markets to the local community.

I hope this response can answer Members' questions on the construction of new public markets, enhancement of existing markets and programme on hosting of bazaars, and we hope that more choices can be offered to the public in areas affected by the mode of operation of Link REIT. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr SHIU Ka-fai to move his amendment to the motion.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's motion be amended.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1317

Mr SHIU Ka-fai moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To delete "The Link Real Estate Investment Trust (now known as Link Real Estate Investment Trust ('Link REIT'))" after "That" and substitute with ", despite the drop of the value of total retail sales for 18 consecutive months, retail shop rentals have been persistently high due to the lack of land for the retail industry, and Link Real Estate Investment Trust ('Link REIT') (formerly known as The Link Real Estate Investment Trust), being the owner of the largest number of retail shops in Hong Kong, has even made use of its market dominance to force many shops to close down; in retrospect, Link REIT"; to delete "and living necessities" after "affordability"; to add "shop operators and" before "grass-roots people,"; to delete "their livelihood" after "the burden on" and substitute with "them"; to delete "public aspirations" after "respond to" and substitute with "aspirations of shop operators and the public"; to add "public aspirations on" after "dominance of Link REIT and"; to delete "temporary" after "set up" and substitute with "holiday"; to add "expeditiously" after "schemes for"; to delete "; and" after "nurseries, etc." and substitute with ", as well as expedite the development of new towns (including South Lantau) and step up the planning on land for the retail industry and relevant ancillary facilities, so as to increase the supply of such land; (4) request the Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Hong Kong Housing Society to study the re-assignment of spaces on the lower floors (such as ground and podium levels, etc.) in some of their housing estates or courts for retail purposes, and let such spaces to small shop operators at relatively low rentals to assist them in having the opportunities for continued operation and achieving self-reliance, and provide residents with more choices of shops; and"; and to delete the original "(4)" and substitute with "(5)"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr SHIU Ka-fai to Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's motion, be passed.

1318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Ms YUNG Hoi-yan rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms YUNG Hoi-yan has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying and Mr LUK Chung-hung voted for the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1319

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Alice MAK and Dr Junius HO voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mrs Regina IP, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 28 were present, 16 were in favour of the amendment and 11 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 3 were in favour of the amendment and 22 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Vigorously promoting healthy market competition to counteract the market dominance of Link REIT" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion, moved by Ms Starry LEE, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

1320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Vigorously promoting healthy market competition to counteract the market dominance of Link REIT" or any amendments thereto, the Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, you may now move your amendment.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's motion be amended.

Mr Andrew WAN moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add ", since the establishment of" after "That"; to delete "was established in 2005 due to unique historical factors and environment and entrusted with the social responsibility of serving hundreds of thousands of public housing households;" after "('Link REIT'))" and substitute with "in 2005, it has been criticized by society for ignoring the affordability and living necessities of grass-roots people, and rendering"; to delete "divested a large number of its retail and car parking facilities to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1321

Link REIT in 2005 under highly controversial conditions, enabling it to" after "the Hong Kong Housing Authority" and substitute with "unable to meet the requirements of the Housing Ordinance to provide necessary services to residents of its housing estates; Link REIT has"; to delete "renovate" after "arbitrarily" and substitute with "renovated"; to delete "raise" after "significantly" and substitute with "raised"; to delete "divest" after "as well as" and substitute with "divested"; to delete "introduce" after "car parks and" and substitute with "introduced"; to delete "return maximization; however, Link REIT has ignored the affordability and living necessities of grass-roots people, thereby aggravating the burden on their livelihood; while it is the basic responsibility of the Government to provide the public with community facilities, with the estimated market value of Link REIT exceeding $120 billion, if the Government proposes buying back shares of Link REIT, its share prices will inevitably be pushed up, putting in effect taxpayers' money into the pockets of Link REIT and its shareholders;" after "in pursuit of" and substitute with "maximum return on profits"; to delete "introduce district-based pilot schemes for building public markets in districts where community facilities are inadequate, and invite" after "(3)" and substitute with "revoke the amendments to the planning standard for public markets in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines made by the Planning Department in 2009, and immediately implement the standard of providing one public market stall for every 55 to 65 households or approximately 40 to 45 stalls per 10 000 persons, so as to provide sufficient public markets for the 18 districts of Hong Kong, and consider inviting"; to delete "in the long run," after "choices;"; to delete "conduct studies on building" after "the Government should" and substitute with "also build"; to add "in the vicinity of Link REIT's facilities" after "complexes"; to delete "; and" after "nurseries, etc.," and substitute with "and increase their competitiveness against Link REIT;"; and to add "; and (5) request Link REIT to stop divesting shopping arcades and car parks, and to cancel the introduction of monthly floating parking spaces" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Andrew WAN to Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's motion, be passed. 1322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Tanya CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr SHIU Ka-fai and Mr CHAN Chun-ying voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1323

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the amendment.

Dr Junius HO voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 17 were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 25 were in favour of the amendment and 1 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already been informed, as Mr Andrew WAN's amendment has been passed, Dr KWOK Ka-ki has withdrawn his amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Wilson OR, as the amendment of Mr Andrew WAN has been passed, I have given leave for you to revise the terms of your amendment, as set out in the paper which has been issued to Members. When moving your revised amendment, you may speak for up to three minutes to explain the revised terms in your amendment, but you may not express further views on the motion and the amendments, nor may you repeat what you have already covered in your earlier speech. You may now move your revised amendment.

1324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's motion, as amended by Mr Andrew WAN, be further amended by my revised amendment.

Mr Wilson OR moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr Andrew WAN: (Translation)

"To add "; and (6) build public markets in districts with Link REIT dominating the market, including Tin Shui Wai, Ma On Shan, Tseung Kwan O, Eastern District and Tung Chung, etc." immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Wilson OR's amendment to Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's motion as amended by Mr Andrew WAN, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Tanya CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1325

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr SHIU Ka-fai and Mr CHAN Chun-ying voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Ms Tanya CHAN and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the amendment.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Dr Junius HO abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 17 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 17 were in favour of the amendment, 7 1326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, as the amendment of Mr Andrew WAN has been passed, I have given leave for you to revise the terms of your amendment, as set out in the paper which has been issued to Members. When moving your revised amendment, you may speak for up to three minutes to explain the revised terms in your amendment, but you may not express further views on the motion and the amendments, nor may you repeat what you have already covered in your earlier speech. You may now move your revised amendment.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's motion, as amended by Mr Andrew WAN, be further amended by my revised amendment.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr Andrew WAN: (Translation)

"To add "; (6) make public the agreement reached between the Hong Kong Housing Authority and The Link Real Estate Investment Trust in 2005, so as to facilitate public monitoring of whether Link REIT has shouldered the social responsibility of serving public housing households; (7) buy back shopping arcades, markets and car parks divested to Link REIT, particularly those with relatively high customer flow and utilization in housing estates with relatively low overall average household incomes; and (8) stop adopting the single-operator letting arrangement for the markets under the purview of the Hong Kong Housing Authority, so as to prevent single operators from obtaining the operating rights of markets by offering the highest bids, thereby making it difficult for small shop operators to survive" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Dr Fernando CHEUNG's amendment to Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's motion as amended by Mr Andrew WAN, be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1327

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr SHIU Ka-fai and Mr CHAN Chun-ying voted against the amendment.

1328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Mr POON Siu-ping abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the amendment.

Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN and Ms YUNG Hoi-yan voted against the amendment.

Dr Junius HO abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 23 were in favour of the amendment, 3 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, you still have 1 minute 35 seconds to reply. The debate will come to a close after Ms YUNG Hoi-yan has replied.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1329

MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): President, I am grateful to the 40 Members who spoke on this motion yesterday. At the same time, I again express regret that the Secretary for Home Affairs did not attend the debate and give a reply yesterday.

A Member mentioned that the proposal of today's motion and the speeches by some Members were to seek redemption, as they have supported the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") to divest its assets and sell them to the then Link Real Estate Investment Trust. However, I would like to say that when the Legislative Council discussed the issue of divestment, the New People's Party was not yet established. Therefore, our proposal of today's motion is not for the sake of redemption, but for the well-being of the people of Hong Kong.

I agree with the point made by several Members, that privatization of public assets will bring about many problems. As Dr Fernando CHEUNG has pointed out, the full name of Link REIT is Link Real Estate Investment Trust, and Real Estate Investment Trusts are mainly regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC"). So what are the roles and responsibilites of SFC in the issue of Link REIT?

President, a number of Members have pointed out many problems of Link REIT. I am particularly concerned about the divestment of shopping arcades. I am afraid the case of Wan Tau Tong Shopping Centre is only the beginning. Many similar incidents, such as forced relocation of small businesses after takeover by the new owners, may happen one after another in the future.

Today, both pro-establishment and non-establishment camps stand at the same front to a certain extent. Since the divestment of part of HA's assets to Link REIT is an unchangeable fact, should we take a comprehensive look and explore ways to effectively prevent and ameliorate the dominance of Link REIT, so that the public and small businesses will enjoy reasonable protection (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, as amended by Mr Andrew WAN, be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

1330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Alvin YEUNG rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the motion as amended.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr SHIU Ka-fai voted against the motion as amended.

Mr YIU Si-wing abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1331

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the motion as amended.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 20 were in favour of the motion as amended, 9 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 25 were in favour of the motion as amended and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion as amended was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debate on motion with no legislative effect.

The motion debate on "Strengthening the role and functions of District Councils".

Members who wish to speak in the debate on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Mr LAU Kwok-fan to speak and move the motion.

STRENGTHENING THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF DISTRICT COUNCILS

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

1332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

District Councils ("DCs") are important partners of the Government in district administration. All along, they have established their roots in various districts, are well versed in community affairs and understand the public opinions in these districts. In this Legislative Council, 23 Honourable colleagues in total perform duties both as Legislative Council Members and DC members, so I believe all of us are certainly no strangers to matters related to DCs. In recent years, DCs have been involved in increasingly extensive areas and an increasing number of young professionals as well as people serving as full-time members have joined DCs. DC Members and DCs have all along been devoted to serving the local communities, so they have won widespread approval of the public and the Government.

However, for some time, many DC members have reflected to me that the Government has put the blame of failure to implement some policies on DCs. However, they believe this is actually attributable to the fact that the Government's policies are out of touch with reality or not compatible with the situation in the districts concerned. Let me give an example. In the past, when the Government introduced policies on obnoxious facilities, it did not really listen to and assess the opinions in the districts concerned. Many government officials mistakenly think that DC members only have the narrow mindset of "this is beneficial to society but do not implement this in our backyard". They even have the mistaken believe that it is only necessary to place obnoxious facilities in all districts, for example, to build columbariums in all the 18 districts in Hong Kong, and the disagreements among districts can then be resolved in such a simplistic and high-handed manner. In fact, if the Government wishes to see the smooth implementation of its policies, what matters the most is local opinions. The authorities should deal with issues from the perspective of balancing various local interests and introduce compensatory measures having regard to the needs of local communities, so as to seek the understanding of local residents. This is the only correct way of resolving problems. In proposing the motion debate this time around, I hope that collective wisdom can be pooled and in the debate, two major areas, that is, "strengthening functions" and "enhancing support", will be explored.

Firstly, in retrospect, let us recap some history. Since establishment in 1982, DCs have all along played an important advisory role in district and even territory-wide affairs. DC members are representatives of public opinion and have been the primary objects of consultations carried out by the Government, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1333 and this is also the primary function of DCs. However, recently, some DC members have reflected the view that in recent years, when the authorities carried out reviews related to planning and land use, more often than not, they did not consult DC members adequately and some officials even consulted DC members as a matter of formality and perfunctory fulfillment of work requirements, and only at the final stage, so they did not attach sufficient importance to DCs.

For example, when implementing public housing development programmes, the authorities often say that they meet opposition from DC members. However, had the Government taken on board the views of local communities at the preliminary planning stage and allowed DC members to play a part in planning, for instance, in the planning of transport and ancillary facilities, so that a balance could be struck among local interests and a proper job of making compensatory arrangements could be done, I believe most DC members would have been happy to assist residents in reaching a consensus with the Government. In this way, the implementation of policies would have been smoother. For this reason, we hope that the SAR Government can allow DC members to play a bigger role in the preliminary planning of district affairs and offer advice related to local communities, so as to assist various parties in reaching a consensus smoothly and reduce the resistance encountered by the Government in policy implementation.

Secondly, it is actually stipulated in Article 97 of the Basic Law that district organizations may be established in the SAR. For this reason, the Government established 18 DCs and their major function is to offer advice to the Government on such matters as public living, welfare and also public facilities and services in these districts. In past policy addresses, the devolution of powers to DCs was also mentioned, particularly in respect of enhancing DCs' power in managing leisure or district facilities and increasing the funding for DCs. However, Honourable colleagues serving in representative councils all know that this is actually tantamount to passing funds from the left hand to the right by transferring funds originally allocated to the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") to DCs before handing them back to LCSD. In addition, at present, the great majority of district services provided by the Government, for example, refuse collection, street cleansing, and even the management of leisure and sports facilities and venues, are directly under the charge of outsourced service contractors and the tendering and evaluation of outsourced services are also mainly under the charge of government departments, so there is little scope for involvement of DCs. Coupled with the "lowest bid 1334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 wins" mechanism adopted in respect of tendering, the quality of outsourced services varies greatly and the manpower for district services is inadequate, so naturally local residents have a lot of grumbles.

In view of the responsibility of DCs in monitoring the provision of public facilities and services, we propose that the Government promote the participation of DCs in outsourcing services and monitoring such services, including offering advice in the process of tendering and taking part in the selection of tenders and negotiation of contracts, and even providing input in such areas as the final scores awarded, the monitoring mechanism and the collection of public opinions on outsourced services, which can then be reflected to the Government collectively.

Thirdly―and this is perhaps one of our main points this time around―is that although some district works projects, including those on public parks, libraries, swimming pools and stadiums, have obtained the approval of DCs in recent years, under the Capital Works Reserve Fund mechanism of the Legislative Council, these projects beneficial to the public have to queue up together with such major infrastructure projects as the Express Rail Link, to obtain approval. Coupled with the fact that in the meetings of the last Finance Committee where the trend of filibuster was prevalent, as we could see, it can be said that the allocation of funds for district projects are not forthcoming. It is also common that some projects had to wait for a decade.

In view of such a situation, we propose that the Government establish a "community building fund" by allocating a large sum of money and establishing another queue for district facilities, so that district projects do not have to queue up together with major infrastructure projects and the process of funding application and allocation for district projects can be expedited. In this way, such projects can be launched as soon as possible to benefit the public.

President, in recent years, it has been mentioned not just once but many times in the policy addresses delivered by the Chief Executives that the role of District Officers would be enhanced. In fact, at present, District Officers are an important bridge between DCs and government departments as they are given charge of monitoring the operation of the District Administration Scheme and ensuring that the advice offered by DCs are followed up appropriately. However, since District Officers are posted according to the civil service system and their postings last only several years, they have a limited sense of belonging with regard to district affairs and little incentive in responding to the needs of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1335 districts. Coupled with the hierachial culture of the Cvil Service, District Officers are often incapable of coordinating various departments and solving problems in the districts effectively. To ensure that District Officers can have the full cooperation of various departments, we believe the Government should confer on District Officers leadership and decision-making powers where appropriate to deal with district affairs and strengthen the role of District Officers in coordination at the district level, so as to strengthen the communication between DCs and various Policy Bureaux and departments of the Government.

President, on strengthening the support for DC members, earlier on, I issued survey questionnaires concerning the Government's support for DCs and DC members to 458 DC members throughout Hong Kong, and the number of replies was rather satisfactory. According to the survey, at present, the two major problems confronting DC members are "difficulty in staff recruitment" and "difficulty in renting offices". For example, in recent years, the wastage rate of assistants to DC members was quite high and many Honourable colleagues told me that assistants to DC members would work for them for just one year or two years at the most before recruitment exercises had to be conducted again. This is because at present, the workload of assistants to DC members is very heavy and the work most demanding. Not only do they have to cope with district work answer enquiries and receive complaints from the public, they also have to follow up policies and perform design and publicity duties as well. At present, many assistants to DC members are university graduates and some of my assistants are even postgraduates or doctorate students. However, their pay and employment terms are relatively poor. Even though they have worked for many years, their pay amounts to just some $10,000. Coupled with limited prospect of advancement, naturally, the wastage rate is high.

In recent years, property prices in Hong Kong have spiked and rents have also risen accordingly. Generally speaking, DC members returned by constituencies comprising of public housing areas may fare better because the rents of their offices are lower than those for offices of DC members returned by constituencies comprising of private residential areas as the former can rent vacant units in these public housing estates for use as ward offices. However, DC members from constituencies comprising of private residential areas are not so lucky because generally speaking, they face the problem of high rents as they have to rent private units at market rates. Coupled with the fact that DC members' ward offices do not help promote people flow in shopping malls, even 1336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 though there may be vacant premises in shopping malls, property owners may be reluctant to rent them to DC members. Such a situation has given a great deal of headache to many DC members and forced many of them to use mobile offices.

To address such a situation, I believe that first of all, the Government has to take measures to help DC members solve the two major problems of "difficulty in staff recruitment" and "difficulty in renting offices". Among such measures, we hope that the Government can increase the Operating Expenses Reimbursement ("OER") to at least $50,000 monthly to help each DC member establish a stable and excellent team of assistants. At the same time, the Government should provide an additional rental subsidy to DC members renting private properties as their offices, and even let the vacnt government properties of the SAR Government to DC members who represent private residential areas or old residential areas, so as to ease the rental pressure on them.

On the other hand, the remuneration of DC members has all along been faulted for being rather low and failing to attract political talents. In recent years, thanks to the advocacy by the former Member, Mr IP Kwok-him, the remuneration and allowances of DC members have indeed seen some improvement. Apart from the increases in monthly salary and the annual Operating Expenses Allowance, accountable medical allowance and gratuity have also been introduced. This notwithstanding, the work of DC members has become increasingly burdensome and the Government also consults DCs on an increasing number of items, so the Government should review the remuneration of DC members at an appropriate time and increase their pay and non-accountable allowances, so as to attract more talents.

Lastly, DCs have groomed a large number of talents who are well versed in the local communities and have established good political connections. Some of them can even join the Legislative Council through the Legislative Council elections, just as our Honourable colleagues did, and even be transferred to various public organizations or government departments. In order to groom more political talents well versed in local communities, we request the Government to appoint more DC members to various advisory frameworks and platforms, so as to absorb more views from the districts and actively groom and transfer talents to various bodies of public administration. At the same time, we hope that the Government can design training programmes in conjunction with various organizations and educational institutions for DC members and their assistants to enrol in free of charge, so as to raise the standard of political participation and public policy research in Hong Kong. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1337

In sum, DCs have all along played the role of major advisory bodies at the district level since their establishment and they are also an important bridge of communication between the Government and the people. Having operated for so many years, they are accepted by people in the local communities and their contribution has also won the widespread approval of various sectors. We hope that in the future, the Government can continue to strengthen the role played by DCs in district administration and enhnace the support for DC members, so that DCs and their members can have better means to serve the local communities.

President, I so submit.

Mr LAU Kwok-fan moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That as District Council members have the advantage of grasping first-hand public sentiments, this Council urges the Government to strengthen the role and functions of District Councils, so as to enable District Councils to better serve the public and promote community development; the relevant measures include:

(1) allowing District Council members to have more opportunities to participate in district development and at the stage of formulating various policies;

(2) strengthening the supervision of District Councils over policy implementation and district affairs;

(3) enhancing the support to District Councils and District Council members;

(4) establishing a 'community building fund' to expedite the implementation of community facility works endorsed by District Councils; and

(5) strengthening the role of District Officers in district coordination, so as to enhance the communication of District Councils with various bureaux and departments of the Government."

1338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr LAU Kwok-fan be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Three Members will move amendments to this motion. Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the three amendments.

I will call upon Members who move the amendments to speak in the following order: Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr WU Chi-wai and Mr HUI Chi-fung; but they may not move amendments at this stage.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LAU Kwok-fan for proposing this motion on "Strengthening the role and functions of District Councils". We greatly support this direction because a democratic society should devolve powers, returning the power of district administration from the central government to the districts. There was such a system in Hong Kong before the reunification. Basic cultural, recreational and sports facilities in the districts, such as libraries and open spaces, were managed by the Urban Council or Regional Council in the New Territories.

After the reunification, the Government worked in reverse. Instead of devolving any power, it centralized the powers, recovered the power of resource allocation and "scrapped" the two Municipal Councils. In 1999, in "scrapping" the Municipal Councils, Michael SUEN said that after the District Councils ("DCs") were established, their functions would be gradually deepened and strengthened. When the Chief Executive presented the Policy Address in 2005-2006, he announced that the DCs would be engaged in managing the district facilities such as libraries, community halls, leisure grounds, sports venues and swimming pools, under the existing statutory and resource allocation frameworks. At that time he said DCs would be engaged in management, but now DCs have no management power at all. Under such a situation, the power of control still completely rests with the government officials. Over the years, the role which the Government has allowed DCs to play is very clear. It is an advisory framework. That is to say, if the advice of DCs is in line with the official and government view, there will be no problem, but if it is not, the Government will just procrastinate. That is basically the case. Consequently, many problems in the districts remain unsolved.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1339

Nevertheless, in devolving powers, we also need to take into account the existing DC framework which has gradually become a mechanism of monopolization or even "pie sharing". Last year, the editorial of Ming Pao Daily News ("Ming Pao") commented on this phenomenon. The title of the editorial was "Community involvement funds may breed corruption". Mr LAU Kwok-fan's original motion requests strengthening the supervisory role of DCs, which is good, but I am concerned about the establishment of a "community building fund". The present problem is, a lot of funds and provisions have turned out to facilitate granting of funding to one's own peers, thereby giving rise to cronyism. This point is not made by me. It has been discussed in society, and the editorial of Ming Pao exactly pointed out that the existing funding mechanism lacks transparency and regulation. Moreover, such a practice simply requires the relevant persons to declare interests, and then they may allocate funds to their own peers. For this reason, it may become a breeding ground for corruption in district administration.

President, at present, the Government provides DCs with funds every year to carry out community involvement projects. In 2015-2016, the total allocation of funds reached $350 million, which is not a small amount. As a matter of fact, the amount of funds allocated by each DC each year exceeded $10 million, but to whom the funds for these community involvement projects were granted? Having checked the DC documents of the 18 districts last year, Ming Pao discovered that many DCs were suspected of granting funds to the members' peers. Eight of the DCs had allocated funds to the so-called "designated district organizations", that means peers. For example, there were some cultural and arts societies, arts promotion councils and arts and recreation associations. There are such designated organizations in 16 districts in Hong Kong. Last year, these designated organizations were allocated $7 million in total. Who formed these organizations? For example, in Eastern District there is this organization called Eastern District Arts Council Limited, which received $1.4 million in funding last year. Its First Vice-chairman is the Chairman of the DC Vetting Committee, who is of course a DC member. Another DC member is also its member. In fact, the funds were allocated to one's own peers. These examples indeed abound. Very often, funding for these community involvement projects is actually granted for the so-called entertainment activities, Cantonese opera shows, carnivals, sports classes, one-day tours, tea gatherings, dinners, birthday parties, etc. In two months alone, namely July and August this year, the 18 DCs already granted funding for some 200 tour events, involving millions of public money. President, power should be devolved for district 1340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 administration, but our DC framework really lacks progress. The present problem is, even the editorial of Ming Pao holds that it is highly possible for these so-called cultural, arts, recreational and sports activities organized in the districts to degenerate into certain people's election campaigns because these are actually like free offers of snake feasts, vegetarian meals, cakes and glutinous rice dumplings ("seasonal delicacies"). Funds are allocated to fellow organizations, mutual aid committees, owners' corporations, etc. which were actually formed by the DC members, thus enabling cronyism.

