Of the Tuen Mun District Council

Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee (2020-2021) of the Tuen Mun District Council

Date: 25 February 2020 (Tuesday) Time: 9:33 a.m. Venue: Tuen Mun District Council (TMDC) Conference Room

Present Time of Arrival Time of Departure Ms WONG Lai-sheung, Catherine (Chairman) TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr LAM Kin-cheung (Vice-chairman) TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Ms CHAN Shu-ying Josephine TMDC Chairman 9:38 a.m. End of meeting Mr WONG Tan-ching TMDC Vice-chairman 9:36 a.m. End of meeting Ms KONG Fung-yi TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr CHAN Yau-hoi, BBS, MH, JP TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. 10:14 a.m. Ms HO Hang-mui TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr LAM Chung-hoi TMDC Member 9:34 a.m. 11:00 a.m. Ms CHU Shun-nga Beatrice TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr YEUNG Chi-hang TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr YAN Siu-nam TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting. Mr WONG Tak-yuen TMDC Member 9:43 a.m. End of meeting.. Mr LEE Ka-wai TMDC Member 10:06 a.m. End of meeting Mr HO Kwok-ho TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr LAM Ming-yan TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr CHOW Kai-lim TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr MA Kee TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr CHEUNG Kam-hung Kenneth TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr LEUNG Ho-man TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. 12:29 p.m. Mr WONG Hung-ming TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr TSANG Chun-hing TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr TSANG Kam-wing TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr YAN Pui-lam TMDC Member 9:34 a.m. End of meeting Mr POON Chi-kin TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr LAI Chun-wing Alfred TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr LO Chun-yu TMDC Member 10:29 a.m. 12:20 p.m Ms LAI Ka-man TMDC Member 9:30 a.m. End of meeting Mr FUNG Ying-chee, Derek (Secretary) Executive Officer (District Council)3, Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department

By Invitation Ms WONG Sau-kuen, Sarah Manager (New Territories West), Marketing and District Activities, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Miss HO Yuen-ching, Jessica District Planning Officer/Tuen Mun & Yuen Long West (Atg.), Planning Department Mr CHAN Fei-hung Assistant Divisional Commander (Operation)/Tuen Mun Division, Hong Kong Police Force Mr LEUNG Chun-yeung Police Community Relations Officer (Tuen Mun District), Hong Kong Police Force

In Attendance Ms FUNG Ngar-wai, Aubrey District Officer (Tuen Mun), Home Affairs Department Ms TSUI Man-yee, Joanna Assistant District Officer (Tuen Mun)1, Home Affairs Department Mr NG Chi-keung, Vincent Senior Liaison Officer (3), Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr CHEUNG Chi-keung, Endy Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms SIU Wai-mei, Minnie Liaison Officer i/c (District Facilities), Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr LEE Kit-wai Senior Inspector of Works, Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr LEE Wang-yui, Eddie Architect (Works)7, Works Section, Headquarters Division II, Home Affairs Department Ms LO Lai Fong, Jackie Chief Leisure Manager ( New Territories North), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms TAM Yin-ting, Pat District Leisure Manager (Tuen Mun), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms MAN Pui Shan, Erica Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Tuen Mun, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LAW Lai Chun, Gladys Senior Executive Officer (Planning)32, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LAM Pui-yin, Gloria Senior Manager (New Territories West) Promotion, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LAM Fong Senior Librarian (Tuen Mun), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr TAM Kwok-leung Administrative Assistant/ Lands (District Lands Office, Tuen Mun), Lands Department

- 2 - Ms Angela LEE Police Community Relations Officer (Tuen Mun District), Hong Kong Police Force

- 3 -

Action

I. Opening Remarks The Chairman welcomed all to the 1st meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee (“DFMC”). She also extended welcome to representatives of government departments in attendance at the meeting.

2. The Chairman said that to minimise the risk of community transmission of the virus, the Tuen Mun District Office (“TMDO”) would implement the following measures at the meetings of TMDC and its committees/working groups: Before entering the conference room, participants and media representatives must put on their own surgical masks, fill in health declaration forms and have their body temperature checked by the Secretariat staff. Those with body temperature higher than 37.6°C would be denied entry; no members of the public were allowed to observe the meeting except media representatives, whose personal particulars (e.g. name, respective media organisation and staff number) would be recorded properly so that health authorities could trace all media representatives admitted to the conference room when necessary; and tea service was suspended and participants could bring water and drinking utensils on their own. The TMDO also arranged for a cleaning team to conduct thorough cleaning and disinfection of the conference room after the meetings.

3. The Chairman reminded Members that any Member who was aware of a personal interest in a discussion item should declare the interest before the discussion. She would, in accordance with Order 38(12) of the Tuen Mun District Council Standing Orders, decide whether the Member who had declared the interest might speak or vote on the matter, might remain in the meeting as an observer, or should withdraw from the meeting. All cases of declaration of interests would be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

II. Absence from Meeting 4. The Secretariat had received no applications by Members for leave of absence.

III. Discussion Items (A) Terms of Reference of DFMC (2020-2021) under TMDC (DFMC Paper No. 1/2020) 5. The DFMC noted the contents of the above paper.

Action (B) Formation of Working Groups under DFMC (2020-2021) (DFMC Paper No. 2/2016) 6. The Chairman enquired whether the DFMC agreed to continue the formation of three standing working groups of the previous term, namely the Working Group on Community Involvement, the Working Group on Facilities and Works and the Working Group on Tuen Mun Greening.

7. A Member suggested the formation of a new working group (whether on standing or non-standing basis) to tackle the problems concerned in the parks of the Tuen Mun District and monitor government’s enforcement action. She said that there were noise problems in the parks of the Castle Peak Bay and the Butterfly Beach in the Tuen Mun District. The DFMC needed to form a working group for follow-up. She knew that the District Officer (Tuen Mun) led the department to follow up after the TMDC of the previous term had discussed the noise problems in parks. She hoped that the above suggestion would be supported by the Chairman and Members to commence follow-up immediately.

8. A Member said that there was no need for the formation of the Working Group on Tuen Mun Greening by the DFMC. She said that the Working Group on Tuen Mun Greening had little workload and seldom discussed matters related to greening in the past. If there was any matter related to relocation of trees which needed discussion in the future, there could be formation of another non-standing working group. The vacancy saved for the standing working group could be used for the formation of the Working Group on Management of Parks in Tuen Mun.

9. A Member opined that the Working Group on Tuen Mun Greening had a similar work nature with the Environmental Hygiene, Climate Change and Sustainable Development Committee so the Member had reservations on the formation of the working group.

10. The Chairman said that the DFMC of the previous term formed the Working Group on Tuen Mun Greening when trees needed relocations for the provision of noise barriers at the Tuen Mun town centre. The DFMC could have thorough discussions whether to form the Working Group on Tuen Mun Greening.

11. After discussion, the DFMC agreed with the formation of the Working Group on Community Involvement and the Working Group on Facilities and Works. The

Action Chairman invited Members to nominate candidates for the positions of Convenors of the above working groups with the following results:

Working Group Nominated Member Nominated by Seconded by Working Group on Mr Alfred LAI Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum Ms Josephine CHAN Community Involvement

Working Group Mr LAM Kin-cheung Mr LAM Ming-yan Mr HO Kwok-ho on Facilities and Works

12. The Chairman said that the Working Group on Tuen Mun Greening was more controversial. If the DFMC decided not to form the working group, it could consider the formation of a new working group to take its place.

13. A Member opined that it was worthwhile for the DFMC to form the working group on matters related to parks as what the Member just mentioned. Other follow-up actions on matters related to parks could be taken by a steering group formed under the working group or passed to the Working Group on Facilities and Works for discussion. She said that the current-term DFMC should show concern about the conditions of community halls apart from the matters related to parks. It was because the demands for community hall resources had outpaced supply and residents had issues on this. The DC funds could also be used for the extension of the opening hours of the community halls. She suggested that if the DFMC formed a new working group, the working group could follow up on the matters related to parks and community halls as well. On the other hand, the convenor of the Working Group on Facilities and Works could also consider to form a steering group to follow up on the above matters depending on the work load of the working group.

14. A Member said that the maximum number of working groups to be formed under current-term TMDC was 21 and there had been one working group formed by the full council already. He was worried that the number of working groups formed under current-term TMDC would reach the maximum number. In this regard, he opined that there was no need for the formation of the Working Group on Tuen Mun Greening as the issue was not so urgent. Besides, he suggested that a non-standing working group should be formed to follow up on the matters related to parks and he hoped that the

Action vacancy of the standing working group left would be used by the TMDC and other committees.

15. A Member agreed with the formation of a working group to follow up on the matters related to parks but he had reservations on the working group following up on the matters related to community halls as well. He said that the operations of community halls had stringent mechanisms on waiting, balloting and demerit points. On the contrary, there were no specific management standards on the facilities of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”). Therefore, it would be better to form a working group on parks, beaches and sports grounds instead if the DFMC intended to form a non-standing working group to follow up on the issues related to community halls.

16. A Member said that the new working group should target at the problems of noise and singing and dancing performance in the parks of the Tuen Mun District rather than forming it on non-standing basis. The working group should focus on tackling the problem of vocal noises in the Tuen Mun Park and handling the same problems in other parks of the district as well.

17. A Member agreed with the Member’s viewpoints above and said that the DFMC should form a working group to target at the noise problem in parks to achieve immediate effect. In this connection, she pointed out that the DFMC of the previous term had followed up on the above problem at the Working Group on Community Involvement and the Working Group on Facilities and Works but in vain.

