LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2221

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 8 December 2016

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG#

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2223

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

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

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

2224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE NATHAN LAW KWUN-CHUNG#

DR THE HONOURABLE YIU CHUNG-YIM#

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU SIU-LAI#

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2225

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, G.B.S., M.H., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

MR ERIC MA SIU-CHEUNG, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

2226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning. Debate on motion with no legislative effect. This Council will now deal with the motion debate on "Updating the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines and increasing community facilities to enhance living environment".

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

I now call upon Mr CHAN Han-pan to speak and move the motion.

UPDATING THE HONG KONG PLANNING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES AND INCREASING COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO ENHANCE LIVING ENVIRONMENT

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Good morning, President, housing policy is the top priority of the current-term Government and Members have already spoken a lot during the debate on Mr Paul TSE's motion yesterday. And yet, today, I want to stress that housing issue is not just a matter of the number of flats, a "roof over the head" or even the size of flats, but should also take into account the local environment, especially community facilities, which include job opportunities, transport arrangements and distance from the market, etc.

I appreciate the intent of the Government to increase the supply of residential units, but various signs have aroused my concern because while the authorities rise up to challenges to identify land for housing construction, the provision of community facilities has failed to go in tandem with the construction. Worse still, community sites have been converted to residential use, which has attracted great opposition in respect of rezoning. If such conflict cannot be resolved, the efforts of government officials will become futile and applicants on the Waiting List for Public Rental Housing will continue to suffer as well. When the affected residents find that the Government has turned a cold shoulder to their views, they are disappointed with the governance, resulted in an all-loss situation. Therefore, after our debate on housing today, we should also show some concern for community facilities.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2227

Looking back at the mode of development of new towns in the 1980s and 1990s, the authorities usually formulated development plans for the entire region and this is why housing units and community facilities were provided in a new development area. Although there are times when the provision of community facilities failed to go in tandem with population growth, land had at least be earmarked and the provision of such facilities is just a matter of time. However, the major task of the current-term Government in respect of short- to medium-term housing is to increase housing supply by rezoning 150 sites in built-up areas. Therefore, apart from the provision of residential units, it is almost impossible for these new developments to provide any community facilities to cater for the needs of the increased population, which can only be absorbed by the existing facilities. Of course, whenever the relevant District Council was consulted, the authorities would produce a lot of data to prove that the additional population would not have any adverse effect on the original residents or community, but according to the first-hand experience of local residents, the community is overcrowded, venues are fully booked and services are lacking.

Since I serve and live in the New Territories West, I do have very strong feeling about the overcrowded community and Yuen Long is a typical example. Looking at the figures, the planned population for the Yuen Long New Town is 180 000. According to the population estimates in 2016, Yuen Long (excluding Tin Shui Wai and the rural areas) has a population of only 160 000 and community facilities are mainly located in the city center. These facilities, which include market, community hall, theatre, swimming pool, library or sports centre, not only serve the needs of the 160 000 Yuen Long residents, but also have to cope with the needs of 100 000-odd rural population and even some Tuen Mun residents. If we do not count the large-scale developments in Yuen Long South and Hung Shui Kiu, the rezoning of land alone can produce an additional 42 000 housing units for Yuen Long in the future, which will bring in about 120 000 people. But has the Government provided community facilities for the additional population? I dare say no. Of course, the government official who is giving a response later on may say that a brand new sports centre and library will soon come into service in Yuen Long, and that the Yuen Long Stadium will be redeveloped, and a Community Services Building will be constructed on its side. However, first of all, while the sports centre and library are newly constructed, the planning was made more than 10 or 20 years ago and such facilities have completely failed to keep up with population growth. As for the redevelopment of the Stadium, it mainly involves the reconstruction of the spectator stand and there is still only one pitch. What is more, the construction 2228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 of the Yuen Long District Community Services Building has to be funded by the Yuen Long District's Signature Project together with money raised by local people. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is not a major planning of the Government.

President, Yuen Long New Town is not a unique example and I believe colleagues will cite examples of various other districts when they speak later on as this is a pretty common phenomenon. However, due to time constraint, I would like to focus our discussion on issues relating to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") and why I requested an update of HKPSG today.

Generally speaking, community facilities under HKPSG are population-related, for example, one sports centre should normally be provided for 50 000 to 65 000 people and a standard football pitch for 11 people should be provided for 100 000 people. However, the provision of community facilities such as public markets, community halls and theatres or arts venues are not related to population. Whether they should be provided and when they should be provided depends on four words: "on a need basis".

President, colleagues working in the districts often received complaints about the lack of performing arts venues, and community halls or community centers are always fully booked. The fundamental reason is that HKPSG has not drawn up any objective criteria for the provision of performing arts venues and community halls, and they are all provided "on a need basis". As a result, while Kwai Tsing and Tsuen Wan each has one town hall 10 years ago, they still have only one town hall 10 years later in spite of an increase in population.

The authorities may argue that according to statistics, the utilization rate of the relevant community halls or town halls is just around 70% or 80% and there is thus no need or urgency to increase the relevant provision. I nonetheless wish to emphasize one point. The halls are open round the clock and certain periods can be described as "rubbish hours", for example, from 12:00 noon to 2:00 pm and from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm, during which people usually go to the market or take meals. Do you think people will enrol in the workshops or watch the shows held during these hours? Are they expected to eat while watching the show as if they are watching television? And yet, these hours have accounted for about 20% to 30% of the opening hours of the community halls. In other words, under normal circumstances, if the utilization rate of a community hall or town hall is 70% to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2229

80%, it can basically be regarded as fully utilized. In the absence of any relevant standard, the authorities have simply denied or deferred by all means people's requests for the provision of such facilities on the ground that they have "yet to be fully utilized".

Of course, it is not enough to look at population alone, sometimes we must also take into consideration the specific conditions of the area. Take Tung Chung as an example. If planning is formulated on the basis of population, it is possible that the population size has failed to meet even the minimum threshold for the provision of many community facilities. In case there is a serious shortfall in the provision of community facilities, not only the living quality of the residents will be affected, it may also give rise to different social issues. After the occurrence of a family tragedy in Tin Shui Wai in 2004, a review had been conducted and the relevant report criticized the serious imbalance in the planning of Tin Shui Wai North where public facilities as well as recreational and sports facilities were in acute shortage. There is no library, football pitch or swimming pool, and the environment of the community is described as poor. Although the inadequacy of community facilities is not the cause of the tragedy, it may sow the seeds of social problems and thus should not be ignored.

President, standards are either unavailable in HKPSG or are pretty unreasonable, and have caused great disturbances to the community. We notice that at the beginning of each month, a large number of people will be queuing overnight outside the Tsuen Wan Car Park for fear that they may not be able to get a parking space. The situation is similar to queuing for public rental housing and school places. While the closure of the Tsuen Wan Transport Complex Car Park at Tai Ho Road by the Government and the resumption of three sites previously used as temporary car parks for private residential developments had reduced 1 300 parking spaces in one go, a more serious problem is that some new standards in HKPSG are "utterly unrealistic".

The Planning Department amended HKPSG in February 2014, requiring that large-scale residential developments having a plot ratio in excess of 5 have to reduce the number of parking spaces by 10% to 25%; whereas medium-scale residential developments have to reduce the number of parking spaces by 30%. For a housing development comprising mainly of small and medium flats, if it has a plot ratio in excess of 5 and is located near the MTR station, we estimate that the number of parking spaces will have to be reduced by 44% on the whole. But why only parking spaces of developments with small-sized flats have to be 2230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 slashed? Large-scale residential developments, on the other hand, are usually situated in focal points, then why should the number of parking spaces be slashed as well? As a result of the Government's "dual reduction" by rezoning the temporary parking spaces for residential development and at the same time reducing the supply of parking spaces, many drivers are forced to park their vehicles on the streets. This has not only fuelled speculation of parking spaces, but has also created traffic problems, causing serious public resentment and dissatisfaction.

Furthermore, after the authorities amended HKPSG in 2009 to make the provision of public market no longer related to population, there has been "zero planning" for public markets, thus giving rise to the monopoly of the market by Link REIT. As we have already had a discussion on this matter last month, I am not going to elaborate here.

President, due to time constraints, the last thing that I wish to discuss is about the "dedicated fund for enhancement of community facilities" as stated in the original motion. The purpose of this proposal is to urge the Government to provide community facilities which consensus has been forged and are urgently needed by society. For example, a proposal to provide hillside escalator links and elevator systems was put forward in 2009 to facilitate residents living along the hillside, especially elderly persons and people with disabilities. However, due to the funding priority, the progress of the project has been very slow. The purpose of setting up dedicated funds, for example a fund for hillside escalator links, is to earmark funds for dedicated purposes so that the projects can commence as soon as possible.

I hope that when colleagues consider my motion later on, they will also give due consideration to this intent. We really hope that projects that are not controversial can commence as early as possible and bring benefits to the residents.

President, housing construction has been a cause for serious public concern and the major conflicts have remained unsettled. The Government has continuously rezoned land for residential purpose and built "infill buildings", thereby turning the original community sites into residential sites and leading to an increased population. If the Government does not amend HKPSG and suitably provide more community facilities, parking spaces and markets, I think public concerns over housing construction cannot be dispelled and opposition that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2231 arises will tie down the overall progress of housing production. Therefore, we hope that by endorsing this motion, the Government will revise the provision of community facilities to ease members of the public, and then it can speed up housing construction.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Han-pan, please move your motion.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I move my motion

Mr CHAN Han-pan moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That, in recent years, the Government has made it a prime task to increase the supply of public and private housing, but while substantially increasing public and private housing, the Administration has not correspondingly increased community facilities, especially parking spaces, public markets as well as cultural and leisure facilities, thus failing to enhance the living environment; in this connection, this Council urges the Administration to update the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines and relevant town planning guidelines, set up a dedicated fund for enhancement of community facilities and optimize the use of idle spaces or land lots, so as to expeditiously construct community facilities such as parking spaces, public markets, cultural and leisure facilities, etc. in various districts, thereby responding to the public aspiration for enhanced living environment in communities; the Administration should also earmark financial and administrative resources and draw up a specific timetable for the expeditious implementation of the construction of various facilities concerned."

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

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

2232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

I will call upon Members who move the amendments to speak in the following order: Ms Alice MAK, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Frankie YICK, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Dr YIU Chung-yim; but they may not move the amendments at this stage.

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, the Council debated a motion concerning Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT") and the provision of markets two weeks ago, during which planning issues had been raised. All along, Members have kept asking the Government why no market is provided in new towns, and why no new public market has been built since 2009. The Government's reply is invariably that the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") would take into account a basket of factors. The Government has been hiding behind the excuse ever since.

I want to take Members back to four years ago, that is, October 2012, when I asked my first oral question in the Legislative Council as a new Member. At that time, I asked the Government whether it had any plans to build new public markets, and whether the planning guidelines for new development areas would be reviewed. The Government's reply then was as follows (and I quote), "In 2009, the Planning Department also made revisions to that part of HKPSG pertaining to the provision of public markets. Under the revised guidelines, it is suggested that apart from the population in the district concerned, other relevant factors should also be taken into account." The Government then went on to list out a basket of factors, adding that, "Having duly considered the various factors mentioned above, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department has not brought in any new public markets over the past three years. Nor is there any plan for a new public market in the pipeline." As the authorities have always refused to build new public markets on the pretext of HKPSG, we have been following up the matter ever since, in the hope that an update on HKPSG would be conducted by the Government.

As far as the standards for the provision of public markets are concerned, two clear proposals are set out in our amendments. Firstly, instead of the existing approach of incorporating public markets into the item of "retail facilities", public markets should be incorporated into the item of "community facilities". We hold that public markets have a unique function and role in the community, rather than just places for people to buy foods or go shopping. That is why we hope that the Government can incorporate public markets into the item of "community facilities".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2233

Separately, we also consider it appropriate for the Government to restore the prescription of a standard for population-to-market stall ratio. As a matter of fact, the standard of providing one public market stall for every 55 to 65 households or approximately 40 to 45 stalls per 10 000 persons was prescribed by HKPSG before 2009. But after 2009, the relevant standard was abolished by the authorities, and no new public market has been set up ever since. At present, new towns such as Tin Shui Wai, Tung Chung, Tseung Kwan O and Ma On Shan―actually, these districts are hardly new towns because they started development some 10 to 20 years ago―are not provided with public markets at all. But good community planning should be people-oriented. Let me give an example. More than half of the population in Tung Chung and Tin Shui Wai live in public rental housing, with a basically grass-roots mode of consumption. But as no public market is provided in the district, and only markets managed by Link REIT or private markets are available, the residents are left with no choice. Coupled with the high cost of transportation in these areas, local residents are often confined to the district. The situation in Tung Chung is particularly worse as local residents must pay high transport fares if they travel to another district to buy foods. Such planning has not taken the public's needs into account at all.

Hence, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") has proposed to the Government that new markets should be built in new development areas. We very much welcome the Government's decision to accept our proposal, with the pledge of identifying sites in the Tung Chung New Town Development and the Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area for building public markets. However, public market is still not provided in some districts such as Tin Shui Wai and Tseung Kwan O. What can be done? It is exactly because we understand how difficult it is to identify sites for building new markets in existing areas that we see a great need for the prescription of the relevant standards in the first place. We thus urge the Government to revise HKPSG and restore the prescription of a standard for population-to-market stall ratio. For the Government, a policy will only be formulated if a standard exists, and it will only take the matter forward and identify suitable sites in different areas to build markets if there is a policy.

Apart from the provision of markets, there is another matter which I want to discuss. Incidentally, this is also a matter which I received most complaints in recent years, namely, the inadequate provision of parking spaces in the districts. Many members of the public told us that they did not want to park 2234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 their cars illegally. Recently, the Government proposed to raise the fixed penalty charges for illegal parking because the problem has become very serious. But people park their cars illegally not because they want to, but because parking spaces are so difficult to find. The situation is particularly worse for professional drivers. Drivers of coaches and nanny vans can hardly find parking spaces for their vehicles because there is no such provision in the districts at all. Under the current HKPSG, the standard for private housing is one car space per six to nine flats. But can this standard really meet the actual demand?

As Members may recall, when people started moving to the new development areas of Tin Shui Wai and Tung Chung in early years, many car parks were underutilized and converted to community facilities. Some car parks in Tung Chung were even closed off for years. But recently, the situation has reverted, and there is a constant shortfall in the provision of parking spaces. Members of the public often complain about how difficult it is to find parking spaces. Any person who has ever visited a housing estate in Tin Shui Wai on weekends would know that there are invariably long queues of cars waiting for hourly parking spaces, and a wait for an hour or two may not necessarily get a parking space. As a result, people can only park their vehicles on roadside, not because they want to do so, but because HKPSG has failed to meet the public's needs.

Some people may query the reason behind the sudden surge of demand for parking spaces. Once again, it is related to the problems of land and housing. Many people have told me that given the small living space in Hong Kong, they must live with their families, and even though they long for privacy, they cannot afford home ownership. That is why they want to buy a car so that they can go out on holidays to enjoy some privacy. This is the people's aspiration. But has the Government ever listened and planned to revise HKPSG accordingly?

We know quite well that the Government would respond by saying that many solutions can be considered. But likewise, a policy would only come after the relevant standards and guidelines are in place. That is how we can ensure that government departments, such as the Transport Department, will really work proactively to address the public's concerns.

Another matter which I want to discuss is the planning standard for cinemas. All along, Mr TANG Ka-piu, former Member of the Legislative Council from FTU, has been following up the matter. He has done a lot of work LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2235 in this matter, such as holding meetings with the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau as well as the Development Bureau, raising questions in the Council, proposing relevant agenda items for Panel meetings, liaising with the industry, and so on. But so far, no positive response has been given by the Government.

In fact, the requirement for cinema provision was in place when planning for district development in the 1960s and 1970s. Under the Colony Outline Plan (which is the predecessor of HKPSG), cinema was classified as a recreational facility, with the specified standard provision of 38 cinema seats per 1 000 persons. But regrettably, the requirement was abolished later. In Hong Kong, the number of cinema seats has fallen from over 120 000 in 1993 to only 30 000-odd in 2015, while the number of cinemas also fell by more than 61.1% in the same period. Currently not a single cinema can be found in Tai Po, the North District or Sham Shui Po. Notwithstanding the Government's claim to promote the development of our film industry or the proposals made in the policy addresses to establish funds to support the industry, how can the film industry move forward if not even one single cinema can be found in some districts? Where can we go if we want to watch movies? If there is no cinema around, we can only watch movies on the Internet through mobile phones or tablet computers. If the Government is really committed to promoting the development of the film industry, why does it not provide the basic hardware facilities? We often say that we want to make films that are well-received in overseas markets, but why can't Hong Kong people watch the films produced by Hong Kong people? Why aren't there enough cinemas in Hong Kong to show the films produced by Hong Kong people?

President, in particular, I note that the planning for cinema provision is neither mentioned in the original motion nor the amendments. Thus I very much hope that Honourable Members can support my amendment, especially those Members who have always expressed concern about the provision of cinemas in the districts, or those who will take actions to save cinemas facing closure, or those who will approach the developers about setting up cinemas in their premises. I implore them to vote for my amendment, rather than abstain from voting or vote against it.

Seemingly, markets, parking spaces and cinemas are mundane items and hence, they can be overlooked or belittled easily. Even when such items are discussed, the focus is always on their management or operation. But like many 2236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 other community facilities, they are closely related to people's living and have an important complementary role to play in our daily life. They are also critical in building a holistic society. Sound planning can only be made by giving due regard to the public's needs. But the Government's current approach has exactly ignored the elements of people-orientation and community participation. As a result, its planning is totally unrealistic and has failed to give people even the most basic ancillary facilities, not to mention a quality life. Hence I hope that when taking forward other new development area projects in future, the authorities can learn from past mistakes, implement more humanistic planning and revise the current HKPSG accordingly.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, let me begin by expressing my thanks to Mr CHAN Han-pan for moving the original motion. In recent years, the Government has made it a prime task to increase the supply of public and private housing, but in the process of the work, it has not increased the provision of community facilities correspondingly. It was just yesterday that this Council held a motion debate urging the Government to formulate an appropriate housing policy expeditiously. As I highlighted in my speech, the housing supply target can only be materialized with adequate land supply as well as the provision of ancillary community facilities, including parking spaces, public markets, cultural and leisure facilities, so as to bring a quality living environment for the public.

Hence, my Honourable colleagues from the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong and I basically agree with the proposals made by Mr CHAN Han-pan in the original motion, which include urging the Government to update the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") and relevant town planning guidelines, set up a dedicated fund for enhancement of community facilities, optimize the use of idle spaces or land lots, as well as earmark the necessary financial and administrative resources, so as to respond to the legitimate public aspiration for enhanced living environment in communities.

In my proposed amendment, several important factors for considerations have been set out, such that the issues concerned can be addressed from a more long-term and comprehensive perspective. First of all, we must get a good grasp of the purpose, functions and limitations of HKPSG. HKPSG not only provides the Government with locational guidelines for various types of land uses, but also provides guidance on the scale, intensity and site requirements of various LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2237 developments as well as the supporting facilities required. There is no doubt about the importance of HKPSG because it does not only affect the allocation of land and financial resources, but also the planning for future development.

However, as the purpose of HKPSG is to provide general guidelines, the requirements are invariably set out in quantitative terms with a specified range for various facilities. Hence, it is more of a technical document and falls short of reflecting society's demand for resources in different policy areas, the priorities of competing planning considerations, as well as the trade-off between different land uses and ancillary infrastructure. For instance, as HKPSG is not forward-looking enough, no planning has been made to increase the provision of industrial and commercial sites to dovetail with the Government's industrial policy. It is thus clear that HKPSG has its limitations, and no sound long-term planning has been made for Hong Kong over the years as a result. In the past, the engineering industry has been severely affected by the lack of sound long-term planning for infrastructure development; consequently industry players either make big money at one time or go out of work at another.

In October 2013, I moved a motion in the Council urging the Government to formulate long-term infrastructure planning. The motion was passed without amendment, indicating the importance attached to the matter by most Members. Nowadays, Hong Kong must face serious challenges both externally and internally. Externally, intense competition has arisen due to globalization. Internally, Hong Kong must deal with slackened population growth as well as an ageing population, while the young generation also needs opportunities to gain upward mobility. It is thus imperative for the SAR Government to expeditiously formulate long-term integrated urban planning. Apart from the implementation of more infrastructure projects, the Government should ensure due planning for long-term infrastructure development in society over the next 20 to 30 years, as well as formulate overall planning in areas concerning the population policy, urban development, land planning, housing supply, industrial policy, green infrastructure, transportation and logistics, training of talents, quality of life, and so on, such that public works projects of all scales and sizes can be taken forward in an orderly manner after capitalizing on the actual situation, so as to provide better development opportunities for the young generation and ensure sustainable development.

An equally important point is that long-term integrated urban planning must also cater for the trends of demographic change, as well as the overall picture of economic and social development. Although the Government is 2238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 craving for land and wants to increase housing supply as soon as possible, it must ensure that the right balance is achieved among different land uses to serve our short-, medium- and long-term economic development, with due regard given to the implementation of various policy objectives. Whilst increasing land and housing supply, the Government must also implement a comprehensive and balanced industrial policy, increase the provision of sites and infrastructure support for industrial and commercial industries. In parallel, the Government should also provide a comprehensive transportation network, ensure planning for social development and strive to promote all kinds of economic activities, so that job opportunities can be provided for residents in new development areas to meet the different development needs of Hong Kong in the short, medium and long term.

Since the subject of today's motion is updating HKPSG and the relevant town planning guidelines, we should not limit ourselves to the revision of individual requirements specified therein. Instead, we should consider the matter in terms of the overall blueprint of long-term integrated town planning as mentioned above. As the last review of the territorial development strategy was completed in 2007, I am pleased to note that the Planning Department has embarked on the "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030" ("Hong Kong 2030+") study in 2015. So far, initial results have been achieved, paving the way for the launch of a six-month public engagement exercise in October this year.

Hong Kong 2030+ aims to examine the strategies and feasible options for the overall spatial planning, as well as land and infrastructure development for Hong Kong beyond 2030, with the positioning and development of Hong Kong as a sustainable Asia's World City as the overarching planning goal. To this end, the Government has proposed three building blocks, namely, planning for a liveable high-density city, embracing new economic challenges and opportunities, and creating capacity for sustainable growth. Specific proposals include planning for adequate land and space to ensure the diversity of economic sectors with quality jobs; supporting innovation, technology and collaboration; strengthening the support of transport infrastructure; and adopting the concept of "age-friendly" planning for our ageing society. It is worth commending that the Government has incorporated these elements into Hong Kong's long-term planning in response to the aspirations of different sectors in society. Separately, these elements can be applied to the updating of HKPSG and the relevant town planning guidelines, so as to achieve complementary effects.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2239

As HKPSG and the relevant town planning guidelines are only intended as general reference, they are not legally binding. Both the industry and I personally have reservation about the proposal of vesting these standards and guidelines statutory statuses, and making them necessary requirements for compliance by the Administration in processing planning applications. Such a move will undermine the Government's flexibility in weighing the pros and cons of individual development projects under different policy areas by considering factors such as their priorities in the overall planning or the corresponding funding requirements. Meanwhile, it will increase the operating costs of the relevant industries unnecessarily. Hence the Government must handle the issue prudently. By the same token, it is undesirable for HKPSG to impose mandatory requirements for individual items arbitrarily. For instance, if a rigid requirement is set for the provision of public markets and small libraries, it may result in the inefficient use of resources. Instead of taking a sweeping approach, the Government should consider the need of individual communities.

The subject under discussion today not only relates to Hong Kong's long-term development and integrated urban planning but also affects the allocation of land and financial resources. As issues relating to infrastructure development, land development, housing supply, industrial facilities and community development are all highly controversial, with the involvement of many stakeholders, the Government must review and enhance the current public consultation system, as well as improve and streamline the planning procedures and implementation mechanism in the light of changes in Hong Kong's social and political environment, so that views of different stakeholders can be incorporated as far as possible during the planning stage. Otherwise, effective implementation of various development planning initiatives might be hindered should disputes concerning demolition and relocation, environmental impact assessment or cost-effectiveness arise after project commencement.

President, I so submit.

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, as our population continues to rise, the public demand for housing is becoming keener. In view of this, the Government has been actively identifying sites for housing construction to meet the people's needs. Although the Government says that it will refer to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") in the course of planning, it is really doubtful whether the standards are still appropriate in meeting the actual needs. 2240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

Besides, in order to achieve the annual housing supply target of 48 000 units, the Government has been "blindly grabbing land" in total neglect of the standards for providing ancillary facilities. The original motion mentions an inadequate provision of public markets and cultural and leisure facilities, but I think there is also a shortage of transport ancillary facilities, especially vehicle support facilities, including parking spaces for various types of vehicles, places for loading and unloading goods and picking up and dropping off passengers, as well as vehicle maintenance workshops which support economic activities.

The Government's transport policy is public-transport oriented, but with an increase in population and the development of new towns, public transport ancillary facilities often cannot meet public needs. There may be a lack of railway service, or the railway service may become saturated soon after it has been commissioned. These problems, coupled with the inconvenience caused by the need of interchange, have sustained the demand for private cars. In the past five years, the total number of vehicles has increased by 16%, representing an average increase of 3% per year. As at September this year, there are about 810 000 registered vehicles in Hong Kong.

Noticing the continuous increase in the number of vehicles, the SAR Government has not introduced any corresponding policies to address the problem, but has been targeting vehicle owners by continuously increasing the costs of vehicle ownership, such as the motor vehicle first registration tax, vehicle licence fee and fixed penalty for parking offences, and planning to introduce Electronic Road Pricing, and so on. The Government seeks to reduce the number of vehicles by discouraging people from buying cars, in the hope that all problems relating to roads, including traffic congestion and roadside air pollution, can be solved. Nevertheless, since the ratio of vehicle ownership in Hong Kong is still on the increase, we know that the Government's policy direction is incorrect.

Let us consider the situation in Singapore. A Singaporean has to buy a certificate of entitlement before buying a vehicle. Although this will make the total costs of buying a vehicle double that in Hong Kong, the growth in the number of vehicles in Singapore in the past 10 years is still as high as 33%. Thus, relying merely on financial measures cannot reduce the growth in the number of vehicles at all.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2241

Illegal parking, being a cause of traffic congestion, is particularly serious in our commercial and shopping areas and industrial areas. In fact, the root cause of the problem is a shortage of parking spaces which leaves drivers with no choice but to park in the prohibited zones at the risk of being booked. However, instead of trying to address the shortage of parking spaces, the lack of places for goods vehicles to load and unload goods and for public vehicles to pick up and drop off passengers, the Government has simply stepped up law enforcement against drivers who park illegally. The Government has put the cart before the horse and failed to prescribe the right remedy for the problem.

An increased number of vehicles will generate the problem of an increasing demand for parking spaces. In 2013, I reflected to the Government the problem of serious shortage of parking spaces and asked it to conduct a third review on its parking policy, but the Government has been working at a slow pace. The Government has all along allowed some sites to be used as temporary car parks under short-term tenancies. If there is an apparent shortage of parking spaces for a certain type of vehicles, the Government will stipulate in the new tenancy agreement the number of parking spaces needed for that type of vehicles to meet market needs. However, as the total number of parking spaces has not increased, the Government is only making do with what is available without really solving the problem. Furthermore, due to a keener demand for housing in recent years, the Government has been offering fewer sites for temporary car parks under short-term tenancies. The resumption of a number of sites for housing development further aggravates the problem of parking space shortage.

By using idle land awaiting development as temporary car parks under short-term tenancies to alleviate the shortage of parking spaces, the Government can only temporarily suppress the cough rather than curing the disease. Since the Government is renting these sites under short-term tenancies and will invite tenders afresh upon the expiry of a tenancy and grant it to the highest bidder, rent has been pushed up continuously, resulting in higher parking fees which will in turn increase the burden of vehicle owners. Once sites under short-term tenancies are resumed, vehicles that used to park there will be displaced and have to park elsewhere, which in turn enhance the burden on the availability of parking spaces in other areas.

Parking problems also apply to many commercial vehicles, for example, student service vehicles and private light buses, which may be neglected by many people. Some drivers of student service vehicles may park the vehicles in car 2242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 parks of the housing estates where they live or in car parks of the neighbouring housing estates which are managed by the Hong Kong Housing Authority, so that it will be more convenient for them to start work and maintain the vehicles. As these vehicles are tall and long, they can only be parked in the parking spaces for goods vehicles. Since the Government has not considered the parking needs of student service vehicles, the parking spaces in housing estates are classified only into three types, namely, goods vehicles, private cars and motor cycles, to the exclusion of student service vehicles and private light buses. Owing to restrictions of land lease conditions, the Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT") no longer rents parking spaces to student service vehicles originally parked there. Although Link REIT is willing to apply to the Lands Department for waivers of the relevant land lease conditions, the costs incurred will be transferred to the vehicle owners. As a matter of fact, there is only a very limited number of parking spaces for student service vehicles in the public car parks. If student service vehicles are compelled to park in private car parks or even in other districts, it will not only increase the financial burden of vehicle owners, but also social costs because an increase in traffic flow will surely increase the loading of roads and aggravate roadside air pollution. When faced with the problem of insufficient parking space, the Government should expeditiously conduct a review on its parking policy and update, on the basis of the result, HKPSG in respect of the standards for providing parking spaces, so as to meet the actual demands.