The present constituencies of DC elections are very small. A few blocks of public housing already form a constituency. A few mutual aid committees may transfer benefits among themselves. The relationship between elections and such funding is inseparable. Some DC members said the allocation of funds to these organizations was actually a "thankless job". They did not pocket any money. This exactly shows where the conflict of interests lies. It is a direct conflict of political rather than pecuniary interests. However, the existing declaration mechanism is too lax. In fact, in many cases, no declaration was made. Even if a declaration was made, members simply went on to raise their hands to approve the funding after making the declaration. Such cases abound, like the Research Grants Council―as we have read from the last Director of Audit's Report, in the Research Grants Council, funds were also allocated among peers. Another example is the project in Lam Tsuen, Tai Po, that means the signature project of $100 million we are now discussing. Funds were allocated to the relevant organizations for Lam Tsuen Wishing Square, but it turns out that the operators of these organizations, such as the Director of Lam Tsuen Wishing Square Development Limited, are also DC members. With the cobweb of relations, the DC members have business transactions with each other. They are both the ones who approved the funding and the ones who received the money. At the same time, they are the operators. Even if not all of them are directly related, they still have a lot of business transactions with each other. President, this is really a mess.

Hence, if we fail to address the problem at root, thoroughly resolve these conflicts of interests and improve the whole declaration system, we will not be able to deal with the problem at all. We need to enhance the transparency of DCs. Now each district works in different ways. Their ways of handling minutes also vary. There is no record of the names of speakers and what was spoken at the meetings. There is no real-time audio or video broadcast. The Legislative Council is much more transparent. A lot of our business is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1341 completely open to the public. Information of the DCs, especially details and audit reports of funding or subsidies for these activities and district minor works projects, should have been disclosed long ago. If such a lack of transparency in the operation of DCs continues, any advocacy of strengthening DCs and devolving the power of allocation of resources and management of district facilities will only make DCs more corrupt and degenerate into a hotbed for exchange of benefits.

For this reason, President, we approve of the direction of Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion, but before the monitoring and declaration mechanism is improved, we cannot agree with the establishment of a "community building fund". Thank you, President.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, Mr LAU Kwok-fan proposes to strengthen the functions of District Councils ("DCs") in his motion. In this connection, we must first ask the following question: What are the functions of DCs to be strengthened? In fact, the Government often mentions strengthening the functions of DCs since the scrapping of the two Municipal Councils. Yet, according to the motion proposed by Mr LAU Kwok-fan and the remarks he made, as well as the views of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, they simply hope the Government can listen more to the opinions of DC members and do a good job of listening to public opinions.

However, does this represent the proper role and functions of DC members? Certainly, at present, DC members are subject to the District Councils Ordinance ("DCO"), for functions of DCs are stipulated unequivocally in section 61 of DCO. It is stipulated that DCs are to advise the Government on certain matters and to undertake environmental improvement matters and promotion of recreational activities, and so on, within the district with the meagre funds seeped out of the tight fists of the Government.

This is the approach adopted by the Government in the past decade or so in strengthening, so to speak, the functions of DCs. The tight-fisted authorities would only grant meagre funds to DCs for use. Each DC would be granted $100 million for the implementation of two projects conceived by the DC, which may be landscaping works or so-called signature programmes, and so on. However, as members with popular mandate, is this the mode of district administration to which we aspire, and is this our target?

1342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

I would like Members to listen to this. What powers did the former Urban Council hold, a council returned by territory-wide elections? The former Urban Council was authorized to set up various venues and facilities. Yes, it could "set up" venues and facilities. The former Urban Council was authorized to recruit full-time and part-time staff and entered into contracts with them. It could deliver the asset management work required in setting up required venues. It could deliver work within its terms of reference, including sports matters, management of markets and museums, as well as the current controversial issues concerning columbarium and incinerators. Back then, as members of the former Urban Council, we must undertake the work within our terms of reference in the district under our jurisdiction.

However, today, as DC members, have we ever queried whether the powers given us are commensurate with the responsibilities? Since we are only required under the law to tender advice to the Government, as Mr LAU Kwok-fan said, the Government should pay more attention in listening and integrating the views expressed by members of DCs. Come to think about this. If the problems are concerned with our constituency, we as DC members have to address the problem and find a solution to it. In other words, the powers we have should be commensurate with the responsibilities we are to fulfil. However, this is not the case now.

As a result, the so-called reviews of the functions of DCs conducted over the years merely ended in the allocation of meagre funds by the tight-fisted Government or the Government's agreement to pay more attention to views of DCs. We describe the situation as "calling on God in adversity but forgetting God once relieved". Mr LAU Kwok-fan has made it crystal clear that the Government will only listen to DCs when it wants. Otherwise, the Government will put DCs on the spot, shifting the blame to opposition from DCs. Take housing construction as an example. If the Government wants to construct housing at certain sites, it will simply do so as it is authorized under DCO. And if the Government wants to build columbarium, it will insist on having its way. However, when it comes to issues the Government does not want to pursue, the authorities will resort to all kinds of tactics, as well as time-consuming red tape, to prevent them from happening.

Indeed, there will definitely be supportive and opposition views on every issue. If DCs are only required to give advice to the Government in district administration, DC members need not make other considerations but oppose any LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1343 project to be carried out at their backyard or any project affecting their constituency. This kind of response is only natural. However, if DCs are to bear the responsibility, they cannot evade it and must negotiate a way out altogether. They must bear the responsibility whether or not they agree with it, for the responsibility is conferred by the law. The situation is similar to the case of the former Urban Council back then, where Councillors had to deal with the problem of waste treatment whether they agreed or not.

I remember that before the "scrapping" of the two Municipal Councils, people were prepared to identify sites in urban areas for the construction of incinerators. Come to think about this. How difficult it will be to implement proposals on the construction of incinerators in the New Territories, not to mention the urban area. Yet, back then, we had no room for further discussion, for we could not dump the waste in the New Territories for the Provisional Municipal Council to handle. Sorry, this is not an option. We had to address the problems and explain to the public what we were doing. Then, we had to bear the responsibility and face the work we were authorized to carry out under the law. Yet, what is the situation today? It is all about advisory frameworks, advisory frameworks, and advisory frameworks.

As Mr LAU Kwok-fan said earlier, the successful implementation of the proposal for strengthening the power of District Officers rests in the hands of the Director of Bureau, and whether it can be achieved eventually remains an unknown, for District Officers do not have real powers. Why could District Officers perform satisfactorily in the past? For under the Administration Officer system, Administration Officers would render mutual support to each other. Given the reality that they might need the help of others one day, they were willing to offer a helping hand to get the job done. As for the situation today, Members may ask the District Officers. Their co-ordination capacity is so low that no one dares mention it. For in terms of administration power and terms of reference, DCs are merely an advisory framework, and what they can do is really limited. For this reason, I disagree with the view of Mr LAU Kwok-fan, that "The financial return (remuneration) for us DC members is too low". The monthly salary for an DC member is $40,000. I dare not say my salary as an DC member is too low. If my memory has not failed me, we are also entitled to an additional accountable allowance amounting to $35,000. The resources of five DC members roughly equal to that of a Member of the Legislative Council. From this perspective, the problem we are facing is not insufficient resources for DC members, but that the terms of reference and functions of DC members under 1344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 the existing framework are disproportionate to the income we receive. Hence, in every so-called review of DCO, I would take the minority view among DC members to oppose any pay rise for DC members before the functions of DCs were enhanced or changed.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

In fact, for a person willing to engage in politics and devote himself to the politics stage, and most of the persons with lofty ideals, they will think about what they can achieve and what they can bring into realization as an advocate of district administration and public policies. Certainly, if a person merely considers this a job, higher remuneration will attract more people to join the ranks, yet whether those joining are political talents is another issue. Political talents should gain experience through participation in various elections and making decisions within resource constraints in the course of formulating public administration policies, for this is meaningful. Yet have we been able to achieve this? No, we have not.

Hence, the most important point in my amendment is to examine the existing restrictions in the review of the functions of DCs. These refer to the restrictions under DCO, where DC members can only advise the Government and undertake environmental improvement work and promotion of recreational and cultural activities within the district where funds are made available. There is a sea difference in comparison with the functions of the former Urban Council, which I have told Members just now.

As such, I would like to call on friends in the pro-establishment camp who strive to strengthen the functions of DCs to first set the right direction. When the Government "scrapped" the two Municipal Councils back then, it meant to recover the powers of members with popular mandate. Our powers in administration were resumed. Back then, we had the power to propose policies and make decisions after conducting debates in a council underpinned by popular mandate, yet this power was resumed. After that, the tight-fisted authorities conferred the so-called advisory power on the DCs. It would listen to the views of DCs perfunctorily, in such a manner like "calling on God in adversity but forgetting God once relieved".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1345

Regarding requests made by DCs, the Government will not follow them up if it does not like them, or it will procrastinate. If there is something the Government wants to do, it will summon members and Chairmen from the 18 DCs, and then tell the public that the authorities have gained unanimous support from DCs on certain projects. Such practices are not conducive to enhancement of the local framework for nurturing political talents, nor will it be conducive to the fulfilment of the promises made by the Government at the dissolution of the two Municipal Councils. Back then, the Government undertook to strengthen district administration, yet if the authorities do not give DCs the real powers in district administration, this promise will never be fulfilled. Under the concentration of power, the Government is only giving the slightest power to DC members through the pit of its fingers. In that case, how can the functions of DCs be truly strengthened?

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, before explaining my amendment and stating the Democratic Party's position, I have to make clear one point. Mr LAU Kwok-fan is a representative of the District Council Functional Constituency small-circle election. I found out that before he proposed this motion, he had not consulted all District Council ("DC") members. Therefore, I have reservations about whether Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion can represent the general views of all DC members. Mr LAU's original motion certainly presents some very fundamental views, including allowing DC members greater participation in formulating various policies, stronger supervision of policy implementation, as well as more support provided by the Government to DCs and DC members. The direction and principle are correct and worth of support. Yet the biggest issue is that the original motion does not propose specific measures to help the empowerment of DC members. For this reason, the Democratic Party presents its suggestions of giving DC members the powers of staff management and financial autonomy, as well as actual management of municipal facilities and services.

Mr WU Chi-wai has just expressed some of the Democratic Party's standpoints on the amendments. DCs have to be empowered but also restrained, otherwise blind empowerment without restraint will turn DCs into the pro-establishment camp's backyard and a platform for transfer of benefits. 1346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Mr WU Chi-wai's amendment is about the compatible powers and responsibilities of DCs and my amendment mainly deals with how to increase the representativeness of DCs.

DCs were established in 1982 and their composition has undergone many changes. However, over the years, the functions of DCs have remained the same: an advisory framework before the reunification and still an advisory framework today. What is an advisory framework? It is an organization to which the Government does not pay much respect. When the Government submits papers to DCs, all policies have already been formulated and DCs are informed at the last minute, just as a gesture of notification. Many policies and most news come late; many government officials are even too lazy or unwilling to attend DC meetings. DC members, if not rubber stamps, are regarded by most as paraphernalia, to be used by the Government for the sole purpose of proclaiming that public opinion has been consulted. That is all.

After the resumption of sovereignty, the SAR Government restored the appointment system of DCs to add 102 appointed seats, distorting the nature of DCs as representatives of public opinion. Society has all along held strong voices against this, demanding an abolition of the appointment system and ex-officio seats so as to make all DC members returned by popular election. A few years ago, in an act that could be considered an answer to the public aspiration, the authorities abolished the ex-officio seats, thereby removing dead wood positions for some pro-establishment people who had been enjoying political free lunches. It was a rarely correct move by the SAR Government but as we can see today ex-officio seats still exist.

The Government's explanation for ex-officio seats has become a well-heard remark, that is, to ensure continuous full reflection of the rights of the indigenous residents and respect of traditions. However, we absolutely do not subscribe to these viewpoints. After over 30 years of urban development in the New Territories and democratic development of DC and Village Representative Elections, rural residents can participate in local affairs by means of democratic elections. DCs as local councils mainly take charge of the overall community and environmental improvement work in various districts. Whenever DCs in the New Territories encounter matters involving the rural areas in a discussion of local issues, they can invite representatives of the rural committees to attend the meetings as observers and voice their views, or leave it up to individual DCs in the New Territories to decide whether or not to appoint the chairmen or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1347 representatives of these rural committees as co-opted members. Such a practice caters for the views of rural people under the principle of equal and popular elections without the need for ex-officio seats.

Ex-officio seats in DCs are like functional constituencies in DCs, granting indigenous residents or people of a rural background a licence to enjoy privileges. Most of them already have the privilege of small house concessionary right under the Basic Law in terms of land rights, as well as the functional constituency seat of Heung Yee Kuk returned by a small-circle election to the Legislative Council, are we still going to extend their political privileges to local DCs and let these political privileges last forever? Ex-officio seats in DCs run counter to values of democracy and distort public opinion in the councils.

As regards the composition of DCs, the Basic Law carries no provision for the retention of appointed and ex-officio seats. However, the Basic Law requires that the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council shall ultimately be selected by universal suffrage, giving recognition to the direction of democracy and universal suffrage, from which it can be deduced that DCs as local councils elected by the people should be returned by universal suffrage as well.

District administration helps nurture political talents on the premise that there are both powers and responsibilities. The previous Urban Council and Regional Council formed the best arena for the training of political talents. A city council has the power to determine directions of local affairs and formulate policies while being subject to supervision by the people in that responsibilities will be pursued for wrongdoings. In this way, local councils can make policies that carry people's aspirations. Sadly, after the reunification, in order to centralize powers, the SAR Government dissolved the two Municipal Councils without any sufficient justifications, causing a break in the continuity of political talents.

Personally, I think that DCs must carry both powers and responsibilities, most ideally following the transformation pattern of city councils. Hong Kong is small in size so 18 city councils may be too many. There is the view that it would be more reasonable to divide the entire Hong Kong into five city councils. Apart from food safety which is taken charge of by the SAR Government, city councils should assume the functions performed by the previous Municipal Councils. In terms of public administration, it is more acceptable to have separation of powers between local councils and the executive authorities, which 1348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 respectively carry out their functions. Otherwise, contrary to modern model of governance, the establishment of the executive authorities will just snowball and its powers become overly centralized.

Of course, it means long-term changes to the constitutional arrangements and involves the interests of stakeholders. But I believe DCs should be endowed with both powers and responsibilities and develop towards complete universal suffrage. I believe it is the people's common wish and also a righteous duty.

The Democratic Party has all along agreed with the introduction of a mayor-like District Commissioner returned by universal suffrage in place of the current District Officer who holds all powers. DCs to be returned fully by universal suffrage will be responsible for monitoring local administration, including monitoring and vetting annual year plans, budgets and work reports submitted by the local District Officers. Answerable to DCs, District Commissioners returned by universal suffrage will be in charge of the coordination, planning and specific management tasks of local administration. Councils and District Commissioners returned by universal suffrage can best realize the spirit and principle of equality and open participation.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I propose my amendment.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, district administration is an integral part of the administration of the SAR Government, which is closely related to people's living. The Government always seeks to ensure that the provision of services and facilities at the district level is responsive to district needs, and promote active public participation in district affairs. For a long time, District Councils ("DCs") have been an important partner of the Government in district administration. The key work direction of the SAR Government, especially the Home Affairs Bureau, the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") and the District Office ("DO") in the 18 districts, is to enable DCs to better serve members of the public and promote community development.

The new term of DCs has been in operation for nearly one year. Quite a number of Members present here are also DC members who have been actively participating in district services and accumulated enormous experience. The motion "Strengthening the role and functions of District Councils" proposed by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1349

Mr LAU Kwok-fan today offers a timely opportunity for the Government to elaborate once again on the important role played by DCs, and reiterate the Government's recognition and support for the work of DCs.

With social development, members of the public have increasingly higher demands and expectations for district administration and community development. For this reason, the Government has been reviewing the functions and role of DCs from time to time, with a view to bringing the work of DCs abreast of the times. Since the last term of DCs, we have been enhancing the participation and role of DCs in district administration as well as other policies through a series of reforms. My elaboration will consist of three parts as follows:

First, strengthening the functions of DCs. A District Facilities Management Committee ("DFMC") has been set up under each DC to steer and oversee the management of some of the district facilities, including libraries, sports venues, swimming pools, leisure grounds and community halls of the districts. DFMCs will give advice on the supply and demand, utilization and management of the aforesaid facilities. Also, they will prioritize works projects to improve existing facilities or to establish new facilities under district minor works projects, monitor the progress of the relevant projects, and vet and approve the funding applications for various district minor works projects, so as to improve district facilities.

District minor works have been fully launched in all of the 18 districts across the territory since 2008. The Government has provided DCs with additional resources to implement works projects to improve district facilities, the living environment and hygiene conditions, including improvement works of leisure and cultural venues and community halls, modification of pavilions, walkway covers, sitting-out areas and footpaths, as well as beautification and greening projects. The provision for the scheme has registered a cumulative increase from $300 million in 2008 to the current amount of $340 million. With the assistance of HAD and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, DCs have discretion in apportioning the funds allocated to them for carrying out improvement works of district facilities, having regard to the characteristics and needs of the districts respectively. The scheme has fully demonstrated the leading role of DCs in the improvement of district facilities, allowing flexibility in addressing district needs. Since the launch of the scheme to the end of September 2016, 4 830 works projects in total have been completed in the 18 districts, with the works cost amounting to $2.43 billion approximately. 1350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Moreover, the Chief Executive announced in his 2013 Policy Address the implementation of the Signature Project Scheme. A one-off allocation of $100 million has been earmarked for each district, so that DCs may implement some projects of a larger scale for the benefit of the communities.

The District Officers in various districts are representatives of the Government at the district level, and also the principal partners of DCs. We have taken proactive steps to strengthen the role of the District Officers in district administration, including the setting up of District Management Committees ("DMCs") chaired by them in various districts, comprising the Chairman, Vice Chairman and other committee chairmen of DCs and representatives of government departments providing essential services in the districts. This inter-departmental platform has enabled the District Officers and other government departments to promptly gauge and tackle district problems. Among such measures, the one which can best reflect the leading role of DMCs and the District Officers is the District-led Actions Scheme ("DAS") fully launched by DOs in the 18 districts at present. In the light of the positive outcomes of the pilot schemes launched in Sham Shui Po and Yuen Long, the Government has provided, from 2016-2017 financial year onwards, an annual funding of $63 million to enable full implementation of DAS in the 18 districts. Under the scheme, DMCs will assume a greater leading role, with thorough participation of DCs, in prioritizing efforts to tackle district problems which are long-standing, of large magnitude and complex as well as work relating to people's living, coordinating the efforts of different government departments, and actively supervising and following up on the provision of public services. Individual DOs have also capitalized on local opportunities with the funding granted by DAS for launching such projects as the provision of leisure and recreational space in the districts and establishment of community resources centres.

Furthermore, DOs in various districts will report their annual work plans to DCs in consultation with DC members every year. Annual work plans will outline the tasks of DOs in such aspects as community liaison and building, district administration, building management and improvement of district facilities, thereby strengthening the advisory and supervisory role of DCs in government affairs. The relevant reports are accessible on the websites of DCs.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1351

Second, enhancing the support for DCs and DC members. The Government understands that enhancing the support for DCs and DC members is the key to facilitating DCs in discharging their functions more smoothly and achieve results faster. We have enhanced our support for DCs through multiple channels, including the provision of additional resources for community involvement programmes, so that DCs will have more resources to implement arts and cultural, sport, recreational, community service and other community building activities. From 2015-2016 onwards, the relevant provision has been increased to some $360 million. Second, as a measure to enhance the support for DC members, the Independent Commission on Remuneration for the Members of the District Councils of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will carry out periodic reviews and consideration of the remuneration package for DC members, taking into account any factor that may affect the level of such remuneration and allowances. We have secured approval from the Finance Committee of the last Legislative Council to increase, from 1 January 2016 onwards, the monthly honorarium for DC members by 15% in real terms, and to introduce a new provision, capped at a ceiling of $10,000 per DC member per term, to finance DC members' duty visits; and to substantially increase, from January 2014 onwards, the rate of the Operating Expenses Reimbursement by 34% in real terms, including assisting DC members in renting premises for ward offices and employing assistants. The relevant rates will be subject to annual adjustments in accordance with the movement of Consumer Price Index (A) every year. Currently, the Operating Expenses Reimbursement that may be claimed by each DC member is $468,492 per annum.

Third, strengthening the communication and collaboration between government departments and DCs. DCs are the most important consultative framework of the SAR Government in district administration. Maintaining close communication with DCs is vital to various government departments in gauging public opinions and facilitating administration. In order to brief the new term of DC members on the rationale and work directions of the Government in district administration, the work and role of DC members, and the major tasks of individual Policy Bureaux, between January and April this year, HAD respectively organized two work briefings and three briefings by Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux for DC members, with a view to strengthening the communication and cooperation between the Government and DC members.

1352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

HAD will arrange for Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux to conduct regular district visits, and arrange for Heads of Departments to meet with DC members, so that they may personally listen to DC members' views on public concerns. Representatives from individual departments will also attend the meetings of DCs and their committees on a regular basis to listen to members' views and take questions from them, so as to ensure timely responses to their concerns.

The Director of Home Affairs will also arrange for monthly meetings with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of DCs, and invite various Policy Bureaux and departments to brief the Chairmen on issues of territory-wide concern and major policies, so as to expeditiously gauge the views of DCs.

Deputy President, I have briefly introduced the efforts of the Government in strengthening the functions of DCs, enhancing the support for DC members and promoting the communication between government departments and DCs. I will give a further response after carefully listening to Members' speeches.

Thank you, Deputy President.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, that Mr LAU Kwok-fan has proposed this motion carries a great depth of meaning and even more so is that Secretary for Home Affairs LAU Kong-wah is here to give a reply on the Government's behalf. He himself is an example of success. LAU Kong-wah first contested and won in the District Board election in 1985 and finally in … I do not wish to give a detailed account of his resume. In short, he left the United Democrats of Hong Kong of which he was once a member and became a member of the pro-establishment camp. Later he became the second Member wearing "three hats" as he was concurrently a District Council ("DC") member, a Member of the Legislative Council and a Member of the Executive Council. Then he rose to the office of an Under Secretary and he is even a Director of Bureau now. This is precisely the best model of nurturing of talents by DCs.

When the former colonial government set up the representative government in 1982, there was a time when many people aspiring to participation in public affairs hoped that by joining the District Boards, they could do something for Hong Kong and gain some experience in the political crib, so that "Hong Kong people ruling people" and "one country two systems" as stated in the Basic Law could be eventually realized one day. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1353

This was originally quite good a design. But look at what "Hong Kong people ruling people" and "one country two systems" mean today. It has been almost two decades since the reunification and we have seen "one country two systems" being ravaged and "Hong Kong people ruling people" becoming empty words. Mr LAU Kwok-fan stressed the need to enhance the support to DCs and DC members and establish a "community building fund", but there may not be sufficient funds. Let me cite some examples to show that a lot of money of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is spent on pro-establishment organizations. We have a $5 billion environmental protection fund which even required a further capital injection and finally, an activity organized for changing light bulbs alone … Many pro-establishment organizations were involved in it―I cannot name all of them and, sorry, if I should miss any one of them―A women association in Tin Shui Wai was granted $900,000, a residents' association in Tseung Kwan O had $560,000, the New Territories Association of Societies had $720,000, the Tai Po Environment Association Ltd had $15.37 million, the Hong Kong Islands District Association had $2.5 million, and the Kowloon Federation of Associations had $1.79 million. These pro-establishment organizations, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"), the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") and other "submerged" activities of DAB designed to canvass votes have taken all of the Government's resources and what is more, there is this provision of $100 million to each district, which is just the same as it is likewise meant to be a coterie for cronyism among themselves. For instance, there are projects in which DC members have taken part in bidding for the contracts, such as the construction of the Wishing Square. How ridiculous are this political system and the DCs.

In any political system, the role of a representative assembly is to supervise the Government. In the 18 DCs, the pro-establishment camp has swept all 36 seats of Chairmen and Vice Chairmen. Therefore, whenever the Government needs support, these people will line up in a queue, and where there is any proposal that distorts the public opinion in Hong Kong, including the package for "bogus universal suffrage", so to speak, or policies that the Government wants to bulldoze through, there will be some 30 clowns coming forth to play convoy for the Government. If DCs are truly meant to be a crib for young people aspiring to carving a career in politics, I think it has failed to serve its purpose unless, of course, you are elected to be members of some pro-establishment organizations, like the several fledging young Members from DAB and FTU in this Chamber today.

