Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the Eastern District Council Date: 29

Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the Eastern District Council

Date: 29 September 2020 (Tuesday) Time: 2:30 pm Venue: Eastern District Council Conference Room

Present Time of Arrival Time of Departure (pm) (pm) Ms CHAU Hui-yan 2:30 end of meeting Mr WONG Chun-sing, Patrick 2:30 end of meeting Mr KU Kwai-yiu 2:30 end of meeting Mr HO Wai-lun 2:35 end of meeting Mr NG Cheuk-ip 2:30 end of meeting Mr LEE Yue-shun 2:30 end of meeting Ms LEE Ching-har, Annie 2:30 4:00 Ms ISHIGAMI LEE Fung-king, Alice 2:30 end of meeting Mr YUEN Kin-chung, Kenny 2:30 5:50 Mr CHOW Cheuk-ki 2:45 end of meeting Ms WEI Siu-lik 2:30 5:15 Mr CHUI Chi-kin 2:30 end of meeting Mr CHEUNG Chun-kit 2:30 5:15 Mr CHEUNG Kwok-cheong 2:35 5:48 Mr LEUNG Siu-sun, Patrick 2:30 end of meeting Ms LEUNG Wing-sze 4:00 end of meeting Mr KWOK Chi-chung 2:30 end of meeting Mr KWOK Wai-keung, JP 2:34 4:00 Mr CHAN Ka-yau, Jason 2:30 end of meeting Mr CHAN Wing-tai 2:30 end of meeting Ms CHAN Po-king 2:35 end of meeting Mr MAK Tak-ching 2:30 end of meeting Ms FU Kai-lam, Karrine 2:35 end of meeting Ms TSANG Yan-ying 2:30 end of meeting Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Bull 2:30 end of meeting Ms WONG Yi, Christine 2:38 end of meeting Mr PUI Chi-lap, James 2:30 end of meeting Dr CHIU Ka-yin, Andrew (Vice-chairman) 2:30 end of meeting Mr CHOI Chi-keung, Peter 2:35 end of meeting Mr CHENG Tat-hung 2:35 end of meeting Mr LAI Chi-keong, Joseph (Chairman) 2:30 end of meeting Ms LAI Tsz-yan 2:30 end of meeting

Ms TSE Miu-yee 2:40 end of meeting Mr NGAI Chi-ho, Derek 2:30 end of meeting Mr SO Yat-hang 2:45 5:15

In Regular Attendance (Government Representatives)

Mr CHAN Sheung-man, Simon, JP District Officer (Eastern), Eastern District Office Miss NGAI Lai-ying, Angora Assistant District Officer (Eastern) 1, Eastern District Office Mr LO Cheuk-lun, Rayson Assistant District Officer (Eastern) 2, Eastern District Office Ms YAU Sin-man Acting District Commander (Eastern District), Hong Kong Police Force Miss LEE Sin-man Chief Manager/Management (Hong Kong Island and Islands), Housing Department Mr AU Siu-fung, Kelvin Chief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport Department Mr POON Ping-yeung, Peter District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Eastern), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr LUK Chi-kwong Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LEE Pui-yee, Winly District Leisure Manager (Eastern), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr CHAO Ka-man, Stanley Senior Liaison Officer (1), Eastern District Office Ms WONG Sze-man, Queenie Senior Liaison Officer (2), Eastern District Office Mr KWAN Yu-keung Senior Liaison Officer (3), Eastern District Office Mr LEUNG Kin-tak, Kenneth Acting Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Eastern District Office

In Attendance (Government Representatives)

Ms LAI Yin-yu Assistant Police Community Relations Officer (Youth Engagement) (Eastern District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr SZETO Yung Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator, Eastern District Police Community Relations Office, Hong Kong Police Force

Secretary

Ms NG Yan-mei, Monie Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Eastern District Office

Action Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed all Members and government representatives to the meeting. He welcomed Mr Simon CHAN, JP, District Officer (Eastern) (DO(E)), Miss Angora NGAI, Assistant District Officer (Eastern) 1, Mr Rayson LO, Assistant District Officer (Eastern) 2, Mr Stanley CHAO, Senior Liaison Officer (1), Ms Queenie WONG, Senior Liaison Officer (2), Mr KWAN Yu-keung, Senior Liaison Officer (3) and Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Acting Senior Executive Officer (District Management) of the Eastern District Office (EDO), Ms YAU Sin-man, Deputy District Commander (Eastern District), Ms LAI Yin-yu, Assistant Police Community Relations Officer (Youth Engagement) (Eastern District), Mr SZETO Yung, Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator, Eastern District Police Community Relations Office of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), Miss LEE Sin-man, Chief Manager/Management (Hong Kong Island and Islands) of the Housing Department (HD), Mr Kelvin AU, Chief Transport Officer/Hong Kong of the Transport Department (TD) who succeeded Mr Kenneth MOK, Mr Peter POON, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Eastern) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), and Mr LUK Chi-kwong, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East) and Ms Winly LEE, District Leisure Manager (Eastern) of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) who succeeded Ms TAM Shiu- mei to the meeting.

2. The Chairman reminded Members to declare interests where necessary in accordance with Order 48 of the Standing Orders of the Eastern District Council (the Standing Orders).

I. Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the 5th Meeting of the Eastern District Council

3. The above draft minutes were confirmed without amendment.

3 Action II. Financial Position of the Eastern District Council Funds (EDC Paper No. 48/20)

4. The Secretary briefed Members on Paper No. 48/20.

5. The Secretary remarked that the “surplus funding from completed projects” under item 2b “Recreation and Sports Programmes of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department” of the Paper was at $2.19 million. It was the amount returned to the Facilities Management, Culture and Leisure Committee (FMCLC) under the Eastern District Council (EDC) by the LCSD upon the cancellation of activities scheduled between April and September due to the epidemic. Besides, only $2.2 million was allocated to the Working Group on Recreation, Sports, Arts and Culture Development (WGRSACD) under the FMCLC in the financial year 2020-21 (item 2d of the Paper), but the WGRSACD had recommended the funding approval for 12 activities (including activities of the Eastern District Cultural Festival 2020) requiring $4.3 million in total at its meeting on 14 September. Therefore, the WGRSACD would suggest that the FMCLC endorse the recommendation and allocate additional funding for the expenses incurred from the activities. If the FMCLC endorsed the recommendation, the $2.19 million returned by the LCSD would be allocated to the WGRSACD. The Secretary asked Members to note the arrangement.

6. Members noted the financial position of the above funds.

7. The Chairman asked the Vice-chairman to assist in handling the agenda items.

III. Report on the 5th Meeting of the Facilities Management, Culture and Leisure Committee (EDC Paper No. 49/20)

8. Mr CHUI Chi-kin, Chairman of the FMCLC, briefed Members on Paper No. 49/20.

9. Members noted the above report.

Action IV. Report on the 5th Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee (EDC Paper No. 50/20)

10. Mr Patrick LEUNG, Chairman of the Traffic and Transport Committee (TTC), briefed Members on Paper No. 50/20.

11. Members noted the above report.

V. Report on the 4th Meeting of the Food, Environment and Hygiene Committee (EDC Paper No. 51/20)

12. Mr CHEUNG Kwok-cheong, Chairman of the Food, Environment and Hygiene Committee, briefed Members on Paper No. 51/20.

13. Members noted the above report.

VI. Report on the Special Joint Meeting of the Food, Environment and Hygiene Committee and the Social Welfare and Elderly Committee (EDC Paper No. 52/20)

14. Mr MAK Tak-ching, Chairman of the Social Welfare and Elderly Committee, briefed Members on Paper No. 52/20.

15. Members noted the above report.

VII. Reports on the 4th and the 5th Meetings of the Planning, Works and Housing Committee (EDC Paper Nos. 53/20 and 54/20)

16. Mr KU Kwai-yiu, Vice-chairman of the Planning, Works and Housing Committee, briefed Members on Paper Nos. 53/20 and 54/20.

17. Members noted the above reports.

18. Mr Jason CHAN, Chairman of the Finance and Vetting Committee (FVC), said that he would like to brief Members on the tabled report of the FVC.

Action

19. The Vice-chairman asked Mr Jason CHAN to brief Members.

20. Members noted the tabled report of the FVC.

21. The Vice-chairman asked the DO(E) whether any information on the Government’s intention to consult the District Councils (DCs) on the Policy Address had been received.

22. The DO(E) responded that no information on the consultation arrangements had been received.

23. The Vice-chairman remarked that as the EDC was shouldering the expectation of the Eastern District residents to voice their views on the future district development, and so even if the Government did not take the initiative to consult the EDC, Members should take the initiative to express their views on situations in the Eastern District to relevant bureaux/departments (B/Ds). He said that he would join the Chairman to deal with the issue after the meeting and would like Members to provide their opinions then. He asked Members to note the arrangement.

24. Mr Bull TSANG said that the Policy Address had great impacts on the Eastern District. Although the Chairman and Vice-chairman remarked that the issue would be followed up after the meeting, he suggested that the Chairman should allow for one round of speaking for Members to express their views on the Policy Address for onward transmission to the Chief Executive by the DO(E) after consolidation.

25. Mr CHAN Wing-tai remarked that being the Vice-chairman of the Special Committee on Examining Police Enforcement and Operation (SCEPEO), he would like to learn from the DO(E) about the time the meetings of the SCEPEO could be convened. He would like to brief Members of the reports on the meetings of the SCEPEO at the EDC meetings like that of other Committees.

26. The Chairman expressed understanding of Members’ concerns and request as the Policy Address mentioned the enhancement of communication and collaboration between the DCs and B/Ds, which was a well-established practice. However, since the commencement of the current EDC term, not a single directorate officer had visited the Eastern District and met with Members. He remarked that he had been making continuous efforts to communicate with the DO(E) in order to expedite the arrangement. At present, decision should be made first as to whether the Policy Address should be discussed at the meeting.

Action

27. The DO(E) responded that the terms of reference of the SCEPEO had yet to be set out. If new terms of reference were proposed by the SCEPEO, the Government would be willing to make a study. Once the terms of reference had been confirmed, meetings could be convened.

28. The Chairman said that although the EDC had modified the name of the Committee from the Special Committee on Monitoring of Police Enforcement and Operation (SCMPEO) to the Special Committee on Examining Police Enforcement and Operation and had revised the terms of reference, the Government still ruled that the District Councils Ordinance (DC Ordinance) was not complied with. He would like the DO(E) to communicate with the Home Affairs Department (HAD) in order to provide the EDC with the suggestion on the revision.

29. The DO(E) responded that the Government had earlier on stated that the proposed revision submitted by the EDC in March did not comply with the DC Ordinance. He was of the view that after the communication with the EDC in the past few months, Members should have understood the functions of the DCs as stipulated in the DC Ordinance. He hoped that the EDC would further revise the terms of reference of the SCEPEO, and the Government would study the proposed revision after receipt as soon as possible.

30. Mr CHAN Wing-tai remarked that if the Government considered the terms of reference of the SCEPEO non-compliant with the DC Ordinance, it should provide Members with sufficient guidance on aspects such as legal, functions and so on in order to assist them in revising the terms of reference. He would like the HAD to discuss the terms of reference of the SCEPEO with the Chairmen and Vice-chairmen of the EDC and the SCEPEO, rather than repeatedly responding that the terms of reference did not comply with the DC Ordinance without any explanation. He would like the HAD to provide Members with guidance on revising the terms of reference of the SCEPEO.