Furthermore, vehicle maintenance is an indispensible part of the automobile industry. Proper repair and maintenance helps to reduce road accidents and roadside air pollution, but the Government often neglects the importance of vehicle maintenance in its planning. Currently, most of the vehicle maintenance workshops are located in old districts, but they will soon be forced to move out because of redevelopment. Following an explosion and a fire that broke out in a vehicle maintenance workshop located on the street level of a residential building in Tsz Wan Shan last year, some vehicle maintenance workshops have been forced to move out because their landlords will not renew the tenancy agreements due to safety concerns of the residents. If owners of these workshops cannot find other suitable places to operate, they have no choice but to close down.

In fact, vehicles and vehicle maintenance are a part of people's livelihood. Thus, in the course of planning, the Government must reserve some sites for the operation of small- and medium-sized vehicle maintenance workshops, which LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2243 have to be relocated due to redevelopment of old districts or non-renewal of tenancy agreements due to safety concerns. If vehicle maintenance workshops can be centrally located in a multi-storeyed building, the effluent, emission and oil refuse produced can be centrally treated so as to reduce environmental pollution. In addition, good planning and improvement of the work environment will enhance the professional image of vehicle maintenance personnel which will, in turn attract young entrants to the trade and help solve the current succession problem. This approach will also provide a focal point for training new blood and facilitate the sustainable development of the vehicle maintenance trade.

Motor vehicles have all along been alleged as a major source of air pollutants. Thus, in order to improve air quality, the biggest motor vehicle manufacturer in the world has indicated that it will completely stop producing fuel-engined vehicles with emission in 2050. Germany has also indicated that it will prohibit the sale of fuel-engined vehicles in 2030. Therefore, vehicles with zero emission such as electric vehicles will be the global trend. Currently, 6 000-plus electric vehicles are running on the roads in Hong Kong, which is 68 times that of the number in 2010, but it represents only less than 1% of the total number of registered vehicles. Nevertheless, electric vehicles with zero emission will inevitably become the trend. To promote the use of these vehicles, we must solve the basic problem of charging. There are 1 400-plus public charging facilities for electric vehicles in Hong Kong, but to promote the use of these environmentally friendly vehicles, charging facilities must become a part of the infrastructure. Hence, the Government should expeditiously review the Buildings Ordinance with a view to requiring parking spaces in newly constructed buildings to be retrofitted with the appropriate charging facilities. In this way, we will be prepared for the advent of electric vehicles.

President, I so submit.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Good Morning, President. The motion moved by Mr CHAN Han-pan today concerns a very important social issue, and as I think its coverage can be widened, I have proposed an amendment to it. As you can see, my amendment is in great detail, hoping that we can take this opportunity to discuss how the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") can be updated.

2244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

When we talk about the overall planning of Hong Kong, one will surely mention "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030" ("Hong Kong 2030+") which has recently aroused enthusiastic discussion. Unfortunately, Hong Kong 2030+ has simplified the community problems of Hong Kong as a problem of land supply, that is, one of the problems of "689". It is stated in Hong Kong 2030+ that if Hong Kong has to develop further, it has to accommodate 9 million people and so there is a shortage of 1 200 hectares of land. The conclusion is that the Government has to grab land, build artificial islands and develop more infrastructures. In other words, Hong Kong has to develop and further develop. Nevertheless, the paper has not dealt with the current community problems. Prof LUI Tai-lok even criticized that the paper was similar to a primary school student's essay entitled "My ambition". President, using web language, Hong Kong 2030+ contains only "FF", or final fantasy. They are just wonderful visions which cannot be realized. Besides, it is really puzzling how the Government has come up with a population of 9 million.

In fact, Chapter 3 of HKPSG contains a detailed table showing the planning standards for providing various community facilities, for example, 5.5 hospital beds per 1 000 persons and a District Police Station per 100 000 persons, and a justification is given for each requirement. However, Hong Kong 2030+ has completely ignored the compliance of such standards and guidelines. What community facilities are lacking in each district? What community facilities must specific planning guidelines be set? Hong Kong 2030+ has not dealt with such community problems at all; it has just lavished praises on development. As to where the new core business districts and infrastructures should be built, the paper has made some casual remarks, as if it was a primary school student's essay, which is very disappointing indeed. Thus, in my amendment, I have listed the standards for providing facilities which require amendment, hoping that it will put the planning of Hong Kong back to the right track.

Next, I will explain my amendment. Item (1) concerns building medical facilities. It can be said that there is tremendous room for improvement regarding the public health care services of Hong Kong, particularly the problem concerning shortage of hospital beds. Dr KWOK Ka-ki of our political party will discuss this aspect in detail later.

Item (2) of my amendment concerns reviewing the standards for provision of community facilities such as community halls, social welfare facilities and libraries. I believe Members who are involved in district work will know that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2245 currently, community halls are often used to their maximum capacity and it is hard to make any booking. The authorities should consider the population standard for provision of community halls, so as to facilitate residents in organizing activities. In addition, one district library should be provided for every 200 000 persons. President, I do not know when was the last time you visited a library, but the authorities should conduct a comprehensive survey on the number of library lacking in each district. As we all know, baby-sitting room has become a hot topic recently. While the authorities are considering providing public facilities, will they also require shopping centres with high patronage to provide baby-sitting rooms? These areas are worthy of review.

Item (3) of my amendment concerns reviewing the standards for provision of various types of schools. I would like to point out in particular that the standards for provision of classrooms in primary and secondary schools do not cater for small class teaching, for example, 1 primary school classroom per 25.5 students and 1 secondary school classroom per 40 adolescents. Thus, I suggest a review be conducted on the standards for provision of classrooms in primary and secondary schools in order to meet the needs of education development. The so-called "matchbox" schools should not exist in Hong Kong anymore and I very much hope that the quality of school premises can be enhanced. As regards special schools, no established standards have been set, which well reflects that students with special needs have been neglected all along.

Item (4) of my amendment proposes to set standards for provision of tertiary education. At present, no established standards have been set for provision of university places, but our university enrolment rate is at the low mark of only 18%, compared with 50% in Europe and 25% in Singapore. Young people in Hong Kong face very keen competition in university admission. In recent years, the Government has often talked about enhancing our competitiveness, but the number of university places has not been increased. The Government is only concerned about implementing infrastructure development and setting up a few more core business districts, one of which is the East Lantau Metropolis. All these are just empty talks. If we only have the hardware without providing the corresponding training of talent, how can our competitiveness be enhanced?

Items (5) and (6) of my amendment concern recreation and open space. I ask the Government to conduct a comprehensive study on leisure habits of the public because the last study was conducted in 1995 in the last century and it may 2246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 be necessary to amend the existing standard. HKPSG has a very detailed definition for open space. Simply put, each person should be provided with an open space of at least 1 sq m. The authorities should provide us with figures to explain whether the current open space provided complies with this requirement.

Furthermore, I am particularly concerned about the green belt areas. HKPSG states that the green belt area is "[w]oodland and vegetated land at urban fringe areas and countryside to limit the sprawl of urban development". Nevertheless, Secretary for Development Paul CHAN surprisingly said two years ago that rezoning the green belt areas was an open, transparent and reasonable measure, and only about 1% of the green belt sites is enough to provide 89 000 residential flats, over 70% of which would be public housing and the community had to accept trade-off. However, why can't the Government develop the brownfield sites first? After developing the green belt areas, will our sacred country parks which are desperately craved by LEUNG Chun-ying be the next target?

Finally, I want to talk about the problem of ineffective conservation policy of Hong Kong. Chapter 10 of HKPSG is about nature conservation and heritage conservation, but under the existing development logic, nature and heritage can be destroyed anytime to give way to economic development. As the Secretary for Development is also wearing the hat of the Antiquities Authority, he cannot shirk the responsibility for the reducing number of monuments in recent years. A number of things that belong to cultural heritage had been destroyed in his hands, and all he cares about is to identify land for housing development to the neglect that many historic buildings will soon be demolished. Last weekend, the Secretary even said in his blog that development and conservation were actually not mutually exclusive.

Later on, we will stage a demonstration outside the office of the Antiquities Advisory Board against its assessment of a row of back-to-back houses situated between Cochrane Street and Gutzlaff Street. These houses, believed to be the oldest back-to-back houses still existing in Hong Kong, can be traced back to 1879. President, they are surely older than you and their age may be a triple that of yours. Although these houses are evidence of Hong Kong's development, they have been indifferently treated by Paul CHAN and the assessment panel even suggests not giving the houses any grading. Why? It is because the Urban Renewal Authority is planning to develop the area. Everything has to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2247 give way to development. Thus, the statement that development and conservation are not mutually exclusive is true only if conservation does not hinder development; if it does, sorry, conservation has to give way.

I think the planning under Hong Kong 2030+ intends to remove and destroy the history and true facts of Hong Kong. It seeks to level hills, reclaim land and launch large-scale development projects, thinking that these measures will form Hong Kong's future, which is utterly wrong. I hope that my amendment will make other Members consider the matter seriously. To improve our living environment, the Government should not simply build shopping centres, infrastructure and offices, it should also protect our environment, our communities and historic buildings which are essential facilities. In other words, we should support local culture and preserve our collective memories.

Let me also take this opportunity to respond to Miss Alice MAK's speech. Although I do not know which Member she was referring to when she said that he/she strongly opposed the demolition of cinemas and sought to influence the developer, the Civic Party has all along supported local movies and so we will support Miss Alice MAK's amendment today.

Thank you, President. I so submit.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, in recent years, members of the community have often discussed whether we are surviving or living in society. In view of the living and community environment in Hong Kong, it is very difficult for us to say that, apart from staying alive, we also have a real life.

Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion today is very meaningful but I have proposed an amendment to add in some information. As the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") that we are discussing today has not been satisfactorily implemented, controversies have aroused both inside and outside this Council, and problems relating to housing, community facilities, markets, parks, etc., have attributed to the unsatisfactory implementation of HKPSG. HKPSG were formulated in 1982 and over 80 revisions in various areas had previously been made. Theoretically, the authorities' revisions to HKPSG 2248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 should bring about improvements to the living conditions of the public and there is no reason why the situation would be worsened, right? Yet, the reality is that things are getting worse.

When this Council discussed markets and public markets earlier, some Honourable colleagues had pointed out that after the Government repealed the planning guidelines on markets a few years ago, residents in various districts could not go grocery shopping in markets. We wondered why improvements were not made to a planning standard after the amendment. Instead, after making changes by administrative measures, the department concerned will not be held responsible for any wrongs. I think this approach is putting the cart before the horse.

The amendments proposed by the Democratic Party mainly focus on community facilities and cultural and leisure facilities, such as public markets, municipal buildings, child care facilities, kindergartens, parking spaces and libraries, etc. Today, I will mainly discuss parking spaces, markets, as well as cultural and leisure facilities, while other Members of the Democratic Party will discuss other parts later.

President, in respect of parking spaces, our principle is that we will not blindly seek to construct or provide a lot of parking spaces. While we need parking spaces in Hong Kong, we also have to control the increase in vehicles; and a balance should be struck. Evidently, it is an indisputable fact that there is a shortage of parking spaces in Hong Kong, affecting private cars and commercial vehicles. I am particularly concerned about commercial vehicles which have attracted many complaints in the community. Many large container trucks and coaches have persistently occupied the "fixed parking spaces", so-called by the residents, and such parking spaces are illegal. Should we blame those drivers? They are pitiful as they get penalty tickets for illegal parking every month, and they have to regard the penalty as parking fees. As it turns out, these parking spaces are rare and drivers have to rush to park their vehicles in those spaces immediately after work; otherwise, even illegal parking spaces will not be available. We can imagine the severity of the problem of insufficient parking spaces.

In 2011, there were about 434 000 licensed private cars; the figure has risen sharply to 532 000 in October 2016, an increase of over 20%. The current imbalance in parking spaces is indisputable; this applies to the parking spaces of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2249 both private cars and commercial vehicles. It does not matter whether Honourable colleagues have cars, they can observe, by going to shopping centre during holidays, having meals with family members or talking to kaifongs, that the traffic around shopping centres is always very congested. There are long queues on one or two lanes as motorists have to wait for parking spaces. I think this unusual situation has persisted for a long time, and the authorities have no excuses not to address the problem.

As for parks, there is a shortage of cultural and leisure facilities, parks and open spaces in many districts over the territory. In the case of Kwai Tsing District, the situation is very obvious. The Kwai Tsing District has a population of about 507 000. On the basis of population, there are 1 community centre for 56 300 persons; 1 public library for about 17 000 persons, 1 indoor swimming pool for 70 000 persons: 1 sports ground for 160 000 persons and 1 park for 6 600 persons. Evidently, the above facilities fail to reach the standard and are far from ideal. If young people, the elderly or other members of the public in the district want to use community facilities or cultural and leisure facilities, they have to compete intensely. Each year during examination time, students who want to study in libraries and study rooms are having a difficult time. However, the Government has done nothing and we can only rely on the efforts made by other voluntary agencies or churches. But this is not a long-term solution.

President, I think the Kwai Tsing example is rather vivid. The Kwai Chung Park site has been left vacant and "sunbathing" for a long time. The site was originally used as a landfill and after its closure in 1979, it was scheduled to be constructed into a park in 1992. However, as it was claimed that biogas was found, the park had not been opened. The biogas problem was later resolved and the authorities confirmed in 2000 that the place was fine and the park was handed over to the Leisure and Cultural Services Department for management. However, to date, the park is still closed after 16 years of "sunbathing". Land resources are extremely precious in Hong Kong, I really do not understand why the authorities do not provide adequate facilities or open up the existing resources, land or facilities. Is this logical thinking? The Kwai Chung Park covers an area of 27 hectares and is close to the urban area, I do not understand the approach taken by the authorities. We have asked the authorities concerned and the reply given was that it was an issue of resources. What actually are the problems? I hope that the Bureau can give a response today.

2250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

As for public markets, we had moved a motion earlier to discuss this issue. I also mentioned in the amendment the standard of providing one public market stall for every 55 to 65 households or approximately 40 to 45 stalls per 10 000 persons under HKPSG. According to this standard, Tin Shui Wai and Tung Chung are the hardest hit areas as there are no markets in these districts for people to buy groceries. There are 290 000 people in Tin Shui Wai and 80 000 in Tung Chung at present, but according to the Government's planning, Tung Chung will develop into a community for accommodating 270 000 people in the future.

According to the above criteria, there should be about 1 300 public market stalls in Tin Shui Wai and, based on the ratio of public markets in the past, there should be about four public markets. Tung Chung should at least have 360 to 400 market stalls, that is, at least one public market. According to the speed of future population development, at least two to three public markets should be built. As far as we know, the new public market will be located inside a community services building with the community facilities I have just mentioned, including library, indoor swimming pool or sports ground, etc. I really do not understand why the Government is reluctant to provide suitable services according to this standard, so that people who go to library or go to market for grocery shopping can get their entitled services.

Moreover, I would also like to point out, as the Government is unwilling to implement HKPSG, Link REIT's hegemony has become rampant and even grocery shopping will be monopolized; the situation in Hong Kong is really ridiculous. To solve the problem of public markets, besides buying back shares of Link REIT, another effective solution is to use market forces to counteract markets with markets. As longer as there is a sufficient number of public markets, Link REIT can no long act wilfully by divesting facilities or increasing rents arbitrarily due to monopolization. After all, fleece comes off the sheep's back.

President, lastly, according to the information provided to us by the Government earlier, new markets will be built in Tung Chung in the future, but I think the Government is deliberately mixing up different concepts. The new markets will be built after the construction of new housing estates, but we are requesting the provision of public markets in accordance with HKPSG. I hope the Secretary can give a specific response.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2251

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, we have just discussed a motion on housing policy. The subject of this motion under discussion is community planning policy which is very closely related to the housing policy. This is really a good chance for us to examine more comprehensively the direction of future urban development. Needless to say, Hong Kong is facing the problems of high property prices and inadequate public housing. In the face of a severe housing problem, the Government certainly needs to make all-out effort to increase housing supply. As the community has urgent needs for housing, the Government regards increasing housing supply as the "imperial sword" and blindly snatches land, blindly develops housing by making use of every single space or adopts a "bull-dozer" approach in implementing large-scale development, ignoring overall development planning.

Today, many development projects of the Government are met with strong opposition, and most people criticize the Government for lacking sound planning. After the construction of residential buildings, the population will increase substantially, but there are inadequate ancillary transport and community facilities. People expect to have better living conditions after moving to their new homes, but how can their quality of life be improved if there are inadequate ancillary public facilities? It is even more worrying that transfer of benefits is involved behind the Government's rash development and people's well-being is not a matter of concern. The development of North East New Territories is a case in point. The Government has all along been reluctant to resume the 170-hectare Fanling Golf Course, which has caused great disputes. I guess that the membership fee of this golf course may amount to several hundred thousand dollars, how can the general public afford to pay? We are not against golf as a sport, but in view of the development and planning of the community as a whole, a golf course is obviously not a necessity, nor can it meet the needs of people who have urgent housing needs. But why does the Government still not announce explicitly that it will resume this site?

After all, the planning process in Hong Kong is extremely undemocratic and no follow-up actions are taken after the so-called public consultation. How do the authorities make the final planning decisions? Do they really draw conclusions through "soft lobbying" as in the case of Wang Chau development? To change this situation, we have to look at the planning and development of the area. We know that there is an Outline Zoning Plan, but changes will often be made and such changes have to be approved by the Town Planning Board ("TPB"). However, the incumbent Chairman of TPB is the Permanent Secretary for Development and the Deputy Chairman is an engineer; there are also five 2252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 official representatives and 28 non-official representatives. Most of these non-official representatives come from the real estate sector, the business sector and the construction and engineering sectors, and all of them are appointed by the Chief Executive. Apart from having an appointment system with low public participation, TPB also lacks transparency and its interest declaration mechanism is imperfect, conflict of interests can thus arise easily and members of the public are not informed of the details. In addition, TPB does not hold open meetings, and even if the public raise a lot of opposing views, TPB very often pays no heed and proceeds to make decisions that ignore public opinion through black-box operation.

The incident concerning Yuen Long Station of the West Rail Line is most impressive to us. The development project of Sun Yuen Long Centre had been brewed for more than 10 years. For a long time, local residents had raised opposition as they considered that those buildings would cause wall effects, and the ancillary community and transport facilities were highly inadequate to meet the needs when a large number of people moved in. They hoped that the Government would not implement the development project; unfortunately, the Government had been indifferent to their views. When TPB considered the project in 2014, 90% of the views received opposed the project. Such views were expressed mostly by local residents and green groups, etc. Unfortunately, these opposing views are unimportant because the Government and the MTR Corporation Limited endorsed the project, so did the developers. How could TPB not approve the proposal? President, the situation in Yuen Long is by no means a single example as these situations have continued to arise. TPB's approach precisely reflects that the whole planning policy is tilted in favour of consortia, ignoring the views of the common mass. In fact, TPB has degenerated into a place for distribution of wealth among those with vested interests.

In this connection, I have specifically proposed an amendment asking the Government to reform the whole planning mechanism including TPB and implement democratization of planning to allow residents and local organizations to have more opportunities to directly participate in community planning instead of providing unidirectional advice.

President, the motion today is focused on the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"). I have already described in detail the problems of HKPSG. Without a sound implementation system, HKPSG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2253 actually serves no purpose. Of course, with the continuous development of society, it is essential to update HKPSG, but the mere revision of some provisions cannot solve the fundamental problems of planning at present.

President, I also have some comments on HKPSG. First, I note that with regard to community facilities, HKPSG clearly specify that some non-emergency facilities such as community halls, arts venues, facilities for the elderly and the disabled, etc., "depend on needs in different districts." This statement often appears but it does not make any sense. According to the residents, these facilities are most in need of in the community, so I believe the Government really needs to take on board more public views and review HKPSG.

There are also provisions in HKPSG on retail facilities, but we do not know what standards the Government has in mind. We noticed the following provision: "Flexibility should be exercised in the application of the broad approach as Government upholds the view that retail development should be market-driven and that planning intervention should be kept to the minimum". It turns out that the Government eventually shifts responsibilities onto the private market. I do not deny the market adjustment function, but the Government should bear in mind that in respect of retail facilities, many necessities are closely related to the lives of the grass roots. If the Government does not make greater efforts on the planning for retail facilities, the situations would be difficult to deal with; for example, the overbearing monopoly of Link REIT have caused adverse consequences. For this reason, the Government should reserve space for the provision of more public markets, bazaars or municipal services buildings so that consortia and leading bodies in the retail sector cannot forcibly occupy space in the community. I think the Government must pay attention to this problem.

President, many changes have to be made to HKPSG. As Members have mentioned the details in their amendments, I will not repeat them in detail. But I would like to stress that we must promote democratization in the planning process because democratization is really important. I mentioned TPB earlier; in raising our opposition to a project, TPB seemingly welcomed our views but we would be asked to leave after we have made a representation. TPB would make a decision after we have left and it would normally state in its decision that "opposing views have not been accepted". This is not only a waste of our time and social resources, but most importantly, this outcome will not bring improvement to the community and is unfavourable to people's livelihood. Therefore, in my view, the most urgent reform is to promote democratization so that the views of the public can really be taken seriously.

2254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

Among the Members present today, many of them have been directly elected to the Legislative Council and they attach importance to democratization. I would like to promote democratization in this respect so as to solve the existing urban planning problems. I so submit, President.

DR YIU CHUNG-YIM (in Cantonese): President, the motion we are discussing today is related to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") and I have proposed an amendment to the motion, mainly to include two very important points that HKPSG has all along failed to cover. First, it is necessary for these community facilities to include elements friendly to the elderly population; second, long-term binding force is essential to the implementation of the relevant planning standards.

As we all know, as the problem of population ageing is getting more serious, the proportion of the elderly population will increase from the present 15% to 36% in 2064, but no corresponding adjustments have been made to HKPSG. More than 10 years ago, the Planning Department conducted a long-term planning study titled "Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy" ("Hong Kong 2030"). The Consultancy Report No. 12 made recommendations on the need for town planning changes in response to an ageing population. It is a pity that after more than 10 years and the planning study on "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030" ("Hong Kong 2030+") is underway, but the recommendations of Hong Kong 2030 have yet to be implemented. The Consultation Paper on Hong Kong 2030+ has not mentioned the updating of planning standards and guidelines on elderly-friendly communities.

Let me cite the example of planning in Japan mentioned in the Consultancy Report No. 12. Japan has set a target of providing one special care home for every 1 000 elderly people to support independent living, barrier-free homes and community care. At that time, the Government made reference to the Planning Standards of Elderly Friendly Cities in various major cities in the world and recommended that such standards should be implemented in Hong Kong. Yet, after more than 10 years and the planning study on Hong Kong 2030+ is now underway, those recommendations have not yet been implemented.

The World Health Organization published in 2015 a Guide to Measuring the Age-friendliness of Cities, which includes specifying the elderly's affordable rental level at 30% of the income or less. However, Hong Kong has not set the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2255 elderly's affordable rental level. As mentioned by a number of Honourable colleagues, the existing standards for provision of community facilities such as libraries, schools and kindergartens under HKPSG may not be adequate or appropriate but there is a lack of facilities for the elderly. HKPSG does not contain any standards for elderly-friendly communities, including District Elderly Community Centres, Neighbourhood Elderly Centres, Day Care Centres for the Elderly, the elderly day care beds in the District Elderly Community Centres and the elderly day care beds in residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs"). There are no standards or criteria and the ratio between population size and provision of facilities of RCHEs is not set.

A research team of the University of Hong Kong published on 13 October a report on town planning standards to be improved in response to an ageing population in Hong Kong. The recommendations of the report are consistent with my views. I thus propose that HKPSG should include community facilities with elements friendly to the elderly population. One of the recommendations made in the report is that every housing estate should be provided with Neighbourhood Elderly Centres, that is, 1 Neighbourhood Elderly Centre should be provided in every community of 17 000 people.

We are also concerned about other age groups but as I have just said, the present HKPSG has set standards for a range of areas, though such standards may not keep abreast of the times. The relevant standards include 1 kindergarten for every 1 000 children aged 3 to 6, 1 full-time school classroom for every 25.5 children aged 6 to 11 and 5.5 hospital beds for every 1 000 people. However, no standards for elderly facilities have been stipulated.

However, members of the public have all along criticized the inadequate facilities for the elderly in different communities, in particular, the serious imbalance of beds in RCHEs. Let me give two examples. In North District, Tai Po, Sai Kung and Yuen Long, there is 1 RCHE bed for every 10 elderly persons; when compared with Eastern District, Wong Tai Sin, Kwun Tong and Sha Tin, the ratio has increased 1 RCHE bed for more than 20 elderly persons. In other words, the ratio between elderly person and RCHE bed in two different districts may differ by 100%. As no relevant standards have been set in HKPSG, there are no relevant policies or monitoring.

In addition to setting the ratio between the number of elderly facilities and population size, the authorities should further stipulate some elderly-friendly building guidelines and increase community care facilities, so as promote ageing 2256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 in place. In the long run, the Government can further consider the needs of the elderly from the perspective of overall community planning in order to meet the ageing society in the future.

Concerning my second point, the present HKPSG only serves for reference purpose and does not have binding effect. The authorities have not even indicated that the Government will move towards this objective. Let me cite two examples, namely the recent rezoning of Ap Lei Chau Driving School and the application for rezoning of Cadogan Street Park in Kennedy Town. In accordance with HKPSG, the open space ratio in the two districts is below standard. As the districts are overpopulated and have inadequate facilities, additional open space should be provided. Yet, the Government has still submitted the applications. TPB has already approved the former application while the latter has yet to be heard. Hence, standards contained in HKPSG need not be complied with or can be arbitrarily violated, they are actually useless and exist in name only.

Therefore, I have proposed an amendment today asking the Government to provide a timetable and a roadmap to ensure that the standards in HKPSG can be implemented in a timely manner and non-compliance can be handled.

Thank you.

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, Honourable Members, good morning. I would like to thank Mr CHAN Han-pan for moving the motion today and seven Honourable Members for their amendments. With the improvement in living standards, Hong Kong people have higher requirements for the living environment and community facilities. It has been the Government's objective to provide the public with appropriate facilities and services through effective town planning, so I am pleased to be able to spend some time exchanging views with Honourable Members on the subject.

As Mr CHAN has pointed out, Hong Kong people have urgent housing needs. Facing this problem, the SAR Government has attached great importance to increasing the supply of public and private housing. While increasing land and housing supply in a multi-pronged manner, we have never neglected the provision of sufficient community facilities and services, as well as other ancillary facilities for industrial and commercial development. Just like LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2257

Members, the Government has always been concerned about the living environment and quality of life of the public, and we understand the expectations of the community about community facilities and services. Thus, when carrying out housing construction, the Government will reserve sufficient land for providing appropriate facilities and services, so as to meet the needs of social and economic development, thereby creating a better environment to live and work in. In fact, the Government's land supply measures do not only include land for housing construction, we will also ensure that there are suitable sites for economic development, community facilities, infrastructure development and leisure in the existing areas or new development areas. Therefore, the purpose of identifying and opening up land by the Government is not merely for housing construction but also for building a better community.

Specifically, in planning for a particular district, the Planning Department ("PlanD") will make reference to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"), follow recommendations of relevant Policy Bureaux and departments (including the planning of provision of facilities that is not solely population-based, e.g. residential care homes for the elderly and public markets), and take into account other factors such as local circumstances, development constraints and available resources, etc., in reserving the required sites for various Government, Institution or Community ("GIC") uses and facilities for the entire district.

HKPSG stipulates general guidelines for determining the scale, location and site requirements of various land uses, community facilities and infrastructures according to the population and other factors, so to ensure that during the planning process, the Government will reserve adequate land to facilitate social and economic development and provide appropriate and adequate facilities to meet the needs of the public. Relevant bureaux and departments will formulate, review and update HKPSG in a timely manner in light of their policy areas and development needs while PlanD assists in coordinating the preparation of the relevant standards.

The crux of Members' motion and amendments is that the Government will review HKPSG in a timely manner so that district planning can keep abreast of the times. I would like to emphasize that HKPSG is not a set of rigid rules but a "living" document. It not only reflects the planning considerations but also the evolution, updating or formulation of each relevant policy. HKPSG is the product of continuous interactive discussions among different bureaux and 2258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 departments and different stakeholders (including Honourable Members and the local community). In other words, what we need is not a so-called one-off comprehensive review, but a continuous and timely implementation of "people-oriented" policies―new policies or refinement to existing policies―by various bureaux and departments, and then timely revisions are made to HKPSG. In this process, it is most important that stakeholders will actively express their views, so that the policies and the planning thus derived for a particular district can better meet the needs of the general public and different stakeholders.

For example, at the request of the Transport Department, PlanD has updated six sections of HKPSG in the past two years (i.e. from 2015 to the present) to reflect new policies or respond to new demands arising from social changes. Take for example the standards for parking spaces. According to the findings of the Review of Parking Standards for Private Housing Developments in Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines commissioned by the Transport Department, the utilization rate of parking spaces in private residential building of small- and medium-sized units (i.e. units with area smaller than 100 sq m) was relatively low, while the supply of private parking spaces in private residential buildings of large units (i.e. units with area not smaller than 100 sq m) was inadequate. Therefore, the Government revised in 2014 the criteria and guidelines in HKPSG for the provision of parking spaces in private residential building and adjusted the relevant standards for parking facilities in line with the latest situation. Various bureaux and departments will continue to review HKPSG in a timely manner in light of their policies and development needs.

