Minutes of the 3 Meeting of the 5 Wan Chai District Council Hong Kong

(Translation)

Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of the 5th Wan Chai District Council Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Date: 22 March 2016 (Tuesday) Time: 2:30 p.m. Venue: District Council Conference Room, Wan Chai District Office, 21/F Southorn Centre, 130 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, H.K.

Present Chairperson Mr NG Kam-chun, Stephen, BBS, MH, JP

Vice-Chairperson Dr CHOW Kit-bing, Jennifer, BBS, MH

Members Ms NG Yuen-ting, Yolanda, MH Ms LEE Kwun-yee, Kenny Ms LEE Pik-yee, Peggy Mr LAM Wai-man, Wind, Anson Miss YEUNG Suet-ying, Clarisse Mr CHENG Ki-kin The Hon TSE Wai-chun, Paul, JP Ms CHUNG Ka-man, Jacqueline

Representatives of Core Government Departments Mr CHAN Tin-chu, Rick, JP District Officer (Wan Chai), Home Affairs Department Ms LAI Wai-yee, Renie Assistant District Officer (Wan Chai), Home Affairs Department Ms CHAN Siu-ping, Daphne Senior Liaison Officer (Community Affairs), Home Affairs Department Ms WU Lai-shan, Alexandra Senior Executive Officer (District Council)/Wan Chai (Designate), Home Affairs Department Mr MAK Chin-ho District Commander (Wan Chai), Hong Kong Police Force Ms Dorothy NIEH Police Community Relation Officer (Wan Chai District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr CHAN Kwan-chun Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator, Eastern District Police Community Relations Office, Hong Kong Police Force Ms LAM Yee-mui, Vivian Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Eastern/Wan Chai) 2, Social Welfare Department Mr KWOK Kin-man, Alex Senior Estate Surveyor/Land Control and Lease Enforcement

1 (District Lands Office/Hong Kong East, West and South), Lands Department Mr LEE Man-ho Chief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport Department Mr LAM Chi-keung Chief Engineer/Hong Kong (2), Civil Engineering and Development Department Ms YEUNG Yuet-ngor, District Leisure Manager (Wan Chai), Leisure and Cultural Brenda Services Department Mr LAU Chi-keung District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Wan Chai), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Absent with Apologies Mr LEE Man-lung, Joey Mr WONG Wang-tai, Ivan, MH Dr TANG King-yung, Anna, BBS, MH

Secretary Mr CHUK Chi-keung, Vincent Senior Executive Officer (District Council)/Wan Chai, Home Affairs Department

Action Opening Remarks

1. The Chairperson welcomed Mr Rick CHAN, the new District Officer (Wan Chai) (DO(WC)), and Mr LAU Chi-keung, the new District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Wan Chai) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), who attended a meeting of the Wan Chai District Council (WCDC) for the first time. He also welcomed Mr Alex KWOK, Senior Estate Surveyor/Land Control and Lease Enforcement (District Lands Office/Hong Kong East, West and South) of the Lands Department; Mr CHAN Kwan-chun, Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator, Eastern District Police Community Relations Office of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF); and Ms Vivian LAM, Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Eastern/Wan Chai)2 of the Social Welfare Department, who stood in for Mr PANG Kwan-leung, Vincent, Mr KU Siu-fai and Mr NGAN Man-por respectively. The Chairperson informed the participants that before the meeting, Dr Anna TANG, Mr Joey LEE, and Mr Ivan WONG, had notified the Secretariat about their applications for absence due to other commitments. According to Order 51(1) of the WCDC Standing Orders, WCDC would only accept Members’ applications for absence due to sickness or attendance at an activity on behalf of WCDC. Therefore, their applications on this occasion would be regarded as absence from meeting. Besides, Mr Simon LIU, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East) of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), was unable to attend this meeting due to other official commitments.

2. The Chairperson asked Members to note the papers on the

2 Action conference table and the suggested discussion time. Besides, he said that a maximum of three minutes were allowed for each Member to speak in respect of each agenda item.

Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting Item 1: Confirmation of Minutes of the 1st and 2nd Meetings of WCDC

3. The Chairperson indicated that before the meeting, the Secretariat had received the amendments proposed by the HKPF representative and Ms Yolanda NG, to the minutes of the 2nd meeting, which were set out in Appendices A and B for Members’ perusal. As no further amendments were proposed by Members at the meeting, the minutes of the 1st and 2nd WCDC meetings were confirmed by means of a motion moved by Dr Jennifer CHOW and seconded by Ms Kenny LEE.

Discussion Items Item 2: District-led Actions Scheme (WCDC Paper No. 48/2016)

4. The Chairperson asked Members to refer to Paper No. 48/2016 and briefly introduce the key points as follows:

(i) With consideration given to the views of WCDC and the relevant government departments, there were in general two major initiatives, namely environmental hygiene and support to “three nil” buildings, covered in the District-led Actions Scheme (DAS) to be implemented this year.

(ii) On environmental hygiene, the Wan Chai District Office (WCDO) and FEHD had discussed the locations and views offered by Members. All the suggested locations, except certain private lanes, were covered in DAS for this year. FEHD would use DAS resources to tackle the black spots on the action checklist for environmental hygiene black spots compiled by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Committee (FEHC) under WCDC. The suggested locations and black spot locations were set out in the attachment.

(iii) On support to “three nil” buildings, WCDO would engage cleansing contractors to provide one-off cleansing services in the public areas of some 100 eligible buildings after

3 Action taking into account Members’ information and comments on buildings and the conditions (factors including the rateable value, types and ages of buildings) of other “three nil” buildings in the district.

5. The Chairperson asked DO(WC) if he had anything to add.

6. DO(WC) thanked Members for their information and suggestions on the priorities of the initiatives and locations. WCDO would take active follow-up actions accordingly. On “three nil” buildings, taking into account the relevant information, WCDO planned to provide one-off cleansing services for some 100 buildings. DO(WC) said that the one-off cleansing services could hardly be a permanent cure to the problems and WCDO would therefore continue assigning staff to visit the “three nil” buildings to assist them in forming owners’ corporations (OCs). The District Management Committee would regularly report to WCDC on the progress of work.