18. A Member said that the terms of reference of the DFMC covered culture, leisure and sports services apart from management of district facilities. However, there was no working group which targeted at the above items specially in the past so he suggested the formation of a working group to follow up on the matters related to culture, leisure and sports services. As parks fell within the leisure service, this working group could follow up on the noise problem in the parks of the Tuen Mun District as well. He understood that many members showed concern about the noise problem in the parks of the Tuen Mun District. In light of the seriousness of the matter, he even opined that the matter should be followed up at the TMDC. Somehow, a working group should be formed with wider terms of reference for follow-up if the final decision was that the matter should be followed up at the DFMC.

Action 19. The Chairman said that the culture, leisure and sports services that the Member mentioned were followed up by the Working Group of Community Involvement of the previous term under which there were Steering Group on Community Reading, Steering Group on District Arts and Steering Group on Leisure and Sports Development.

20. A Member said that the duties of the Working Group on Tuen Mun Greening should be followed up by the Environmental Hygiene, Climate Change and Sustainable Development Committee. She opined that even though the noise problem in the parks of the Tuen Mun District was a matter of urgency, it was not a permanent problem so a non-standing working group should be formed for follow-up.

21. There being no objections from Members, the Chairman announced that the Working Group on Tuen Mun Greening would not be formed.

22. The Chairman continued to say that the DFMC would hold a vote whether to form a working group to follow up on the problem in the parks of the Tuen Mun District. Then it would decide whether to form the working group on standing or non-standing basis.

23. The Vice-chairman said that a vote would be held first whether to form a working group to follow up on the problems in the parks of the Tuen Mun District. Then a vote would be held whether to form the working group on standing or non-standing basis. As there were Members in favour of forming the working group on both standing and non-standing basis, the DFMC would decide in the above manner.

24. There being no objections from Members, the Chairman announced the formation of a working group to follow up on the problems in the parks of the Tuen Mun District.

25. The Chairman said that if the working group was formed on standing basis, its tenure of office would be two years. If the working group was formed on non-standing basis, its tenure of office would be eight months.

26. A Member said that the DFMC should form the working group on non-standing basis. He opined that the problems in the parks of the Tuen Mun District should be tackled within eight months so it would be better to form the working group on non-standing basis rather than standing basis.

Action

27. A Member said that if the new working group focused on the problems in park management only, he was in favour of the formation of the working group on non-standing basis. If the problems could not be properly tackled within eight months, the DFMC could further discuss how to follow up. If the working group had wider terms of reference and they included park management handling, he was in favour of formation on standing basis. Otherwise, he opined that it would be more appropriate to form the working group on non-standing basis.

28. A Member said that the DFMC should form the working group on non-standing basis because this working group targeted at the singing problem in the parks of the district. He did not expect that it would take more than eight months to tackle the problem. He even hoped that the problem would be solved within six months. Earlier, he conducted an inspection of the Tuen Mun Park and found that the TMDC was able to urge the LCSD to take enforcement action. If various government departments including the HKPF and the TMDO co-operated in tackling the problem coupled with the monitoring by the working group of the DFMC, he opined that the problem could be tackled within six months or even a shorter period of time.

29. A Member said that he was not optimistic that the problem could be successfully tackled within six months. He believed that it was difficult to solve the problem successfully with three meetings within six months. Somehow, he had no comments on whether to form the working group on standing or non-standing basis. If the working group was formed on on-standing basis, the DFMC could form the non-standing working group again upon expiration of the tenure of office of the working group. Therefore, it should be fine to form the working group on non-standing basis at the current stage. On the other hand, a Member had just mentioned that there were noise problems in many parks, including the Tsing Tin Playground and the Butterfly Beach Park. If the working group targeted at the noise problem in the Tuen Mun Park only, the singing artists might move to other parks for performance, not to mention that there might be places at which there were noise problems existing but not yet found. Therefore, the new working group should not target at the problem in the Tuen Mun Park only. The problems in other parks of the district should be followed up together.

Action 30. The Chairman said that it was necessary to decide the name and the terms of reference of the working group and nominate a convenor of the working group at this meeting today.

31. A Member suggested that the name of the working group should be Working Group on Park Management. He opined that there was no need to show the standing or non-standing nature in the name.

32. The Secretary said that the standing or non-standing working groups of the previous term were called “Working Group”. There was no need to mention the standing or non-standing nature in the name.

33. A Member said that there were vocal artists performing in several parks of the district. Earlier, some vocal artists also performed at the Castle Peak Beach. If the working group was named with “park” only, such facilities as beach, etc would not be included in the scope of discussion. Therefore, she suggested that the name of the working group should be Working Group on the Management of Parks and LCSD Open Space Facilities in the Tuen Mun District to include the venues of LCSD in the scope of discussion.

34. A Member said that no matter whether it was the vocal noise problem in the beaches or other LCSD venues, it was also the problem of the Tuen Mun Park after all. His understanding was that the problem of the Tuen Mun Park had spread to other venues. Besides, he was in favour of formation of the working group on non-standing basis. He also opined that the discussion of the problem of community halls at the working group would make the problems that were followed up by the working group out of focus. He suggested that the problem of community halls could be followed up at the Working Group on Facilities and Works.

35. A Member agreed that the vocal noise problem was problem of the Tuen Mun Park after all. On the name of the working group, he suggested “Working Group on Restoration of Tuen Mun” and said that the problem of the Tuen Mun Park was initially taken to the streets and then it was followed up at the TMDC. All along, many residents had supported them in tackling the problem of the Tuen Mun Park. Therefore, the above proposed name could make residents understand the target that DC Members wanted to achieve with more focus on the issue as well.

Action 36. A Member was in favour of naming the working group as “Working Group on Restoration of Tuen Mun”. He said that other names had limitations. For example, stating “Tuen Mun Park” in the name would limit the terms of reference of the working group to a park. In this regard, he suggested using the name that residents would most easily understand. Besides, he knew residents hoped that the TMDC would follow up on “Restoration of Tuen Mun” when he communicated with them recently. He hoped that the TMDC’s determination in following up the matter would be shown by such naming. Therefore, he was in favour of naming the working group as “Working Group on Restoration of Tuen Mun”.

37. The Chairman said she had noticed on the Internet that what happened in the past was “Restoration of Tuen Mun Park” but not “Restoration of Tuen Mun”. In this connection, she enquired the Member whether the suggestion was “Working Group on Restoration of Tuen Mun Park”.

38. A Member said that if the working group was named “Working Group on Restoration of Tuen Mun”, its terms of reference would be limited to the Tuen Mun Park. He explained that the procession held in July in the Tuen Mun District was “Restoration of Tuen Mun without Delay”. Therefore, not every procession held in the Tuen Mun District was “Restoration of Tuen Mun Park”.

39. A Member said the point of argument on the name of the working group was the coverage of the working group. The DFMC was worried about the problems outside the park such as beaches and pavements which would not fall within the terms of reference of the working group. Therefore, he suggested that the working group should be named “Working Group on Management of Street Performance in Tuen Mun” to expand its coverage.

40. The Chairman said that there were many suggestions on the name and she hoped that a vote would be held for this.

41. A Member said that the focus of the current discussion was moving further away. She opined that the problem happened in the Tuen Mun Park and then spread to other parks gradually. Besides, she said that the coverage of the “Working Group on Restoration of Tuen Mun” was very wide and she suggested naming the working group as “Working Group on Management of LCSD Facilities”.

Action 42. A Member said that he was in favour of naming the working group as “Working Group on Restoration of Tuen Mun”. Besides, it would be difficult for the working group to handle if the vocal artists did not perform at the LCSD venues, e.g., performing on the pavement near the industrial estate or near the Tin Tau Temple. Therefore, he hoped that the name of the working group would have a wider coverage so that the working group could follow up on the problem with flexibility.

43. The Chairman said that Members had shown enthusiastic responses to the formation of a new working group to tackle the problem of vocal performance. In this connection, she hoped that DFMC would hold a vote whether to form the working group on standing or non-standing basis.

44. A Member said that she was in favour of formation on non-standing basis if the working group targeted at the Tuen Mun Park solely. However, she would be in favour of formation on standing basis if the working group targeted at the LCSD facilities. Therefore, she opined that there should be decision on the name and terms of reference of the working group before deciding whether to form it on standing or non-standing basis.

45. A Member said that it was the duty of the DFMC to monitor the LCSD facilities. Therefore, it would be difficult to focus if the coverage of the working group was too wide. She pointed out that Members had intended to focus on the terms of reference of the working group and the focus of the concern was on the problem of vocal performance. She recollected that there was once a Working Group on Problems in Tuen Mun Park and she suggested that the DFMC should focus on the noise problem in the parks of the Tuen Mun District and form the working group on non-standing basis. If the working group found that the problems spread to other places such as beaches and football pitches when tackling them, the DFMC could study again how to expand the terms of reference of the working group. If the noise problem had spread to streets like what the Member said, the problem might not fall within the terms of reference of the DFMC. If the noise problem became serious, it would not be suitable to form the working group on non-standing basis for follow-up.

46. The Chairman said that if the name of the working group was not specific, it could be clarified in the terms of reference.

Action 47. The DFMC held the first round of vote on the name of the new working group, 3 voting in favour of the “Working Group on Parks of Tuen Mun District”; 7 voting in favour of the “Working Group on Restoration of Tuen Mun”; 2 voting in favour of the “Working Group on Management of Street Performance”; 8 voting in favour of the “Working Group on Management of LCSD Facilities; and 2 voting in favour of the “Working Group on Problems in Tuen Mun Park”.