Some Honourable Members said that HKPSG should become statutory requirements. HKPSG is now applicable to both government and private development projects, but in actual planning, the requirements of HKPSG are not applied rigidly. Instead, we take into account a range of factors such as land demand, local conditions, development constraints and available resources. To give play to the effectiveness of HKPSG in planning "people-oriented" communities, the most effective approach is that various government departments should precisely understand and flexibly apply various standards and criteria, and provide appropriate guidelines to assist in the proper planning of private development projects. For this reason, we consider that it is unnecessary and unsuitable to make HKPSG become statutory requirements.

On the other hand, some Honourable Members are concerned that when the Government has focused on increasing housing and land supply in recent years, it might have neglected town planning and the related impact assessment. I would LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2259 like to reiterate that, in planning for every development project, the Government will assess the needs or impacts of additional population and development on the transport, environment, infrastructure and community facilities in the area, and at the same time consult the relevant bureaux and departments to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impacts on the quality of life of residents in implementing new development projects. The relevant mechanisms and procedures have been effective.

Town planning is closely related to the public's livelihood. However, planning often involves various complicated issues, such as land use, transport, environment, ancillary infrastructure, etc. The effects are sometimes interlocking. In addition, some issues have to be professionally assessed before being comprehensively considered in the planning proposals. Therefore, the actual town planning process is not simply a "top-down" or "bottom-up" two-way process. At present, there are various channels for public participation, either in strategic planning or regional planning. The public engagement in the "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030" ("Hong Kong 2030+") commenced in late October is a good example.

In general, for major proposed development projects such as the Kai Tak Development, the Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area and the development of Tung Chung New Town Extension, PlanD will conduct planning studies or land use reviews before preparing or revising the statutory plans. These include multi-stage public engagement events to consult the public and different stakeholders, including Members of the Legislative Council, District Council members, the local community and community groups. The views concerned will also be duly incorporated into the relevant draft statutory plans and the implementation arrangements for development projects.

During the statutory planning process, the Town Planning Board ("TPB") will also exhibit draft statutory plans for public inspection for two months under the Town Planning Ordinance. Any person may submit to TPB written representations and comments on the draft plans or the relevant amendments. TPB will conduct hearings on representations and comments received and those who have submitted representations and comments will be invited to attend the hearings and make representations. Therefore, under the Town Planning Ordinance and the existing mechanism, public engagement has been included as a necessary and very important step in the process of preparing or revising the statutory plans.

2260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

Simply put, there are sufficient opportunities at all stages to consult the public on the planning work of the Government. The Policy Bureaux formulate policies and review or formulate planning standards as necessary, PlanD conducts planning studies or land use reviews or converts the related planning standards and land development proposals into statutory plans. To improve geographical and strategic planning, we believe the valuable opinions of the public, especially those of the local community are most important.

President, with rapid development of society, as I have just mentioned, we will update and revise HKPSG from time to time in light of the actual situation of the districts to meet the needs of the public. We will also save against a rainy day and adopt a proactive approach towards planning for the future. Therefore, the Hong Kong 2030+ document released in late October comprised proposals to update the long-term strategic spatial planning of the territory; we pay much attention to the idea of enhancing liveability in the high-density urban context, with a view to creating capacity within limited space and reserving spaces to provide more and better community facilities and services. The compact and land use mix development model will be adopted to optimize the use of land resources, provide facilities for daily convenience and quality public spaces and environment to meet various needs of the public.

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

Hong Kong is facing the problems of an ageing population, ageing buildings and small living space, etc. In order to make Hong Kong a model of liveable city, the overall direction of Hong Kong 2030+ is to optimize new development areas and transform the densely developed urban areas. Eight components are proposed for improving liveability in Hong Kong. A quality living environment is one that is compact, integrated, unique, diverse, vibrant, healthy, inclusive and supportive. It is also a place where green-blue assets are appreciated by the public; where the public space can be enjoyed by all; where public facilities are improved and where our ageing city fabric is well maintained with timely rejuvenation.

Looking into the future, we will continue to adopt "people-oriented" strategies and measures for planning in Hong Kong. For instance, Hong Kong 2030+ proposes the conceptual framework of accessibility embracing easy access by residents to public transport interchanges, railway stations, community LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2261 facilities, open spaces and shopping facilities, etc. We also have "pedestrian-friendly", "bicycle-friendly", "elderly-friendly" and "family-friendly" strategies to cater for the demands and needs of various people. For example, we will consider planning of elderly facilities in housing estates and the provision of better child care facilities, etc.

In addition, Hong Kong 2030+ proposes appropriately increasing the open space per capita standard under HKPSG. We propose to increase the future open space provision target from not less than 2 sq m to not less than 2.5 sq m. As regards provision of GIC land which is directly related to people's livelihood and the population level, we propose to set the future GIC land per person provision target at 3.5 sq m, higher than the current 2.2 sq m for Sha Tin New Town. In addition to planning the quantity of supply, we also propose to review the existing policies, guidelines, functions, quality, design, accessibility and management of public spaces. The Government is now collecting public views on these proposals under Hong Kong 2030+, after the conclusion of the public engagement exercise in April next year, it will consider the specific follow-up actions to be taken.

Deputy President, town planning is not exclusively the work of one or two professions. To optimize the living environment, arrange suitable types of suitable ancillary community facilities and realize the vision of Hong Kong 2030+, we must rely on the cooperation among various sectors of the community and government departments.

Deputy President, I believe Honourable Members will have a lot of valuable opinions on the planning and implementation of various community facilities. Next, I will listen attentively to the speeches made by Honourable Members, and will respond and provide information as appropriate later.

Thank you, Deputy President.

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

MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I raised an oral question on the planning and management of district facilities at the Legislative Council meeting on 16 November this year, asking whether the Government has 2262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 plans to identify a suitable site in the increasingly high-density Tai Wai for building a municipal complex and provide one-stop services for the residents, including markets, libraries, nurseries, care and attention homes for the elderly and car parks, etc. At the time, the Secretary for Development made it clear in his reply that the Government has no plans at present to construct a new municipal complex in Tai Wai. Many Tai Wai residents and District Council members are very disappointed and dissatisfied with the news. They questioned whether the Government's district planning is impractical and fails to meet the actual needs of the public and the community. Therefore, I support this motion urging the Government to comprehensively review and update the existing Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") and the relevant town planning guidelines.

Apart from raising the above oral question, I also proposed a motion on vigorously promoting healthy market competition to counteract the market dominance of Link REIT on 23 November this year, hoping that the Government would address the problems of inadequate community facilities and services in various districts, as well as insufficient choice of commodities and retail shops which affected the daily life of residents. I also proposed that the Government should introduce short-term measures such as setting up temporary bazaars and introducing district-based pilot schemes for building public markets in districts with such a need and inviting social enterprises to operate. In the long run, the Government should conduct studies on building new municipal services complexes in various districts, as well as improve and upgrade the facilities of existing municipal services buildings, so as to provide residents with more comprehensive and appropriate community facilities. The motion was eventually passed.

Deputy President, nearly 40 Members spoke on that day and quite a number of them said that the Government should revise the existing HKPSG. They expressed the wish that the Government could consider building new public markets in new development areas and densely populated districts where the existing facilities are decrepit and insufficient. Dr KO Wing-man, the Secretary for Food and Health, pointed out in his concluding remarks that the Government had earlier modified the previous planning criteria which were based on population and the number of households, and more flexible planning criteria, which took a basket of factors into consideration, have been adopted. Under the new HKPSG, for areas that already have Link REIT markets or other private markets, and the number of which conforms to HKPSG, Government may LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2263 consider whether it is necessary to build new markets in these areas for the factor of uncertainty. Is it really beneficial to the public to amend the relevant standards?

In fact, according to the provision on public markets in HKPSG compiled by the Planning Department, it was originally required that 40 to 50 public market stalls should be provided for every 10 000 persons, but the authorities amended it in 2009 to delete the population-based planning standard for public markets. After the deletion, can the Government really be more flexible in considering a basket of factors and build public markets in areas where such need arises? I believe we all know the answer. In fact, in areas such as Tung Chung, Tin Shui Wai and Tai Wai, there are the problems of inadequate community facilities and market stalls, causing inconveniences to the daily lives of residents.

Moreover, the deletion of the population-based planning standard for market stalls has given rise to loopholes. Link REIT has thus exploited such loopholes by not providing market stalls proportionate to the population as originally specified. It has also constructed shopping centres on sites originally earmarked for markets without having to apply or pay premium. While the shopping centres will generate more revenues for Link REIT, the public will ultimately be victimized. As reported, the Tin Yiu Market in Tin Shui Wai, which was closed in late February this year, is an example of a Link REIT market being redeveloped into a shopping centre after the amendment of HKPSG in 2009. We really do not want the occurrence of similar incidents which affect local residents. We hope that the Government will seriously address these issues and examine whether it can impose stronger restraints and restrictions on Link REIT through land grant and land lease.

Deputy President, I understand that the building of public markets involves the use of Government land and public expenditures. But the Government should also take into account the actual living necessities, affordability and pressure of the public. I believe that proper district planning not only can improve the quality of life of the public, but also optimize the use of public resources; this is a win-win approach for the public and the Government.

Deputy President, I so submit.

2264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we are discussing the updating of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") today. The original motion and various amendments have proposed an increase in parking spaces, public markets, as well as cultural and leisure facilities to improve the living environment. However, we must not forget to include pre-school education and child care services in community planning.

Just now, the Secretary has mentioned in his speech that the Government will continue to adopt a family-friendly approach and he has also talked about child care services. I would like to ask the Secretary: How specific and detailed will these standards be included in HKPSG?

The amendment of Mr Andrew WAN from the Democratic Party specifically mentions incorporating early childhood education service into the item of "community facilities" in HKPSG, and setting the standard of providing 100 education service places for every 2 500 children under two years of age; raising the planning standard for full-day kindergarten places to providing 500 full-day places for every 1 000 children between the age of three to five.

Before presenting my justifications, I would like to relate my personal experience. One day in March this year, I had to attend a District Council meeting as I was a District Council member. As the meeting seriously overran and my wife had to work overtime, both of us could not pick up my four-year-old daughter from school. So, I left the meeting venue to pick her up from school but as there was nobody to take care of her, I had no choice but brought her to the District Council for the meeting. At that time, I was criticized by a number of members, and a pro-establishment member said, "Could we bring so-and-so with us to the meeting?"

These are actually not the main points. My main point is to draw the attention of the Secretary and the Government that some dual-income parents have no choice but to bring their children to work because of the lack of full-day child care places. My case is just the tip of the iceberg and many women have to quit their jobs for this reason.

Information shows that women in the age group of 25 to 29 have the highest labour force participation rate (86.3%), but the rate of the age group of 35 to 39 plunged to 76%. The reasons are not difficult to understand, which include shortage of child care services currently provided by the Government and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2265 the traditional Chinese concept that children should be taken care of by mother. Therefore, many women have given up their careers and stayed at home to take care of their families.

As a matter of fact, the Government had previously specified that one child care centre for children between the age of zero to six should be provided for every 20 000-member community, but in recent years, the Government has not provided child care services according to HKPSG. Most subsidized independent child care centres in various districts in Hong Kong have 100% utilization rate. Yet, the Government has refused to substantially increase the number of subsidized places, consequently, many parents in the community cannot find any help at all.

In 2015, the Steering Committee on Population Policy expressed support for strengthening child care services to unleash women workforce and assist women in fulfilling work and family commitments. What has the Administration done with regard to women's employment?

According to statistics, the number of children between the age of zero to four in Hong Kong has reached 280 000, but only 30 000 child care service places are provided by the authorities. At present, there are 1 047 full-day child care centre places for children under the age of two and only 700 for children between the age of zero to one, but there are over 100 000 children of the two age groups, meaning that there is only 1 place for every 97 children, and there is even no such place in some districts such as Tai Po. Therefore, the utilization rate of subsidized full-day independent child care centre places, which are most popular among parents, has been fully saturated. Practical experience tells me that parents may not be able to get a place even if they start queuing up when their children are one year old.

For this reason, the Democratic Party has requested for an increase in the number of full-day child care places. As regards non-profit-making kindergarten places in 2015, there were 123 000 half-day places and 46 000 full-day places, and the ratio between half-day and full-day places is 7:3. The Democratic Party has requested increasing this ratio to 5:5 at least.

According to the figures just released by the Government, among kindergartens joining the Free Quality Kindergarten Education Scheme, 80% of half-day kindergartens will be fully subsidized, but full-day kindergartens and long whole-day kindergartens will not be fully subsidized. As parents have to 2266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 pay tuition fees, they may choose cheaper half-day kindergartens, thus female workforce participation is still constrained, contrary to the family-friendly policy advocated by the Government in recent years. Under the system of half-day kindergartens, coupled with inadequate child care services, many dual-income parents have no choice. Can the Government offer any suggestion that can allow parents to take care of children who finish school in the afternoon? Is every family wealthy enough to hire a domestic helper or is their flat big enough to provide accommodation for a domestic helper?

In discussing the updating of HKPSG, we must note that early childhood education and child care services are indispensable community facilities for every family with children. I request the Government to incorporate the specific standards relating to early childhood education and child care services into HKPSG in the course of updating.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Community planning and community development in Hong Kong are arduous issues and such arduous issues are related to people's livelihood or democratic planning in Hong Kong.

I would like to draw a conclusion first and I have the following comments: In the short run, I think it is better for the current-term Government not to launch any grandiose development plans at this stage; all decision should be pending until the Chief Executive election in March. In the medium term, to address the existing planning problems in Hong Kong, social impact assessment, being the most important aspect of community planning, should be incorporated in the legislation as a procedure that must be taken into consideration. The Government may make reference to the environmental impact assessment but the practical effect is not significant. In the long run, as we have discussed at our meetings these two weeks, the Government should enhance the powers of District Councils or reinstate the previous status of the Regional Council and the Urban Council ("the two municipal councils"). Since this issue involves the constitutional system of Hong Kong, it is a long-term issue. The conclusion of my speech today contains these three points.

How come my conclusion contains these three points? It is because community development and community planning are not simply about increasing public facilities, building more swimming pools, community centres LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2267 and community halls, etc. Actually, an art of governance is involved and such art was most evident in the 1980s and 1990s. If we agree that the MACLEHOSE era is the glorious era of Hong Kong, we will well understand why we refer the planning of the new town in Sha Tin as the Sha Tin model. Some residents of Sha Tin and other districts may not agree. But in the 1980s, owing to the flourishing development of new towns in the MACLEHOSE era, as well as the boom in Hong Kong's economic development, community development and cultural development, Hong Kong gained its reputation as the Pearl of the Orient. This had something to do with community development, and the construction of the identity of nationals and citizens.

A very important planning element at that time was the participation of local residents in respect of their daily lives, their basic necessities and the planning of the district. Such participation was one of the three points I just mentioned. The practices of two municipal councils and community impact assessments had slowly infiltrated into the concept of colonial governance during the British Hong Kong era. Unfortunately, in the past 10 years, the SAR Government has only learnt the bureaucratic ideology left behind by the British Hong Kong Government and only has eyes for cost-effectiveness. In recent years, the LEUNG Chun-ying Government has even become despotic and dictatorial; what are the results? For the sake of getting personal achievements in governance, he blindly grabbed land and built "infill buildings" or "screen-like buildings" on every piece of site available, etc. The adverse effect is that the already densely populated urban areas in Hong Kong have become even more crowded. Worse still, the "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030" ("Hong Kong 2030+") mentioned by the Secretary earlier has evaded a very controversial issue, i.e. increasing the density of housing or urban design in Hong Kong, which is related to plot ratio.

In the past few years, the public have reacted strongly to this issue, why? "Planning for a liveable high-density city" is stated in the consultation document Hong Kong 2030+. The document also acknowledges that there is no precedent of high-density and high-liveability cities. A similar expression is that "there is no 180o angle in a circle". How can a liveable high-density city be created? The answer is that the standards of liveability should be forcibly distorted as far as possible but Hong Kong people have voiced their response. Last week, it was proposed that 128-sq ft private luxury flats should be provided by drawing reference to the concept of student hostels. This proposal has caused an uproar. Under the administration of the SAR Government, all Hong Kong people want is 2268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 to live and work in peace and contentment or to put it in a more cowardly or withdrawn way, to fend for themselves. However, there are now private flats with only 128 sq ft; this is just the tip of the iceberg and I think the scourge is caused by recent planning.

A more macroscopic argument is that there should be health care facilities and ancillary transport facilities, etc. in the community. Tin Shui Wai residents have a common expression: "Cheung Kong in the South, Link REIT in the North", meaning that the community has been monopolized by large consortiums. These situations have arisen because there is no community in the new towns of Hong Kong or over the whole territory. So, back to the conclusion I mentioned at the outset, why did I suggest that the Government should not do anything at the moment? This is the heartfelt wish of Hong Kong people, the implied meaning is: "just leave us alone and stay away from us".

If the Government really wants to do something for the future development of Hong Kong, it must consider including social impact assessment in Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines in the medium term. Nevertheless, the powers of the two municipal councils ought to be considered in the longer term. This goes back to the basic question: Does the Government wish Hong Kong people to have ethnic identity in the community and a common wish to strive hard for the future? If the answer is in the negative, I would like to conclude my speech with LU Xun's words in his book Scream. These words suitably describe Hong Kong people at present: "For all ignorant people of a nation, even if their physiques are strong, they can only make meaningless displays". These words sum up what happened these four years; Hong Kong people were slowly facing the degeneration of their identity as Hong Kong people, the gradual loss of cohesion in the community and they encountered difficulties when the political situation became more and more unitary and rudimentary. (The buzzer sounded)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, your speaking time is up.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2269

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as regards today's motion debate on "Updating the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines and increasing community facilities to enhance living environment", I have listened to the speeches of various Members, who have described the planning of Hong Kong as worse than worst with countless problems. Following this line of reasoning, I very much doubt whether the Chinese character "規" (kwai1) (map out) forming the word "規劃" (planning) refers to "虧" (kwai1) (loss) forming the word "虧欠" (inadequacy) rather than the word "規矩" (rules). The inadequacy in terms of planning is indeed alarming. The crux of the problem is that the Government's planning has not been oriented towards the community and people. In the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") and the recently released "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030", we only see a heap of figures rather than people and the community.

Deputy President, I had worked as a social worker in Tin Shui Wai for four years since 2010. I could use the word "inadequate" to describe the place. All things are inadequate, including libraries, community centres, hospitals, clinics, public sitting-out areas and even automatic teller machines. How sad it is for people in this community? The Government is very much indebted to Tin Shui Wai residents.

I wrote a book entitled《天水‧違》(Tin Shui‧Wai) back then and "Wai" ("違") formed the word "違反" (contravention). In my view, Tin Shui Wai was not a town of sadness but a place bullied by government planning. I even considered that the saddening problems surrounding Tin Shui Wai which was dubbed "a town of sadness" at that time were actually brought about by government planning. The blind spot on the part of the Government is that it merely conducts planning from the perspectives of spatial management and spatial economics, rather than from the perspectives of humanitarianism, space, community and social interaction, so as to give the community a human touch, give people in the community a sense of belonging and connection through spatial planning, produce affection and mutual trust among people, and enable people to become members of the community. After all, these are planning issues.

Today many Members have referred to planning issues in many different areas. I would also like to say something on social welfare. The authorities started establishing Integrated Community Centres for Mental Wellness 2270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

("ICCMWs") in 2010 and HKPSG stipulates that ICCMWs should be established in densely populated areas for the convenience of service users. But what are the actual circumstances? In fact, up to now (December 2016), 10 of the 24 ICCMWs are still operating at temporary venues.

For example, ICCMW in Yau Tsim Mong rents two floors of a shopping mall, but it is constantly forced to move due to rising rents in the district, and it has failed to find a permanent venue. ICCMW in Kwai Chung is located in a room in a sheltered workshop. ICCMW in Sha Tin operates in a room of a halfway house, and ICCMW in Tseung Kwan O rents a unit in a shopping mall as its office. I visited Yuen Long during the election campaign; ICCMW in the district is located in the vicinity of the Wetland Park. The site belongs to the Hospital Authority and can be described as good. The problem is that while it is in the vicinity of the Wetland Park, its service targets are the residents of the Yuen Long community. Yuen Long residents have to make a 45-minute to one-hour Light Rail journey to reach there. As a result, the centre is rendered useless and counselling services are still provided in fast food shops.

When counselling services are provided in fast food shops, what sort of planning are we talking about? When people suffering from mental disturbance have to receive counselling services in fast food shops, society really owes them too much. This is the problem of district-based social welfare planning. The authorities have never conducted planning on the basis of the needs of the communities and people, resulting in services following disasters, organizations following funds, workers following contracts, and no way out for service targets.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

The classic among classics on urban studies is a book entitled The Death and Life of Great American Cities, a line of which reads: "Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody." Only then can cities be revitalized and become vibrant.

"A stone from other hills may serve to polish jade". Taiwan, which is divided from us by a narrow sea, conducted community planning back in 1994. They call it "integrated community development", which I consider a better name. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2271

Taiwan hopes to enable every neighbourhood to become a modern civic community through community development programmes. Up until now, many communities in Taiwan have been built in a bottom-up manner, such as the Yong Kang Community in Keelung or the Chi Yen Community. Each community has its own features, not only can it satisfy the livelihood needs of local residents but can also manifest the unique characteristics of local community.

In fact, some people in Hong Kong also engage in community development and more community development projects should be undertaken. For example, the views of the community should be heard and residents should be allowed to express their views on how the $100 million allocated to each district should be used, so as to avoid the recurrence of building music fountains and rain shelters that are unable to shelter people from the rain. In the case of the Wan Chai Blue House conservation movement, the Government consulted the public on how to instil cultural elements into public spaces and the establishment of a livelihood museum. As regards the bazaar policy under discussion, public engagement exercises should also be conducted. The Government should make reference to overseas experience; formulate various different policies, conduct planning in a bottom-up manner, and refrain from misusing public funds and misallocating resources. HKPSG should not be based on population figures but on community needs.

President, regarding district-based social welfare planning, the discussion today is only a start. At the Panel on Welfare Services, we will hold topical discussions, at which I hope representatives from the Bureau will continue to attend.

Thank you. I so submit.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong has always been a small and densely populated city where land is highly precious, the living environment crowded and community facilities such as parking spaces, sitting-out facilities and even markets are seriously imbalanced, failing to keep up with the development of the times. For this reason, I support Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion today, with the hope of arousing the Government's concern about the overall demand for and planning of land. At the same time, I also fully support Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's amendment. Apart from focusing on housing and community facilities, we should also focus on the planning of sites 2272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 for the industrial and commercial sectors. As Hong Kong is an international financial centre as well as an important commercial centre, the inadequate commercial land supply will affect our economic development and consequently our livelihood.

In recent years, the exchanges between Hong Kong and the Mainland have become increasingly close in terms of passenger flow, logistics and even financial cooperation. Take for example the financial services sector of which I am a representative. Following the implementation of the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect two years ago, more and more Mainland financial institutions have come to Hong Kong for business start-ups or investment, and have accordingly driven up the demand for Grade A commercial buildings. A study conducted by an organization also reveals that in recent years, Mainland-funded organizations have taken the place of international financial institutions to take up more and more high-end commercial buildings, which are the most superior of Grade A commercial buildings. This year alone, over 60% of office transactions have involved Mainland-funded buyers.

According to a report titled Global Prime Office Occupancy Costs released by an international real estate services firm in September this year, the average occupancy costs of Grade A offices in Central and Sheung Wan have already risen to $189 per square foot this year, and the area has thus eclipsed the West End of London, the United Kingdom and Beijing Financial Street to become the most expensive among the 126 office areas in the world. The reason is that the vacancy rate of commercial buildings in Central and Sheung Wan is merely 1.8%; and the low vacancy rate and exorbitant rents of commercial buildings are attributed to the inadequate supply of Grade A offices in Hong Kong.

According to the above mentioned investigative report, Grade A offices in core areas such as Central and Admiralty are continuously in short supply, it is estimated that there no new Grade A office buildings will be built on Hong Kong Island after 2018, and there will be a shortage of some 2 million sq ft of office areas in Hong Kong in 2020.

Members can well imagine, with the implementation of the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect, coupled with our efforts made in requesting the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to set up a service centre in Hong Kong, and the taking-off of the Belt and Road strategy of our country, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2273 demand for commercial buildings in Hong Kong will only be greater. In fact, various organizations have predicted that following the implementation of the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect, office rents will further rise next year, which will certainly increase the operation hardship of small and medium enterprises. For this reason, the Government must plan in advance, so as to meet the keen market demand; otherwise our competitiveness will inevitably be affected.

President, I agree to the planning strategies concerning Grade A offices in the central business district as proposed in the "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030". I am concerned about two of such strategies. First, releasing spaces occupied by government offices in core business districts to increase the supply of offices in the districts. For example, the Government has planned to reprovision the three government office buildings in Wan Chai North in phases, and some 1 884 000 sq ft of floor area will be released. That said, in reply to a question in the Legislative Council earlier, the Government indicated that a new Inland Revenue Tower to be constructed at Kai Tak will only be completed in early 2022. In other words, we will still have to wait another five years at least. This plan was proposed as early as in the 2008-2009 Budget, but the Government has all along delayed its implementation. Why can't it improve its efficiency? In addition, as the Department of Justice only occupies a very small portion of the former Central Government Offices, how come new development plans have yet to be formulated for such buildings? Another example is the Central Market, which has been left vacant for some 13 years. Despite repeated discussions, no decision has been made on its development plan. While the market will soon become a dangerous structure, the Government has yet to finalize the development plan. What kind of efficiency is that? I hope that the Government will expedite the review and prevent precious land from being left idle time and again.

The other strategy is to encourage enterprises to move from core business districts to other new development areas. Nowadays, given the popularity of the Internet, enterprises need not operate in prime business districts, the Government should thus make more publicity efforts and offer tax concessions, so as to encourage enterprises to operate in non-core business districts. In addition, newly developed business districts are concentrated in Kowloon East, but the vacancy rate of offices in that region is the highest in Hong Kong, being 7.5%. Is this because ancillary transport facilities in that region are still not available? 2274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

I hope that the Government will pay more attention when reviewing its planning efficiency, so as to address the pressing demand for commercial buildings in core business districts.

Thank you, President. I so submit.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, today we are discussing the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"), but my concern is whether such standards and guidelines are genuine that we can genuinely implement. Most of the seven amendments and Mr CHAN Han-pan's original motion express the wish for the implementation of the construction of various facilities concerned by the departments concerned. This exactly reflects that we Members have observed a serious limitation of HKPSG, that is, it has no statutory effect or power to mandatorily require the departments concerned to act in accordance with HKPSG, and the departments concerned will not have bear any consequences even if they fail to meet the requirement.

Chapter 1 of HKPSG states: "[t]he standards and guidelines in the HKPSG are neither statutory nor rigid. The HKPSG's effectiveness depends on the proper understanding, flexible application and cooperation within the Government". We have observed in the front line that no one is held accountable for the Government's implementation of the relevant standards and guidelines, and no incentive is provided to require the departments concerned to take the initiative to comply with the requirements in HKPSG in the course of planning.

Many cases we have received in the front line have reflected such a situation. For example, in a case that I am personally involved in, we request to build a clinic in Lam Tin and Yau Tong, my District Council constituencies. Under HKPSG, there should be a public clinic for every 100 000 persons. As Yau Tong already has a population of 80 000, we thus advised the Department of Health and the Housing Department to build a clinic at the ground floor of an infill residential building, so as to plan and build district facilities in advance. The Government replied that it cannot do so, for although the Housing Department will build two Home Ownership Scheme blocks within two years, the Department of Health estimates that it will take five to six years before the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2275 population requirement is met for the provision of a clinic. However, I very much doubt whether there will still be any space to build such a public clinic five or six years later.

If we do not resolve community problems in ongoing developments, I am afraid that the Government may not be able to identify any sites for resolving the problems in the future. The current problems faced by us in the community are inadequate preliminary work and incessant demands made afterwards. For this reason, HKPSG is a double-edged sword. When my frontline colleagues ask the Government to implement the construction of certain facilities in the communities in accordance with HKPSG, the Government has rejected such requests by quoting certain quantitative yardsticks under HKPSG, disappointing us all.

Another case involves the problem of parking spaces, and similar problems may be encountered in all districts. In the case of subsidized housing, for example, under HKPSG, a light goods vehicle parking space should be provided for every 200 to 600 housing units, that is, one to two public rental housing ("PRH") blocks. As for 5.5-tonne medium goods vehicle parking spaces, HKPSG has not set any standard, but only advises that estate commercial centres should be utilized to meet parking needs. However, after PRH estate shopping malls were sold to Link REIT, the land leases stipulate clearly that medium goods vehicle parking spaces should only be leased to residents of a certain estate. Hence, vehicle owners of nearby estates are basically unable to rent parking spaces if no other parking spaces are available in the district. As a result, illegal parking in the district is very serious, particularly that of medium vehicles and large buses. Though the situation of being unable to rent a parking space in Link REIT shopping mall does not occur frequently, given that HKPSG has not set any standard and the terms of land leases are incomprehensive, community problems have constantly emerged.