7. The Chairperson invited comments from Members.

8. Dr Jennifer CHOW said that many buildings in the district claimed to have formed OCs, but these OCs might have actually ceased to operate or exist after the completion of building maintenance works or due to some special circumstances. In case of any management problems with these buildings, the residents there had nowhere to turn to for help. She hoped departments would check again whether the existing buildings still had their OCs in place or had already reverted to “three nil” buildings.

9. Ms Peggy LEE said that at a discussion on the use of this dedicated funding, WCDC had proposed it be used to tackle problems that could hardly be solved with the existing resources, which included the hygiene problems in private streets. While understanding that there were priorities for work, she hoped departments could address the perennial unresolved hygiene problems in private streets if there were spare resources after the cleansing work for the suggested locations. The suggested private streets covered in DAS were mainly located in remote places and fell within the land boundaries of tenement buildings with OCs but without management companies. She hoped that DO(WC) or FEHD could consider, in light of specific circumstances, addressing certain private lanes with exceptionally poor hygiene conditions after the cleansing works for the streets on the list was completed.

10. Ms Yolanda NG agreed that DAS should focus on tackling problems that could hardly be solved under the existing system. She

4 Action pointed out that some old buildings were poorly managed as their OCs had ceased to operate or might even be manipulated by developers which had acquired units in the buildings in a bid to take renewal advantage. She believed that WCDO had the relevant information. The roofs of some buildings were piled with miscellaneous objects such as furniture and mattresses. In her view, it was against the spirit of DAS if the dedicated funding was not used to solve hygiene problems in private streets or tenement buildings with inoperative OCs.

11. Miss Clarisse YEUNG indicated that while the usual practice of FEHD was to step up efforts in street cleansing, refuse collection or so forth, it was not necessary for DAS to follow the established practice. In addition to cleansing work, long-term strategic measures should be devised to tackle hygiene black spots, otherwise the efforts could hardly be sustained after the one-off funding was used up.

12. The Chairperson invited responses from the FEHD representative.

13. Mr LAU Chi-keung responded that bound by its terms of reference, FEHD could hardly provide cleansing services for all streets. On the issue concerning private streets, FEHD would render assistance as far as possible in light of circumstances.

14. DO(WC) indicated that DAS was currently at its early stage and WCDO would consider, in light of the progress of work and the usage of the funding, whether it was possible to cover private streets under DAS. (Post-meeting note: After discussion with FEHD, WCDO decided to reallocate the existing resources so that the private streets suggested by Members would be covered under the environmental hygiene initiative of DAS for this year.)

15. The Chairperson concluded by saying that Members hoped this funding could serve as extra resources for solving not only existing problems but also some perennial, major and thorny conundrums in the district, such as hygiene problems in private streets and “three nil” buildings. With no OCs, many “three nil” buildings did not engage cleansing companies to collect refuse, and residents there often put bags of rubbish beside litter bins on streets, causing serious pollution.

16. Dr Jennifer CHOW raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) She agreed that as a special scheme, DAS was supposed to give priority to some special problems. Noting that FEHD was bound by its terms of reference and thus found it

5 Action difficult to cleanse private streets, she believed that such difficulty could be overcome by DAS. She looked forward to the department’s active follow-up actions in this regard.

(ii) She pointed out that the roofs and rear lanes of some “three nil” buildings were poorly managed. While hoping that the department could make specific efforts to cleanse these places, she enquired whether it could provide a list of “three nil” buildings for Members’ reference and comment.

17. The Hon Paul TSE indicated that to his understanding, the Government allocated additional funding of $3.5 million per annum for the implementation of DAS in each district. He asked whether a preliminary breakdown of figures was available to illustrate how the funding would be spent on the various work, including the employment of a full-time Executive Assistant, under the two major initiatives, namely environmental hygiene and support to “three nil” buildings. He also asked whether the list of streets would be updated from time to time so that more streets could be added thereto.

18. Ms Renie LAI responded that FEHD needed about $2.7 million or so to implement the environmental hygiene initiative and the remuneration for the newly-created post of Executive Assistant cost around $200,000 per annum, and the remaining $400,000 or so would be used on support to “three nil” buildings. This was an estimated breakdown and the finalised figures were subject to approval by the Home Affairs Department (HAD).

19. The Hon Paul TSE further enquired whether the $2.7 million or so was a rough estimate of the expenditures on the cleansing work for the 29 streets listed in the attachment and whether it was still possible to add or delete streets from the list.

20. Ms Renie LAI responded that the funding of about $2.7 million or so could cover all the black spots and locations listed in the attachment. WCDO would communicate with FEHD to ensure that this estimated funding could cover as many places as possible. During the course of the work, if there was any adjustment to the breakdown figures under the two initiatives, WCDO would further discuss it with FEHD. The current figures were preliminary estimates.

21. The Chairperson asked Members to note the paper.

6 Action Item 3: Applications for WCDC Funds 2016/17 from LCSD (WCDC Paper No. 36/2016)

22. The Chairperson asked Members to refer to Paper No. 36/2016. LCSD applied to WCDC for funding of $5,552,155 for the expenditures of the recreation and sports activities, cultural and entertainment programmes and public library promotional activities to be organised in Wan Chai District in the financial year of 2016/17. The details of the activities and their estimated expenditures had been submitted to the Cultural and Leisure Services Committee (CLSC) for preliminary consideration at its meeting on 16 February.

23. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG said that according to the supplementary information provided by LCSD after 16 February, a sum of more than $800,000 would be added to the overall budget as there would be a transfer of $876,000 from Eastern District to Wan Chai District. She enquired whether the items set out in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 would use up the sum completely.

24. The Chairperson invited responses from the LCSD representative.

25. Ms Brenda YEUNG responded as follows:

(i) Upon the Government’s announcement in 2014 that the Tin Hau and Victoria Park constituencies would be transferred to Wan Chai District, LCSD contacted the then Assistant District Officer (Wan Chai) immediately, indicating that additional resources must be provided before activities could be organised in the two new constituencies. At that time, there were some 160 activities in the Victoria Park and Tin Hau constituencies, costing about $800,000.