1354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

The DC election is not only the business of political parties nowadays. As we all know, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has set up offices in various districts. This is nothing new; nor is this a secret. Their district offices are tasked to coordinate elections in various districts, being superior to political parties. To enforce "one country one system" and abolish "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" by all means, they have started to take actions at the level of DCs. So what kinds of talents, on seeing such a political system, will be interested in becoming part of the representative government? Of course, it would be a different matter if one wants to become Secretary LAU Kong-wah or other Directors of Bureaux, and I am sure a lot of smart guys will keep working for these offices one after another.

However, now we have seen that the DCs have failed in all of the functions. This is supposedly a fair election but they canvassed votes by offering seasonal delicacies and by distributing rice, collecting addresses, changing light bulbs, and registering the particulars of voters. This is why they could win in every election. This will only scare away many more people aspiring to participation in politics, and the policital situation in Hong Kong will only become more depraved. The Government wants to evade monitoring by all means and it wants to keep on doing whatever it likes, and this will not do any good to Hong Kong at all. To the young people, when this road leads them nowhere, they may have to think about other paths.

Therefore, when the Government and some members of the pro-establishment camp keep on accusing the young people of not being positive and criticizing them for promoting self-determination and "Hong Kong independence", you people should seriously look at yourselves in the mirror. How deplorable a state has the DCs degenerated into now? How lamentable has the political situation become now? How can you be qualified to ask the public to trust this most depraved system?

I so submit.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, having served as a member of Kwai Tsing District Council/Board for more than 30 years, which may be considered a rather long period, I have witnessed some changes in it. Regrettably, I have noted that the terms of reference of District Councils ("DCs") have never undergone any great reform over the years, thus dampening the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1355 enthusiasm of many DC members. Now DCs have almost degenerated into a dispensable advisory framework which can achieve nothing at all. In my view, the Government really needs to devolve more powers to DCs to enable them to promote more political and social engagement in a bottom-up approach.

In the past, there were the Urban Council and Regional Council which had actual powers to manage important livelihood policies in terms of public health, arts and recreation, etc. They could also complement the advisory function of District Boards ("DBs"), thus enabling DBs to make real achievements in livelihood measures and policies. Yet regrettably, after the Urban Council and Regional Council were scrapped in 1999, such important portfolios as public health, arts and recreation came under the charge of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. They were no longer monitored by public opinion. Instead, they were managed under a bureaucratic framework. Consequently, a lot of livelihood issues, for example, the hawker policy, setting up of bazaars and combating obstruction posed by parallel goods traders, were not handled properly.

Doubtless, I believe it is rather difficult to request the Government to restructure DCs and model them on the framework of the Urban Council and Regional Council. However, I think by drawing reference from the terms of reference of these two former Municipal Councils, we can carry out a reform, using the present DCs as the basis, and confer more and greater powers on DCs in livelihood issues in the districts. I think only such an approach will carry substantive meaning.

Deputy President, today Mr LAU kwok-fan has proposed the motion on "Strengthening the role and functions of District Councils". Here I would like to discuss the present role and functions of DCs which are merely nominal. According to the information of the Home Affairs Department, under the responsibilities of DCs, first of all there are four major items, namely district affairs, welfare, administration and public facilities, as well as public works and community activities. On the surface, it looks quite extensive, giving members of the public a good impression that DCs do a lot of work. Yet in reality, regrettably―I said the same thing when I talked with the Secretary in private―what meaning is there in their being responsible for these items. So what? It turns out that ultimately, there are four words. The four most important words are: "to advise the Government".

1356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Deputy President, what does "to advise the Government" mean? Suppose today I advise the Deputy President to treat me to a meal. After hearing it, the Deputy President may accept or refuse it because it is merely my advice. As a matter of fact, in the past, DCs offered a lot of advice to the Government, but the approach adopted by the Government was that if it found it suitable, it would use it; if not, it would put it aside, thus turning the role and functions of DCs into the Government's shield which was actually of no help to district affairs. This is a very important point because in the past, when the Government implemented a certain policy, such as dispersing hawkers, it often told the public that it was based on the DCs' advice no matter whether it was supported or objected by DCs, treating DCs as its shield and shirking the responsibility onto DCs when it should undertake it. This is the approach adopted by the Government all along.

Hence, preservation of the present mode of operation of DCs, in my opinion, will only deceive members of the public and fail to achieve the functions and effects of councils because, as we all know, councils are formed by members returned by democratic elections. Many policies and measures should be handled by people who represent public opinion. However, it is not the case now. They merely offer advice. For this reason, I think they are just nominal. They are by no means genuine councils.

Strictly speaking, the term DC should be renamed. Deputy President, before the reunification, its English name was "District Board", but after the reunification, it was renamed "District Council". "Board" and "Council" are actually different not only in spelling but also in meaning because generally speaking, a board may not necessarily have any power, whereas a council gives us the impression that it holds more power than a board. Hence, both its Chinese and English names are deceptive. Its Chinese name "議會", meaning council, makes us think that it has power. Its English name "Council" is similarly deceptive. In reality, it does not have any power. For this reason, in my view, to make DC worthy of its name, how should it be renamed? In Chinese, it should be renamed "地區諮詢委員會", which is proper, clear and not deceptive. Its English name can be changed to "District Consultative Body" or "Board". As a matter of fact, it has deceived the people for so many years. I hope it will really be renamed.

Deputy President, most importantly, I hope that today, DCs can have more powers to deal with the community issues. Yet regrettably, in the present situation, DCs are dominated by members of the pro-establishment camp. They LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1357 are supposed to reflect public sentiments, but now they are led by the government policies. What they do even runs counter to the wishes of members of the public. As mentioned by some Members just now, some DCs want to construct music fountains, convert the place around the Wishing Tree in Lam Tsuen into a square, etc. These projects are against public opinion. In many cases, DCs have become the Government's "hand-raising machines", like today's Legislative Council which has become a rubber stamp without any substantive meaning.

Hence, I consider that if DC does not change its nature and maintain the present policy and mode of operation, actually it must be (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Your speaking time is up.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): … dumped into the litter bin. It is meaningless.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr LAU Kwok-fan for moving this motion of "Strengthening the role and functions of District Councils" that gives us an opportunity to fully express our views on this issue.

I am also a District Council member of Lam Tin District. Even though I am not as experienced as Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, I have accumulated experience in district service over these few years and handled a number of strange and difficult issues. On the question of how best to make the work of District Councils ("DCs") benefit more kaifongs in the communities, actually I have some views.

The main function of DC is to convey views to the Government especially on issues affecting the welfare of residents in the districts. For residents, to put it mildly, DC members are to all intents and purposes "full-service stations", and to put it bluntly are "universal adaptors", and they will come to us for help almost over everything. We help them to fill in application forms, take blood pressures, and to deal with their complaints about various issues in the districts. We DC members have to deal with all of this.

1358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

DCs or DC members also play an important role in facilitating community development overall, which includes enhancing the consultation function of DCs. Yet we should not confine our vision to our own constituencies, and we should promote our work from our own constituencies to the whole district. For example, in Kwun Tong District, we should promote development and the overall community development of the whole Kwun Tong District.

In fact, in Western countries and even the neighboring Taiwan or Japan, there is this concept of "community development". This involves organizing members of the community together to identify problems and implement solutions to them, thus promoting the development of the district as a whole. In simple terms, it could be our hope to promote harmonious neighbourhood relations such that neighbours will help each other voluntarily, and this is a very desirable objective. In a broader sense, the concept of "constructing together, building together, sharing" as promoted by former Member of this Council, Miss CHAN Yuen-han of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, in the issue of Kai Tak was advocated by her in promoting the Kai Tak River project at the district level. This should be followed by development of the community as a whole, so that the overall living environment of Wong Tai Sin could be improved continuously.

However, Kai Tak River seems to be an isolated case. I wonder whether DCs have sufficient resources to encourage or even take the lead in such collaborative development? As a matter of fact, DC members lack the resources to carry out such work properly. In terms of remunerations, we have $40,000-odd a month, and we have to pay for rent which alone accounts for a quarter of the total expenditure for offices in private properties. There are also the costs for miscellaneous items, utilities and printing of work reports for residents. So we have limited resources in hiring staff of calibre. On top of all this, we have to commission various organizations to conduct community studies. In fact, we must sing praises of the Secretariat of the Home Affairs Department for their help in conducting these studies. However, from my experience twice working as the convenor of the Kwun Tong Reconstruction Working Group, I know that just around $100,000-odd of funding is available every year for commissioning universities to carry out research studies, and it is really just a one-off and inadequate provision that could not facilitate the work of DCs in promoting projects on development of the whole community and conducting studies.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1359

So I urge the Government to focus on improving the remuneration package for our assistants in its effort to increase funding including the operating allowances for DCs. Actually, we have been asking for separate treatment for rents and salaries, for we do not want the rents to eat into our colleagues' salaries. Just in the last motion we talked about Link REIT. Four years ago in my previous term, I only paid $5,000 in rent and now it is $9,000, meaning an 90% increase. If the difference can be spent on increasing the remuneration of colleagues, maybe we can hire more better staff to help tackle issues in our community and conduct more studies on community affairs. I think this is something into which the Home Affairs Department has to put more effort to tackle, since the problem in Home Ownership Scheme courts has become so serious, I expect rental levels to be even higher in private properties such as Sceneway Plaza or in building blocks in the neighborhood. Our colleagues working there will need to face more alarming rental hikes. Therefore, I hope the Government can address the problem.

Deputy President, in order to promote community development, we need some ability of integration. It is indeed very difficult for the District Officers to coordinate the efforts of various departments in solving a community issue. I wish to share with the Secretary two cases: First, about this slope outside our housing estate, it is really very difficult to find anyone to tackle the mosquito nuisances there. Theoretically it should be handled by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department but the site is managed by the Lands Department. When we approached the latter Department, they said that no outsourced staff were tasked to deal with the mosquitos because they only dealt with the slope. Consequently, all the residents and I myself need to suffer and the problem remains not solved to date.

Second, about Lam Tin Hill, we have always wanted to improve some of the facilities on the Hill for the use of residents. Unfortunately the location of the facilities is beyond the lineation of Kwun Tong; it belongs to Sai Kung. Most residents in Kwun Tong will go to the hillside, which already falls into Sai Kung. It is very difficult to use funds of our District to carry out the improvement works. We have been constantly mobilizing our colleagues in Kwun Tong to deal with the matter, however it is very difficult to mobilize colleagues in Sai Kung District and it is even difficult to contact the Sai Kung District Lands Office. Then how can we improve the surrounding supporting facilities? This is definitely a difficult nut to crack. For this reason, we hope to strengthen the coordination role of District Officers and make a breakthrough in the existing bureaucratic system, so that the views of DCs can be better addressed.

1360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Just now, Honourable colleagues from the Civic Party (they are not present now) talked about treats (of snake feasts, vegetarian banquets, mooncakes and dumplings) and I take this as a complement indeed. The Civic Party does even more high class than we do, a deluxe version, for they are giving away Kamei chickens. I would also like to express gratitude to them on behalf of the residents. They also keep on distributing love dumplings. And their colleagues at Hoi Fu Court are even selling rice. They are offering comprehensive services, while they said we are offering food, they are doing it as well, and even an upgraded version.

Therefore, I think colleagues of the DCs must do well the duty of maintaining cordial relations with the residents, and also have to (The buzzer sounded) … broaden our vision …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, time is up.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): Thank you, Deputy President.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Regarding the existing District Council ("DC") system, I think we can conclude it with two clauses: "the role of DCs is ambiguous and DC members cannot do anything". Why? As a colleague from the pro-establishment camp just said, if you ask the kaifongs about the functions of DC members, they may only recall matters like writing letters to the Government, organizing low-cost tour groups or giving away various seasonal delicacies.

And for some members in the democratic camp, the offer of seasonal delicacies by the pro-establishment camp may just be an object of ridicule, however, such offers are something inevitable under the existing DC system, and obviously this is some sort of an economic behaviour. Due to the deficiency of the system, the current DC members have no responsibilities or power, while the Government has both the responsibilities and power. DC members only play the role of a vote captain at the district level. Of course, DC members are more experienced than the ordinary vote captains. Therefore, strictly speaking, due to the deficiency of the system, DC members have become the leaders of residents. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1361

We are not teasing or making fun of the current DC members. In fact, we have to turn back the clock to the year 1999 when the Municipal Councils were scrapped by TUNG Chee-hwa, which caused the deficiency of the system.

After the Municipal Councils were "scrapped", we face a big problem, that is, DCs become a rubber stamp which have no independent financial or municipal power. Meanwhile, the Government knew only too well that it had no eyes or ears to watch and hear local demands at the district level, it had to enhance the role of District Officers. On this count, I do not agree with the proposed strengthening of the coordinating role of District Officers in today's motion because such strengthening would allow the Government to control or dictate the powers of DC members.

Today, the DC system has become a decoration, not just a decoration, but a freak as we have seen in the last two Legislative Council Elections. First of all, since the Municipal Councils were "scrapped" in 1999, the Government saw the obvious gap emerged between the legislature and the DCs after 10 years, and so it introduced some minor remedial measures and came up with the super DC system. However, right from the start of discussions about the system, we had repeatedly pointed out that such a system would benefit only the big parties and restrict free competition. That is our view at that time. Yet, in the last Legislative Council Election, we saw that the super DC system became a tool of competition for their own interests and even for doing deals among different political parties. For example, some DC members decided to run for the Legislative Council seat in disregard of the conventional practice, and only to be persuaded to withdraw at later stage of the election. This is obviously a tool used by political parties for doing deals, and as such system is dominated by the big parties, the sacred "one person, one vote" election which is an expression of free will has de facto become an avenue for rotation of big parties and trampling on Hong Kong people's will.

Meanwhile, there is an even worse distorted situation caused by the system. Today, the motion mentions strengthening the role of DCs and increases their funding, but exactly due to the deficiency of the system, the more funds we give them, the DC members find it even tougher to cope. Why I am saying this? When CY LEUNG promoted the Signature Project Scheme, he injected $100 million into each district. But as we all know, DC members and the system could not handle such big sums, so due to the deficiency of the system, 1362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

DC members and District Officers have to rack their brains about how they can spend the money. They come up with all sorts of "white elephant" projects, e.g. the fountain in Kwun Tong, bicycle parking lots worth $300,000 each, as well as building the "Tiananmen Square" in Lam Tsuen, Tai Po. So all of these are telling the people of Hong Kong that we have the money, but we do not know how to spend it. After all, this problem arises from the deficiency of the DC system, and this deficiency can be summed up in the two clauses I mentioned at the very beginning that "the role of DCs is ambiguous and the DC members cannot do anything".

Today, DC members are simply dispensable. In effect residents might not object to the abolishment of DCs. Why? The turnout rate of DC elections has always been low and this shows the lack of interest of residents. For that reason, insofar as the motion under debate today is concerned, I support Mr WU Chi-wai's amendment to the motion because he talks about vesting DC members with the power of staff management, financial autonomy and making policy decisions. It is de facto restoring the powers of the Municipal Councils (the then Urban Council and the Regional Council). These powers are important because in many of the 18 Districts, especially those near the Mainland, we have a lot of community problems. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department basically adopt a bureaucratic attitude towards the problems, the parallel traders and smugglers and they even suddenly replace the rubbish bins with smaller ones for no reason. Why do they act like that? Because there is no mechanism to punish the departments for their lack of response to the public sentiments. If the DCs can be conferred afresh municipal powers to make up for the deficiencies of the Government in understanding the people, Mr WU Chi-wai's amendment is, I think, the most worthy proposal we should support. But unfortunately, our authoritarian Government would probably not heed the public.

Deputy President, I so submit. Thank you.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on this question of enhancing the role of District Councils ("DCs") in district affairs to serve the public better, I am sure we all will agree to this view. As early as in 2006, the Government carried out a comprehensive review of the role of DCs, and then in 2007 conducted a pilot scheme in four districts. Starting from 2008, the scheme was extended to all 18 DCs with various measures introduced to strengthen DCs' LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1363 role, including the setting up of District Facilities Management Committees, invitation of DC members to take part in the management of some district facilities, and allocation of additional resources to DCs to implement Community Involvement Projects and District Minor Works Programme. Indeed, these measures have proved that there is always a need to strengthen the role and functions of DCs.

Deputy President, I heard criticisms this morning from some Honourable colleagues. First, I would like to respond to Dr Fernando CHEUNG's amendment and also his criticisms about the allocation of fundings to DCs for implementing the Signature Project Scheme in the community. Taking the improvement to the Lam Tsuen Wishing Square in Tai Po as an example. This proposed works project is just re-laying of the soccer pitch and the erection of a stage, in response to the needs of local residents. In fact, there have been a large number of visitors to Lam Tsuen, so it is understandable to make improvement to the local environment. Why should the opposition camp raise so much opposition. As the DC members represent the people, DC does hear the views of many people in the community and has approved the project in accordance with the procedures. After the project was submitted to this Council, there has been so much opposition here. While Dr Fernando CHEUNG or other pan-democratics talk about respecting the views of the people, for such signature projects which have got the support of the local community, the DCs and represent the wishes of the people, why do they suddenly have to oppose it? They are simply bad losers.

Just now I heard Mr HUI Chi-fung's speech, in which he said that the motion moved by Mr LAU Kwok-fan today had not gone through many of the consultation among DC members previously. This is ridiculous. What ahout Mr HUI Chi-fung's sudden rise in the middle of the meeting when we were talking about electoral law, and his changing of the subject to talking about the National People's Congress's interpretation of the Basic Law, thus impeding the conduct of proceedings. I would like to ask whether Mr HUI Chi-fung had consulted us in advance whether we really wanted him to interfere the normal proceedings of the Council.

Deputy President, many colleagues here talked about their views on district leisure and recreational facilities. I wish to say that I believe DC members from the Democratic Party will organize cultural and recreational activities in the community. Of course, they can apply for funding from the Government 1364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 through normal channels. If they insist on their claim that they could not secure any funding, they should explain to us where do they get the resources. Do these come through the help of LEE Cheuk-yan and "Long Hair" in receiving "dark money" from overseas? Have they used such resources to organize such activities?

Deputy President, while we seek to strengthen the role of DC members, we should also strengthen the coordination role of District Officers. As a matter of fact, the communication between DCs and various Policy Bureaux and departments of the Governmernt are coordinated by the District Officers of respective DCs. Their duties should be to ensure that proposals from DC members are duly followed up. Because of various constraints of powers and responsibilities and detailed division of labour among government departments, there had been cases where more than two departments were involved, they always "played tai chi" or passed the buck to one another, thus shifting their responsibilities, and as a result DC members find it very hard to take forward their work. Deputy President, I hold that the role of Dictrict Officers in promotion and coordination should be strengthened.

I support Mr LAU's motion on "Strengthening the role and functions of District Councils". The Government should introduce more policies and strengthen the role and functions of DCs, so that the concept of "addressing district issues at the local level and capitalizing on local opportunities" can be really realized. In particular, government departments should attach more importance to the views of DC members when formulating district policies. In fact, DC members well versed in district affairs can more effectively convey the wishes of people to various government departments, so as to ensure that district planning and construction is not divorced from the people. Only in this way will no "Westminster bubble", so to speak, be formed.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think I should speak after Mr Andrew WAN but now he is not present, so I am speaking before him. Deputy President, I have to apologize that my voice is not clear because I am suffering from a cold.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1365

Deputy President, District Councils ("DCs") are rooted in the community, and DC members are at the front line serving the public, they understand and know the community, their needs and their daily lives, keep a very close tab on their pulse. So the role and functions of DCs have implications on the well-being and social development of Hong Kong. However, since the reunification, the role and functions of DCs have remained stagnant, having seen no strengthening despite the abolishment of the two Municipal Councils. Over the years, many Members have expressd concern about the role and functions of DCs and the motion of Mr LAU again provides an opportunity for us to have discussions today.

Let us discuss the autonomy of DCs first. In 2000, when TUNG Chee-hwa was the Chief Executive, he implemented the reform of district administration and abolished the original Urban Council and Regional Council. He undertook to allocate additional resources to the DCs and strengthen their role and functions as to encourage public participation in district public affairs. The English name of District Board was changed to the current District Council in the hope that DCs would enjoy a status similar to that of the Legislative Council. Unfortunately, over 10 years have passed, but pledges expected then have yet to be honoured.

Nowadays, the development of our districts is so slow that it cannot catch up with the needs of community development because DCs have neither full autonomy nor sufficient powers and are subject to a number of constraints in tasks they can undertake. In the past, the Municipal Councils were responsible for the management of food, environment, market services and libraries. However, after their abolition, the authorities did not transfer the powers to the DCs. Then where has the promised devolution of powers to DCs gone. At present, the powers of management of services are still centralized within the Government which has been cheating the DCs for 16 years. For example, recently we often ask for the construction of new public markets to counter the dominance of Link REIT. Had the two Municipal Councils not been "scrapped", the construction of new markets might have been raised by their members. But now the Government categorically says "No" to the construction of new markets despite the Legislative Council Members and DC members having talked so much that "their teeth are bleeding". So people are still left to the mercy of Link REIT. Taking the district affairs of recreational, hygiene and minor works as another example, the previous Urban Council could play a leading role and could start such works from scratch. However, the current DCs 1366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 are forced to remain in a very passive position, for they are only advisory bodies with no real powers. They can only put forward their views on many matters and recommendations, while the Government may not implement them after giving them audience.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

In this connection, I think the SAR Government should address squarely the relevant problems by reviewing the role and functions of DCs seriously and devolving more powers, so that the DCs can have more autonomy and more say. In this way, the DCs can be elevated to the same status of the previous Municipal Councils.

In the second part, I would like to talk about the issue of resources. In addition to the review of autonomy, the Government should also consider the problem of inadequate resources and unreasonable distribution of resources. As I said earlier, extra resources to the DCs was promised when the Municipal Councils were scrapped but this has not really happened so far. Even if resources were committed, they were far from sufficient and just for short-term purposes. In the 2013 Policy Address, for example, the Signature Project Scheme was announced, and $100 million was earmarked for each DC for the implementation of one or two projects, but it was just a one-off exercise and would greatly confine what the DCs could do, limiting the duration and effectiveness of the project. For instance, in the Eastern District, we have this proposal for developing the promenade, open space, and promoting fishermen and fishing port culture, but given the one-off funding, the whole project could not be sustainable. Therefore, we should make the whole thing recurrent with regular funding in taking forward the development of this kind of signature schemes.

As regards resource allocation, despite the differences in the number of seats and population size among the 18 DCs, with 13 members in the smallest DC, and 41 members in the biggest, indicating that population sizes of various DCs can differ by nearly two to three times, yet each DC is given the same amount of funding. That is why people may ask how come some DCs can afford decent publicity pamphlets but some other DCs are so poor that they have to cut even the sponsorship for activities organized by local or cultural groups. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1367

For example, they have to reduce the sponsorship for children's singing and dancing classes, and they do not have money to organize a soccer team. That is what is happening in our Eastern District. This is indeed unfair and unreasonable. The Government has to follow up the situation.

Coming to the support for DCs, moreover, I understand that the Home Affairs Department is responsible for manpower. However, as a member of the Eastern DC, I know that they do not have enough manpower to serve us because there are 35 members in our DC. For every term of office, they said that manpower is not enough. Accordingly, they ask for extra funding from the DC to employ one person to assist them and as a result, this causes de facto depletion of our resources.

Besides, I have to respond to Dr LAU Siu-lai. She said yesterday that I do not support the setting up of bazaars. In fact she is not an DC member. She will never know that members of the Legislative Council only talk about big policies. The so-called "Morning Bazaar" in North Point is a just hawking venue in the main street, which is different from the typical bazaars like those located at the waterfront or small parks in Wah Fu Estate or Aberdeen Centre. I will definitively support those bazaars which will not constitute any obstruction and I have also visited such bazaars.

Lastly, many members from the pan-democratic camp make use of the provision of seasonal delicacies to attack the pro-establishment camp, and Mr Andrew WAN may also say so later. Nevertheless, if Members care to visit the Facebook and browse through a website about the seasonal delicacies of the pan-democratic camp, they will know they are also doing the same, if not more. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, Mr KWOK Wai-keung may probably be disappointed, for I am not going to talk about that point―Is there no sound? Do you hear any sound?―because there are too many key points indeed. President, just now I noticed that the last paragraph of Mr KWOK Wai-keung's speech should be a digression from the question under discussion. President, can I also digress from the subject in my speech?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech.