31. Mr KU Kwai-yiu agreed to Mr CHAN Wing-tai’s view and hoped the HKPF would express goodwill by discussing the SCEPEO issue with the EDC. He said that a number of Committees (e.g. the TTC) required the attendance of HKPF representatives for their advice and information, but the failure of the HKPF to send representatives to meetings had deprived Members of the opportunity to obtain the information. He would like the DO(E) to co-ordinate with the HAD and the HKPF for the EDC.

Action 32. Mr Bull TSANG pointed out that the EDC had modified the name of the Committee from the SCMPEO to the SCEPEO and revised its terms of reference in January. It was already September but the DO(E) still claimed that the terms of reference of the SCEPEO did not comply with the DC Ordinance by making all kinds of excuses. He hoped that the DO(E) would honestly respond on whether the SCMPEO or the SCEPEO could not be established as long as the HKPF expressed opposition.

33. The DO(E) responded that the Government would not provide any template or guidance on the terms of reference of the SCEPEO. If the EDC would like the SCEPEO to be established, it would have to set out terms of reference that complied with the DC Ordinance. The EDO was also very willing to reflect Members’ wish to meet with the HAD and relevant B/Ds for discussion. Moreover, the DO(E) explained that the Government had not stated that the SCEPEO could not be established.

34. The Chairman would like the DO(E) to arrange for Members to meet with the HAD and relevant B/Ds to discuss the SCEPEO issue.

35. Mr CHUI Chi-kin remarked that the HAD only gave the same reply every time that the terms of reference of the SCEPEO did not comply with the DC Ordinance. He would like to learn in what ways the revised terms of reference did not comply with the Ordinance and he asked the DO(E) to give a clear illustration.

36. The DO(E) responded that after vetting the terms of reference revised by the EDC in March, relevant B/Ds considered it non-compliant with the DC Ordinance. However, the Government had no templates for Members’ reference. Neither had the EDC proposed any further revision on the terms of reference for the Government’s consideration since March. He said that he would be very willing to join if Members would like to have an exchange of views with the HAD.

37. Mr CHAN Wing-tai would like the DO(E) to arrange for the Chairmen and Vice-chairmen of the EDC and the SCEPEO to meet with the HAD and the HKPF as soon as possible in order to enable an exchange of views on the SCEPEO issue for all parties.

38. The Chairman said that the work of the HKPF was closely related to the daily life of the public, e.g. theft, drug trafficking, illegal road racing and illegal parking. Therefore, majority of the issues for discussion by the SCEPEO would be related to people’s livelihood rather than police brutality only. He would like the DO(E) to

Action facilitate the communication among the EDC, the HAD and relevant B/Ds in order to avoid misunderstandings.

39. Mr Bull TSANG asked the DO(E) whether the Home Affairs Bureau had sought the advice of the Department of Justice (DoJ) on the terms of reference proposed by the EDC and whether the DoJ opined that the terms of reference did not comply with the DC Ordinance. He quoted the case of Ms LAU Siu-lai as an example in which she was disqualified for her candidacy in the Legislative Council By-election by a Returning Officer and the Court’s eventual ruling that there was a lack of justice in the electoral procedures. He also hoped that the DO(E) would discuss the content of the SCEPEO with Members before further discussion with the HKPF.

40. The DO(E) responded that once the terms of reference of the SCEPEO had been confirmed to be compliant with the DC Ordinance, meetings could be convened. Relevant B/Ds, including the DoJ, had studied the terms of reference revised by the EDC in March. Besides, he noted that some Members would like to discuss with the EDO in the first place while some other Members would like to meet with the HAD and the HKPF at the same time. He asked the EDC to reach a consensus among Members first. The EDO would then make arrangements subject to the EDC’s wish as far as possible.

41. The Chairman hoped that the SCEPEO would be established as soon as possible so that Members could communicate with the HKPF on policing. He also said that whether Members would like to meet with the EDO first or to meet with the HAD and the HKPF at the same time could be discussed in detail later on.

42. The DO(E) responded that the EDO would make arrangements accordingly after Members had reached a consensus on the mode of meeting.

43. Mr CHAN Wing-tai would like the DO(E) to take the initiative to make an appointment with relevant B/Ds on behalf of the EDC for interested Members to join.

44. Mr LEE Yue-shun asked whether the DoJ had ruled that discussion of territory- wide law enforcement was in conflict with section 61 of the DC Ordinance and about the parts of the SCEPEO’s terms of reference being non-compliant with the DC Ordinance. He remarked that Members had to obtain the information before a revision could be made.

Action 45. The DO(E) said he noted that Members would like to discuss in detail the terms of reference with relevant B/Ds at the meeting. He further explained that the DC Ordinance stipulated that the functions of DCs mainly involved district matters. Issues such as law enforcement actions beyond district level were not compliant with the DC Ordinance.

46. Mr CHAN Wing-tai hoped that the DO(E) would propose a date for a formal meeting with relevant B/Ds, rather than an informal meeting or during a DC meeting. He would like to invite members of the legal profession or legal advisers to provide the EDC with legal advice, e.g. to provide the definition of “cross district”, etc.

47. Mr Bull TSANG hoped that the DO(E) would provide Members with the legal advice by the DoJ on the SCEPEO’s terms of reference in order to inform Members of the parts or diction not compliant with the DC Ordinance to facilitate the revision.

48. The Vice-chairman was of the view that the DO(E) had already noted Members’ views. He remarked that as Now TV News had reported in August about the Chief Secretary for Administration’s issuance of the latest internal guidelines on the operations of DCs to government departments, whether arrangements would be made according to Members’ views depended on whether the DO(E) could do so under the framework of the guidelines. He sincerely hoped that the DO(E) would provide any information for the discussion and sharing with Members.