(Members voting in favour of the Working Group on Parks of Tuen Mun District included Ms Josephine CHAN, Ms KONG Fung-yi and Ms HO Hang-mui)

(Members voting in favour of the Working Group on Restoration of Tuen Mun included Mr LEE Ka-wai, Mr TSANG Kam-wing, Mr PUN Chi-kin, Mr TSANG Chun-hing, Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum, Mr WONG Tak-yuen and Mr WONG Tan-ching)

(Members voting in favour of the Working Group on Management of Street Performance included Mr Alfred LAI and Mr YAN Pui-lam)

(Members voting in favour of the Working Group on Management of LCSD Facilities included Ms Beatrice CHU, Mr YAN Siu-nam, Mr LAM Ming-yan, Mr MA Kee, Mr WONG Hung-ming, Ms SO Ka-man, Mr LEUNG Ho-man and Mr HO Kwok-ho)

(Members voting in favour of Working Group on Problems in Tuen Mun Park included Mr Kenneth CHEUNG and Mr YEUNG Chi-hang)

48. The DFMC held the second round of vote on the name of the new working group, 9 voting in favour of the “Working Group on Restoration of Tuen Mun” and 13 voting in favour of the “Working Group on Management of LCSD Facilities”. As the “Working Group on Management of LCSD Facilities” received absolute majority votes, the Chairman announced that the above option became the name of the new working group.

(Members voting in favour of the Working Group on Restoration of Tuen Mun included Mr LEE Ka-wai, Mr TSANG Kam-wing, Mr PUN Chi-kin, Mr MA Kee, Mr TSANG Chun-hing, Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum, Mr WONG Tak-yuen, Mr YEUNG Chi-hang and Mr WONG Tan-ching)

Action (Members voting in favour of the Working Group on Management of LCSD Facilities included Ms Josephine CHAN, Ms KONG Fung-yi, Ms HO Hang-mui, Ms Beatrice CHU, Mr YAN Siu-nam, Mr LAM Ming-yan, Mr Kenneth CHEUNG, Mr WONG Hung-ming, Mr LO Chun-yu, Ms LAI Ka-man, Mr Alfred LAI, Mr LEUNG Ho-man and Mr HO Kwok-ho)

49. The Chairman said that majority were in favour of the formation of the working group on non-standing basis so the Working Group on Management of LCSD Facilities would be formed on non-standing basis.

50. The Chairman invited Members to nominate candidates for the position of Convenor of the Working Group on Management of LCSD Facilities with the following results:

Nominated Member Nominated by Seconded by Mr CHEUNG Ho-sum Mr Alfred LAI Mr WONG Tan-ching

51. The Chairman invited the Convenor to draft the terms of reference of the Working Group on Management of LCSD Facilities.

52. A Member said the DFMC had discussed for nearly one hour and the Member suggested that the terms of reference should be discussed at the working group so that this meeting of the DFMC would be smoother.

53. The Chairman said that the DFMC had approved the formation of the working group and needed to decide its terms of reference too. If the working group subsequently decided to amend its terms of reference, they could be submitted to the DFMC for amendment. For the remaining agenda items, she hoped that Members would speak briefly and concisely and avoid repeating the content mentioned.

54. The terms of reference submitted by the Convenor of the Working Group on Management of LCSD Facilities were as follows:

Terms of Reference Working Group on 1) Follow up on the request of the Restoration of Tuen Mun Management of procession to monitor the LCSD;

Action LCSD Facilities 2) Oversee management of the parks in the Tuen Mun District and submit progress report to the DFMC in stages; and 3) Monitor the operations of leisure and cultural facilities in the Tuen Mun District.

55. The Vice-chairman said the TMDO opined that there was something unclear in the meaning of following up on the request of the Restoration of Tuen Mun procession to monitor the LCSD. In this regard, the Convenor of the working group was enquired whether there would be any amendment.

56. The Convenor of the working group said that he would not make any amendment because one of the requests of the Restoration of Tuen Mun procession was monitoring the enforcement action by the LCSD,

57. The Chairman suggested that the Convenor of the working group should amend point one of the terms of reference by setting out the request for enforcement action by the LCSD.

58. The Convenor of the working group said that the request of the Restoration of Tuen Mun procession was not only for enforcement action by the LCSD but also included following up on requests for amendment of the Pleasure Ground Ordinance at the Legislative Council, tipping problem and noise problem, etc. In this regard, he opined that the above expression was the clearest.

59. The Chairman said that the terms of reference proposed by the Convenor of the working group were acceptable because there were many requests of the procession. She opined that the DFMC could endorse the terms of reference first. If needed, it could be discussed at the DFMC again. She continued to suggest that the Convenor of the working group should set out the request for the Restoration of Tuen Mun procession related to the LCSD when discussing the terms of reference so that the terms of reference of the working group would be more clearly shown.

60. The DFMC noted the content of the above paper.

Action (D) LCSD’s Recreational and Sports Activities Plan for Tuen Mun District from April 2020 to March 2021 (DFMC Paper No. 4/2020) 61. The Chairman said that the paper set out the applications for the LCSD’s Recreational and Sports Activities Plan for Tuen Mun District from April 2020 to March 2021. The total amount of the above application together with the amount spent from March to June 2020 by the LCSD approved earlier in this term was $7,940,200. The amount of the application concerned was $511,420 higher than the 2019 and 2020 financial year.

62. A Member said that the estimated expenditure for the event of Tai Chi listed in Annex I was expensive amounting to $400,000. The LCSD was requested to explain why the expenditure for that event was more expensive than other events. He also said that LCSD should provide more reasons in details if it applied for a higher amount of funding.

63. Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD said that the LCSD would provide more detailed information in writing after the meeting.

64. A Member said that the paper set out two events of lawn bowl. There were 16 estimated activities of lawn bowl with 8 estimated activities of adult lawn bowl. In this connection, she enquired why these two events needed to be shown separately.

65. Ms Pat Tam of the LCSD said that one event was competition while the other event was training course. The LCSD would provide the details in writing after the meeting.

66. Ms Jackie LO of the LCSD said that there were 8 estimated activities of adult lawn bowl. The estimated number of enrolments was 64 and estimated expenditure was $26,135. Adult lawn bowl was an event of training course. Moreover, there was one estimated activity of lawn bowl event. The estimated number of enrolments was 72 and the estimated expenditure was $24,940. The above lawn bowl activity was a competition event.

67. A Member said that the LCSD should clearly set out the events of competition and training course for Members’ reference to avoid causing confusion.

Action 68. Ms Jackie LO of the LCSD said that page 1 and page 2 of the paper described the events of competition and training course respectively. However, she promised that the paper submitted to the DFMC in future would be clearly shown for Members easy perusal.

69. The Chairman said that the Home Affair Department (“HAD”) had yet to announce the total funding amount for the 2020-2021 financial year. To ensure fiscal prudence, a total of $7,313,443 which was equivalent to the total approved amount for the 2019-2020 financial year would be allocated to the LCSD first for organising the recreational and sports activities from July 2020 to February 2021 by reference to the past practice. After deducting the approved amount earlier, the total amount recommended for this application was $5,104,378. Pending the announcement by the HAD on the total amount of funding available for the TMDC in the 2020-2021 financial year, the TMDC would work out the estimated provision for the new year. The LCSD could review its use of funding in due course and consider submitting an application to the TMDC for additional funding as required for approval.

70. A Member said that Members could pay attention to the budget announced on the next day. In case the funding to TMDC was cut in the budget, the TMDC could discuss the LCSD’s funding application again. She hoped that the TMDC would keep this power. Otherwise, there would be constraints on the TMDC funding for orgainsing other activities if the funding from the budget was far from satisfactory and the TMDC had allocated such great amount to the LCSD. Therefore, the TMDC should revise the decision on the funding to the LCSD at that time.

71. A Member said that the epidemic was serious so the LCSD had cancelled many activities for this year. He enquired how the TMDC funding would be handled if the activities of the LCSD were cancelled.

72. The Chairman said that if the DFMC endorsed this funding, the LCSD’s activities plan would be submitted to the Finance, Administration and Publicity Committee (“FAPC”) at its meeting on 6 March and to the TMDC for support at its meeting on 10 March. If the budget released on the next day was far from satisfactory as what Members said, the FAPC and the TMDC could revise the LCSD’s funding application again.

Action 73. A Member said that there were only 13 estimated activities for the event of Tai Chi listed in Annex 2 but the estimated expenditure amounted to $147,000 with more than $11,000 spent in each activity on average.

74. Ms Jackie LO of the LCSD said that the major expenditure for the activity of Tai Chi was engagement of coaches. If there were more than 40 people in the Tai Chi class, the LCSD needed to engage an assistant coach additionally. Therefore, the expenditure for various Tai Chi classes was different. Moreover, a Tai Chi class would have 48 lessons and different Tai Chi classes would have different duration for each lesson. Some training courses would take 1 hour while some would take 1.5 hours. Therefore, the expenditure for each class would be different. The LCSD would provide details in writing after the meeting.

75. The Vice-chairman requested the LCSD to submit details of the training courses to FAPC so that Members could make enquiries at the meeting. He said that the DFMC should support this funding allocation in principle first before the FAPC examined the funding application in terms of finance.

76. The Chairman announced that the DFMC endorsed the proposed activity plan and supported the funding application for $5,104,378 from July 2020 to March 2021. The above funding application which was supported in principle would be submitted to Secretariat the FAPC at its meeting on 6 March 2020 for support. As the funding application which was supported in principle exceeded $100,000, it needed to be submitted to the TMDC at its meeting on 10 March 2020 for final endorsement. She requested the LCSD to provide a detailed expenditure breakdown to the FAPC.

