(Translation)

Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of Sham Shui Po District Council (5th Term) under the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Date: 12 April 2016 (Tuesday) Time: 9:30 a.m. Venue: Conference Room, Sham Shui Po District Council

Present

Chairman Mr CHEUNG Wing-sum, Ambrose, MH, JP

Members Mr CHAN Kwok-wai Mr CHAN Wai-ming, MH Ms CHAN Wing-yan, Joephy (Arrived at 10:10 a.m.) Mr CHENG Wing-shun, Vincent Ms CHOW Wing-heng, Zoé (Left at 6:55 p.m.) Mr CHUM Tak-shing (Arrived at 12:50 p.m.) Mr HO Kai-ming, Kalvin Mr KONG Kwai-sang (Left at 1:15 p.m.) Mr LAM Ka-fai, Aaron, JP (Arrived at 10 a.m.) Ms LAU Pui-yuk Mr LEE Tsz-king, Dominic Mr LEE Wing-man Mr LEUNG Man-kwong Mr LEUNG Yau-fong (Left at 3:45 p.m.) Ms NG Mei, Carman (Left at 8 p.m.) Ms NG Yuet-lan (Left at 8:45 p.m.) Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, MH, JP Mr WAI Woon-nam Mr WONG Tat-tung, Dennis, MH, JP (Left at 6:30 p.m.) Mr YAN Kai-wing Mr YUEN Hoi-man - 2 - Action by

In Attendance Mr MOK Kwan-yu, Benjamin, JP District Officer (Sham Shui Po) Miss CHAN Pui-ki, Kiki Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 1 Mr WAI Chun-yin, Mickey Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2 Ms CHAN Tsz-yee, Emily Senior Liaison Officer 1, Sham Shui Po District Office Mr WONG Leung-ping, Ben Senior Liaison Officer 2, Sham Shui Po District Office Ms NG Suk-min, Min Senior Liaison Officer 3, Sham Shui Po District Office Mrs MAK LAU Wai-mun, Acting District Commander (Sham Shui Po), Hong Kong Josephine Police Force Mr KO Chun-pong, Bon Police Community Relations Officer (Sham Shui Po District), Hong Kong Police Force Ms CHIU Hei Engineer/Kowloon 5, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mrs KWOK LI Mung-yee, Helen District Social Welfare Officer (Sham Shui Po), Social Welfare Department Mr LIU Wai-shing, Simon Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LEE Kar-mei, Camay District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr LAI Kah-kit District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Sham Shui Po), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr WONG Yuet-chung Acting Chief Manager/Management (Kowloon West and Hong Kong), Housing Department Mr CHOY Chik-sang, Mario Chief Transport Officer/Kowloon, Transport Department Mr LAU Kin-hei, Louis Senior Transport Officer/Sham Shui Po, Transport Department Mr SUI Wai-keung, Stephen, JP Under Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Labour and Welfare Bureau Ms YIM Hau-wan, Evalina Regional Officer/Kowloon West, Community Relations Department, Independent Commission Against Corruption Ms FUNG Ho-yin Youth & Education Officer/Kowloon West, Community Relations Department, Independent Commission Against Corruption Ms TAM Wai-yee, Portia Deputy District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr CHUM Yan-leung, Philip Senior Town Planner/Sham Shui Po, Planning Department Ms LI Kit-sum, Sumie Senior Estate Surveyor/Sham Shui Po (District Lands Office, Kowloon West), Lands Department Ms LO Shuet-yee, Zoe Engineer/Special Duty 2, Transport Department - 3 - Action by

Mr TAI Hoi-yau, Marco Engineer /Sham Shui Po, Transport Department Mr LEE Chi-yin Senior Housing Manager/KWH1, Housing Department Mr YIP Chi-ki Maintenance Surveyor/Sham Shui Po, Housing Department Mr LEUNG Chan-man Buildings and Building Works Manager, MTR Corporation Limited Mr LEE Hin-kwan Operations Services Manager (Kwun Tong Line and Tsuen Wan Line), MTR Corporation Limited Ms Lilian YEUNG Public Relations Manager – External Affairs, MTR Corporations Limited Miss CHEN King-sun Assistant Principal Immigration Officer (Removal Assessment and Litigation), Immigration Department Mr SHAM Nelson Chief Immigration Officer (Removal Assessment), Immigration Department Mr CHAU Yat-cheung, Lawrence District Planning Officer/Tsuen Wan and West Kowloon, Planning Department Mr WONG Hau-king, James Town Planner/Sham Shui Po 3, Planning Department Mr YAN Siu-hang Air Ventilation Assessment Advisor, Planning Department Mr LEE Chung-yam, Paul Engineer/Planning 1, Transport Department Mr CHAN Hon-kwong Senior Superintendent (Operations) 2, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Ms CHOY Wai-chu Deputy District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po), Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Secretary Ms CHEUNG Ching, Jenny Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Sham Shui Po District Office

Absent Mr YEUNG Yuk

- 4 - Action by

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed Members and representatives from government departments to the third meeting of the Sham Shui Po District Council (“SSPDC”) (5th Term). He then welcomed Ms Josephine LAU, Acting District Commander (Sham Shui Po) of the Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”), who attended this meeting in place of Mr HUI Chun-tak, Steve, Ms CHIU Hei, Engineer/Kowloon 5 of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) who attended this meeting in place of Mr WONG Chi-sing, Janson, and Mr WONG Yuet-chung, Acting Chief Manager/Management (Kowloon West and Hong Kong) of the Housing Department (“HD”) who attended this meeting in place of Mr TSE Chick-lam.

Item 1: Confirmation of minutes of the 1st and 2nd meetings held on 5 January 2016 and 2 February 2016 respectively

2. The Chairman said that the Secretariat issued a letter to Members on 25 February this year, inviting them to give opinions on the minutes of the first meeting before 11 March. As at 11 March, the Secretariat did not receive any amendment proposed by Members and the minutes of the first meeting were therefore confirmed. Since the Secretariat did not receive any proposed amendment to the minutes of the second meeting, the Chairman asked whether Members would like to propose any amendment on the spot.

3. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that regarding paragraph 316 of the minutes of the second meeting, he clarified that the reason for their walking out was to protest against the unjust vote-by-proxy arrangement as well as the casting vote given by the Chairman when there had been an equality of votes, resulting that the voting result was different from the main shades of opinion of Members who had attended the meeting. They walked out in protest was not because they were not satisfied that the Chairman’s proposal was endorsed.

4. The minutes of the second meeting were confirmed without amendment.

5. The Chairman said that the Secretariat received a notice from Mr Dennis WONG before the meeting that he would like to make an oral statement regarding the minutes of the second meeting according to Order 29 of the Sham Shui Po District Council Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”). He asked Mr Dennis WONG to make an oral statement of not more than five minutes. - 5 - Action by

6. Mr Dennis WONG said that he had left the second District Council (“DC”) meeting held on 2 February this year because of family issues and during his absence some Members made speculations which were not based on any objective grounds. In this connection, he made a statement as follows: (i) according to the Standing Orders and the usual practice, Members only had to inform the Secretariat of their leaving and no reason was required; (ii) his leaving had nothing to do with the session of declaration of interests. He had declared interests in accordance with the Standing Orders and had nothing to add; (iii) he had, in accordance with the Standing Orders, authorised in writing a Member to whom he trusted to vote for him before he left the meeting. He believed that the authorised person share the same will with him. In view of that, he expressed regret over the incident happened during the meeting held on 2 February this year.

7. The meeting noted Mr Dennis WONG’s oral statement.

Item 2: Matters for discussion

(a) Public Engagement Exercise on Retirement Protection (SSPDC Paper 45/16) (b) Motion: Requesting the current administration to provide universal retirement protection immediately and honour its election pledges (SSPDC Paper 46/16)

8. The Chairman welcomed Mr Stephen SUI, the Under Secretary for Labour and Welfare, to the meeting. He said that as Papers 45/16 and 46/16 were similar in nature, he suggested the two papers be discussed together. There was no objection.

9. Mr Stephen SUI thanked SSPDC for allowing the Government to listen to views on the portentous issue of retirement protection; he then introduced Paper 45/16.

10. Mr Kalvin HO introduced Paper 46/16.

11. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu remarked that many observers were stakeholders of the retirement protection issue and he hoped that the Chairman would allow them to play a video about universal retirement protection (“URP”) so that the meeting could have a comprehensive understanding of the views of different stakeholders.

12. The Chairman said that DC welcomed members of the public to observe DC meetings and would arrange other venues for them to express opinions if there were special needs. He understood their aspirations and thus allowed them to submit petition letter and express their views before the meeting. He hoped that the meeting could proceed to discuss the agenda item now. - 6 - Action by

13. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) as indicated by the Labour and Welfare Bureau (“LWB”), the birth rate of Hong Kong was constantly declining and he believed that this was the result of the quota policy which allowed 150 Mainland residents to apply for one-way permit and settle in Hong Kong every day. This policy increased the working population of Hong Kong while blunting people’s incentive to have children; (ii) before Hong Kong was returned to the motherland, civic groups had proposed an URP system involving contributions from the Government, the business sector and the public. Yet the Government had brushed aside public opinions for 20 years before launching the half-year long consultation on the retirement protection system. He queried that the Government was dragging its feet and failed to address public aspirations; (iii) the Mandatory Provident Fund (“MPF”) was implemented by the Government in 2000 and the timing was not unsatisfactory. The Government said that MPF members and intermediaries might obtain slim profits through MPF contributions. However, the profit percentages enjoyed by the intermediaries were not mentioned. He opined that the intermediaries made profits for most of the time under the 16-year old MPF Scheme while the public and the employers were always the ones to lose out. Yet the Government had no plan to solve the problem; (iv) the Government indicated that it would soon face structural deficit. However, he believed that if the Government had not pressed ahead the Express Rail Link project and the third runway project, the money saved would be enough to implement URP system.

14. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views: (i) despite being property owners, some elderly people still chose to earn a living by collecting cardboards because they felt insecure for not having any steady incomes. He opined that the society should face up to the problem; (ii) he subscribed to the principles held by some civic groups, including there should be no means test and the sustainability of the system be ensured. However, he pointed out that the society had different views towards some details of the proposal, for example, the sustainability of the system. Some members of the public also worried that the transfer of 2.5% MPF contributions to URP system might lead to communism in another guise or tax hike. Yet the Government’s documents had little elaboration on the sustainability of the system; (iii) according to foreign experience, the less than expected actual investment income from the retirement protection system and the longer than expected average life expectancy were the two causes for the economic problems engendered by URP system. Decades ago, Europe was a labour intensive economy, with the retirement age set at 60. However, the adoption of the system in question under the current situation would place a burden on the Government. He suggested that the Government should take into account the average life expectancy and the dependency ratio when calculating the age entitled for retirement protection to ensure the sustainability of URP system; (iv) he suggested modelling on the proposals offered - 7 - Action by by civic groups and rolling the “fruit money”, the Old Age Living Allowance (“OAL Allowance”) and the public annuity etc. into one. Elderly people could also take the public annuity or pensions from the Government in advance so as to solve their problem of not having any steady income after retirement.

15. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) members of the public could express their opinions during the meeting in the past. He noted that from now on they could only do so before the meeting; (ii) one of the points made by the Government was of particular importance, i.e. whether the whole society was willing to bear the burden of URP system. Given the current situation of Hong Kong, the Government should assume the responsibility first. Since the Government had implemented the “demo-grant” scheme before Hong Kong was returned to the motherland, he called into question why it was unwilling to implement URP system under the principle of “Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy”. He was disappointed that the Government had torn up the society to maintain its rule; (iii) he opined that the Government had misled the public by saying that the fiscal reserves would be depleted in 2041-2042. According to the study report compiled for the Government by Professor Nelson CHOW, the fiscal reserves of the Government could last until 2046. There were many civic proposals on the income sources for URP system. The Government indicated that the simulated option under the “Regardless of Rich or Poor” principle would incur an expenditure of over $40 billion in the first year. He however held that only an additional $20 billion or so were needed because the welfare expenditure for elderly people would cost the Government $25 billion every year. Besides, the overspending of hundreds of millions of dollars by many infrastructure projects suggested that the Government had in fact enough fiscal reserves to implement URP scheme. The question was whether the Government was willing to do so; (iv) he hoped that all Members would make known their stances on URP system today; (v) he opposed the Government’s reneging on its pledge of working out a timetable for cancelling MPF offsetting arrangement.

16. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the Under Secretary’s narrative of the Government’s willingness to listen to public views sound paradoxical to him because the Chief Secretary for Administration (“CS”) had once indicated that the Government meant to put in place a means-test for URP scheme; (ii) he reckoned that although $50 billion had been set aside for improving retirement protection, no practical action was taken by the Government; (iii) the estimated social welfare expenditure, as mentioned by the Government, would increase by 19% but he criticised that the total expenditure for infrastructural projects such as the third runway, the Express Rail Link and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge had reached over $300 billion, far exceeding - 8 - Action by the amount needed for implementing URP scheme. Despite the Government’s explanation that the construction of infrastructures incurred only non-recurrent expenditures, he pointed out that those projects involved day-to-day maintenance and management costs; (iv) the Government said that with a narrow tax base, URP system would add to the burden of taxpayers. He saw the story of narrow tax base a fallacy and believed that the root of the problem laid in the failure of Hong Kong’s taxation system to uphold the principle of “the affordable pay more”, resulting in an unsustainable tax system; (v) despite its repeated emphasis on the need to lower the charges of and make enhancement to MPF etc., the Government did not tackle the offsetting arrangement of the long service payment and the severance payment. MPF system had failed to perform income redistribution function as MPF scheme members could only withdraw money from their own accounts; the general public could not benefit from MPF retirement assets which were running at over $600 billion. He opined that if Hong Kong people could make a contribution of over $600 billion in 16 years, they could well afford URP scheme; (vi) URP was basic rights, it should not be demand-based; nor should it be seen as a poverty alleviation initiative. The society should share the burden and tripartite contribution should be implemented; (vii) he criticised the Government for reserving $800 billion for civil service pensions but shying from allocating $100 billion for URP scheme; (viii) he asked whether the Government would provide any specific plan for URP scheme after the consultation period and what it would do if the majority of Hong Kong people supported the implementation of URP scheme; (ix) he enquired about the actual use of the $50 billion and whether the Government would heed public demands and raise the reserves for URP scheme to $100 billion.

17. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) the retirement protection system of Hong Kong was far from comprehensive. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (“DAB”) hoped that the elderly could enjoy basic livelihood protection. Given that the implementation of URP scheme required enormous resources, the society had to reach a consensus on burden-sharing, including the introduction of new taxes, raising tax rates or considering other financing sources etc.; (ii) he opined that with the existing resources and mechanism, the Government should at this stage provide transitional arrangements for the elderly in financial needs to protect their livelihood. The Government should commit more to the elderly allowance system, including lowering the age limit for exemption of asset and income test under the Old Age Allowance (“OA Allowance”) Scheme to 65, allowing elderly people receiving Disability Allowance to collect OA Allowance as well, and lowering the asset limit for applying OAL Allowance. He also considered that the Government should lift the asset limit of $80,000 proposed by the consultation on the retirement protection scheme so that more elderly people could be benefited. He held the view that social consensus should - 9 - Action by be reached before URP scheme be launched incrementally.

18. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai raised the following views: (i) Hong Kong people had to live on MPF after retirement, however, the offsetting mechanism and service charges had diminished the protection for the retirees; (ii) housewives did not make MPF contributions and thus could not enjoy any protection after retirement; (iii) it was incumbent upon the Government to work out a comprehensive URP scheme and thought over its sustainability.

19. Mr LEE Wing-man raised the following views: (i) he would move a provisional motion; (ii) the Government said that the birth rate of Hong Kong was low and elderly people with no children would have nobody to fall back on. If their savings were shrunk by inflation, they might turn to the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (“CSSA”) and have the Government paid for their cost of living; (iii) URP scheme should not be developed based on needs because elderly people had life-long contributions to the society and should be allowed to live with dignity and enjoy retirement protection. In view of this, it was fair for three parties to contribute to URP scheme; (iv) he also proposed that the Government should review the tax base.

20. Ms Joephy CHAN raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the Government had all along adopted a 4-pillar model which included the “fruit money”, MPF, personal savings and public services. She reckoned that the Government’s study was not comprehensive. When working out the expenditures incurred by the two simulated options, the Government failed to take into account the reduced pressure on public medical services and public services after the establishment of URP system. She wanted to know whether the Government had assessed how much money it could save after URP system was put in place against a background of slower growth in the expenditure on public services; (ii) The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (“HKFTU”) always supported the establishment of URP system, yet the Government insisted that CSSA, “fruit money”, MPF and personal savings should be the only resort. In fact, the amount of “fruit money” was derisory and some elderly people were not qualified for CSSA because their assets had barely exceeded the limits. Moreover, the offsetting arrangement of MPF had cost many members of the public the retirement protection they were entitled. In view of this, HKFTU supported the establishment of a comprehensive retirement protection system. In addition to increasing the “fruit money” and conducting comprehensive evaluation of MPF offsetting arrangement, they also hoped that the age requirement for applying Elderly Health Care Voucher could be lowered to 65 so that more retired elderly people could benefit from it. Most importantly, HKFTU called for the establishment of a non-means-tested retirement - 10 - Action by protection scheme with contribution from employees, employers and the Government so that more retirees including housewives with no employment and people who were unemployed due to chronic diseases could benefit from it; (iii) the retirement protection scheme, which aimed at making provisions for elderly people’s daily living and providing them with decent homes, was not poverty alleviation initiative. It sought to promote the spirits of respecting, loving and caring old people. Despite the serious income disparity in Hong Kong and the steadily rising of the Gini Coefficient, she opined that there were many ways to redistribute wealth and no line should be drawn between the rich and the poor in the retirement protection system; (iv) regarding the “Those with Financial Needs” option, she doubted that it would be difficult to define who were the elderly in need according to their assets. Such practice was unjust and would even stoke greater social conflicts; (v) retirement protection was originally intended to help the elderly who had made contribution to Hong Kong to lead a dignified and comfortable retirement life while lifting the burden of the younger generations.

21. Mr KONG Kwai-sang raised the following views: (i) the Government’s proposals of issuing bonds and improving mortgage schemes were tantamount to asking the public to help themselves. He believed that the problem laid in the tax regime. The document mentioned an increase of profit tax from 16.5% to 20.7% whereas the highest profit tax in the world ranged from 30% to 70%. Many rich people benefited from the extremely low tax rates of Hong Kong while many elderly people were living without any protection. He believed that the Government should reform the tax regime instead of only asking the elderly to save money; (ii) he held that MPF should be abolished, pointing out that the Government had been tilting over fund houses as it had refused to review relevant MPF products. After implementing for more than a decade, it was the fund houses that had walked off with the prize, not the elderly people. He hence proposed that the Government should review the issue critically and work out better options.

22. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) he was pessimistic about the implementation of URP scheme. CS said more than once that she had reservation on the URP scheme, pointing out that the implementation of the scheme within the tenure of the current-term government would be difficult. He opined that LWB did not mean to garner Members’ views today; it would stick to its guns on the issue of retirement protection in the days to come. When the Government invited Professor Nelson CHOW to conduct research, it believed that the results would suit its needs. So when the results were in favour of public’s views, the Government tampered with them; (ii) he criticised that the Government was domineering and failed to make good use of public money and the reserves. The construction and maintenance costs for the infrastructural - 11 - Action by projects in recent years had run at a few hundred billion dollars, yet the public had little benefits from them; (iii) the Government said that there were various ways to help different people but nothing was done to address public aspirations such as building care and attention homes for the elderly. He also opined that the Government was not credible as it often assured the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) that infrastructural projects would not overspend; (iv) when Sichuan earthquake erupted years ago, the Government was so generous as to donate $10 billion to Sichuan local government. Moreover, the Financial Secretary also indicated that revenues would be extracted from the development fund on an annual basis. He queried the Government’s narrative that its financial commitment for housing and other projects would be affected after the implementation of URP scheme was just an excuse.

23. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong (“BPA”) supported the idea of reviewing the existing retirement protection system but the Government should maintain the established simple and low tax regime of Hong Kong while setting up a new retirement protection system. It was difficult for BPA to support the “Regardless of Rich or Poor” simulated option as set out in the consultation document because the expenditures involved would weigh down Hong Kong. Introducing new taxes or raising existing tax rates would change the simple and low tax regime of Hong Kong; (ii) proposals aiming to improve the sustainability of public finance or increase financing sources deluged after the consultation period had begun, for example, to transfer some of the MPF savings to the retirement protection scheme, to receive contributions from individuals and the Government, or to inject some of the tax incomes into a URP fund without changing the tax rates. All those proposals could achieve the end of URP; (iii) the current worry was that the system might not be sustainable if contributions were not made by multi-parties and the Government might have to pass the financial burden to the business sector or squeeze the welfare entitlement of the grassroots. If the sustainability of the system could be ensured and financing sources could be increased, URP scheme would be workable.

24. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) the Government had been considering the setting up of a retirement protection scheme for over ten years. She reckoned that the seeking of social consensus was only an excuse and questioned why the Government did not set up a fund for URP scheme; (ii) while most of the taxes were paid by the general public, she believed that the rich who had made a packet from the public should pay more taxes to help the grassroots. She queried whether a consensus could be reached if the Government had colluded with the business sector and believed that the Government had overlooked the needs of the grassroots; (iii) she supported the - 12 - Action by idea of providing retirement protection to both the rich and the poor because they had pay taxes and made contributions; (iv) she asked the Government to inject money to the URP fund and cease handling the issue with a bureaucratic mentality; (v) she hoped that Members could press ahead URP scheme. Regarding the motion moved by Mr LEE Wing-man that URP scheme should only be implemented after consensus such as proven financial viability had been reached, she opined that if the Government could spend more than $100 billion for infrastructural projects, it could certainly pay for the expenditure incurred by URP. The implementation of URP scheme should not be stalled over concerns about financial burden. She hoped that the pro-establishment Members could honour their pledges and press ahead URP scheme.

25. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) DC had submitted papers requesting LWB officers to attend the meeting, she hoped that the Under Secretary could relay the request to the Secretary for Labour and Welfare; (ii) people of all age groups were concerned about when the Government would implement URP. She just received a letter from an organisation reflecting the aspirations of the youth. It was not only the elderly who needed URP; the youth also craved that. Despite living with their children, some elderly people still had to collect cardboards for a living. URP scheme could alleviate the burden of the youth and the elderly. She doubted whether the Government had ever tried to solve the deep-lying social conflicts and the income disparity problems; (iii) as the Government had rolled out infrastructural projects without consensus, she opined that it should not stall the implementation of URP scheme over the excuse of forging consensus. The Government had the financial wherewithal to implement the scheme now; (iv) at present, only those aged 70 or above would be issued with Elderly Health Care Vouchers and those who were 80 or above could enjoy dental care service provided by the Community Care Fund. She queried why the Government did not help more people when the financial situation allowed; (v) the Government did not adopt Professor Nelson CHOW’s views despite commissioning him to study URP scheme; many members of the social welfare sector were disappointed by that.

26. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views: (i) it was everybody’s wish to have comprehensive retirement protection; (ii) in dearth of natural resources, Hong Kong maintained a low tax regime for years to stay competitive and attract foreign investors; (iii) he compared children giving pocket money to their parents to the current situation, pointing out that the rub was whether the pocket money would be increased in the future or be redistributed; (iv) in reality, some Hong Kong people paid a large amount of tax but enjoyed few welfare benefits while others had paid small amount of tax but enjoyed many welfare benefits. He deemed it necessary to study whether a tax hike was needed. According to the Government’s estimation, more than $20 billion a year was required to - 13 - Action by sustain the “Regardless of Rich or Poor” simulated option and he believed that the $50 billion reserves would soon be depleted. The reserves, be it $50 billion or $100 billion, would never be enough to meet the expenses of URP scheme; (v) he supported the full implementation of URP scheme but pointed out that all parties should join the discussion and reach a consensus. Europe was beset by financial problems albeit its high tax rates. He believed that it was necessary to explore how to strike a balance between retirement protection and tax burden.

27. Mr Stephen SUI gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) The number of applicants for one-way permit had been declining, with only about 100 applications per day. The estimation was based on actual figure.

(ii) The retirement protection issue was complicated and involved various pillars of the retirement protection system. With different options from different parties, the Government wanted to work out a comprehensive retirement protection scheme to address the needs of different people. Hence, it needed a longer consultation period with a view to forging consensus.

(iii) The prerequisite condition for solving livelihood problems was economic development. It would be inappropriate to use all the money to tackle livelihood problems and the impact of the policy on the economy should be carefully considered. Only with a growing economy could we have enough resources to improve people’s livelihood, including the implementation of retirement protection scheme.

(iv) He agreed that although the elderly had to collected cardboards, it did not necessarily imply that they had no assets. They did so just because they felt insecure about the future. In view of this, the Government proposed in the consultation document some specific measures such as to help elderly people with modest assets by means of annuity and bond investment. It would also consider further improving the existing “zero pillar” or other system if necessary.

(v) Elderly people had contributed a lot to the society and the retirement protection system proposed now aimed to champion the spirits of respecting and caring the elderly. The non-means-tested OA Allowance (commonly known as “fruit money”) would be increased to $1,390 with retrospective effect from 1 February this year. A $2 public transport concession scheme - 14 - Action by

and the Elderly Health Care Vouchers etc. were offered to the elderly and currently about 830,000 elderly people could enjoy the $2 concession when taking green minibuses now. The Government would support the elderly with respect and care regardless of their economic conditions.

(vi) The proposals of adjusting the amount of OAL Allowance or relaxing the age restriction on applicants etc. could be further discussed. Apart from the non-means-tested OA Allowance, elderly people with financial needs could also apply for OAL Allowance, of which the application procedures and requirements were more lax. The asset limit of OAL Allowance had been raised to about $220,000 excluding self-occupied properties and more than 40% of the elderly were receiving this allowance. Whether the asset limit for applying OAL Allowance should be relaxed could be further discussed but the relevant parties should also take into account the Government’s financial burden and balancing various factors.

(vii) LWB would collate the views garnered after the consultation ran out on 21 June this year. Since the issue was complicated and involved various policy areas, the Government would study it carefully and determine the way forward as soon as possible with a view to promoting the relevant work.

(viii) The Government had earmarked $50 billion to show its determination to improve retirement protection system. It hoped to garner during the consultation period views on the budget and the ways to better utilise the money so as to determine the way forward.

(ix) The consultation documents set out various proposals for improving the pillars so as to garner views on issues including how to provide specific assistance to special groups such as women who were not in employment. For example, to see if there was any policy to boost incentives and help the relevant groups to make voluntary contributions other than providing financial assistance to them.

(x) There was room for improvement for the existing retirement protection system and its various pillars. He therefore hoped that all parties would offer specific views on the retirement protection system, social affordability and how to better allocate resources in order to forge a consensus and move ahead. - 15 - Action by

28. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) he saw the consultation as a sham one. After asking the public to share the burden in times of difficulties, the Government refused to implement URP scheme when the economy improved on the excuse that it would harm the competitiveness of Hong Kong; (ii) he cited the withdrawal of employee members of the Labour Advisory Board from the Standard Working Hours Committee (“SWHC”) as an example, pointing out that SWHC had also conducted consultation without reaching consensus at that time. He believed that the Government had no intention to implement URP scheme within this term even if social consensus was reached on URP.

29. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the Under Secretary had sidestepped the problem by saying that welfare for the elderly would be enhanced. The dissension within Hong Kong was so serious that the strengths of all parties were required to make the society more harmonious. The improvement of welfare service was only a remedy and he opined that only the implementation of URP could rekindle hope in the society; (ii) SWHC had not reached any consensus at that time. He said that if the part pertaining “social consensus” was taken away, pan-democratic Members might support the motion.

30. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views: (i) the Under Secretary remarked that money should be reserved for economic development. However, he opined that a good URP system could boost the consumption of elderly people and it seemed that the Government had not taken that into account; (ii) Singapore had a sturdy second pillar and the contributions from employers and employees amounted to over 30% while those of Hong Kong were less than 10%; not least there was the offsetting arrangement. He hoped that the Government would handle MPF problem in the first place to show sincerity and rebuild public confidence towards MPF.

31. Mr LEE Wing-man raised the following views: (i) as URP scheme was still at consultation stage, LWB should listen to public views before mulling over the actual scheme; (ii) he stressed that Hong Kong must implement URP scheme but the rub was how it could be implemented while maintaining financial sustainability. To solve the problem, the Government, the business sector and the public should share the burden together, with workers taking up the smallest part of it; (iii) should tell young people that URP scheme was a two-way scheme; they needed to contribute to the society in order to have the rewards.

32. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai said that he hoped that the Under Secretary could stop shirking the problem and listen to public views. The Government should conduct more - 16 - Action by consultation on URP and consider different options so as to solve the sustainability problem.

33. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he asked whether the Government would implement URP scheme after the consultation was completed if more than half of the public supported it; (ii) whether the Government could offer a specific timetable, roadmap or plan for the establishment of URP scheme after consultation; (iii) proposals from civic groups and scholars requested the setting up of a $100 billion fund, however, the Government only earmarked $50 billion for that. He asked whether another $50 billion would be added to the fund.

34. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) the implementation of URP scheme had been stalled over the conduction of full consultation and the forging of consensus. She strongly requested the Government to stop wasting time on consultation since the majority of people believed that it was necessary to implement URP scheme. Only some of the rich people did not want to contribute to URP scheme; (ii) she believed that Professor Nelson CHOW’s option represented social consensus.

35. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) options involving contributions from the Government, the business sector and the public was proposed by civic groups more than two decades ago, with a higher contribution ratio for the Government than those for employers and employees. However, the proposal was shelved. Professor Nelson CHOW brought forth URP scheme more than two decades ago and he did not understand why the Government had to consult on that again; (ii) he wondered what the Government would do if a consensus was reached and the majority supported a URP scheme with contributions from the Government, the business sector and the public; (iii) he opined that if the Government had started to make contributions more than two decades ago, many members of the public would benefit from it now. He hoped that the Under Secretary would dispel public doubts and give an account on when URP scheme would be implemented.

36. Mr Stephen SUI gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) The Government understood the argument in the society and would not shirk the problem. In response, it was now consulting the public on retirement protection system, hoping that a solution could be found through the discussion of various issues including MPF system and that progress could be made on the issue of retirement protection system. - 17 - Action by

(ii) There was room for improvement for the existing retirement protection system as well as its pillars. What concerned the Government was whether the retirement protection system was comprehensive. Apart from income protection, the needs of the elderly and different groups should also be taken care of. The Government hoped that apart from the poor elderly, people with low income or modest assets could also enjoy full protection in medical care, housing and health care after retirement.

(iii) The Government would consider rudimentary issues such as financial viability and sustainability when exploring different retirement protection options; which were also the foci of public discussion.

(iv) Since retirement protection scheme involved many combinations and directions, it would be difficult for the Government to simply pick one option after the consultation was over.

(v) The concepts of “universal” and “non-universal” might not necessarily exclude each other. Under the current social welfare system, people aged 70 or above could receive “fruit money” and enjoy the $2 public transport concession and the Elderly Health Care Vouchers. Adjustment of the amount and relaxation of the age requirement of the “fruit money” scheme could be further discussed. Elderly people could also apply for OAL Allowance or CSSA based on their financial needs. Given that many proposals had also blended the “universal” and “non-universal” concepts, he therefore urged all parties to proffer specific proposals instead of arguing solely over those concepts. Through practical and rational discussion, the Government hoped that consensus could be forged over how the retirement protection system could be improved and a specific proposal thrashed out. The Government would carefully analysis the views garnered, in the hope to determine the way forward.

(vi) The Government agreed that the problem of the offsetting arrangement of MPF, which was a contentious topic, had to be solved. The Government knew that such arrangement would fritter away the accrued benefits of the employees in MPF schemes, yet the impact of dropping such arrangement on the business sector especially the small and medium enterprises could not be overlooked. The Government would explore what role it could play, in the hope that headway could be made over this issue. - 18 - Action by

(vii) The $50 billion earmarked was aimed to show the Government’s determination to improve the retirement protection system. After a consensus was forged and the way forward determined, the Government would consider whether more money should be ring-fenced for the retirement protection scheme. The Government would mull over the views garnered.

37. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) the issue was contentious, invovling different perspectives and views; (ii) there was an original motion moved by Mr Kalvin HO (Motion 1) and he wanted to know who the seconder was.

38. Mr Kalvin HO remarked that the seconder of Motion 1 was Mr KONG Kwai-sang.

39. The Chairman said that there was another original motion moved by Mr LEE Wing-man and seconded by Ms Joephy CHAN (Motion 2) but the meeting should vote by open ballot on Motion 1 first.

40. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that he had proposed to delete the wordings “social consensus” in Motion 2 during his speech. He hoped that the mover of Motion 2 could respond to that.

41. Mr LEE Wing-man said that according to procedures, Motion 1 should be discussed first. He would introduce the paper when the meeting proceeded to discuss Motion 2. After that, Members would be invited to discuss and make responses.

42. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong remarked that Motion 2 should not be regarded as an amended motion; the two motions should be seen as parallel or independent motions.

43. The Chairman responded that he had mentioned that the two motions were both original ones.

44. The Chairman asked whether Mr Kalvin HO had anything to add to Motion 1.

45. Mr Kalvin HO said that Motion 1 aimed to urge the Government to implement URP immediately, honour its election pledge and stop setting up preconditions for URP.

46. Mr LEE Wing-man introduced the content of Motion 2 as follows: “If financially allowed and after comprehensive public consultation, the Government should immediately implement URP after social consensus on the following principles are forged: no means tests, enjoyed by all, Hong Kong residents aged 65 or above will - 19 - Action by benefit at once, contributions from the Government, the business sector and the public, shared responsibility of the society, will not count on single financing resources, sustainable, can meet the demands at the peak of population ageing, pay at a flat rate, sufficient level etc.” He continued that elected Members should take heed of public views. To achieve “social consensus” meant that the ideas should be accepted by most of the people.

47. The Chairman asked Mr Kalvin HO to read out Motion 1.

48. Mr Kalvin HO said that the content of Motion 1 were as follows: “To implement URP and honour the election pledge immediately”. He then asked Mr LEE Wing-man whether social consensus had been reached now.

49. The meeting conducted an open ballot for Motion 1 moved by Mr Kalvin HO.

50. The voting result was as follows:

For: Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (8)

Against: Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing (12)

Abstain: (0)

51. The Chairman announced the voting result: 8 Members voted for the motion, 12 voted against it and no Member abstained. The Chairman declared that Motion 1 was not carried.

52. The Chairman proceeded to handle Motion 2.

53. Ms Joephy CHAN raised the following views: (i) URP scheme was a livelihood topic and discussion should be focused on how it should be implemented including the participants, features and results to be achieved by the scheme; not on political argument; (ii) she had collected views from civic groups and formulated specific options for the employer-employee scheme and the tripartite scheme. Since HKFTU had also - 20 - Action by requested the Government to use the Land Fund, she believed that it was financially viable for the Government to implement URP scheme; (iii) she opined that other options should also be considered after the direction of URP scheme was set. Despite there was an array of URP options, she hoped that all parties would support HKFTU’s option for improving MPF offsetting arrangement and social security measures with a view to bracing for a population ageing future.

54. Ms Carman NG remarked that like the Government’s proposal, Motion 2 moved by HKFTU and the Federation of Hong Kong & Kowloon Labour Unions (“FHKKLU”) suggested implementing URP scheme only if it was financially viable and with social consensus. She queried when a consensus could be reached and believed that Motion 2 amounted virtually to asking Members to support the stalling of URP implementation by the Government. In view of this, she opposed that Motion.

55. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) she agreed with the views of Ms Carman NG, pointing out that URP scheme was closely tied to the fortune of every people and if pro-establishment Members kept blindly supporting the Government, they would no longer worth their salt as elected Members; (ii) she believed that to reach the so-called “consensus” would require fund injection by the business sector, which would in turn doom the chance of passing URP scheme; (iii) what the society wanted was an URP scheme.

56. Mr YUEN Hoi-man said that objectively speaking the options proposed by civic groups had taken into consideration the issue of financial sustainability and were financially viable although he did not fully agree with the nuts and bolts of them. However, the idea of seeking social consensus first would prompt suspicion that Motion 2 was aimed to help the business sector and the Government stall the implementation of URP scheme. Ms Joephy CHAN had just expressed her support for improving the offsetting arrangement of MPF while the Liberal Party and BPA had opposed it. He hoped that Members could face the public with sincerity.

57. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) he opined that the conditions such as financial viability, comprehensive consultation and social consensus mentioned in Motion 2 had already been fulfilled. He required the mover and the seconder to state clearly whether they saw any social consensus on the implementation of URP scheme. The scheme should be implemented if they believed that consensus had been reached, otherwise, they should state clearly that they did not support the implementation of the scheme; (ii) Motion 1 moved by him demanded immediate implementation of URP scheme, he queried why some Members who claimed to support the scheme had opposed - 21 - Action by his motion; (iii) he held the view that HKFTU and FHKKLU had betrayed the working class.

58. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he asked the public to note that FHKKLU and HKFTU did not support the immediate implementation of URP scheme; (ii) he proposed an amendment to Motion 2, requiring the deletion of the words “social consensus”.

59. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views: (i) consultation on the topic concerned was now being carried out in Hong Kong. He believed that nobody would oppose the establishment of URP system but the rub was who should bear the burden and how the resources should be allocated; (ii) he supported the ideas of financial viability and full public consultation brought up by Motion 2 and appreciated the concept of burden-sharing by the Government, the business sector and the public; (iii) issues relating to important policies should be explored jointly by stakeholders for an acceptable option. This was especially important in a pluralistic society like Hong Kong, with people coming from various rungs of social ladder and sectors. He hoped that URP scheme could forge solidarity instead of polarising opinions.

60. Mr LEE Wing-man raised the following views: (i) he made it clear that he opposed Motion 1 because many of its contents had nothing to do with URP scheme and were not verified; (ii) he absolutely supported URP scheme and opined that Hong Kong had fulfilled the conditions mentioned in Motion 2. In light of this, he moved the motion to make the demand to the Government; (iii) he stressed that he attended the meeting as an elected Member and he hoped that other Members would respect the organisation he belonged.

61. The Chairman said that he believed all Members were in favour of the establishment of URP system but the crux was how it should be implemented. He hoped that all parties would provide more views during the consultation period so that LWB could proffer a specific option for URP scheme at the end of this year. The Chairman asked Mr TAM Kwok-kiu to introduce the amended motion.

62. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that the amended motion was moved by him and seconded by Mr YUEN Hoi-man and the contents were as follows: “If financially allowed and after comprehensive public consultation, the Government should immediately implement URP if the scheme can fulfil the following principles: no means tests, enjoyed by all, Hong Kong residents aged 65 or above will benefit at once, contributions from the Government, the business sector and the public, shared - 22 - Action by responsibility of the society, will not count on single financing resources, sustainable, can meet the demands at the peak of population ageing, pay at a flat rate, sufficient level etc.” He continued that the Government had enough financial reserves and according to the report of Professor Nelson CHOW social consensus had already been reached. It was the Government’s responsibility to handle different opinions and Members, as representatives of public opinion, should listen to the views of people living in this district. The mover and seconder of Motion 2 did not fight for the rights of the public when they proposed that URP scheme should only be implemented after social consensus was reached. The wordings “social consensus” in Motion 2 should be deleted.

63. The meeting voted on the amended motion moved by Mr TAM Kwok-kiu.

64. The voting result was as follows:

For: Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Mr NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (8)

Against: Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing (11)

Abstain: (0)

65. The Chairman announced the voting result: 8 Members voted for the motion, 11 voted against it and no Member abstained. The Chairman declared that the amended Motion moved by Mr TAM Kwok-kiu was not carried.

66. The meeting voted on the motion moved by Mr LEE Wing-man (Motion 2).

67. The voting result was as follows:

For: Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kwok- wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing (11)

- 23 - Action by

Against: Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (8)

Abstain: (0)

68. The Chairman announced the voting result: 11 Members voted for the motion, 8 voted against it and no Member abstained. The Chairman declared that Motion 2 was carried.

69. The Chairman thanked Mr Stephen SUI for attending today’s meeting and listening to Members’ views. He also thanked Members and members of the public for expressing their views on the issue.

(c) 2016/2017 Work Plan of ICAC Regional Office (Kowloon West) (SSPDC Paper 47/16)

70. The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (“ICAC”) to the meeting.

71. Ms Evalina YIM introduced Paper 47/16.

72. The Chairman thanked Ms YIM for introducing the paper. He said that he believed that DC would support anti-corruption activities organised by ICAC and help disseminate probity messages.

73. Members raised no objection to the content of the paper.

74. The Chairman concluded that DC noted the 2016/2017 work plan of ICAC Regional Office (Kowloon West) and hoped that ICAC would continue to promote a probity culture in the society through district activities and anti-corruption education.

(d) Revitalisation plan for Lai Chi Kok Park and major park facilities in Sham Shui Po District (SSPDC Paper 48/16)

75. The Chairman introduced Paper 48/16 with the aid of some photos.

76. The Chairman welcomed the representatives of Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) to the meeting. He suggested that LCSD work out a timetable - 24 - Action by for revitalising major park facilities in this district for follow up action of relevant Committee.

77. Ms Camay LEE introduced Response Paper 77/16 and supplemented as follows:

(i) Thematic flower planting areas: LCSD was open-minded about the design of the park. It would take into consideration the actual environment of the park and proactively consider the views of Members and residents.

(ii) Children’s cycling track and bowling greens: LCSD would explore the feasibility of altering the facilities of Lai Chi Kok Park with relevant government departments and the MTR Corporation Limited (“MTRCL”). Since the proposed alteration involved a large area, LCSD had to consult the views of residents and Members of the relevant constituencies.

(iii) If the facilities were to be built, LCSD would seek funding approval from the District Facilities Committee (“DFC”) for the relevant projects.

(iv) Pet latrines: there was a wall at the proposed location to separate Lai Chi Kok Park and Mei Foo Sun Chuen. Even though pet latrines were built there, the hygiene conditions of the vicinity could not be improved because dog excreta would still be left at the latrines. As such, LCSD suggested the property management office of Mei Foo Sun Chuen add more dog excreta collection bins so as to handle the environmental hygiene problem in a more cost effective manner.

(v) LCSD had been actively improving the facilities of Lai Chi Kok Park and other parks in the district, carrying out greening works and addressing public needs. Views from Members were welcomed.

78. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views and enquiries: (i) she welcomed LCSD’s initiative to consider building children’s cycling track but worried that the park might not have enough space to accommodate it. She hoped that LCSD could study in detail the feasibility of the plan and invite Members to participate in the discussion; (ii) some residents had casted doubt on the effectiveness of pet latrines and most importantly pet carers should exercise civic-mindedness. She suggested adding English or Indonesian signs on the railings along Lai Chi Kok Park to remind pet carers to keep the environment clean. She agreed that the number of dog excreta collection bins should be increased and enquired whether those bins would be cleared on a daily basis. - 25 - Action by

79. Ms Joephy CHAN raised the following views: (i) she supported the revitalisation plan for major facilities in Lai Chi Kok Park and other parks in Sham Shui Po (“SSP”) District and opined that the plan could prompt members of the public to appreciate the district in their busy life; (ii) she had submitted a paper to DFC on 18 February this year, requesting LCSD to rebuild the abandoned fountain of Sham Shui Po Park (Phase 1). She visited the site with Mr LEUNG Man-kwong and LCSD staff, hoping that the Department could carry out greening plans and expand the peripheral space for activities. She also suggested modelling on the campus of Chinese University of Hong Kong and Quarry Bay Park etc. and planted flower species suitable for growing in Hong Kong (i.e. cherry blossoms) with a view to providing more locations for flower appreciation for resident of West Kowloon; (iii) she hoped that LCSD would vigorously consider adding chessboards and shelters to Sham Shui Po Park (Phase 2) to address residents’ needs.

80. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he agreed with LCSD’s response that careful consideration should be made before adding new facilities to existing parks. He opined that adequate consultation should be carried out before altering or adding facilities with a view to minimising the impact on current users. He suggested LCSD consider implementing the proposals mentioned in the paper at the land allocated to it in the future; (ii) he supported the building of children’s cycling track and believed that such facilities should be planned for new development projects. He understood that the building of cycling tracks at urban areas involved Government policies, which might not fall into the purview of LCSD. However, from the angle of traffic or the promotion of healthy lifestyle, the responsibility fell squarely on LCSD to relay the proposal to the relevant government departments; (iii) he suggested LCSD reviewing and revitalising park facilities in this district, for example making drinking fountains and hand-washing facilities standard provisions, and working out a timetable for revitalisation projects; (iv) since many civic groups would carry out active activities at the park, he suggested that LCSD pay attention to their needs when carrying out alteration works there.

81. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) he suggested building children’s cycling track at the north-western part of Lai Chi Kok Park (Phase 3); (ii) he hoped that the revitalisation plan could ease social tension, pointing out that flower appreciation was a good idea and LCSD should consider the suggestion in its future planning; (iii) he suggested passing the first four proposals for follow up action of the relevant committees; (iv) the suggestions of LCSD in response to items five and six of the paper were noted. He opined that elderly concessionary scheme involved Government policy and the issue could be further explored. - 26 - Action by

82. Ms Camay LEE responded that to her knowledge, many pet owners did not want their pets to use pet latrines.

83. Ms NG Yuet-lan reckoned that pets did not like pet latrines.

84. Ms Camay LEE gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) Dog excreta collection bins were provided in LCSD’s pet gardens and pet carers were encouraged to use them. Those collection bins, which were easy to use, could keep venues clean and help instil a sense of civic-mindedness to pet owners.

(ii) The walkways in Mei Foo Sun Chuen fell within the areas managed by Mei Foo Sun Chuen. If dog excreta collection bins were to be installed, it would be the responsibility of Mei Foo Sun Chuen’s property management company to clean and promote those bins.

(iii) LCSD would vigorously study how the abandoned fountain at Sham Shui Po Park (Phase 1) could be rebuilt. Once the plan was confirmed, the Department would discuss with Members about how the new design could cope with residents’ needs.

(iv) LCSD would listen to Members’ proposal of adding chessboards and shelters for Sham Shui Po Park (Phase 2) and meet the request if the plan was workable.

(v) LCSD knew that careful planning should be carried out before adding new facilities to the park so that the needs of residents could be met. The Department would also consider related factors when planning new venues.

(vi) At present, drinking fountains, toilets and changing rooms were provided at most of LCSD’s active venues. The Department was open-minded towards the adding of drinking fountains and hand-washing facilities at passive venues and would consider the plan in the light of needs, resources and site situation.

(vii) When carrying out greening works, LCSD would bear in mind the park users’ needs for conducting active activities and would not plant flowers all over the park. - 27 - Action by

85. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that there was no clear cut definition between active and passive parks. If active venues had all been equipped with drinking fountains and hand-washing facilities, he suggested the Department focus its review on the situation of passive parks. He believed that there were adequate resources for the Department to install drinking fountains and hand-washing facilities in all the passive parks.

86. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views and enquiries: (i) there were many dog excreta collection bins in Mei Foo district while none was installed at the rock fences of Lai Chi Kok Park stretching from Phase one to four and at Phase eight of Mei Foo Sun Chuen. She requested adding dog excreta collection bins there; (ii) she wondered whether LCSD would add English or Indonesian signs and deploy more staff to inspect and give advice in case of non-compliance; (iii) she opined that the Department should take follow up action if dogs fouled at the drainage right next to Lai Chi Kok Park.

87. The Chairman concluded that: (i) it was suggested that the issue be followed up by the relevant committees; (ii) he hoped that the Department could revitalise facilities of major parks in this district with a view to further improving the living environment of the residents.

(e) Make better use of the open space beneath the Kwai Chun flyover in Mei Foo and improve environmental hygiene (SSPDC Paper 49/16)

88. The Chairman introduced Paper 49/16 and added that residents supported the organisation of Mei Foo organic farmers’ market (“the Market”) but they were also concerned about hygiene problems. Hence, it would be most important to find out how to coordinate with relevant party for the organising this activity.

89. The Chairman welcomed the representatives of Planning Department (“PlanD”), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) and Lands Department (“LandsD”) to the meeting.

90. Mr LAI Kah-kit gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) The open space underneath the flyover in Mei Foo was public place and FEHD would provide street cleaning service at least three times a day. Since many foreign domestic helpers would assemble there during holidays, the Department would place additional rubbish bins and step up cleaning service to keep the environment clean. Moreover, it would also provide - 28 - Action by

rodent control service and place poisonous baits at suitable locations to eliminate rodents as well as clearing stagnant water and rubbish to prevent mosquitos bleeding.

(ii) The Government allowed the organisation concerned to organise the Market under the flyover in Mei Foo on short term tenancy and the Market operated only once every week. After receiving complaints against the environmental hygiene problem caused by the Market, FEHD gave advices to the person-in-charge who in turn conducted a large-scale cleaning exercise earlier to improve environmental hygiene. Besides, the Department also carried out anti-mosquito and rodent control work for the neighbouring public places.

91. Mr Philip CHUM gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) The flyover ran from south to north through Mei Foo; under which a walkway, an elderly health support and learning centre and Lai Wan Market could be found. Besides, a neighbourhood activity centre would be completed in the days to come. The development proposal for the space under the flyover in Mei Foo should fall in line with the current land use and PlanD would discuss the issue with DC, the relevant departments and the parties concerned.

(ii) According to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, there were three categories of uses beneath flyovers, namely “acceptable”, “conditionally acceptable” and “unacceptable”. PlanD would follow relevant guidelines and find out what purposes the space beneath the flyover in Mei Foo could be used for.

92. Ms Sumie LI gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) At present, some portions of the Government land under the flyover near Kwai Chung Road, Mei Foo were leased to YMCA of Hong Kong (“YMCA”) and Pok Oi Hospital on short term tenancies for the organisation of the Market and an elderly community centre respectively. Moreover, Kowloon West District Lands Office (“DLO”) had allocated some portions of the land to SSP District Office in this January for the construction of “Mei Foo Neighbourhood Activity Centre” and as temporary works areas. - 29 - Action by

(ii) DLO welcomed DC or the community to offer specific proposals on the temporary uses of the land beneath Kwai Chung Road flyover in Mei Foo with a view to further improving the use of land under the flyover in Mei Foo. Upon receipt of the relevant proposals, DLO would consider them with the government departments concerned following applicable procedures.

93. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views and enquiries: (i) as residents reflected to her that they wanted to make specific proposals in response to the paper, she therefore moved a provisional motion for the endorsement of the meeting; (ii) she thanked FEHD and YMCA for taking the initiative to clean the area under the flyover in Mei Foo. Scrap-collectors were the root of the environmental hygiene problem. Given that the chain link fence currently used by the Market was a bit shabby, hoardings were added to it by residents, resulting in miscellaneous items being moved to the bus-stop next to it. She hoped that LandsD would find out how the problem should be tackled; (iii) as Indonesian domestic helpers would gather under the flyover in Mei Foo during holidays, she hoped that the relevant departments could hang English and Indonesian banners on the chain link fence to persuade them to take away their rubbish and cease blocking the walkways.

94. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views: (i) DC had all along attached great importance on the development of the land under the flyover in Mei Foo and the last-term DC had pushed through the establishment of Mei Foo Neighbourhood Activity Centre which won the recognition of many residents; (ii) there were many issues which needed to be addressed other than the hygiene problem. The assembling of foreign domestic helpers and the dumping of miscellaneous items by scrap-collectors at that site were the causes of environmental hygiene problem. Although FEHD had carried out cleaning work or would clean the site upon receipt of residents’ complaints, the efforts lacked regular coordination. Therefore, he suggested local residents, district organisations and the Government jointly explore effective measures for the problem; (iii) some residents reflected that the operation of the Market, which opened only once a week and was dumped with miscellaneous items on weekdays, was far from satisfactory. Besides, the chain link fence was also an eyesore. Residents believed that a comprehensive management mechanism should be put in place before service expansion, and he therefore asked the relevant departments and the operator to improve the operation of the Market before gradually expanding its scope of service. They should work out a sensible and long-term solution to solve the hygiene problem beneath the flyover in Mei Foo, with the management taken up by the stakeholders.

95. The Chairman said that the Market has the support of some people in the district. - 30 - Action by

The paper asked the Government to actively follow up on the Market and the open space nearby and take the opportunity to further develop the space to suit the purpose of green living and youth development, with a view to further promoting environmental protection, green living and youth development in Mei Foo while at the same time improving the environmental hygiene underneath the flyover so as to meet residents’ demand for a cleaner environment.

96. Mr LAI Kah-kit gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) FEHD would from time to time advise foreign domestic helpers to keep the place clean. Educational activities were held and pamphlets handed out under the flyover in Mei Foo on 10 April of this year. The Department would produce publicity materials in Indonesian to meet the needs of Indonesian domestic helpers.

(ii) FEHD received complaints about two recyclers piling up miscellaneous items. If the items caused obstruction to street cleaning operations, the Department would issue Notices to Remove Obstruction to the owners, requiring them to remove the items within the time specified. Otherwise, the items would be seized and impounded by the Department. From January to March this year, FEHD had issued 23 Notices to Remove Obstruction and seized three tons of unclaimed items. It would step up inspection to achieve deterrent effect.

97. The Chairman remarked that he had received a provisional motion moved by Ms NG Yuet-lan and seconded by Mr TAM Kwok-kiu.

98. Ms NG Yuet-lan introduced the content of the provisional motion as follows:

“It is recommended that government departments should fully cooperate with YMCA and make use of the land occupied by the Market under the flyover, extend the operation of the Market for two more days and diversify the activities organised, for example, to organise environmental protection and bazaar activities there.

It is also hoped that FEHD will conduct regular inspections to check the hygiene conditions of the area under the flyover and fully cooperate with YMCA to stop scrap-collectors from piling up wastes at the Market.”

She also added that: (i) since many residents had made proposals as detailed in the - 31 - Action by provisional motion to her, she must relay them to the meeting; (ii) she asked whether the relevant government departments would propose improvement measures for the shabby chain link fence of the Market if it was to be operated continually.

99. Ms Sumie LI gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) Since the land beneath the flyover on Kwai Chung road, Mei Foo was leased to YMCA for organising the Market on short term tenancy, the fence of the Market should be maintained by the tenant.

(ii) DLO had no intention to limit the operational mode of the Market and the tenant could decide when the market should open according to operational needs. Although the land use of the land occupied by the Market should comply with the clauses of the tenancy agreement, the tenant could apply to DLO for revising the clauses in the light of operational needs.

100. The Chairman moved an amended motion, with Mr Dennis WONG as the seconder. The content of the motion was as follows:

“It is recommended that the Government should make use of the land occupied by the Market under the flyover, extend the operation of the Market and diversify the activities organised, for example, to organise environmental protection and bazaar activities there.