49. The DO(E) responded that the study outcome of the Government was the consolidated overall study outcome after consulting various relevant B/Ds. He agreed that mutual communication among Members and relevant B/Ds would facilitate the establishment of the SCEPEO.

50. The Chairman hoped that a platform for mutual communication among Members and relevant B/Ds would be set up expeditiously. He and the Vice- chairmen of the EDC and the SCEPEO would follow up with the DO(E) to work out the date of meeting among Members and relevant B/Ds as soon as possible.

51. The Vice-chairman understood that some Members would like to follow up on the works projects mentioned in the Policy Address and there were also Members who would like to carry out relevant discussion during the meeting. Nevertheless, he was of the view that there might be insufficient time during the meeting and not all Members had the discussion materials available. Therefore, he would like to

Action deal with the issue after the meeting.

52. Mr Bull TSANG said that the Policy Address would be delivered on 14 October. He opined that if the issue was discussed during the meeting, the Secretariat could assist in recording the discussion in the minutes and forwarding it to the Chief Executive’s Office for follow-up. Therefore, he opined that it would be more appropriate to discuss the issue during the meeting. He asked the Chairman to allow Members to indicate whether they agree to openly discuss the Policy Address during the meeting by a show of hands.

53. The Chairman remarked that Mr Bull TSANG’s intention was very clear and he understood that Members would like to speak for the public as soon as possible. However, given the time constraint of the meeting, he hoped that Members would either express their views on various areas in the Policy Address, including education, welfare, healthcare, labour, etc., in writing after the meeting or carry out discussion after the meeting. The information would be submitted to the Secretariat for forwarding.

54. Mr KU Kwai-yiu asked the Chairman whether 45 minutes could be allocated for Members’ discussion on the Policy Address and he opined that it would be the best option. Nevertheless, if it was impossible, he would still respect the Chairman’s decision.

55. Mr Bull TSANG said that the Policy Address to be delivered on 14 October would be the first Policy Address in the sixth EDC term. He hoped that the elected Members could be given a few minutes to express their visions on the Policy Address in the meeting.

56. Mr Kenny YUEN asked whether it would be more appropriate to arrange for the ongoing discussion to be carried out under the Any Other Business (AOB) item of the agenda. He suggested that discussion should be carried out in accordance with the agenda.

57. The Chairman responded that there were already 2 to 3 agenda items for discussion under the AOB item. According to the Standing Orders, the Chairman could approve the introduction of a certain agenda item. Nevertheless, he respected Members’ intention. He asked the Vice-chairman to assist in continuing to handle the agenda items.

58. Ms Annie LEE hoped that discussion could be carried out in accordance with

Action the original agenda. She would not like a new agenda item to be introduced in a sudden manner.

59. The Vice-chairman responded that in view of the newly received suggestion of discussing the Policy Address from Mr Bull TSANG, he asked Members to vote on (i) whether the Policy Address should be openly discussed, and (ii) whether the open discussion, if agreed, should be carried out immediately or under the AOB item.

60. Mr CHENG Tat-hung was of the view that discussion should be carried out in accordance with the agenda. Even if it was agreed that the Policy Address should be open for discussion, the discussion should be carried out under the AOB item.

61. The Vice-chairman asked Members to vote on whether the Policy Address should be discussed.

62. After voting, there were 9 votes in favour, 25 abstentions and 0 against. As more than half of the votes were abstentions, the motion was not passed.

63. The Chairman concluded that Members’ intentions were clear, so the Policy Address would not be discussed at the meeting. However, Members could express their views in other forms, for instance, in writing, seminars and so on, if they would like to voice their expectations or requests about the Policy Address.

VIII. Follow-up on the Attendance Records of Government Bureaux/Departments for Meetings of the Eastern District Council and its Committees and Working Groups (EDC Paper No. 55/20)

64. The Vice-chairman briefed Members on Paper No. 55/20.

65. The DO(E) responded that the EDO noted the suggestion in the Paper and would assist in collecting and compiling relevant information for Members’ reference. He said that the attendance of B/D representatives at EDC meetings was subject to the manpower arrangement of the B/Ds concerned. He also quoted the case of some B/Ds as examples and said that they might be unable to attend EDC meetings due to emergencies or operations related to the epidemic. Nevertheless, the B/Ds would submit written replies in response to the agenda item to the EDC before the meeting.

Action 66. The Secretary said that the Secretariat would make arrangements in response to Members’ views. As it took time to search for the communication records between the Secretariat and various B/Ds, the Secretariat could first compile a draft spreadsheet for a committee for consideration by the Chairman, Vice-chairman and Members. Upon Members’ agreement to the draft spreadsheet, the Secretariat would also compile spreadsheets that recorded the attendance records of B/Ds for other committees.

67. The Chairman asked the Vice-chairman to assist in handling the agenda item.

68. The views and enquiries of various Members about the agenda item were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr Patrick WONG opined that the B/Ds were not operated by one man only and they could still send other representatives to the EDC meetings in case the responsible officers were unavailable for the meeting. He said that if the B/Ds did not send representatives to the EDC meetings, Members would be unable to communicate with them on the agenda items.

(b) Mr KU Kwai-yiu understood that the DO(E) and the Secretariat were not empowered to force the B/Ds to attend EDC meetings and could only invite their attendance at meetings on behalf of the EDC. He quoted the Education Bureau as an example and said that the Bureau had not sent any representatives to EDC meetings since last EDC term, which was entirely disrespectful to the EDC. He considered that little effect would be achieved even if the Bureau was condemned again, but he hoped that the attendance records of the B/Ds and their reasons of absence would be uploaded to the EDC website for public information.