(E) LCSD’s Trial on the Use of Cheerleading Items for Hong Kong Premier League at Tuen Mun Tang Shiu Kin Sports Ground (DFMC Paper No. 5/2020) 77. A Member said that he showed great support to LCSD allowing members of the public to use cheerleading items for the Hong Kong Premier League at the Tuen Mun Tang Shiu Kin Sports Ground. He said that there were different cheerleading ways developed for the Hong Kong football. However, members of the public would be prohibited from performing cheerleading to their football teams under the LCSD’s regulations when they entered the sports ground to show support. Moreover, district leagues had the function of connecting districts so there was a need to take care of the residents’ needs and relax the restrictions. He said that matches usually took place

Action from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. currently. At that time, the use of cheerleading items such as drums, handbells and castanets might not seriously affect residents’ sleep. He hoped that the Hong Kong Premier League would allow members of the public to perform cheerleading. In this regard, if the LCSD needed to protect the residents from being affected by noise, they should consider to build noise barriers instead of prohibiting cheerleading.

78. A Member said that cheerleading was a normal sports life just like school sports days on which there were cheerleading teams. On the other hand, district stakeholders’ views should also be considered. In this connection, he suggested that the LCSD should arrange the schedules of football matches in advance and build noise insulation facilities rather than prohibiting cheerleading. They should think how to make improvement.

79. A Member agreed with the LCSD allowing members of the public to perform cheerleading in sports ground. He said that even though the Hong Kong Premier League had a lot of matches like the World Cup, there would not be so many matches held in the Tang Siu Kin Sports Ground. As such, he opined that the cheerleading noise would have limited impact on the residents nearby. He believed that the cheerleading noise would spread to the neighbourhood to a certain extent. However, its impact on the residents’ life would be little in reality. He said that if the LCSD improved the noise insultation facilities, it would not be too disturbing to the residents as a matter of fact when members of the public performed cheerleading in the sports ground.

80. A Member believed that this is a dilemma. The residents and district councillor of the constituency concerned might have issues on cheerleading arrangements and they were worried that cheerleading would affect the residents nearby but the actual extent of impact could not be known until there was a site visit. On the other hand, cheerleading was very important to the development of football. Many years ago, the Hong Kong Team aimed at a draw in the football match between the Hong Kong Team and the China Team. The captain of the Hong Kong Team said that the support from fans was very important. If there was no support from the fans in the league matches, the players might not feel happy thus hindering the overall development of sports in Hong Kong. He said that there should be a solution of the noise problem that could satisfy both sides. He pointed out that there were not many leagues matches in the Tang Siu Kin Sports Ground. Moreover, the TMDC should promote the football in the long run

Action so that Tuen Mun residents would accept and fully support this sport and promote the development of football in Hong Kong. He said that this was the permanent cure.

81. A Member said that it was necessary to allow members of the public to use cheerleading items in sports ground. He said it was mentioned in the paper that the use of cheerleading items in sports ground were prohibited currently owing to the complaints from the residents nearby. Somehow, football was a culture which reflected the spirit of solidity or even had the function of cohesion in the community. If the LCSD prohibited the people in sports ground from using cheerleading items because of the complaints from the residents, he opined that this was just like putting the cart before the horse. He pointed out that the government should think how to integrate the football culture into the community rather than overall prohibition. On the other hand, there were running tracks around the sports ground as far as the design of the Tang Siu Kin Sports Ground was concerned. Therefore, the atmosphere of the matches would be seriously affected if the LCSD prohibited the use of cheerleading items in the sports ground. According to his experience in participating school sports days in the past, the athletes would find it difficult to hear the cheerleading even though the students cried at the top of their voice. Therefore, he said that only by allowing members of the public to use some cheerleading items could the atmosphere in the sports ground be aroused.

82. A Member said that the residents nearby complained because they did not participate in the matches. He pointed out that football could contribute to the promotion of sense of belonging and cohesion in the community. Of course, LCSD could build noise insulation facilities to reduce the impact as well. On the other hand, they could use different ways to allow the residents of the Affluent Garden to participate in the matches in the sports ground actively. He suggested that the LCSD should provide free admission tickets to the residents of Affluent Garden. Besides, there could be banners hung at the Tang Siu Kin Sports Ground for the publicity of the football matches so that the residents of the Affluent Garden could know more about the matches held in the Tang Siu Kin Sports Ground and participate in them with cheerleading as support. In this connection, he hoped that the development of football in Tuen Mun would be improved by the trial plan on cheerleading items so that the residents could participate in sports events more actively. He believed that this measure could enhance the special features of the Tuen Mun District and residents’ cohesion and sense of belonging.

Action 83. The Chairman said that Members had no objections to the plan. Members just emphasised the balance of residents’ interests.

84. A Member said that there would be noise naturally when members of the public performed cheerleading. However, this was not the problem how to reduce noise but how to make residents understand and know about the matches in advance. He said that when residents knew that there would be football matches in the Tang Siu Kin Sports Ground in advance, they would understand more about the noise from the football matches. He supported the trial plan on the use of cheerleading items and opined that there could be a study how to reduce the noise and inform the residents of the matches in advance during the implementation of the plan.

85. A Member said there were only about 15 matches held in the Tang Siu Kin Sports Ground every year. These matches might possibly be held on the afternoons of Saturday or Sunday. He said that the LCSD could allow the fans to apply in advance during the trial plan. They could record how many people entered the sports ground with cheerleading items brought into the sport ground, and conduct a test on the noise from the cheerleading so that there would be objective data on the trial plan for analysis.

86. A Member said that he had consulted the residents of the constituency concerned on this agenda item. He said that owing to the design of the Tang Siu Kin Sports Ground, the noise in the sports ground could be spread to the buildings nearby. Nevertheless, he believed that school sports days in the Tang Siu Kin Sports Ground would make noise no less than the football matches. Therefore, if the LCSD provided channels for the residents to know in advance, clearly explained the restrictions on the use of cheerleading items and successfully make the residents of the Affluent Garden participate in the matches more enthusiastically, the residents nearby would have less dissatisfaction and the development of football could be promoted.

87. The Vice-chairman enquired the LCSD whether the housing estates nearby could be informed of the matches in advance with posters displayed at the lobbies of the housing estates. He believed that residents would then know more about the source of the noise and understand. He further enquired the LCSD whether there would be a complaint hotline set up so that residents could contact the department when there was noise from the Tang Siu Kin Sports Ground. Citing an example, he said that residents who worked at night could contact the department when there was noise from the sports ground in the daytime to reduce their dissatisfaction. Besides, as the LCSD would

Action consult the residents on the trial plan and conduct a review, he enquired the department in what way the consultation would be conducted. In this connection, he enquired what subsequent follow-up action would be taken for the trial plan on the cheerleading items.

88. Ms Jackie LO of the LCSD said that the Member who already spoke agreed that football could lead to cohesion in the community and build up the sense of belonging among members of the public. According to the record last year, there were few matches of Hong Kong Premier League. This year, there were only 10 matches of the Hong Kong Premier League with only one in Tuen Mun. Owing to the epidemic, the matches of the Hong Kong Premier League that would be played in Tuen Mun in March might be cancelled. Moreover, the LCSD organised a total of three matches in the Tang Siu Kin Sports Ground in 2019-2020 with an attendance of 374 in total. Therefore, the LCSD opined that it was worthwhile to conduct the trial plan after a review. Besides, the LCSD would conduct a study on the location of displaying posters according to Member’s suggestion to inform the residents nearby so that they would show more support on the matches. After completion of the trial plan on the cheerleading items, the LCSD would make reviews in many ways, including measuring the volume of noise, collecting opinions and following up. If needed, the LCSD would submit a paper to the DFMC again for providing explanations, including explaining whether the plan was successful and how to make improvement.

89. The Chairman requested the LCSD to consider the suggestions that Members raised, including informing the residents in advance and making reviews afterwards. LCSD She hoped that the LCSD would submit a report to the DFMC for information.

(F) Proposal on LCSD’s Free Cultural Programmes in Tuen Mun District (2020-21) (DFMC Paper No. 6/2020) 90. The Chairman said that the paper set out the application for the LCSD’s district free entertainment programmes in Tuen Mun District from April 2020 to March 2021. The amount in the application was $1,128,790, same as the last year.

91. A Member said that the paper set out 60 activities. Of them, traditional activities accounted for 33 performances while vocal performance accounted for 12. In this regard, he said that there were too many activities targeted at the elderly. The LCSD should organise more activities such as street music performance for young

Action people so that they could be involved in the community. On the performance venues of the programmes, he said that the LCSD planned to organise three performances at the Tuen Mun Amphitheatre in 2020 - 2021 but the LCSD had five performances at that location in 2019 - 2020. In the paper of last year, the LCSD also planned to organise three performances at that location in the year from 2019 to 2020 but it was increased to five performances eventually. In this connection, he enquired the LCSD whether the performances at that location would be increased eventually. He also enquired why not to maintain five performances. He pointed out that the Tuen Mun Park was the performance venue which could cater for the largest attendance. He enquired why the number of performances was reduced. Moreover, the paper of last year provided notes on the information of the venues but there was none this year.

92. Ms Gloria LAM of the LCSD said that the programmes varieties were allocated according to the arrangement last year. She welcomed Members to advise on the improvement of the activities. She said that the LCSD would arrange the activities according to the preferences of the residents nearby the performance venues. For example, the performances at the Glorious Garden last year were mainly children’s programmes and western folk-dance performances. She pointed out that as district councillors had a better understanding of the residents’ preference in each area, she welcomed district councillors to advise on the varieties of the activities. On the number of performances at the Tuen Mun Park, she said that the LCSD could not organise activities at that location because the Tuen Mun Civic Square was under maintenance from 2019 to 2020. Therefore, the three activities which had been arranged to be held at that location from 2019 to 2020 was changed to the Tuen Mun Park and the Yau Oi Estate instead. The LCSD would resume the original arrangement from 2020 to 2021. Somehow, she said that the LCSD had the information on the performance adjustment but she did not set out the information because she wanted to have a concise and simple presentation when preparing the paper. If needed, the LCSD could provide the information individually.