It is also hoped that FEHD will conduct regular inspections to check the hygiene conditions of the area under the flyover and fully cooperate with YMCA to stop scrap-collectors from piling up wastes at the Market.”

He also added that: (i) since the land under the flyover in Mei Foo was only leased to YMCA on short term tenancy for organising the Market, it should not take into account the needs of a particular organisation when working out long-term improvement measures; (ii) discussions with the relevant organisations on the opening days of the Market could be carried out later.

101. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) YMCA had signed a short-term tenancy agreement with the Government and was responsible for the operation of the Market. As such, she proposed in the provisional motion that government departments should cooperate with YMCA and she failed to understand why the name of the organisation had to be taken away in the amended motion; (ii) she had discussed with YMCA and the person-in-charge of the Market on the opening days of the Market. - 32 - Action by

Given that fresh organic vegetables were sold, it was not possible for the Market to operate on a daily basis. She held that since the opening days proposed by her were agreed by both the residents and the Market, the motion moved by the Chairman and the provisional motion moved by her should be parallel motions.

102. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that the provisional motion moved by Ms NG Yuet-lan involved specific operational proposals for the operator of the Market under the flyover whereas the motion moved by the Chairman covered a wider spectrum of issues including the long-term usage of the land after the tenancy agreement of the Market expired. As such, he opined that the motion moved by the Chairman was a separate motion, not an amended one. LandsD and PlanD should also note DC’s stance towards the long-term development of the land beneath the flyover in Mei Foo.

103. Mr Dennis WONG said that environmental hygiene problem should be solved first. He opined that it was not the right time for DC to decide the opening days of the Market, but for the Government and stakeholders to discuss the sustainable development of the Market. He held that the amended motion was clearer and had attached importance to the development of the land occupied by the Market. He also pointed out that the environmental hygiene should be improved first and the opening days be discussed later. There was no need to set out the name of the operating organisation and the specific opening days of the Market.

104. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu opined that the motion moved by the Chairman was not an amended motion to substitute the original one. Yet he respected the decision of the Chairman.

105. The District Officer raised the following views:

(i) Currently, since the land beneath the flyover in Mei Foo was leased to YMCA on short term tenancy for organising the Market, YMCA had autonomy in its operation. However, DC could also make suggestions on the Market’s operational mode because the activity wasfunded by it.

(ii) Provided that the operation of the Market was complied with the clauses of the short term tenancy agreement, YMCA could determine how it should be run.

(iii) The relevant departments, in particular FEHD, would liaise closely with YMCA regarding the environmental hygiene problem of the Market. - 33 - Action by

106. The meeting voted on the amended motion moved by the Chairman by open ballot.

107. The result was as follows:

For: Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing (12)

Against: (0)

Abstain: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (8)

108. The Chairman announced the voting result: 12 Members voted for the motion, no Member vote against it and 8 Members abstained. The amended motion moved by the Chairman was carried.

109. Ms NG Yuet-lan added that despite their agreement on the implementation of proposals put forth by the amended motion, they had abstained from voting because they believed that the opening days of the Market should be increased.

(f) Delivering the Policy Address by enhancing the pedestrian facilities in Sham Shui Po District (SSPDC Paper 50/16)

110. The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Transport Department (“TD”), HD and MTRCL to the meeting.

111. Mr CHAN Wai-ming introduced Paper 50/16.

112. Ms Zoe LO gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) The 2016 Policy Address mentioned that covers would be added to major walkways in the district, with a view to providing shades for pedestrians (especially the elderly) travelling to and from public transport interchanges or MTR stations and improving district environment at the same time. To live - 34 - Action by

up to social aspirations, the Government had drawn experience from the Universal Accessibility Programme and asked Members to consult the local community and residents before building a cover for one walkway first according to district needs. TD and the Highways Department (“HyD”) would conduct feasibility study after views were collected and would report to DC the findings of the study.

(ii) The existing policy advocated the building of covers for public walkways to benefit more residents. HD would be responsible for the proposals on building covers for walkways in public estates.

113. Mr LEE Chi-yin gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) HD had to take into account many factors when building covered walkways in public housing estates (“PHEs”), including the technical problems posed by limited space on design and construction works, restrictions of underground utilities, impacts of the plinths of the covers on buildings in the vicinity, and whether the projects were complied with the coverage and plot ratio permitted under the Buildings Ordinance etc.

(ii) Regarding those PHEs with divested properties, owners’ consent had to be sought on the construction and maintenance costs of the projects. According to the Building Management Ordinance and the provisions of the Deed of Mutual Covenant (“DMC”) of the relevant PHEs, owners had to share with HD the management and maintenance responsibilities of the covers since most of the walkways in PHEs fell within the common parts of the estates. Besides, the construction works must comply with the lease conditions. If lease modification was required, for example, to increase floor area, applications should be submitted to LandsD and even land premium had to be paid.

(iii) Regarding the proposal of adding a cover for a section of walkway from Lai Fu House to Lai Kuk House connecting Lai Kok Estate and Lai On Estate, since the proposed walkway cut through the emergency vehicular access of Lai On Estate, the cover should be built at a height of no less than 4.5m above the ground to provide access for emergency vehicles and would therefore require a plinth larger than that for a regular walkway cover. Coupled with the fact that the roots of two large trees growing there had covered most of the place, there was not enough space left for the plinth. - 35 - Action by

Besides, as the proposed section of walkway requiring a cover was located at the common part of the estate, the consent of Link Real Estate Investment Trust (“Link REIT”) should be obtained.

(iv) Regarding the proposal to provide cover for the walkway connecting Lai On Estate and Dragon Centre, since the walkway cut through the emergency vehicular access of Lai On Estate, the cover should be built at a height of no less than 4.5m above the ground. There were major pipes and facilities of the estate underneath the site such as water pipes, sewerages, fire hoses, gas pipes, drainages and telecommunication facilities etc. and that would bring difficulties to the construction works. Moreover, the foundation works would also affect the parking spaces of Link REIT.

(v) HD had applied to LandsD for the extension of one of the entrances of Un Chau Shopping Centre in order to build a covered walkway but was rejected on the grounds that the maximum permitted floor area had been exceeded.

(vi) The covered walkway connecting Nam Cheong Street and Mei Yue House and Mei Ying House of Shek Kip Mei Estate was built on a steep slope. If a lift was to be built, it would occupy some of the badminton courts next to it and reduce the size of the open space area. When planning the proposed lift, the Department had to factor in the landscape, the existing walkway facilities, community demands and relevant technology in order to prioritise the works.

114. Mr LEUNG Chan-man gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) MTRCL understood community expectations and had spared no effort to upgrade station facilities to meet passengers’ needs. Currently, each MTR station had at least one barrier-free access to provide convenience to needy people and among the 87 MTR stations, 81 were located above ground or installed with lifts or barrier-free accesses connecting station concourses and the ground level. Six stations had not yet been installed with lifts connecting station concourses and the ground level and MTRCL would provide lifts for them first.

(ii) MTRCL had conducted a visit with DC to the site proposed by DC for the building of a lift at Exit A of Mei Foo MTR Station. However, as the lift to be built there could not lead directly to the station concourse, MRTCL had to further consider the proposal carefully. - 36 - Action by

(iii) A lift was provided at Exit F of Mei Foo Station now. In fact, Exit G was very close to Exit F, with a ramp of barrier-free design connecting the two exits to meet passengers’ needs.

(iv) Regarding Exit G of Mei Foo Station, as the existing facilities could meet passengers’ needs, MTRCL had no plan to add escalators there for the time being.

115. The Chairman said that the residents of Mei Foo saw the need for providing escalators at Exit G of Mei Foo Station.

116. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) 2016 Policy Address advocated the improvement of district pedestrian facilities and DC had also followed up on the issue in the past. He hoped that the relevant proposal could be implemented more effectively on the basis of past discussion; (ii) he asked why the building of walkway covers would involve plot ratios and whether there was room for review and revision of the existing plot ratios; (iii) Chinese restaurants in PHEs were mostly located at the upper floors which were inconvenient to the elderly. HD should promote the installation of lifts for Chinese restaurants in estates such as Shek Kip Mei Estate, Tai Hang Tung Estate and Lai Kok Estate and follow up with operators, for instance, on the installation of lifts when their tenancy agreements expired; (iv) he hoped that MTRCL would work out a timetable for providing barrier-free access at each station and accord priorities to stations with no such access. He cited MTR Shek Kip Mei Station as an example. Although lifts were added to that station two years ago, there were still stairs at the exit leading to Pak Tin while stair lifts could not meet the long-term needs of residents. He therefore opined that MTRCL should improve the barrier-free access facilities at station as soon as possible.

117. Ms Joephy CHAN raised the following views: (i) she had relayed to HD and the Home Affairs Bureau views on improving barrier-free access facilities and was glad to hear that the 2016 Policy Address advocated the construction of barrier-free covers at various locations in the district; (ii) there was no covered walkway connecting Lai On Estate with MTR station nearby, which had caused inconvenience to residents. She therefore proposed building a covered walkway to connect Lai Kok Estate and Lai On Estate. After visiting the site with HD last Friday, she proposed building a cover for the walkway next to Lai Fu House to connect with Lai On Estate; (iii) she understood that there were technical problems in the planning of an age-friendly environment and barrier-free accesses; coordination in each and every area was thus required. She hoped that the Government would understand the difficulties faced by the elderly and disabled - 37 - Action by people and endeavour to solve technical problems and explore all kinds of options for the building of barrier-free walkway covers.

118. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he was dissatisfied with the responses of the relevant authorities; (ii) government departments did not explain how the plot ratios were calculated. To cite Un Chau Estate as an example, some sections of walkways were provided with covers while applications for other sections were rejected on the grounds that the maximum plot ratios had been exceeded. There were gaps on the cover of the plaza of Un Chau Estate which had served no practical purposes. He asked whether the relevant government departments could increase the maximum plot ratios and work out the criteria for setting them; (iii) the goal of building a barrier-free community with the existing facilities in the district was not reached. The last-term DC had met with MTRCL and he suggested following up on the issue by the relevant committees or working groups.

119. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the relevant authorities did not vigorously study the proposals for providing cover for Exit A of MTR Shek Kip Mei Station and building lifts at Mei Yue House and Mei Ying House of Shek Kip Mei Estate. He hoped that the relevant authorities could solve technical problems and implement the proposals of providing barrier-free facilities; (ii) instead of using some of the badminton courts located near Mei Yue House and Mei Ying House of Shek Kip Mei Estate for building lift as mentioned by HD, he opined that the Department should take into account various options and work out a solution, for example, to build escalators instead of lifts; (iii) the road connecting Exit A of MTR Shek Kip Mei Station and Mei Leong House was very narrow and pedestrians walked past there would be caught in a difficult situation in rainy days. He therefore hoped that the authorities would give holistic consideration to the proposal; (iv) the Government should address Members’ demands and take the initiative to solve the problems of providing barrier-free facilities.