(c) Mr HO Wai-lun supported the compilation of attendance records of the B/Ds and hoped that the records would be uploaded to the EDC website. He said that the public expected government officials to attend meetings to answer enquiries. The B/Ds could not discuss the agenda items with Members by providing written replies only. He further indicated that live broadcast of meetings was arranged for in the current EDC term and members of the public could learn about the B/Ds that were absent from the meetings by watching the live broadcasts.

(d) Mr CHUI Chi-kin said that the EDC had never come cross such situation

Action where the B/Ds were absent from EDC meetings simply because they didn’t like to attend. He was of the view that the duties of the B/Ds were to communicate with the EDC, and the agenda items could not be handled solely by correspondences. He supported the compilation of attendance records of the B/Ds and hoped that the EDC would consider lodging a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) regarding the frequent absence of B/Ds from meetings.

(e) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-cheong said that the absenteeism of B/Ds had spread from EDC Full Council meetings to various committee meetings under the EDC. He pointed out that many B/Ds had not sent representatives to meetings to answer enquiries about the matters arising from the agenda items of previous committee meetings. He considered that the B/Ds could not be forced to attend meetings even if the attendance records of the B/Ds were uploaded to the EDC website. Therefore, he suggested forming a working group to discuss the penalty for absence by officials or leaving the discussion to the relevant committees.

(f) Mr Bull TSANG said that he had been a member for many EDC terms and had never come across absenteeism of B/Ds in meetings. He was of the view that the Government had marginalised the DCs in every aspect after the current term was dominated by the pan-democratic camp. He quoted the Department of Health (DH), the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), etc. as examples to indicate that many B/Ds were often absent from EDC meetings. Therefore, he supported the suggestion in the Paper, which enabled the public to know about the avoidance by B/Ds to communicate with Members.

(g) Mr CHAN Wing-tai considered it unfair to the attending officials if some B/Ds did not attend the EDC meetings on the excuse that they could not find the time. He remarked that the FEHD and LCSD had sent representatives to every meetings and the HKPF had also sent representatives to meetings from time to time. He failed to understand the reasons for the EPD’s absenteeism and only written replies were provided. He said that some livelihood-related issues had to be discussed during the meeting and could not be solved simply by correspondences, otherwise the EDC could have dealt with all papers by circulation without holding a meeting. Such act also contravened the spirit of a representative government. He hoped the officials would endeavour to attend EDC meetings and step up communication with

Action Members to elucidate the issues.

(h) Ms Christine WONG said that every committee had different agenda items for discussion, and Members and B/Ds could also enhance communication by discussing different agenda items. She opined that the B/Ds had to clearly understand local issues, and Members could serve as the bridge between members of the public and the Government. It would be difficult for the B/Ds to understand public needs if they were always absent from EDC meetings. She hoped the HAD could instruct various B/Ds to endeavour to attend EDC meetings.

(i) Ms TSANG Yan-ying supported the compilation of attendance records of government officials. She indicated that since the commencement of the current term, the DH was always absent from EDC meetings without any communication with Members on the epidemic. She further indicated that telephone calls to the DH were unanswered, as a result, Members were unable to serve as a bridge between members of the public and the B/Ds. Besides, she agreed to upload the attendance records of B/Ds to the EDC website, so that members of the public would learn about the working attitude of the B/Ds. She also refuted the remarks of Secretary for Home Affairs that the DC was a playground. She said that all Members saw the EDC as a solemn council and hoped to serve as a bridge between members of the public and the B/Ds.

(j) Mr Derek NGAI strongly agreed with the suggestion. He was of the view that as the current EDC term had worked diligently, some B/Ds preferred to be absent from meetings for fear that they might be questioned by Members, on the other hand, some B/Ds were very active and attended every meetings. He indicated that Members were elected by the public and thus had to be responsible to the voters. Therefore, the EDC had to conduct meetings in a transparent manner, arrange for live broadcast of meetings and monitor the attendance rate of the B/Ds. He opined that government officials were also accountable to the Eastern District residents, therefore members of the public should be informed about their attendance rate.

(k) Mr CHENG Tat-hung agreed with the spirit of the Paper. He was of the view that the reasons for a B/D absence should be specified in the minutes of the meeting concerned for public information if it was absent from meeting. He indicated that the EDC had never come across the

Action absenteeism of B/Ds. Since the commencement of the current term, it was anticipated that B/Ds would be absent from EDC meetings on some politically sensitive issues. However, the EPD still preferred not to attend meetings for discussion on issues without political concerns, such as the recycling of plastics. He deemed it unacceptable and the EPD should be severely condemned. He considered that the compilation of attendance records for each committee could enable public access to the information and also serve as corroborating evidence when lodging a complaint with the Ombudsman or taking strong legal action.

(l) Mr James PUI indicated that the EPD had replied to the committee chairman concerned for its absence from the meeting because the relevant discussion paper was non-compliant with Section 61 of the DC Ordinance. He asked the DO(E) whether the compliance of papers with the DC Ordinance should be determined by the relevant B/Ds or the EDO.

(m) Mr LEE Yue-shun opined that the absenteeism of B/Ds in EDC meetings was a belittlement of public opinion. He was of the view that as the EDC was a consultative body with an objective to maintain stability, the B/Ds should communicate with Members who represented public opinion. Absence from the meetings suggested that the B/Ds paid little respect to public opinion. He agreed that the B/Ds should provide reasons for absence for the Secretariat’s record as well as for public information. He hoped the Secretariat would expedite the process.