93. The Chairman suggested that the department should provide information in more detail for Member to monitor the expenditure of the government.

94. A Member suggested that the LCSD should increase the cultural programmes at the Amphitheatre of the Tuen Mun Park. As there was new children’s play equipment in the Tuen Mun Park, he suggested that the department should organise more children dramas and children variety show. He said that many residents paid more attention to

Action the activities in the Tuen Mun Park. On the contrary, fewer residents would pay attention to the Tuen Mun Civic Square.

95. A Member said that the population of the elderly accounted for one third of the population in the Tuen Mun District but the LCSD had arranged nearly 60% of the programme performances for the population of the elderly. Then he enquired the LCSD how to prepare statistics on the average attendance. He said that the paper showed that the average attendance at the Tai Chi Court of the Lung Mun Oasis was 120. However, there were not more than tens of audience who watched performances at that venue according to his experience. He queried whether the LCSD had counted the passing members of the public. If affirmative, he queried about the whole mechanism of the LCSD. Moreover, he pointed out that the remunerations for the arts group amounted to $625,000 accounting for 55.4% of the expenditure. He hoped that the LCSD would explain how to recruit arts groups, e.g., whether there was a fixed list or there would be open recruitment.

96. A Member said that the TMDC had allocated funding to various organisations for holding cultural activities. He said that these activities might have overlap with the LCSD’s activities. Somehow, the paper mentioned that there were 220 organisations on the list of approved participating arts groups He hoped that the LCSD would provide the above list for Members for follow-up. Besides, he opined that the attendance was not satisfactory in terms of the amount involved in the application from the LCSD. For example, the average attendance at the Civic Square of Tsing Chuen Wai was 10 while there were only 20 at the Amphitheatre of the Butterfly Estate and only 30 at the Tin Hau Temple Square of Tuen Mun. He pointed out that the average expenditure for each performance amounted to $18,000. In this connection, he enquired the LCSD how to evaluate the attendance currently and whether the department studied the cause for the low attendance, e.g., whether the publicity way was satisfactory. Finally, he enquired whether the activities in March as mentioned in Part A, Paragraph 5 of the paper were cancelled having regard to the epidemic. If the activities were cancelled, how would the funding be handled.

97. Ms Gloria LAM of LCSD said that the LCSD heard Members’ views on the provision of programmes for young people and the demographical change. She said that there were opinions earlier requesting the LCSD to organise more programmes for the elderly thus giving rise to such arrangement currently. Having regard to the trend of more young people in the community, the LCSD could arrange more programmes for

Action children and young people. On the Member’s view that there were more young people who participated at the Amphitheatre of the Tuen Mun Park than the Tuen Mun Civic Centre, the LCSD could adjust the number of performances. She said that Part A of Paragraph 2 in the paper mentioned the procedure of the LCSD’s invitation to arts groups to participate in the district free entertainment programmes. Currently, the arts groups needed to pass two auditions with confirmation from the department on their performance at a certain standard before they were engaged and included in the approved list for going to different venues in turns. The Community Programmes Office of the LCSD was responsible for organising all the entertainment programmes in Hong Kong so that the organisations on the approved list would go to perform at the venues in different districts in turns. She pointed out that the LCSD had a mechanism to prepare statistics on the attendance. The LCSD would not prepare statistics on the attendance at a certain time only but also calculated the mobility of attendance. The LCSD noticed that the attendance at some rural venues was not satisfactory. However, owing to historical factors and considering that the residents in remote areas also had demands for district free entertainment programmes, the LCSD would arrange activities in remote venues despite the lower attendance currently. She said that there was a chance that the programmes in February and March would be cancelled. The LCSD would return the amount of funding to the TMDC later according to the mechanism.

98. A Member said the attendance varied ranging from ten to one hundred or so. She said that other than the location which could affect the attendance, the programme varieties and performance standard would have impacts. The LCSD should make a thorough study on this. Moreover, the performance standard of the organisations might have variations thus causing lower attendance. In this case, the LCSD should reduce the number of performances of the arts groups or even cancel the performance eligibility of the arts groups. She understood that rural areas also had demands for the cultural programmes but there should also be adjustments according to the attendance at the rural areas. For example, the average attendance at the Tsing Chuen Wai Square was 10 only while it was 30 at the Fa Pau Association of the Sun Hing Tsuen. The average attendance at the Civic Square in the Shun Fung Wai was 60 but there was one performance only. She opined that the resources should also be properly used while the rural audience were taken care of. The LCSD should adjust the number of performances under the principle of proper use of resources.

99. A Member said that some audience supported the performance by the vocal artists at the Tuen Mun Park. He said that the LCSD could organise the corresponding

Action performance at the designated venues in the Tuen Mun Park to attract the audience rather than supporting outside vocal artists to perform in the activities for money. At that time, the LCSD could control the number of people and the sound volume. Besides, he was worried that the LCSD could not organise activities at that location as the works at the Tuen Mun Civic Square was not completed.

100. A Member said that there was a total of seven performances at the Fa Pau Association of the Fook Tak Tong in Tuen Tsz Wai, the Tsing Chuen Wai Square, the Nei Wai Football Pitch and the Civic Square of Shun Fung Wai in Tuen Mun but the average attendance was very low while the average expenditure for one performance was $18,813. He wanted to know why the attendance was low and enquired the programme varieties performed at these venues so that Members could have more information for collection of opinions. If the Member knew the time of the performances, the Member could take the opportunity to contact the residents and promote the LCSD’s activities to members of the public. He pointed out there were tens of people who participated in the activities organised by some organisations or even residents on their own initiative. If there were almost ten thousand dollars for them to organise activities, the effectiveness might be better than those organised by the LCSD. He understood that the LCSD would traditionally take care of the residents at the rural areas but he wanted to receive the information about the performance venues at the above rural areas so that the Member could help increase the attendance.

101. A Member said that the arrangement on the district free entertainment programmes could be followed up at the Working Group on Community Involvement. For the past few years, Members had made many suggestions. In particular, the attendance at some performance locations was low so the cost-effectiveness of the programmes was far from satisfactory. In this regard, she suggested adding new elements in the programmes and changing the performance locations. She emphasised that the LCSD needed to take care of the residents in the rural areas, but there should be a better way. She pointed out that the DFMC could not discuss each of the items because of time constraint but the Working Group on Community Involvement could have discussion in detail. Citing the Siu Hong constituency, there were two performances cancelled for unknown reason. Therefore, she hoped that there would be practicable follow-up action on the arrangement of performances.

102. A Member said that the current programme varieties were mainly Cantonese operas while modern performance was music only. Therefore, he enquired why there

Action was no modern drama troupe in the programmes and suggested that the LCSD should consider to include street theatres and add district special features in the performances. On the application procedures, the LCSD needed two auditions before the organisation was put on the list. He said that it could consider to allow the organisations of the Hong Kong Arts Development Council to be put on the list. This could save the administrative cost and increase the number of organisations on the list. On the performance venues at the rural areas, he said that Sun Hing Tsuen, Tuen Tsz Wai and Tsing Chuen Wai were 300 metres apart on Ng Lau Road with a distance of three minutes only. He did not understand why there were three performance venues in sparsely-populated locations. He believed that this was the reason why the attendance was low at those locations. He continued to say that Nei Wai and Shun Fung Wai were 250 metres apart only and Nei Wai, Shun Fung Wai, Tuen Tsz Wai and Sun Hing Tsuen were at the same Light Rail Stop but there was no performing venue at the San Hui area in the town centre on the contrary. In this regard, he hoped that the LCSD would review whether the distribution of performance venues was reasonable. He further suggested that the LCSD should include the Tsing Yin Garden in the performance venues to take care of the population at the San Hui area.

103. A Member queried the LCSD why the Tuen Mun Promenade and the Tuen Mun Butterfly Park were not included in the performance venues. He said that there was certain pedestrian flow at the above locations. He further suggested that the LCSD should invite young performing artists to get involved in the community.

104. A Member said that the paper showed that there were only tens of people who participated in many of the performances. He queried the LCSD for inadequate publicity. He said the paper mentioned that the publicity expenses amounted to $100,000 but there were no details. In this connection, he hoped that the LCSD would respond about the current publicity ways and effectiveness. Second, he said that there were few programme varieties currently and opined that the LCSD should collaborate with the organisations formed by young people and give priority in considering the organisations which had interest in performing in the district. Moreover, many programmes of the LCSD were performed at night so it might be too late for the elderly and these performances might become nuisance to them eventually instead.

105. A Member said that the LCSD had mentioned historical elements as the reason for the provision of performance programmes at the rural areas in Tuen Mun. He said that it was not necessary to follow the practice in the past. Somehow, he said that the

Action paper had expressed unclearly. For example, he wanted to know the determining factors on the selection of arts groups and whether young organisations in the district could pass the selection. He further said that the aim of the performances was promotion of arts. If the LCSD provided performances to the people who already liked Cantonese operas currently, the LCSD might not achieve the aim of promotion of arts. In this regard, he suggested that the target audience of the Cantonese operas of the LCSD should be young people while the performances of western orchestra and concerts should be promoted among the elderly.

106. Ms Gloria Lam of LCSD responded to Members, which were summarised as follows:

(i) The programme varieties were arranged according to the response of the audience. The LCSD was open-minded to the advice on any performance venues and programme varieties and welcomed Members’ advice.

