Minutes of Special Meeting of the Southern District Council (2020-2023)

Date : 12 February 2020 Time : 2:30 p.m. Venue : Near Ocean Court, 3 Aberdeen Praya Road

Present: Mr LO Kin-hei (Chairman) Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN (Vice Chairman) Mr CHAN Hin-chung Mr CHAN Ping-yeung Ms CHAN Yan-yi Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun Ms LI Shee-lin Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael Mr POON Ping-hong Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus Mr YIM Chun-ho Mr YU Chun-hei, James Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany Agenda Item 1: Discussion of Aberdeen Jockey Club General Out-patient Clinic (GOPC) as Designated GOPC (SDC Paper No. 10/2020) [2:30 p.m. - 3:39 p.m.]

The Chairman said that in view of the emergence of the Severe Respiratory Disease associated with a Novel Infectious Agent (COVID-19), the Southern District Office (SDO) was unable to provide secretariat services and venue for this special meeting. Therefore, this meeting was held near Ocean Court, 3 Aberdeen Praya Road.

2. The Chairman continued that this agenda item, with details at Annex 1 to SDC Paper No. 10/2020, had been put forward by Mr CHAN Hin-chung and Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus. They had requested to hold an SDC special meeting to discuss matters relating to the Government’s decision on including Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC” for COVID-19. In view of the grave concerns of the general public on the above matters and the urgency of the issue, approval had been given for holding this special meeting. The written reply from the Food and Health Bureau (FHB) and the Hospital Authority (HA), i.e. Annex 2 to SDC Paper No. 10/2020, had previously been emailed to members.

3. The Chairman asked Mr CHAN Hin-chung to briefly introduce the agenda item.

4. Mr CHAN Hin-chung briefed members on the agenda item as follows:

(i) the department concerned had hastily included Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC” for COVID-19 without prior consultation with the Council and briefing residents on the situation. This arrangement was inappropriate. Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC was in close proximity to residential buildings and Shek Pai Wan Lift Tower frequented by residents in Shek Pai Wan Estate and Yue Kwong Chuen. There was a high people flow in the neighbourhood of Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC; and (ii) a multitude of evidence indicated that COVID-19 was highly contagious. Despite that the department concerned had indicated that COVID-19 was transmitted primarily through either respiratory droplets or close contact over a short distance of one or two metres, it was suspected that the COVID-19 cases of Cheung Hong Estate had been attributable to the transmission of the virus through pipes across floors instead of transmission through either respiratory droplets or close contact over a short distance. In this light, the department concerned had yet to fully understand the modes of transmission of COVID-19, and it was highly possible that the virus could be

transmitted via air. He stressed that he did not mean to object to setting up a “designated GOPC”, but was of the view that the department concerned should have consulted the Council and residents first before determining the sites for “designated GOPCs”.

5. The Chairman asked Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus to briefly introduce the agenda item.

6. Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus briefed members on the agenda item as follows:

(i) many residents had expressed objection to the inclusion of Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC”. In addition to their worries about close proximity to residential buildings and high people flow in the vicinity of the proposed site, they were sceptical about the effectiveness of the Government’s anti-epidemic work in the community. For instance, a lack of transparency in the notification mechanism of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases would prevent building management bodies from taking immediate follow-up actions, as well as SDC members from receiving prior notice of the selected site for “designated GOPC”; (ii) the COVID-19 cases of Cheung Hong Estate were very likely a sign of COVID-19 outbreak in the community. As the transport hub of the Southern District, Aberdeen was populous, it was worried that residents would be infected when travelling in public transport means to and from the “designated GOPC” or passing through the “designated GOPC”, thereby triggering community outbreak of COVID-19 in the Southern District; and (iii) he expressed disappointment at the department concerned for failing to send representatives to attend this meeting. As residents in the Southern District had grave concerns over this issue, it was hoped that the department concerned could squarely address local aspirations. The Government was requested to temporarily withdraw the plan to include Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC” for COVID-19, and enhance its anti-epidemic and planning work in the community.

7. The Chairman said that three provisional motions had been received before the meeting. The three motions were as follows:

(i) Provisional Motion 1 (Moved by Mr CHAN Hin-chung and Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus and seconded by Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany)

“This Council strongly condemns the Government for not doing enough in epidemic prevention without complete closure of the border control points and introduction of compulsory quarantine of suspected cases, which resulted in the worsening epidemic of Wuhan pneumonia and further spreading in the community. The Council objects to the inclusion of Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC” in a hasty manner without consulting the community. The Council requests that:

1. HA should immediately abandon the plan and identify another public facility at a far distance from the town centre and the people as a “designated GOPC”;

2. HA should as soon as possible inform residents of the details of the site selection criteria for “designated GOPCs”, specific procedures for handling suspected cases by GOPCs, protection and quarantine facilities, disinfection arrangements, etc. so as to allay public concerns; and

3. the SDO and the Department of Health (DH) should immediately rectify the confusion in the dissemination of epidemic information and strengthen the promotion of epidemic prevention and health information in buildings.”

(ii) Provisional Motion 2 (Moved by Ms CHAN Yan-yi and Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany and seconded by Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus)

“The Council strongly condemns the Government for the failure in handling the two confirmed cases in the Southern District and the notification mechanism of confirmed cases as a whole. As a result, the patients of the two confirmed cases have shown symptoms at earlier times but the relevant departments and stakeholders were not notified, which increased the risk of community outbreak. The Council requests that:

1. the Government should immediately improve the notification mechanism of suspected and confirmed cases; and

2. the Government should immediately notify SDO, District Council (DC) members, building management offices and owners’ corporations when there are suspected or confirmed cases for the parties concerned to immediately adopt inspection, cleansing or quarantine measures to prevent community outbreak.”