(ii) In March 2015, the Home Affairs Bureau met with, among others, District Officer (Eastern) and DO(WC). The then District Officer (Eastern) agreed to discuss how to transfer the $800,000 to Wan Chai District with the Chairman of the Eastern District Council (EDC) after the meeting.

(iii) At the 23rd CLSC meeting on 21 July 2015, LCSD provided the total expenditure on activities for 2016/17 and the details of the activities for April to June 2016. CLSC Members had no particular comments on the regular activities.

(iv) As shown in paragraph 11 of the minutes of the 24th CLSC

7 Action meeting held on 29 September 2015, the then CLSC Chairperson mentioned that the EDC Chairman had agreed to transfer $876,000 to WCDC for LCSD’s recreation and sports activities and free entertainment and art programmes originally scheduled to be held in the Tin Hau and Victoria Park constituencies in the financial year of 2016/17.

(v) All the $876,000 would be used to organise activities for the year concerned. In fact, the financial position had been very tight in the recent two years, because a cap was set on the amount of funding allocation whereas the numbers of activities and participants remained constant.

26. Ms Yolanda NG gave an account of the operation of CLSC and the background of its decision as follows:

(i) At the 24th CLSC meeting held on 29 September 2015, she conveyed the Secretariat’s message that the EDC Chairman agreed to transfer $870,000 to WCDC, following which the then WCDC Chairperson requested LCSD to bring up the funding transfer for consideration by WCDC of the new term. At that time, there were also Members proposing the funding issue be passed to the new WCDC for discussion. As there was no information paper available then, she requested the Secretariat to provide supplementary information on the funding later. The issue was then discussed at the previous CLSC meeting in the current term of the WCDC.

(ii) As a usual practice of CLSC, the Chairperson of CLSC and the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of WCDC would be invited to have preliminary discussion on the annual plan worked out by LCSD to see which activities deserved to be retained or what new activities should be launched. After that, LCSD would modify the contents of activities having regard to the comments of CLSC and the WCDC Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson before submitting the annual plan to CLSC for consideration.

(iii) At the CLSC meeting held in September 2015 and the last meeting, CLSC Members agreed on a principle for provision of services: the existing services and activities enjoyed by the residents of the two constituencies should not be cut due to the change in administrative district. Under this general

8 Action principle, CLSC endorsed in principle the funding allocation for this year. After endorsing the annual funding allocation, CLSC had certainly to bring up the funding allocation for consideration by the full council of WCDC.

(iv) But of course, it would be another matter if adjustments were made because the activities were not well-received. There had been occasions on which LCSD made adjustments as proposed by Members at CLSC meetings.

(v) As the CLSC Chairperson, she reiterated the that funding was considered and endorsed from the perspective of CLSC, and when the funding item was brought up for discussion by the full council, it should still be discussed under the principle of “not affecting the services and activities originally enjoyed by the public”.

27. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) She agreed with the principle that the activities enjoyed by the residents should not be cut due to the transfer of the constituencies. She also noted that the funding of more than $800,000 so transferred would wholly be used to organise activities for the residents of the Victoria Park and Tin Hau constituencies.

(ii) LCSD had used to request an additional 4% of funding on the grounds of inflation and maintenance. She asked why LCSD did not make such a request this year.

(iii) LCSD officers were supposed to know that it was impossible for any financial transfers of a District Council to be determined in advance in the previous DC term. Such transfers should be brought up for consideration by Members of the new DC term even if they had been discussed at DC meetings in the previous term. It was thus inappropriate to argue that the funding had been endorsed in the previous term. Such an argument was a very serious accusation that required clarification.

28. Dr Jennifer CHOW raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) She enquired whether the activities held in Victoria Park were open to the residents of the constituency concerned or

9 Action to all Hong Kong people.

(ii) The funding transferred from Eastern District was earmarked for services to the residents of the two constituencies. But from a procedural perspective, if the funding was allocated by HAD, it would be more appropriate for WCDC to discuss and then allocate it.

(iii) With the transfer of the two constituencies to Wan Chai District, LCSD was supposed to adjust some activities in order to facilitate coordination and avoid overlapping. She asked whether LCSD had adjusted the activities.

29. Ms Brenda YEUNG responded as follows:

(i) According to the information in hand, the tennis courts and swimming pool in Victoria Park were facilities for the whole territory. (Post-meeting note: After verification, LCSD confirmed that the entire Victoria Park was a facility for the whole territory.)

(ii) The activities of Eastern District were organised to cater for the needs of the residents in the district. many regular activities such as swimming courses, tai chi courses and tai chi sword courses had been run for decades and were very popular among the residents. These activities were open for enrollment by all Hong Kong people, with no preference given to the residents in the district.

(iii) LCSD would review and adjust the various activities and would also change the timeslots or reduce the numbers of sessions of activities with few participants. The LCSD put forward its plan on activities for April to June 2016 at the CLSC meeting in July 2015, and submitted the plan for the whole year for CLSC Members’ consideration at the 24th CLSC meeting held on 29 September 2015. Subsequently, LCSD consulted the Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons of WCDC and CLSC and DO(WC) on the details and types of the activities or programmes at the preparatory meeting held on 2 February 2016, and modified the activities in response to their comments. CLSC endorsed the activity plan for 2016/17 at its meeting on 16 February.

10 Action (iv) As shown in the minutes of the CLSC meetings held in July and September 2015, Members had no strong views on the regular activities and thus endorsed them in principle.

(v) As WCDC had set a cap for the amount of funding allocation two years ago, LCSD could no longer apply for additional funding on the grounds of inflation. In fact, LCSD was as dedicated to serving the public as WCDC. LCSD made its best endeavours in working out activity plans as it could not apply for additional resources on one hand but had to maintain the numbers of activities and participants on the other hand.

30. The Hon Paul TSE opined that the transfer of the two constituencies not only brought changes to the funding allocation for cultural and leisure activities, but might also entail special arrangements in other aspects (e.g. school net). He enquired whether other departments had provided more resources for WCDC to facilitate its arrangements for adaptation or transition.