1368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I hope that in case I should digress from the question later on, you will not treat me in the same way as you treated cases of digression in the past.

President, as a number of Honourable colleagues, including both pro-establishment and pan-democrat Members, have said earlier, most colleagues are supportive of the direction of the original motion proposed by Mr LAU Kwok-fan. I also support the direction of the motion, and I think the point of contention lies in whether the coverage of the specific contents is adequate. This motion has made proposals which include allowing members of District Councils ("DCs") and DCs to have greater participation in district development and various policies, strengthening the supervision of DCs over policy implementation and district affairs, and enhancing the support to DCs and DC members. I think these proposals certainly cannot be wrong. However, I still feel that something is missing.

Of course, in his speech earlier Mr HUI Chi-fung might have offended Mr Holden CHOW who then reacted so strongly. Mr Holden CHOW has more than once made incompatible comparisons. I will recommend to him a book on logic later and I hope he can spend some time discussing it with us in future. Mr HUI Chi-fung criticized Mr LAU Kwok-fan, being the representative of his constituency, of failing to consult his constituents before proposing this motion. Having said that, Mr HUI is not opposed to the motion, and if even this is considered unacceptable by Mr Holden CHOW, that would strike me as very strange. Then he went on to cite examples of Mr HUI Chi-fung's behaviour to justify the inference made by him earlier and this, I think, is somewhat puzzling.

Anyway, let me come back to the question under discussion today. I think the main problem with the motion is that it fails to touch on the core of the problem. As mentioned by Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr HUI Chi-fung or other Members or even some pro-establishment Members earlier on, the current functions of DCs are very weak in that they have no powers in personnel management, no financial autonomy, no policy-making powers, no specific powers in management of facilities, and no independent secretariat. To put it plainly, basically the secretariats of DCs are controlled or to a very large extent influenced by District Officers, or more extremely, I think sometimes they can even manipulate the relevant operations.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1369

Turning back to the functions of DCs, they may sound very broad. Let me read out the functions of an DC as set out in the District Councils Ordinance: To advise the Government on matters such as those on the well-being of the people, the provision of communicy facilities, and so on, as Members said earlier on; subparagraph (b) is about funds, which seems to refer to some substantive powers but are still impractical as it is set out that an DC is to undertake environmental improvements within the District; the promotion of recreational and cultural activities within the District; and community activities within the District. It is, after all, only an advisory framework tasked to give advice, and despite the inclusion of matters relating to funding, the areas covered are still vague and meaningless.

I certainly do not deny the hard work of DCs or DC members and I have seen many colleagues put in great efforts in their work, but what are we discussing today? It is their duties and powers, and given the inadequacy of their functions, we have to make improvements to their functions. I do not know why the focus of the discussion has all been misplaced. DCs face limits in their functions and are hence inhibited from providing better services to the people. Since the dissolution of the two Municipal Councils in 2000, the Administration has not strengthened the functions of DCs as per its undertaking. The Democratic Party considers it necessary to confer on DCs statutory powers to manage cultural and recreational matters as well as environmental hygiene facilities.

In the consultation document on district organizations published by the Government in 1998, the Government mentioned that after the dissolution of the two Municipal Councils, their original duties and functions would be split and transferred to Policy Bureaux and government departments. Back then there were already voices in the districts calling for strengthening of the functions of DCs by, for instance, allowing DCs to take part in the management of district facilities, transferring the functions of the two Municipal Councils to DCs direct, or giving DCs substantive policy-making powers in district affairs in such aspects as transport, planning of housing, and so on. There were these calls in society at that time.

I have reviewed the documents and found that back in 1998, the then Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Michael SUEN said in the Legislative Council, " … some Members asked whether we would consider the possibility of enhancing the status and role of District Councils. I can only say that we do not 1370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 rule out such a possibility. But I cannot say that the Government has arrived at any positive views in this respect, nor can I say that the Government has already drawn up any timetable. But here I can assure Members that we will continue to explore this issue as an ongoing concern." So this shows how the entire Legislative Council or the pro-establishment Members in support of the "scrapping of the two Municipal Councils" back then have been badly betrayed by him. In fact, the Government mentioned subsequently in 2001 and 2006 that powers would be devolved to DCs to strengthen its role in management. The Government has invariably said that DCs and DC members would be allowed to have greater participation in the policymaking process but in reality it has always failed to honour its promise. The Government has invariably said that DC members would be given powers of management to enhance their role in management but all that has been done is setting up a committee, the aim of which is to keep in view district facilities, not to manage district facilities. I think this is basically an attempt to fool this Council.

Moreover, earlier on some colleagues mentioned the secretariats of DCs. I wish to emphasize once again that without an independent secretariat to help the work of DC members or DCs as a whole and if they are subject to control by the Government or District Officers in all aspects, it would be difficult for DCs to perform the role of monitoring and advising the Government.

Furthermore, Members have talked more about the question of funding earlier, and since Mr KWOK Wai-keung has talked about it, I would like to say something, too. I do not mean to target colleagues from any particular party or grouping, but I think the use of public funds has to be monitored in all cases, and whether from the studies conducted by Power for Democracy in districts or the in-depth reports made by Ming Pao Daily News, we learnt that many colleagues have concurrently taken up two roles in respect of funding, that is, a person, being a member of the committee for approving funding applications, approved funding for his own organization or even in some extreme cases, he approved funding for the organization chaired by himself. President, do you think that this is appropriate? Therefore, I think even though the direction of Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion may be correct, in the absence of monitoring (The buzzer sounded) …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WAN, please stop speaking.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1371

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): … we will oppose it.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, I support Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion which proposes strengthening the role and functions of District Councils ("DCs"). I also extend my thanks to all the fellow DC members of the pro-establishment camp for their dedication and efforts in district work in Hong Kong in the past.

President, just now a number of Honourable colleagues, especially Members of the opposition camp, made comments in their speeches which were detached from reality and a lot of incorrect criticisms of DC members. Here I express my anger.

I have served as an elected member of Kwun Tong District Council for 17 years. All along, we have emphasized that DC members play an important role in the districts. In implementing district administration, the Government has also stressed that DC members who work in the front line in districts can understand public sentiments and reflect public opinions the best. Just now a number of Members mentioned the seasonal delicacies. I would like to say that such offers are not something that only the pro-establishment camp will do. If Members care to take a look, they will find that actually, the opposition camp are even more vigorous than us in making such offers …

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, President, President … President, good morning.

I have a point of order. Article 75 of the Basic Law stipulates that the quorum of a meeting shall not be less than half of the Members. The number of Members here is far short of that. Will you please ask those Members of the pro-establishment camp to come back.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

1372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Wilson OR, please continue with your speech.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): I thank Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung again for inviting all the Honourable colleagues to return here to continue to listen to our debate.

Just now I was saying, all along the Home Affairs Bureau has indicated that DC is the major partner of the Special Administrative Region Government in implementing district administration. I would like to emphasize that DC members are well versed in local affairs and public opinions. In the past, we have facilitated the development of a lot of community facilities through frequent communication with different government departments and extensive collection of views. For example, in my constituency Kwun Tong, such development includes reprovisioning the community hall on Sau Ming Road and building a market for Choi Tak Estate, Choi Fook Estate and Choi Ying Estate. All these are the consensus reached after comprehensive collection of public opinions by DC members in the district. Hence, I believe the functions of DC members need to be enhanced.

Another point I would like to make is, apart from effectively promoting the work of DC members, I think the authorities must provide more support for policy research. For example, in Kwun Tong, the amount currently available for policy research is small. In a policy research involving the whole district, the relevant subjects include the problems of traffic congestion, health care services and barrier-free facilities in Kwun Tong. Each subject warrants research with a lot of efforts and time, but the existing resources are rather limited. For this reason, I urge the Administration to enhance the support for DC members in this regard so that these problems can be resolved in a timely manner and also handled in scientific ways.

President, I would like to talk further about one of the items in the motion, which is "strengthening the role of District Officers in district coordination". I consider it necessary to enhance the functions and power of District Officers because, as we can see now, the functions and power of District Officers are limited. When an issue involves different government departments, since different Policy Bureaux have different views or the officials of the departments have their own views, these senior officers' mindset often makes it impossible for the matter to proceed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1373

Let me cite an example. All along, we have proposed constructing a barrier-free facility at Exit A of Lam Tin MTR Station, but this matter involves different Policy Bureaux and departments in the discussion in the district. Although our District Officer has already made a lot of efforts, this problem remains unsolved.

Just now Mr HO Kai-ming mentioned another issue concerning the management of morning walk trails. When a trail runs into the boundary of another district, that area will fall under the management of the government department in that district. Hence, DCs are often unable to play their role effectively in coordination, allocation of funds and support. Another frustration is that very often, when Government land is involved and there is a need to deal with cleaning problems or mosquito infestation on Government land, nothing can be done because each government department has its own policy. For this reason, I think the Administration should review the role of District Officers again and examine if it can confer more power on them so that they can reflect the views of the districts more effectively in a timely manner. Apart from enhancing the role of District Officers, the coordination of district work can also be strengthened to further develop district administration. I believe this is something the Government must consider and needs to handle.

President, a further point is, in this situation, we emphasize that it is necessary for the Administration to expeditiously deal with the problem of functions of DC members. Having been engaged in DC work for 17 years, I fully understand that DC members currently serve in the districts as an important bridge of communication between the Government and members of the public. When problems arise, many people will approach DC members in the first instance. DC members can not only offer them assistance of varying degrees but also directly relay their views to the Government. Let me cite an example. Around 10 o'clock last night, I received a call from a resident who told me that some strange smell was coming out from a flat near his home. He could not find anyone to help, so he contacted me as an DC member. Eventually, we helped him contact the Police. It was discovered that an elderly person had passed away in the flat for a period of time. In this case, I consider the role played by DC members in the districts greatly important.

President, I hope we will receive from the Administration a positive response to the motion today. I also hope we will hear goods news from the Administration in a while.

President, I so submit.

1374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I thank Mr LAU Kwok-fan for proposing the original motion. Colleagues from the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") and I consider that its proposals are positive. We agree in principle that the Government should enhance the support to District Councils ("DCs") and DC members.

Concerning the role and functions of DCs, I have personal experience and understanding of them. From the reunification of Hong Kong in 1997 to the end of 2011, I was a Member of the Sha Tin DC and had remained so for fourteen and a half years. I cherish this opportunity which enabled me to make use of my professional engineering knowledge to serve the community, take forward improvement works on district facilities, promote industrial and commercial developments in the district, organize large-scale events in the district, and participate in the financial and administrative work of the DC. During this period of time, my participation in many community organizations and activities enabled me to understand the living of the grass-roots people and take part in promoting harmony in the community. Through my work in the DC, I was able to participate in social affairs extensively and persistently, from which I have accumulated diversified experience, enriched my exposure and broadened my horizons. It also enabled me to deeply understand that the business and professional sectors are inextricably linked with society and the people's livelihood and that professionals can make contribution to the improvement of the people's lot. This has laid a more solid foundation for me to subsequently strive to serve society through this platform of the Legislative Council. I believe Honourable colleagues who have been DC members before may have similar feelings and experience. Obviously, the role and functions of DCs do not only facilitate community development but are also conducive to nurturing and maintaining a pool of talents for the political arena and for ruling Hong Kong.

President, according to the arrangement for the political structure in the Basic Law, DCs are not organs of political power, and they are consulted by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") on district administration and other affairs, or responsible for providing services in such fields as culture, recreation and environmental sanitation.

After the reunification of Hong Kong in 1997, DCs have undergone a series of momentous changes. First, their representativeness has been enhanced. Second, financial provisions and administrative support for DCs have seen continuous enhancement. The provisions for DCs are incorporated into the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1375

Government's General Revenue Account under Head 63 Home Affairs Department. In the 2013 Policy Address, for instance, it was announced that $100 million was earmarked for each district to implement the Signature Project Scheme ("SPS"). Meanwhile, an additional annual funding of $20.8 million will be provided for community involvement programmes in the next five financial years starting from 2015-2016 to further strengthen the support for promoting arts and cultural activities in the districts. As regards the pilot scheme implemented in Sham Shui Po and Yuen Long first in 2014, it is announced this year that the scheme, which is renamed as District-led Actions Scheme, will be extended to all the 18 districts in Hong Kong. An annual recurrent funding of $63 million will be earmarked for it while the relevant manpower support in District Offices will also be enhanced. Besides, the funding for the District Minor Works Programme is a dedicated block grant for DCs to propose and approve minor works in the districts. The provision for this financial year is $340 million.

Certainly, given increasing public demands for community development and public expectations for DCs, all sectors of the community should seriously consider how a review can be conducted in a timely manner of the financial and administrative support provided by the SAR Government to strengthen the supervision of DCs in policy implementation and district affairs. The BPA has consulted the 20 DC members of the BPA on this issue. They basically support the existing funding mechanism of DCs. However, the requirement to follow the guidelines on funding of the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") may sometimes compromise flexibility. In this connection, it is necessary to appropriately enhance the power of financial allocation of DCs. They also support an extension of the District-led Actions Scheme but are concerned about whether there can be effective coordination among various government departments after its extension to all the 18 districts in the territory.

President, the BPA cannot agree with Dr Fernando CHEUNG's criticisms of the SPS in his amendment. We consider that he has brushed aside the efforts and collaboration made by various sectors in the community over the years. The projects that he pinpointed in his criticisms are actually the results of many rounds of studies, discussion and consultation conducted by DCs and members of the community. Mainstream consensuses have been forged and then approval sought from the DCs before relevant projects are submitted to the Legislative Council for funding approval. Now that these projects are blocked in this Council, it has indeed made members of the community feel helpless and indignant.

1376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Mr WU Chi-wai proposed in his amendment that the powers of staff management and making policy decisions be enhanced for DCs. The BPA has reservations about this. We consider that if each DC is given powers of making policy decisions, some members may uphold the views of some people in their constituency to the neglect of the overall interests of the entire district and even Hong Kong as a whole. Policy confusions may easily arise and coordination among the relevant departments would also be difficult. As for the so-called powers of staff management of DCs, operation could be rendered difficult too. At present, DCs do not have their own executive arm and their secretariats are part of the civil service establishment under HAD. It is impractical for DCs to directly hire a secretariat to take charge of the work of staff appointment and management.

As regards Mr HUI Chi-fung's amendment, DCs are, after all, not organs of political power. Their advisory role has all along been proven effective, and under the District-led Actions Scheme, the decision-making power has been given to the District Management Committees chaired by District Officers. District Officers are even made responsible for communication between the districts and various Policy Bureaux and departments. Although this role still needs enhancement, it is indeed unnecessary to introduce District Commissioners to be returned by election of universal suffrage. The BPA also opposes his proposal of abolishing the ex-officio seats in DCs. The incumbent ex-officio members, who represent their respective rural committees, carry important representativeness.

President, I so submit.

DR YIU CHUNG-YIM (in Cantonese): President, regarding the motion on "Strengthening the role and functions of District Councils" proposed by Mr LAU kwok-fan, there are two important points which I need to discuss with Honourable colleagues, and they include, on the one hand, we should enhance the powers of District Councils ("DCs"), but on the other, we must step up the monitoring of DCs to prevent them from holding excessive powers without being subject to regulation, and preventing them from merely conducting consultations without fulfilling the residents' wishes.

Regarding powers, the enhancement of the powers of DCs to achieve district administration in a bottom-up approach involves three aspects. First, it is necessary to vest DCs with the powers of staff management, financial LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1377 autonomy and making policy decisions, allowing DCs to manage municipal facilities and services in the districts. An independent DC secretariat should also be set up to strengthen the support for them. As a matter of fact, now problems of building maintenance and bid rigging have emerged one after another in various districts. Every time an owners' corporation ("OC") seeks assistance from the Home Affairs Bureau, the reply is that the Home Affairs Bureau does not have any statutory power to intervene in the problem of building maintenance encountered by the relevant housing estate or community, thus creating a dark vacuum in which no organization has any power to help the OC or community concerned to improve the relevant facilities or resolve the problem of building maintenance. If we can confer power on DCs to set up in each district a professional team consisting of architects, surveyors, planners, landscape architects and engineers, as well as social workers, we will have direct statutory power to support and assist the local communities in achieving social integration and dealing with problems of building maintenance in each district. In this way, the direction of development of the whole community will also be supported by a team of professional consultants. It will be much better than the present situation of complete reliance on the efforts of private parties while the Home Affairs Bureau fails to offer any assistance.

On the powers of an OC, under the Building Management Ordinance, now an OC holds powers without being monitored. For example, there are many complaints about OCs being suspected of forgery in obtaining power of attorney, but the Home Affairs Bureau often merely replies that it does not have any statutory power to intervene. It seems no one can monitor the operation of OCs. Hence, if DCs can be vested with powers to monitor OCs, it can make OCs work more impartially and selflessly and prevent any unscrupulous bodies from fishing for any gains in OCs.

Nevertheless, after DCs are vested with such powers, we must also step up the monitoring of DCs, including raising the existing requirements for disclosure and declaration of interests by DC members. If there is any conflict of interests when matters relating to funding are under discussion, the DC members concerned must withdraw from the meeting because a number of cases of suspected conflicts of interests involving DC members have taken place before. Such monitoring efforts will become all the more important after DCs are given more powers in the future.

1378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Second, DCs must be transparent and disclose their documents so that the public can monitor DCs and DC members more easily. This brooks no delay. In fact, we have found that many DCs did not set out their expenditures in a systematic manner. If members of the public wish to check the relevant expenditures of an DC in its past terms, they will have to act on their own like detectives and trace the documents one by one. Only then can they roughly deduce the breakdown of various expenditure items of the DC. Hence, now we cannot say there is any degree of transparency allowing the public to monitor DCs conveniently.

Third, the monitoring work should be conducted in a bottom-up approach. There should be public engagement and joint discussions about the estimates. Now DCs often draw up the relevant estimates of expenditures, funding and programmes internally on their own. Even though they claim that consultation has been carried out, actually there is no direct public participation. For this reason, we have directly discussed the budget with members of the public in the districts before in deciding which projects should be financed and what the amounts should be, so that DCs can achieve public engagement in a bottom-up approach.

Hence, we initially support increasing the powers of DCs, but at the same time we need to step up the monitoring efforts. Thank you.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I am pleased to have heard today that Members from different political parties and groupings very much support strengthening the duties and scope of responsibilities of District Councils ("DC").

President, today, to a certain extent, we are "recovering debts". Why? Because I was a Member of the last Urban Council ("UC"). When the Government "scrapped the Municipal Councils", we strongly disagreed. In fact, I wrote to the then Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, on 10 September 1998, suggesting that the Government should consider merging the two Municipal Councils to take charge of environmental hygiene, local arts and culture, and so on. At that time, I received a reply from Mr TUNG stating that they would consider transferring some of the powers to DC. More than 10 years have passed, yet it has been all smoke but no fire, for specific policies are still nowhere to be seen.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1379

Back then, the subjects of concern and discussion in UC were related to public health, culture and recreation, community environment improvement and local transport, which were closely related to the living environment of the people. Urban Councillors received such information the earliest and might be capable of making improvements expeditiously. However, since the "scrapping" of UC, these powers were handed over to the Home Affairs Bureau and Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD"). What problems arose from that? The major problem we see is that local hygiene condition is deteriorating. I am not complaining about Dr KO in his absence. Just that the scope is too broad to cover. There are problems with rats, mosquitoes and refuse on the streets. In Kowloon West District, for example, I have received complaints from residents about rubbish piling up in the middle of the street at night. When traders opened for business the next day, the rubbish was still in the middle of the street. No FEHD staff came to clean up. This is a very small problem which has dragged on for more than a year, and it remains unresolved to date. All that DC Members can do is to continue to write to relevant authorities and seek the help of Legislative Council Members. Unfortunately, the problem still remains unresolved.

In addition, many photos can be found on the Internet and in newpapers regarding the cleanliness of local restaurants and back lanes where it is dirty and full of rats. There are more and more garbage bins on the streets nowadays, but there are also more and more garbage and rats, mainly because there is food in the garbage.

In fact, we understand that the functions of the previous UC could not be handed over to DCs wholesale, but I believe the Government should gradually consider this approach or hand over the work on environmental hygiene to DCs. As DC Members visit the districts on a daily basis, once they find a problem, they can report to the responsible secretariat or committee immediately. They can respond more quickly without having to report to one tier after another. I believe environmental hygiene is an issue of concern to everyone in Hon Kong, especially since there is an increasing number of diseases nowadays. We do not want these pests, rodents and mosquitoes to spread diseases, causing health problems to the public.

Dr KO is not present today, but I believe it is not objectionable for Secretary LAU Kong-wah to convey our views and discuss them with Dr KO. Dr KO may be very happy and even give the Secretary a hug, so I hope the Secretary will convey our views. 1380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

As regards the "community building fund" proposed by Mr LAU Kwok-fan, I believe it is very much worthy of examination. As for how the powers and responsibilities of the fund should be regulated, I think it can be studied. Just now, Mr YIU also expressed the view that it can be studied. It is also a good thing to give more work to DC Members, right?

Nevertheless, the speeches of two Members just now were a bit unpleasant, namely those of Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr KWOK Ka-ki. Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion has clearly stated that the fund will be used for community building and local work, but not for "seasonal delicacies". They did not read the documents and thought it will be used for "seasonable delicacies", and could not wait to say that they do not like "seasonable delicacies", cautioning against using the fund for Cantonese opera performances or day trips. Here, I would like to tell Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr KWOK Ka-ki clearly this: You did not serve elderly people often enough. I was visiting the district during the last election when a young man told me: Dr CHIANG, I may not vote for you, but I will certainly support the local DC Members. I asked him why. He said he was grateful to the DC Members for often keeping his elderly parents company, bringing them to Cantonese opera performances and day trips. He said it is something he is not able to do now. From this we can see, many things that you did not do, we took over. Please do not smear others―quibble, I wanted to say. I suppose this is not abusive―please do not quibble and smear others. We will continue to serve the elderly in the districts in our own capacity (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, I support Mr LAU Kwok-fan's original motion. Usually I am not necessarily a "yes-man", but on seeing good things, I would say "Yes". Not only should we treasure good things, we should also keep on building a solid foundation.

I recall that at the end of the last century, the Urban Council and the Regional Council were dissolved. At that time, it was meant to streamline the overlapped system of administration in delivery of services to the people. And a decision was made, even though there were pros and cons, and after that, we have been moving steadily in the direction of strengthening the role and functions of District Councils ("DCs"). Recently we heard the Chief Executive say in his policy address that district matters should be tackled by the locals in the districts, so in effect the functions of DCs have been enhanced. And all of these are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1381 pointing in the direction of alleviating people's hardship. Nowadays, the public can receive information instantly, so they cannot put up with any delay even just one second's delay in policy implementation, so efforts have to be stepped up. I believe enhancement of the role and functions of DCs and strengthening the role of coordinator played by District Officers will indeed help Hong Kong people and alleviate grievances in the districts.

As I said just now, we do not want any overlapped structure, but very often, we see that despite the conduct of meetings after meetings in DCs, and also a lot of consultations within the Government, losing a lot of time in this course, the problems of the people cannot be solved. So I think it is most desirable for the District Officers to play the coordination role. District Officers in the 18 districts are like "mini-Chief Executives", whereas DCs also offer an ideal training ground. Certainly I do not subscribe to the view, as espoused by some Members that such District Officers should be returned by popular elections. Such a view is way off the mark. So if only we can make the best use of the existing roles, structures and functions, we can achieve our goals. I think we should strengthen the coordination role of District Officers. The Secretary is present today. And in this connection, District Officers should be required to report to us when they have completed their tasks in the districts, for only in this way can high efficiency be achieved. Therefore, these two things must be done.

As for monitoring, I absolutely agree that there must be transparency. Nowadays, all things are transparent. We have systems for declaration of interests, and since the DCs already have such a system, I do not feel concerned about this. DCs serve to monitor the Government. The principle of executive-led government should be implemented in each district, so that our District Officers can have more powers to undertake their tasks.