(iii) Provisional Motion 3

(Moved by Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun and Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and seconded by Mr CHAN Ping-yeung)

“The SDC objects to the use of the Ocean Park’s hotel as a quarantine centre or quarantine camp because the Marriott Hotel at the main entrance of the Ocean Park and Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village are just separated by one road, and the hotel is close to the elderly homes of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals and Po Leung Kuk. If the hotel was to be used as a quarantine facility, it would not be useful in preventing the spread of the epidemic, but would cause unnecessary panic in the community.”

8. The Chairman invited Ms CHAN Yan-yi and Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany to briefly introduce Provisional Motion 2.

9. Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany briefly introduced Provisional Motion 2 as follows:

(i) on the day before this meeting (i.e. 11 February 2020), the departments concerned announced two confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the Southern District, which were the 44th case involving a patient living in Tung Ping House, Lei Tung Estate, and the 46th case in Tin Chak House, Tin Wan Estate. According to the information on the website of the Centre for Health Protection (CHP), the dates of onset of the two patients were 1 and 3 February 2020 respectively, which were eight and ten days before the respective dates of announcement. During that period, the Government did not notify the organisations and departments concerned, including the relevant buildings, SDO, DC members of the constituencies concerned and estate management offices. Hence, they had no knowledge of the cases. After the confirmed cases were announced by the Government, the residents of the estates showed concerns but DH had not notified the relevant departments so far, which revealed that communication was highly ineffective. Apart from this, the departments concerned did not notify the Housing Department (HD) and the DC members of the constituencies concerned after the two confirmed cases were announced, and the information on the website was not updated in a timely manner. She and the estate management offices had received many enquiries and the information was confusing; and (ii) during the eight to ten days between the dates of onset and the dates of announcement of the confirmed cases, the patients had access to and from the estate repeatedly but cleansing or disinfection of the affected areas to which the patients had accessed were not enhanced due to the lack of notification. She criticised the departments concerned for disregarding residents’ safety. As COVID-19 was highly infectious,

she asked DH to strike a balance between the privacy of suspected patients and public interests, review their guidelines and actively and promptly notify the departments concerned of the information about suspected and confirmed cases.

10. Ms CHAN Yan-yi briefly introduced Provisional Motion 2 as follows:

(i) as the family members of the patient of the confirmed case at Tung Ping House, Lei Tung Estate had reported the case to the DC member of the constituency well before the government announced relevant information, the estate was able to take early action to step up cleansing and disinfection of the building; and (ii) she criticised the government that its notification mechanism for COVID-19 epidemic was very slow and had failed to provide the latest information in a timely manner. Announcement of suspected cases was always delayed, and cases were made known to the public only after they had been confirmed. She urged that the Government should immediately notify the relevant departments and stakeholders of suspected cases once they were identified in the future, and that a consolidated list of suspected cases, with information on the building where the person suspected of infection was living, should be compiled, so that the relevant departments and organisations could enhance cleansing and disinfection as early as possible, and eventually minimise the possibility of community outbreak.

11. The Chairman asked Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun to briefly introduce Provisional Motion 3.

12. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that Sai Kung DC (SKDC) had passed a provisional motion at its meeting on 11 February 2020 urging the Government to use Shek Kong Barracks, Disneyland’s hotels, Ocean Park’s hotel, and marine cruises as quarantine facilities for COVID-19. He pointed out that since the Ocean Park’s hotel was adjacent to Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village and elderly homes, it would cause panic among residents nearby if the hotel was used as a quarantine facility. He objected to this proposal and therefore moved Provisional Motion 3 for discussion at this meeting. Nevertheless, he had no objection to using other sites proposed by SKDC as quarantine facilities. Yet, according to newspaper reports, Mr FAN Gary Kwok-wai who moved the above motion, said that he would move the motion again but would remove the Ocean Park’s hotel as a proposed location for quarantine facilities.

13. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun expressed strong opposition against using the Ocean Park’s hotel as a quarantine facility for COVID-19. The Ocean Park was close to residential

6 areas and was only about tens of meters away from Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village. It was also close to Shouson Hill area, Shouson Hill, hospitals and elderly homes, etc. Therefore, it was not feasible to use the Ocean Park’s hotel as a quarantine facility. On the contrary, he had suggested using Disneyland’s hotels as quarantine facilities. Disneyland’s hotels were at least some ten kilometers away from the nearest residential buildings, and therefore could provide sufficient distance between residential buildings and quarantine facilities. He believed that the above proposal was feasible and emphasised that the suggestion of using Disneyland’s hotels as quarantine facilities did not stem from selfishness. He had no objection to using Shek Kong Barracks, Disneyland’s hotels and marine cruises as quarantine facilities for COVID-19 as proposed by SKDC, but reiterated his strong opposition to the proposal of using the Ocean Park’s hotel as a quarantine facility.

14. The Chairman said that this meeting was an official meeting of SDC. As SDO was unable to provide a meeting venue due to the Government’s working guidelines on epidemic prevention, therefore the meeting was held outdoors. The Chairman continued that FHB, HA and DH had been invited to attend the meeting, but they said that they could not send representatives to attend the meeting.