31. DO(WC) responded that what had just been discussed was community involvement activities including LCSD activities. Separately, as a significant part of the WCDC funds would be used for minor works, the funding for minor works was expected to increase as a result of the transfer of the two constituencies to Wan Chai. The details were yet to be finalised at the moment and would be reported to Members later. (Post-meeting note: The funding for minor works for 2016/17 was increased by $430,000, compared with that for 2015/16.)

32. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG opined that there were different Members in each term of a DC, so it was not a must for the current WCDC to follow the decisions of WCDC of the previous term, and this funding application had to be decided by the current WCDC. She reminded departments that when a DC had undergone a changeover or when they made funding applications for the next year, they should give sufficient information for discussion by Members rather than provide supplementary information only upon Members’ request.

33. Ms Kenny LEE raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) In 2012, LCSD conducted a study on Healthy Exercise for All Campaign - Physical Fitness Test for the Community, and planned the recreation and sports activities for the next few years based on the report of the study. Given that it

11 Action had been four years since 2012, she asked whether LCSD would still plan the recreation and sports activities for the years ahead and determine the related resource allocation based on the same standard.

(ii) LCSD showed its professionalism in organising regular recreation and sports activities, which were certainly beneficial to the public. Yet, no significant adjustments had been made to the funding concerned over the years. She would like LCSD to explain the reasons for this.

34. Ms Peggy LEE noted that the Victoria Park and Tin Hau constituencies fell under WCDC starting from January this year and in principle, the transfer of $870,000 from Eastern District had not yet been officially endorsed in the period between January and March, but activities were held as usual in the two constituencies during the three months. She would like to know where the funding for the activities held in these three months came from.

35. Ms Brenda YEUNG responded as follows:

(i) In principle, the funding for the current term of WCDC was to be endorsed at this meeting. The period between January and March 2016 fell under the previous financial year, and the two constituencies were already part of Wan Chai District in these three months. Neither WCDC nor the HAD had provided LCSD with additional resources, but as stated in paragraph 13 of the minutes of the CLSC meeting on 21 July 2015, LCSD had to ensure that activities for public participation were not affected. Therefore, LCSD achieved savings in the expenditure on the activities held in Wan Chai District so that spare resources could be made available to organise the planned activities as scheduled.

(ii) In 2012, LCSD carried out a major study to collect data on Hong Kong people’s habit of doing exercise on an extensive scale and encourage the public to do more exercises in light of the study results. Besides, the activities organised by LCSD for each year had specific objectives and target participants, with consideration given to factors such as changes in demographic mix, changes in the disabled population and the age distribution of the population. Moreover, when there were new activity venues coming into service, LCSD would organise more activities to promote

12 Action them. For instance, it had organised activities to encourage organisations in the district to use the three recently-opened third-generation artificial turf pitches in Happy Valley.

36. Dr Jennifer CHOW raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) At present, the recurrent expenditures on LCSD activities was more than $4 million and, with the additional $800,000 or so provided by HAD, the base amount of the LCSD recurrent expenditures would increase to around $5.55 million. As this base amount would keep expanding in the future and the $800,000 or so was an extra allocation resulting from the addition of two constituencies to Wan Chai, she suggested this sum be handled separately as dedicated funding.

(ii) She had repeatedly mentioned at every preparatory meeting that activities for individual constituencies were subject to adjustment, review and consolidation and in particular, after the two constituencies were added to Wan Chai, there might be no need for some activities to be repeated in different constituencies, in order that limited resources could be used more efficiently for higher effectiveness.

(iii) She praised LCSD for doing its best to keep the activities for public participation intact despite the lack of additional resources. She suggested members of Legislative Council (LegCo) and DO(WC) endeavour to secure more resources for more effective use by WCDC.

37. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following views:

(i) To avoid confusing the public, it was necessary to explain again the significance of preparatory meetings. As in the case of activities jointly organised by WCDC and district organisations, plans should be worked out for discussion by WCDC in the first place. After listening to the views of the Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons of WCDC and CLSC, LCSD would modify the papers before providing them for in-depth discussion by CLSC Members and for inspection by the public. Without the preliminary discussion at the preparatory meetings, some plans fraught with problems would have been submitted to CLSC for discussion, thus wasting Members’ time. The mechanism of preparatory

13 Action meeting had been operating effectively for at least three terms. If Members thought there was any room for improvement in the mechanism, they might raise their opinions at a CLSC meeting.

(ii) Indeed, WCDC of the last term was not qualified to decide in advance on any funding allocated by the current WCDC. But WCDC, LCSD and the community would not abruptly start their work for a new year simply because of the transfer of the two consistencies on 1 January. That was why the former WCDC Chairperson had repeatedly said that LCSD should be invited to plan ahead for the following year as early as possible, and LCSD’s activity plan for this year had been discussed at two CLSC meetings held last year. In fact, CLSC Members were concerned not only about funding allocation but also about what leisure and cultural facilities would fall under Wan Chai District after the transfer of the two constituencies, as these facilities would require maintenance and funding support in the future.

38. The Chairperson asked Members if they supported the application for the funding of $5,552,155. There being no objection, the Chairperson announced that the funding application was endorsed.

Item 4: Allocation of WCDC Funds for 2016/2017 (WCDC Paper No. 37/2016)

39. The Chairperson asked Members to refer to Paper No. 37/2016 and consider the recommendations set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 and the proposed estimates on expenditures (see Annex 3). At its meeting on 8 March, the Funding and General Affairs Committee (FGAC) had discussed the proposals and recommended submitting them to WCDC for consideration and endorsement.

40. Dr Jennifer CHOW enquired again whether the additional funding of $870,000 for LCSD activities could be handled separately as dedicated funding instead of being included in the aggregate recurrent funding.

41. The Chairperson responded that WCDC had just endorsed the funding allocation after Members’ thorough discussion, and it was not advisable for WCDC to spend too much time on repetitive discussion over an issue.

14 Action 42. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) She objected to endorsing this paper. In fact, she had raised her objection at the last FGAC meeting for the same reason, which was the wording of Note 9. Though amended, Note 9 in Annex 3 of Paper No. 37/2016 still contained the words “transferred $876,000 from Eastern District to Wan Chai District”. The former DO(WC) had explained at the previous FGAC meeting that the funding was allocated by HAD rather than transferred from Eastern District to Wan Chai District. She hoped DO(WC) would clarify this again.