Just now, Mr Christopher CHEUNG queried why the vacancy rate of offices is as high as 7.5% in Kwun Tong, an industrial area that has turned into a business area. As a member of the Kwun Tong District Council, I am ashamed of this situation. We often invite officials to visit the district. If the Secretary is to pay a visit, I advise him not to come at noontime, for the traffic will surely be congested. The traffic in the district will be congested from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm for no good reason. If the Secretary comes on a rainy day, I advise him not to drive but take the MTR instead, for traffic congestion is highly likely on a 2276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 rainy day. Why? As remarked by Mr Christopher CHEUNG just now, in the past, goods vehicles packed the streets of Kwun Tong, but as Kwun Tong transforms to a commercial district, commercial vehicles now pack the streets. However the roads areas have not increased corresponding to accommodate the increasing vehicles.

Even though he Energizing Kowloon East Office under the Development Bureau is dedicated to improving the operation of the district, not much can be changed due to the restrictions of many private residential estates. A simple example is related to parking spaces. We plan to install sensors in private residential estates for ascertaining the availability of vacant parking spaces, while large private residential estates will give their consent, small estates simply ignore our request. In addition, many hour parking spaces are in fact monthly parking spaces, hence frontline staff members of the Energizing Kowloon East Office are unable to discern which parking spaces are available for lease.

Another example involves low-carbon emission, advocated by the Government nowadays, with the hope of reducing roadside pollution. In the case of promoting electric vehicles, are there sufficient charging facilities in Hong Kong's business areas for electric vehicles? Are there any charging facilities in the residential areas for use by the residents? Since HKPSG provides no standard, no one is taking any follow-up actions, and the departments have not made concerted efforts to implement the guidelines concerned, how can proper community planning be formulated for Hong Kong? For this reason, we support Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion, with the hope of improving and perfecting HKPSG, so that our community planning (The buzzer sounded) … will be improved. Thank you, President.

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

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr CHAN Han-pan for moving the motion on the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"), so that we are able to engage in this debate. We agree to Mr CHAN's proposal on enhancing community facilities. The Introduction of HKPSG states that: "[t]he standards and guidelines in the HKPSG are neither statutory nor rigid." This statement already explains why we have to discuss this subject today, for if the standards formulated are neither statutory nor rigid, government departments simply do not have to comply.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2277

For this reason, Members who have proposed amendments and spoken just now are very much helpless. Their criticisms that the Government has not done enough in the past, has failed to keep abreast of the times and completely ignored community needs are rightly made, but will the Government readily accept good advice, continue to examine community needs and make improvements? As such, regarding the discussion on this subject today, I instead would like to speak more on whether it is important to implement and promote the objectives under HKPSG.

I have noted that many Members have moved amendments proposing the incorporation of certain items into HKPSG or specifying the population-to-facility ratio concerning certain projects. That said, if such standards and guidelines are only written provisions but fail to be effectively implemented, they will only be fantasies regardless of how perfectly they have been formulated. For this reason, I think what matters most is how to implement such standards and guidelines.

President, when planning new development areas, the Government normally reserves sites for certain purposes under HKPSG, but the Policy Bureaux fail to implement the objectives in many cases. Tin Shui Wai Hospital is a very good case in point. Residential buildings in Tin Shui Wai began to take in residents in 1992, and the population of that district already reached some 270 000 in 2006. According to HKPSG in the early years, Tin Shui Wai should have a hospital, but after a lapse of 25 years, Tin Shui Wai Hospital will only be commissioned by next year. The numerous problems in Tin Shui Wai, such as the lack of health care services, that impose severe hardship on people, are exactly due to the Government's failure to implement the objectives under HKPSG.

Another example involves Area 54, Tuen Mun, which will accommodate some 40 000 to 50 000 residents in the coming years. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has requested time and again the provision of certain community facilities in the area, including recreational and health care facilities, but the Government has still turned a deaf ear to such requests. The biggest problem is that no sites are reserved for implementing the proposals. Following the intake of residents in the new estates, remedial measures cannot be adopted even if facilities are found to be inadequate. In connection with this situation, the Government should, when making blueprints for future development, comply with HKPSG and reserve sites for planning the facilities required. 2278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

In some communities, certain facilities have disappeared for the reason that the Government has failed to address certain problems in accordance with HKPSG. For example, in order to maximize its profits, Link REIT has exploited the legal loopholes to close the market in Tin Yiu Estate in Tin Shui Wai. In this regard, the Government said that it is difficult to identify a site in the community for the construction of a market. Even if a site is identified for such purpose, the residents of Tin Yiu Estate, where the market was closed, will find it difficult to go to the new market. The problem is thus left unaddressed.

President, as far as the existing HKPSG is concerned, I can only say that the Government merely pays lip service. The same applies to the planning of elderly care and community planning. It is really very unreasonable and inconceivable that in such a small place as Hong Kong, planning is so poorly formulated. The Government must be held accountable in this regard. If the five-year plans of our country were executed in a similar way as that of Hong Kong, our country would not have developed as rapidly as it is today.

In 2014 the Government announced the Long Term Housing Strategy to set home production targets, and it has set about identifying sites for housing construction in various districts. Although the targets have yet to be fulfilled, at least some targets have been set. I hereby expect the Secretary to expeditiously amend the existing HKPSG in response to Hong Kong's development and people's needs.

I so submit.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, I speak mainly in support of the amendments of Ms Tanya CHAN and Mr Andrew WAN concerning education facilities and planning standards, which involve various types of schools, such as universities, secondary schools, primary schools and kindergartens. First, I would like to talk about the problem concerning kindergartens. The Free Quality Kindergarten Education Scheme will be implemented in 2017, and the Committee on Free Kindergarten Education earlier proposed the gradual revision of the provision of kindergarten places from the present 730 half-day and 250 whole-day places to 500 half-day and 500 whole-day places for every 1 000 children aged between three and six. There will be an increase of 250 whole-day places as compared to now. This proposal was already accepted by the Government, and the Subcommittee to Study the Implementation of Free LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2279

Kindergarten Education of the Legislative Council that had ceased operation and the education sector generally support the revised planning target. That said, when and how the revision can be implemented is still a great uncertainty.

Although the Government is willing to revise this planning standard to increase whole-day places, we must still note that the Government has yet to provide corresponding and reasonable subsidies for whole-day and long whole-day kindergartens. Under the new Free Quality Kindergarten Education Scheme, only about 70% to 80% of subsidized half-day places will be free of charge, and almost all whole-day and long whole-day places will still be fee-charging. If, following the increase of whole-day places under the new planning standard, the Government is unwilling to increase subsidies for the kindergartens concerned, more and more dual-income parents will be made to pay tuition fees, and the responsibility of the Government will be shifted onto parents, particularly grass-roots parents. Such a policy will discriminate against grass-roots families. Furthermore, one must query whether the kindergartens are willing to provide more whole-day places under their cost structures.

President, I am honestly perplexed as to why the Government would rather increase the number of child care places and vigorously promote the Pilot Project on Child Care Training for Grandparents than seriously subsidize whole-day and long whole-day kindergartens, given that Chief Secretary Carrie LAM, who steers the population policy, has talked about unleashing the female labour force to foster the economy of Hong Kong. Why? The Education Bureau has even indicated that free education may not be free in all cases. This saying has disappointed all people, who fail to see why free education can be not free. If this saying is true, what is the use of merely revising the planning standard? Without the support in terms of policies and resources, a standard will only be a standard, a written standard that sounds pleasant but cannot stand the test of practice.

Similar and even more serious problems are found in the planning standards for secondary and primary schools. There are numerous hidden problems with sub-standard school premises in Hong Kong, and the cases involving poor policies rolled out by the Education Bureau over the years and lack of coordination among government departments are likewise countless.

2280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

According to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines updated in June 2016, the section on Educational Facilities is mainly modelled on most of the proposals of a report of the Education Commission titled Reform Proposals for the Education System in Hong Kong, the acceptance of which was announced by the then Chief Executive in the policy address in October 2000. For example, one secondary school should be provided for every 1 200 young persons aged 12 to 17; one 30-classroom primary school operating 30 whole-day classes should be provided for every 765 children aged 6 to 11; and the reference site area for a secondary school and primary school is 6 950 sq m and 6 200 sq m respectively.

In fact, this fundamental planning standard was formulated before 2000, that is, some 10 to 20 years ago. Even if the Education Bureau has satisfied the standard concerning community population and the number of schools provided, it does not mean that the school facilities concerned are up to standard. In reply to my written question, the Education Bureau indicated yesterday that as at last month, among about 900 public sector schools, only about 200 or a quarter of them were built according to the prevailing standards.

President, regarding the criterion on the area of school premises alone, the Education Bureau has acknowledged that the area of some 100 schools is less than 3 000 sq m, which is less than 50% of the area required, and which is smaller than half a football pitch. Such 100 schools can be called super mini schools, and some of them are even secondary schools. I have paid site visits to more than five of such schools. Members can well imagine what it will be like for several hundred secondary school students, who are as tall and big as grown-ups, to be crammed into school premises smaller than half a football pitch and when considering the areas taken up by facilities such as desks, chairs and computers, the place is extremely packed. What should we do? I take pity on these students. I earlier paid a visit to a sub-standard "matchbox" public housing estate school, which was the first of its kind in Hong Kong. While the reconstruction of the housing estate is going on, the school's request for planning in tandem was rejected due to the lack of coordination between the Education Bureau and the Housing Department. Not only does the school see no definite date for its reprovisioning and reconstruction, it also cannot expect to be upgraded in compliance with the planning standards.

President, nowadays many schools still lack standard teaching facilities such as assembly halls and basketball courts, and even barrier-free facilities required to be provided under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance are not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2281 provided. Should we improve the facilities of the schools for compliance with the standards? Instead of using the pretext that school facilities were in compliance with the standards in effect when they were constructed years back, we should seek to improve the facilities of the schools.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr CHAN Han-pan for moving the motion on "Updating the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines and increasing community facilities to enhance living environment" today.

President, having listened to the speeches of so many Members, I think of a Chinese idiom. In the Spring and Autumn Period, a man from the state of Zheng wanted to buy a pair of shoes for himself. As he was afraid of getting the wrong size, he measured his foot beforehand at home. After he came to the market and told the hawker that he wanted to buy a pair of shoes, he realized that he had forgotten to bring the measurement with him. When he decided to go home to bring the measurement, the hawker asked him to just try on the shoes instead of returning home to bring the measurement. He refused, saying that the measurement would not be correct. "I would rather believe in a measuring rope than my own feet".

President, this is the case when it comes to planning by the Government. Many Members have told the Secretary and the officials under him that parking spaces, study rooms and sports grounds are inadequate in the communities, and Mr IP Kin-yuen also said that kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools were inadequate as well. However, the Government said that under the existing standards, the facilities will only be provided when a certain threshold population is reached. This is exactly a case of "I would rather believe in a measuring rope than my own feet".

In fact, past urban planning in Hong Kong was outstanding, and many new towns developed by us were second to none. Sha Tin, to which I belong, is the best case in point. However, given population growth and social development, many public facilities are already inadequate. Since the Government insists that only when a certain threshold population is reached can the facilities be upgraded or extended, the planning, which should be far-sighted has lagged behind for no good reason, failing to meet the current social development needs.

2282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

Certainly, we cannot deny that the Secretary has made piecemeal amendments to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"), but such amendments are unable to resolve the problems nowadays. Mr HO Kai-ming just now mentioned the problem on parking spaces in Kwun Tong. I would like to cite the example of parking spaces in private residential buildings. In my constituencies Tai Po and North District, owing to the longstanding insufficiency of parking spaces, many vehicles are forced to park illegally on the roadside. The Secretary for Transport and Housing said that the fine of the Fixed Penalty Notice should be increased, and police officers should issue more traffic tickets. That said, if parking spaces at car parks can be increased, will there be any drivers who want to take the risk of parking their vehicles on the roadside?

I clearly remember that the District Council strongly objected to the Government's proposal on building a sports centre in Plover Cove Road. Originally, the building of a sports centre should win the support of all people, but why was the plan opposed? It was because District Council members hoped that, in building the sports centre, more parking spaces could be provided for use by the public. Hence, they would rather delay the project, and wait for the Government's acceptance of their views and revise the planning. We ultimately learned that the Government was willing to increase the number of parking spaces from 100 to 200. For this reason, the Government can adopt a flexible approach without having to rigidly comply with HKPSG.

Furthermore, I would like to talk about some old districts. For example, Shek Wu Hui in Sheung Shui, Luen Wo Hui in Fanling and Tai Po Kau Hui used to be the centres of local districts, but as society advances, the planning of such places has lagged behind, failing to keep abreast of the times. If the Government continues to delay the implementation of large-scale redevelopment projects in these old districts, but merely adopts some piecemeal measures, the environmental hygiene, public facilities and ancillary transport facilities will seriously affect the daily lives of residents. For this reason, I very much hope that the Government can apply new thinking. Instead of merely applying such new thinking on the revitalization of historic structures, the Government should be courageous enough to innovate, and plan new communities from a forward-looking perspective, so as to improve livelihood facilities in the districts.

For this reason, will the Secretary please trust himself rather than the measurement for buying shoes. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2283

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, today we are discussing matters relating to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. When compared with yesterday's motion, I find that today's motion is … In the motion debate on housing yesterday, a Member likened the way we debated the motion to hanging ornaments on a Christmas tree; we put many requests and expectations on the Christmas tree, but all of them fell off at the voting stage in the end. As for today's motion, I would say it is like a buffet. It involves all policy areas covering culture and leisure, education, public markets, land and environment, you name it. Still, only one government official is present here―the Secretary for Development.

Indeed, town planning has a bearing on every policy area. In this respect, I have to mention one point. In recent years, the governments of many cities, including Hong Kong, have been talking about the "smart city" concept. While I am a member of the technology sector, I always believe that a smart city is not only related to technology. Nowadays, everyone enjoys the same technologies, so the most important question is how to implement the "smart city" concept through policies. If we cannot really go about this from the perspective of town planning, but think that rolling out more applications will do, the consequence will be serious for we are putting the cart before the horse. And if, unfortunately, cronyism rears its head with coteries getting enormous funding from the Government but ending up using all such public money for producing nothing but some useless applications, we actually will not be able to resolve the problems facing the public, will not be able to improve the services provided for the public, and will not be able to help the sector.

In the past few years, whenever we discussed the "smart city" concept, we would voice our opinions on the problems observed by us. For instance, today many Honourable colleagues have talked about problems associated with parking spaces, which are also mentioned in a number of amendments. We have time and again suggested to the Secretary for Transport and Housing in this Council that sensors should be installed in all car parks and government parking spaces to notify motorists of the locations of vacant parking spaces across the territory, so that they will not have to drive around in search of parking spaces. This is such a simple task, but has the Government done so? Many foreign governments have already launched this initiative as their first "smart city" project, for it is the easiest to implement. Yet in Hong Kong, the authorities have merely indicated that they will study how to obtain relevant information from car parks.

2284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

We have also pointed out to the Transport and Housing Bureau that Hong Kong people often need to travel to different places by public transport, and in many cases, they do not know whether it is faster to go by bus or by the MTR. In this regard, some foreign countries have advanced to the stage where instant information can be made public, but in Hong Kong, bus companies and the MTR Corporation Limited, of which the Government is the majority shareholder, have refused to disclose such information. The Government has, once again, merely indicated that it will conduct a study, failing even to make a disclosure request to bus companies when renewing their licences.

This morning, Mr Frankie YICK touched on the issue of electric vehicles. In Hong Kong, it is not the case that the Government has done nothing to support the use of electric vehicles. Notably, the Government has introduced the first registration tax exemption for electric vehicles, but its support for other aspects such as charging facilities is really inadequate. Nonetheless, despite the lack of full support from the Government, the adoption rate of electric vehicles in Hong Kong has still risen rapidly within a short period of time, and Hong Kong is now arguably in a leading position among all cities around the world in terms of the number of electric vehicles. More often than not, members of the trade would appreciate if the Government did not do them a disservice. Their greatest fear is that the Government will consider afresh taxing electric vehicles when it finds that they have made some achievements. What exactly is the Government's policy objective in this regard? To protect the environment? To promote the trade so that Hong Kong will become a development hub for electric vehicles or even autonomous driving technology? Or to tax electric vehicles?

Many Honourable colleagues have mentioned community facilities, and quite a number of them have talked about public markets. But, as I rarely shop in public markets, I am not quite familiar with them. I would like to talk about libraries instead. I think libraries are a good example of community facilities. For many years, I have had this query: Why do libraries close so early? The time at which the masses and I get off work is also the time at which libraries close; holidays for the public are also holidays for libraries. I wonder if it is because the Government is afraid that people will go to study in libraries after work or on holidays, that it requires the closing of libraries during those periods. Actually, it just goes to show that there is such demand in the community, that is, there are people who need study room facilities. How come the Government does not address this problem but contrarily requires libraries to close? Is this because the Government has no money to make overtime payments to the staff of libraries?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2285

The primary goal of a smart city is to improve people's livelihood and the services provided for them. If the Government does not resolve such problems and there is a lack of coordination among government departments, it is useless to conduct consultancy studies, no matter how much money the Government spends on them. Regarding smart city development, two different Policy Bureaux have commissioned two different consultancy studies, which are in progress. One of the studies is being conducted by a recently "famous" consultancy firm engaged by a department under the Development Bureau, whereas the other study was commissioned by the Innovation and Technology Bureau. Will the results of these studies conducted by two consultancy firms engaged by two Policy Bureaux turn out to be mutually incompatible in the end? In that case, regardless of how many blueprints the Government has prepared, nothing useful will be achieved. Speaking of blueprints, much has been discussed from "Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy" to "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030", and yet what many people can see is that the problems facing them remain unresolved. Hong Kong certainly needs long-term planning, but as many Honourable colleagues have said, the crux of the issue at hand is that the problems which should have been resolved today or yesterday have yet to be resolved.

In this connection, I can cite another example from my sector. It is about data centres, which have something to do with the work of planning within the purview of the Secretary. We note that in its development plans up to 2030, the Government has again mentioned rock caverns. How is the Government going to plan the development of rock caverns, so that the relevant facilities can be moved into rock caverns? In fact, the relevant proposals have been discussed for almost 10 years, but they have yet to be implemented. The authorities have merely kept launching consultations, and kept going back to square one.

President, nearly all such problems currently facing us stem from the lack of coordination among government departments and the absence of standards, criteria and key performance indicators ("KPIs"). A couple of years ago, when this Council discussed whether the Innovation and Technology Bureau should be established, some Members supported the establishment of the Bureau while some opposed it, but regardless of whether they were for or against it, all of them agreed on the need to formulate KPIs. Back then, before the passage of the relevant bill, the Government indicated that it would actively consider doing so, but after the bill was passed, the Government immediately back-pedalled and said 2286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 that it might not be able to do so because of many reasons. That being the case, what is the point of us trying to hold so many discussions and formulate so many indicators? (The buzzer sounded)

MR ABRAHAM SHEK: Secretary, as you are an accountant, I talk to you about numbers. All the requests for car parks, the numbers of flats and the figures in our planning vision do not add up. It is not a balance sheet that you can balance. The art of planning is a distributive art that needs to strike a balance among all parties to achieve common well-being, accompanied with prospective and strategic vision that is lacking in Hong Kong.

Socrates once said, "An unexamined life is not worth living," just before he committed suicide. This is exactly what the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines is leading us to―static, no growth. The history of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines can be traced back to 1979, when the Hong Kong Outline Plan was introduced. Apart from a few patchwork remedies that have been made since then, the plan has largely retained its old-fashioned, colonial flavour and has not kept pace with Hong Kong's present needs, which are characterized by socio-economic demands that have never been as overwhelming as they are now, as well as a population that has doubled in size over the last three decades.

The so-called "planning guidelines", which are now imposing onto us, offer criteria for determining the quality and site requirements for various land uses and facilities. Secretary, you are suffering from that problem; you are also a victim of that problem; you have land that you cannot fully utilize in the name of plot ratio, height restriction, you name it. The planners copied these guidelines from the little English towns where they started learning town planning. Yet these guidelines also set rigid regulations that restrict development, such as setting limits on scale and intensity. These outdated guidelines rationalize bureaucracy and self-interest, being less sensitive to our changing external environment; consequently, the whole community suffers. " 它們未能與時並進" (Translation: They have failed to keep pace of the times), Secretary, you know that. You should do your audit and make recommendations for changes. It is about time you did so.

The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines cannot well respond to the ever-changing land requirements arising from, as I said earlier, socio-economic needs or facilitate the development of industries. It is purely a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2287

"technical paper", restricting development scale and intensity. This shameful situation can be turned around, but it requires a radical change. Secretary, I hope one day when you become the Financial Secretary, you do have the guts to reform the Town Planning Board ("Board").

President, the existing town planning system has been trying hard to outline a framework for official-civic cooperation in order to win public support and legitimacy. Although the Board has sought to add a sheen of democracy by allowing non-officials to make up 80% of its membership, the dampening spirit of bureaucracy remains firmly rooted throughout the whole system of appointing persons who only know the art of flattery or acquiescence to the Government's views. They are all, to put it rudely, yes-men to the Government's requirements in the Board.

The Board, whose chair and subcommittee heads are manned by senior civil servants and whose secretariat is held by, unfortunately, the Planning Department, is tasked with preparing new zoning plans and considering proposed layouts according to its statutory functions. They do not listen, or selectively they listen. These functions have only one purpose: to allow the Government to put forward its own plans according to the planners' vision. The Board has authority to pool and consider only the public's views, but do they listen? The power of initiative to formulate plans and amend the Outline Zoning Plans is highly concentrated in the hands of the Government's civil servants. Papers considered by the Board are prepared by the Planning Department, which also provides legal advice and, most likely, favours the Government's viewpoint, disregarding the public interest.

The tainted decision to restrict the development potential in four districts, namely Wan Chai, Mong Kok, Yau Ma Tei and Kowloon Bay … You could have added more housing in there, but what can you do? You can do nothing with all the good intentions, because of the honourable Planning Department. What they see as the light at the end of the tunnel in their vision is only an opposite train coming from that direction. It is not the light at the end of the tunnel. We should be very concerned that a statutory body that plays an essential role in town planning and aggregating views from professionals and the public has been effectively reduced to being no more than a rubber stamp of the Government. This is exactly what we are facing in the Board, despite all talk and all the reforms that we want to make. It is about time for the Board to change. And that is exactly what Socrates meant by saying, "An unexamined life is not worth 2288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 living." We need to continue reviewing the Board, change its secretariat, change its chairman, and give it independence. This is what life is all about―to have the courage to walk forward.

As we still remember, the Government promised far-reaching reforms to our town planning system. However, when the Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance was introduced in 2004, it only addressed the "easy reforms". "Easy reforms" do not bring changes. If this was "phase one", then the question is: when and how will the Government proceed with the more important topics that the public is concerned about, such as the composition and operation of the Board, new zoning designations and planning control of building development?

Secretary, you can do it, and we have faith in you that you, one day, will lead new reforms to the Board, change its composition, and give a fair go to Hong Kong people.

Thank you.

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I have to raise a point of order.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Good morning, President. I think the number of Members present in the Chamber falls far short of a quorum.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): So you have woken up and know that a headcount is needed.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG: Life is all about quorum.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2289

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members had not returned to their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Nathan LAW, please speak.

MR NATHAN LAW (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, who are the most important people in a city? Senior government officials? Members of the legislature? Or those rich people eligible to join the Hong Kong Club? Today, Mr CHAN Han-pan proposes a review of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"). The direction of town planning involves the issue of how the Government treats democracy, classes and equality. At the end of the day, the core questions are: Who is the city for? Where does planning come from?

Enrique Peñalosa was the mayor of Bogotá, the capital of Colombia, from 1998 to 2001. During his mayoralty, he strove to promote people-oriented town planning, which included building a lot of pedestrian-friendly roads, advocating the use of bus-only lanes in respect of public transport, developing cycle tracks, and rigorously combating illegal parking on pavements. He reconstructed the entire transport system at the risk of offending the relatively wealthy classes who could travel by their own cars, in exchange for a more environmentally friendly and energy-efficient city, as well as town planning which respects the grass roots' rights to transport and mobility. As an advocate of equality for everyone, he was concerned about the problems encountered by the underprivileged in society, and sought to ameliorate such problems through town planning.

The situation in Hong Kong is quite the opposite. In Hong Kong, not only is the Chief Executive elected by a coterie, but the process of town planning is also controlled by a coterie, to the exclusion of ordinary people. For one thing, 2290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 the members of the Planning Standards Sub-Committee, which is responsible for formulating HKPSG, are all government officials to the exclusion of the rest of the community, and no public consultation is required for HKPSG to be amended. As for the Town Planning Board, which determines the direction of planning for Hong Kong, all its members are appointed by the Chief Executive and many of them have business dealings with property developers, so they cannot represent the overall interests of the community and particularly the voice of the grass roots, which is totally ignored. As we can see from the recent incident involving Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd, there is deep-rooted collusion between the Government and the business sector in town planning. In Hong Kong, even its highest legislature, the Legislative Council―let alone the general public―has no say or no power to intervene in town planning, from the formulation of guidelines to the implementation of relevant town planning projects.

Without democracy in town planning, planning is heavily tilted in favour of the powerful classes, and the masses are simply reduced to second-class citizens who are evicted, ignored, and sometimes even rendered homeless. The planning priorities of a place reflect the quality of democracy and the level of respect for people in the place. Obviously, the Hong Kong Government is only good at stirring up conflicts involving the grass roots and disdaining the rights of the general public. Despite tight land resources, a number of private clubs for the rich have had their leases renewed at an almost zero premium or zero rent, hogging public resources. The Hong Kong Golf Club in Fanling, covering an area of 170 hectares, and the Clearwater Bay Golf & Country Club, covering an area of 125 hectares, are both "members-only" clubs for the rich, raking in $80 million in membership fees annually. However, when we look at Hong Kong's many urban development projects, such as those in Wang Chau and the Northeast New Territories, we will find that powerless villagers have been forced to leave their homes and fallen victim to the current direction of planning. It is clear that in Hong Kong, the existence of a dignified living environment for the grass roots is subordinate to the "hole-in-one" pleasure enjoyed by businessmen.

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

The consequences of such lopsided policymaking are the Government's "blind grabbing of land", frequent changes in policy, and a serious imbalance in urban service facilities due to a lack of planning. Earlier on, the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2291 announced a proposal to resume the site of the Jockey Club Kitchee Centre ("JCKC") in Shek Mun, Sha Tin for building subsidized sale flats. This has provoked a public outcry. The Government has now said that construction works will suspend for the time being, but once it identifies another suitable site for JCKC, it will resume the site of JCKC for building subsidized sale flats. Therefore, the lifespan of JCKC remains uncertain at this moment. This also represents a big crisis: Hong Kong people's right to use leisure and sports facilities is once again being disregarded because of a proposal to blindly develop the local community.

From the point of view of town planning, the site on which JCKC sits was zoned as open space and set aside for a priority public works project of the Urban Council in the 1990s. However, the Government never implemented the project, and subsequently thought that it could solve the problem of the site being left idle by leasing it to Kitchee for the construction of a football training centre. But now, the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration has its eye on the site, intending to rezone it for residential use. At present, the Sha Tin District is still in want of four sports centres and one sports complex to meet the requirements of HKPSG. Nonetheless, the Government does not strive to satisfy the demand of residents in that district for sports venues, but contrarily insists on resuming the site of JCKC, which is vitally important to the development of football in Hong Kong. From this we can see that the requirements of the so-called planning profession and HKPSG are nothing more than a dead letter, subservient to political needs.

A local democratic council could be a good solution to such a predicament as the council could rally forces at the district level against the top-down development approach. Regrettably, district administrative powers were lost when the Urban Council and the Regional Council were "scrapped" in 1999, and the District Councils have gradually become a channel for the distribution of political rewards. The Signature Project Scheme introduced by LEUNG Chun-ying in 2013 is precisely an example of giving political rewards.

David HARVEY, a celebrated scholar of political geography, states in his paper on "The Right to the City" that the right to the city "is not merely a right of access to what the property speculators and state planners define, but an active right to make the city different, to shape it more in accord with our heart's desire, and to re-make ourselves thereby in a different image." I therefore contend that 2292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

Hong Kong people need to regain the right to town planning. We need to implement democratization of planning by allowing different groups to take part in the process of town planning as early as the stage of formulation of plans. Meanwhile, the legal status of HKPSG should be enhanced and the local councils should be reformed, thereby enabling District Councils to carry out regular reviews of district facilities.

In the light of the above, I will support the amendments proposed by Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Dr YIU Chung-yim. I so submit.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I agree that there is a need to update the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") by including in it standards and elements that meet the needs of today's society. I always believe that community planning must be comprehensive. Apart from increasing residential housing, we should also ensure a sufficient supply of retail facilities for the community.

Public markets are one of the community facilities which are of prime concern to me. Actually, in this Chamber, I had put forward many proposals on matters relating to public markets. In particular, I moved a motion on "Formulating new policies on public and public housing estate markets" in 2008.