There is a most obvious problem now. In Tuen Mun alone, we have 300 to 400 owners' corporations ("OCs"). Whenever we have an OC meeting, even though it is attended by staff from the Home Affairs Department, the performance of such staff varies. Some of them may be well versed in the issues and can offer assistance and express their views in the meetings, but most of them remain quiet in the corner, so quiet that, we even do not know their presence. In this way, the role they play is very small. But let us not forget that housing estates are the building blocks in the districts and they are managed by the OCs, so if the matters are not handled properly, the situation will deteriorate and cause a lot of problems to accumulate in the districts, so we should take a preventive approach 1382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 and tackle the problems at an early stage. Therefore, if we can enhance the role of District Officers, this will indeed benefit a lot of people. I think this is an aspect that warrants attention.

I have just heard views about an increase in renumerations. It is hard to determine the amount of renumeration, the kind of needs to satisfy and the sort of talents to recruit. It varies from one person to another. As DC members, we are talents ourselves, so we should do our own job well. If we have to employ or commission a lot of people to help us, then there would be no end of this. I think the renumeration currently is adequate, most appropriate, and the allowances for rent and other aspects are also adequate. But as members, we should monitor our own performance and reflect on ourselves. In this Chamber, do we have to resort to headcounts every time, is it right? I understand that very often we have a multiple of meetings at the same time, then it is a problem of coordination. First of all, what do we expect of our performance? The current level of our renumeration and allowance is enough, but for training in the future, I think it is something we need to consider.

Now, I would like to talk about rural matters. The Home Affairs Department makes a provision of $9,680 only per year. If DC members said that some tens of thousands of dollars is not enough, the village representatives only get an honorarium of $9,680 each, equivalent to $2,420 per quarter and they have to take care of a lot of villagers and residents, is that enough? So we should consider reviewing such situation in the rural areas as well, apart from making improvement to the DCs.

As for the use of JP ("Justice of Peace"), is JP just nominal in nature or can we enhance their functions? I think it can be done in two aspects. The first is to enhance their powers of deliberation and adjudication and the second is to allow JPs to play a mediation role so that they can help solve district issues and tackle the backlog of court cases. Currently, the Judiciary deals with 520 000 cases per annum, from the Court of Final Appeal to the Magistrates' Courts. There are a lot of cases. Public grievances should be resolved right at the beginning, and so it is desirable to enhance the coordinator role of District Officers and enhance the functions and monitoring role of DCs. At the same time, we should tackle the rural situation and JPs as well.

Thank you. I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1383

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion on strengthening the functions and role of District Councils ("DCs"). I strongly agree with the points raised by Mr LAU in the motion, especially those about enabling DC members to have greater participation in district development and during the process of formulating various policies, strengthening the supervision of DCs over policy implementation and district affairs, and the third point about enhancing the support to DCs and DC members. More importantly, he has mentioned that there are currently many projects left behind by the former Urban Council and Regional Council in the districts which are yet to be realized by the Government. For this reason, he has proposed establishing a "community building fund" in the hope that these community facilities already approved by DCs, as well as the projects of the former Urban Council and Regional Council, will be implemented expeditiously. I fully support this. In my view, not only can this approach help DCs but also assist the Government in improving its administration.

Hence, today we should discuss how best to enhance the functions of DCs and which functions to enhance, rather than whether these functions should be enhanced. Yet regrettably, some Members in this Chamber of ours always like to elevate every question to the political plane and slam everything at every turn. For example, just now I heard Dr Fernando CHEUNG―now he is not present―claim that DC members practised cronyism at work and colluded with mutual aid committees in the housing estates, alleging that DC members sought to obtain resources from DCs to benefit mutual aid committees, while mutual aid committees exploited the resources obtained from DCs to support DC members in return.

President, I consider this a most serious accusation smearing DC members. It is also a kind of smear to many mutual aid committees. As a matter of fact, one of the duties of DC members is to communicate with members of the public. As mutual aid committees are frontline residents' organizations, what problem is there with their communication with each other? I do not see any problem at all, President.

In fact, I have just browsed the Facebook page of a DC member of the Civic Party, who said in December last year that he had assisted in the forming of a mutual aid committee. Can I say similarly that the DC member of the Civic Party practised cronyism and colluded with the mutual aid committee? I will not say that, President. On the contrary, I think this DC member of the Civic 1384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Party was doing his job. Hence, I consider that Dr Fernando CHEUNG should tender apologies to all the DC members, especially those of his own party, and mutual aid committees later.

Furthermore, just now Dr Fernando CHEUNG said that for the sake of obtaining resources, some DC members made use of the Government's signature project of $100 million to do what they themselves wanted to do and were involved in transfer of benefits. He cited the Lam Tsuen Wishing Square as an example and claimed that no consultation had been conducted for the project, which was a black-box operation involving transfer of benefits. President, I need to take this opportunity to make a clarification again. The so-called black-box operation with no consultation is a totally unfounded accusation, since the consultation exercise for the Lam Tsuen Wishing Square was discussed by the DC with participation by DC members of the pan-democratic camp. The DC member of the Democratic Party voted in favour of the project of Lam Tsuen Wishing Square. The DC member of Neo Democrats is even a member of the Partnering Organization Vetting Committee for Lam Tsuen Wishing Square. Given the participation by pan-democrat DC members, how can it be a black-box operation? How is there no consultation? If that is the case, the Democratic Party and Neo Democrats have colluded with each other. This point must be made clear.

Moreover, he said there was transfer of benefits. This was also sheer fabrication. All the members of the Vetting Committee and the Management Committee are volunteers without any remuneration. Even if the Wishing Square should make any money, such money must be returned for use by the Management Committee. No committee members can pocket a penny. Being a Member of the Civic Party, Dr Fernando CHEUNG has failed to sort out such a simple system of declaration of interests. No wonder former Member, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, did not make any declaration for his receipt of $500,000 "dark money" from Jimmy LAI. He said he had merely "pocketed it first". President, this fully demonstrates that the Civic Party will only be harsh to others but lenient to itself. It has even smeared our DC members.

President, I do not wish to dwell on it any further. I only wish to say that I support Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion today because I support the development of democracy in the districts. As a matter of fact, a number of Honourable colleagues in the Legislative Council used to be DC members. I myself was a DC member, too. The Secretary has also served as a DC member before. I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1385 believe he understands very well how the functions of DCs can be enhanced in order to assist DC members in resolving problems in the districts and enable the Government to implement policies more effectively.

Hence, I hope Members will put aside political disputes and stop the meaningless attacks so that Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion can be passed smoothly, with a view to strengthening the functions and role of DCs.

President, I so submit.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr LAU Kwok-fan for proposing his motion today. Just now many Honourable colleagues have made a lot of good proposals regarding how the role and functions of District Councils ("DCs") can be reformed and strengthened. I do not intend to make any supplement, for I just wish to focus my discussion on the role DCs can play in the arts and cultural aspects.

President, the existing cultural policy still remains within the framework laid down by the Culture and Heritage Commission in 2003. Many culture-related activities and planning are devised top-down with the entire Hong Kong as the service target. Over the years, an enormous number of cultural programmes has been organized by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD"). Its programme line-up is based mainly on the need of the whole Hong Kong so that cultural programmes come in a great variety catering for the needs of different people. However, such an arrangement has rendered cultural programmes in various districts similar and lacking local characteristics.

There is an absence of a platform and communication mechanism in the community for stakeholders to express their views. Cooperation does exist between LCSD district managers and local arts and cultural groups but no policy has been formulated in this regard; and the two parties lack any development concept or related powers to coordinate their work. Cultural workers in the communities experience the same problem. For example, a number of cultural workers have moved into factory buildings in industrial areas in Fo Tan, Kwun Tong and San Po Kong. However, due to the lack of communication channels, these cultural workers have relatively little connection with the community. Without overall planning and coordination, all stakeholders and organizations often just work on their own in promoting cultural initiatives in the communities, 1386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 with most of them failing to take root in the neighbourhood to increase the total viewership of arts and culture and expand the consumer population. It is not conducive to creating an environment for the healthy and sustainable growth of arts and culture.

President, the development of arts and culture should start small and grow big with its beginning in the communities. Particularly, we can establish a position of commissioner for culture in each of the 18 DCs to take charge of coordination and leading initiatives. Considering the local characteristics and needs in district, the commissioners can maintain close contact with DCs to jointly plan and implement local arts and cultural activities in the districts, as well as assuming the role of a contact person among the arts and cultural sector, community, schools, local organizations, government departments and shop operators, with a view to facilitating collaboration in the communities, enriching the local cultural ambience and arts and cultural life and forging local characteristics, thus enhancing the appeal of the communities while helping build a sense of belonging among residents.

The commissioners for culture in various districts can also explore the possibility of cooperation with other districts to create a greater variety of cultural activities and strengthen the connection between different communities. It can thus provide more opportunities for the people to participate in arts and culture, stimulate their interest in and appreciation of the same and create a favourable atmosphere for arts and culture. On the other hand, the local commissioners for culture can, depending on the local conditions, assume the role of a facilitator in helping the connection of cultural groups with the communities and their expansion of network. All in all, they should use the aforesaid means to enlarge the participant population of arts and culture and create an environment for the healthy and sustainable growth of arts and culture.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

DC members can perform their function of connecting communities in DCs and closely cooperate with the local commissioners for culture to assume the dual role of facilitator cum supervisor responsible for making policy and initiative suggestions, giving advice on the cultural activities and plans in the communities and formulating a goal for local cultural development. Moreover, based on their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1387 understanding of the communities, DC members can also actively identify suitable public spaces in the communities to promote cooperation between the communities and arts and cultural groups, thus encouraging local creativity and better use of these spaces by arts groups. As regards conservation of heritage and culture, a list of monuments and heritage items or projects worth promotion can be compiled by DC members and commissioners for culture in various districts, which will be subject to regular supervision. Timely presentation of proposals for conservation and promotional schemes will also be made to increase management effectiveness, display the cultural characteristics of the communities and enhance their appeal.

Deputy President, Hong Kong is a multicultural society where different communities carry different cultural flavours. Such an aspect merits promotion so that cultural development can take root in the communities, giving people more opportunities to come into contact with and participate in arts and culture. DCs serve as the best platform for further promotion of arts and culture in the communities.

Deputy President, I agree with the proposals made in the original motion for strengthening the powers of DC members, DCs and District Officers to formulate policies, supervise district affairs and carry out coordination among districts. However, I wish to point out that establishing the position of commissioner for culture will be even more conducive to development. Amendments made by some Members propose amendments to the District Councils Ordinance and the District Council Standing Orders. I agree with increasing transparency but consideration of this should be made only after a review is conducted and a consensus sought. Similarly, some amendments call for the abolition of ex-officio seats in DCs, which I believe a decision should be made only after thorough discussion and a consensus forged. Therefore, I will not support these amendments.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please speak.

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

1388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, according to Article 75 of the Basic Law, the quorum for the meeting of the Legislative Council should exceed half of all Members. I believe the number of Members present now falls far short of the quorum.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the title of the motion today is: "Strengthening the role and functions of District Councils". After all, we are talking about power distribution between the central and districts, that is, the approaches to handling power distribution between the SAR Government and local councils.

Let us do a recap of history. District Boards were set up in the 1980s as a showcase of democracy, being an advisory framework without power. Back then, during the Sino-British negotiations, the British wanted to tell the world that they would develop democracy in Hong Kong. In the long term, such an arrangement created a weird status for District Board members and District Boards, where members returned by democratic election were not given any power but only an advisory role. I will go into the details in this aspect later on.

Actually, looking at the history of Hong Kong, between the setting up of District Boards in the 1980s and the "scrapping" of the two Municipal Councils in 2000―the dissolution of the former Urban Council and the Regional Council, we can see that Beijing's ideology in governing Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty was to ensure further concentration of powers and to rally all decision-making powers further in the hands of the executive authorities, here in Admiralty, so that District Councils ("DCs") would continue to serve as "a vase showcasing democracy".

Back then, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") and many members from the pro-establishment camp supported the decision of "scrapping" the two Municipal Councils. Hence, when LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1389

Members put forth a motion, I hope they will think thoroughly about the views they have on the power distribution between central and district authorities. Members should not act inconsistently. They should not support the "scrapping" of the two Municipal Councils at one time, that is, supporting the concentration of powers and rallying of more power in Admiralty, and request the devolution of more powers to DCs at another

The original motion proposed by Mr LAU Kwok-fan from the DAB covers many details, yet they are minor and insignificant patch-ups. For instance, he requests the authorities to pay more attention to their views, to increase funds and to increase the powers of District Officers. As for colleagues from the Democratic Party, they are more aggressive. They propose that the authorities should devolve more powers to DCs, as in the case of the former Urban Council. They propose to return to the "Urban Council" era by giving powers to DCs so that the latter can perform most of the functions vested in the former Urban Council.

Yet I have an even bolder idea. Since this is a motion with no legislative effect, we may be more audacious in conceiving how the political system in Hong Kong should be restructured, so that Hong Kong may make more progress in central and district administration.

Members may look at the population in each of the 18 DC districts. The smallest population is 200 000 and the largest reaches 600 000. In many countries around the world, this is the population size of a medium-scale city. If we examine ways to develop district democracy further, we should set up 18 small cities in Hong Kong. Each of these 18 cities should have a mayor and a district council or city council vested with powers. They should be given opportunities to share powers and resources with the central authorities in terms of housing, medical care, education, home affairs and recreation, and so on. In this way, political talents in Hong Kong may really learn how funds should be expended and how decisions can be made on policies that can be implemented starting from the district level.

What is the lamentation of DC members today? Dr Fernando CHEUNG has mentioned in his speech that there is a genuine need to strengthen monitoring, for the problem of offering seasonal delicacies is prevalent, and there are many similar cases of transfer of benefits. I would say I understand full well why DCs 1390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 and DC members in Hong Kong have degenerated to this pass. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Yet, the unofficial powers now vested in DCs in Hong Kong has placed DC members in an embarrassed position.

Why would there be offers of seasonal delicacies? It is exactly because DC members have no authority to make decisions on district matters. Why would they do all the flattering and fawning to government officials? It is because they lack powers. Actually, DC members have no authority to press government officials to implement policies as per their instructions. Even in following up a minor case, they have to pander to the whims of government officials and see whether the latter will "let go".

This is the ecology of DCs, the reason for the fundamental circumstances we see today. Hence, to Dr Fernando CHEUNG's proposal for "monitor District Councils and to strengthen the monitoring work further", I will definitely render my support. After all, we should enable DCs to become councils with real powers, for only by doing so can we truly monitor DCs.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan said something to this effect earlier, "We should support the development of democracy at the district level together". I very much agree with this. Back then, the DAB had the former Urban Council and Regional Council "scrapped" by mistake, I hope they now have the courage to take a step forward for the politics in Hong Kong by requesting Beijing to exercise power devolution, so that people engaging in politics, be they in the pro-establishment camp or the democratic camp, may truly act as decision makers. I look forward to working together to enable the implementation of a genuine reform in district administration instead of those minor and insignificant changes.

DR LAU SIU-LAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, if District Council ("DC") members are sincere in serving the public and if DC members are subject to monitoring under the system, ensuring that they will serve the public truly for the interests of the public, I will definitely support strengthening the role and functions of DCs. Yet, what have we seen DCs doing in recent years? They have been suppressing the people's livelihood.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1391

The first example is the Kweilin Night Market in Shum Shui Po. It has been subject to ruthless suppression. The public simply want to immerse in the festive atmosphere for a few days during the Chinese New Year, while the hawkers seek to earn a living and be self-reliant, but they are subject to severe suppression. Who should be held accountable for this problem? It is the pro-establishment camp, for the DC members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") have been vehemently advocating the swiping out of hawkers. Last week, a forum was held by the Concerning CSSA & Low Income Alliance ("the Alliance") and the Neighbourhood and Worker's Services Centre, at which staff members from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and hawkers were invited to have dialogue. At the forum, staff members from FEHD disclosed that certain DC members had given strong instructions and requests for the removal of hawkers, preventing grass-roots from earning their own living and the public from enjoying the festive atmosphere during the Chinese New Year.

There are other notorious examples, including the music fountain in Kwun Tong and the "Tiananmen Square" in Lam Tsuen, Tai Po. The DCs concerned had hastily spent tens of million dollars on construction projects not related to people's livelihood. Despite the opposition of local residents, these DC members insisted on such construction projects. The music fountain in Kwun Tong is an obvious example. Age of Resistance, the organization to which I used to belong, echoed the call from the Kowloon East Community to call on residents in Kwun Tong to express their views. They eventually received around 7 000 signatures expressing strong opposition to the construction of the useless music fountain. Yet, how did the DC respond to this call? They remained bent on having their way, insisting that the construction of the music fountain was necessary and supported by the public. This project was strongly supported by DC members from the pro-establishment camp and pro-government camp.

Recently, there is this case involving a temporary garden in Cadogan Street. Many residents have expressed an earnest call for the preservation of the garden, which is the only open space in the district, for the ratio of open space to population in Kennedy Town and Mount Davis district is very low. However, members of the Central and Western District Council are indifferent about this. Only Mr HUI Chi-fung cares about the needs of the public. These are the deeds 1392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 of DCs dominated by the pro-establishment camp in recent years. They have been acting against public opinions. They have never made protection of public interests their primary task.

Why would this happen? We discover that though DCs are composed of members returned by democratic elections on the surface, an extremely poor system is hidden in this. The qualifications of electors are not as simple as we think. Many occupants in residential homes for the elderly do not know that they have registered as electors. On the polling day, they will be shipped by coaches to polling stations cast their votes, and they will be taught to vote for the candidate under a certain number. On ordinary days, seasonal delicacies will be served to these elder persons to please them. Nonetheless, after electors have cast their votes for these DC members, they will do things to stifle people's livelihood. Just now, Mr HO Kai-ming even considered the seasonal delicacies he provided were less than luxury.

On the other hand, there are some enigmas in the demarcation of constituencies. The 18 DCs are composed of a dozen to 20 small constituencies, yet we discover that the demarcation of constituencies is quite arbitrary. Take King's Park in Yau Tsim Mong District as an example. No change has taken place in the constituency for many years. Yet after LAM Kin-man from the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood was elected in the by-election in 2013, the Electoral Affairs Commission divided the constituency into three different constituencies. Why? For when one of the divided constituencies was combined with East Tsim Sha Tsui, the votes supporting the pro-establishment camp in that constituency will significantly exceed those supporting the democratic camp.

As a result of these technical manipulations, the pro-government camp can secure control of DCs in Hong Kong. What have they done after gaining control over the powers and institutions of DCs? They do backroom deals on funds allocation. In the investigation conducted by Ming Pao Daily News last year, it was found that funds in eight districts were allocated to certain designated district organizations, and the amount involved was as much as $7 million. However, the core members of these so-called designated organizations are the DC members concerned. In every vetting and approval of funding applications, these DC members with conflict of interest have no intention to withdraw from the meeting, and they will accept the public money merrily for use in organizing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1393 events for their own organizations. Looking at these baffling practices, we will understand that these DC members are concerned neither about people's livelihood nor benefits. They do not care about the genuine needs of the people, and all they are thinking of is their own interests and rewards.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Hence, I have great reservations about the original motion proposed by Mr LAU Kwok-fan, even though I agree that the powers of DCs should be strengthened. If neither the amendment proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG nor that of Mr WU Chi-wai is passed, a proposal put forth in the original motion of Mr LAU Kwok-fan warrants further discussion. It is the proposal for the setting up of a "community building fund" to expedite the implementation of community facility works endorsed by DCs, for we have seen many conflicts of interests running out of control, and these benefits will be transferred to DC members who act against public opinions.

For the reasons cited, I support the amendments proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr WU Chi-wai.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, with respect to the motion on "Strengthening the role and functions of District Councils" proposed by Mr LAU Kwok-fan today, Mr WU Chi-wai and Mr HUI Chi-fung have pointed out that the District Councils ("DCs") are regarded as playing only an advisory role. Indeed, from 1999 after the "scrapping" of the Urban Council and the Regional Council, the real powers of management in respect of district administration and facilities as well as cultural and recreational matters have fallen within the ambits of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, and they have since arrogated all powers to themselves.

The outcome of the "scrapping" of the two Municipal Councils is the replacement of institutions representative of public opinions since by a mindset of bureaucracy, thus compromising flexibility in policymaking at the district level and creating a large number of problems in the communities. For instance, frontline staff of FEHD know only to enforce orders from their superiors without 1394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 exercising discretion; and the fact that FEHD has become more and more like the urban management teams in the Mainland has indeed aroused seething discontent among many people and small shop operators. Members should recall a case that happened some time ago in which a shop owner put a carton box outside the shop and then the Police were called in immediately and the shop owner was arrested for causing street obstruction. But sorry, I must say that when we carried out work in the district, we saw that goods were stacked up in two lines to almost the same as our height outside some shops in Western District, making it almost impossible for people to cross the road and yet, the staff of FEHD who passed by merely winked at the shopkeepers and when the goods were taken back into the shops, the problem would be settled with no summons being served and no arrest made. LAU Kong-wah, a former Member of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong who took part in the filibuster and supported the "scrapping" of the two Municipal Councils back then, has become a Director of Bureau now. Certainly he cannot be spared the blame for causing this scenario today when representatives of public opinions are turned into "lame ducks". Mr LAU Kwok-fan has proposed this motion today, so we should really listen attentively to the Secretary later on and hear what kind of reply he is going to give.

Earlier on Mr Holden CHOW and Mr Wilson OR said that the pro-democracy camp can apply for funding from DCs all the same and that it is not a practice adopted exclusively by the pro-establishment camp to offer seasonal delicacies. This is true, but as to how extensively such a practice is adopted, we are definitely no match for the pro-establishment camp. As we all know, many district organizations will seek funding from DCs and as DCs are dominated by the pro-establishment camp, their funding applications are, therefore, approved and the funds are expended on feasts and activities for entertainment. Actually they need not take all these troubles as the Deputy President can raise $5 million by simply singing a song. Think about this: How many seasonal delicacies can be offered with this sum of money? How many meals can be offered? With a $5 million reward for singing a song, she is even more awesome than Jacky CHEUNG, so why bother to seek funding?

Besides, I am particularly concerned about item (4) of the original motion in which Mr LAU Kwok-fan proposed to establish a "community building fund". Just take a look at the information and we can see that actually DCs already have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1395 a plethora of funding schemes to serve different purposes. The first is community involvement projects, for which the annual provision has been increased to $300 million since 2008 and subsequently to $361.6 million to implement cultural and leisure, recreational, community greening, and partnership projects. The second is the Minor Works Programme introduced in 2008. The current annual provision for the programme is $340 million, with the objective of improving various facilities, living environment and hygiene conditions. The allocation for this programme will be increased to $400 million. President, the third funding scheme is the Pilot Scheme on Enhancement of District Administration under the charge of District Officers, which aims to tackle management and hygiene problem in public places. This scheme will also be extended to all the 18 districts, involving a provision of $63 million.

The objectives of these funding items are quite clear and they are, after all, implemented for the purpose of community improvement. However, the Signature Project Scheme ("SPS") is indeed unbearably tragic and the projects have degenerated into small "white elephant" projects which are not very much different from the "face-saving projects" in the Mainland. In 2013, the Chief Executive's Policy Address proposed the introduction of SPS under which $100 million would be earmarked for each district and the Government was prepared to give "handouts", but the projects are indeed highly controversial and have attracted a lot of criticisms. As many Honourable colleagues have mentioned today, these projects include music fountains, a knock-off of the Tiananmen Square, and what is more, the decking of the Tai Wai Nullah in Sha Tin for construction atop of the deck of a Futsal (five-a-side football) pitch at exorbitant costs. The public has obviously raised strong opposition while the pro-establishment camp nevertheless threw great weight behind these projects.