(ii) She opined that the $876,000 allocated to Wan Chai District due to the addition of two constituencies, namely Victoria Park and Tin Hau, should be shared among all committees including the Development, Planning and Transport Committee and the District Works and Facilities Management Committee, etc. because these committees’ work covered the two constituencies as well. As the sum was not dedicated funding, it should not be devoted to a certain expenditure item at one go without discussion by WCDC. This was a matter of principle.

43. The Chairperson invited response from DO(WC).

44. DO(WC) responded that it was written in Note 9 that “in view of the change in constituency, HAD transferred $876,000 from Eastern District to Wan Chai District”, which meant it was HAD that made the transfer. Members might perceive the meaning using the concept of a pie chart: HAD was responsible for allocating the whole pie among different districts, and the size of the whole pie was constant whilst that of each share was variable. Whenever there was a transfer of funding, there must be a source, and the $876,000 was exactly the funding originally allocated to EDC for organising cultural and leisure activities in the two constituencies. The transfer was a decision made by HAD rather than an initiative of Eastern District.

45. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) To avoid confusion, it should be written as “transferred from the two constituencies” instead of “transferred from Eastern District”, because the two constituencies had already been included in Wan Chai District and no longer belonged to

15 Action Eastern District.

(ii) It was because of the addition of two constituencies that HAD allocated the extra funding to Wan Chai and the funding was not for dedicated purposes. Such being the case, the funding should be applied to all aspects as other committees’ work had to cover these two constituencies as well, and more funding should be sought in case of deficiency of funds. She reiterated her objection to the paper.

46. The Hon Paul TSE indicated that as clearly stated in the paper, it was HAD which transferred the funding to Wan Chai District. He had asked and DO(WC) had just given a response as to whether additional funding was provided for other aspects, such as major infrastructure, besides LCSD activities. Even if the transfer of the constituencies would make it necessary to secure additional resources for other committees or even infrastructure, it did not mean that this funding specifically for leisure and cultural activities was not worthy of support. In his view, WCDC might still seek funding from other departments or LegCo for other aspects. Therefore, he supported endorsing the paper.

47. The Chairperson indicated that to his understanding, the aggregate amount of funds available for use by WCDC would increase after the allocation of the additional funding of more than $800,000, and the funding for some activities could rise by 20%. The Chairperson would like the Secretary to elaborate on this.

48. The Secretary explained that as WCDC was allocated the additional funding of $876,000 and could make an over-commitment of 20%, it meant that an extra sum of about $175,000 was available for distribution among the committees. And it followed that there was a total sum of more than $191,000 in the central funding reserve.

49. The Chairperson said that the amount of WCDC funds had expanded and the use of the expanded funds would be decided by the full council of WCDC.

50. Ms Peggy LEE agreed that with the number of constituencies increasing from 11 to 13, not only did leisure and cultural activities require more funding, but other supporting facilities also needed additional resources. The funding allocated to the Community Building and Housing Affairs Committee (CBHAC), which provided a number of services for elderly people and ethnic minorities, was barely enough to cover 11

16 Action constituencies. Lai Tak Tsuen was a public housing area with a dense population, whereas the Victoria Park constituency included some private housing areas where building management was of vital importance. More resources were essential if services were to be provided for these two additional areas. She hoped that the Chairperson and DO(WC) could undertake to seek additional resources for all the committees, in order to ensure that the established services could not be affected by the addition of constituencies.

51. Ms Yolanda NG indicated that it was difficult for WCDC, the smallest DC in terms of district population, to secure additional resources; but actually, Wan Chai was a commercial, residential and tourist district with a large transient population being served by scores of activities and facilities. Moreover, the demand for resources would definitely increase after the addition of the two constituencies. The funding allocated to Victoria Park, which was a central facility, was not transferred to Wan Chai District, but the maintenance costs for facilities in Victoria Park were born by Wan Chai District. She hoped that when fighting for resources, the Chairperson and DO(WC) would emphasise the needs of the transient population and make their best endeavours to relieve Wan Chai District from the maintenance costs for Victoria Park.

52. The Chairperson would like Ms Brenda YEUNG to explain about the issue of maintenance.

53. Ms Brenda YEUNG said that according to the information in hand, the tennis courts and the swimming pool of Victoria Park were central facilities while all the facilities in its periphery belonged to Wan Chai District or the Victoria Park constituency. (Post-meeting note: After further verification, LCSD confirmed that the entire Victoria Park was a facility for the whole territory.)

54. Dr Jennifer CHOW stated that she objected to endorsing the paper because the roles and functions of WCDC should not be ignored. The additional $800,000 or so was central funding and its use should thus be decided by WCDC.

55. The Chairperson reminded Members that if the funding allocation was not endorsed, the estimated funding allocation for WCDC committees and district organisations for the coming year could not be confirmed. In fact, CLSC had already endorsed the additional funding of $876,000 and discussed each activity, so it would be a step backward if WCDC was against the funding allocation. The Chairperson asked Members to vote by show of hands.

17 Action

56. The Secretary announced the voting result as follows:

For: Ms Kenny LEE, Ms Yolanda NG, Mr CHENG Ki-kin, Mr Anson LAM, The Hon Paul TSE, Ms Peggy LEE and Mr Stephen NG

Against: Dr Jennifer CHOW and Ms Jacqueline CHUNG

Abstain: Miss Clarisse YEUNG

57. The Chairperson announced that the funding allocation was endorsed.

Item 5: Market Management Consultative Committees of Public Markets under FEHD (WCDC Paper No. 49/2016)

58. The Chairperson asked Members to refer to Paper No. 49/2016 and Mr LAU Chi-keung to briefly introduce its contents.

59. Mr LAU Chi-keung briefly introduced the key points of the paper as follows:

(i) A Market Management Consultative Committee (MMCC) was set up for each public market under FEHD to strengthen the department’s communication with stall operators for better market management. FEHD was inviting WCDC to nominate Members of the current term to serve on MMCCs.