On the face of it, the authorities did take into account my proposals in that when they revised HKPSG in 2009, they no longer required the planning of markets to follow the rigid formula of 45 stalls for 10 000 people. But then again, they stipulated vaguely that "the future provision of new public markets should be considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure the efficient use of public resources". Clearly, the authorities got the wrong end of the stick.

I find it regrettable that the authorities did not incorporate into HKPSG certain elements proposed by me back then, such as the proposals that planning should be in line with the trade mix desired by the market, and that "the needs of the districts to which the markets belong should be analysed accurately and in depth, and the sizes, types of commodities on offer, layout of stalls and ancillary measures of individual markets should be determined from a market perspective".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2293

Deputy President, I would like to reiterate that people's habit of shopping in markets has changed substantially. If the authorities are to build more public markets and renovate old public markets, they must carry out planning in line with the trade mix, provide residents with diversified services and commodities, and introduce unique value-added services by, for example, setting up special areas for high value-added organic agricultural produce, establishing discount sections for household goods, providing money-changing services and installing self-service lockers for customers, thereby enabling the markets to establish their own uniqueness for boosting customer flows and competing with supermarkets.

In addition, given the persistent shortage of parking spaces in Hong Kong, the authorities should seize the opportunity to add car parks to suitable public markets, such as Fa Yuen Street Market. In doing so, it will not only alleviate the tight supply of parking spaces in Hong Kong, but also enhance the competitiveness of public markets, thus killing two birds with one stone.

Now let me talk about history. A long time ago, the Government made it an established practice that if the Housing Department had built a public housing estate market in a particular district, the Urban Council would not build another public market in the same district. But things are different now. In view of the mess created by Link REIT, the authorities should no longer stick to that approach established in the past, but should actively consider building one more market with a car park in each of the districts concerned, so as to put an end to the monopolistic situation.

In fact, as we can see, the purchasing power of shoppers in public markets is not insignificant. The public markets in Happy Valley and Kowloon City are good examples. As long as public markets are properly managed in terms of their environment and ancillary facilities, with the additional requirement that their stalls may not be let to chain enterprises, it is possible to bring new business opportunities for small traders and introduce healthy market competition.

By the way, I wish to say that the authorities should make good use of the currently vacant stalls and "Dai Pai Dongs" by studying how to do renovation and replanning for them; introducing aesthetic, safe, environmentally friendly and practical elements with minimal disturbance to people, such as effective control of oily fumes and smells, through new technologies; and then conducting fresh tendering exercises for such vacant stalls, so as to avoid wastage and even bring about revitalization with a view to providing one more option for the public.

2294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

Deputy President, another area of concern to me is the supply of medical facilities, which is related to a proposal put forward by an Honourable colleague. I certainly agree that there is a great need for more medical facilities in Hong Kong. Therefore, I will not oppose Ms Tanya CHAN's proposal for building more medical and health facilities at appropriate locations in various districts to meet the HKPSG requirement of providing 5.5 beds per 1 000 persons.

That said, what is the point of having hardware without software? While the authorities have undertaken to increase the number of hospital beds, including the increase of about 5 000 beds in a number of hospital construction, expansion and redevelopment projects to be commenced by the Hospital Authority in the next 10 years as mentioned in the Chief Executive's Policy Address last year, there is still a shortage of doctors and health care personnel in Hong Kong at present. We must face up to this problem.

Based on the number of doctors registered with the Medical Council of Hong Kong, as at the end of December 2015, the doctor-to-population ratio in Hong Kong was 1.9:1 000, lower than that in the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, South Korea or even Singapore. Among them, according to the statistics for 2012, Japan had the lowest doctor-to-population ratio of 2.3:1 000, which was, however, still higher than that in Hong Kong.

Should Members agree that there is a pressing need to enhance or improve medical services in Hong Kong, I hope that Members will, without affecting the quality of medical services in Hong Kong, show mercy by expeditiously relaxing the threshold for allowing overseas doctors to practise in Hong Kong, and, in particular, Hong Kong people's children who are overseas medical graduates and practitioners to return and practise in Hong Kong. Otherwise, what is the point of having a large number of hospital beds? What are patients supposed to do without doctors? Just lie on hospital beds and wait?

Deputy President, since I still have time, I would like to say a few more words as Dr KWOK Ka-ki is present. The Second Reading debate on the bill on reforming the Medical Council of Hong Kong was held in this Council last year, and one of the reforms was to allow the extension of the term of registration of medical practitioners with limited registration to three years. The Civic Party's position on the bill was very strange: among the six Members from the Civic Party, two voted in favour of the bill, two voted against it and two abstained. So, I wonder if Ms Tanya CHAN had considered the demand for doctors in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2295 addition to hospital beds when she came up with the proposal for increasing the number of hospital beds this time around. On this occasion, she must persuade Members and should not let Dr KWOK Ka-ki oppose the proposal because of his personal interests.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the living environment in various districts has become more crowded with the increase in population. This, coupled with the public's ever-growing aspiration for additional community facilities to improve people's livelihood, are the problems which the Government must address squarely.

Mr CHAN Han-pan proposed to update the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"). I agree in principle that suitable adjustments be made to Hong Kong's planning, especially in the provision of parking spaces, public markets, as well as cultural, leisure and sports venues, and so on. At the same time, the Government should ensure the optimal use of the existing environment and ancillary resources in the communities to serve the local residents, while giving people a feel of the unique characteristics in different districts through the synergy achieved by the complementary use of existing resources in each district. Hence, I do not agree that quantitative targets should be implemented mandatorily in all communities. If community facilities are planned by using the same standards across the board, the characteristics of each district will be taken away. It is just like the criticisms made by some Members a moment ago that shopping malls under Link Real Estate Investment Trust are all the same without any individual characteristics. Moreover, unique resources in each community may also be wasted easily.

As we all know, Hong Kong is a small place with a large population, and people are living in a crowded environment. Cultural and recreational activities thus have a pivotal role to play in ensuring the public's mental and physical well-being. That is why I would like to focus my speech on discussing the principles of planning for cultural and recreational facilities.

Firstly, planning for cultural and recreational facilities must be made from an overall perspective. At present, we note that when planning for cultural and recreational facilities in individual communities, the Government will also 2296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 propose an overall direction of planning, taking into account their unique characteristics. For example, in May this year, the Finance Committee approved the funding application to construct a cycle track network connecting Sheung Shui and Tuen Mun. Upon completion, the cycle track network will span across 60 km in length, connecting Ma On Shan, Sha Tin, Tai Po, Fanling, Sheung Shui, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun. If funding for the construction of the section between Tuen Mun and Tsuen Wan is also approved later, the cycle track will have a length of 82 km in total. Members should also recall that the cycle tracks in the network were originally confined to individual areas, without any plan of connection. It was not until 2007 that the Government decided to connect the cycle tracks to form a comprehensive network and upgrade the standards of the original cycle tracks in phases. As such, the cycle track network will connect the six districts and become a significant infrastructure for both local residents as well as Hong Kong people at large. The above example illustrates the importance of planning from an overall perspective for people's livelihood.

Secondly, planning for cultural and recreational facilities should give due regard to the local conditions. The Government should take the initiative to conduct a comprehensive stock-taking exercise for all local scenic spots and cultural relics with characteristics across the territory, so that they can be developed into iconic tourist spots to attract both local residents and overseas visitors, on the premise that the environment as well as the livelihood of residents in the communities will not be affected. As we all know, through concerted efforts from all parties concerned, the Hong Kong Global Geopark of China was added to the UNESCO's Global Geoparks Network on 17 September 2011, and became the 26th world-class national geoparks of China. Hong Kong Global Geopark of China is also unique because of its location in an international metropolitan city. Another example is the MacLehose Trail. This year, the MacLehose Trail was cited as one of the world's top 20 hiking trails by the United States National Geographic Channel. Through promotion, these sites of precious local natural resources have gained world recognition. As we encourage members of the public and tourists to visit these places, we must of course ensure that reasonable arrangements are made for their protection accordingly, or else we may lose such honour forever some day.

Lastly, the Government should give due regard to the actual circumstances of the districts when promoting the provision of additional cultural and recreational facilities. Last year, the Government took an important step to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2297 allocate $100 million for each of the 18 District Councils to implement signature projects in the community. Over the past year or so, the District Councils respectively put forward proposals in accordance with their actual circumstances, with many being distinctive and innovative cultural and recreational projects such as those relating to the trails in Sha Tau Kok in the North District, the Sharp Island Pier in Sai Kung and the Tseung Kwan O Heritage Hiking Trail, the revitalization of the Cattle Depot Artist Village in Kowloon City, the Lam Tsuen Wishing Square in Tai Po, the Music Fountains in Kwun Tong, and so on. With the successful implementation of these projects, the relevant facilities can be enjoyed not only by local residents but also residents in other districts as well as tourists, serving to enhance the recreational and tourism values of individual districts, while invigorating the local economy and creating additional start-up opportunities for young people.

Apart from the implementation of new projects, monuments with historical value can be found in many districts throughout the territory. For example, in the areas of Central and Sheung Wan around us, we have the Government House, the Peak Tram Lower Terminus, the Central Police Station Compound in Hollywood Road, PMQ, Kom Tong Hall, Man Mo Temple, Cat Street, and so on. By taking walking tours in these areas, local residents as well as tourists can gain a better understanding of Hong Kong's history and tourism resources. As a matter of fact, equally interesting stories that are worth sharing can also be found in other districts of Hong Kong. I hold that the Government should support the District Councils and relevant organizations to explore the development of different themes in the districts, taking into account their actual circumstances, so as to enrich the cultural contents of the communities, while enhancing the public's understanding of Hong Kong's geography and history.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the original motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the motion under discussion today is about updating the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG").

HKPSG is in fact just a tool to achieve the purposes of increasing community facilities and improving our living environment. Currently, HKPSG is more like an "I owe you" note ("IOU"), and the Government is a heavily 2298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 indebted debtor. With this IOU in hand, this Council and the public are now collecting debt from the Government. In updating HKPSG, more items will be added to this IOU to cater for the different needs of society in tandem with changes in our population size and demographic structure.

As well said by Dr YIU Chung-yim, what is the meaning of arguing about this IOU or increasing the debts thereunder if the relevant guidelines are never meant to be observed or the standards can be breached willfully? Instead the demands made by Ms Tanya CHAN in her amendment, namely, "vesting these standards and guidelines statutory statuses, and making them necessary requirements for compliance by the Administration in processing planning applications" would be a better alternative because in that case, the IOU will have legal effect, and the Government will contravene the law should it fail to pay off the debt.

Nonetheless, I heard the Secretary stating in his opening speech this morning that it was inappropriate for HKPSG to become statutory requirements. Some pro-establishment Members also said that the relevant figures should not become hard and fast targets which the Government must comply with. In my opinion, even though it may be inappropriate for HKPSG to prescribe hard and fast targets, the targets specified should at least be meaningful. For instance, if a target of 100 places is prescribed under HKPSG, should the Government be held responsible if it fails to provide 50 places? Even if an even more lenient standard is adopted, should the Government be condemned if it even fails to provide 30 places?

Hence, when this Council discusses updating HKPSG or increasing new debts under this IOU, it is like making promises to boyfriends or girlfriends when dating. If the promises are considered not good enough, it is alright to make even more promises so as to appease them. When we make a promise, it means nothing if we have no intention of keeping it. Moreover, the other party also has no expectation that such a promise will be kept because HKPSG is not a pledge made by the Government. In other words, members of the public expect that not all the specified requirements will be met. To put it nicely, the Government will pay up somehow, someday.

The problem now is that while the public are chasing after the Government with HKPSG as an IOU, the Government does not regard HKPSG as an IOU. The Government does not see itself being indebted to the people, and that is why LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2299 it has no intention to settle the debts at all; it is just the people's wishful thinking that the Government is indebted to us. Hence, what is meant by "updating"? Say, according to the original IOU, the Government owes us a public library. But I now consider that the old standard is unrealistic or outdated and cannot cater for the community's demand, so the Government should owe us two libraries. Although the Government is well aware of the debt, it has made no plans as to how or when the debt should be paid off. We have seen many real examples in the past. When a proposal for the construction of community facility is presented to the Legislative Council, we always compare it with the requirements under HKPSG. In one example, we noted that the district concerned still had a shortfall of two swimming pools, but the Government only proposed to construct one. No, it was just half a swimming pool because the proposal was to construct a 25 m long swimming pool, or half the size of a standard one with 50 m in length. The Government consulted us if we supported the proposal or not. We thus reasoned with the Government at the relevant committee that as the matter had been stalled for so long, why did it only propose the provision of one 25 m long swimming pool? But eventually, Members had no choice but accepted the proposal; otherwise, the district would not even have a 25 m long swimming pool. It is really a case of "pocket it first", not the option of "pocket it first" in respect of the constitutional reform, but the option of "pocket it first" in respect of community facilities. If we do not "pocket it first", the local residents may have to wait several more years, or they may not even have a 25 m long swimming pool after all.

As a result, the updating of HKPSG suggested by some Members is only an armchair strategy. We strive to increase the provision of parking spaces, public markets, as well as cultural and recreational facilities because we want to improve people's living conditions. This is the crux of our demand.

Instead of updating the IOU, we might as well explore ways to recover the existing debts. How can we demand the Government to pay off the debt? Actually, there is no way the Government can pay off all its debts, but we still have some experience to make it pay back some. For example, a funding application is presented to the Legislative Council for the construction of new community facilities, say, 100 parking spaces, but we think at least 200 should be provided. We can eventually increase the number by 50 if pro-establishment Members and democratic Members work together and insist on the provision of more parking spaces. In such cases, we must bargain as much as possible, so that more community facilities can be provided for the public.

2300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

Of course, it will take more than just a single motion debate to achieve this goal. If the Legislative Council is determined to follow up the matter, Members should, apart from holding discussions with the Government, hold discussions amongst ourselves. An inter-bureau subcommittee should be established by the Legislative Council, with its counterparts being the Development Bureau as well as other Policy Bureaux, so that we can make the Government clear its old debts before considering the updating of HKPSG. Each Bureau should be requested to take stock of the debts owed under the existing requirements of HKPSG and confess honestly what it can do about the outstanding items. For instance, if some items cannot be achieved at all, the debts should be written off. If some items cannot be achieved in full and only, say, 30% can be provided, it should provide the 30% first. We should make the Government clear its debts first before setting up a panel with members comprising members of the public, town planning experts, academics and representatives of public opinion to review the requirements under HKPSG and improve this tool. All in all, if this tool cannot help achieve the goal of increasing the provision of community facilities and improving the living environment, any work we do to improve it would just be futile.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the debate today is very interesting because some Members keep adding their favourite objectives onto the original motion as if they were hanging decorations on a tree.

In fact, some Members have hit the nail on the head just now by saying that the problem does not lie with the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") itself, but how many of its prescribed standards can be achieved? According to the "ABC of city planning", planning criteria of each city are determined by two critical elements, namely, social and political factors. To put it plainly, the greater the powers of the stakeholders, the greater their say in town planning. Hence, Hong Kong's town planning is a failure because it is basically dictated by the interests of major stakeholders, namely, the business sector, real estate consortia and the Government, to be followed by other stakeholders in society. To put it bluntly, the share of profits reaped by different stakeholders would depend on their prowess. The most interesting point raised by this motion today is the provision of public markets. In fact, since the Government abolished the two municipal councils, it has never regarded public markets as the most important facilities or its provision as an overarching commitment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2301

The reason is simple. The markets, either previously under the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") or now under Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT"), are provided to serve the grass roots, and these people do not have any vote. Under the current political system, a candidate can be elected as the Chief Executive with only 689 votes. Hence, he needs not concern himself with the grass roots at all. That is why no matter how hard we strive, the Government will never build markets under the purview of FEHD.

The second point I would like to make concerns Ms Tanya CHAN's amendment about the planning for hospitals. In fact, as early as 1974, the then Medical Development Advisory Committee already suggested that a population-to-bed ratio be adopted as the standard for the provision of hospital beds. Under the current HKPSG, in both the public and private sectors, 5.5 beds should be provided per 1 000 persons. But the truth is that to date, the overall ratio in public hospitals across the territory is only 3 beds per 1 000 persons. I also asked a question in this regard yesterday. According to the Government's reply, only 2.2 beds are provided per 1 000 persons in the New Territories West. The reason is simple enough, in the Government's calculation, people living in the area are not considered important politically. So why bother paying them any attention?

But in the Town Planning Board ("TPB") which formulates these standards, there are many members who represent the Government or speak for the stakeholders who control land and housing development. Not only is TPB a rubber stamp but it also has no qualms about giving full play to black-box operation in order to serve the respective interests of its members, in particular, the interests of the developers and the business sector.

Hong Kong has a serious shortage of housing. In the previous motion debate held by the Council yesterday, Members discussed ways to address the housing problem. The Secretary is in the Chamber now. Although nothing has been mentioned, the Government is secretly maintaining its high land-price policy. The 1 200 hectares of abandoned farmland and brownfield sites in the territory cannot be used because it involves the "government-business-rural-triad" interests; the sites for small house development are too small to be utilized; more than 40% of the land or Government land in Wang Chau has been occupied illegally, the Government pays no heed and continues to lease the sites to powerful people under short-term tenancies. In view of the above, I think it is a 2302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 case of "asking a tiger for its skin" to discuss HKPSG with government officials because if they really want to do something about it, Hong Kong will not have more than 100 000 persons living in "sub-divided units" or risking their lives to live in "sub-divided units" in industrial buildings. Likewise, Hong Kong will not have so many people who put their life's savings on the elusive goal of acquiring home ownership with a mortgage.

On the one hand, some people suggest that HKPSG should be revised, just like those Members who add their own demands onto this "tree" today. I have no strong views about them, and I will say more when they are put to vote. But most importantly, our present political system is hopeless. Hence, nothing we say would be useful unless the political system is improved, such that each citizen can be his own master with control over the planning process in the future.

Deputy President, I would like to take a few moments now to respond to the speech just made by Mr Tommy CHEUNG. But once again, he is not in the Chamber now. He always leaves the Chamber once he delivered his speech. Mr Tommy CHEUNG is a highly successful Member. As we can see, he was recently appointed as a Member of the Executive Council by "689" LEUNG Chun-ying. His appointment made me feel sad for the Liberal Party. In 2003, for the sake of stopping the evil legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, the Liberal Party followed public opinion and voted against the relevant proposal. As a result, no member from the Liberal Party had been invited to join the Executive Council since 2003. When Mr James TIEN, Honorary Chairman of the Liberal Party, was still a Member of the Legislative Council, I used to have a high regard for his Party …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, please speak on the subject of today's debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as he has spoken for so long, I must give a response. Everything I say is related to planning, please listen to me.

Deputy President, planning decisions are made by the most important or powerful people, like Mr Tommy CHEUNG who has just joined the Executive Council, or you and other heavyweights who have sat in the Executive Council at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2303 one time or another. As Mr CHEUNG has the power to set the standards, he should not speak hypocritically. If the Government fails to act according to the prescribed standards, or if the prescribed standards are unreasonable, Members of the Executive Council must absolutely be held responsible. Have they ever spoken on behalf of the people? All pro-establishment and royalist Members of the Executive Council, including Mr Tommy CHEUNG from the Liberal Party, must bear the greatest share of responsibility. Mr James TIEN has said it quite clearly. How did he describe Mr Tommy CHEUNG? According to Mr TIEN, Mr Tommy CHEUNG seldom gets involved in the business of the Liberal Party (The buzzer sounded), … but he would steadfastly respect and safeguard his own interests …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, your speaking time is up. Please stop.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I so submit.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, good morning. According to Article 39 of the Basic Law―have no fear, my fellow Members, I only want to read out the provision; it is provided under Article 39 of the Basic Law that "[t]he provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights … shall be implemented through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region."

The subject under discussion today is of course related to economic, social and cultural rights, though it may not be directly related to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But regrettably, the stipulations in the Basic Law which relates to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ("ICESCR") are just empty words which simply do not have to be enforced. When we argued our case in court by citing our rights under ICESCR, that is, the rights I mentioned just now, we did not enjoy any protection at all.

This is where the problem lies. A convention which should be binding to all countries/places in the world is not implemented in Hong Kong. The Government has also explicitly stated that there is no need to implement the same 2304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 in Hong Kong because the relevant provisions have been stipulated in the Basic Law. Since LEUNG Chun-ying is so keen on instituting lawsuits, he should consider making express provisions for the United Nation's ICESCR, so that we may have the opportunity to reclaim those rights.

A moment ago, many views have been expressed by Members. According to Mr CHAN Han-pan who spoke on the motion first, his party, being the biggest political party in the Legislative Council, now calls on the Government to reformulate its policies and adopt a new mindset. Deputy President, what is there to think about? Just look around, and we can see the problems clearly. There is a site on short-term tenancy in the Central harbourfront. Surely, the site is being used but only by the rich people. Not long ago, I took part in this year's Hong Kong Pride Parade. It was a windy day with torrential downpours. When we arrived at the destination in Edinburgh Place, we were all drenched to the skin. But in this site across Edinburgh Place, many people were having fun with loud music and free-flowing wine. However, the weather was bad with heavy rain, so the people there could not come out and enjoy the night view of the harbour.

Talking about the planning of our city, the poor people are the ones who must suffer the most. Take for example the harbourfront in Hung Hom and North Point. Almost all the sites in the areas are owned by LI Ka-shing. When making land use planning, the authorities cannot violate―specifically, it would be a violation―the rights of property developers who have already bought the land. But these developers have to do nothing but wait. When the Government starts to develop the areas, they can then bargain with the authorities. Or in the case of the North East New Territories New Development Areas project, land is freely at their disposal through the Government's in-situ land exchange arrangement so long as the sites they own are over 40 000 sq ft. After all, if a piece of land is required for development, the Government can always exchange it with another site, so that the developer can get even more land.

What is the crux of the problem? As pointed out by some Members just now, the Government can only act like blind persons groping for the body of an elephant, that is, it will never have an overall picture. Secretary, please look at me. I requested a headcount just now, so that you can have time to eat something, right? The crux actually lies with Secretary Paul CHAN. He is an accountant by profession. What are the accountants good at? They are good at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2305 meticulous calculations. After his buddy LEUNG Chun-ying became the Chief Executive, he jumped on the bandwagon and became the Secretary for Development even though he is an accountant by profession.

Deputy President, if I were elected the Chief Executive and appointed you as the Secretary for Development, you would have refused the offer definitely, right? Buddy, would you know what to do in the post? Surely, you would not, and neither would I. The problem can be illustrated clearly with this single incident. It is inconceivable for the Chief Executive to appoint a totally mercantilist and profit-oriented person to the public office of the Secretary for Development, particularly when "government-business-rural-triad" collusion is so rampant in Hong Kong. They already have great powers in their own hands, and they are also well-represented by political heavyweights. Moreover, the Permanent Secretary for Development, who is the subordinate of the Secretary, is the Chairman of the Town Planning Board ("TPB"). What can we do about the situation, buddy? But even with the help of the "Internationale", we are no match against them!

Deputy President, LEUNG Chun-ying is my arch-enemy. What is the guiding principle of our town planning? What is the greatest concern of LEUNG Chun-ying? It is to increase the sites for Grade A and Grade B office buildings, as well as hotels. Buddy, that is what he actually said. My fellow Members, when a mercantilist person who made profits out of property speculation becomes the Chief Executive … Honestly, there is no secret about Jones Lang LaSalle reaping huge profits through speculation. They kept telling friends and relatives to buy properties, so that they could earn commissions as prices increased. When a person who earned his living and made money through developer hegemony, to put it bluntly, they are like pimps because both the buyers and sellers must pay them commissions, and as a result of information asymmetry, both sides were paying them extra commissions. How unthinkable it is to have someone like this as the Chief Executive? Then he asked Paul CHAN to be the Secretary, and things just could not get any worse.

Town planning in Hong Kong is entirely about making money and making more money. The process is controlled by a greedy accountant and an estate agent, and they are trying to make more and more money, and every inch of land …

2306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please hold on. Mr CHAN Han-pan, what is your point?

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a point of order. I just heard Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung describe estate agents as "p----" …

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): "Pimps".

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): … I consider the word offensive; I hope he can withdraw it and stop using the word to insult estate agents.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I was not talking about all estate agents. I was only referring to a particular group of people, buddy; you have not heard me right.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I still consider that as a Member of the Legislative Council, he should not use this word to describe a particular profession or the industry as a whole.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I was not saying that all estate agents are like this. Instead, I was talking about a certain group of estate agents. Buddy, my remarks are factually based―please stop the timer first―I was saying that LEUNG Chun-ying engaged in speculation when he was with Jones Lang LaSalle; and as a result of information asymmetry, both sides were not well-informed about the market price, and his actions of forcing down the price while earning commissions are like that. What is the problem with saying so?

Deputy President, my speaking time is running out …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please hold on. Mr CHAN Han-pan, please continue to speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2307

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I maintain that it is inappropriate to use such a word to describe a profession. I hope Mr LEUNG can act with self-respect and withdraw his remarks.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, according to the Rules of Procedure, a Member should not use offensive language about other Members of the Council or attending public officers when he speaks.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): But my remarks are not meant to insult them.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please continue to speak.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I withdraw my earlier remarks about the pimps because we should not insult them, right? He is not even worthy to be called as such.

I was just saying … Mr CHAN Han-pan, why do you keep interrupting me lately when I speak? The whole question is really quite simple. It is because the Government attaches overriding importance to mercantilism, and there is large influx of capital from the Mainland. While the Government implemented the "double curbs" measures to curb speculation in the property market, there are no "double curbs" measures to eradicate land hoarding as town planning in Hong Kong is entirely about making money.

Hong Kong people, listen up. We have wasted $20 billion, $40 billion or even $80 billion for the construction of infrastructure to add value to the land, so that they can make profits through speculation in the property market. Under the trickle-down effect, they pocket $99 out of $100, with only $1 left for members of the general public. That is why Hong Kong people are living in distress, and we are unable to make our city liveable.

(After the Deputy Chairman called upon Mr Wilson OR to speak, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up to speak)

2308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr OR, please hold on. Mr LEUNG, do you have a point of order? You can only speak when you raise a point of order.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes. According to Article 75 of the Basic Law, the quorum for the meeting of the Legislative Council shall be not less than one half of all its members.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Do you request a headcount?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I think the number of Members present is significantly less than the required quorum.

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members had not returned to their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats to facilitate a headcount.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members still had not returned to their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. The Council now continues with the debate on this motion. Mr Wilson OR, please speak.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government of the current term has overcome numerous difficulties in its efforts to identify land for housing construction to increase housing supply. Its determination and courage LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2309 to resolve the housing problem is commendable. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") supports the Government's efforts in identifying land for housing construction. After all, housing is the most acute basic demand of the public. When identifying sites, the Government very often tries to grab every single space available and even turn Government, Institution and Community ("GIC") sites into residential sites. DAB has stressed time and again that housing should not be developed at the expense of community facilities. When planning for housing construction, the authorities should not ignore the demand of local residents. We have been advocating a win-win development by increasing the traffic capacity and community facilities in the local areas. Housing construction and the enhancement of community facilities should be developed in tandem. Planning should even be made before demand arises. A forward-looking planning proves to be more practical and effective than finding the solution after the problems have arisen.

Take Kwun Tong as an example. Four housing development projects are underway in Yau Tong district. Upon completion of the projects, the population in the district will increase to 100 000 to 120 000. The transport, market and community facilities in the vicinity will fall short of the demand of the huge population. In particular, there has been a lack of polyclinics in the district for years. DAB has all along tried to ask the Government to provide this facility but to no avail. If housing projects are forcibly implemented in the absence of proper planning, community facilities will be overloaded, making it more difficult to enhance community facilities afterwards. I would take this opportunity to remind the Administration once again that housing and community facilities should be developed together to achieve a win-win situation. The residents of Yau Tong district have clearly indicated their wish for a polyclinic in the district. The Pik Wan Road housing project has included the provision of a polyclinic. We also ask for a complex to be incorporated into Phase 4 of the development of the Lei Yue Mun Estate to provide cultural, recreational, sports and library facilities, with a view to meeting the demand of the local residents.

Wong Tai Sin in Kowloon East is another example of inadequate community facilities. Local residents have often relayed to me that the current library service cannot cope with the local demand as its catchment area only covers part of the district. When we relay their views to the Government, officials often say that there are sufficient libraries in the district according to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"). However, much to the regret of the public, not all local residents are served by these facilities. The 2310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 areas in the district that are not served by public libraries include Fung Tak, Fung Wong and Lung Sing districts in Wong Tai Sin. The Government has recently announced that a comprehensive development programme will be launched in Diamond Hill in the near future, and after its completion, the population is expected to be over 10 000. The Diamond Hill Comprehensive Development Area is situated in an area not covered by library service. The addition of a new district library will make up for one of the important ancillary community facilities unavailable in the district now. The new library will also enhance the service to the residents of neighbouring areas and improve the library service of the entire Wong Tai Sin District.

In addition, the six-storey Tsz Wan Shan (South) Estate Community Centre provides various types of recreational, cultural and community activities for local residents. However, no barrier-free lift has ever been provided in the Community Centre. Disabled people and the elderly have to walk up many stairs when they visit the Community Centre, which discourages from joining the activities there. I would like to take this opportunity to urge the Administration to install lifts in the Community Centre.