(ii) On the venues, the selection of programme venues needed the consideration of power supply and convenience for the performing groups to install resources apart from the factor of pedestrian flow. If district councillors and residents could provide the venue information to the LCSD and the venue was suitable for performance purpose, the LCSD would consider it. On the situation in which the rural venues were too close, the LCSD was prepared to make changes. She cited an example that the venue at the Shun Fung Wai was provided in 2019-2020 as requested.

(iii) On the enquiries about the selection of performing groups, any groups which had interest in performing and been established over three years with a history of at least three years’ regular performances and certain performing standard could apply to the LCSD. Later, the LCSD would arrange auditions to test the response of the audience. If there were good responses in the auditions, the LCSD would put the group on the approved list.

(iv) On the varied performing quality of the performing groups causing low attendance, the LCSD had a mechanism to handle it. If the LCSD found that there were problems in performance, the LCSD would issue a warning. If there were no improvements, the LCSD would remove the group from the performing list.

Action

(v) As far as the publicity was concerned, the LCSD produced 600 posters and 18,000 programme leaflets of Tuen Mun City Hall for distribution to the LCSD venues, district councillors’ offices and housing estate offices. There were also time tables at the website of the Community Programmes Office for public enquiries. The LCSD would also conduct publicity on the display panels at the community halls and government offices. She welcomed Members to advise on other publicity channels.

(vi) On the problem of performing time, free entertainment programmes would commence from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays apart from Friday night. A Member had just requested the information on the performances at the rural performance venues in Tuen Mun. She reported that there were magic performance and Cantonese operatic songs at the Fook Tak Tong Fa Pau Association in Tuen Tsz Wai; pop music and variety show at the Tsing Chuen Wai Square and variety show and organ performance at the Nei Wai Football Pitch.

107. The Chairman said that Members showed concern about programme varieties, performance venues and performance time. As the LCSD submitted funding application only once a year and the amount of funding application was high so Members took this opportunity to ask questions for a better understanding. She suggested that the free cultural programmes would be followed up at the Working Group on Community Involvement. Second, she said that the performance channels for the participation of district organisations were not clearly expressed. Third, the arrangement of venues was not satisfactory so the attendance was low. She suggested that the LCSD should list the estimated and the actual attendance at the same time when submitting a paper in the future. When the LCSD prepared the annual plan, she hoped that the LCSD would consult the TMDC so that the TMDC would advise on the programme varieties, performance time and performance venues.

108. Ms Gloria Lam of LCSD said that the LCSD’s funding application for the free entertainment programmes last year had been discussed at the Working Group on Community Involvement before submission to the DFMC. This year, it was submitted to the DFMC directly owing to the time problem and she hoped that the DFMC would understand. The LCSD welcomed Members to advise on the venues and performance

Action varieties. She would try to co-operate after collecting Members’ advice. She said that the LCSD had wanted to have new performance venues.

109. A Member suggested that the DFMC should support the funding in principle and continue to allow the Working Group on Community Involvement for follow up. If Members opined that there was room for adjustment of the activities after discussion, the LCSD should try to make adjustment this year. Otherwise, it should be followed up in the next year.

110. The Chairman announced that the proposed activity plan was endorsed and the DFMC supported the funding application for $1,128,790 from April 2020 to March 2021 in principle. The above funding application supported in principle would be submitted to the FAPC at its meeting on 6 March 2020 for support. As the above funding application supported in principle had exceeded $100,000, it needed to be submitted to the TMDC at its meeting on 10 March 2020 for approval. This discussion item would also be submitted to the Working Group on Community Involvement for follow-up.

111. The Vice-chairman hoped that the LCSD would submit information in more detail (e.g., publicity ways, performance groups and performance date and time) to the LCSD FAPC and the Working Group on Community Involvement for Members.

(G) Adjustment to or Cancellation of Existing Smoking Areas in Tuen Mun Park (DFMC Paper No. 7/2020) Concern over Noise and Management Problems of Tuen Mun Park and Request for Enhanced Regulation of Unauthorised Music/Dance Performances (DFMC Paper No. 8/2020) Location of Smoking Areas and the Sale of Beer at the Kiosk in Tuen Mun Park (DFMC Paper No. 27/2020) 112. The Chairman said that the motion for adjustment to or cancellation of the existing smoking areas in the Tuen Mun Park was passed by the TMDC at its meeting on 21 January 2020 and it was resolved to pass to the DFMC to continue follow-up. As the motion was similar with the above two agenda items, the DFMC agreed to discuss them together.

Action 113. Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD said that the department was open-minded on the proposal for cancellation of the smoking areas in the Tuen Mun Park in the paper No. 7 and had made a written response. The department noticed that the number of people gathering at the sitting-out garden near the lake island in the Tuen Mun Park had increased. Therefore, there would be public consultation on the cancellation of the smoking areas. Whether the smoking areas would be cancelled would depend on the result of the consultation.

114. The Chairman said that this agenda item fell within the terms of reference of the Secretariat newly formed Working Group on Management of LCSD Facilities so it would be passed to the working group for follow-up.

(H) Request to LCSD for Reopening Sports Ground in all Districts 115. The Chairman received an impromptu motion on the captioned agenda item as follows:

The LCSD announced that sports grounds in all districts would be closed commencing 29 January having regard to the epidemic of the Wuhan pneumonia. Such move could neither help contain the epidemic nor benefit members of the public who got used to exercising at the sports grounds to maintain regular exercise and keep good health. Much worse was it would seriously affect the runners’ practice and keeping the best speed and form. Therefore, we request the LCSD to reopen all the sports ground in all districts immediately to the convenience of members of the public. This could also show the message of the government encouraging members of the public to exercise more and keep good health to fight COVID 19 together.

Moved by Ms Beatrice CHU Seconded by Mr YAN Siu-nam

116. The Chairman said that the content was related to the LCSD and also involved the well-being of 600,000 people in the Tuen Mun District so it was allowed to be discussed at this meeting.

117. The mover said that the LCSD closed the LCSD venues having regard to the epidemic of the COVID-19 including outdoor sports facilities. After the department had closed all the facilities at their venues since 19 January, many members of the public who often used the sports grounds had objections and the district councillors of

Action all districts also had objections to the closure of sports grounds. Therefore, she moved an impromptu motion to request the department to reopen the sports ground. She understood that the department closed indoor sports facilities to avoid people gathering and reduce the risk of spreading the COVID-19. However, sports grounds were outdoor areas. She believed that this would not increase the risk of spreading the COVID-19. She had expressed her views to the department and took this meeting to make a formal request so that members of the public could use outdoor sports ground to maintain regular exercise.

118. Ms Jackie LO of the LCSD said that the department decided to close the facilities at their venues in order to reduce the gathering of members of the public to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19. As the epidemic had not eased, the department held a sit-and-wait attitude on the opening of facilities at the venues but there was a plan to reopen the leisure facilities gradually in phases. In the first phase, the department would reopen the outdoor leisure facilities while sports grounds were one of the options in this phase. After the reopening of the outdoor leisure facilities, the department would consider different matters, e.g., the arrangement and opening details of toilets and changing rooms. She said that the department might not allow matches to be held to avoid people gathering and would reopen venues only for members of the public. She said that the plan would be implemented in the near future and members of the public would be informed at that time.

119. The Chairman appealed to the LCSD to proactively consider the reopening of sports grounds and said that community halls had been reopened.

120. The mover hoped that the LCSD would clarify what “in the near future” meant. She hoped that the LCSD would provide explanation about the matter completely and should not keep people on tenterhooks.

121. Ms Jackie LO of the LCSD said that the LCSD wanted to open leisure facilities next Monday gradually. As the plan had not been confirmed, she could not make announcement to the public. She said that there would be a specific plan announced within one or two days.

122. As Members had no objections, the Chairman announced that the impromptu motion was passed and would be referred to the Working Group on Management of Secretariat LCSD Facilities for follow-up.

Action

(I) Request Planning Department to Report Immediately on Detailed Planning Arrangements for Community Facilities Currently Lacking in Tuen Mun (DFMC Paper No. 9/2020) 123. The Chairman welcomed the Acting District Planning Officer/Tuen Mun & Yuen Long West to the meeting. She said that district councillors had discussed and expressed their views on the above agenda item at the second meeting of the TMDC on 21 January and it was resolved to pass it to the DFMC for follow-up.

124. The first proposer of the paper said that the paper had been fully discussed at the meeting of the TMDC. At the time, the representative of the Planning Department (“PlanD”) admitted that there was a shortfall of a clinic and a sports centre in the community facilities in the Tuen Mun District according to the planning standard on the population size of 620,000 in the Tuen Mun District. In this regard, she hoped that the government department concerned would proceed to implement the siting of the above community facilities. Since 2016, she had advised the government for many times that there were no such facilities concerned in the Tuen Mun East and the department concerned should provide facilities to the members of the public in the Tuen Mun District according to the population size in the Tuen Mun District.

125. The Acting District Planning Officer/Tuen Mun & Yuen Long West said that there was a shortfall of a sports centre in the Tuen Mun District indeed according to the standard on the population size of 620,000 in the Tuen Mun District. She said that there were six sports centres in the Tuen Mun District currently. There were also two locations earmarked for the development of sports centres. She believed that the LCSD would provide supplementary information on the development of Area 54 when discussing the agenda item of Request for Expeditious Construction of Community Hall and Sports Centre in Area 54, Tuen Mun later. Moreover, the LCSD also said that the site of the other sports centre was selected in Area 3 but there was no schedule for the development for the time being. She said the PlanD had learned that Members wanted the government to build a sports centre in the Tuen Mun East and the department had contacted the LCSD on the views in order to look for a suitable location for the construction of the sports centre. As far as clinic was concerned, there was a need for six clinics in the Tuen Mun District according to the standard on the population size in the Tuen Mun District but there was a shortfall of one earmarked location. The PlanD had relayed the views of the TMDC to the Food and Health Bureau (FHB). The PlanD,

Action the FHB and other department concerned would look for a suitable location for the provision of clinic facilities.