15. The Chairman asked members to raise comments or enquiries.

16. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) she expressed strong dissatisfaction with the government for including Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC” for COVID-19, and disregarding the feelings of the public. As the centre of the Southern District, Aberdeen was frequented by huge flows of people. Since the site was too close to residential buildings, it was likely to cause panic among the residents. The Government had not consulted the DC beforehand, and members only learnt about the decision from newspapers; and

(ii) she pointed out that there was still room for improvement with the notification mechanism of COVID-19. Members only obtained case information from the Internet or voluntary reports from patients of confirmed cases. There was a lack of coordination and communication among the relevant departments, the respective DCs and other departments, including HD. She proposed that a district epidemic prevention task force be set up to expedite the dissemination of epidemic information and avoid panic in the community. She also suggested that the Government should allocate additional resources to carry out district epidemic prevention work as soon as

possible, especially in areas such as Tin Wan Estate where there was a confirmed case. Otherwise, public grievances would aggravate gradually.

17. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he emphasised that before deciding on the sites of quarantine centres or “designated GOPCs” for COVID-19, especially if it involved densely-populated areas, the relevant departments should consult the DC concerned and explain the situation to the public, including whether there were no other suitable places as alternatives. In addition, after deciding on the site, the Government was required to explain to the public how the nearby residents would be protected against infection, such as the arrangements for cleansing and disinfection. However, without consulting the public, the Government made haste to include Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC” for COVID-19. This arrangement was very questionable; (ii) he criticised the Government for its ineffective notification mechanism for COVID-19 epidemic and slow information dissemination, which was in dire need of improvement. He pointed out that while most members of the public did not obtain the latest epidemic information from the Government, DC members were not able to get the latest updates from the Government. If no improvement was made, the Government could hardly regain public confidence in its epidemic prevention work; and (iii) he had suggested at an SDC meeting that SDO should liaise with bodies such as building management offices and remind them to carry out epidemic prevention and cleansing measures for their buildings in a thorough manner. He would like to know whether SDO had followed it up or not.

(Post-meeting note: The Building Management Liaison Team of SDO had written to relevant organisations on 24 January 2020.)

18. Ms CHAN Yan-yi raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) SDO would immediately inform members upon receiving information on the confirmed cases of COVID-19, but SDO released the information at a time after members of the public had obtained the information from other channels, she queried the effectiveness of the current notification mechanism. She hoped that the Government, DH and all District Offices (DOs) could set up a liaison team to liaise with the respective DOs before DH announced the confirmed cases to the public, so that DOs could inform the DC members of the constituencies concerned as soon as

possible, in order to reduce the time members spent on verifying the accuracy of information of confirmed cases. Furthermore, it had taken too much time for notification of confirmed cases under DH’s notification mechanism, she hoped that the department could improve the notification mechanism; and (ii) as there were suspected cases of COVID-19 infection across different floors of a building block in Cheung Hong Estate, she requested DH to announce the flats of the building blocks in which patients of confirmed cases were living, so that the households above and below the affected units could respond as soon as possible, including conducting inspection on whether there was seepage and gas leakage of the pipes in the households.

19. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he pointed out that 17 members having the mandate of the people from different political parties with different political stances attended this meeting, which revealed that the situation was serious. While members were fighting against the epidemic, SDO was unable to provide a meeting venue because of the Government’s working guidelines on epidemic prevention, the meeting could only be held next to a tennis court, which was tantamount to the Tennis Court Oath in France to raise the curtain of the French Revolution. He urged the Hong Kong Government to learn from this experience and review whether it was appropriate not to provide a meeting venue to SDC amid the epidemic; (ii) he pointed out that there was a serious lack of transparency in deciding on the list of “designated GOPCs”, the Government was callous and failed to conduct any prior consultation with DC. He urged the Government to abandon the plan of including Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as one of the “designated GOPCs” and requested the authorities to give an account of the parties having decided on the list of “designated GOPCs” and requested them to attend future meetings to explain the details; and (iii) he pointed out that DC members could only obtain epidemic information from other members or online channels. The general public even doubted whether the information disseminated by members was “fabricated news”. He emphasised that the responsibility of verifying the truthfulness of epidemic information did not lie in DC members, rather the Government should be responsible for disseminating accurate information. He criticised the Government for adopting an unsatisfactory approach for disseminating epidemic information, and requested the Government to develop a new platform for central dissemination of epidemic information as soon as possible. Currently, the information disseminated was not comprehensive. While he understood that the privacy of patients should be protected, he was worried that if

information, such as the addresses of the patients of confirmed cases, was too general, it would easily give rise to panic in the community.

20. The Chairman said that this meeting was the first special meeting of SDC, but SDO was unable to provide a meeting venue because of the Government’s working guidelines on epidemic prevention, therefore this meeting was held outdoors.

21. Mr CHAN Ping-yeung said that the epidemic notification mechanism was ineffectual, even though DH did not disseminate the epidemic information by districts or electoral constituencies, a district-based information network could be set up to build up a communication channel among members and private clinics in the district. He had made the above proposal at DC and committee meetings but the proposal had not been taken forward so far. He pointed out that the patient of the 44th COVID-19 case had visited a private clinic at Main Street, Ap Lei Chau. In addition to the slow information dissemination, the Government had not disclosed whether the doctor had received testing for COVID-19. As the DC member of the constituency concerned, he was unable to obtain the information either. If there was a district-based information network, it would provide convenience to DC members to contact the private clinics in their constituencies.

22. Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he pointed out that the Government had neither allayed the concerns on “designated GOPCs” raised by the public as well as members with the mandate of the people nor actively responded to COVID-19 epidemic. He reiterated that it was not acceptable to set up “designated GOPCs” or quarantine centres near residential buildings, crowded places or traffic hubs. He requested the withdrawal of the decision of including Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as one of the “designated GOPCs” as well as providing details to the public, including the criteria for site selection, the arrangements for the operation of clinics, the arrangements for dealing with confirmed cases, such as the arrangements for transfer of the patients of confirmed cases to hospitals, etc. In the absence of the above information, it was hard to set up a “designated GOPC” in Aberdeen town centre, and queried that GOPCs served similar functions as quarantine centres, the patients who were arranged to seek medical consultation at “designated GOPCs” might increase the possibility of community outbreak, which would affect the effectiveness of epidemic prevention in the community; and (ii) there was a lack of clear government guidelines to educate the persons with COVID-19 symptoms to act responsively. He suggested the Government provide

clear guidelines, such as whether the patients with symptoms were required to stay at home to wait for admission to the hospital by ambulancemen. He considered that timely cleansing could reduce the possibility of community outbreak.

23. Mr YU Chun-hei, James raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he was confused as to why the Government had included Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC”. The purpose of setting up “designated GOPCs” should be to prevent a community outbreak of COVID-19. However, since Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC was located at the town centre of the Southern District, confirmed patients might spread the virus on the way to the “designated GOPC”, thereby increasing the risk of community outbreak. He urged the Government to abandon the plan of including Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC” and to fully consult SDC before deciding on the site of “designated GOPC”, and the “designated GOPC” or quarantine centre to be set up must be located far away from residential areas; (ii) he was discontented with the notification mechanism for COVID-19. A DC member had asked DH about an individual confirmed case, while DH had denied the case, the Government had made a public announcement on the case within an hour later. He questioned whether the Government was unable to notify the DC member immediately or had deliberately covered up the case to hide the fact from the member. If the Government deliberately covered up cases or misled DC members, members would not be able to disseminate information on the epidemic to the public immediately, or might disseminate wrong information. As a result, not only members of the public would not know the actual situation, it would also be difficult for members of the public and organisations to step up cleansing and disinfection efforts immediately in the emergence of confirmed cases in the community, thereby increasing the risk of community outbreak. He criticised government departments that they should not only disseminate information at press conferences, but also notify members of the constituencies concerned and organisations such as the building management offices of suspected and confirmed cases early, so that they could inform residents and step up cleansing works as soon as possible; and (iii) regarding the motion on including the Ocean Park’s hotel as quarantine facilities for combating COVID-19 carried by SKDC, he considered that SKDC did not understand the actual situation. Both the Ocean Park’s hotel and Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC were in close proximity to residential areas. If the Ocean Park’s hotel was included as quarantine facilities of COVID-19, it would only exacerbate the outbreak of the epidemic in the community. He expressed strong objection against the proposal and

hoped that all DC Chairmen would enhance communication to prevent the recurrence of similar situations.

24. Mr POON Ping-hong said that the unsatisfactory performance of the Government in handling matters relating to “designated GOPCs”, quarantine policies and notification mechanism for combating COVID-19 had caused panic in the community. A confirmed patient had sought medical treatment at a private clinic in Wah Kwai Estate on 3, 7 and 10 February 2020. Residents were worried because they had no knowledge of the case. DC members had sought to investigate the situation with resource constraints and had voluntarily contacted various stakeholders to remind relevant organisations and parties to carry out cleansing and disinfection work, while the Government, which should have a full grasp of information, had not notified members about the situation so far. When members of the public were unable to grasp the actual situation of the epidemic, it would only create panic in the community and aggravate the vicious cycle of panic buying. He urged government departments to alleviate public concern over the epidemic and restore public confidence by stepping up cooperation and communication with SDC without bulldozing through anti-epidemic measures.

25. Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) she pointed out that the unsatisfactory notification mechanism for COVID-19 could cause serious consequences. Taking the 44th case in Tung Ping House in Lei Tung Estate and the 46th case in Tin Chak House in Tin Wan Estate as an example, there were eight to ten days between the dates of onset and the dates of notification by the Government. The two confirmed patients who had sought medical treatment at Main Street, Ap Lei Chau and Wah Kwai Estate respectively might have taken public transport. With high pedestrian flow and traffic flow in the district, the cover-up and failure in the notification of the epidemic by the Government would likely lead to a community outbreak; (ii) she pointed out that the relevant departments had not notified stakeholders of the information on the confirmed cases. Citing the confirmed case in Tin Chak House in Tin Wan Estate as an example, except DH, other stakeholders included she, as the member of the constituency concerned, HD and SDO had no detailed information of the case, such as the number of household members, whether the co-living relatives were under quarantine or where they were quarantined, and whether other residents living on the same floor or in the same building should be quarantined. She and HD had received a lot of enquiries, but neither she nor HD was able to respond to residents’ enquiries due to the lack of information;

(iii) she pointed out that the lack of appropriate arrangements in respect of the epidemic by the Government had caused confusion among the public. For example, it was unknown whether other residents living on the same floor or in the same building with the confirmed patients should be quarantined. She pointed out that the residents of Tin Chak House had been requested by their employers to self-quarantine for 14 days and urged the relevant government departments to formulate relevant guidelines; and (iv) she pointed out that the environmental hygiene condition of the venue for this meeting was unsatisfactory and hoped that future meetings would be conducted in SDC Conference Room.