(n) Ms CHAN Po-king was deeply disappointed at the absence of government officials at EDC meetings. She took as an example about her previous submission of a discussion paper on the Pilot Scheme on Collection and Recycling Services of Plastic Recyclable Materials - Eastern District. However, the EPD merely provided a written reply and was absent from the meeting. As a result, Members were unable to communicate with the EPD on the issue. She was of the view that the reluctance of B/Ds to communicate with Members hindered the improvement to their public services.

(o) Mr MAK Tak-ching supported the Paper and agreed to record the reasons for absence of the B/Ds. He asked the Chairman and Vice-chairman whether an impromptu motion should be moved on the clear aspiration expressed.

Action (p) The Vice-chairman said that as the Paper was prepared in haste, he had not specified in the Paper that the attendance records of B/Ds should be uploaded to the EDC website. However, he pointed out that the Paper also indicated that the attendance records should be submitted to the EDC periodically in the form of spreadsheet. Meeting papers were usually open documents and would be uploaded to the EDC website. He would follow up on the administrative arrangements with the Secretariat at a later time. In addition, he said that he had been an EDC member for 4 terms. During the social incidents in 2019, he had also submitted a paper to the EDC on the incident at MTR Tai Koo Station on 11 August for discussion at a meeting. However, as the pro-establishment camp left the meeting early, a quorum was not present. As a result, the meeting was adjourned and the paper could not be discussed. Nevertheless, the paper was still an official DC paper with written replies from the B/Ds. He indicated that although the DO(E) and the Secretariat had assisted the EDC in inviting the B/Ds to meetings on numerous occasions, many officials preferred to be absent from meetings without providing any reasons. Therefore it was necessary to compile attendance records of B/Ds. He was of the view that the problem lay in the uncooperative approach of the Government but not the inaction of the EDC.

(q) The Chairman said that Hong Kong had all along adopted the Western model of representative system, under which the Government was willing to communicate with the public and listen to public opinion. On the premise, the DC served as a platform to facilitate communication between the Government and the public. The current EDC term even set up “Eastern DC Live” to raise public awareness of the performances of B/Ds in the EDC. He hoped the B/Ds could attend EDC meetings actively and cooperate with Members. Apart from lodging a complaint with the Ombudsman as mentioned by Members, he also suggested reflecting Members’ views on the performances of B/Ds to the Civil Service Bureau.

69. The DO(E) noted Members’ views and responded that the EDO would follow up on the format of the attendance records of B/Ds with the Chairman and Vice- chairman after the meeting. However, given the heavy workload of the Secretariat, he asked for Members’ understanding and hoped Members would allow sufficient time for the compilation of the relevant records. In addition, he said that generally speaking, the Government would confirm with the relevant B/Ds regarding the compliance of the agenda items with the DC Ordinance.

Action 70. Mr James PUI indicated that the Paper involved a number of B/Ds but only the EPD said that the agenda item was non-compliant with the DC Ordinance. He asked the DO(E) to clarify whether the Government was operated as a whole.

71. Mr CHAN Wing-tai enquired whether the DO(E) could make the final decision if only one of the B/Ds concerned considered the agenda item non-compliant with the DC Ordinance.

72. Mr KU Kwai-yiu enquired whether the DO(E) was empowered to force the B/Ds to attend EDC meetings.

73. The DO(E) responded that as an agenda item might involve different aspects, the B/Ds concerned would make their own judgement with respect to their respective purview and co-ordination was also required. In addition, he said that the EDO and the Secretariat would invite B/Ds to attend meetings upon the EDC’s request, but they could not force the B/Ds to attend. He would also endeavour to encourage the B/Ds concerned to attend meetings.

74. The Chairman asked the Vice-chairman to conclude the agenda item.

75. The Vice-chairman indicated that many Members had given their support to and made suggestions on the Paper. The DO(E) had also clearly stated that he would complement with and assist in the compilation of attendance records of B/Ds. The EDC would allow sufficient time for compilation by the Secretariat, and would also consult Members on the sample spreadsheet of the attendance records of B/Ds and report the way the records were to be uploaded at the next meeting. In addition, as regards a Member’s question as to whether a motion should be moved on the agenda item, he was of the view that as the DO(E) had clearly expressed that he would handle the issue and take follow-up actions, there was no need to move a motion for the time being. He asked the Secretary to consolidate Members’ views after the meeting and discuss the compilation of the draft spreadsheet with the Chairman and Vice-chairman for Members’ consideration at the next meeting.

IX. Concern over Composition of Area Committees of Eastern District (EDC Paper No. 56/20)

76. Mr KU Kwai-yiu briefed Members on Paper No. 56/20.

77. Mr Stanley CHAO, Senior Liaison Officer (1) of the EDO responded that the

Action HAD had provided a written reply on the agenda item. He supplemented that the members of Area Committees (ACs) and DCs were constituted by different systems. AC members came from different walks of life and were appointed by the Government for a term of 2 years, whereas DC members were constituted by election and their terms of office differed from that of ACs. As stated in the written reply of the HAD, according to the existing mechanism, the Government made appointments to ACs on the basis of the merit of the persons concerned, taking into account factors such as a person’s ability, expertise, experience, integrity and commitment to public service, and with due regard to the functions and nature of business of ACs. The Government engaged suitable persons working or living in the respective areas who aspired to serve the community via various channels, e.g. the local communities, Mutual Aid Committees (MACs), owners’ committees, etc.

78. The views and enquiries of various Members about the agenda item were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr Derek NGAI pointed out that although ACs were formed in 1972 with a longer history than DCs, many residents were unfamiliar with ACs. He opined that the works of ACs were similar to that of DCs, but the members were not elected by the public. He viewed that ACs should be abolished. As regards the reasons the Government had not appointed EDC members of the current term to ACs, he was of the view that the Government was merely following the established principles of appointing members of the pro-establishment camp instead of basing on meritocracy.