Of course, as Members may recall, in Tin Hau there are obviously recreational facilities such as football pitches for public use and yet, the construction of multi-purpose, multi-functional facilities is insisted, but it is always impossible to make advance bookings for such facilities. The Rural Public Works Programme is even more outrageous. Recently there were headline reports in the press disclosing that with an annual provision exceeding $100 million from the Government, 137 projects were completed last year and 150 projects would be implemented but the media found that among the nine 1396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

District Working Groups ("DWGs") responsible for endorsing the projects, the Chairmen of seven DWGs have played overlapping roles as they are DC members and also Chairmen of Rural Committees at the same time, and the Chairmen of all nine DWGs are concurrently members of the Steering Committee responsible for vetting and approving the projects. So this is once again transferring public funds from the left hand to the right one stop. This reminds me of an issue that we have been talking about recently. Members should recall that the Home Affairs Bureau secured a vacant school premises for the Hong Kong Army Cadets Association ("HKACA") swiftly in less than a month and then HKACA submitted to the Board of Management of the Chinese Permanent Cemeteries on the same day an application for a grant of $30 million to meet half of the renovation costs. These one-stop services are indeed the envy of other uniform organizations. It was also reported in the media that early this year the Government planned to spend $4 million on converting the muddy path between Shui Tau Tsuen and Shui Mei Tsuen, Kam Tin, into an access road. Beneficiaries of this project are alleged to be indigenous inhabitants involved in the selling of the concessionary rights for small houses, for these people have submitted 70 applications for the development of small houses. I wonder if the Government plans to provide a wide straight road directly leading to these small houses, in which case the Government would even be paving roads for these people.

After the "scrapping" of the Municipal Councils, the three Chief Executives have not seriously carried out reforms of district administration. First, the Government has not yet honoured the promise made by it back then of devolving some powers of the Municipal Councils and so, the original powers of district administration remain centralized. The three Chief Executives have no plans to review the functions of DCs and DCs have, therefore, remained only as an advisory structure without real powers Moreover, do Members think that the functions of DCs can be enhanced by providing them with funds? Certainly this is impossible, because a reform of district administration is all the more warranted to solve problems in the community. Furthermore, I hope that there can be a uniform declaration mechanism such that DCs or other committees can be subject to a more open and transparent system for declaration of interests, in order to facilitate monitoring by the people. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1397

DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): President, since the District Councils are closely related to the general public and the community, I have specially collected some information and talked to Dr KWONG Po-yin, a District Council ("DC") member, in order to prepare this speech.

Although many citizens may belittle or ignore the DCs, I consider that the DC election is currently one of the most democratic elections in Hong Kong. The DCs comprise 431 elected members, who are returned by some 3 million registered voters, and 27 ex-officio members, which means that most of them are directly elected. Therefore, I believe the DCs merit greater attention and respect.

DC members and Legislative Council Members are both councillors and citizens will call us "The Honourable" or "councillors". While the Legislative Council has the power to veto the bills and funding applications submitted by the Government, DCs are only advisory bodies without any power of veto under the Basic Law and the relevant ordinance. Given that DCs are positioned as organizations for consultation and giving advice only, their status is much lower than that of the former Urban Council, which was financially independent and had the Urban Services Department as its executive arm.

In view of this, I think the biggest challenge or awkward situation that DC members is facing is not being able to meet the public's expectation due to their "big responsibility but little power". Citizens think that councillors have great powers and enjoy a superior status. However, they do not know that in many matters of administration and public consultations, such as the frequent objections to the Town Planning Board's decisions to change land use and to the issuance of liquor licences by the Liquor Licensing Board, the Government actually regards DC members' opinions as no different from the opinions of ordinary citizens. Their opinions do not carry more weight because of their identity as DC members. Moreover, the authorities concerned tend to consult the DCs' views on their projects only when they are finalized. Consultations with DCs are just a matter of routine. Many directly elected members of the Legislative Council rely on their party members in DCs, who are in the front line of district work, to keep a close tab on the public pulse. Does the Government not like soft lobbying? Why does it not attach importance to DC members' opinions and consult their views at an earlier stage?

1398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

I agree with the empowerment of DC members by giving them more powers and better renumerations with a view to drawing more talents to DCs. More powers should be devolved to DCs with increased resources to support their work. Like the Legislative Council, an independent secretariat should be established for each DC such that DCs can play a more important role. While DCs' powers are increased, their transparency should be increased accordingly in order for the public to monitor how DC members exercise their powers and spend the public funds. In the more than two months after assuming office as a lawmaker, I find that there is live webcast for almost every meeting of the Legislative Council, and archived meetings can be viewed shortly after the meetings have ended, with a real-time playback function―the Secretariat should be commended for such high efficiency and great convenience.

Out of curiosity, I have visited the DC website to see how DC meetings are held, but only found audio recordings instead of videos. It is quite difficult to get a whole picture of the meetings with sound only but no image. Besides, the time needed for uploading audio recordings varies among different DCs. I have checked several DCs which have held meetings recently. The Wan Chai DC held a meeting on 15 November, and it took two days to upload the audio recording; the Southern DC had a meeting on 17 November and the audio recording was uploaded on the following day; the Kowloon City DC met on 17 November, and its audio recording was available four days later (i.e. 21 November); and the Central and Western DC―President, this district is related to me―held a meeting on 11 November, but its audio recording was still not uploaded as of the afternoon of 22 November, i.e. over 10 days after the meeting. With live streaming so prevalent nowadays, many Honourable colleagues have live streamings of their press conferences and interviews. However, DCs not only do not have any videos, even the audio recordings of their meetings will take several days to be uploaded. I think DCs should keep abreast of the times by enhancing live webcast so as to draw more attention from the public.

In order to enable DCs to play a more important role, the role of District Officers, who act as a link between DCs and the Government, should also be strengthened. The duties of District Officers include "overseeing the operation of the District Administration Scheme", "implementing and coordinating the execution of district programmes", etc. Former Chief Executive Donald TSANG even said that a District Officer is the "little Chief Executive" of each district. However, District Officers give people the impression that they are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1399 just "commanders without soldiers". It is because the civil servants in many government departments just take orders from the superiors of their own department. As District Officers are not their immediate supervisors, they would not follow the former's instructions, unless the former can instruct their bosses to do so. District Officers are not high-ranking officials―although civil servants at D2 grade is already high-ranking in my view―other government departments consider them not powerful enough to coordinate interdepartmental tasks. The District Officers really face many difficulties in performing their duties.

There was this famous remark by Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM: "There are deficiencies in the system, so no government official should bear the responsibility personally.", so to speak. Under such a bureaucratic culture, even if District Officers are elected by universal suffrage as suggested by Mr HUI Chi-fung, they do not seem to have the ability to change the existing regime and get rid of the long-standing practices. I think reform should be carried out step by step. First, the power of DOs should be increased, such as raising their rank and stipulating that they have the power to instruct or coordinate other departments on district level. Then the Government may study the feasibility of making DOs politically appointed, or directly elected as suggested by Mr HUI Chi-fung.

To sum up, I support the original motion and the amendment for strengthening the role of DCs and increasing their transparency. Thank you.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, I just heard Mr Holden CHOW say that the public strongly support the "Tiananmen Square" project (improvement works on the tourist facilities at Lam Tsuen Wishing Square, Tai Po). I was startled on hearing that remark of his, and then thought it was just a joke. Many people who have seen the design plan of the "Tiananmen Square" at Lam Tsuen would come up with only one word in their mind: ugly. Not long ago, over 5 000 Tai Po residents put down their signatures to oppose this project. If Mr CHOW really thinks that the "Tiananmen Square" is so great, maybe it should be moved to Tung Chung. What I wish to say is that while District Council ("DC") members are representatives of public opinion, it does not mean that they can make decisions that will affect the public without consulting their views in advance.

1400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

President, councillors carry the people's mandate to monitor the Government. They should respect their opinions and should not push through unpopular projects such because they have secured enough votes. The "Tiananmen Square" in Tai Po is an example, so do the "world-class" musical fountain on the Kwun Tong promenade and the "rain shelters that do not afford any shelter" in Quarry Bay―all of these projects are "successfully secured" by the pro-establishment DC members.

Members, are these projects really a reflection of public opinions? You may ask an ordinary man in the street whether he likes "white elephants" or measures that are conducive to their living. Let us take a look at the Kwai Tsing District Council's signature projects in the past: the optometric/ocular examination and dental care services were well received. However, it seems that such a case of success cannot be found in every district.

President, the original motion proposes the establishment of a "community building fund". Without a monitoring system with greater transparency and engagement of a more democratic community, will the "community building fund" produce a replica of the "Tiananmen Square" at Lam Tsuen one after another, President?

President, being a DC member elected to the district where I grew up, I strongly believe that the real representatives of public opinion, who are diligent and care about the people, are willing to accept every single opinion of every citizen.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We want empowerment but at the same time we need a system to monitor the powers. We as councillors must bear in mind that our power comes from people. If we want to enhance district work and district administration, we must first set up a system for the people to monitor us.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1401

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I must speak to point out that just now, some Members, in particular, Dr LAU Siu-lai, has really spoken a load of nonsense. She vilified us District Council ("DC") members, accusing DC members of committing all kinds of outrageous acts. She went so far as to use such a turn of phrase, so I found it to be downright unacceptable. This is indeed most unfair to members and colleagues of DCs working in the districts.

I must point out that her comments on DCs evolving into the mode of suppressing night markets and disregarding the grass roots are all over-generalizations that vilify DC members. Concerning the sites for night markets, all along, there have been arguments. We all understand this point and people who have worked in the districts before must also understand it. If we interpret such a phenomenon simplistically as suppression of the grass roots and disallowing the development of any bazaar, this is definitely an over-generalization.

We have served as DC members for a long time and we all understand that our aim is to enable various districts to have their own special characteristics, and it is also hoped that suitable sites can be identified in the districts for the establishment of bazaars, so that the grass roots can work as hawkers. However, we must also understand that in the districts concerned, in particular, among residents near the selected sites, there are concerns about the impact of these bazaars. If we look at Dr LAU's comments, does she mean that such concerns are tantamount to suppression of the grass roots? What we as Members did was only to reflect residents' views to the Government faithfully.

Therefore, our key function as Members is to strike a balance among the views of various stakeholders. We cannot just select some of the views and paint the views of other stakeholders in an evil light. We all understand very well that the development of bazaars is a consensus of the Legislative Council and we all wish to take it forward. However, at the same time, in developing bazaars, night markets or local bazaars, we cannot ignore the concerns or worries of local residents about the selected sites. Our duty as Members is to find a proposal acceptable to all parties. On the one hand, it is hoped that sites can be identified, so that bazaars can develop in a more natural way; on the other, it is hoped that the minds of local residents can be put at ease.

1402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Separately, just now, a number of Members criticized some of the projects in Tai Po and Kwun Tong. In fact, we all understand that these projects arose out of the measures taken by the Chief Executive after taking office to implement his Policy Agenda, that is, "Addressing district issues at the local level and capitalising on local opportunities". After discussions, various DCs selected various projects. Those Members painted the improvement project on the Tai Po Lam Tsuen Wishing Tree in an evil light and this is going too far. As we all know, the Lam Tsuen Wishing Tree is very popular with people from various districts and enhancement of the relevant places definitely has popular support.

Of course, there are often different views on a project. For example, although the Wan Chai DC tried very hard to seek funding for the provision of a community hall to Wan Chai District, at the end of the last Legislative Council session, it was still not possible to pass the relevant item and this is actually very regrettable. These issues also aroused a great deal of reaction in the district concerned because the numbers of community halls in all districts are actually inadequate. We are representatives of public opinion but the Legislative Council is also posing obstacles to the implementation of these projects well-received by the public. In view of this, I hope that when Members comment on these projects, they must not use vilifying terms to slander the decisions made by DCs because each project definitely has its value and serves its purposes, and there is also a certain amount of public support for them. Perhaps those Members know that some members of the public oppose these projects. I also understand this as such a situation can often be seen in many issues. However, they cannot describe all projects as "white elephants", being good for nothing, and so on.

In addition, on the comments made by Mr CHU Hoi-dick just now about the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong supporting the "scrapping" of the two Municipal Councils, I must also clarify solemnly that when I checked the records, I found that when we voted on the motion on the "scrapping" of the two Municipal Councils, we cast votes in opposition to it. I hope that before Members speak, they would do some homework first. Nevertheless, Mr CHU also agreed with Mr CHAN Hak-kan's comment that we should take forward democracy at the district level and this is also what we hope to achieve. However, Members also understand that the promotion of democracy at the district level must be done in accordance with the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1403

Basic Law, so I call on Mr CHU and other Members to respect the Basic Law and promote democracy at the district level step by step, pragmatically and according to the pace permitted by the Basic Law. Members all understand that last time, we originally had the chance to let democracy move forward but in the end, nothing came of it. It was also those Members who had all along voiced their opposition who caused democratization to come to a standstill.

Lastly, I must talk about a proposal put forward by Mr LAU Kwok-fan in the original motion and hope that the Secretary could give it careful consideration. In fact, many members of the public have high expectation for our DCs but under the Government's mechanism, many motions on the implementation of projects or the improvement of local facilities passed by DCs could not be implemented as scheduled. If those Members opposed even these projects, they will be the enemies of the people. All the residents in each district hope that additional libraries, swimming pools and parks can be provided but all of us now know that actually, these aspirations cannot be answered because the Government cannot allocate resources to provide the relevant items. Our proposal now is to ask the Government to tally the funds required by these projects on which DCs have passed motions and for which there is public support, then the Government can consider allocating funds to establish a fund to meet the demands of local residents for improving public facilities in one stroke and as soon as possible. For this reason, if those Members oppose such an approach, it is tantamount to opposing the wish of all members of the public who are waiting for these improvement projects and becoming enemies of the people.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Without a doubt, many democrats share the view that District Councils ("DCs") have been reduced to a club for the pro-establishment camp, in which the practice of cronyism is rampant. As a result, they can hardly reflect public opinion truthfully. I am referring to many of the supporters of democracy, not the pro-democracy political parties or 1404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Members. In other words, the general public actually have such an impression. If the functions of DCs are enhanced while this undesirable trend is not rectified, more problems will arise and more public funds will be wasted.

Just now I heard some Members describe these criticisms and requests for them to conduct a review as an attempt to smear them and demand an apology. It is indeed ridiculous that criticisms are not allowed and apologies are demanded. The whole argument advanced by Mr LAU Kwok-fan in the original motion is founded on a very significant presumption, and that is, DC members have the advantage of grasping first-hand public sentiments. Nevertheless, does this argument hold water? I consider it doubtful. Should this argument hold water, the Kwun Tong DC would not have, despite opposition from the majority of Kwun Tong residents, advocated the construction of a music fountain at the Kwun Tong Promenade and a football pitch above a nullah, with no changing room or toilet provided. What is more, there will not be so many useless rain shelters in Kwun Tong. Nonetheless, Ms Starry LEE said that everything served a purpose. Even though a rain shelter could not provide shelter, it would still serve other purposes.

When the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the 18 DCs line up abreast to express support for the Government, does it mean that they are reflecting public opinions truthfully? In the hearts of many members of the public, there will at least be a "big question mark", if not a "big cross". What does it mean by grasping first-hand public sentiments? Without a doubt, many Members of the pro-establishment camp are very smart. After grasping the preferences of some kaifongs and interest groups, they will cater to their needs and utilize their disposable resources and capital to canvass the support of these kaifongs. This explains why some people will definitely voice support for their actions. How dare I say that they have no support? So long as they can persistently secure support from 2 000 to 3 000 people, they will be elected or even re-elected. Therefore, quite a number of DC members focus merely on canvassing support from a handful of electors in their districts. They merely seek to please a small number of electors or residents when they put forward proposals.

The Lam Tsuen Wishing Square project, which was mentioned by every pro-democracy Member today, has caused major controversies everywhere, from the panels to the Public Works Subcommittee, or even the Finance Committee. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1405

Certainly, the relevant work has reportedly been completed according to the procedure and mechanism, but if it is so, have the residents been given a clear explanation regarding the controversies? The matter cannot be considered settled with the organization of an exhibition or staging a signature campaign. What is more, the disputes cannot be resolved by competing for more signatures. While DC members may propose the construction of a music fountain on the grounds that they are supported by some pro-establishment groups, we can also collect more than 10 000 signatures to oppose the project.

In my opinion, the problem with the DCs is that each small constituency has about 17 000 people, but boundary demarcation is far from transparent. When we studied the ABCs of politics, we would come across the word "gerrymandering", that is, ways to manipulate boundary demarcation, cut off opponents' constituencies where they enjoy an advantage, delineate housing, and so on, though I am not going to elaborate all this. Having said that, one of the principles of boundary demarcation is to preserve the integrity of a community. However, we can see that in some small constituencies, the DCs of the previous term have gone so far as to forcibly split up a small constituency composed of two public housing estates and then incorporate one or two blocks or a smaller housing estate into a new constituency, so that a large private housing estate can be demarcated as a new constituency. Of course, an even more serious problem is that some DCs have deliberately ignored the interest of some members of the local community due to their relationship with other people with vested interests. In the New Territories, for instance, the interests of the indigenous inhabitants are given great respect, but the non-indigenous inhabitants are not even consulted during consultations.

Today, we have raised many doubts about the substandard culture of DCs. If a "community building fund" is established before the culture is improved, will it give DCs an opportunity to utilize the funds to undertake some small or medium "white elephant" projects, instead of big ones? Under the current arrangement whereby each DC is allocated $100 million, some DCs are certainly worth praises for their excellent work. Instead of undertaking the yet-to-be-approved "white elephant" projects of small or medium scale in the district, the Kwai Tsing District Council, for instance, has spent its funding on software for the provision of eye and teeth examinations, and so on, for the residents.

1406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Subsequent to the implementation of the constitutional reform in 2012, the number of DC seats in the Legislative Council has been increased to six. In other words, five super functional constituency ("FC") seats have been created for the traditional FCs under an arrangement which is believed to enhance the influence of DCs. There are also quite many voices suggesting that the Government should take this opportunity to enhance the administrative role of DCs at the district level in respect of tree management, cleaning services, recreational facilities, and so on, in order to serve a larger number of people. This premise appears to be sound, but if the role and functions of DCs or DC members are to be strengthened, consideration must, first of all, be given to how best their quality can be upgraded. One of the considerations is to reduce the number of small DC constituencies and expand the size of DC constituencies. Some people have even proposed that the number of some DC seats be returned by a proportional representation system covering all the 18 districts, so that the candidates must secure more support in order to become DC members, thereby broadening their horizons. And then discussions can be opened on ways to allocate more resources to and confer more powers on local councils. Right, district issues should be addressed at the local level. However, we must bear in mind that district issues stem from the districts. If we do not look at the issues but focus instead only on conferment of more powers (The buzzer sounded) … the issues can still not be resolved.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please stop speaking.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, according to Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's logic just now, not only should the Municipal Councils be "scrapped", even District Councils ("DCs") should be "scrapped" because of their terrible performance. To my understanding, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has once contested the DC elections. After being defeated in the New Territories West, he decided to give it up but continue to serve the New Territories East instead. Since he has the experience of running in the DC elections, he should know electors have their own preferences in casting their votes. We should respect their choice rather than slinging mud at them, saying they merely want seasonal delicacies. His remarks have insulted both the electors and himself.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1407

Today, we can see that DCs are incessantly smeared. The pan-democrat Members who were seen slinging mud at DCs just now should have their surnames changed to "LAI" ( 賴 1 ). Since Dr LAI Ka-ki―it should be Dr KWOK Ka-ki―was defeated in the elections, he said that he would not join DCs because it would make him sick when he saw the seasonal delicacies. Actually, the term "seasonal delicacies" was used by the pan-democrat Members in the past to smear Members of the pro-establishment camp, so that they would appear to be aloof. According to an Internet group named "A logbook on events surrounding the shameless conduct of pan-democrats", the most usual tactics adopted by the pan-democrats are to distribute rice and "seasonal delicacies". Some Members consider themselves to be aloof, but actually they not only resort to such tactics, but also fail to engage in any community work. Consequently, they smeared Members of the pro-establishment camp after being defeated in the elections, saying the latter had relied on the "seasonal delicacies" to win an election. If one could rely on the "seasonal delicacies" to win an election, Mr Andrew WAN would not have been defeated. Why would he be defeated for there were not only truckloads of mooncakes, but rice was distributed almost every month? So, this logic is absolutely untenable.

When it comes to issues related to local works projects, they would again say that they were not consulted. Mr KWONG Chun-yu, you are an DC member, too. A project should at least be subject to a points system before being submitted to the Legislative Council. Even if it is cleared under the system, consultation has to be carried out. Do you not know that? You must not say that you have no idea. You should know how many consultation sessions have to be conducted before a project can commence. Perhaps your party comrades are absent from the meetings all year round, but I believe you might not. Of course, they would not know anything about the consultations if they did not attend the meetings. The music fountain project, for instance, was unanimously endorsed in the Kwun Tong DC, with no one voting against it. When the proposal was tabled before the Legislative Council, however, Members became "detached from reality" by criticizing this and that and even complaining that no consultation had been conducted. Nowadays, if 100 consultation sessions were conducted in Hong Kong, there would be 100 outcomes. Nonetheless, we have conducted consultations. It is not true that we have not done so. Moreover, the proposal was endorsed by the DC in question, with support expressed by pan-democrat DC members, too.

1 When a person is described as surnamed "賴", it means that he or she is putting the blame on others. 1408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Let me cite another example―the Sai Lau Kok Garden. In this project, the Garden will be elevated by one floor, so that it will be situated on the same floor as the Mass Transit Railway station podium. This $100 million project was submitted to the Legislative Council for funding approval after endorsement was given by the relevant DC with the approval of pan-democrat members. After the tabling of the project before the Legislative Council, however, the pan-democrat Members started to raise objection because they could not find any subject for contention in the DC elections. Consequently, Members from the Labour Party initiated a smear campaign, claiming that a 2 000 sq ft community hall would be built in this 100 million project. When members of the public heard that, they got very angry, not knowing they were not told the whole story. Actually, in addition to the community hall, a covered pedestrian link, coupled with an open stage to be used as a garden and a theatre, will be built in this platform elevation project. However, not a word was mentioned about all this. It was misleading to say that $100 million would be spent on the construction of a 2 000 sq ft community hall alone. Consequently, after the DC elections, when the project was tabled again before the Legislative Council for funding approval, it was unanimously endorsed with no objection raised. Nevertheless, the project has been delayed for exactly two years and has to be re-tendered. I wonder if the project can commence for the building cost might have risen. Members should know who are to blame in that eventuality.

Actually, Members who launch a smear campaign against the funding application should set the record straight. Dr Fernando CHEUNG stated this morning that some underhand secret dealings were involved in DC funds. Recently, some members because of their election to DCs asked why the funds were approved in this manner and why only a few groups submitted applications, and so on. I told them there were no problems and invited all the groups in my district to submit applications. As it turned out, no one accepted my invitation and submitted any application. As a result, I requested that member to invite some groups to submit applications. Initially, he said "OK", saying he would invite some groups to submit applications. However, after reading the requirements of DCs, they found that only 10% of the administrative fees would be funded, meaning that they would incur losses. As a result, even the groups invited by the Member in question decided to pull back. I hope Members can do some adequate homework before levelling criticism at others, as they might not know the operation of DCs very well. The requirements for monitoring DC funds are even more stringent than those for monitoring government funds. It is inadvisable to paint all people with the same brush.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1409

Last year, it was even reported in Ming Pao Daily News that some Members or groups had applied for some funds. An organizer from the Labour Party was issued a legal letter for slinging mud at other members over the submission of applications for funds precisely because he had failed to do homework properly before hosting a press conference. The several Members and I also convened another press conference to clarify the entire matter. Of course, these people would raise their voice when launching a smear campaign. However, when they knew they had made a mistake, they would shut up. It was their job.

I find the motion proposed by Mr LAU Kwok-fan very important because we think that some work must be performed by DCs, such as cleaning services, and leisure and cultural services. Even the functions of District Officers have to be enhanced because, given their current ranking, they cannot manage other departments. Neither can they spur other departments into work. In this connection, I hope the motion proposed by Mr LAU Kwok-fan can make the Government carry out reform at the district level and achieve effects by, for instance, handing cleaning services and leisure and cultural services back to the districts, with a view to improving services which are a persistent cause of criticism. I hope Secretary LAU Kong-wah can heed our advice. I remember he was among those people who opposed the "scrapping" of the Municipal Councils back then. I hope he can assist in taking forward the strengthening of the functions of DCs. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, the number of Members present in the Chamber is far less than half. I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

1410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please speak.