26. Mr YIM Chun-ho raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) the COVID-19 epidemic had caused public panic. Due to the lack of information, members of the public had snapped up goods and daily necessities. Members could only make an effort to deploy local resources to alleviate public concerns and cater for the needs of the community based on limited information such as the residences of the confirmed patients or the areas which were running out of supplies; (ii) he pointed out that government departments had performed unsatisfactorily in the dissemination of information on the epidemic. The resident of the Southern District, once confirmed infected, had notified the DC member as soon as possible, yet government departments had made announcements after 24 hours, which had prevented relevant organisations from making timely response. For example, the companies which employed the confirmed patients might implement special work arrangements in light of the confirmed cases. However, the delay in the dissemination of information by the Government had prevented companies from making timely arrangements. People might have already had close contact with the confirmed patients during that period of time; and

(iii) even when the information on the confirmed cases had been widely spread in the community, the Government had still procrastinated the dissemination of information. He expressed discontent and criticised the Government for maladministration. The problem involved was more than the lack of consultation; it also reflected the ineffective institutional framework and administration. If the Government continued to combat the epidemic with such an attitude, it would not only give rise to political crisis, but would also create public health hazard which would endanger the health and safety of members of the public and create difficulty in alleviating public panic.

27. The Chairman said that this meeting was the first special meeting of SDC, but SDO was unable to provide a meeting venue because of the Government’s working guidelines on epidemic prevention, therefore this meeting was held outdoors.

28. Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) SDC had made a number of suggestions regarding the COVID-19 epidemic. He questioned whether the Government had listened to public opinion and attached importance to SDC; (ii) he did not feel offended that SDO did not provide a venue for this meeting because of the Government’s working guidelines on epidemic prevention, yet he criticised relevant government departments such as FHB and DH for not sending representatives to attend this meeting. Members could only express views and raise enquiries one-sidedly, without knowing whether the government departments would reply later. He criticised the Government for its indifference to SDC; (iii) he believed that the Government was obliged to notify DC members, owners’ corporations or owners’ committees of both suspected and confirmed cases. Recently, DC members could only be updated on the epidemic situation through different channels. At the same time, they continuously received public enquiries seeking confirmation of the authenticity of news. Members called CHP hotline, but to no avail, and CHP only said that information on the thematic website of COVID-19 shall prevail. He did not understand why the Government did not inform DC members and building management offices early of suspected cases, which hindered the relevant parties from stepping up epidemic prevention measures; (iv) he pointed out that on 25 January 2020 (the first day of Lunar New Year), rumours had spread in the district that the first suspected case appeared in Chi Fu Fa Yuen. The suspected patient informed the management office of Chi Fu Fa Yuen and newspaper publishers on own initiative, so that the management office could arrange disinfection in the estate as soon as possible. On the contrary, he did not receive any information from CHP when he called them for enquiry. Although this case did not turn out to be a confirmed case, it reinforced public awareness on epidemic prevention. He urged the Government to improve the current notification mechanism as soon as possible so that stakeholders could react sooner; and (v) in regard to the inclusion of Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC”, while he did not oppose the setting up of “designated GOPCs”, the Government did not consult SDC before deciding on the site. Since the site was close to residential areas, the situation was extremely unsatisfactory. He considered that residents would feel disrespected if the Government did not consult them prior to the setting up of

quarantine facilities in future, and stressed that the Government was obliged to consult residents in the district.

29. Mr CHAN Hin-chung raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) the Government claimed that we should fight against the epidemic together and called on the community not to panic. Given that DC members acted as a bridge of communication between the Government and residents, the relevant departments should maintain close communication with DC members. Shek Pai Wan Estate and Yue Kwong Chuen, managed by HD and the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS) respectively, belonged to his Shek Yue constituency. Since there were COVID-19 cases in Hong Mei House, Cheung Hong Estate in Tsing Yi in which the virus was suspected to transmit through vent pipes, he had asked HD and HKHS about the pipe structure of Shek Pai Wan Estate and Yue Kwong Chuen. Due to the Government’s flexible work arrangements, HD could only provide services on a limited scale and was unable to answer his enquiry immediately. In contrast, HKHS had immediately explained to him that the pipes of Yue Kwong Chuen were located outdoors, which were different from those of Hong Mei House, Cheung Hong Estate. He praised HKHS’ approach which was helpful in answering residents’ enquiries by DC members, and urged HD to proactively contact the DC members of the constituencies concerned and explain to them the pipe structure of the estates, so that members could relay the information to residents and allay their concerns; and (ii) he was completely disappointed at the notification arrangements of HA and DH. He suggested DC members organise a liaison team on their own and contact clinics in the district at regular time on a daily basis to inform each other of epidemic information in the district rather than relying solely on the information released by the relevant departments eight to ten days after the dates of onset. In addition, there might be difficulties in arranging a liaison team by DC members on their own, thus he asked if SDO could provide assistance. While he understood that the Government was implementing flexible work arrangements, the department was still required to provide services on a limited scale without complete cessation of operation. He hoped that the relevant department could provide assistance to fight against the epidemic together with the public.

30. Ms LI Shee-lin raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) she objected to the inclusion of Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC” for COVID-19 as well as using the Ocean Park’s hotel as a quarantine facility. She

pointed out that at present, healthcare staff of public hospitals had been facing the problem of shortage of protective equipment. The setting up of “designated GOPCs” by the Government would merely increase the risk of COVID-19 outbreak in the community. It was suggested that the department concerned should explore sites that were remote from residential areas to protect public health, e.g. the Hong Kong Central Hospital at Lower Albert Road, Central; (ii) she pointed out that quite many elderly people in the district needed to seek medical consultation at and collect medicine from Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC. No matter whether the Government listened to public opinion or not, it should, as soon as possible, give an account of how to enable the elderly without enough face masks or anti-epidemic supplies to attend follow-up consultations or collect medicine, e.g. whether the medicine would be delivered by post or collected by the patients’ family members; and (iii) she urged the Government to completely close all border control points and stop assessing cross-boundary visa applications for visiting relatives or business purposes. Only in this way could the epidemic be prevented from spreading.

31. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he considered that the Government should adopt established criteria when deciding on the sites of “designated GOPCs” or quarantine centres, e.g. the distance between the facilities involved and the nearby residential buildings, on-site facilities, etc. He pointed out that as the Government had failed to give an account of the criteria concerned to the public and force through the implementation of the measures without any transparency, this could hardly convince the public and had given rise to public dissatisfaction. Even if the Government had conducted public consultation on the proposed sites of “designated GOPCs” or quarantine centres, members of the public might raise objection against the proposals concerned. Therefore, the Government should give an account of the criteria concerned and other related matters to the public, e.g. the feasibility of identifying alternative locations as “designated GOPCs” or quarantine centres, the epidemic prevention measures adopted by “designated GOPCs” or quarantine centres, etc.; (ii) regarding the notification mechanism of COVID-19 cases, he pointed out that at present, members of the public had mainly obtained epidemic information from unofficial channels rather than the Government’s official channels. He criticised the Government for its poor performance in disseminating epidemic information, and suggested that the Government should set up a “24-hour rapid response unit”. Should there be any confirmed case, the officer concerned was required to

immediately notify the rapid response unit and promptly update the webpage, including such information as the places where the confirmed patients had visited or their residences, disinfection and epidemic prevention measures for confirmed cases, etc.; and (iii) he expressed dissatisfaction with the absence of any departmental representatives at this meeting. In the face of the severity of the COVID-19 epidemic, all SDC members still insisted on attending this special meeting. While he was aware that the government departments had adopted flexible work arrangements amid the epidemic, he urged the departments concerned to send representatives to attend future meetings for discussion with members.

32. Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he criticised the Government for lacking thorough planning in the decision on including Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC”. “Designated GOPCs” should be remote from residential buildings rather than in densely populated areas. He urged the Government to withdraw the decision concerned, as well as respect and consult the Council as representative of public opinion; (ii) given the close proximity of the Ocean Park to residential buildings and the local transport hub, he expressed objection to SKDC’s proposal of using the Ocean Park’s hotel as a quarantine facility; and (iii) he criticised that the prevailing notification mechanism of COVID-19 epidemic was far from satisfactory. The Government’s delay in information dissemination would only increase the risk of epidemic transmission and outbreak in the community. He urged the Government to notify members and the departments concerned as early as possible, enhance the transparency of and review the prevailing notification mechanism.

33. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he pointed out that every year, the Government would allocate more than $400 million for implementing “community involvement projects” in various districts, with a view to engaging the community. As a bridge of communication between the district and the Government, the Council was obliged to advise the Government on matters affecting the well-being of the people in the district. The Council had been maintaining close liaison with the public. During the epidemic, members would render assistance in handling public enquiries, by the same token, they would be happy to support the Government during this period. However, in the face of the

most severe community health crisis since 2003, the Government had failed to make good use of the existing bridge of communication, i.e. the Council, to engage the community. This practice was utterly unwise and reflected the Government’s poor governance as well; and (ii) regarding the provisional motion on the inclusion of Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC”, he was of the view that indeed, it was necessary to set up “designated GOPCs” or quarantine centres, but the Government had failed to give the public an account of such details as the selection criteria and whether assessment of the use of alternative sites as quarantine centres had been made. Hence, he supported the provisional motion.

34. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he pointed out that after the dissolution of the Urban Council and the Provisional Urban Council, the Government had failed to honour its promise to devolve the powers of the two former Councils to DCs; instead, the powers had been devolved to the government departments concerned. However, with great power came great responsibility. Government departments would naturally be criticised for failing to properly discharge their duties. DCs were well aware of public sentiments and had a genuine understanding of public needs. It was suggested that the Government should keep its promise to devolve the powers of the two former Councils to DCs, give DCs more power and allocate more resources to DCs. He pointed out that as DC members were familiar with the distribution of people flow and hygiene blackspots in their respective districts, if decision-making powers in local affairs such as street cleansing and site selection for “designated GOPCs” were given to DCs, conceivably it would improve work efficiency and facilitate the implementation of more effective anti-epidemic measures. On the contrary, the existing top-down governance model had been obsolete and totally out of place with the community, thus failing to provide an effective channel to communicate with the public. While stressing that the Council would be happy to support the Government in its fight against the epidemic with the public, the functions of DCs could not be effectively discharged due to power and resource constraints. As such, he urged the Government to look into the situation concerned; and (ii) he pointed out he had previously proposed the setting up of independent DC secretariats to Mrs Carrie LAM, the then Chief Secretary for Administration, by making reference to the operation mode of the Legislative Council Secretariat, but she failed to take forward the proposal. If the Council had an independent secretariat, supposedly there was no need to hold this special meeting outdoors. He pointed out

that the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments had demonstrated Mrs Carrie LAM’s poor ability to make political judgement. Despite that the public had expected that Mrs Carrie LAM, a former civil servant with substantial experience in public administration and considered to be exceptionally capable, could deal with the epidemic properly, her performance was disappointing. If the Government could make good use of DCs by engaging DCs in anti-epidemic initiatives, there would be greater effectiveness.