There is also a keen demand for other barrier-free facilities in the community. The residents of Kowloon East are very fortunate to have two hillside construction projects completed in the past six years: one is the Pedestrian Link at Tsz Wan Shan, which is implemented under the Shatin to Central Link project by the MTR Corporation Limited; and the other one is the Yuet Wah Street pedestrian linkage developed by the Urban Renewal Authority under the Kwun Tong Town Centre redevelopment project. DAB started to propose the construction of a pedestrian link at Tsz Wan Shan in as early as 2006. Since then we had had repeated communications with government departments, and the authorities conducted a feasibility study in 2010, which ranked the Pedestrian Link a top priority project. The construction was basically completed this year. This 10-year fight has not been won easily, but DAB is happy to see this policy implemented which benefits the community.

DAB proposes to set up a "hillside works fund" to expedite the installation of hillside lifts and escalators. If these community works can be financed on a "dedicated-funds-for-dedicated-uses" basis, public opinions will be even better addressed, enabling the public to monitor the Government's construction of barrier-free facilities. We urge the Administration to promote the practice of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2311 building the Pedestrian Link at Tsz Wan Shan to other districts such as Chuk Yuen North, Fu Shan, Choi Wan, Sze Shun, Lam Tin, Sau Mau Ping and Po Tak to install hillside escalators there.

I would like to take this opportunity to particularly point out another problem in Kowloon East arising from HKPSG, namely the shortage of parking spaces. Every time my colleagues raise this problem at District Council meetings, government officials always say that according to HKPSG, the district is an old district and hence no additional parking spaces are needed. However, HKPSG have made no mention of the numbers of nanny vans, school buses, tourist coaches and heavy goods vehicles. In view of the current needs of Kowloon East, Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin, I hope that the authorities will stop sticking to HKPSG and expeditiously provide more parking spaces based on the actual needs. The current problems in the district can be summed up as: drivers risk parking illegally; the Police have no choice but to enforce the law; and the public violate the law recklessly. I hope that the Administration can squarely face this problem.

The last point I would particularly raise is that DAB has been fighting in vain for the installation of lifts in Sau Mau Ping Estate for years. The Sau Mau Ping Estate was constructed on the hillside. The residents living on the hilltop very often rely on escalators to get in and out of the shopping mall but wheelchair users cannot use the escalator. We urge the Administration to take into account that inaccessibility of wheelchair users has rendered their integration into the community completely impossible. This photo published on the Oriental Daily News shows the plight of wheelchair users trying to go downhill. I hope that the Administration will empathize with the inconvenience of local residents getting around and install lifts connecting Sau Wai House of Sau Mau Ping Estate to the footbridge of the Sau Mau Ping Shopping Centre.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as we discuss the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") today, I would like to put forward my views on a number of issues.

First, the current HKPSG has not specifically set out the standard in respect of services for the elderly or residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs"). I have pointed out time and again that our society is faced with an ageing 2312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 population. As the Government has failed to provide the complete data for now, I have made a rough estimate based on the information provided by the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"). According to SWD statistics, the total number of subsidized and non-subsidized RCHE places is fewer than 74 000. At present, there are more than 1 million elderly people aged over 65 in Hong Kong. According to a research report compiled by the Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre, the number of elderly people aged over 65 in Hong Kong will increase to about 2.16 million in 2031, exactly double the current number. At present, there are fewer than 74 000 RCHE places in Hong Kong. If the number of elderly people in Hong Kong has doubled in 2031, based on my rough estimation by performing basic arithmetic operations, a minimum of 150 000 to 160 000 RCHE places will be needed.

I have been publicly urging the Government to provide a timetable and a roadmap on RCHE service. Just as the current-term Government has pledged to provide 460 000 residential units in 10 years' time, a similar mindset should also be applied in addressing the problem with RCHE places. The Government should draw up a timetable and a roadmap, setting out the number of RCHE places to be offered each year in order to gradually increase the supply in different districts on a yearly basis. Only by doing so can the Government cope with the additional demand for RCHE places arising from the ageing population in Hong Kong in the future.

Another problem concerns the provision of facilities in remote areas. Some remote areas have not been provided with various basic facilities by the Government. I now cite an example. As a member of the Islands District Council, my colleagues and I have been concerned about the lack of fresh water supply for Tai Long Tsuen on Lantau Island for many years. As we understand it, about 200 villagers are living there. We have made a request to the Government. According to the Government, the construction of a water supply system at that place is very costly, and it is not justifiable to provide this infrastructure for just a small number of residents. However, villagers should also be entitled to human rights. At present, with river water as their only source, they are in dire need for a fresh water supply system. Frankly, their current condition is rather inhuman.

When addressing the above issues, I consider it necessary for the Government to further examine the needs of remote areas. It should not be hidebound by established rules and ignore the actual needs of the minority of people living in remote areas.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2313

The third problem is that the current HKPSG has not covered cultural and recreational facilities. I hope that HKPSG can set out relevant standards for such facilities. The residents of Tung Chung have always wanted a theatre similar to the City Hall in their district. At present, there is only a community hall in the district. They hope that the authorities will set up cultural and recreational facilities such as a theatre to provide entertainment to the residents. Considering the increase in Tung Chung's population to 270 000 people in the future, it is essential for the authorities to cope with the demand of the local residents in this regard.

Lastly, I will express some views on the problem concerning parking spaces. Many districts in Hong Kong are currently faced with a shortage of parking spaces. Residents in Tung Chung or the more remote Mui Wo alike have relayed to me that there are really insufficient parking spaces. While the Government has encouraged the public to use public transport when they commute from a remote area to the urban area, many residents living in remote areas in the New Territories really have the need to commute by private car. Insufficient parking spaces will bring inconvenience to drivers and deepen conflicts in the districts in the long run.

Deputy President, I hope that the authorities can take our view on board and respond accordingly. I so submit.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") has often been mentioned in the previous discussions on various policy areas at Legislative Council meetings. Many colleagues have also urged the authorities to review the guidelines for facilities planning which have been in place for 20 to 30 years. However, the Government has very often brushed aside the issue by simply saying "the authorities will conduct review from time to time". Consequently, after years of wrangling, HKPSG has never been seriously amended. In fact, even by the standards of the long-standing guidelines, many community facilities at present have failed to meet the targets, thereby failing to respond to the needs of the community. Take recreational and sports facilities as an example. According to the current HKPSG, one sports stadium should be built per 65 000 residents. Thus, there should be 111 sports stadia in Hong Kong. The provision of only 96 stadia at present has fallen short of the target.

2314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

According to a survey conducted by a local newspaper earlier this year, there is a serious shortage of recreational and sports facilities in some of the 18 districts of Hong Kong. For example, there are only 21 basketball courts in the Yau Tsim Mong District, lower than the 32 as required; and there are only 5 7-a-side football pitches, lower than the 11 as required. In fact, the standards for some recreational and sports facilities have been in use since 1980s. The population size and structure have seen great changes since then. Furthermore, the public nowadays are even more health conscious than before. As they are more willing to spend time on exercise, there is a stronger demand for sports facilities compared with that 30 years ago. Population ageing has also resulted in changes in demand. However, it is very difficult for the public to book venues managed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") because many of them are always fully booked. At some stadia, badminton court and basketball court share the same venue. If the venue has been booked as a badminton court, no basketball court will be available during the very time slot. This arrangement is far from desirable. Hence, the authorities must expeditiously review and amend HKPSG to improve facilities planning and build more recreational and sports venues.

As we all know, Hong Kong is a small place with a dense population. Given the shortage of land available for housing construction and building cultural, recreational and sports facilities, Hong Kong has long been plagued by land problems. However, ironically, while the Government has been lamenting the difficulty in finding suitable land, it has permitted large numbers of public spaces to be left idle for a long period of time. Without taking active steps to reuse them, wastage has been resulted. Take vacant school premises as an example. Some arts and cultural groups have always wanted to apply to the Government for using these premises, in the hope of having a stable premise for their development and practices. However, the information on these vacant school premises is far from transparent. The Education Bureau, the Lands Department and the Planning Department etc. are very often passing the buck to each other. In many cases, vacant factory units are originally very suitable for cultural, arts, recreational and sports purposes. However, subject to legal requirements, some owners have refused to lease them to such groups to avoid getting involved in trouble, resulting in wastage of valuable spaces. In fact, some units have often been banned for failing to comply with relevant standards. I have repeatedly followed up on this issue at various Legislative Council meetings, including calling on the authorities to expeditiously amend the definition of industrial use in HKPSG to avoid smothering the survival of the arts, cultural and recreational industries. However, very often, I have not been given a direct answer.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2315

Apart from vacant school premises and industrial units, some government buildings and sites have been vacant for many years. It is really a great waste not to reuse them. The authorities should actively consider granting these spaces to the groups in need. Of course, the Government may retain certain flexibility in granting these spaces by way of short-term tenancy, so that it can recover these spaces when necessary in the future. Most importantly, the Administration has to enhance transparency and streamline the application procedures, including the process for changing land use, with a view to shortening the time needed for the reuse of land in order to fully utilize land resources.

I keep an open mind on the proposal of a colleague to re-incorporate the standard for population-to-cinema ratio into HKPSG. In the past few years, I have been urging the Government to include a clause when granting lands in areas without a cinema in the hope of encouraging developers to build cinemas. Stakeholders of the film industry have also made a similar request, but there are also views that the commercial operations of cinemas, which are not government facilities, should be left to the market and no direct government intervention is needed. However, the Chief Executive has pledged in his last two policy addresses to include a clause on cinema construction in the land sale lease where appropriate as a means of a more indirect yet less comprehensive intervention. However, after this initiative has been proposed, no precedent has been established so far. Of course, it remains uncertain as to whether the Government can effectively help the trade identify proper sites for building cinemas so as to offer the public more choices. On the premise of the successful implementation of this policy, I am of the view that we can still have more discussion on whether the authorities should further incorporate the population-to-cinema ratio into HKPSG in order to arrive at a consensus.

The industry-specific examples I mentioned just now, together with the community facilities suggested by colleagues today, such as the provision of more parking spaces, public markets as well as medical and health facilities for the elderly, all proceed from the needs of the community. I strongly support them all.

Deputy President, I so submit.

2316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in fact, LEUNG Chun-ying also mentioned in his election manifesto that what Hong Kong lacked was not land, but land use planning. The subject of discussion today is precisely Hong Kong's planning.

Planning is about how we envisage ourselves living in a city and create an ideal living space through the use of land and the construction of environment. But this meaning is only concept-wise as the actual planning itself is inextricably linked with the distribution of interests among different parties. If the Government is only mindful of making profits, the interests of businesses and economic development, any talk about building a liveable city is like a castle in the air because in the final analysis, the matter is all about the distribution of interests, so that the consortia and people with vested interests can continue making huge profits.

This is invariably the Government's approach when planning for new development areas, both in the case of the North East New Territories New Development Areas project or the large-scale Lantau Development currently under planning by the authorities. Clearly the mode of planning in Hong Kong is dictated by people with vested interests. Actually, such an unjust and top-down mode of development planning, or even the so-called "soft-lobbying" or consultation conducted by the Government for the Wang Chau development has completely ignored the interests of the grass roots, as well as the rights and welfare of local residents living in the areas concerned.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

According to past records, the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") has indeed been formulated by the Government. Certainly I am most concerned about the planning and standards in relation to social welfare facilities. Although HKPSG has clearly set out a number of social welfare facilities and services, such as child care centres, regrettably no specific ratio has been provided between the number of child care centres and population size. Hence, it serves no actual purpose even though child care centres have been included under HKPSG. As a result, there is an acute shortage of child care centres in Hong Kong. There are altogether less than 1 000 child care centre places all over the territory for young children aged LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2317 between birth and two. Let us image the situation of young dual-income parents with a new-born baby. What can they do? Although they may not feel totally relieved to let a foreign domestic helper look after their baby, it is almost impossible to find a place for day-care services in child care centres.

As far as services for the elderly are concerned, such as elderly centres, district elderly community centres and neighbourhood elderly centres, no ratio has been set for their provision in relation to population size. Likewise, in respect of other care services such as day care centres/units for the elderly and residential care homes for the elderly, no ratio has been set for their provision in relation to population size. For other services such as rehabilitation services for people with disabilities, including early education and training centres, special child care centres and day activity centres; vocational rehabilitation services; residential services for people with disabilities including hostels for severely mentally handicapped persons, hostels for severely physically handicapped persons, hostels for moderately mentally handicapped persons, support hostels, supported hostels for ex-mentally ill persons, care and attention homes for severely disabled persons, halfway houses, long stay care homes and small group homes for mildly mentally handicapped children; district support centres for persons with disabilities; integrated community centres for mental wellness, and so on, once again, no ratio has been set for their provision in relation to population size.

Basically, the Government has only listed out such services in HKPSG, without any targets for their provision at all. HKPSG only stipulates that should such services be provided, what will be the land use requirement, and so on. But the greatest problem now is shortage of land. In reply to a Member's question on how the provision standards for these facilities were formulated, Carrie LAM said that the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") was responsible for reviewing these standards and for proposing amendments when it considered necessary. Provision of the relevant facilities was determined by the priority of relevant policies and availability of resources. Such a reply has no meaning at all.

While HKPSG has been formulated by the Government, and considering the importance of social welfare facilities, it turns out that no provision targets has been set for the services listed out by the Government, or that the actual standards are formulated by SWD. Then, there is the question of identifying land sites … Indeed, there are many sources of land, for example, land sale by auction, lease modification, applications for change of land use made by private 2318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 developers to the Town Planning Board ("TPB"). The largest supplier of land in Hong Kong should be the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"). How can more social welfare facilities be provided in these sites? No answer is forthcoming from the Government. In her reply, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM only said that the matter would depend on the requests made by the Labour and Welfare Bureau as well as SWD, and whether the sites were suitable for the purpose.

President, as far as this matter is concerned, the Government actually has great powers in its hands. As LEUNG Chun-ying said, what Hong Kong lacks is not land. We have a lot of land. MTRCL is the largest property developer as well as supplier of land in Hong Kong. Its land reserve may even exceed the sites held by the Government for sale by auction. According to the projection from some academics, almost 40% of land in Hong Kong is held by MTRCL, but all the sites are used for commercial operation. Have we ever seen the welfare facilities I just mentioned being given priorities in development projects of MTRCL? No. If no requests are made by the Labour and Welfare Bureau or SWD, no provision will ever be made.

Notwithstanding the Government's claim about the need to address the ageing population trend, such as the formulation of an age-friendly population policy for the future or the allocation of $100 million by the Hong Kong Jockey Club to four universities to conduct studies on fostering age-friendly communities, building an age-friendly environment, and so on, it is all empty talk because no provision standards for the relevant facilities and services have been set at all. Everything is dictated by the Government under a top-down approach, and there is no way the communities can express their views on the matter. Even if we express our views, it will be futile. Hence, a government with centralized powers but having neither imagination nor vision can never make sound planning for a friendly city to be enjoyed by the people. (The buzzer sounded)

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I strongly support today's motion on "Updating the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") and increasing community facilities to enhance living environment". I would also like to point out a few phenomena to the Secretary in the hope that he will seriously handle them during the consultation exercise or in the process of updating the planning standards and guidelines.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2319

Since the Government has introduced one "curb" measure on property prices after another, some capital, in particular local capital has turned to invest in parking spaces. Recently, many parking spaces have been sold at sky-high prices, with some reaching the high mark of $2 million, and the prices can only go higher. The prices of parking spaces have been pushed up by speculation even to an extent similar to those of public rental housing units or Home Ownership Scheme flats. Recently, it has been reported that a parking space accommodating one vehicle in a housing estate in Aberdeen was sold at $1,160,000. I believe it has broken the record of parking space prices in all housing estates in Hong Kong.

I have noticed recently from advertisements posted in real estate agencies that many parking spaces are offered for sale. This confirms that after the introduction of the "curb" measures by the Government, capital has switched from properties to parking spaces. In order to reduce the number of private vehicles, the Government has deliberately reduced the supply of private vehicle parking spaces in the course of planning, speculation has thus been fuelled. In fact, due to the prolonged shortage of parking spaces for both private and commercial vehicles, many people have complained to different Members, and I will not talk about the details of the complaints here. Nevertheless, the Government really needs to treat some reports seriously. Earlier, it was reported in a newspaper article entitled "Hong Kong jammed with 810 000 vehicles". The article said that the number of vehicles in Hong Kong has been increasing rapidly. As at September this year, the total number of registered vehicles has exceeded 810 000, which is 120 000 more than that in 2011, representing an increase of 18% in five years. Among the additional vehicles, 87% are private vehicles. In other words, there is a huge increase of more than 100 000 vehicles in five years. Apart from private vehicles, the rate of increase in the number of motor cycles should not be neglected. The total number of registered motor cycles has exceeded 71 000, which is, 16 000 more compared with that five years ago.

President, after we have built so many railway lines, why is it that the numbers of private vehicles and motor cycles have continued to rise? Why do many people still insist on owning a vehicle despite the high costs involved in keeping a car, the difficulties in finding parking space, the rising rent of parking space, as well as the fuel price and tax, which have taken up a large share of their total expenditure? The Government should squarely face this new phenomenon and consider it in the course of formulating HKPSG so as to adjust the supply of parking spaces.

2320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

I believe Hong Kong people have some changes in their way of thinking and they have a real need to buy cars. It is easy to understand this need. Since the development of Hong Kong has extended from the urban areas to the New Territories, the younger households mainly live in the New Territories or the relatively remote districts. Although the railway network has a wide coverage, but a family of three or four really needs to buy a car for commuting. Thus, there has been a tight supply of parking spaces in the housing estates of the New Territories in recent years. The price of second-hand parking space in some housing estates has been rising, reflecting the actual needs of the people.

Furthermore, although the Government has taken a number of measures, it cannot stop the increase in the numbers of private vehicles and motor cycles. I think there is a change in how people think. In the past, the younger households were very keen to buy their own homes, but as property prices continue to rise, they find that they cannot afford home ownership no matter how hard they save. Many young people or couples have told me that they preferred buying a car, which is also a way of buying some private space. That is really what they told me. The Assistant Secretary General is smiling. In fact, it is a change in concept. Secretary, according to my observations, the Government has deliberately reduced the supply of parking spaces to impede the increasing number of private vehicles, but given the new trend mentioned above, should adjustment be made in this respect? Otherwise, when the actual needs of the people cannot be met, it would trigger strong repercussions on the administration and popularity of the Government. As our society has changed in the sense that people not only have practical needs to buy cars, they also have the aspiration to own a car, I hope that the Government will not deliberately reduce the number of parking spaces.

Apart from private vehicles and motor cycles, I would like to talk about commercial vehicles too. Some Members, including those representing the trades, mentioned earlier that they have been received complaints from many grass-roots drivers of commercial vehicles. As the housing estate, urban areas or developed areas where these drivers live have an insufficient supply of parking spaces for commercial vehicle, they have to park their vehicles in some distant places when they finish work or they just park anywhere. This has lowered their quality of life. Thus, in updating the planning for the urban areas and the parking spaces therein, the Government should consider the actual needs of commercial vehicles such as nanny vans, coaches and goods vehicles. At present, grass-roots drivers cannot find parking space which are not too far away from their home, and this has caused another kind of social grievance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2321

Apart from parking spaces, I would like to mention a phenomenon in the old districts. Although I am now serving all districts in Hong Kong, I am definitely more familiar with Kowloon City and Kowloon West. Kowloon City is an old district. In fact, as I understand it, Kowloon City has developed without any particular planning. After a district has developed naturally, planning will be formulated according to its actual circumstances and what will happen? In old districts, the residential areas are very close to the commercial areas and many polluting trades such as vehicle maintenance workshops and the funeral business continue to operate there. There are frequent requests for the Government to make plans to move out these trades, so that they will not be located too close to the residential area.

Furthermore, in some old districts such as Kowloon City, many shops receive customers from tour groups, but since there are no parking spaces for coaches in the area, drivers often illegally park their coaches and block the roads, resulting in complaints from the residents. These problems have arisen because the planning of the districts has not been updated. I hope the Government can seriously address them. Besides handling the problem of overcrowdedness in new districts, it is equally important to update the planning in the old districts.

President, I so submit.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): We condemned the Wang Chau incident for "government-business-rural-triad" collusion. About a fortnight ago, Secretary Paul CHAN said that "the Government is committed to developing brownfield sites". I do not know if the Secretary can really speak on behalf of the Government, for there are about six months to go before the expiry of the term of office of the Government, and we do not know whether the Secretary will be "DQ" (disqualified) or whether he can remain in office in the next Government. However, I am afraid that the statement "the Government is committed to developing brownfield sites" is not sincerely said. In the early days of the controversy over Wang Chau, the Government said that it would "work on the easier tasks first and the more difficult ones later". What is the "easier" task? The development of green belt areas is an easier task, just evict the villagers will do. The Government considers that this task will be easier than developing the brownfield sites. However, the Government has now turned around and said that it would also make all-out effort to develop brownfield sites.

2322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

That is no big deal, but the question is, why not resume the site of the Fanling Golf Course for developing the North East New Territories? What is the current position of the Fanling Golf Course? The site, owned by the Government and leased by the Hong Kong Golf Club, covers an area of 170 hectares, which is equivalent to the entire urban area of Tsuen Wan. The terms of the lease provide, among others, that the Government only needs to give one year's notice to resume the site, it even does not have to pay any compensation to the Hong Kong Golf Club.

The original motion today mentions problems about community facilities, parking spaces, and so on which we are all too familiar with and have no further comments. Earlier, Ms Starry LEE talked about Kowloon West, particularly the parking problem in Kowloon City. Big coaches roam the streets, making 90 degree turns and having no room to manoeuvre. They affect schools and shops nearby and private vehicles. The traffic is particularly congested in the afternoon. After raising all these problems, will there be any result?

I have been talking about the problem of parking spaces for at least three years. After the demolition of buildings such as the Yau Ma Tei Multi-storey Carpark Building and the Middle Road Carpark Building, how many parking spaces have been reprovisioned? The number is highly inadequate to meet the demand. The Government often says that it will first monitor the situation, but in fact, it does not know what to do. Although the motion proposed today has no legislative effect and our discussion will just be empty talk, it raises the issue of town planning guidelines which is very important.

The Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") is an independent authority. Although it is operating on a self-financing basis now, its initial seed fund came from public money. Currently, URA has encountered serious problems in every redevelopment project. As the saying goes, one tiny clue reveals the general situation. The Chun Tin Street/Hok Yuen Street redevelopment project in Hung Hom was first proposed in January 2015. At that time, most of the residents welcomed the proposal because redevelopment could modernize Hung Hom, an old district, and add in greening elements, and so on. Nevertheless, the situation has changed gradually. For people who own a property in the redevelopment area, that is the most valuable asset ever acquired in their life. This is particularly true because the district will later be served by the Shatin to Central Link and will become a prosperous hotspot. But suddenly, URA withdrew the redevelopment proposal altogether and put forward a new one in May 2016 with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2323 an extended redevelopment area. The reason is that the number of housing units to be built will double from 150 (which is actually a very small number) to 310. That makes everyone very happy and they start discussing the matter afresh.

Nevertheless, URA pointed out during the discussion that as the project would be a new one, the Secretary for Development would be invited to participate. According to URA, for this kind of development project, funds would be set up and social worker teams would be formed to assist the residents and such work was directly under the purview of the Development Bureau and not URA. Although property owners can sell their flats at market price now, they do not want to lose out because the district will later be served by the Shatin to Central Link and other facilities. However, if property owners want to wait, they will have to wait for the approval of the proposal by the Town Planning Board ("TPB"). Even if TPB will give the approval, it will take a year or two, and there is also a chance that approval will not be given. People even threaten Property owners are threatened with such risks and some of them are worried. That really makes things very difficult for the owners.

I am perplexed by the Chun Tin Street redevelopment project in Hung Hom. Chun Tin Street is a cul de sac with a building called Fook Wan Mansion at the end. The building has been excluded from the redevelopment project because it is only 41 years old which is relatively new. That is disastrous. Just imagine, if you are the owners of that building, you would be greatly disturbed by the demolition, formation and building works to be carried out in your vicinity. What should the owners do? The project has already commenced and it cannot be restarted. If the other owners are told that the second offer made is again invalid and they have to consider a new proposal for the third time, they will find it unacceptable.

If time allows, I will also mention the "13 Streets" in Kowloon City which may be redeveloped. The area extends from Lung To Street to Hok Ling Street which is opposite Cattle Depot Artist Village. The authorities have similarly proposed to turn "13 Streets" into "3 Streets", "4 Streets" or even "6 Streets" and redevelop the area. Nevertheless, these are just empty talk. They have talked about it for more than 10 years now and one wonders what they will say next year. Anyway, this Government has always acted like a wicked man who indulges in empty talk. (The buzzer sounded)

2324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, please stop speaking.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, this motion today is on "Updating the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") and increasing community facilities to enhance living environment". Christmas is approaching and many Members have treated this motion as a Christmas tree and hung things onto it, in the hope that HKPSG will be amended so that problems in the districts can be comprehensively solved. However, this Christmas tree is obviously only a wish tree.

In fact, will all problems be solved by amending HKPSG? The answer is certainly in the negative because the root problem is how the Government treats HKPSG. Does HKPSG provide the lowest standards with which full compliance is mandatory? Or, does it merely provide guidelines which can be followed and non-compliance is fine? Currently, it seems that more often than not, the lowest standards have become the highest standards. In other words, these standards cannot be met and they have even become a vision. To put it in another way, we should consider ourselves lucky if the standards are followed; but in fact, HKPSG is a joke. In the new areas or large-scale new development areas, one can still try to require the organizations to follow HKPSG, but it may be even more difficult to do so in some developed districts such as Hong Kong Island and the old districts in Kowloon.

I agree with many Members that if there are still idle land lots or vacant land lots that have not been well utilized in the urban areas, the Government should be held responsible. How come these land lots have been idle for 10 to 20 years? Is it because such land lots cannot be used for any purpose or is it because we need not use them? I do not think so. Nevertheless, how should the land lots be used? When will people consider using them? It seems that the Government has been playing a very passive role. A case in point is the land lot next to the Siu Sai Wan Community Hall. We have argued about its use for a long time. I and Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Member of the Legislative Council in the last term, have relayed the demand to various government departments to build a community centre on that land lot to provide various services, including primary health care service. Recently, I have been informed of the decision to build a community centre there, but the details are still being planned. Nonetheless, we have discussed the matter for almost 10 years before the decision is made.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2325

At present, we are striving for using the green belt area near Aldrich Bay in Shau Kei Wan. Some members of our District Council have suggested building a large sports centre or a multi-purpose centre there and discussions will continue in the District Council. Why does the Government often say that there is no land and yet there are still so many idle land lots that require our discussion? That is really baffling. Besides, if the Government will merely amend HKPSG, the approach will not be comprehensive and it will be like blind persons feeling an elephant, so to speak. Many Members mentioned earlier that medium or large goods vehicle owners have difficulties finding parking spaces in the housing estates where they live. Many car parking spaces are available for renting, but there is none for large and medium goods vehicles. Such parking spaces also cannot be found in North Point.

Many people in the trade said that they do not know where to park their large and medium goods vehicles when they finish work at night. I know some people who engage in furniture delivery trade. They have to park their vehicles in Shau Kei Wan at night because there is no parking space for this type of vehicle in North Point where they live. Is it necessary to amend HKPSG to solve this kind of problem? I do not think so. Even after the amendment of HKPSG, if the Government says no land is available, we can do nothing about it. In fact, all government departments should take a humanistic and people-oriented approach. The departments should do the right thing at the right time under different circumstances to assist the people or resolve problems in the districts. Do many people of the trade actually live in each and every district? Not necessarily. When people raise these demands, I think the departments should actively consider and address them. In addition, they have to balance the needs of the community so that they can really follow the Government's main direction of people-oriented and address the needs of the people first. Otherwise, since the Government has to amend HKPSG as the society progresses and it takes a long time to amend it every time, I am worried that these perennial problems will remain.

Thus, I earnestly ask the Policy Bureau or the Government to come up with more solutions to practically solve the problems other than reviewing HKPSG.

Let me mention another example which is the case of Yue Kwong Road Market in Yue Kwong Chuen, Aberdeen. In fact, many stall owners are still selling vegetables and fish there. According to them, there is a shortage of 2326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 places for loading and unloading goods in the market. They have to queue up to unload goods in the morning and they feel very helpless. However, the Government has rented the parking spaces to owners of private cars. They complained to us in the hope that we could relay their views to the government departments. We will follow up with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. We have too many cases like this, President, and I cannot mention them all. I think the Government should at least uphold the people-oriented spirit and handle community work in a practical manner.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Mr Andrew WAN's amendment, particularly the proposal to implement bicycle-friendly measures. Many people often commute by bicycles, but the Government's policy treats cycling as a recreation and not a means of transportation. Thus, there is a big gap in the Government's understanding of the daily needs of the people.