(b) Mr CHENG Tat-hung said that ACs were formed in 1972 in the hope of canvassing local views to improve the administration, and should have been abolished after the DCs were established. Nevertheless, perhaps the Government used the appointments to recompense for political services or attract community leaders, ACs had existed to date. He pointed out that Members from the pan-democratic camp had already expressed their goodwill in an attempt to co-operate with community leaders for organising activities beneficial to the community. He was of the view that the appointment of AC members showed that the Government had blatantly ignored the goodwill of Members from the pan- democratic camp. Therefore, he suggested abolishing the AC system, otherwise the EDC should cease all funding allocation to ACs.

(c) Ms Christine WONG indicated that persons in her constituency had submitted almost 10 nominations, and the nominees included master’s

Action degree holders, professionals in the architectural, legal and education sectors, leaders with a focus on youth and members of owners’ committees. However, none of them were appointed. She considered that the selection mechanism was non-transparent at all as the selection criteria was not disclosed. All AC members appointed for the current term were from the pro-establishment camp. She enquired whether professionally-qualified persons not from the pro-establishment camp could not give advice to ACs. She requested the relevant B/Ds to give an account of the selection mechanism.

(d) Mr CHAN Wing-tai pointed out that the Government had repeatedly emphasised that the appointment of AC members was based on meritocracy. He remarked that many defeated candidates in the DC election were appointed to ACs, so he enquired whether those members were more meritorious than EDC members of the current term or other persons with high academic credentials or professional qualifications. He also noted that the pro-establishment Members of the current term were not appointed to ACs neither. He considered that Members should give unanimous support to the abolishment of ACs or the cessation of funding to ACs.

(e) Mr Jason CHAN noted that an AC member had run in the DC election previously as a candidate for the Oi Kwan Constituency in Wan Chai District, but was appointed as a member to the Hong Shing AC in the Eastern District for the current term. He doubted that the appointment was based on meritocracy. In addition, he said that after he had become a Member, a chairman of an owners’ corporation (OCs) expressed his hope to be appointed as a member to ACs and told him that the former EDC member would arrange for persons of different OCs to hold public offices in different organisations and obtain relevant titles. He requested the administration to explain the arrangement of the allocation of titles by the former EDC member. He indicated that ACs were merely recompenses for political services and considered that only persons with public support were influential. Therefore, he did not care whether he was appointed as an AC member.

(f) Mr MAK Tak-ching opined that ACs were merely recompenses for political services. The Government often appointed pro-establishment persons as AC members, such as the son of a public figure in Macao. Although he seldom attended AC meetings in the past, he still noticed that

Action the member concerned were often absent from AC meetings. He doubted that the appointment was based on meritocracy. He said that he had attended AC meetings twice and noted that the issues discussed at the meetings were the same as those discussed by the EDC, such as illegal parking, water seepage in buildings, etc., and the main speakers at the meeting were mostly Members or persons intended to run for DC election. Therefore, he doubted the effectiveness of the AC system. In addition, he also pointed out that it was with the support of ACs that the EDC of a past term had endorsed to earmark $100 million for the construction of the Eastern District Cultural Square at a remote location. He opined that even if ACs could not be abolished, the EDC should not allocate funding to ACs.

(g) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-cheong said the Hong Shing AC had once proposed to revise the green minibus routes but was opposed by local residents. He asked the DO(E) whether the Government would listen to the opinion of ACs or the EDC if they held opposing views.

(h) Mr CHUI Chi-kin considered that ACs were recompenses for political services.

(i) Mr KU Kwai-yiu said that ACs would discuss issues in the areas that were more particular, such as area development. However, he queried whether the Government was suggesting that EDC members of the current term lacked expertise, experience, integrity and commitment to public service by not appointing them to ACs. He was of the view that Members were unable to monitor the proper use of the funding of ACs if there was no participation from Members in ACs. As such, the EDC should not allocate any funding to ACs. In addition, he enquired whether the EDO would provide EDC papers to ACs as usual for their use and discussion.

(j) Mr LEE Yue-shun opined that ACs were set up with an objective to maintain stability and should long been abolished. He also considered that the written reply from the department was an insult to the elected EDC members and expressed his discontent with the reply. He was of the view that voters had elected EDC members of the current term based on meritocracy, but the Government had appointed 70-odd defeated candidates in the DC election as AC members.

Action (k) Mr Kenny YUEN indicated that he had served as a member of the North Point East AC for 2 years. The local personalities, such as school principals, had provided much advice at meetings and might be more familiar with the area than Members, but they might not necessarily run for DC election. In addition, although the issues discussed by ACs might overlap with that of the EDC, the views raised by the local personalities might differ from that of Members. Therefore, he considered the AC system an effective consultative body besides the DC. Furthermore, he pointed out that in fact only 3 persons from the pan-democratic camp were not re-appointed as AC members in the Eastern District, he asked Members not to prejudice against ACs.

(l) Mr Bull TSANG recalled that when Hong Kong was under British rule, members of the District Boards were appointed as ex-officio members of ACs. However, as all elected DC members of the current term were not appointed by the Government as AC members, he was of the view that the Government had completely denied something that was natural.

(m) Ms WEI Siu-lik expressed deep disappointment at the written reply of the HAD as it merely quoted the HAD’s reply to media enquiries contained in the Paper. She was of the view that the Government appointed pro- establishment persons as AC members because the current DC term was dominated by the pan-democratic camp and the Government had to balance the views from different sectors of the society. She said that although she did not oppose the Government’s attempt to balance diverse views in the society, she would like the Government to spell it out and should not belittle elected DC members as unmeritorious, as it would only deepen the rifts between two sides.