35. The Chairman made the following comments:

(i) he pointed out that on-going efforts had been made recently to liaise with SDO and HA, etc. on the confirmed case reported at Lei Tung Estate. He felt that DH and CHP deliberately took over the coordination of dissemination of information across the board, without disseminating relevant information to the government departments concerned such as SDO and HD. While the Queen Mary Hospital (QMH) would notify CHP of any confirmed cases, information on confirmed cases reported in other parts of the catchment area of the Hong Kong West Cluster had not been made available to QMH. Manpower shortages and overwhelming workloads of DH and CHP had prevented the latter from functioning effectively. Yet, no attempt had ever been made to co-ordinate the sharing of workload with other government departments. As far as the confirmed case reported at Lei Tung Estate was concerned, despite members’ intention to obtain the latest information from the CHP website, CHP had failed to provide real-time updates. As a result, some residents had criticised members for sharing attention-grabbing, sensationalised news stories and releasing fabricated news. He pointed out that the Government had mistakenly thought that controlling information dissemination could reduce public panic amid the epidemic. Yet, members of the public could actually take proper epidemic prevention measures in a timely manner when information was available. Even if suspected cases were not classified as confirmed cases in the end, the public would not be in a panic about this. He urged the Government to change the above mentality; (ii) he suggested that the Government should immediately make public and notify members of local constituencies of any cases undergoing laboratory testing. If the Government did not disseminate the information until the suspected cases had become confirmed cases (i.e. several days after laboratory testing took place), it was likely that the epidemic would spread in the community, thus preventing members or relevant organisations from taking immediate actions, including stepping up cleansing and disinfection efforts;

(iii) he would maintain liaison with other DCs on the dissemination of epidemic information and the like, and urged the Government to disseminate relevant information to the government departments concerned such as SDO or HD for their immediate actions. Accordingly, he would also convey members’ views to SDO so as to relay the views to FHB, DH and HA; and (iv) he urged the Government to withdraw the plan to include Aberdeen Jockey Club GOPC as a “designated GOPC”, and requested the Government to consult the Council on site selection afresh.

36. The Chairman asked members to vote on Provisional Motions 1, 2 and 3 by open ballot.

37. The Chairman asked members to first vote on Provisional Motion 1 moved by Mr CHAN Hin-chung and Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus, and seconded by Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany.

38. Provisional Motion 1 was carried with 17 votes for it (namely Mr CHAN Hin-chung, Mr CHAN Ping-yeung, Ms CHAN Yan-yi, Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo, Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun, Ms LI Shee-lin, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael, Mr POON Ping-hong, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus, Mr YIM Chun-ho, Mr YU Chun-hei, James, Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN), zero vote against it and zero abstention.

39. The Chairman asked members to vote on Provisional Motion 2 moved by Ms CHAN Yan-yi and Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany, and seconded by Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus.

40. Provisional Motion 2 was carried with 17 votes for it (namely Mr CHAN Hin-chung, Mr CHAN Ping-yeung, Ms CHAN Yan-yi, Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo, Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun, Ms LI Shee-lin, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael, Mr POON Ping-hong, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus, Mr YIM Chun-ho, Mr YU Chun-hei, James, Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN), zero vote against it and zero abstention.

41. The Chairman asked members to vote on Provisional Motion 3 moved by Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun and Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, and seconded by Mr CHAN Ping-yeung.

42. Provisional Motion 3 was carried with 17 votes for it (namely Mr CHAN Hin-chung, Mr CHAN Ping-yeung, Ms CHAN Yan-yi, Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo, Mr LAM Ho-por,

Kelvin, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun, Ms LI Shee-lin, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael, Mr POON Ping-hong, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus, Mr YIM Chun-ho, Mr YU Chun-hei, James, Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN), zero vote against it and zero abstention.

43. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH said that “complete closure of the border control points” had been mentioned in Provisional Motion 1. Despite her support for this provisional motion, she would like to add that in view of her stance on the “complete closure of the border control points” expressed at the meeting previously, she asked members to refrain from stirring up controversy over her comment in future.

44. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun enquired of the Chairman whether members’ views on the proposed use of the Ocean Park’s hotel as a quarantine facility would be relayed to SKDC.

45. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, he had contacted the Chairman of SKDC to relay members’ views on the recommendation concerned, and that the Chairman of SKDC had forwarded such views to Mr FAN Gary Kwok-wai who had moved the motion concerned. A new motion would be put forward to SKDC, which would not make any recommendation on the use of the Ocean Park’s hotel as a quarantine facility.

Agenda Item 2: Any Other Business [3:39 p.m. – 3:50 p.m.]

Discussion of Applications for SDC Community Involvement Project Funds

46. The Chairman said that in view of the epidemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), it was of great importance to reduce social contacts and crowd gathering activities for the purpose of combatting the disease. Therefore, it was proposed that the following arrangements be adopted concerning the applications for SDC community involvement (CI) project funds:

(iii) Regarding funding applications for projects to be commenced in the period from April to May 2020 and completed in June 2020 or later, the parts of the projects to be held in April and May 2020 would not be processed, while the application forms would be returned to the applicant organisations for amendment. The applications would be considered afterwards depending on the situation of the epidemic.

47. The Chairman invited members to raise comments or enquiries.

48. Mr YU Chun-hei, James enquired about how to come up with the presumption that the peak of the epidemic would last till May 2020, and hence the above proposal of not processing the first type of projects, and leaving the second or third type projects to be held in June 2020 or later for consideration afterwards depending on the situation of the epidemic. He opined that the funding applications for the projects to be held in June 2020 should not be processed either.