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

Take the North District as an example. As a member of the North District Council, I must voice out the views of the residents. Many of them travel daily by railway and they have to go to stations of the East Rail Line. If they live far away from the railway station, they have to cycle to the station and take the railway. But the problem is that the bicycle parking spaces and facilities provided near the stations are seriously inadequate. At present, some new facilities such as double-deck bicycle parking racks are provided by the Government, but they are only a drop in the bucket which can hardly meet the huge demand. As a result, many bicycles are illegally parked on the cycle tracks near the stations, posing great danger to cyclists. The illegal occupation of cycle tracks has narrowed the track space, and as many cycle tracks are built adjacent to the pavements, accidents may occur easily. I have witnessed many bicycle accidents, causing injury to the cyclists and jeopardize the safety of pedestrians.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2327

Thus, formulating a bicycle-friendly policy is very important. It is not only an environmental policy, but also a policy to encourage exercise and meet the daily transport needs of the public. Hence, I hope the Government will seriously review whether cycling is just a recreation or a daily means of transport for the public.

On the other hand, I also hope that the Government will review its policy on bicycles and consider the provision of more facilities for cyclists. For example, can it open more roads to be used by cyclists? Can cycle roads instead of cycle tracks be provided? Cycle tracks were first provided according to the Government's initial policy direction formulated on the understanding that cycling was a recreation and the public only cycled during weekends. In fact, there is a huge gap in the Government's understanding of the daily needs of the people.

Certainly, many people may not cycle very often and they may only do so during weekends in the areas of Sha Tin, Tai Wai and Tai Po. Nevertheless, there are problems in the design of cycle tracks. Deputy President, I cycle with my children and I have witnessed many traffic accidents. Accidents happen because some cyclists do not cycle often and are unfamiliar with the road conditions and the functions of their bicycles. In addition, the hidden risks in the design of some roads often cause collisions, resulting in very serious accidents. Therefore, I hope the Government will comprehensively review whether its policies on cycle tracks and bicycles can be improved and in particular, I hope it will listen to the views of cyclist groups. In fact, it is now a world trend to encourage more residents in advanced cities to cycle. We should not rely solely on the transport policy so often described by the Government as "using railway as the backbone". If more people cycle, the traffic burden on roads can also be reduced. I hope the Policy Bureau can consider this suggestion.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to thank Mr CHAN Han-pan for moving this motion, allowing us to discuss how the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") can optimize our community facilities and living environment. Actually, a very important task of this Council is to improve people's lives and community facilities and this task involves three aspects, that is, policies, land and financial sources. How can 2328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 these facilities be put to effective use? It is necessary to set standards and define the conditions for the provision of facilities. In this regard, HKPSG contains good ideas and provides clear indicators of what should be done and what town planning is.

The formulation of HKPSG has actually been questioned. In many cases, the standards set have not been specifically enforced. We often have to ask the authorities to make good on the pledges, but the departments concerned told us that the Development Bureau and the Planning Department are responsible for formulating HKPSG, and they are only bookkeepers. They cannot do anything as all the facilities must be supported by the relevant Policy Bureau. When we approach other departments, they told us to request the Development Bureau for the provision of land.

As the departments are frequently shifting responsibilities onto one another, it is very difficult to improve community facilities. A very good example is markets. As many Honourable colleagues have expressed their views, I do not want to repeat them. Many people think that HKPSG is a mere scrap of paper, and it is worth considering what binding force this document has. The Government should show greater sincerity in dealing with HKPSG in the future.

I would like to cite two or three examples. The first example is about public clinics. I am very familiar with Tin Shui Wai as I have been serving the district, with a population of 300 000, for more than 10 years. According to HKPSG, there should be one public general clinic for every 100 000 persons. Despite years of striving, there are only two public general clinics in Tin Shui Wai and another clinic will not be available in the foreseeable future. The residents have to make appointments for consultation. They have jokingly said that they have to predict if they would fall ill the following day so that they could make appointments today; this is really ridiculous. If they cannot make appointments to consult public doctors, they can only consult private doctors. Owing to the increasing rents of Link REIT shopping centres, there are fewer and fewer private doctors in Tin Shui Wai. There is only 0.1 private doctor for every 1 000 persons, less than 0.4 private doctor for every 1 000 persons in various districts. Evidently, public clinics are very important. What is more worrying is that the planning of the Hung Shui Kiu new development area adjacent to Tin Shui Wai has already started; yet, there will only be one clinic to serve a population of 200 000. We are afraid that the situation may worsen. Healthcare is really a very serious issue.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2329

The second example is about community facilities. I have been a District Council member for many years and I know that residents of all ages need to engage in activities. Community centres and community halls are very important public spaces for the residents' social gathering, liaison or for District Council members to convene resident forums or meetings. However, no standard has been stipulated for community halls in HKPSG. For example, there are 10 community halls in Tuen Mun with a population of 500 000; seven in Wong Tai Sin with a population of 460 000, but there are only two in Kowloon City with a population of 400 000, as well as in Yau Tsim Mong with a population of 300 000. I do not know what standards the Home Affairs Department has adopted and the use of these facilities by residents in various districts is greatly imbalanced. These facilities include soccer pitches and libraries, etc. under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department.

In respect of children's books, as the Hong Kong Central Library is located near Wan Chai, each child in the district can enjoy 32 children's books on average while each child in Sai Kung can only enjoy less than three books on average. These examples well reflect the relevant problems. In addition, the existing HKPSG have not specified the standards of post offices. Recently, the Government has closed three post offices in light of the costs involved. In the absence of indicators, HKPSG often exist in name only. There are no standards for these community facilities or public services; even if there are standards, the authorities sometimes fail to comply.

For this reason, we sometimes ask whether HKPSG is the tool used by the Government to shirk responsibilities or reject the public's demands. When the population reaches a set standard, the authorities will say that the problem involves a variety of factors such as the need to identify land and formulate supporting policies, etc. If the districts with the need fail to meet the requirements of HKPSG, the authorities will use HKPSG as a shield, saying that the population is inadequate to support the provision of the facilities. As the common saying goes, "the officials say it all".

There will be fewer social problems with proper town planning. Hence, we strongly support Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion and Ms Alice MAK's amendment. I hope the authorities can update HKPSG so as to improve community facilities and the public's living.

Thank you, Deputy President.

2330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

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

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am grateful to have the chance to speak about my observations on the subject and I thank Mr CHAN Han-pan for moving the motion, and Members …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, please hold on. Mr KWONG Chun-yu, do you have a point of order or do you wish to speak?

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): I have only pressed the "Request to Speak" button.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, please continue with your speech.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): I will take this opportunity to thank Members for moving the motion and the amendments so that we can express our views on the subject.

Deputy President, many Members have spoken about issues concerning the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") earlier. As we are not experts in this area, we certainly cannot give precise answers to the following questions: What is the current legal status of HKPSG? To what extent does it have a binding effect on the Government? Can a more stringent mechanism be put in place to deal with cases of non-compliance of HKPSG? I hope the Secretary can give us an explanation so that the public will have a better understanding of the status and recognition of HKPSG from the legal and administrative perspectives.

Deputy President, in some districts which we are familiar with, including Kowloon East, there are too many disappointing examples because improvement is needed in many aspects. For instance, with the proposal to develop Kaoline Mine Site, is there a need to build a new road or is the old road already adequate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2331 for bearing the current traffic load in the area? I believe the residents of Laguna City have strongly opposed the proposal to develop Kaoline Mine Site when no other ancillary facilities are provided.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Recently, I have received many complaints about the parking problem in Lei Yue Mun. Before the authorities decide to resume land for building new housing units in Lei Yue Mun, have they considered resolving the shortage of public parking facilities for years, so that this important international tourist attraction will no longer be disturbed by its parking problem and can avoid the fate of falling into ruin?

Let me mention another case which is more important. The old Kai Tak Airport has finally been developed into the Cruise Terminal after "sunbathing" for years, but has the provision of ancillary facilities met the original target? To put it bluntly as some Members have depicted, the Cruise Terminal is like a cold and dark mortuary with few visitors; and it is generally lifeless except when a cruise ship berths at the terminal and brings some weak signs of life to it. After the completion of the Cruise Terminal which is a large investment project, it is surprising that no transport links are provided to connect it to the core business area in Kwun Tong or the beautiful waterfront nearby. I think there are too many similar cases.

More importantly, as Mr CHAN Chi-chuen said earlier, HKPSG are an IOU issued by the Government. In fact, under what circumstances will the Government be required to comply with HKPSG, or is HKPSG only used as a shield by the Government? Members of the District Councils often criticize the Government for failing to provide certain facilities or proceed with certain proposals as planned, or failing to make appropriate arrangements. In response, government officials will always say, "We should follow the existing plans, standards and guidelines and cannot go beyond them". Nevertheless, when the Government deviates from HKPSG, it will surely provide justifications. I think no matter what the Government says, it is most important for it to work practically. How do the authorities perceive HKPSG at present? How can they vest HKPSG with a statutory status to gain the recognition of all people? These problems have to be solved. If there is any ambiguity, should it be expeditiously clarified? Certainly, I agree with the proposals in the motion and the 2332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 amendments to enhance HKPSG so that they can meet the current needs or to upgrade the standards therein, but I think that first and foremost task is to clarify the statuses and the recognition of HKPSG.

Another point which I would like to mention is the commitment of the Government in complying with HKPSG. Is the Government's attitude like what I said earlier, "It will be good if the standards and guidelines can be complied with, but sorry if they cannot?" Or, is the Government committed to making its best effort to comply with HKPSG, even though it is not legally binding? In cases where compliance is not possible, under what circumstances will it be legal and reasonable for the Government to deviate from HKPSG? Can the Government make clear and objective exposition? In cases where there are deviations from HKPSG, is there a mechanism which requires the Government to give an account to the public, or can it simply state that there are difficulties without having to give any explanation? In cases where the standards and guidelines have not been fully complied with, is there any mechanism, measure or established procedure to identify an alternative proposal? Has this kind of mechanism been put in place? If so, it seems that nobody knows about it; if not, is there a need to formulate such measures?

President, we certainly hope that the Government can, as proposed by the motion or the amendments today, put in place a mechanism under which regular reviews will be carried out. We hope that the Government will not wait until a Member has proposed another motion next time or too many people have voiced their objections before it belatedly responds and takes actions, or worse still, it makes no response and takes no action at all. We hope that the Government will regularly and promptly review the relevant mechanism and guidelines and consider the following questions: Are the standards up to date? Have the standards lagged behind the current development? In fact, does the Government have to wait until the occurrence of a big incident in society before it immediately reviews this mechanism? The Government should take all the relevant actions. Perhaps this motion will make the Government seriously review the points which I have raised so as to assure the people that this mechanism is still meaningful to society, that it is not just the Government's shield for acting like a bad loser and indulging in empty talk without taking the appropriate actions.

I hope the Government can take this opportunity to make improvements so that more community facilities in various districts mentioned by Members, including East Kowloon the constituency to which I belong, will be enhanced or provided promptly and appropriately to strictly comply with HKPSG. In cases LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2333 where there is a real need for the authorities to deviate from HKPSG, I hope that clear explanations and alternative proposals will be given so that the public's interests will truly be safeguarded under HKPSG.

Thank you, President.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): The subject of our discussion today is planning problems. Members, my view is that planning problems can actually become family problems and problems of youth development. Why do I say so?

Let me give a simple example. Imagine that you were a 10-year-old child who had just moved into a new housing unit where there were no facilities nearby. There was no park, no hospital, no library or any other community facilities at all. You would be deprived of these facilities all through your childhood. You would then hang out with some acquaintances you met in the neighbourhood who were similarly bored. As there was no constructive activity in which you could participate, the only way out was to form gangs.

The above mentioned situation actually happened in Hong Kong and the place is Tin Shui Wai. In the northern part of Tin Shui Wai, there is nothing except an open area called Wang Yat Square, which is a good name. Nevertheless, it is only a concrete ground with a few benches where young people may play soccer or hide and seek.

Tin Shui Wai was once also known as "a town of sadness", a name which I consider inappropriate and hurtful. Who created this so-called "a town of sadness" in the first place? The case of Tin Shui Wai shows that planning decides not only the provision of facilities in a district, but also the future of its residents. If we know that the lack of basic facilities in a district will affect the development of a generation, we cannot take the matter lightly. Apart from meeting the needs of clothing, food, shelter and transportation of the people, the Government should also provide basic facilities near their homes through planning. Nevertheless, Tin Shui Wai as described just now and Tung Chung are examples of bad planning.

Some Members mentioned the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") today. In fact, Chapter 6 of the HKPSG published in 2009, entitled "Retail Facilities", clearly states that one public market stall should be provided for every 55 to 65 households or approximately 40 to 45 stalls per 10 000 persons. This is the standard set in 2009. Nevertheless, for reasons 2334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 unknown, this clear standard has been incorporated into a basket of factors to be considered, including the demographic mix, community needs, provision of both public and private market facilities nearby, and so on.

It is 2016 now and we have to demand the Government to readopt the clear standards set in 2009, as proposed in Mr Andrew WAN's amendment. Currently, there is not even a single market in Tin Shui Wai. Perhaps some may say that there are markets provided by the Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT"), but the problem is that Link REIT has monopolized the markets in the entire Tin Shui Wai. If the Government is willing to build public markets in accordance with the standard provided in the HKPSG, it will achieve instant results. The measure will provide more options, and more importantly, it will bring in new competitors.

We have proposed earlier to build markets, libraries, community halls, hospitals and many other facilities, but Members must remember that if we have to continue with this kind of discussion for some 10 or 20 years, harm will be done to a whole generation.

Even today, some people dare not tell others that they live in Tin Shui Wai because it sounds like a desolate and neglected place. Hence, if the planning of a district is improper, it will hurt the people's feelings, and the Government should bear the greatest responsibility for it. If the Government will draw a lesson from this bitter experience, it must follow the guidelines in the future. Otherwise, the guidelines will be meaningless.

This motion today has brought up another problem which we have to consider too. When Members have mentioned guidelines or provided figures in this Chamber today for a more balanced development in the provision of various facilities, the Government has to comply with them, so that in addition to meeting the people's demands of clothing, food, shelter and transportation, it will also provide room for the people to conduct activities and develop their creativity.

Many Members have spoken and I will not repeat the contents of their speeches. Each community facility has its own importance and we certainly hope that more facilities will be built. Thus, I hope the authorities will learn from this experience and do not torture the people again in developing new towns in the future. Housing is indeed the most basic need of the people, but they also have many other basic needs.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2335

I grew up in a public rental housing estate. Members should not belittle the importance of a simple park, a library, or a market in the estate because all these facilities help to form the living circle of the local residents.

Today, we have to put forward specific proposals, provide figures and point out what facilities will bring instant results and affect people's livelihood most. May I ask the Policy Bureau to draw a lesson from its bitter experience and try its best to provide public markets in districts which are in need of facilities. That is not a very demanding request. The standard of providing one public market stall for every 55 to 65 households or approximately 40 to 45 stalls per 10 000 persons is not a fanciful idea, but a guideline set in 2009. We hope that some basic facilities which will bring peace and contentment to the people can be provided to them again.

President, let me repeat that planning problems are definitely not just problems in planning. Instead, they can become development problems for a whole generation. Thus, I hope that after our discussion today, the Policy Bureau will adopt our proposals and remember one point which is most important, namely, it is not adequate to provide shelters to the people and Hong Kong people have many other needs. I so submit.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Mr Andrew WAN's amendment, and would like to focus my speech on community facilities, especially issues on education facilities and social welfare facilities.

Firstly, for standard concerning the number of kindergarten places, it falls under the section of "Education Facilities" in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"). President, with regard to education facilities, the standard for nursery classes and kindergartens are currently 730 half-day and 250 full-day places for every 1 000 children in the age group of three to under six. In other words, in the community, particularly public housing estates in the new development areas, kindergarten places are mostly half-day and full-time places are very rare.

President, I often visit the districts. Kai Ching Estate, one of the "lead-in-water" housing estates, and the adjoining Tak Long Estate are two connected housing estates each having two kindergartens, but none of them has 2336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 provided full-time places and the provision is downright insufficient. What kind of phenomenon will emerge? I trust that neither the Secretary for Development nor the Secretary for Education have visited these housing estates. I eagerly hope that Secretary Paul Chan and the Secretary for Education would join me for a visit to these estates. At noon time when the kindergarten closes, we can see a lot of mothers waiting for their children. I asked if they wanted to go to work and they said they would love to. However, as only half-day kindergarten places are available for their children, who is going to take care of their children after school hours? Worse still, there is a lack of child care services in the housing estates, so they have to stay home to take care of their children after school. When I asked if they would send their children to full-day kindergartens, their reply was in the affirmative.

May I ask the Secretary to imagine, the eyes of these women living in the housing estates are full of expectation, wishing that they can have a choice in their life and go to work. The Government always calls on the unleashing of workforce, but HKPSG has failed to cater for the household needs of housing estates in the new development areas. Why are there only 250 full-time places in every 1 000 kindergarten places? This is downright insufficient. Therefore, the Secretary for Development should be blamed for failing to keep abreast of the times and the needs of the residents, and to revise HKPSG using a people-oriented approach.

I have once discussed the matter with the Under Secretary for Education, and urged him to expeditiously revise HKPSG. However, he replied that this was a matter of the Development Bureau, and the Education Bureau was not expected not make any decision on its own. In that case, there is no way Secretary Paul Chan can hide because the Education Bureau can only act with the cooperation of the Development Bureau. The request of the Democratic Party is pretty simple, and that is, the Government should increase the number of full-time kindergarten places in HKPSG to at least 50% of every 1 000 places. I am not asking the Government to instantly turn all kindergarten places into full-time places because some parents may prefer part-time places. Yet, this can at least provide a choice to parents regardless of whether they live in housing estates.

Apart from kindergarten places, social welfare facilities are also riddled with problems. Indeed, HKPSG has far-reaching implications on a number of Policy Bureaux and members of the public, so Secretary Paul Chan should carefully examine the issue.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2337

Another issue that I would like to draw Members' attention to is the planning of social welfare facilities in respect of child care centres, which have encountered more serious problems. Secretary, I wonder if you are aware of this issue before you took office. Planning standard for child care centres was once set out in HKPSG, but then it was removed by the Government all of a sudden, which was pretty weird. Why did the Government remove the original standard such that there is none at the moment? According to HKPSG, child care centres are provided "based on the estimated demand, socio-economic factors, district characteristics and the provision of other child care support services for the area." In other words, there is no standard at all and individual district can decide on its own. As a result, at present, there are only 1 047 full-time child care places for children aged under two in Hong Kong, which means that there are only some 1 000 places for more than 100 000 children of that age. In other words, there is only one full-time child care place for every 97 young children, and that is one for approximately 100 children. This is the result of having no standard or removing the original standard, but nothing has been done by the Government to improve the situation. Instead of increasing child care places depending on individual circumstances, it has left the number of places remain unchanged or even reduced it. If a standard has been provided, we may say that the standard of a certain area has not been met, but the fact that no standard has been provided showed that improvements can hardly be made.

In fact, not only is standard not provided for child care centers, but also Neighbourhood Elderly Centre, Day Care Centres for the Elderly, Day Care Units for the Elderly in the District Elderly Community Centre, Day Care Units in the residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs") and RCHEs themselves. Is the absence of a standard intended to prevent the Government from being held responsibility by the public? Is the absence of a standard intended to free the Government from Members' accusation of a failure to meet the required standard? This is outrageous. Under the governance of the Government, Hong Kong is not up to standard in terms of education, health care as well as social welfare and community facilities. What kind of government is this? This shows that the Government does not only lack a vision of governance, but also the determination and standard to govern.

With these remarks, I support Mr Andrew WAN's amendment.

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

2338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, I have been considering whether I should speak. I am particularly interested in one part of the motion moved by Mr CHAN Han-pan. As there are about 700 000 motor vehicles in Hong Kong now, despite the rather adequate road and transport facilities, motorists may have nowhere to park their cars. I therefore cannot help but talk about the parking problem.

The community we live in must be provided with parking spaces. If there are insufficient parking spaces, motorists will have to park their vehicles indiscriminately on the roadside. Traffic will come to a standstill. This situation is similar to blood vessels getting blocked by blood clots. This kind of vicious cycle must be dealt with by the Government. Thus, the Government must pay more attention to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"). I would like to tell the Secretary that since the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge is near completion, the transport network of our city will no longer be restricted to local areas, but will extend to the Mainland as well. Thus, it is essential for us to ponder over the problem of parking spaces.

A columbarium will be built in my constituency, namely Area L19 of Tuen Mun. I am still a member of the Tuen Mun District Council. Back then I strongly supported the construction of a columbarium at Area L19 Tsang Tsui in Tuen Mun. As Hong Kong's population is ageing and death is a normal part of human life, how should we make after-death arrangements for the deceased? Columbaria are essential facilities. The Tsang Tsui columbarium houses 140 000 niches. Ridiculously, however, there are only 19 parking spaces. If the descendants of the deceased pay tribute to their ancestors twice in a year during the Ching Ming Festival and the Chung Yeung Festival, do we simply expect that they will never get rich and always have to take a bus?

Unlike the cemetery in Tseung Kwan O which can be reached by walking about 1 km from the Tseung Kwan O MTR station, the columbarium at Tsang Tsui is not in the vicinity of a railway or MTR station. Visitors have to walk 7 km to 8 km before reaching there. The authorities have enforced traffic control targeting visitors who drive to get there. In the development of this infrastructure, the authorities should take drastic measures. As they have committed $3 billion to $4 billion to build the columbarium, road network and parking facilities should also be enhanced for easy access by the public.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2339

Given that 140 000 niches are provided in the columbarium at Tsang Tsui, assuming that each family has two niches, 70 000 families will be involved. If four members of each family visit the columbarium to pay tribute to their ancestors, there will be more than 200 000 visitors. Unless all of them go to the columbarium by bus, how can the mere 19 parking spaces meet the needs of people who drive there to pay tribute to their ancestors? Should tens of thousands of families park their vehicles on the roadside? The authorities must conduct a comprehensive planning and pay special attention to the parking problem.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Han-pan, you may now speak on the amendments. The speaking time limit is five minutes.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, seven Members have proposed amendments to my original motion today, most of which are additions of some elements or details to the original motion. For example, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok has added economic elements in his amendment, urging the authorities to increase the provision of sites and infrastructure support for industrial and commercial industries, as well as enhance the consultation system and streamline the planning procedures, etc.; Mr Frankie YICK has proposed an amendment in respect of parking, urging the Government to consider the demand for parking spaces for commercial and electric vehicles in planning; Dr YIU Chung-yim, meanwhile, has included elements in planning which are friendly to the elderly population. I welcome all the aforesaid amendments because they can enrich and enhance my original motion so as to enable Policy Bureaux to better understand the requests of this Council. Thus, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong will support these amendments.

President, we endorse the principle put forward in Ms Alice MAK's amendment which is, when updating the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") and relevant guidelines, it is necessary to adopt the 2340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 principles of "people-orientation" and "enhancing community participation", and restore the prescription of a standard for population-to-market stall ratio in planning for public markets. I have mentioned these points in my main speech. However, I find some points in her amendment difficult to understand. She has proposed in her amendment to delete "expeditiously construct community facilities such as parking spaces, public markets", and so on, in my original motion. Although she has proposed in her amendment to restore the standard for population-to-market stall ratio, this is not the same as a call for building markets. Her amendment, if passed, will leave people with the impression that the Legislative Council has moved a step back on constructing markets. I know Ms MAK has been urging the authorities to construct public markets. However, her present amendment has slightly run counter to her principle. We thus cannot agree with this amendment.

President, based on my experience in Council work, colleagues generally hope to expedite the funding approval for community services as well as the launch of relevant works. I have proposed in my main speech the use of dedicated funds. All I hope is simply to expedite the funding process for some agreed-upon, non-controversial community facilities. Regrettably, Ms Tanya CHAN and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung have deleted the content about setting up a dedicated fund, and they have not made reference to this omission in their main speeches. I therefore find it really hard to support their amendments.

Lastly, I will talk about Mr Andrew WAN's amendment. I will support his amendment because we are relatively similar in our general direction. However, some of the many data and statistics he has set out very specifically in his amendment were based on old standards. For example, he cited the standard used in 2009 for public markets. It actually remains unknown whether the standard is still applicable after seven to eight years. The proposal to restore the prescription of a standard for population-to-market stall ratio should also be re-examined and studied.

In addition, he has proposed new standards in his amendment such as providing open space at a minimum standard of 10 hectares per 85 000 persons. However, according to paragraph 1.8.2 of Chapter 4: Recreation, Open Space and Greening of HKPSG, "[i]n the urban areas, including the Metro Area and the New Towns, the standard for provision of open space is a minimum of 20 ha per 100 000 persons, i.e. 2 sq m per person." According to Mr WAN's proposal, a minimum of 10 hectares should be provided per 85 000 persons, or 1.1 sq m per LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2341 person only. In this way, the open space has ended up being reduced, not increased. Mr WAN has many years of experience in district work. I believe that it is not his intention to reduce open space. He may only have misread or mistakenly written the numbers. In my view, it is not unusual to get the specific numbers wrong, but the mistakes will be easily noticed when the numbers are specifically listed. As his amendment is in line with our view in general, we are ready to support it.

President, I am very grateful to all the Members who have proposed amendments to my motion. I hope that we can work together to improve our community. Thank you.

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I want to thank the Honourable Members for the valuable advice they have given today on how better planning can be made to provide various community facilities and services.

As I have emphasized this morning in my opening speech, the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments will formulate, review and update the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") under their purview in a timely manner in accordance with their portfolios and development needs under the guiding principle of "people-oriented". In the course of it, the relevant bureaux and departments will naturally consider the collected views and sometimes commission consultancy study, it is therefore unfair to accuse that HKPSG has been revised without consultation. With regard to the implementation and development schedule of individual facilities and services, they are subject to the resource priorities of the relevant bureaux/departments as well as their priorities under the Public Works Programme. Generally speaking, the Government will take into account the local population, provision and utilization of existing facilities, and so on, in determining the priorities of project implementation. Based on past experience, the implementation schedule of these projects often fell short of the expectation of Members and local residents. The idle land lots cited by Mr KWOK Wai-keung just now are actually not idle lots, but have specified use instead. It is only that in the course of implementation, the relevant departments have failed to secure the necessary resources and thereby giving rise to a serious time gap.

2342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

President, the issues which Members have expressed concern involve the policy purview of different bureaux. I will try to give a consolidated reply to a few main points, and for issues that have not been covered in my reply, I will relay Members' views to the relevant bureaux and departments for further action and consideration.

(1) Public markets

A number of Members have expressed grave concern about the issue of public markets, and relevant discussions had already been conducted in this Council earlier. According to the existing HKPSG, when planning for public markets, apart from the population of the area, other relevant factors that should be considered include the demographic mix, community needs, provision of both public and private markets nearby, as well as the number of fresh provisional retail outlets. In this connection, Mr KWONG Chun-yu just now doubted about the revision. But if Mr KWONG has checked the records, he would understand that the revised proposal was made in the light of the criticisms raised in the Audit Report. The Government understands that markets operated by Link REIT and the private sector are subject to certain undesirable and unstable factors, we therefore opine that where circumstances permit, public market facilities should be appropriately enhanced, which include building new markets and improving the quality of existing markets.

At present, the Food and Health Bureau is planning to identify suitable strategic locations, say near to railway stations and public transport interchanges and have extensive space, for the development of cross-district leading markets. In the next decade, Tung Chung New Town Extension and Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area will emerge as the two new development areas of the largest scale. The Government is now identifying suitable locations in these two areas for building new public markets. It is hoped that these two new public markets located in strategic locations can be developed into cross-district leading markets, serving not only Tung Chung New Town Extension and Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area, but be extended to cover the entire Tung Chung area and Tin Shui Wai district as a whole.

(2) Welfare facilities

Concerning social welfare facilities, the Government has all along adopted a multi-pronged approach to increase the provision of such facilities. The Social Welfare Department ("SWD") will join hands with other relevant departments to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2343 increase the provision of subsidized services by identifying suitable locations from public housing developments, private developments, vacant public rental housing units and vacant school premises.

With regard to public housing developments, under the existing mechanism, when a new development area or site is identified as having potential for public housing development, the Planning Department ("PlanD") or the Housing Department ("HD") will discuss with the relevant departments (including SWD) and organizations, and consult the relevant District Council on planning for the provision of community facilities in the public housing project concerned.

On private development projects, PlanD will assist in identifying suitable sites or projects based on the requests of SWD, and include relevant requirements of providing the necessary floor space for Government, Institution or Community ("GIC") facilities including, among others, welfare facilities, in suitable government sale sites or railway property development projects, if this is feasible from the planning and technical perspectives and justified by genuine needs. The existing mechanism is flexible and effective in responding to the various demands of the community for different facilities, and enables better use of the precious land resource.

Furthermore, SWD has also been actively identifying vacant public rental housing units and vacant school premises for conversion into social welfare facilities, including the redevelopment of ex-Siu Lam Hospital in Tuen Mun and ex-Kai Nang Sheltered Workshop and Hostel in Kwun Tong into Integrated Rehabilitation Services Complex, as well as the conversion of three vacant schools, namely ex-CCC Kei Leung Primary School site in Leung King Estate, Tuen Mun; ex-CCC Kei Ching Primary School site in Fu Shin Estate, Tai Po and ex-Sai Kung Central Primary School site in Ho Chung, Sai Kung, into integrated welfare services centres.

We are also aware that members of the public are particularly concerned about the prevailing trend of an ageing population in Hong Kong, thus the "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030" ("Hong Kong 2030+"), which is currently under public engagement, has also devoted a substantial part on this issue. To meet the challenges arising from the 2344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 ageing population, the Government announced in 2014 the commissioning of the Elderly Commission ("EC") to formulate the Elderly Service Programme Plan ("the Plan") to strengthen the medium- to long-term planning of elderly services.