(n) The Vice-chairman supposed that the EDC was the first DC to discuss issues related to the composition of ACs. He said that in the past the Government had clearly indicated that ACs comprised elected DC members of the constituencies in the area. However, the Government had introduced voices that were contrary to public opinion to ACs since the current DC term was dominated by the pan-democratic camp. He further indicated that ACs were formed in 1972 and transformed into an appointment system co-existing with the elected DCs in 1979 after reviews and reforms. With a view to strengthen local communication, the AC members at the time were mainly members of the local OCs or owners’ committees, similar to the “neighbourhood committee” in

Action overseas countries. However, the Government had turned ACs into a tool for political suppression and crippled their functions. He expressed strong condemnation in that regard and opined that the Government’s action would only impel residents to request for the abolition of ACs.

(o) The Chairman stated that he had been an AC member for as long as 32 years since 1988. According to the Government’s criteria of appointment by merit, he had been regarded as a suitable person by the Government in terms of ability, expertise, experience, integrity and commitment to public service for the past 32 years. However, he had not been reappointed for the current year as the Government deemed that he lacked the above qualities, which led him to doubt the Government’s so-called “appointment by merit”. He urged the HAD to send representatives to the meeting, so as to explain the appointment criteria of AC members to Members in person.

79. The DO(E) and Mr Stanley CHAO of the EDO responded to the enquiries or views of Members as follows:

(a) The appointment of AC members were mainly taken up by the HAD. The HAD would take into considerations the knowledge and connections of the nominee concerned in the district and his/her expertise.

(b) Although ACs shared the same concern as the EDC on livelihood issues In respect of the scope, ACs mainly focused on livelihood issues at area level, while the EDC discussed or exchanged views on issues at the Eastern District level as a whole.

(c) The Government considered that the EDC had brought together many capable Members to express their views. Therefore, the Government would like to canvass more views from the local communities through other consultative bodies, such as OCs, MACs or local organisations. There was no direct relation between the appointment of AC members and the DC election.

(d) When the EDC and ACs held different views over the same livelihood issue, the relevant B/Ds would consolidate the views of all parties and make the most appropriate decision by according top priority to promoting and improving the local livelihood.

Action (e) In the past, some ACs would report on the relevant EDC agenda items or papers during AC meetings for AC members’ reference. The EDO respected the intention of those ACs. If the ACs would like to make references to the EDC’s discussions on relevant livelihood issues, the EDO would be willing to provide ACs with the information.

80. The views and enquiries of various Members about the department’s response were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr Peter CHOI asked about the reasons for the appointment of the Chairman as an AC member for more than 30 years if the Government had not appointed EDC members of the current term as AC members on the ground that it would like to canvass different views from the local communities. He questioned whether the past practice of the Government was incorrect and had to be rectified in the current term.

(b) Mr James PUI asked the Government to disclose its selection criteria, for example, whether the selection was based on a point system or the sector the nominees belonged to, so as to enhance the transparency of the appointment system of ACs. He was of the view that there was no need to further discuss the reasons EDC members of the current term were not appointed and that the EDC merely had to cease the funding allocation to ACs.

(c) Ms Christine WONG said that three of the nominees to the AC within her constituency were members of owners’ committees. She enquired about the reasons they were not appointed.

(d) Mr CHAN Wing-tai noted that the EPD had sent representatives to AC meetings to receive questions. He enquired whether it was a waste of human resources if officials had to attend both EDC and AC meetings. He also resented that the Government appointed defeated candidates in the DC election who resided outside the Eastern District and lacked intimate knowledge of the local community as members to the ACs in the Eastern District.

(e) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-cheong enquired about the side the Government would take to action if the EDC and ACs held opposing views over the same issue.

Action (f) Mr Kenny YUEN enquired whether it was the Government’s new policy that all DC members of the current term were not appointed as AC members, and whether the Government would also cease appointing DC members as AC members in future so as to transform ACs into another consultative body targeting other local communities.

(g) Mr KU Kwai-yiu said that the ACs should not be allowed to discuss EDC papers if there was no Member participation in the ACs. He was of the view that the EDC should not provide its papers to the ACs for discussion or reference.

81. The DO(E) responded that the Government appointed other members of the local communities as AC members in order to canvass more views from the local communities without any implication that either the past practice was wrong or was it a new policy of the Government. The HAD had provided the various considerations in relation to the appointment of AC members in its written reply, and such considerations were difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, the Government would take into account a number of factors in appointing the most appropriate members of the local communities as AC members in considering each nomination. Given the numerous nominations, not all appropriate nominees could be appointed as AC members. He also reiterated that there was no direct relation between the appointment of AC members and the DC election. The Government would consider the views of all parties before reaching a conclusion that produced the best result if Members and AC members held different views on issues. In addition, as EDC papers were open documents and available online for public access, the ACs could also discuss the open documents of EDC. If the relevant agenda items required explanations by B/Ds at the meeting, the B/Ds concerned would also attend AC meetings as needed.

82. Mr Kenny YUEN suggested that the Government establish the appointment arrangement as a new policy, if not already done, so as to canvass different views from the local communities. However, he also suggested that the Government consider allowing Members to attend AC meetings on a rotational basis.

83. Mr James PUI further enquired about the ways to make a fair appointment among talents with comparable capabilities if the selection criteria was not quantified. He also considered that if the more opinions the better, the spirit of representative government would be lost.

84. The DO(E) responded that the appointment of AC members differed from the

Action election of DC members. The Government would consider various aspects in the appointment of AC members, but it was difficult to quantify the specific considerations.

85. The Chairman asked Members to note the department’s reply.

X. Any Other Business XI. Date of the Next Meeting

86. The 7th EDC Meeting would be held at 2:30 pm on 1 December 2020 (Tuesday).

87. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm.

EDC Secretariat November 2020