(ii) The terms of reference of an MMCC included, among others, advising FEHD on improvement in the management and operation environment of markets and on the addition and enhancement of market facilities, and organising market promotion programmes.

(iii) For a market with 150 stalls or fewer, a DC should nominate not only the Member of the constituency concerned but also another Member to the MMCC of the market. For a market with more than 150 stalls, a DC should nominate not only the Member of the constituency concerned but also two other Members to the MMCC of the market. The term of office of a Member in an MMCC was aligned with the term

18 Action of the DC.

60. The Hon Paul TSE opined that Members might be deterred by the heavy workload associated with an MMCC, which had a term of office of four years, and they might find it easier to handle if the term of office was set at two years.

61. Mr LAU Chi-keung said that MMCCs had been running for over a decade and the term of office for Members in MMCCs was a regular arrangement.

62. Ms Peggy LEE enquired whether the number of Members to be nominated meant the maximum prescribed or the number recommended by FEHD.

63. Mr LAU Chi-keung responded that FEHD had always been keeping an open mind and its current practice was to make recommendations on the number of Member nominees based mainly on the numbers of stalls in markets.

64. The Chairperson asked what FEHD would do if there was no Member other than the Member of the constituency concerned joining an MMCC.

65. Mr LAU Chi-keung responded that FEHD kept an open mind as he had just mentioned, and the Member of the constituency concerned would serve on the MMCC if no other Members joined it.

66. DO(WC) suggested Mr LAU Chi-keung briefly explain the work and workload of an MMCC for Members’ reference.

67. Mr LAU Chi-keung said that an MMCC met quarterly and its terms of reference included, among others, advising FEHD on improvement in the management and operation environment of markets and on the addition and enhancement of market facilities, and organising market promotion programmes.

68. Dr Jennifer CHOW said that she had served on an MMCC for years, and her work was mainly to meet with the representatives of stall operators and to advise on the management of the market as well as the enhancement of its facilities. She encouraged Members to participate in the work of MMCCs if they had time.

69. The Chairperson said he had met quarterly with the stakeholders and

19 Action traders of a market in the district and representatives of government departments during his more than 20 years’ service on an MMCC, which enabled him to deepen mutual understanding with others and get closer to the pulse of the district and the public.

70. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG said that as the FEHC Chairperson, she was willing to serve on the six MMCCs in Wan Chai District, in order to understand the current challenges or outstanding problems faced by the six markets and thus facilitate more in-depth discussion at FEHC.

71. The Chairperson asked FEHD whether it was fine if a Member served concurrently on all the MMCCs in the district.

72. Mr LAU Chi-keung responded that FEHD kept an open mind as he had just mentioned, and Members were welcome to join the meetings of all the MMCCs.

73. The Chairperson enquired whether the number of Members nominated to the MMCCs could exceed recommended number.

74. Mr LAU Chi-keung responded that FEHD kept an open mind and was eager to listen more to the views of the Members.

75. The Chairperson concluded by announcing the list of Members on the respective MMCCs of Wan Chai District as follows:

Member of Constituency Name of Market Nominated Members Concerned Wan Chai Market Ms Peggy LEE Ms Kenny LEE and Ms Jacqueline CHUNG Lockhart Road Market and Mr CHENG Ki-kin Ms Kenny LEE and Cooked Food Centre Ms Jacqueline CHUNG Bowrington Road Market Ms Jacqueline CHUNG Mr Anson LAM, and Cooked Food Centre Miss Clarisse YEUNG and Dr Anna TANG Tang Lung Chau Market Ms Yolanda NG Miss Clarisse YEUNG and Ms Jacqueline CHUNG Wong Nai Chung Market Mr Stephen NG Mr Anson LAM and and Cooked Food Centre Ms Jacqueline CHUNG Causeway Bay Market Dr Jennifer CHOW Mr Joey LEE and Ms Jacqueline CHUNG

20 Action Information Items Item 6: Report of Wan Chai District Fight Crime Committee (November to December 2015) (WCDC Paper No. 38/2016)

76. The Chairperson asked Members to refer to Paper No. 38/2016 and Mr MAK Chin-ho to briefly introduce its contents.

77. Mr MAK Chin-ho indicated that at the meeting of the District Fight Crime Committee held on 2 March, a Police representative had given a detailed account of the report, including the overall law and order situation of Wan Chai Police District in 2015. The number of crime cases in Wan Chai Police District in 2015 was 3 535, down 4.2% on 2014, and that of violent crimes was 459, down more than 20% on 2014.

78. The Chairperson asked Members to note the paper.

Item 7: Progress Report of the 203rd Meeting of Wan Chai District Management Committee (WCDC Paper No. 39/2016)

79. The Chairperson asked Members to refer to Paper No. 39/2016.

80. The Hon Paul TSE indicated that Falun Gong followers often placed a bed in the pedestrian area in Causeway Bay; lying on the bed was a person and placed besides the person were some bloody objects. On the other side, opponents of Falun Gong also demonstrated there frequently. He enquired whether the Police and other law enforcement departments had expressed concern over this issue, whether the departments had reached a consensus on it, and whether they still kept a relatively open or tolerant attitude towards it.

81. Mr MAK Chin-ho responded that WCDC had on a number of occasions discussed the issue and many departments had been actively taking corresponding actions. As always, the Police’s position was that the freedom of speech should be respected, but if any complaint was received, the Police would take enforcement actions from the perspectives of public security and public order. The Police had joined other departments in taking actions in response to the public concern aroused by those activities. According to recent observation, the activities of the two groups at the above location were relatively peaceful. As a matter of fact, similar situations existed not only in Causeway Bay but also in different places across the territory. The Police would take enforcement actions

21 Action under the principle of no tolerance for any breach of public peace.

82. The Hon Paul TSE raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) He absolutely respected the freedom of demonstration or assembly, but quite a number of foreign visitors had told him that they felt uncomfortable about the way of expression in which a person lay on a bed and appeared to be receiving surgery. And it seemed that such a way of expression was peculiar to the pedestrian area in Causeway Bay.