One of the initial recommendations made by EC is that the forward planning in provision of elderly services should be strengthened such that the supply of subsidized services will be able to meet the increasing demand for long-term care services in the future. The report recommended that in addition to stepping up efforts to identify suitable sites for elderly facilities, the authorities should also reinstate the population-based planning ratios for various elderly facilities in HKPSG. The engagement exercise conducted by EC on the framework and initial recommendations of the Plan is expected to complete by the end of this year. Upon completion of the exercise, EC will finalize the framework and recommendations of the Plan. And, if everything goes smoothly, it is expected that EC will be able to submit the report of the Plan to the Government in the second quarter of 2017.

(3) Ancillary transport measures

The Government's transport policy is centred on public transport and encourages the public to avoid commuting by private cars as far as possible. Given that land resources in Hong Kong are limited, the Government's current policy in the provision of parking spaces is to accord priority in considering and meeting the parking demand of commercial vehicles. Commercial vehicles (in particular goods vehicles and coaches) serve the function of carrying passengers and goods. They have substantive demand for parking spaces in their daily operations, and have been playing an important role in the logistics industry, tourism industry, as well as the overall economy. As for private cars, the Government will provide an appropriate number of parking spaces if the overall development permits, but at the same time not to attract passengers to opt for private cars in lieu of public transport, thereby causing road congestion in the vicinity.

Over the past five years, the total number of licensed private cars has a year-on-year growth rate of about 5%. If the number of private cars continues to increase, the Government cannot possibly continue to provide parking spaces for private car on our limited land resources accordingly, as this will indirectly encourage members of the public to buy cars. This is why the Transport LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2345

Department has been keeping a close watch on the supply and demand of parking spaces in Hong Kong, and has commenced preparatory work for a review on parking policy and standard. The review will accord priority to considering and meeting the parking need of commercial vehicles in various districts. Subject to the findings of the review, improvement measures will be introduced, which include updating HKPSG.

There has been a rapid increase in the number of private cars in recent years, which far exceeded the growth of population and households. Apart from affecting traffic and the environment, especially air quality, this has also imposed pressure on the demand for roads and parking spaces, which is not the direction for sustainable development. Therefore, the direction of Hong Kong's long-term planning should focus on how future transportation needs can be effectively managed, and how the residual capacity of existing and new transport infrastructures can be better utilized. Through the Conceptual Spatial Framework recommended in Hong Kong 2030+, we wish to achieve better home-job balance. This can reduce the long distance commuting between the New Territories and the Metro Area on the one hand, thereby reducing the burden on the transport system, and can make better use of the spare capacities in the counter-peak direction of the transport system during the peak hours on the other.

(4) Industrial and commercial land and facilities

With regard to commercial and industrial land and facilities, the Government will continue to increase the provision by taking forward various measures, which include converting suitable GIC sites in core business districts into commercial use, transforming Kowloon East into another Core Business District, as well as reserving sites in the planning process of various medium- and long-term land development projects for providing more space for commercial and other economic activities, including the expansion of new development areas and new towns. I trust that Members are very familiar with these measures, so I am not going to repeat here. I nonetheless want to use cinema as an example to outline the latest work of the Government in increasing industrial and commercial facilities.

We understand that members of the public watch movies in the cinemas as an entertainment and hope to promote, at the same time, the long-term development of Hong Kong's film industry. Therefore, we have adopted a series of short-, medium- and long-term measures to increase the number of cinemas. 2346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

In the short run, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department and the Architectural Services Department have worked together to launch a pilot project to provide screening facilities and conduct related upgrading works at the auditorium of the North District Town Hall to facilitate movie-watching by residents in the district. The facility will come into operation tomorrow (9 December). The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau will base on the experience obtained from this pilot project and explore whether and how to further provide or upgrade screening facilities at appropriate government premises in other districts.

In the medium and long term, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is considering with the relevant bureaux and departments to require property developers to include cinemas in their development projects as appropriate in the terms and conditions of the land lease through land sale. Furthermore, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau has also been in close liaison with the relevant parties to explore the feasibility of reserving space for cinemas in major cultural and entertainment development areas in order to realize synergies between cinemas and cultural and entertainment facilities therein.

Here, I would like to respond in passing the comment made by Mr Christopher CHEUNG on the Central Market site. Central Market, which is an historic building, is among the few projects under the initiative of "Conserving Central" being taken forward by the Urban Renewal Authority. Although the project has met some stumbling blocks over the past few years, it is still ongoing and has achieved good progress so far.

(5) Response to Members' feedback on other facilities and services

Since Members have touched on quite a number of other facilities and services, I may not be able to respond one by one. For health care services, for example, the Government has earmarked $200 billion for implementing the 10-year hospital development plan. For recreational facilities, between 2011 and early November 2016, the Government has completed a total of 21 relevant building and upgrading projects and the works estimated to cost $12.4 billion. As for school sites, the Education Bureau will make reference to the school-age population projections and take into account the actual numbers of existing students at various levels when planning. With regard to Mr HUI Chi-fung's remarks on kindergarten places, I would like to make a brief report. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2347

Education Bureau is reviewing the planning standards for provision of kindergarten places as a long-term goal from the present 250 whole-day and 730 half-day places to 500 whole-day and 500 half-day places respectively for every 1 000 children aged between three and six, so as to meet keen demand and provide support for the working parents.

As a matter of fact, to better improve the planning and provision of various facilities and services, it requires more in-depth discussions with different stakeholders as well as the relevant bureaux and departments.

(6) Long-term planning

President, several Members questioned the need for long-term planning. I would like to say a few words in this regard. First of all, as a planning strategy, Hong Kong 2030+ definitely will not review individual standards under (HKPSG) because such a review will be conducted on an ongoing basis, while the planning strategy is intended to make recommendations for the overall direction of land and spatial planning and development in Hong Kong, so as to avoid the mistakes we made in the past, resulting in escalating property prices due to the serious shortage of land over the past few years, thus hindering social and economic development in Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong 2030+ also sets out timely responses made by the Government to various key planning issues. For example, proposals have been made to adopt the strategic directions of pedestrian-friendliness and age-friendliness; to increase the planning standards for per capita provision of open space and GIC land; and to formulate a planning vision that uplifts our livability and enhance our environmental capacity. Hong Kong 2030+ also highlights the need to adopt universal design for housing construction in the long run, so as to meet the needs of the elderly.

Separately, as I pointed out in my reply to a relevant oral question raised by Ms YUNG Hoi-yan in this Council earlier, the relevant departments responsible for planning and implementing community facilities have all along upheld the principle of land use optimization. When a bureau or department puts forward a request for reserving land/space for building community facilities or providing services, PlanD and the Government Property Agency will, having considered other relevant factors, such as land uses, surrounding environment, planning parameters, etc., reserve suitable land and premises respectively. Where appropriate and possible, various complementary facilities and services will be 2348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 accommodated in the same complex, with a view to optimizing land use and facilitating access to these facilities by the public. Guided by this principle of land use optimization, we will continue to make long-term planning for the provision of community facilities and services within the same complex as far as possible or even consider, where appropriate, the provision of certain facilities in private development projects, so that more space can be made available for other developments or the relevant sites can be reserved for open space, to provide the districts, especially those in existing urban areas with a high density of buildings, with a better surrounding environment in the long run.

On the other hand, we always consider that developing new land and conserving the environment are never mutually exclusive. In fact, they can be taken forward in parallel. A focus we put forward in Hong Kong 2030+ is to actively enhance environmental capacity while creating development capacity, so as to promote sustainable development. While ensuring that the natural environment will not be adversely affected in the course of development, we must also consider ways to leverage on Hong Kong's rich "green and blue resources". As such, we propose to develop a conceptual planning framework for environmental protection and nature conservation in Hong Kong. We will work from the perspectives of promoting biodiversity and improving the environment, so that we can actively create, enhance and regenerate environmental capacity. For instance, we propose to protect areas of high ecological value, promote green transport infrastructure, convert waste to energy, and so on. We also propose to improve the facilities of country parks and their connectivity with urban areas, in order to facilitate and promote greater appreciation by the public. Moreover, Hong Kong 2030+ proposes to step up urban greening with initiatives to designate/upgrade flagship parks, implement an urban forestry strategy and management plan, as well as explore the introduction of a "green index, and so on.

Upon the completion of public engagement activities for Hong Kong 2030+, we will further review and fine-tune various proposals. Whether the specific proposals can be successfully implemented, and, in particular, how better urban development and design can be incorporated into HKPSG, the full cooperation among the relevant government bureaux and departments is warranted, especially when many proposals are straddling across different policy areas, further consideration by the authorities will be required in order to finalize the specific details as well as resource requirement.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2349

More importantly, in the course of the Hong Kong 2030+ study, PlanD has consulted various bureaux and departments on different land use requirements and projected that our long-term land supply still falls short by about 1 200 hectares; of which, 700 hectares is for GIC uses as well as open space. This echoes exactly the call made by many Members today as well as people in the districts that more facilities of this kind should be provided expeditiously. However, we can only consider how the public's need for different facilities and services can be expeditiously met if we have land space available. If land space cannot be provided in a timely manner, the creation of a liveable city with suitable ancillary facilities for the public would only be empty talk. It is hypocritical for Members to demand a greater supply of housing, as well as the provision of more schools and community facilities on the one hand, but strongly oppose our work to increase land supply or even claim that Hong Kong has an abundant supply of land, or land is never lacking in Hong Kong on the other. I would like to take this opportunity to implore Members to support our work to increase land supply in the short, medium and long terms, in order to meet the public's urgent concern.

President, I would also like to respond to a few more points raised by some Members in their speeches earlier on. Firstly, it concerns the criticisms against the Town Planning Board ("TPB"). Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Nathan LAW and several other Members criticized TPB for lacking in transparency in its composition, operation and decision-making and even for black-box operation. There are also other allegations involving conflict of interests. I must point out seriously that these allegations are unfair and unfounded. TPB is an independent statutory body established under the Town Planning Ordinance, and its operation is governed by the relevant ordinances. Apart from the official members, TPB now comprises about 30 non-official members from various sectors, who all have high standing and ability in their respective professions. They are willing to devote a great deal of time and energy to TPB's work, including attending meetings almost every week to consider the statutory plans and planning applications. All the relevant procedures are open, transparent and clearly specified in law. As I have already explained some procedures in my opening speech, I will say nothing more here. What I can say is that among the many advisory bodies in Hong Kong, TPB has a very high ranking in terms of its functions, workload, external transparency as well as openness. The 30 or so non-official members of TPB come from various sectors including architecture, engineering, planning, tertiary academia, legal, medical, business and environmental protection. It can be said that such a composition is diverse, 2350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 rather than titling in favour of the property development sector as claimed by some Members. I hope Members and the general public will not wilfully reject TPB's work or even discredit its members simply because some decisions it made are not to their liking or run contrary to their expectation or demands. As a matter of fact, there are many precedent cases where rezoning proposals previously made by the Government have been rejected by TPB.

President, the second point is about the planning standards and guidelines. A moment ago, Mr Paul TSE asked me about the status of HKPSG. President, HKPSG is a government manual of criteria for determining the scale, location and site requirements of various land uses and facilities. It is applicable in studying, preparing or revising development plans and imposing development control. The purpose of HKPSG is to provide general guidelines to ensure that, during the planning process, the Government will reserve adequate land to facilitate social and economic development and provide appropriate community facilities to meet the needs of the public. It is a set of tools both for planning and for regulating development. Apart from development purposes, HKPSG also provides guidelines on environmental planning, conservation of our natural landscape and habitats, and conservation of our cultural heritage and townscape, so as to raise the quality of life of Hong Kong residents. Although HKPSG is not a statutory code, the SAR Government will follow its requirements as far as possible.

President, the guidelines are rigid while planning is flexible. While land and buildings remain unchanged for decades, the residents as well as their service needs will change over time. That is why we must find ways to address our ageing population and their social needs. Instead of setting rigid guidelines or even turning them into statutory requirements as suggested by some Members, we hold that it is more important to make planning for services provided in the community through a "people-oriented" approach, such that the use of land space can be planned in a more flexible and adaptable manner, and land space will not become an obstacle in service provision. Today, many useful suggestions have been made by Members, for example, the development of multi-function sites, that is, housing different facilities within the same site. In the future, we will actively consider whether space for community facilities can be provided in a more flexible manner, including the inclusion of community facilities in private development projects.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2351

President, the third point I would like to respond to concerns our work to implement planning intentions as mentioned by some Members. A number of Members pointed out that it is worthwhile for the Government to make reference to the previous approach of planning and implementing new town development, such as the development of Sha Tin. I would like to point out that in the past, the Territory Development Department was established in the Government to coordinate the implementation of various projects and the provision of facilities in new town development, including the timetables for the construction and provision of different community facilities. Now we have the Energizing Kowloon East Office and Kai Tak Office to coordinate the transformation of Kowloon East as well as the implementation of Kai Tak Development. We also propose the establishment of the Sustainable Lantau Office specifically for the coordination and implementation of these major planning projects. We hope that with the establishment of a dedicated multidisciplinary team, these major development projects can be implemented in a more people-oriented approach, while ensuring higher efficiency in their planning and implementation, as well as better services for the public, such that facilities which have been on the drawing board for a long time as mentioned by Mr KWOK Wai-keung a moment ago could be finalized and timely implemented through this approach.

President, the fourth point I would like to respond to concerns the view expressed by Mr CHAN Hak-kan. I think Mr CHAN has made a very insightful point, that is, whether services should be provided in advance or afterwards. Suffice to say that in the past, the provision of both transport infrastructure and community facilities would be taken forward by different departments in the course of implementing the relevant new development area or new town projects. As each department might have different priorities for various projects to be carried out subsequently, resulting in different priorities when bidding for internal funding resources, the provision of some facilities might lag far behind the original scheduled timing proposed during local consultation. For example, population intake in many new development areas may be well ahead of the completion of community facilities such as parks. We fully understand the resentment of local residents, and we accept their criticisms in this regard. Hence Mr CHAN just asked whether we could proceed with such work in advance, and this is exactly what we propose under Hong Kong 2030+, that is, to plan for such facilities in advance through a vision-driven approach, especially when it comes to the planning for transport infrastructure. Unlike what happened previously, transport infrastructure should not be planned and constructed only until population intake in new development areas reaches a 2352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 certain stage and is expected to generate a specific calculated demand. Not only will the old approach take much longer to complete, but also create suffering for residents who moved to the new development areas earlier. Hence we propose in Hong Kong 2030+ that the guiding principle in future should be vision-driven to create capacities, so that complementary work of planning and studies can proceed in advance. If possible, the implementation timetable may also be taken forward slightly to help address the many conflicts in the districts. Of course, as far as the Policy Bureaux are concerned, this approach is quite different from their usual practice and mindset. Upon completion of the public engagement activities for Hong Kong 2030+, we will face these changes when promoting and implementing the relevant policies in future. As we also stated in the proposal, it is envisaged that if the approach is adopted in future, a high-level steering structure (that is, beyond the level of director of bureau) which straddles across various Policy Bureaux and departments may have to be set up within the Government to coordinate and prioritize the relevant initiatives, while ensuring the allocation of necessary resources.

President, I would now like to briefly respond to some Members' allegation of "government-business-rural-triad" collusion, so that my statements can be put down on records. I hold that such allegations are unfounded. If they have any evidence in this regard, please produce it. I very much hope that Members can stop chanting such slogans to divert attention or even stall our work in identifying land supply. While I agree that our work may be inadequate and there is room for review, Members should be fair to us as well as our colleagues in the Civil Service. Although our work in the process may not be ideal, the alleged "government-business-rural-triad" collusion is far from truth.

President, last but not least, I would like to say a little more to express my feelings. In the course of my work, I often receive foreign guests who came to Hong Kong for study missions or visits. I also conduct duty visits to other places frequently to exchange views on planning matters with the relevant parties. As a matter of fact, Hong Kong is a city with high-density developments. We are left with no other choice because Hong Kong has a huge population, yet we only has an area of 1 100 sq km, and most of the land is hilly. With only 24% of the land being built-up area, we have a population of 7.2 million. In other words, the population density of the built-up area is about 27 700 persons per square kilometre. Among the most densely populated cities in the world, only Mumbai in India and Dhaka in Bangladesh rank higher than Hong Kong. Of course, we have our own historical reasons. While it is impossible to change a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2353 high-density city into a low-density city, I can never accept the statement just made by Dr CHENG Chung-tai that we must distort the standards in order to make our high-density city liveable. It is absolutely untrue, and it is something we will never do.

Although we have a huge population and a small ratio of built-up area (that is, only 24%), the built-up area is quite concentrated. All along, our land use planning has been developed through a mode of compact and mixed developments with public transport serving as the backbone. At present, public transport services account for 90% of our transport trips, with railway carrying over 40% of such trips. Currently, about 45% of our living quarters and 75% of our commercial areas and job opportunities are located within 500 m of railway stations. According to the Railway Development Strategy announced by the Government in 2014, upon completion of the seven railway extension lines by mid-2030s, Hong Kong will be conveniently served by the railway network, with areas inhabited by 75% of the local population and 85% of our commercial areas and job opportunities being in the vicinity of railway stations. Although we are living in a crowded space in Hong Kong, Hong Kong 2030+ has put a vision before us. We will strive to increase the average living space per person, even though it is no easy task because substantial funding provision would be involved. Hence, as I just said, in terms of the planning for the provision of open space and GIC facilities, we propose to increase the per capita standards to 2.5 sq m and 3.5 sq m respectively. In such a small area, the city lies harmoniously with the countryside. As I just said, many areas inhabited by our population are primarily served by the railway network. It is also relatively easy for us to go to the seaside or country parks, so that we can sometimes get away from the pressures of living in a crowded environment and relax in the natural environment. Hence, according to many people who came to Hong Kong for planning study missions, our experience can serve as some useful reference for other cities in the world because, notwithstanding our high-density developments, Hong Kong can still develop itself into a liveable city.

Although our work has yet to fully meet the public's expectations, I hope we will not belittle ourselves by making some negative statements. Otherwise, it will sound as if Hong Kong has really become an utterly gloomy and hopeless city. I think it is irresponsible to do so, and will bring no good to society as a whole.

2354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

A moment ago, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung mentioned the harbourfront in his speech, saying that he could not go there whilst he was in a protest rally. Of course, I cannot tell if he has submitted an application or not. But from what he said just now, I think he was provoking conflicts in society unnecessarily.

Members, many events have been held in the Central harbourfront. One of them is the Hong Kong Wine and Dine Festival, with many attendees being people in the middle class. These events are open to the public. Symphony Under The Stars is another event held in the Central harbourfront at night time, with free admission for members of the public. In fact, if we go to the Tamar Park on a Saturday or Sunday, we can often see many families enjoying a picnic there. The space is provided for public use, and it is definitely not reserved for the enjoyment of rich people only. Moreover, in future development of the Central harbourfront, we will continue with the direction of public participation as adopted for various stages of development previously. Instead of focusing on commercial development, we aim at developing the harbourfront into an accessible and affordable place for members of the public to engage in various activities with their families during leisure time. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Ms Alice MAK to move an amendment to the motion.

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion be amended.

Ms Alice MAK moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add "the aim of formulating the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines is to provide guidance on land use planning and development processes, and the Administration made a number of amendments to them in the past;" after "That,"; to delete "enhance the living environment" after "failing to" and substitute with "provide the public with basic ancillary facilities for living"; to add "adopt the principles of 'people-orientation' and 'enhancing community participation' to expeditiously" after "the Administration to"; to delete "," after "guidelines" and substitute with "by, among others, incorporating public markets into the item of 'community LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2355

facilities', restoring the prescription of a standard for population-to-market stall ratio, reviewing the supply of parking spaces in various districts and incorporating afresh the standard for population-to-cinema ratio into the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, etc., and"; and to delete "expeditiously construct community facilities such as parking spaces, public markets, cultural and leisure facilities, etc. in various districts, thereby responding to the public aspiration for enhanced living environment in communities" after "so as to" and substitute with "meet the public's needs for living and perfect community planning"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Ms Alice MAK to Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung rose to claim a division.

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

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

2356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the amendment.

Ms Starry LEE and Mr Holden CHOW abstained.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, 23 were in favour of the amendment and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2357 through direct elections, 30 were present, 21 were in favour of the amendment and 9 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Updating the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines and increasing community facilities to enhance living environment" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

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

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

2358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Updating the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines and increasing community facilities to enhance living environment" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already been informed, as Ms Alice MAK's amendment has been passed, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has withdrawn his amendment.

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

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK be further amended by my revised amendment.

I do not retain the first part of my original amendment because I think no Honourable colleagues would dispute that "Hong Kong needs proper long-term planning to ensure sustainable development". Likewise I do not retain the parts in my original amendment which are more or less the same as the earlier amendment that has been passed. But I have retained the core proposals of my original amendment, that is, the Administration should "enhance long-term integrated town planning, implement a comprehensive and balanced industrial policy, increase the provision of sites and infrastructure support for industrial and commercial industries", as well as "review and enhance the public consultation system, and improve and streamline the planning procedures and implementation mechanism".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2359

I have already explained the rationale for these proposals in my main speech delivered earlier. I consider that these proposals would offer useful insights for Members to consider today's motion further. I implore Members to support the revised amendment I moved.

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK: (Translation)

"To add "; meanwhile, the Administration should enhance long-term integrated town planning, implement a comprehensive and balanced industrial policy, increase the provision of sites and infrastructure support for industrial and commercial industries, review and enhance the public consultation system, and improve and streamline the planning procedures and implementation mechanism" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's amendment to Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

2360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted against the amendment.

Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen abstained.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Andrew WAN, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2361

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Alvin YEUNG and Ms Tanya CHAN abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, 18 were in favour of the amendment, 5 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 21 were in favour of the amendment, 6 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already been informed, as Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's amendment has been passed, Dr YIU Chung-yim has withdrawn his amendment.

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

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok be further amended by my revised amendment.

President, I support the amendments moved by Ms Alice MAK and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok respectively. My further amendment is intended to highlight the fact that any future town planning must give due regard to the provision of transport ancillary facilities, including parking spaces for various types of vehicles complemented with charging facilities, as well as vehicle maintenance workshops, and so on. In their speeches just now, many Members spoke about their grave concern about the current provision of parking spaces in Hong Kong. I hope Honourable Members will support my amendment.

Thank you, President.

2362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

Mr Frankie YICK moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok: (Translation)

"To add "; moreover, the Administration should provide comprehensive transport ancillary facilities, and provide appropriate vehicle support facilities where necessary, including parking spaces for various types of vehicles complemented with charging facilities and vehicle maintenance workshops" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Frankie YICK's amendment to Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2363

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted against the amendment.

Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Dr YIU Chung-yim abstained.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Andrew WAN, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Alvin YEUNG and Ms Tanya CHAN abstained.

2364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, 19 were in favour of the amendment, 2 against it and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 21 were in favour of the amendment, 6 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, as the amendments of Ms Alice MAK, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Frankie YICK have been passed, I have given leave for you to revise the terms of your amendment, as set out in the paper which has been issued to Members. When moving your revised amendment, you may speak for up to three minutes to explain the revised terms in your amendment, but you may not express further views on the motion and the amendments, nor may you repeat what you have already covered in your earlier speech. You may now move your revised amendment.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Frankie YICK be further amended by my revised amendment.

Ms Tanya CHAN moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Frankie YICK: (Translation)

"To add "; the Administration should also: Community facilities (1) building more medical and health facilities at appropriate locations in various districts, including hospitals, specialist clinics and health centres, to meet the requirement stipulated in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines of providing 5.5 beds per 1 000 persons; (2) comprehensively reviewing the standards for provision of community facilities such as community halls, social welfare facilities and libraries; Education facilities (3) reviewing the standards for provision of nursery classes, kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools, and setting the standard for provision of special schools; (4) setting standards for provision of universities, post-secondary colleges and industrial training centres; Recreation and open space (5) conducting a comprehensive study LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2365

on leisure habits of the public to update the standard for provision of open space; (6) comprehensively reviewing the greening policy and planning guidelines on greening in Hong Kong to increase the size of greened areas in urban districts and conserve the existing natural landscape; Environment (7) comprehensively updating the General Environmental Guidelines for Major Land Uses to ensure that land development projects comply with the guidelines for water, waste, air and noise; (8) comprehensively updating the waste management and recycling policy; Nature conservation and heritage preservation (9) comprehensively reviewing the nature conservation policy to ensure that land development projects will not damage the natural landscape and ecology; and (10) comprehensively reviewing the heritage conservation policy and the grading system for historic buildings, so as to more effectively conserve buildings with historical value and declared monuments" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Ms Tanya CHAN's amendment to Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Frankie YICK be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

2366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr Holden CHOW and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted against the amendment.

Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO and Mr CHAN Chun-ying abstained.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2367

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted against the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Dr Junius HO and Mr Nathan LAW abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment, 7 against it and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment, 12 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

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

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Frankie YICK be further amended by my revised amendment.

Mr Andrew WAN moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Frankie YICK: (Translation)

"To add "; moreover, the Administration should incorporate afresh early childhood education service into the item of 'community facilities' in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines and set the standard of 2368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

providing 100 education service places for every 2 500 children under two years of age, raise the planning standard for full-day kindergarten places to provide 500 full-day places for every 1 000 children between the age of three to five, prescribe the standard for provision of open space to be a minimum of 10 hectares per 85 000 persons, and set the standard of providing one small library for every 40 000 to 50 000 persons; the Administration should also construct new municipal services complexes in the vicinity of retail facilities under Link Real Estate Investment Trust, improve the facilities of existing municipal services buildings and implement bicycle friendly measures in various districts" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Andrew WAN's amendment to Mr CHAN Han-pan's motion as amended by Ms Alice MAK, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Frankie YICK be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

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

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2369

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted against the amendment.

Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHAN Chun-ying abstained.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted for the amendment.

Mr Paul TSE, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted against the amendment.

2370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Dr Junius HO, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Ms Tanya CHAN and Mr Nathan LAW abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment, 5 against it and 5 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 17 were in favour of the amendment, 4 against it and 9 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Han-pan, you still have 3 minutes 28 seconds to reply. The debate will come to a close after Mr CHAN Han-pan has replied.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, 37 Members have spoken on this motion today, reflecting how much importance this Council has attached to the updating of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"). I am very grateful to the Members who have spoken and those who have proposed amendments, and a number of Members have expressed grave concern about the supply of parking spaces. I trust that the debate on this motion would be even more fruitful if the Secretary for Transport and Housing is also present today.

President, what can be done if housing construction is met with opposition? Opposing views are mostly related to the issue of parking spaces. In the past, I did not quite understand why this would happen, thinking that the Government could address the problem with some extra effort. However, after reading the page story of Oriental Daily News, I was somehow enlightened and realized that this is attributable to the Government's disorganization and discoordination. No matter how true that front-page story is, history has already provided some clues. The authorities should speed up housing construction on the one hand, and provide parking spaces and community facilities on the other. I think the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2371 next-term Government should consider division of work among various Policy Bureaux, but before the realignment of their portfolios, I hope the Policy Bureaux will take into consideration the well-being of society and cooperate by all means.

The Secretary said that when considering an increase in housing production, he would conduct an assessment of the additional population, so as to ensure that no "adverse unacceptable impact" would be resulted. How did he define "adverse unacceptable impact"? We requested the Government to update HKPSG, and the reply was that the update has been conducted on an ongoing basis. What is the result of the updating work? While an update of HKPSG in 2009 had led to the deletion of the population-based planning standard for public market, another update in 2014 had resulted in a reduction in the number of parking spaces. All these are ridiculous changes. Why did the authorities cut down on the supply of parking spaces? Despite the increasing number of vehicles over the years, the authorities have cut down on the supply of parking spaces instead. This is where the problem lies …

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up and said someone took pictures in the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please be seated. Let me remind Members that no pictures can be taken in the Chamber.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Therefore, I hope that Members … Earlier on, I expressed resentment against Mr LEUNG's remarks and corrected him. Likewise, just now, he has corrected an irregularity. Going back to the issue of parking spaces, I hope that Members would make efforts to solve the problem of insufficient parking spaces.

I think the purpose of updating the standard of parking spaces in HKPSG in 2014 is to make good use of spaces and resources. Unfortunately, as a result of "dual reduction", there is currently an acute shortage of parking spaces. If there are long queues waiting for parking spaces in the new developments, I think members of the public will cast serious doubt on the existing planning policy and even the housing policy. By then, they will not simply express views, but will also doubt about the relevant policies and approaches.

2372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

Therefore, I hope that the bureau concerned will, in the light of this motion, expeditiously conduct a review of HKPSG to see if there is any irregularity. If there is, I urge that an updating should be made without delay and assistance from other bureaux should be sought.

With these remarks, President, I again express my gratitude to all Members.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr CHAN Han-pan, as amended by Ms Alice MAK, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Frankie YICK and Mr Andrew WAN, be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016 2373

Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the motion as amended.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun abstained.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted for the motion as amended.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, 23 were in favour of the motion as amended and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 23 were in favour of the motion as amended and 7 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion as amended was passed.

2374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 December 2016

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday 14 December 2016.

Adjourned accordingly at 3:34 pm.