(Mr Andrew WAN stood up)

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, point of order. According to Rules 41(4) and 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure, the comments made by Mr CHAN Han-pan just now about some of my work in the past were completely untruthful. He accused me of distributing rice on a monthly basis, or handing out mooncakes as a means of electioneering. I would like to tell Members that I did not distribute rice on a monthly basis. In fact, past history …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WAN, please sit down.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I feel offended. I hope Mr CHAN Han-pan can withdraw his comments about me.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WAN, please sit down. The comments made by Members in the Chamber are not necessarily facts. Neither do they have to prove that their comments are facts.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I wish to state my stance clear.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WAN, please sit down. This is not the time for you to make a clarification. If I allow you to speak, it will turn into a debate. Please sit down.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I demand Mr CHAN Han-pan withdraws his insulting remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): He did not insult you. Which comment made by him do you think was insulting?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1411

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, he questioned the motive of my approach when I contested the election. Will the President rule whether or not his remarks were insulting.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I do not consider them insulting. Please sit down.

Dr Helena WONG, please speak.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung stood up)

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): President, point of order. Will the President please rule and explain whether, if remarks made by Members in the Chamber are not facts, other Members being so implicated are not entitled to making any clarification? According to the President's ruling just now, a Member implicated cannot make a clarification.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If I allow you to speak, it will trigger a debate. I cannot let you engage in a debate in this way. Please sit down.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): If a Member feel offended …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please sit down. Yours is not a point of order.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Does that constitute an offending remark?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please sit down.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): To quench his wrath, I hope Mr Andrew WAN can read the newspapers. My remarks were based on press reports and the comments I made just now were quoted from a Facebook account entitled "A logbook on events surrounding the shameless conduct of pan-democrats".

1412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please sit down. This is not the time for you to speak.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, previously when Mr Paul TSE and other Members found other Members' speeches or their own speeches not true, they were given an opportunity to make clarifications. Therefore, I am not sure if the President has used the same rule to deal with all points of order raised by Members in the Chamber to request leave for making clarifications.

President, let me return to the motion debate. Mr CHAN Han-pan just now questioned if handing out seasonal delicacies could win a seat for a District Council ("DC") member? Of course not. However, Mr Andrew WAN stated clearly that Mr CHAN Han-pan's arbitrary quotation of some not proven news reports as facts just now was meant to smear Mr Andrew WAN and claim those as the reasons for the latter being not elected. It turns out that Members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") would believe what they casually read in the newspapers, such as Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao, is true and refrain from verifying its validity. Such are very irresponsible comments.

Certainly, we all understand that DAB and the pro-establishment Members know it full well why an incumbent member or a candidate lost in the DC election. There are many reasons for losing and winning an election, and they could be vote rigging, "vote slashing" and vote buying―there are simply too many reasons. Hence, we hope the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") will intervene and investigate why Mr Andrew WAN lost in the DC election. As far as I know, there was a surge in the number of registered voters in his constituency just before the registration deadline, and ICAC is conducting a follow-up investigation into this.

Coming back to the question of whether the role and functions of DCs need strengthening, of course, the Democratic Party has been a staunch supporter of reform of district administration, something that the Government has been saying it needs to do in the past 10 years, but to no fruition ever. It is a well-known fact that before the reunification, the parliamentary assembly structure in Hong Kong had three tiers: the top being the Legislative Council, middle the Urban Council and Regional Council and the bottom DCs.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1413

Sadly, after the reunification, the Government removed the middle of the three tiers in 2000, in an attempt which could be regarded as either indiscreet or a political plot, so that the structure was only left with DCs in addition to the Legislative Council. However, when the Government took such an action in 1999―the then Secretary for Constitutional Affairs made the decision to "scrap" the Municipal Councils and presented the relevant bill, and at the resumed Second Reading he personally gave us his words that―after the Municipal Councils were "scrapped", the functions of and resources for the 18 DCs would be strengthened and consideration given to strengthening the role and functions of DCs.

However, 16 years has passed since the Municipal Councils were "scrapped" in 2000 and today in 2016, have the role and functions of DCs undergone any substantial change? We all know it very well that DCs still remain an advisory body, vested with negligible powers, for example, they would be consulted before some small-scale local works are carried out. Basically they could not inherit the district administrative power, financial power and staff management power held by the Urban Council and Regional Council before they were "scrapped", while also lacking an independent secretariat to support their work.

Therefore, the Government was indeed just talking. The consequence of "scrapping" the Municipal Councils is the removal of the middle tier in the previous three-tier structure containing the Urban Council and Regional Council which possessed comparatively greater administrative powers and more resources, rendering them a platform and ladder for nurturing local political talents to participate in policymaking and local affairs. In the past, many Legislative Council Members started their political careers in the Municipal Councils. However, now we see no corresponding upgrade in the powers and functions of DCs, with a gap created in the continuity of local political talents. Some DC members have served for many years―four or five terms in 10 to 20 years―and still may not be able to enter the Legislative Council and become a Member. Why is it so? Are there no opportunities for local DC members to demonstrate and apply their abilities in the management of local affairs? Are there also no opportunities for them to learn and hone their skills?

As a result, the Democratic Party very much agrees that we need to re-evaluate the planning of district administration in Hong Kong and vest DCs with powers, including the powers of staff deployment, administration, financial autonomy and making policy decisions. 1414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

However, any devolution of powers also requires a concurrent reform of DCs, which would include reviewing if the sizes of the current DC constituencies are too small. If we hope DC members can have a broader vision and more knowledge of policies in Hong Kong overall, we may need to consider combining smaller constituencies into a relatively bigger one. Otherwise, the vision of DC members will only be confined to pleasing the residents of those three or four buildings and they would fail to contemplate the consequences of policies from a higher and broader perspective. Therefore, in restructuring DCs, other than the conferment of powers on DC members, an institutional reform is in order.

Moreover, DC members are fully elected by universal suffrage now. Yet in terms of district administration, DCs should strengthen the promotion of democratization in districts so that the public and local residents can have greater participation in local affairs.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am going to refute Ms Starry LEE, not request a headcount. She is too young, or else she would not have said that the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") voted against the "scrapping" of the Municipal Councils years ago. Certainly, her remark was correct but there was one exception, namely TAM Yiu-chung, who was an Executive Council Member at that time.

Why did I say that? Actually, both the incumbent Secretary, LAU Kong-wah, and Jasper TSANG participated in the filibusters staged at that time when the motion could be vetoed at any time, for there were not enough votes during the Second Reading. Because of this, Members from DAB, who voted against the motion later, made frantic attempts to stage filibusters―their first attempt to do so, and Jasper TSANG and LAU Kong-wah even bragged on and on that it was right to do so. Hence, I am not the first person to stage filibusters.

What was the reason? Because, as it is now, no one was willing to make sacrifices. Since many Members from DAB were members of the then Urban Council or Regional Council, they could not possibly vote in favour of "scrapping" the Municipal Councils. Although the number of votes counted was found to be 31 to 27, meaning that sufficient votes had been secured, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1415 objection was raised by the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU"). At that time, FTU had yet to become a major electoral party. It was a workers' movement group controlled by the Communist Party of China ("CPC") and represented by four persons, namely CHAN Kwok-keung, CHAN Wing-chan, CHAN Yuen-han and LEE Kai-ming. CHOY So-yuk, who quit the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance to join DAB, also voted in favour of the motion. Hence, what sort of persons were these people? They had two faces. Even though they were well aware of the voting result, they still put up a show. Did they not feel ashamed for destroying the entire plate? My question is: If these Members from the pro-establishment camp did not want the motion to be passed at Second Reading, why did they stage filibusters given that there were not enough votes? They could simply "kill" the motion at Second Reading. I would like to tell Ms Starry LEE and those infant Members that I did not make it up. Do these Members, who were secondary students at that time, still wish to discuss history with me?

It was due to the laziness and poor discipline of Members from the pro-establishment camp (Liberal Party was the leader) at that time that they had failed to come back on time and participate in the Second Reading debate. As a result, the two rising stars, namely LAU Kong-wah and Jasper TSANG, who were later joined by TAM Yiu-chung, had to stage filibusters. Furthermore, Michael SUEN, a former Bureau Director, also joined them in talking nonsense in a bid to buy time and wait for the Honourable Members to come back to stage "a rescue operation with their votes", to ensure that the motion could be barely passed at Second Reading. President, the vetoing of a motion at Second Reading is like the premature death of a child. What is the point of discussing primary education? Hence, these Members should not feel pleased about the result, for they were partly responsible for the extermination of the entire plate. What does it mean by conflicting interests? DAB itself was also a victim, for it was one of the "stakeholders" in the Urban Council and Regional Council. Though it was not regarded as a major "stakeholder", it was already quite large. Do the "newbies" from DAB understand what I mean?

They are now putting the blame on the four Members from FTU. I talked about this piece of history because I do not want Members to accuse me of making slanderous accusations of them all the time. There is a script for everything. CPC would discuss with them who should take the blame, who should be hit by the faeces hurled and who should excrete the faeces. My question is: Which political party was given the chance to veto the motion but 1416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 chose to stage filibusters in order to wait for Members to come back and vote against the motion? Were these people suffering from a personality disorder? They were responsible for the voting result of 8 to 28. Since they had behaved in that manner too often, they had no idea what they were doing and whether they were humans or ghosts. Fine. We should stop harking back to old stories. No further comment, please.

Yesterday, the same thing happened. Some sponsoring members of FTU said that they would kill me, though they later pretended that they had not meant it seriously. Can FTU not control its members? Many people who claimed to be members of FTU approached me and threatened to stab me. Right now, some people are still making such claims.

After hearing this piece of history, these people are welcome to refute me at any time, or even in front of the microphone. Those who can refute me are very awesome. But please do not brag on and on or make eloquent assertions here. In particular, would those infant Members or people who know nothing about history please do not rise to speak. If they really wish to do so, they should ask LAU Kong-wah to give a response. He is most awesome, for he knows how to do a hat trick. Doctor, do you know what it means by a hat trick? It means that three hats are thrown, or a person has three hats, namely an old hat, a medium-sized hat and a green hat. If he throws away the old one, he may say that it is gone. It does not matter that he has to wear two hats according to his terms of reference, though they are already very heavy. Now he is even determined to wear a third one. President, will a triad member state the reason for collecting debts? He will say, "Be smart. Now I give you a pot of tangerine tree. Who is in charge?" If you tell him your background, will he not show respect for you? Not only is he wearing two hats in the control of resources, but he has even taken up the post of Director of the Hong Kong Army Cadets Association, is he not cheating? One should take the matter in his own hands if he does not get what he wants. This explanation is absolutely clear.

In fact, DAB was also deceived after the Municipal Councils were culled. Although it was said that DCs would be given some powers, the promise was not honoured. Why? While the Leisure and Cultural Services Department under the Home Affairs Bureau may barely play the role, for those matters are related to the districts, who in the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") will play the role? Buddy, voices of grievances can be heard everywhere in FEHD, which was previously managed by the Urban Council. However, the counterpart of the Urban Council was not a Bureau. Do you think the existing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1417

Bureaux will listen to his words? It was obviously wrong to do so. Let me tell you the outcome of signing an apparently blank cheque: LAU Kong-wah was simply chosen as a Bureau Director for his staging of filibusters. After the "murder" of the Urban Council, he appeared before its tomb to express his gratitude, saying he survived because the Urban Council was dead. While the Urban Council went to hell, he was given a high official position. This is what "despicable" means. Buddy, I am too lazy to talk about other matters. Members from DAB have only got themselves to blame. Even if they invite the Secretary for Food and Health, Dr KO Wing-man, to discussions, will he accept the invitation? Even the Home Affairs Bureau will not be willing to hold discussions with them, unless they know the hat trick done by LAU Kong-wah. Of course, you know how to do the hat trick because you and him are party comrades. Certainly, DCs have a lot of money, right? But can you act in the same manner? This is his Secretary General. You cannot live should he order you to die. If he said you had to die at three o'clock, you would not live till five. Actually, the Legislative Council is controlled by the Government. The Government has supreme power; the Legislative Council is doomed to die!

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, "Long Hair" recapped "the old stories" again. Can he stop recapped "the old stories" again? Regarding his question about my ability of controlling members of the sponsoring bodies, may I ask him if he can control members of the League of Social Democrats? Furthermore, there is no need to control them. He should bear in mind that he is a fighter of democracy. So, why should people be subject to control after becoming a member? One cannot do that. Furthermore, he alleged that my members had threatened to attack him. He should report to the Police then. Anyway, he has been reported to the Police and charged on numerous occasions lately. So, he might as well report to the Police, at least once. Actually, who threatened to attack him? He had better make a report to the Police promptly.

I should stop such digression now. I originally have a script of several pages, but I decided not to read from it now. Just now, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung said that he has been a District Council ("DC") member for more than three decades. My length of service is only 20 years or so, which is shorter than his. Furthermore, I look younger than him. I have been an appointed member, as well as an elected member. Moreover, I was previously a DC Vice-chairman, too. Therefore, the colleague who prepared the script for me should be not as well versed in DCs as me.

1418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

I have some comments to make about some Honourable colleagues. After listening to their speeches for hours, I find that the pan-democrat Members were only repeating the same view, that is, DCs associate themselves with mutual aid committees and community organizations, and ignore their proper business. Not only are the projects undertaken by them no good, but they are not doing good deeds. Like thieves and burglars, they collaborate with each other solely for the purpose of accumulating wealth by hook and crook. These criticisms show that these Members are blinkered by their own position. It is really deplorable that this problem is commonplace in society.

Yesterday, Mr WONG Kwok-kin said that some Members allow their "butts to direct the brain". Actually, more Members, and even members of the community, are now concealing the facts because of their position. While they pay no attention to your deed, they believe you must be doing something bad if you are labelled a certain "colour". If you are labelled another "colour", however, you must be doing something good. Is everything done by DCs necessarily bad? Mr Andrew WAN, you and I have been DC members for more than two decades. When we were partners, we had never done so many bad things to do damage to the residents in Kwai Tsing, had we? Will Members please do not say anything like that.

Just now, many colleagues mentioned seasonal delicacies. Honestly, when I became a District Board ("DB") member 23 years ago, there were no such things as seasonal delicacies. At that time, the residents had only one thing on their mind, that is, how DB members could help them. What happened later? I remember I cited an example in the Chamber a couple of years ago concerning the distribution of mooncakes by everyone at the Mid-Autumn Festival. I am not afraid of telling Members that I was one of them. It is because everybody has to ask for assistance one day. At that time, an old woman approached me with six cake coupons in her hand and asked, "Ms MAK, which one is from you?" The six cake coupons in her hand were from the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, the Democratic Party or organizations for the elderly. She was unable to tell which coupon was distributed by which organization. Actually, she had absolutely no idea who was responsible for distributing the coupons. Anyway, she was satisfied so long as she was given the coupons. Some elderly women also told me that they felt embarrassed because they had accepted some cake coupons distributed by the Democratic Party. I told them that they must LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1419 accept the coupons as a benefit. Was it not a good idea for various political parties to pitch in and give the kaifongs a helping hand? Do these Members think they are distributing fewer cake coupons?

Some Members―I am not going to name them specifically―invited kaifongs to afternoon tea in a Hong Kong-style café, not a restaurant, for several days in a row before elections were held, and the kaifongs were even reminded of bringing along their environmentally-friendly bags to carry their gifts. These arrangements were remarkable. I have often told kaifongs to buy tickets for activities should such be organized. As citizens, they should not waste the opportunity of receiving benefits. Moreover, they should feel free to enjoy all kinds of activities on offer.

Some colleagues mentioned the inadequate allowances granted to DCs and DC members. Throughout my 23 years of service as a member of local councils, the most effective result was achieved 23 years ago when I first joined DB. At that time, the amount of allowance was a mere $2,000 or so, and was increased to more than $4,000, plus rental allowance, after Ms Shelley LEE had taken office. Our work was most productive at that time. In my personal opinion, however, I would rather decline all the allowances. If DC members are truly sincere in serving kaifongs, they should not care about the allowances.

Many colleagues have pointed out that the $100 million funds earmarked for community facilities were utilized poorly, for they were confined to various construction projects only. Why did they not mention the situation in Kwai Tsing District? Why was Mr CHAN Chi-chuen the only Member who mentioned the dental services provided in Kwai Tsing District? The programme was actually promoted by me. Members should not making sweeping statements. After all, they can simply not see the truth because they pulled wool over their eyes because of their own stances.

What is the crux of the present problem? District Officers are crucial to whether or not DCs can perform their functions. When I was a young DB member, the District Officers were very professional and experienced. Since his taking office, Donald TSANG had in recent years advocated the appointment of young District Officers through the identification of rising stars. However, they were consequently found to be incompetent, failing to direct or coordinate the Administrative Officers, the District Lands Officers and Regional Social Welfare Officers in other districts. This means that District Officers can no longer produce the same result, as that achieved in the past, by coordinating the 1420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 assemblies in various districts to deal with various matters properly. In the end, some young District Officers who might be highly competent were unable to perform their tasks properly because they were inexperienced. What is more, they were even accused of associating themselves with the pro-establishment camp frequently and failing to work effectively. Some other people have even criticized DC members of currying favour with government officials―I am referring to Mr CHU Hoi-dick―he should really come to DCs to take a look. He might probably have never seen government officials being scolded frequently at DC meetings.

There is another very funny joke. Actually, there is an endless supply of jokes. Just now, a Miss LAU said that Mr HUI Chi-fung was the only member in the Central and Western DC who is doing real work. I am grateful to her for telling us Mr HUI Chi-fung was the only one in the Central and Western DC who is doing real work. What about the other DC members from the Democratic Party? Are Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr KAM Nai-wai and a Mr NG not required to do anything? It turns out that they are not doing anything. Given that the pan-democrats requested other Members to clarify their comments, why did they not request LAU Siu-lai to clarify hers? The Democratic Party has pulled wool over its eyes because of its own position. Why did it not request her to make a clarification? She was slandering colleagues from the Democratic Party in saying that only Mr HUI Chi-fung was doing real work, whereas the several other DC members were not doing anything.

President, these Members are actually discriminating against and slinging mud at their electors if they keep repeating the argument that one can become a DC member simply by giving away seasonal delicacies. Which old lady will definitely vote for a DC member after eating the seasonal delicacies? If a DC member has done nothing at all, do you think he can still secure votes? Work performance is most crucial. Do Members believe the quality of voters nowadays is so low? Do Members think that a snake feast or a trip is free? Will they please stop slinging mud at the electors. Will Members please stop pulling wool over their eyes because of their stances. They should examine carefully the tasks DCs must undertake.

In my opinion, if Members can make a concerted effort to do something for DCs and the residents, as what I did more than two decades ago, then DCs will be able to do real work. Members had better relinquish the aforesaid allowances. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1421

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, Ms Alice MAK put it most correctly just now. She mentioned some arguments which I wish to put forward. For example, in the Central and Western District, Mr HUI Chi-fung is actually the only one who does real work, while other members from the Democratic Party can just sit there with folded arms. Moreover, I have to criticize Mr CHU Hoi-dick for his inadequacy in collection of information, making false accusations of our voting stances in the past. But he is totally wrong. Hence, one should never think that all evils in society are done by those opponents in our eyes. I hope Members will act on the basis of facts and tell members of the public in Hong Kong the truth.

Furthermore, a Member surnamed LAU also spoke earlier on―this Member surnamed LAU is just great―in the sense that she accused District Council ("DC") members of antagonizing members of the public when she talked about the hawker issue. May I ask her what the responsibility of DC members is? Their responsibility is to serve the local residents. If residents complain to DC members about hawkers dirtying places and causing noise nuisances which disturb their sleep, do DC members not have the responsibility to reflect the issue? We must understand that there are many different demands in society, including room for survival of hawkers and preservation of the so-called local characteristics as stated by her. But at the same time, she should also take into account the business environment of shops and room for survival of members of the public in the districts. Only in so doing can we formulate relatively comprehensive policies.

Every time, she will just make sweeping generalizations, doing whatever she pleases and paying no regard to residents in the districts. She just goes anywhere she feels like going and carries out her work there. Even if the streets are dirtied, the Government will recruit cleansing workers to cleanse them. Surely the citizens also have a part to play in it, don't they? Has she launched any education or publicity campaign regarding this? What problems have hawkers brought to the communities? Has she made any specific recommendations to address these issues? She has not, only saying that she has to do it this way. But the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") will not act in that way. We join hands with other political parties and groupings, and hold joint discussions with the Government about how to make allowances for room for survival of hawkers while taking into account the living environment of people in the districts. We have held an activity in the form of a bazaar at Maple Street, hoping that hawkers may 1422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 continue their operation without significantly affecting the environment of residents, thereby striking a balance between hawkers and residents and achieving a win-win situation. However, she has completely ignored our effort in this regard. I recall that we have discussed work in this regard with DCs.

No matter what, the Lunar New Year fair to be held at Maple Street on this occasion is not a total success due to certain red tape of the Government, such as disallowing them to use naked flame, and restricting the purchase of food to certain shops in the interest of meeting food safety requirements. In view of all this, we know that there are still some inadequacies. But we have been striving to solve the relevant problems, contrary to her claim all along that DC members have failed to attend to their proper business, and that lust is the worst vice. All proper business is done by her, while all harm to Hong Kong is done by us, DC members from the pro-establishment camp.

If she has so little faith in the system of DC members, she might as well propose the abolition of DCs. She says she has to fight for the so-called genuine universal suffrage. Currently, all DC members are elected on a "one person, one vote" basis. But she still has something to say, not believing that those elected representatives can work for the residents. So what is she fighting for here? Even if all the Legislative Council Members are elected on a "one person, one vote" basis, she can still say something against them. That is why Ms Alice MAK quoted just the first half of a slang that goes, "The butts direct the brain". But I will say that "their stance determines right and wrong". There is no right or wrong in their eyes. As long as it is done by their opponents, it is "wrong", while what they have done is "right". Sticking to this principle, they will then keep running publicity and smearing campaigns in public. In this connection, I am really impressed by their shamelessness.

Earlier on, Dr LAU Siu-lai also mentioned that Mr HO Kai-ming had felt sorry that his "seasonal delicacies" might not be presentable. They are certainly not presentable. My relatives and friends as well as local residents will bring the rice dumplings distributed by all political parties home for tasting during the Dragon Boat Festival every year, so as to see which rice dumplings are heavier. They will even weigh the rice dumplings for fun, and compare the ingredients of the rice dumplings distributed by various political parties. It is found that those from the Democratic Party taste most awful. My relatives and friends said to me, "They not only behave badly. Even their rice dumplings are worse than others." I am not picking on them. I just quoted the comments of individual LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1423 members of the public. Hence, one should never say that "seasonal delicacies" are the unique approach of the pro-establishment camp, and that we have secured our seats by the offer of "seasonal delicacies". Members may look at the press reports. Even the media will compare their "seasonal delicacies" every year. How dare they say that we are the only ones who do this? But I dare say I have never distributed them. I should be the only one from DAB who has never distributed such things.

Furthermore, now the leaflet of a certain political party―which I do not wish to name―is still at my home, which reads participants of a picnic will be given a rice cooker for free. That is not an activity held by the pro-establishment camp. Some even state that anyone going on a picnic can take part in a lucky draw to win a television set. Who organize these activities? Hence, when all the Members from the opposition camp point their finger at others, they should first reflect on themselves to see if they have made the same mistake … (Some Members spoke in their seats) No, if they say that this is wrong … Mr CHAN Han-pan, please do not say that. If they consider it wrong, they should first ask themselves whether they have done something wrong. If they have also done so, then all of us should stop doing so. Just as Ms Alice MAK said, all of us should not decline the allowances. The receipt of allowances is the worst vice. We should not do that.

The motion proposed by Mr LAU Kwok-fan today is originally a good proposal, in a bid to do something for members of the public. But Members keep distorting this issue, elevating it to the political plane. Just stop doing everything! DCs have become a tool for securing votes with established political positions. I personally think that the past two DC Elections have gradually become increasingly politicized. Instead of jointly discussing ways to gradually improve the living environment of the districts, people have shifted their focus when polling comes, saying that they will not vote for a candidate belonging to the pro-establishment camp but not the democratic camp. Who have led members of the public to become increasingly politicized? Them over there.

Hence, I hope Mr LAU Kwok-fan can pull the motion today back onto the right track in his concluding remarks, so that the question will not be knocked off course, and that the purity of DCs will not be polluted. Thank you, President. I so submit.

1424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, just now Ms Alice MAK said that a major problem with the current operation of District Councils ("DCs") is the role played by District Officers. Ms Alice MAK seemed to think that the qualification of some District Officers did not meet the level of her requirements, thus making it impossible for some problems in the districts to be addressed.