126. The Chairman said that the DFMC would follow up on this agenda item at the next meeting and requested the department concerned to report on the progress Secretariat

(J) Follow Up on Works Concerning Sports Ground in Area 16 and Tuen Mun South Extension (DFMC Paper No. 10/2020) 127. The Chairman said that the TMDC had resolved at its meeting on 21 January that the two requests of the paper would be passed to the DFMC and the TTC respectively for follow-up. Therefore, this meeting of DFMC would discuss the part on the sports ground in Area 16, Tuen Mun only.

128. The first proposer of the paper said that the LCSD had peculiar line marking during the construction of new football pitches e.g., the penalty area and touch line were very close. He enquired the LCSD whether plans of the venue would be provided for the DFMC’s advice. Apart from sports ground, there were fitness and play equipment at the venue. He hoped that the LCSD would provide options of the facilities for DFMC to express its views to meet the needs of members of the public. He expected that the department would provide the above information at the next meeting.

129. Ms Gladys LAW of the LCSD said that the TD hoped that there would be provision of 400 to 500 public parking spaces at the sports ground on Area 16, Tuen Mun so the project definition statement and other documents needed amendments in light of the project changes. These amendments were approved by the DFMC last year. She said that the LCSD would consult the DFMC when there were preliminary design and other progress, including line marking of the football pitch and option of fitness facilities.

130. A Member said that the response from the department was vague and Members were provided with no information on planning. He said that the LCSD should provide the schedule of development for the future five years and also provide explanations to the DFMC about the existing delays to avoid having no concrete reply after Members’ discussion.

Action 131. The Chairman agreed with Member’s views above. She said that the sports ground in Area 16 was a major project so the next meeting of the DFMC would Secretariat continue to discuss this agenda item.

(K) Request for Addition of Shelter to the Walkway between Tuen Kwai Road and Siu Hong West Rail Station (DFMC Paper No. 11/2020) 132. The Chairman said that according to the written response from the TD, the department would conduct a survey on the pedestrian flow for the captioned proposal and consider the addition of shelter to the walkway.

133. The first proposer of the paper said that he had written the name of Tuen Fu Road as Tuen Kwai Road in the paper by mistake. He further said the response from the TD was vague and hoped that the department would respond in more detail.

134. The Chairman said that there was no TD representative present. If Members agreed, the DFMC would put the works proposal on the waiting list of district minor works (“DMW”).

135. A Member estimated that there would be no construction owing to the factor of pedestrian flow after TD had conducted the survey. She said that the pedestrian flow at that location concentrated in the peak hours before and after work and there would be low pedestrian flow during the rest of the time. As the TD would conduct the survey on the average number of the pedestrian flow in the whole day, the average pedestrian flow would be lower. Therefore, there was a high chance that the addition of shelter to the walkway led by the TD would not be completed. In this regard, she agreed to put the works proposal concerned on the waiting list of DMW so that the TMDC would follow up on the works proposal.

136. The Chairman said that the TD required an average pedestrian flow of 4,000 every hour at the walkway for the construction of a shelter. Therefore, there was a Secretariat very high chance that the TD would not build the shelter on the walkway. She continued to announce that the works proposal would be put on the waiting list of DMW and asked the Secretariat to follow up in due course.

Action (L) Request for Expeditious Construction of Community Hall and Sports Centre in Area 54, Tuen Mun (DFMC Paper No. 12/2020) 137. The first proposer of the paper was disappointed at the written response from the LCSD, saying that the community hall and sports centre in Area 54 were not included in the Five-year Plan of the Policy Address 2017. She queried whether this would mean there would be no progress on the community hall and sports centre in Area 54 before 2022. Since 1994, she had proposed the provision of community hall and sports centre on the private land in Siu Hong Area and now it would be built-in Area 54 instead currently. The residents of the Siu Hong Area had waited for the facilities for a very long time. Coupled with the intake of the Yan Tin Estate, the LCSD should not confirm the implementation until there was higher population growth. In this connection, she suggested that the Chairman should invite the HAD and more departments to provide explanations during the discussion of major projects such as the sports ground in Area 16 at the next meeting.

138. Ms Gladys LAW of the LCSD said that there were four projects in Tuen Mun which were listed in the Five-year Plan of the recreational and sports facilities mentioned in the Policy Address 2017, including “Open Space in Area 6, Tuen Mun”, “Sports Ground and Open Space in Area 16, Tuen Mun”, “Open Space in Area 6, Tuen Mun”, “Open Space in Area 17, Tuen Mun” and “Open Space in Area 27, Tuen Mun”. The LCSD was implementing the above projects at full speed. Although the sports ground in Area 54 was not included in the Five-year Plan, the LCSD had commenced the preliminary preparation work such as conducting a study on the facilities in the sports ground and whether there would be provision of facilities of other departments in the sports ground. The LCSD would submit a paper to the DFMC for consultation on the facilities of the project as soon as possible.

139. A Member said that he had written a letter to the LCSD in 2018 to enquire about the development of the sports ground in Area 54. At the time, the LCSD replied that preliminary planning was being conducted for the study on the facilities in the sports ground. He hoped that the department would explain why the project was still at the stage of preliminary planning after a lapse of three years.

140. A Member said that the intake of Yan Tin Estate commenced in 2018. While the original community facilities in the northwest Tuen Mun had been insufficient coupled with the new increase of over ten thousand population, it was not reasonable for

Action the LCSD to require further increase of population in that area for the provision of sports centre and community hall. She pointed out that LCSD had conducted the preliminary planning for a long time and the TMDC of the previous term had held discussions about the facilities in the Complex Building in Area 54. However, there had been no progress so far so she hoped that the LCSD would provide more information as soon as possible.

141. Ms Gladys LAW of the LCSD said that the government had intended to build a community hall and a sports centre in Area 54. Currently, the provision of a library and public car park was being considered. The department needed to calculate the plot ratio requirements of the venue and consult the PlanD and the departments before submitting the paper to the DFMC for consultation. She hoped that the paper would be submitted to the DFMC within this year. Besides, there were two big trees in the project site so the department needed to consult the department concerned on this. Although the project of Area 54 was not included in the Five-Year Plan, the LCSD would follow up with all efforts.

142. The Chairman said that the LCSD should provide explanations on the difficulties faced in the current development and let the DFMC know. She announced that the Secretariat DFMC would continue follow-up on this agenda item at the next meeting.

(M) Request to Increase Funding for Works under the District Council and Provide More Recreational Facilities in Siu Hong (DFMC Paper No. 13/2020) 143. The first proposer of the paper said that the government did not provide sufficient funding for the works under the 18 district councils of the previous term. She hoped that there would be an increase of funding for the works under the district councils in the budget this year so that the district councils could improve the facilities in the districts with works. On the problem of Site C at the Siu Hong Court, there was an area in the park adjacent to the bus terminus on Siu Hong Road which was community facility site in 1994. It was planned for the provision of a community hall at the time. Eventually, there was no construction of the community hall by the government and all was left was a hard-surface pitch at the location. The residents of the Siu Hong Court often went to the hard-surface pitch for playing ball games but the owners corporation would not pay expenses for the maintenance and repair of government land. The population in the Siu Hong area was rising constantly but there were insufficient community facilities, causing conflicts among the neighbours.

Action Therefore, the provision of community facilities was a matter of urgency. If the TMDC had more resources, the funding to the TMDC could be used for the provision of leisure facilities.

144 Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD said that the LCSD would conduct a site visit with the proposers of the paper later to ascertain the location and study the room for development.

145. The Chairman announced that this agenda item would be passed to the Working Group on Facilities and Works for follow-up. Secretariat

(N) Provision of Shelter at San Hui Minibus Terminus (DFMC Paper No. 14/2020) 146. The proposer of the paper said that he had discussed with the councillor of the constituency concerned and learned that the minibus routes at the San Hui minibus terminus would go to many districts but there was a shelter only for four stops. Therefore, he raised this works proposal and hoped that the TD would prepare a planning for the provision of more shelters.

147. The Chairman said that there would be no provision of shelter for the minibus companies by the TMDO because the location was used for commercial purposes.

148. Ms Joanna TSUI, ADO (TM)1, said that the DFMC Paper No. 3/2020 set out the examples of projects in the DMW programme including rain shelter. Currently, members of the public might see the rain shelters built by funding from the TMDC near minibus stops but that did not mean the TMDC would provide funding for the provision of shelters. As she understood, the councillor concerned would discuss with the operators of the transportation companies concerned for the relocation of the stops of the means of transport to the convenience of the members of the public after provision of the rain shelter through the DMW programme. Therefore, if the proposer of the paper wanted the provision of a rain shelter near the San Hui Minibus Terminus, he could consider to follow up through the DMW programme.

149. The proposer of the paper said that he did not understand and requested clarifications.

Action 150. The Chairman said that an available option was the provision of a rain shelter near the location of the minibus stops before making a proposal to the minibus companies for the relocation of the minibus stops. Then this could be followed up under the DMW funding. After all, there should not be provision of shelters by the TMDO for minibus companies.

151. The proposer of the paper suggested changing the name of the works proposal to “Provision of Rain Shelter near San Hui Market” on this.