(ii) Members who wished to set up booths on streets were required to go through various application procedures. He asked whether the above groups had made frequent applications and by which departments their applications were approved.

83. Mr MAK Chin-ho responded that as he had just said, the focus of the Police’s enforcement was to ensure that the activities would not impair public order or public safety. As regards the way of expression in which dye was used to give an impression that someone was injured, the group concerned no longer used dye after a number of departments and the Police had made efforts in this regard.

84. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) For years WCDC had kept expressing concern on the public nuisance caused by the demonstrations of Falun Gong or opposition groups. But so far, the Police and FEHD had failed to give a clear answer as to which departments were responsible for approving these groups’ demonstrations with banners displayed on streets. According to a reply from FEHD, the Police was responsible for approving demonstrations involving displays of banners of a political nature; however, the Police stated that banners fell within the purview of the Highways Department (HyD) and FEHD.

(ii) There were grey areas in handling the applications for street activities involving the expression of political views. Activities with less than 50 persons were not taken as public events for the purpose of application. Placing articles on streets was by its nature an act of street obstruction, but in FEHD’s view, it should not be deemed as an act of street obstruction if it involved the expression of political views.

22 Action In Hong Kong, while the freedom of speech was upheld, it was also necessary to ensure that no nuisance was caused to others. In the long run, the Government should formulate appropriate policies to address the existing grey areas.

(iii) At present, despite the rich scenes of political view expression in the areas of Paterson Street and East Point Road, nuisance had been reduced or at least, bloody objects and loud quarrels were no longer seen. And it was very important that passers-by could really listen to different political aspirations. However, apart from activities involving the expression of political views, there were also busy business activities in the areas, with business organisations distributing various promotional materials. She hoped the relevant departments would formulate policies to address this problem.

85. Mr CHENG Ki-kin raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) While the problem concerning business operators placing goods in public areas had been mitigated, some business operators switched to using goods vehicles as warehouses, parking them on roads for the whole day for frequent loading and unloading of goods, thus causing obstruction to the traffic. If police officers approached them, they would put the goods back into their vehicles; and they would take the goods out again after the enforcement officers left. He asked the Police if there were any ways to tackle this problem.

(ii) Street art performers sang with amplifiers in some places with heavy passenger flows, causing nuisance to residents nearby. They dispersed when police officers approached them but resumed their performance after the police officers left. He suspected that these art performances were businesses operated by syndicates, and the art performers might be non-Hong Kong residents as they did not speak the local language. He hoped that while advising them to leave, the Police would also request them to show their identity cards.

86. The Hon Paul TSE raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) A law had been passed under which a shop involved in street

23 Action obstruction could be subject to a fixed penalty of $1,500. Members might see if the problem would be mitigated.

(ii) The problem of skips was ignored by three departments, namely the Police, HyD and the Environmental Protection Department. Skips placed on streets not only caused obstruction, but also posed serious traffic risks at night if there were no lights or signs. He enquired whether the Police could make more efforts to tackle this problem.

87. Mr MAK Chin-ho responded that the Police performed its tasks according to priorities. If skips were assessed to be an impending threat to the public or traffic, the Police would arrange contractors to remove them immediately. But sometimes, skips were urgently removed by their owners before the contractors arrived. If skips were placed in a way that posed no immediate danger, it would be left to other relevant departments to deal with them in accordance with the established procedures. He stressed that the Police would certainly take necessary enforcement actions according to its capacity and power under the law.

88. Dr Jennifer CHOW indicated that easy-mount frames could be found here and there on streets and seemed to be unregulated at all. Thanks to the Government’s diligent efforts in enforcement, the problem seemed to have been slightly mitigated for a while, but it worsened again recently. Item (11) of the progress report stated that FEHD had issued 34 fixed penalty notices and seized 287 easy-mount frames in total. She wondered why FEHD had not issued more fixed penalty notices and hoped FEHD would step up enforcement and prosecution.

89. Mr LAU Chi-keung responded that FEHD paid serious attention to the problem of indiscriminate placing of commercial easy-mount frames. FEHD officers would seize any unattended easy-mount frames, and would issue fixed penalty notices if the owners of easy-mount frames were at the scene. However, many of these persons would escape immediately with their easy-mount frames left behind if they saw FEHD officers approaching. This explained the difference between the number of fixed penalty notices issued and the number of easy-mount frames seized.

90. The Chairperson asked Members to note the progress report.

24 Action Information Papers Item 8: Progress Reports of Committees under WCDC (a) Community Building and Housing Affairs Committee (WCDC Paper No. 40/2016) (b) Cultural and Leisure Services Committee (WCDC Paper No. 41/2016) (c) District Works and Facilities Management Committee (WCDC Paper No. 42/2016) (d) Development, Planning and Transport Committee (WCDC Paper No. 43/2016) (e) Food and Environmental Hygiene Committee (WCDC Paper No. 44/2016) (f) Funding and General Affairs Committee (WCDC Paper No. 45/2016)

91. The Chairperson asked Members to note the above paper.

92. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG raised the following views:

(i) On item no. 7 of Paper No. 43/2016, she had requested at the meeting concerned that HyD should provide a report on obstacles in the construction site. She requested the inclusion of this request in the progress report.

(ii) On item no. 7 of Paper No. 45/2016, she had raised objection at the meeting concerned. She requested that her opposing views be recorded on a named basis in the progress report.

93. Miss Clarisse YEUNG said that she had raised several questions and opposing views on item no. 6 of Paper No. 41/2016. She requested that her opposing views be recorded in the progress report.

94. The Chairperson said that it was the Secretariat’s practice to prepare minutes of meetings in summary form, and Members who wished to have their comments put on record on a named basis should make such a request before they spoke.

95. Ms Yolanda NG made the following remarks on the queries of Miss Clarisse YEUNG:

(i) Miss Clarisse YEUNG had suggested at the discussion on the project Ani-Com Park@Harbour “FUN” that more workshops be organised, and this suggestion was implied by the wording of “promote the project to the public” in the

25 Action progress report.

(ii) While saying that it was archaic to place statues, Miss Clarisse YEUNG had not specifically expressed her objection to the project. If there had been any Members raising objection when the project was voted, such objection would certainly have been put on record.