49. Ms LI Shee-lin raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) In case funding applications for CI projects scheduled for the period from April to May 2020 were not processed to minimise the risk of epidemic spread in the community, she proposed that the relevant resources be transferred for epidemic prevention work in different areas of the district, for example, deploying resources to the Housing Department (HD), Southern District Office (SDO), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) as well as the healthcare staff, etc. for carrying out epidemic prevention work; and (ii) She pointed out that in the past, the Government would send out text messages to the public whenever there were major events. She urged the Government to utilise the technology by sending text messages to the public for dissemination of information about the epidemic, so as to expedite the announcement of news and help relieve public worries and panic over the epidemic situation.

50. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun enquired whether the allocation of $500,000 endorsed by the SDC earlier on for procurement of epidemic prevention supplies would be discussed at this meeting.

51. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) She asked whether the allocation of $500,000 endorsed by the SDC earlier on for procurement of epidemic prevention supplies would be discussed at this meeting; and

(ii) If funding applications for CI projects to be implemented in the period from April to May 2020 were not processed, she proposed deploying the relevant resources to departments such as HD for strengthening cleansing and disinfection work. Even though some of the public rental housing estates had not found any confirmed cases or suspected cases, if the departments were provided with additional resources, it could also enhance the epidemic prevention measures.

52. Mr CHAN Hin-chung said that even though the funding applications for CI projects scheduled for the period from April to May 2020 were not processed, individual organisations might still continue to hold their activities without the funding support of SDC. He proposed that SDC should remind the organisations to suspend activities involving crowd gathering during the epidemic.

53. The Chairman stated the following:

(i) SDC had advised organisations to cancel the CI projects which had been scheduled for February and March 2020 but it was learned that individual organisations would still launch the activities as scheduled. Unless the SDC made it mandatory to have the activities cancelled or cancel their applications for reimbursement of expenses, what it could do was to issue an advice only; (ii) If SDC did not process the funding applications for CI projects scheduled to be held in April and May 2020, there would not be any SDC funded activities for implementation during the said period of time. As regards other projects not subsidised by SDC funds, the SDC could consider giving suspension advice to the organisations of these projects. However, whether or not the activities would be suspended or organised as scheduled would not be controllable; (iii) Concerning the allocation of $500,000 endorsed by the SDC earlier on for procurement of epidemic prevention supplies, the procurement would be conducted by the Secretariat. For the purpose of speeding up the purchase of epidemic prevention supplies, direct quotation would be invited, instead of calling for tender; (iv) As regards the proposal of not processing the funding applications for CI projects scheduled to be held in April and May 2020 and having the relevant resources redeployed for epidemic prevention work, he suggested that the proposal be considered for follow-up by the Environment, Hygiene and Healthcare Committee; and (v) Depending on the development of the epidemic, the SDC would decide whether or not to process the projects scheduled for June 2020. At the present stage, the decision was still pending in order to allow greater flexibility.

54. The Chairman invited members to raise comments or enquiries.

55. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael said that grantee organisations of the SDC funded CI projects were required to submit application for reimbursement of expenses after completion of the activities. Assuming that SDC had proposed to cancel the projects but some organisations still insisted on implementing the projects amidst the severe epidemic situation, he tried not to speculate whether the implementation of projects was directly related to the Legislative Council General Election to be held in September 2020; yet, he enquired of the SDC whether it would consider cancelling the applications made by the organisations for claiming reimbursement of the expenses paid.

56. Mr YU Chun-hei, James suggested setting up a penalty mechanism. In case an organisation did not apply for CI project funds but continued to organise its project regardless of the advice of SDC, he proposed that the SDC should not proceed to approve the funding application made by the said organisation for its CI projects within a specified time, say in the coming half or one year. As such, the organisation concerned would have to re-consider suspension of its project again so as to reduce activities involving crowd gathering and thus minimising the risk of epidemic spread.

57. Ms LI Shee-lin said that the SDC should consider all applications with prudence in order not to be perceived by any false claim of individual organisations which intended to obtain funding approval in the name of carrying out epidemic prevention work whereas in fact an activity involving crowd gathering would be held.

58. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) If an organisation had secured funding support for its CI project, the SDC could request for suspension of its project until the circumstances permitted again. Afterwards, its claim application for reimbursement of expenses could be processed accordingly; and (ii) If an organisation had not obtained funding approval for its CI project, SDC could withhold processing its funding application. If an organisation had not made funding application for its CI project but continued to implement its project regardless of the SDC’s advice, the SDC could take this as one of the consideration factors in approving its funding applications if the organisation concerned submitted applications for the CI project funds in future.

59. The Chairman enquired whether members endorsed the following arrangements concerning the applications for CI projects under SDC funds:

(i) Funding applications for projects to be commenced and completed in the period from April to May 2020 would not be processed. The application forms would be returned to the applicant organisations; (ii) Funding applications for projects to be commenced and completed in June 2020 or later would not be processed for the time being, and would be considered afterwards depending on the situation of the epidemic; and (iii) Regarding funding applications for projects to be commenced in the period from April to May 2020 and completed in June 2020 or later, the parts of the projects to be held in April and May 2020 would not be processed, while the application forms would be returned to the applicant organisations for amendment. The applications would be considered afterwards depending on the situation of the epidemic.

60. Since members raised no objection, SDC endorsed the above arrangements concerning the applications for CI projects under SDC funds.

61. The Chairman said that the above arrangement proposal on how to deal with the funding applications would be conveyed to the Secretariat after the meeting.

62. The Chairman enquired whether members would like to raise any other items for discussion.

63. Members raised no other issues.

64. The Chairman thanked members for attending this meeting.

65. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council April 2020