152. The Chairman announced that this works proposal was endorsed to be put on the waiting list of the DMW. The Secretariat was requested to follow up in the due Secretariat course.

(O) Provision of Shelter at Ka Choi Lane Minibus Terminus (DFMC Paper No. 15/2020) 153. The Chairman said that the DFMC of the previous term had discussed the above agenda item at its tenth meeting and endorsed that the Provision of a Rain Shelter and Benches at Nim Wan Tsuen Minibus Stop (DFMC Paper No. 55/2019) would be put on the waiting list of the DMW. 154. The proposer of the paper said he did not know that the agenda item had been endorsed by the DFMC of the previous term. As the works proposal had been put on the waiting list of DMW, there was no need to discuss here.

155. The Chairman requested the TMDO to continue follow-up on the project. TMDO

(P) Provision of Stairs at Slope No. 6sW-C/FR127 in front of Kar Wo Lei to Connect to Kar Wo Lei Tsuen Bus Stop on Castle Peak Road (DFMC Paper No. 16/2020) 156. The proposer of the paper said that the slope mentioned in the paper was about 20 metres long only and hoped that the works proposal would be supported by Members.

157. A Member suggested combining the paper with the ten papers that the proposer submitted for discussion together to avoid causing delay to the progress of discussion. Moreover, she enquired the DFMC how to follow up after the works proposal was endorsed.

Action 158. The Chairman said that each works proposal would need separate examination so they could not be discussed together.

159. Mr LEE Kit-wai of the TMDO said that the proposed work site was the slope under the purview of the HyD. As it involved the problem of slope maintenance, there was a need to consult the HyD.

160. The proposer of the paper expected that the TMDO would communicate with the HyD to decide which one would be the leading department.

161. The Chairman announced that this works proposal was endorsed to be put on the Secretariat waiting list of the DMW. The Secretariat was requested to follow up in the due course.

Q. Widening of Carriageway at So Kwun Wat Tsuen Area 2 in So Kwun Wat Tsuen to Two Lanes (DFMC Paper No. 17/2020) 162. The proposer of the paper said that the road section had been narrowed to single traffic lane from two traffic lanes and vehicles needed to give way in both directions. As the road section was under the purview of the TMDO, he hoped that the TMDO would follow up.

163. Mr LEE Kit-wai of the TMDO said that TMDO officers had conducted a site inspection. According to the survey by the TMDO, the single traffic lane was 3.5 metres wide while the pavements on either side was 1.45 metres to 1.9 metres wide. According to the TD’s guidelines, the traffic lane in a village road should be 3.5 metres wide at least while the average pavement should be 1.5 metres wide with 1.2 metres wide at least. There were residential buildings beside the pavement so there was not sufficient width at the above location for the provision of a new traffic lane. The works proposal was not feasible technically.

164. The proposer of the paper enquired whether the authority concerned would consider land resumption to increase the width of the road surface.

165. Mr LEE Kit-wai of the TMDO said that there were residential buildings beside the pavement and the project should not affect the neighbourhood. Moreover,

Action according to the guidelines on DMW, no land resumption should be involved in a project. Therefore, the works proposal was not feasible.

166. The Chairman said that this works proposal could not be followed up through the DMW programme owing to the restrictions of the guidelines. Members were requested to note.

(R) Provision of Handrails to Stairs at the Slope of Kar Wo Lei (DFMC Paper No. 18/2020) 167. The proposer of the paper said that the above project was simple DMW and hoped that Members would support.

168. The Chairman announced that this works proposal was endorsed to be put on the waiting list of the DMW. The Secretariat was requested to follow up in the due Secretariat course.

(S) Provision of Backrests to Benches under the Rain Shelter at So Kwun Wat Tsuen Minibus Terminus (DFMC Paper No. 19/2020) 169. The proposer of the paper said that he hoped that Members would support this works proposal if Members had no objections.

170. A Member enquired whether the works proposal concerned was DMW or rural public works (RPW).

171. The Chairman said that this was DMW and announced that this works proposal was endorsed to be put on the waiting list of the DMW. The Secretariat was requested Secretariat to follow up in the due course.

(T) Provision of Public Notice Boards in Villages in So Kwun Wat (DFMC Paper No. 20/2020) 172. The proposer of the paper said that there were no notice boards in many villages so he raised this works proposal. If this works proposal was RPW, it could be put on the waiting list of the RPW.

Action 173. The Chairman said that the RPW did not fall within the terms of reference of the DFMC. The RPW needed to be raised by village representatives or members of public separately.

174. Ms Joanna TSUI, ADO (TM)1, said that there were two types of notice boards in Tuen Mun which were maintained by the TMDO. The first type was those 64 village notice boards built with the funding from the RPW programme. Those notice boards were located in rural areas, which were mainly used for posting the notices concerned of government departments and the notices of the Tuen Mun Rural Committees to keep the villagers informed. The second type was those 17 TMDC notice boards built with the funding from the DMW programme. Currently, these notice boards were used for posting the information of TMDC prepared by the TMDC Secretariat. According to the related guidelines of the DMW programme, DMW should not be provided for the exclusive interests or private benefits of individuals or groups. The provision of notice boards was aimed to release the information of the TMDC to members of public. Therefore, it was not appropriate to open the notice boards for individual councillors. She said that it was feasible for the TMDC to provide TMDC notice boards in villages with the funding from the DMW.

175. The proposer of the paper said that he proposed the provision of notice boards to allow the residents to receive the information of the TMDC.

176. The Chairman announced that the works proposal concerned was endorsed to be Secretariat put on the waiting list of the DMW. The Secretariat was requested to follow up in the due course.

(U) Construction of Roundabout on So Kwun Wat Tsuen Road between So Kwun Wat Tsuen Area 1 and Area 2 (DFMC Paper No. 21/2020) 177. The proposer of the paper said that So Kwun Wat Tsuen Road was very narrow and large coaches and school buses could not make a U-turn there. Therefore, he suggested that there should be construction of a roundabout at that location to avoid large vehicles entering the road section which carried one lane for two-way traffic. He hoped that the TMDO would respond whether the works were feasible.

178. Mr LEE Kit-wai of TMDO said that there was no sufficient space for the construction of a roundabout. If the works were implemented as suggested by the

Action proposer of the paper, it would involve the private land nearby. According to the guidelines of the DMW, no land resumption should be involved in the projects so the project was not feasible.

179. The proposer of the paper enquired whether the government could conduct land resumption for the overall development of the community.

180. A Member enquired whether the TMDC would continue to discuss the works proposal one by one at the meetings in the future. He said that this practice would delay the progress of meeting.

181. The Vice-chairman said that the funding amount under the DMW programme every year was about $20 million currently. It did not mean that the DMW proposals endorsed by the DFMC would be implemented directly. The DMW proposals endorsed by the DFMC would be passed to the Working Group on Facilities and Works for follow-up before they conducted a feasibility study and decided on the sequence of the projects. Therefore, he suggested that Members should join the above working group.

182. A Member said that the DMW proposals endorsed by the DFMC would be passed to the Working Group on Facilities and Works for follow-up to discuss details of implementation and make decisions. After site examination and feasibility study assessment, the above working group would make the final decision on the works proposals. He pointed out that the projects endorsed by the DFMC would be implemented according to the sequence of paper submission unless they were not feasible technically.

183. Ms Joanna TSUI, ADO (TM)1, added that Members could read the DFMC Paper No. 3/2020 carefully, which elaborated on the flow of implementation of the Secretariat DMW in detail. In short, the Secretariat would pass the works proposal submitted by the Members to the DFMC in due course for discussion and examination. Then the DFMC would agree with the works proposal in principle according to the justifications, effectiveness, feasibility and management and maintenance of the works proposals. Before the implementation of the projects, the Working Group on Facilities and Works of the DFMC would decide the next course of implementation work such as the priority of the works proposal and the works agent.

Action 184. The Chairman concluded and suggested that Members should read the DFMC Paper No. 3/2020 carefully to have a better understanding of the implementation procedures of the DMW programme.

IV. Any Other Business 185. The Chairman said that the conference room needed cleaning so the remaining agenda items would be followed up at the next meeting. As there could be two meetings convened each week only, the Secretariat would inform all Members later after the time was arranged. Members were appealed to participate in working groups enthusiastically.

186. A Member said that the requirement of convening two meetings each week only would end on 1 March so she suggested that the DFMC should convene a meeting in the week after 1 March.

187. The District Officer (Tuen Mun) said that the special work arrangement announced by the government on 20 February would last until 1 March. According to the guidelines provided by the HAD currently, there should be two meetings convened each week only by the eighteen district councils and each meeting should not last more than four hours. The work arrangement after 1 March would depend on the government’s subsequent decision whether to maintain the special work arrangement or gradually resume normal operations, and the guidelines of the HAD.

188. The Chairman enquired whether the TMDC could arrange to convene a meeting after 1 March. She said that it was 25 February currently and the government should have the work arrangement for the next week.

189. The District Officer (Tuen Mun) said that the government would announce the work arrangement for the next week on or after Thursday normally according to her past experience. For example, the government made the announcements on 13 and 20 February for the past two weeks. For due consideration, she suggested that there should be not more than two meetings arranged to be held in the first week of March and each meeting should not last more than four hours. The arrangement in the second week of March would depend on the government’s announcement this week.

Action 190. The Chairman announced that the meeting closed at 1:16 p.m. and the remaining agenda items would be followed up at the first special meeting of the DFMC. The first Secretariat special meeting of the DFMC would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 9 March.

Tuen Mun District Council Secretariat Date: March 2020 File No: HAD TMDC/13/25/DFMC/20