In fact, District Officers are posts created under the Home Affairs Bureau. The Secretary for Home Affairs, Mr LAU Kong-wah, is present today, too. Over the past couple of days, many members of the media and the public have been looking for Mr LAU Kong-wah in the hope that he can give a response in public because the media has earlier revealed that the Hong Kong Army Cadets Association Limited, Mr Bunny CHAN, and so on, have been allocated land and more than $30 million at lightning speed. Furthermore, more than $10 million has been spent on subsidizing some organizations. As the saying goes, if the upper beam is not straight, the lower ones will go aslant. If the personal integrity and credibility of the Secretary is questioned constantly, coupled with his failure to come forward to give a public account, then the District Officers, who are his subordinates, will be unable to hold their heads high. A government official must command respect from others. Otherwise, he will lack credibility, thus making his enforcement of policies difficult. I hope the Secretary, who is present in this Council today, can give an account to the public here or outside the Chamber. What has actually happened? How come a school building could have been allocated to the Hong Kong Army Cadets Association Limited in 18 days? How come $30 million in public money could have been allocated in a matter of days to the Hong Kong Army Cadets Association Limited, whose Commander-in-Chief is Mrs Regina LEUNG … ?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, you have strayed from the question. This Council is discussing matters related to DCs.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, DCs are in the brief of the Home Affairs Bureau, whereas the Secretary for Home Affairs …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1425

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The question under discussion is DCs, not the Home Affairs Bureau. Will you please focus on the relevant question.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): … it is because the Home Affairs Bureau is duty-bound to monitor the operation of the DC Secretariats. President, as I pointed out just now, if the upper beam is not straight, the lower ones will go aslant. Just now, many Members present also expressed concern about how the DC Secretariats monitor the use of DC funds. In my opinion, my remarks about the personal integrity of and decisions made by the Secretary for Home Affairs being called into question are closely related to our question. President, are you disallowing me to cast doubts on an issue of great concern to the public over the past couple of days, which also bears relevance to the Secretary? Is it true? President, are you restricting my making of speeches?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I do not mean to restrict your making of speeches, but you must focus on the question. Please confine your speech to the question, or else I will direct you to stop speaking.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): … my point is absolutely clear. The way LAU Kong-wah, as the Secretary for Home Affairs, discharges his duties and monitors the operation of funds allocation in DCs is very important. The problem is that, insofar as the Secretary personally is concerned, his integrity and creditability has recently been constantly questioned? President, my comments are very sensible and reasonable. Why do you disallow me to continue to raise my doubts? How come a monument could have been allocated to the organization run by Bunny CHAN without going through public consultation? How come a public tender could have been dispensed with and then …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, this is my last warning. I will direct you to stop speaking should you fail to focus on the question being debated today.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, actually, the doubts raised by me just now are most reasonable and sensible.

1426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, please sit down and stop speaking.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, there is something wrong with my microphone, so I might have to hold it when I speak.

Before all else, President, I have to make a declaration of interest. Since I am an incumbent District Council ("DC") member, I have to make such a declaration regarding the relevant question …

(Mr Andrew WAN vigorously threw a document onto his desk, shouting aloud "Shame on you!" while leaving his seat)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, please withdraw immediately from the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

(Mr Andrew WAN left the Chamber)

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, Dr Helena WONG mentioned my name just now, but I cannot yet fully grasp her arguments. If she thinks that I have abused the Rules of Procedure or raise objection or seek elucidations under inappropriate circumstances, I hope she can state them more clearly, instead of brushing aside this issue lightly.

President, I do not wish to be embroiled in fractious arguments. Since long-serving DC members should have considerable experience in community service, there is bound to be some minor bickerings among them, which is likely to result in some unpleasant experiences. Nevertheless, today's question is not about these issues.

President, there is one point I would like to highlight. Although my service as a DC member is not long, I find that other DC members in my district with whom I get along are working very hard. Certainly, different districts have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1427 different backgrounds, members of the public targeted might also come from different strata, and the nature and degree of difficulty of the services provided by DC members might also differ. But, all in all, I think that they are worth more than the money spent because the amount of time spent by them is far more than that spent on a full-time job. Moreover, they have to spend their allowances on dealing with different affairs, including even weddings and funerals, entertainments, and so on, in their respective districts. The role currently played by DC members has far exceeded what they are supposed to play. In the past, District Offices might be given more resources and manpower to deal with district work and delivery of services. Nowadays, however, since the Government has succeeded in outsourcing these tasks to DC members, its workload has been greatly relieved. Under such circumstances, the Government should indeed review properly how to further strengthen its work in the future and even its support in terms of policy and finance, as well as on other fronts, to enable DC members to commence work effectively.

President, just now, some Honourable colleagues mentioned the restrictions imposed by the legal framework. If my memory serves me right, restrictions on DCs are stipulated in Articles 97 and 98 of the Basic Law. Without a doubt, the terms of reference of DCs cannot be extended easily to deal with work related to politics or the so-called political power, because DCs are not allowed to be involved in these areas according to the Basic Law. But otherwise, DCs have a certain role to play in policymaking, particularly in relation to community facilities, leisure and cultural services, and so on.

Under section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance, the functions of an DC include advising the Government in certain areas and, where funds are made available for the purpose, undertaking environmental improvements, the promotion of recreational and cultural activities, community activities, and so on. The current problem is: Can DCs acquire adequate resources or financial support to enable them to do better in these areas? On this front in particular, I hope the Administration can review, in general, whether or not the functions and role of DCs should be enhanced further.

I am very grateful to Mr LAU Kwok-fan. Being a DC member, he certainly understands very well the expectations and demands of electors for him. So, the several proposals put forward by him are very reasonable. I have great respect also for a number of colleagues who have proposed amendments. I believe the several Legislative Council colleagues, except one, are incumbent DC 1428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 members who might have been serving as DC members for years or come from DCs. They certainly have a better understanding than mine of the role played by DCs and the difficulties encountered. This is why I will strive to support their proposed amendments. In my opinion, the proposals are very constructive, except some amendments because their accusations of certain community works projects and building are undue, inappropriate or have failed to fully grasp the facts.

Concerning the relevant accusations, I understand that certain community facilities are relatively controversial, including the proposed construction of a music fountain in Kwun Tong, the district currently served by me. This subject has also troubled many Kwun Tong DC members for months. I wish to raise two points only. Firstly, the relevant proposal can definitely not meet the wishes of all people. In fact, no single facility can get approval from everyone. Some people will definitely ask: Why is the money earmarked for the construction of facilities not spent on promoting regular welfare work? I can only say that regular funding has been provided by the Government for the promotion of regular work related to education, health care, welfare, and so on. Meanwhile, however, sweeteners should also be offered. Sometimes, since we have to perform a lot of daily work with no money to spare, sweeteners are required, just like housewives who have to pinch and scrape on weekdays should be given the opportunity to go to the restaurant on Sundays to take a break. Hence, sweeteners are essential. I hope Members, in reviewing these facilities, can understand that not all the money should necessarily be spent on meeting regular expenses.

Another point I would like to raise is related to the consultation process. We should respect the collective decisions made by DC members according to their wishes and through the established mechanisms or channels, as well as their personal contact with residents in their respective districts. We should not make criticisms arbitrarily or even dismiss some of the decisions made by them for their districts without fully grasping the facts. In my opinion, it is irresponsible to act in this manner.

President, generally speaking, I support the motion. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1429

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kwok-fan, you may now speak on the various amendments. The speaking time limit is five minutes.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): Before all else, I would like to thank Honourable colleagues present for speaking on this motion and the amendments. Quite a number of specific proposals put forward by Members just now warrant in-depth studies, too. However, some Members appeared to have gradually deviated from the question in their speeches. I sometimes think that the Government is, comparatively speaking, "divorced from the people". I did not expect some colleagues in this Council to be equally so.

Just now, I noted that Members who have run in District Council ("DC") elections or double as DC members appeared to have a clearer understanding of the duties of DCs, whereas Legislative Council Members who are not DC members might be unable to fully grasp the work of DCs and, as a result, some of their criticisms were way off the truth. Just as Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has said, we are willing to accept criticisms …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU, you should speak on the various amendments in these five minutes, rather than commenting on the views expressed by other Members. Please confine your speech to the amendments.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): Nevertheless, criticisms must be founded on facts. To start with, I would like to say a few words about the speech delivered by Dr Fernando CHEUNG on his amendment. Many of the comments made in his preamble or speech are not consistent with the facts, for they have seriously belittled the contribution made by DC members and DCs in the past. As regards the proposal for the establishment of a "community building fund", as mentioned by me in the motion, I wonder if he has failed to understand my proposal, or though he knows very well that it is truthful, he has intentionally mixed up the fund with the allocation of funds for organizing activities in order to be politically correct. 1430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Actually, my motion is related to the leisure and cultural projects to be undertaken in the community, such as those related to parks, stadia, and so on. Mr WU Chi-wai might have a clearer idea. These projects, which are mostly left over by the Urban Council or the Regional Council, have been delayed for over 10 years. As such, I hope that a quicker avenue can be made available to enable these projects to commence expeditiously without competing for resources with major infrastructure projects. Moreover, the Government should be requested to "foot the bill". Nevertheless, Dr CHEUNG has misunderstood my point.

In addition, Dr CHEUNG has mentioned the occurrence of a coterie for cronyism in relation to quite a number of funds or the allocation of funds in districts. However, he has not seen the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and the Neighbourhood and Workers Service Centre receive a large sum of funds from the Government. In spite of this, we show the same respect for their use of the funds allocated to serve the public. Given that Dr Fernando CHEUNG has distorted the facts, we will vote against his amendment.

We fully agree with the amendment proposed by Mr WU Chi-wai because our directions are consistent. We all hope that the Special Administrative Region Government can re-examine the powers and functions of DCs and transfer the powers possessed by the former Regional Council or Urban Council to DCs in a progressive manner.

In order to provide Members with more room for exploration, I have rendered the original motion in a less stringent manner. We are therefore inclined to support the amendment proposed by Mr WU Chi-wai because he has put forward quite a number of specific proposals in it. As regards the amendment proposed by Mr HUI Chi-fung, who belongs to the same political party as Mr WU's, we cannot render it support because some of its contents warrant further consideration.

Lastly, although Members have in their amendments suggested that DCs should be given greater powers, it is regrettable that though many Legislative Council Members who are also DC members know it very well that DCs have done a lot of good deeds in serving the public, they dared not speak up about these good deeds just now. I wonder if it has anything to do with political correctness. Meanwhile, they dared not make their voice heard about many incorrect criticisms to defend their own DCs. I find it most regrettable. If LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1431 more powers are given to DCs, I trust they can definitely assist in district administration in a more effective manner, and serve the public. For these reasons, I hope Members will support my motion.

President, I so submit.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LAU Kwok-fan once again for proposing the motion, and the other three Members for proposing the amendments. Earlier on, a number of Members spoke enthusiastically on the topic, showing that Members are very much concerned about the work of District Councils ("DCs"). As mentioned by a number of Members, DCs play an important role in district administration, being also a major partner of the Government in district affairs. I am glad to hear the views expressed by Members, including strengthening the role of DCs, enhancing the support to DCs and enhancing the transparency of the operation of DCs. Quite a number of propositions are consistent with the general direction of the Government.

I will respond particularly to the following aspects: First, vesting DCs with additional powers. A number of Members have mentioned that DCs should be vested with additional powers so as to involve them in the management of district facilities and policy formulation. I understand the proposition and rationale of Members. But I must point out that in considering the role and functions of DCs, the Government will, on the one hand, regard DCs as the best partner at the district level, consulting them on a number of major policies and relying on them to take forward a number of livelihood-related projects in the districts. But on the other hand, our establishment of district organizations, including DCs, has to be compliant with Article 97 of the Basic Law. And DCs are not organs of political power in nature, and must discharge the functions as set out in the District Councils Ordinance (Cap. 547). Hence, such proposals as the powers of staff management, financial autonomy and making policy decisions suggested by Mr WU Chi-wai and District Commissioners to be returned by universal suffrage as suggested by Mr HUI Chi-fung will go beyond the original intent and requirements set out in law.

Second, the funding arrangements for DC projects. Members have put forward quite a number of views on the existing funding arrangements for construction projects in the districts, so that DCs may expedite the implementation of construction projects in the districts, and improve the existing 1432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 funding arrangements for and operation of the projects under the Signature Project Scheme ("SPS") and district minor works programme. I perfectly understand Mr LAU Kwok-fan's wish for early implementation of the community facility works endorsed by DCs in order to expedite the improvement of community environment and provide additional cultural, recreational and sports facilities for the benefit of members of the public. Currently, different types of funding mechanisms are in place to cater for various district needs, and the amount of funding has also been rising gradually every year. We have improved the living environment for members of the public by implementing different types of minor works, such as the construction of covers on walkways in various places, so that members of the public will not be tormented by the elements when commuting, and the installation of more fitness facilities at sitting-out areas for residents' use. Thanks to SPS projects, each district has even been granted an additional amount of $100 million in one go, thereby meeting the expectation of DCs to implement SPS projects of a larger scale.

We very much appreciate the views on the existing SPS projects put forward by some Members. But I wish to reiterate that the implementation of SPS projects seeks to meet district needs and highlight the characteristics of the districts. And DCs have basically made use of such additional resources to address district demands. Let me use a few approved projects as an example. Earlier on, a number of Members mentioned the "Enhancement of Community Healthcare Services" project in Kwai Tsing District, which provided local residents with community health care service, ophthalmic care service for the elderly and dental service, etc. broadly welcomed by members of the public. For example, the "Shek Kip Mei Community Services Centre" project in Sham Shui Po District will provide local residents in need with child care and after-school care support services, short-term food assistance and medical services under one roof. Such measures also meet the local circumstances of Sham Shui Po District. Under the "Lift Tower at Shung Yan Street" project in Kwun Tong District, barrier-free facilities will be provided to facilitate the elderly and people with disabilities in commuting to and from the public rental housing estates and Kwun Tong Town Centre adjacent to Hong Ning Road Recreation Ground. The construction works of these measures, for which local residents have been asking over the years, may commence now. Members may further look at other examples carefully. They are also measures for the interest and benefit of people. The SPS projects selected by DCs in various districts are responsive to people's sentiments, practically addressing district needs instead of being "out of tune with public sentiments" as opined by Dr Fernando CHEUNG.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1433

As to Members' concern about the screening process for such projects, at present, various DCs have, taking into account their local circumstances, adopted suitable channels to consult local residents and organizations in order to enhance transparency. They have also thoroughly reflected public opinions in the projects for discussion before selecting the SPS projects favoured by them. We believe DCs are satisfied that the selected projects will be conducive to the development and highlight the characteristics of the districts before coming to their decision.

Third, enhancing the transparency of operation of DCs. We very much support Members' suggestion that the transparency of operation of DCs be enhanced. At present, all meetings, discussions and projects implemented by DCs, as an organ representing public opinions, are watched over by the public and media. In appropriate circumstances, DCs will also invite local residents or organizations to attend meetings of DCs and the relevant committees for direct communication, and have created a dedicated window on the websites of DCs, issued media statements and taken interviews, offering detailed explanations and providing accurate messages in response to the concerns of residents or organizations.

A Member is particularly concerned about the transparency of implementation of district minor works projects, hoping that the Government can make public the expenses and auditors' reports of all projects. The district minor works programme is subject to government regulations, including the Stores and Procurement Regulations, the Financial and Accounting Regulations and the Standing Accounting Instructions. District Offices ("DOs") and DCs will also ensure that all the works are within the scope of the programme, and utilize the funding in a highly transparent and responsible manner, including compliance with the relevant existing regulations and guidelines.

A Member has suggested that the transparency of the system for DC members' declaration of interests be enhanced. At present, in order to avoid conflict of interest by DC members, the Home Affairs Department has, with reference to the guidelines for a two-tier reporting system devised by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, made relevant provisions on the operation of DCs, under which DC members are required to declare their general pecuniary interests or other material benefits upon resumption of office, and make a declaration when there is any potential conflict of interests. The provisions 1434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 concerning declaration of interests have been incorporated by the 18 DCs into their District Council Standing Orders for compliance by DC members. The details of members' declarations are also accessible by members of the public.

Fourth, strengthening the role of District Officers in district coordination. District Officers have assumed an active role in coordinating district affairs, especially for those issues involving the powers and responsibilities of a number of government departments. District Officers have spared no effort in promoting dialogue among different stakeholders and strengthening communication, hoping that various parties may seek common ground while accommodating differences, and forge a consensus. We also understand that quite a number of community issues, such as traffic congestions, require inter-departmental cooperation. The relevant departments may propose feasible options only after taking into account the views of DCs and members of the community.

Since its establishment in 2007, the Steering Committee on District Administration has been seeking to further enhance the coordination among departments and offer stronger support to the work of District Officers in addressing the difficult-to-solve local problems that require inter-departmental cooperation. This Committee is chaired by the Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs. Heads of various government departments attending the meetings may join hands in addressing local problems that require inter-departmental cooperation, and may offer guidelines to District Officers on enhancing district work.

Take the enhancement measures to tackle shop front extensions as an example. The Committee has urged various departments to step up law enforcement in their respective purviews through negotiation, and promoted the introduction of a fixed penalty system against shop front extensions. This measure has come into full operation since 24 September this year, under which the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and the Hong Kong Police Force may issue fixed penalty notices of $1,500 to offenders in respect of shop front extensions.

Meanwhile, DCs also play a role in assisting the monitoring of government departments, and advising law enforcement agencies on the enhancement measures to tackle shop front extensions, such as identifying "black spots of street obstruction" in the districts. Moreover, DCs have been working hand in hand LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1435 with DOs in various districts, assisting the Government in widely publicizing the new fixed penalty system at the district level, with a view to promoting civil awareness. President, over the past month or so, the enforcement actions of FEHD have been largely smooth, with improvement in the situation of shop front extensions. Therefore, I hereby express my gratitude to DCs for their support and effort.

All DCs are fully elected for the current term of office. As elected representatives, members have high expectations for the work of DCs, hoping that more new insights may be injected into community development. But in the delivery process, a gap may arise between expectations and results. The SAR Government will review the role and functions of DCs from time to time. The views put forward by quite a number of Members today can serve as reference, providing appropriate support to DCs and DC members and promoting communication with DCs, thereby enabling DCs to continue to serve as an essential channel of communication between the Government and communities.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Dr Fernando CHEUNG to move his amendment to the motion.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion be amended.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To delete "as District Council members have the advantage of grasping first-hand public sentiments" after "That" and substitute with "in recent years, the projects under the Signature Project Scheme implemented by District Councils have come under criticism, such as the construction of music fountains at Kwun Tong Promenade, improving the tourist facilities at Lam Tsuen Wishing Square, the development of seafood dining facilities near the Aberdeen Wholesale Fish Market, etc., giving rise to controversy in the community; and various district minor works projects endorsed by District Councils for implementation were ineffective; the abovementioned situation reflects that District Councils are out of tune with public sentiments and their decision-making process lacks 1436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

transparency; in this connection"; to delete "establishing a 'community building fund' to expedite the implementation of community facility works endorsed by District Councils; and (5)" after "(4)"; and to add "; (5) amending the model District Council Standing Orders to enhance the system for declaration of interests by District Council members, including requiring District Council members who have direct personal interests in the public or private companies/organizations (including non-profit-making welfare organizations) related to the funding proposals concerned, or who are unremunerated (i.e. without any honorarium, allowances or other material benefits) directors of those companies/organizations, to disclose such connections and/or withdraw from the meeting when a funding proposal related to such companies/organizations is being discussed by the District Council or its committees and to refrain from voting on the funding proposal; (6) enhancing the transparency of District Councils, including requiring that the names of speakers be set out in the minutes of all meetings of District Councils to facilitate monitoring by the public; setting up real-time audio or video broadcasting for all meetings, and making public the detailed information and auditors' reports of all those activities subsidized with funding as well as district minor works projects, and uploading them onto the websites of District Councils for the public's reference; and (7) stepping up the efforts of District Councils to conduct consultation with the community, and establishing a mechanism for making joint decisions with the community" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1437

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the amendment.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr CHAN Chun-ying and Mr LAU Kwok-fan voted against the amendment.

Mr POON Siu-ping abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the amendment.

1438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Wilson OR voted against the amendment.

Mrs Regina IP and Ms YUNG Hoi-yan abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment, 8 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Strengthening the role and functions of District Councils" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Starry LEE be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1439

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Strengthening the role and functions of District Councils" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, you may move your amendment.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion be amended.

Mr WU Chi-wai moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add "District Councils have for many years merely played the role in giving views to the Government; however," after "That"; to add "review and amend the District Councils Ordinance and adopt measures to" after "the Government to"; to add ", including vesting them with the powers of staff management, financial autonomy and making policy decisions" after "various policies"; to add ", and allowing District Councils to manage district municipal facilities and services" after "district affairs"; to delete "enhancing" after "(3)" and substitute with "establishing an independent District Council secretariat to enhance"; to delete "establishing" after "(4)" and substitute with "affirming the funding policy system and the system for members' declaration of interests with a high degree of transparency, considering the establishment of"; to delete "to expedite" after " 'community building fund' " and substitute with "on the premise of putting the funding process of District Councils under public scrutiny, and expediting"; and to add "after fully consulting stakeholders in the districts" after "by District Councils"."

1440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr WU Chi-wai to Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr WU Chi-wai rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr Holden CHOW, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1441

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr SHIU Ka-fai and Mr CHAN Chun-ying voted against the amendment.

Mr HO Kai-ming abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the amendment.

Mrs Regina IP and Ms YUNG Hoi-yan voted against the amendment.

Mr Paul TSE, Ms Alice MAK and Mr KWOK Wai-keung abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 27 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment, 11 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 were present, 18 were in favour of the amendment, 2 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, as the amendment of Mr WU Chi-wai has been passed, I have given leave for you to revise the terms of your amendment, as set out in the paper which has been issued to Members. When 1442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 moving your revised amendment, you may speak for up to three minutes to explain the revised terms in your amendment, but you may not express further views on the motion and the amendments, nor may you repeat what you have already covered in your earlier speech. You may now move your revised amendment.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move my revised amendment.

Mr HUI Chi-fung moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr WU Chi-wai: (Translation)

"To delete "strengthening the role of District Officers in district coordination" after "(5)" and substitute with "studying the introduction of District Commissioners to be returned by universal suffrage"; and to add ", and abolishing the ex-officio seats in District Councils" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr HUI Chi-fung's amendment to Mr LAU Kwok-fan's motion as amended by Mr WU Chi-wai, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr HUI Chi-fung rose to claim a division.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1443

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the amendment.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying and Mr LAU Kwok-fan voted against the amendment.

Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the amendment.

1444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR and Ms YUNG Hoi-yan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 27 were present, 7 were in favour of the amendment, 18 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 22 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 10 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kwok-fan, you still have two minutes and two seconds to reply. The debate will come to a close after Mr LAU Kwok-fan has replied.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, in fact, my original motion shares a similar target or direction with the amendments proposed by other Members, for they all seek to enhance the functions and role of District Councils ("DCs"), so that we will be better equipped to serve the public. The debate among Honourable colleagues earlier might have sent sparks flying, but I believe it is due to Members' varied levels of understanding of DC members' work. Today offers a good opportunity for Members to gain a better understanding of the work of DCs, and the routine duties of DC members.

The Legislative Council is responsible for scrutiny of legislation, change of policies or even introduction of amendments to outdated policies, while DCs are responsible for district administration and provision of district services. The Legislative Council can introduce changes to laws, while DCs cannot. Nevertheless, DCs can propose the implementation of district works projects, while the Legislative Council cannot. Hence, both Councils are actually playing their respective roles with individual functions. If both Councils can demonstrate mutual respect and give play to their functions, it will surely be good for the welfare of Hong Kong. Hence, I very much hope that through the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 November 2016 1445 motion debate today, Members will gain more understanding and respect, thereby enabling the two-tier structure to do a great job together for members of the public. Lastly, I urge Members to support this motion.

President, I so submit. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr LAU Kwok-fan, as amended by Mr WU Chi-wai, be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion as amended passed.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday 30 November 2016.

Adjourned accordingly at 2:39 pm.