(iii) The Secretariat would send the minutes to Members before each CLSC meeting, so Members might propose amendments to the minutes.

96. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG stated that regarding Paper No. 45/2016, FGAC had amended the WCDC Standing Orders at its meeting on 8 March, and she had requested at the meeting that her opposing views be put on record on a named basis. She would like to reiterate her request at this meeting.

Item 9: Financial Statement of WCDC Funds for 2015/16 (WCDC Paper No. 46/2016)

97. The Chairperson asked Members to note the paper.

Item 10: Summary of Meetings of Area Committees (WCDC Paper No. 47/2016)

98. The Chairperson asked Members to note the paper.

99. Mr Anson LAM noted from the crime situation of Wan Chai South Area that there had been more burglary cases in 2015 than before, so he hoped the Police would do more to follow up on this. Besides, he had recently learnt from newspapers and magazines about the influx of bogus refugees, which might affect the public order of Wan Chai District. He hoped the Police would step up patrolling.

100. Ms Kenny LEE praised the Police for taking prompt action with the Immigration Department and Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department in smashing a large syndicate smuggling bogus refugees. She hoped government departments would keep up efforts to tackle the influx of bogus refugees by, for example, considering legislative amendments in a bid to prevent refugees from staying in Hong Kong for illegal employment.

26 Action Item 11: Any Other Business (i) Nomination of WCDC Representative as Co-opted Member of Task Force on Harbourfront Developments on Hong Kong Island

101. The Chairperson informed the meeting that the Harbourfront Commission was inviting WCDC to nominate a Member as a co-opted member of the Task Force on Harbourfront Developments on Hong Kong Island to advise on the planning, design and management of the harbourfront, among other matters. The Chairperson asked whether Ms Jacqueline CHUNG, the WCDC representative for the last term, was willing to continue serving on the task force.

102. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG indicated her willingness to continue serving on the task force.

103. There being no other nominations, the Chairperson announced that Ms Jacqueline CHUNG would be nominated as a co-opted member of the Task Force on Harbourfront Developments on Hong Kong Island.

(ii) Nomination of WCDC Representative to Selection Panel of Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme and Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme

104. The Chairperson informed the meeting that the Buildings Department was inviting WCDC to nominate a Member to the Selection Panel of the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme (MBIS) and Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme (MWIS) to advise the Buildings Department on selection of target buildings. Again, Ms Jacqueline CHUNG was the WCDC representative for the last term. The Chairperson asked Ms Jacqueline CHUNG whether she was willing to continue serving on the panel.

105. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG nominated Ms Kenny LEE to succeed her to serve on the panel.

106. Ms Kenny LEE indicated her willingness to take up the service.

107. There being no other nominations, the Chairperson announced that Ms Kenny LEE was nominated to join the MBIS and MWIS Selection Panel.

27 Action (iii) Nomination of WCDC Representative for Secretary for Development to Consider for Appointment to Disciplinary Board

108. The Chairperson informed the meeting that the Secretary for Development would from time to time consider appointing lay persons to the disciplinary boards under Sections 5(3A) and 11(4A) of the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123), whose duty was to offer suggestions and opinions from the perspective of the general public. The Development Bureau was inviting WCDC to nominate a Member for the Secretary for Development to consider for appointment to the disciplinary board.

109. Miss Clarisse YEUNG nominated herself to serve on the disciplinary board.

110. Ms Peggy LEE said that as the CBHAC Chairperson, she had been handling matters on building management. She opined that it would be more appropriate for the Chairperson of the relevant committee to serve on the disciplinary board.

111. Ms Kenny LEE agreed that the CBHAC Chairperson was a suitable candidate for membership of the disciplinary board. She therefore nominated Ms Peggy LEE to serve on the disciplinary board.

112. The Chairperson asked Members if a vote was needed as there were two nominations.

113. Ms Peggy LEE said she could have some discussion with Miss Clarisse YEUNG and asked the Chairperson whether the decision had to be made at this meeting.

114. The Chairperson responded that there was a deadline for nomination.

115. Ms Yolanda NG opined that there was no need to hold a vote for the nomination of a co-opted member. She suggested the two nominated Members have discussion after the meeting and offer their views to the full council.

116. The Chairperson asked Members if they agreed with the suggestion of Ms Yolanda NG.

117. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG suggested the WCDC Chairperson have discussion with the two nominated Members after the meeting.

28 Action

118. The Hon Paul TSE opined that if there was any nomination of this kind being put forward for discussion at a meeting, Members should be notified about it in advance and provided with the relevant information, so that they could know in detail the workload and nature of the board concerned whilst interested Members could have the opportunity to discuss with each other.

119. The Chairperson indicated that as suggested by Ms Jacqueline CHUNG and Ms Yolanda NG, he would have discussion with the two Members who were interested in taking up the service.

120. Ms Yolanda NG pointed out that the Hon Paul TSE hoped to receive sufficient information before a meeting. She asked the Secretary to explain how an invitation was handled upon receipt, so as to dispel any understanding.

121. The Secretary explained that upon receipt of an invitation of this kind, the Secretariat would immediately forward the original copy of the relevant information to the 13 Members via email. As personal data were contained in the relevant paper, the Secretariat had not printed it out. The Secretariat received the invitation for nomination to the disciplinary board only on 18 March and informed Members of the invitation on the same day.

122. The Hon Paul TSE opined that if circulation was arranged beforehand for interested Members to express their wishes, the Chairperson could make coordination efforts before the meeting to avoid embarrassment and inconvenience.

123. The Chairperson said he would have discussion with the Members concerned after the meeting. (Post-meeting note: After the Chairperson’s discussion with Ms Peggy LEE and Miss Clarisse YEUNG, it was decided that Miss Clarisse YEUNG be nominated for the Secretary for Development to consider for appointment to the disciplinary board.)

Item 12: Date of Next Meeting

124. The Chairperson announced that the next meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 17 May 2016 (Tuesday).

29 Action Adjournment of Meeting

125. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

Wan Chai District Council Secretariat May 2016

These minutes of meeting were confirmed on 17 May 2016.