120. Mr YAN Kai-wing raised the following views and enquiries: (i) DC had in the past proposed extending the shelter of the minibus station at Exit A of MTR Shek Kip Mei Station near CCC Ming Yin College (“Ming Yin College”) but the relevant government departments said that there were underground utilities. He failed to understand why only some sections of the road could have cover; (ii) the road connecting Exit A of MTR Shek Kip Mei Station and Mei Leong House of Shek Kip Mei Estate was very narrow, leading to vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. He wondered whether the relevant authorities could contact Ming Yin College with a view to providing a cover to its enclosing wall. He understood that the proposal might involve future management and - 38 - Action by maintenance problems but found it worthwhile to explore such idea; (iii) HD said that some badminton courts next to Mei Yue House and Mei Ying House of Shek Kip Mei Estate had to be used for installing the lift, he wondered if those badminton courts could be relocated somewhere; (iv) the road outside Exit C of MTR Shek Kip Mei Station was very steep and he wondered whether escalators could be installed there.

121. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) the paper only pointed out the direction. He held the view that residents had expectations towards the new-term DC and he therefore hoped to solve the problems with a new mind set. Apart from the eight locations proposed in the paper, DC could bring up more walkways suitable for building covers in the future; (ii) he suggested the authorities set a timetable, for example, to assess the possibility of providing covers at the eight locations proposed in the paper as well as those mentioned by Members within six months; (iii) he suggested the relevant committees or working groups follow up on the technical and feasibility problems.

122. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he asked the relevant government departments to pursue the policies of 2016 Policy Address and vigorously identify locations suitable for building covers or barrier-free facilitates so that Members could have enough time to give opinions on the options offered by government departments; (ii) he asked government departments to explain why the building of walkway covers had to take into account plot ratios and whether they would consider reviewing the current limits of plot ratios.

123. Mr YIP Chi-ki gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) The construction of new estates or buildings must comply with the maximum permitted gross floor area (“GFA”) of the lease conditions. According to the conditions of the land lease, Un Chau Estate had almost reached its maximum permitted GFA.

(ii) In 2011, HD had tried to apply for the widening of a covered footbridge after conducting technical and feasibility studies. However, the plan was shelved because the maximum permitted GFA set out in the land lease had been exceeded.

(iii) When setting the maximum plot ratio, the Government had to take into account the land use, views of owners and the relevant conditions. Most importantly, since the public land was jointly possessed by HD and Link REIT, HD had to discuss with Link REIT problems such as the building of - 39 - Action by

covers, the sharing of financial burden and future maintenance etc. Those problems might not be solved within a short period of time.

124. The Chairman suggested that the parties concerned should provide a feasibility study report within six months for following up of the relevant committees or working groups.

125. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu asked whether HD could provide covers without discussing with Link REIT and complying with the restrictions of plot ratios if the land involved was solely possessed by it.

126. Mr LEE Chi-yin responded that generally speaking the GFA of a building must conform to the lease conditions. If the relevant PHE fell within the scope of a vesting order, there was no need for HD to make application to LandsD for providing covers.

127. The Chairman concluded that he hoped that TD, HD and MTRCL would consider the proposal of providing walkway covers and submit feasibility report within six months for following up of the committees or working groups concerned with a view to pursuing the policy set out in 2016 Policy Address and providing barrier-free access facilities as soon as possible.

(g) Requesting the Police to step up patrol, ensure public safety and sternly combat the problem of “bogus refugees” (SSPDC Paper 51/16) (h) Urging the administration to review the torture claims appeal mechanism and strike a stronger blow against local offences committed by “bogus refugees” (SSPDC Paper 52/16)

128. The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Immigration Department (“ImmD”), the Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) and the Social Welfare Department (“SWD”) to the meeting. He said that as Papers 51/16 and 52/16 were similar in nature, he suggested the two papers be discussed together. There was no objection.

129. Ms LAU Pui-yuk introduced Paper 51/16.

130. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong introduced Paper 52/16。

131. Miss CHEN King-sun pointed out that ImmD reviewed the existing mechanism from four aspects. - 40 - Action by

(i) The first one was pre-arrival control: the Panel on Security of the LegCo was now reviewing the Immigration (Unauthorised Entrants) Order, in the hope of increasing the penalty for those who had abused the torture claims appeal mechanism through legislative amendment. The Order was now only applicable to Mainland China, Macau and Vietnam but if it was successfully amended, high risk countries such as India, Pakistani, Nepal and Afghanistan etc. would also be covered, thus deal a stronger blow to those who had abused the mechanism. Besides, the Government also considered screening people from high risk countries before they boarded the planes and deciding whether to allow their entry in light of the information provided by them.

(ii) The second one was to improve screening procedures to perfect the screening mechanism: the Government aimed to establish a “unified screening mechanism” by means of legislation to speed up the screening of applications and counter delaying tactics such as claimants deliberately acted in uncooperative ways or stalled the screening process over various reasons. The Government hoped that law amendments could help achieve that end. At the same time, the Government would strengthen the operation of the Appeal Board and speed up the processing of appeal cases. The Government would also consider capping the legal expenditures to ensure the proper utilisation of public money.

(iii) The third one was to improve the detention arrangement: given that claimants might affect public security, the Government proposed initially that ImmD be empowered to detent more claimants awaiting screening or undergoing appeal hearings. The Government was now finding suitable facilities for the accommodation of detainees. Since ImmD’s power of detention was limited by the law, the relevant proposal could only be implemented after the law was amended.

(iv) The fourth one was to tighten enforcement: to speed up removal of ineligible claimants, the Government would strengthen communication with the Consulates General of the major source countries so as to expedite the removal process, combat with human trafficking syndicates and step up promotion. The Government was very concerned about the rumours circulating in some countries that “one-stop” visa application service was available for people heading to Hong Kong to make torture claims; and officers were deployed to liaise and communicate with the officials of the relevant countries. - 41 - Action by

132. Ms Josephine LAU gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) The Police had been enforcing laws in a fair and just manner. Law enforcement was targeted at criminal offences, not the races or the nationalities of the criminals.

(ii) There were 4 710 crime cases in SSP District in 2015, and were four cases fewer than that in 2014. Besides, the total number of crimes in 2015 was at the lowest level since 1979, indicating that the anti-crime effort of the Police had produced results.

(iii) 293 non-ethnic Chinese were arrested in SSP District in 2015, accounting for 12.7% of the total number of people arrested. In other words, the number of “non non-ethnic Chinese” arrested had accounted for 87% of the total number of people arrested. The percentage was much higher than that of the non-ethnic Chinese arrested.

(iv) Among the 293 non-ethnic Chinese arrested, 122 people had Hong Kong Identity Card while 126 had recognizance forms. The latter accounted for 43% of the non-ethnic Chinese arrested by the Police.

(v) In its assessment of crime rates, HKPF would take reference to the actual figure of crimes and residents’ perception towards the overall law and order situation. She reiterated that the Police would only target at criminal activities, for example, to investigate whether the people in question had breached the conditions of stay. They would not target specifically at particular racial groups or nationalities, nor would they be selective in taking law enforcement action.

(vi) Regarding the participation of non-ethnic Chinese in triad activities, a working group was set up by the Organised Crime and Triad Bureau of HKFP to coordinate the efforts in combating triad activities, including formulating strategy to enhance intelligence system and coordinate the actions of enforcement agencies.

(vii) Regarding illegal immigrants and people with recognizance forms, passports or “two-way permits” illicitly working in Hong Kong, the Police had been cooperating closely with ImmD including the organisation of the monthly “Operation Champion” and the quarterly “Operation Sahara”. - 42 - Action by

(viii) The Police would keep stepping up patrols to safeguard public safety. For example, Police vehicles would be parked at strategic locations or beat record books placed at crime-prone locations to banish the thoughts of those intended to commit crimes.

(ix) Recently, the Sham Shui Po Police District launched the “Vigilance Programme” to assist Owners’ Corporations (“OCs”) of buildings with minimum security measures to install CCTVs at the common areas. The Police had assisted 26 buildings to install CCTVs in early 2016 and no burglar case was ever happened at those buildings after CCTVs were installed. The Police would like to assist another 50 buildings to install CCTVs in 2016.

133. Mrs Helen KWOK gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) On humanitarian grounds, if non-refoulement claimants awaiting screening could not meet their basic needs, SWD would offer in-kind assistance to prevent them from falling into straitened circumstances.

(ii) The assistance programme, which was coordinated and funded by the Security Bureau, was implemented by SWD. SWD was mainly responsible for commissioning non-government organisations (“NGOs”) through tenders to provide service, monitoring NGOs’ performance and handling complaints. The relevant service was now provided by International Social Service Hong Kong Branch (“ISS-HK”).

(iii) The service provided by the assistance programme mainly included monthly distribution of $1,200 food coupons for each claimant. Non-cashable and non-transferable, those coupons were for food items only and could not be used for cigarettes, liquors, medicines and beauty products. Users had to retain the receipts and hand them to ISS-HK in exchange for coupons for the next month. Food for urgent cases and basic necessities would be distributed in-kind.

(iv) As far as accommodation was concerned, the rent allowance grid for each adult claimant and child claimant was $1,500 and $750 respectively. Besides, each adult claimant could also receive rental deposits of up to $3,000 or an amount equivalent to two months of rent, whichever was less and property agent fees of up to $750 or an amount equivalent to the rent for - 43 - Action by

half a month, whichever was less.

(v) As far as public utilities were concerned, each claimant was granted a monthly allowance of $300.

(vi) As far as transport allowances were concerned, each claimant was granted $200 to $420 each month in accordance with where he/she lived and the number of trips made.

(vii) ISS-HK would assess each application and the individual needs; hence the actual assistance given to each claimant might be different.

(viii) The Hospital Authority and SWD would waive the medical expenses of non-refoulement claimants in accordance with their needs.

134. Mr Dominic LEE raised the following views: (i) the number of “bogus refugees” coming to Hong Kong and applying for recognizance forms and allowances by making torture claims had been increasing in recent years. ImmD had received about 16 000 such claims since December 2009. Among the 8 000 screened applications, only 40 were qualified ones. Since 80% of the claims were lodged after the claimants were arrested in Hong Kong, he held the view that 99.5% applications were from “bogus refugees”; (ii) three years ago, the Government had spent $390 million to support “bogus refugees” and the amount spiked to $740 million in the last financial year. He queried the use of money to support “bogus refugees” who made no contributions to Hong Kong instead of helping Hong Kong people and the disadvantaged; (iii) Hong Kong had only signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), not the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. “Bogus refugees” opted for Hong Kong because the incentives were much greater for them to come to Hong Kong than to other countries; (iv) “bogus refugees” had not only strained Hong Kong’s resources but also seriously affected social order. Since 2009 the number of crime cases involving “bogus refugees” had exceeded 3 800, including serious crimes like rape, wounding, drug trafficking and robbery etc. The victims and their families should not bear the brunt of the Government’s efforts to maintain Hong Kong’s international image.

135. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views: (i) he was glad to know that the Police would not be selective in taking law enforcement action; (ii) CAT of the United Nation (“UN”) protected torture claimants as well as the human rights of Hong Kong people, including monitoring the power abuse of the Police. It was the responsibility of - 44 - Action by every advanced, civilised and humanitarian country to sign CAT. CAT was applicable to Hong Kong before it was returned to the motherland and China had signed it too. When Chinese delegation attended a UN hearing for CAT last November, Hong Kong officials went along too. If Hong Kong withdrew from CAT, it would be a regression on human rights and would dent the international image of Hong Kong; (iii) even after the withdrawal from CAT, Hong Kong would still have to keep processing those claims in accordance with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance as well as the case precedents of courts; (iv) the Democratic Party would urge the Government to speed up screening process to avoid ineligible claimants stranding in Hong Kong. He believed that the Government should enhance training so that the departments concerned could handle claimant cases more effectively; (v) he proposed stepping up interception of illegal immigrants and stiffening the penalty for human trafficking syndicates; (vi) he opined that closed reception centres could be set up to accommodate people who would be removed within a short period of time. But if their status was not yet confirmed, existing laws might not allow holding them in closed reception centres. The issue should be handled carefully.

136. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) he recognised the Police’s effort in maintaining law and order in the community; (ii) the crux of the problem laid in the effective implementation of the Immigration Ordinance, the definition of refugee and the mechanism for handling non-refoulement claims. To reduce the incentive for people coming to Hong Kong as “bogus refugees”, he proposed setting up closed reception centres and scrapping the allowances for claimants. To his knowledge, some “bogus refugees” would sell the food they bought with food coupons for money, which the Department would be difficult to monitor; (iii) according to Article 3 of CAT, no state party should return claimants to their places of departure if they were being subjected to persecution. This had become an incentive for them to come to Hong Kong. He proposed the Government consider applying for the exemption from implementing Article 3 of CAT.

137. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he asked the Department to explain whether it would still be difficult to stop “bogus refugees” flocking in even after withdrawing from CAT; (ii) in terms of figure, most of the claimants were “bogus refugees” and the established screening process could not handle the problem effectively. Since “bogus refugees” had already affected the law and order of Hong Kong, he held the view that the authorities should adjust the policy and focus on how to identify and handle “bogus refugees”; (iii) claimants sought to stay in Hong Kong by prolonging the screening procedures and repeatedly lodging appeals etc. He asked whether the people concerned could apply for living expenses and work in Hong Kong - 45 - Action by during their stay here. He asked government departments to tighten enforcement on illegal employment of “bogus refugees”; (iv) the legal costs for handling “bogus refugees” were also borne by the Government, he asked whether the Department had any methods to deal with that problem; (v) he wondered whether the Government had any measures to intercept “bogus refugees”.

138. Mr Vincent CHENG raised the following views: (i) ImmD had a lot of backlog cases. He asked whether the Department could state the number of days required for processing each claim after the relevant policy or legislation was revised; (ii) the Police said that the number of people with recognizance forms arrested accounted for 43% of non-ethnic Chinese arrested in SSP District and the percentage was quite high. He understood that the Police had enforced law impartially, without targeting at particular racial groups. However, many residents in the district ( such as near Fuk Wa Street and Pei Ho Street) and women who went home late at night reflected that there were people gathering at some places, which made them uneasy. He therefore suggested the Police take note of the time, locations or common crimes committed when they set to improve law and order; (iii) many ethnic minorities were born and brought up in Hong Kong and were law-abiding. He opined that the Government should promote communication and cultural exchange between local residents and ethnic minorities.

139. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views and enquiries: (i) she agreed that the Government should handle refugee issues on humanitarian grounds but as the number of “bogus refugees” was increasing, it should face squarely to the problem and put forward measures with a view to mitigating it within a short period of time; (ii) the number of people arrested in SSP District with recognizance forms accounted for 43% of non-ethnic Chinese arrested by the Police, which was quite high a percentage. People’s sense of security hinged on their daily observation as well as the situation of the district and the residents queried whether the increased number of South Asians at Apliu Street, Pei Ho Street Market, Fuk Wa Street and Fuk Wing Street of SSP District were staying in Hong Kong legally. She opined that the Police should adopt specific measures on the relevant crimes; (iii) as far as she knew, it would take several years to process the torture claims and welfare applications submitted by refugees, which gave them chances to stay in Hong Kong and commit crimes. She asked whether SWD could provide the number of welfare applications made by refugees; (iv) she believed that the Department should review the existing mechanism and proposed the setting up of closed reception centres. ImmD revealed that they were finding suitable locations for detention of refugees. She asked whether ImmD could provide a timetable for that.

140. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he believed that nobody would - 46 - Action by oppose handling the “bogus refugees” problem with specific measures. He asked the Police whether the 126 people with recognizance forms arrested were all refugees, pointing out that the percentage provided by the Police was misleading. They should not take non-ethnic Chinese as the basis of calculation; and the 126 people with recognizance forms arrested indeed accounted for 5.46% of the total number of people arrested in SSP District. He opined that those people should not be allowed to disrupt the social order in SSP but at the same time “bogus refugees” should not be conflated with non-ethnic Chinese, which would affect social judgement and values; (ii) he agreed that ImmD should implement pre-arrival control, strengthen appeal mechanism and combat and remove crime syndicates. Nevertheless, the discussion was now focused on whether to set up closed reception centres and withdraw from CAT. He opined that to advocate the setting up of closed reception centres before ascertaining whether the relevant people were “bogus refugees” was to make judgement before trial, which would affect the law and order in this district; (iii) although the signing of CAT had burdened Hong Kong with the relevant responsibilities and duties; it also brought protection to Hong Kong. He queried whether the problem of “bogus refugees” had got out of hand and opined that if the society supported the three measures proposed by ImmD, ImmD should be allowed to handle the issue first. He stressed that “bogus refugees” should be stamped out but the core values and rights of Hong Kong people should not be sacrificed.

141. Mr Aaron LAM said that the problem might involve rackets of selected groups or multinational human trafficking syndicates. As far as he knew, there were two sets of penalties for unauthorised entrants in Hong Kong. If the human trafficking cases involved people from Mainland China, Macau and Vietnam, the persons involved would be liable to a maximum fine of $1,000,000 and 15 years’ imprisonment upon conviction; which had some deterrent effect. However, as the current legislation did not cover countries like India, Pakistan or Nepal etc., the persons involved would only be liable to a small fine and two years’ imprisonment upon conviction; which had no deterrent effect to the crime syndicates of those countries. In this connection, he supported law amendment so as to cast a boarder net to include high risk countries and standardise the penalties for criminals from different countries.

142. Miss CHEN King-sun gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) ImmD now handled non-refoulement claims through the unified screening mechanism. Under that mechanism, Hong Kong not only had to fulfil the obligations stipulated by CAT and evaluate the torture risk accordingly, it also had to execute court decisions and vet the applications according to the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as set - 47 - Action by

out in Article 3, Section 8 of Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383). Moreover, the Final Court of Appeal also ruled in early 2013 that the Government should refer to the risk of being threaten as defined by the non-refoulement principle as set out in Article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in 1951 when deciding whether to offer non-refoulement protection to claimants.

(ii) As ever, ImmD would stick to the established mechanism and handle all the non-refoulement claims in a just and fair manner.

(iii) Besides, ImmD would further enhance the efficiency in handling non-refoulement claims. For example, if a claimant absented from interview without reasonable excuse, ImmD would consider making a decision on the claim immediately to stem the trend of prolonging screening process by claimants.

143. Ms Josephine LAU gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) It was incumbent upon the Police to prevent and investigate crimes. Their operation should be intelligence-led and planned carefully as per each and every case. The Police would make all-out efforts to arrest suspicious persons regardless of their races.

(ii) Aided by Powerpoint presentation, she explained that the Police had taken action to combat illegal activities. In the wake of the media reports about the hawking activities carried out on vans illegally parked at seven streets of SSP by non-ethnic Chinese, the Police deployed different teams to inspect the locations in question and enforce laws in the ensuing 20 days. A total of 357 fix penalty tickets had been issued at the relevant locations and the situation was now greatly improved. If the activities had caused serious traffic congestion, immediate action would be taken. The Police would also join hands with FEHD in carrying out enforcement action against illegal hawkers, but not against a specific nationality or race. She reiterated that the Police attached great importance to public concerns over law and order, and would continue to do their best to keep our society safe and stable.

(iii) In response to Mr TAM Kwok-kiu’s concern about the number and percentage of people arrested, she explained again that SSP Police District had arrested 293 non-ethnic Chinese in 2015, representing 12.7% of the total - 48 - Action by

number of people arrested. Among them, 122 people had a Hong Kong Identity Card and 126 people had a recognizance form, which accounted for 43% of non-ethnic Chinese being arrested in SSP District. There was nothing misleading to Members.

144. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu asked for the percentage of the 126 people arrested with recognizance form in the total number of people arrested in SSP District.

145. Ms Josephine LAU responded that the 126 people arrested with recognizance form accounted for 5.5% of the total number of people arrested in SSP District. There was nothing misleading.

146. Mrs Helen KWOK gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) Under the existing mechanism, those who wanted to apply for humanitarian assistance must apply to ImmD for recognizance forms before they could make application to ISS-HK for humanitarian assistance.

(ii) ISS-HK would assess each application and the applicant, if eligible, could apply to ISS-HK for prolonged humanitarian assistance on a monthly basis.

(iii) There were 11 800 cases receiving humanitarian assistance from SWD as at the end of 2015.

147. The Chairman concluded that this Council was very concerned about the issue of “bogus refugees”. Various parties had put forth proposals on policies, legislation and implementation and he believed that they would pursue the issue in question. He asked the Secretariat to relay Members’ views and proposals to the relevant bureau and departments for their information and follow-up action.

(i) Proposed Amendments to the Draft Cheung Sha Wan OZP No. S/K5/36 (SSPDC Paper 53/16) (j) The rezoning of the community site at Cheung Shun Street into commercial development use (SSPDC Paper 54/16) (k) The operation and management of the Cheung Sha Wan Cooked Food Market (SSP DC Paper 55/16)

148. The Chairman said that as Paper 53/16, 54/16 and 55/16 were similar in nature, he suggested the three papers be discussed together. There was no objection. He then - 49 - Action by welcomed the representatives of PlanD, SWD, FEHD and TD to the meeting.

149. Mr Lawrence CHAU thanked Members and local parties for attending the public forum held on 6 and 9 April this year respectively.

150. Mr James WONG introduced Paper 53/16 with the aid of Powerpoint Presentation.

151. The Chairman said that he received a provisional motion moved by Mr YUEN Hoi-man. According to Order 24(2) of the Standing Orders, after DC had made a decision on a topic, Members were not allowed to move another motion for the same topic within half a year unless the Chairman or more than half the number of Members agreed to do so. Since DC had passed the motion of withdrawing item B of the proposed amendments to the Approved Cheung Sha Wan OZP No. S/K5/35 during the second DC meeting held on 2 February this year and the provisional motion moved by Mr YUEN Hoi-man was related to that topic, he suggested Mr YUEN Hoi-man consider raising his views by means of a representation. Otherwise, DC had to vote on whether a motion should be moved on this issue before voting on the provisional motion moved by Mr YUEN Hoi-man.

152. Mr YUEN Hoi-man distributed during the meeting an extract plan for the proposed mitigation measures prepared by a government consultant in 2012 to facilitate his introduction of Paper 54/16 and he raised the following views and enquiries: (i) an Air Ventilation Assessment Study for Cheung Sha Wan District was carried out in 2010 by the Government. According to the extract plan, the consultant proposed to retain the yellow shaded area as Government, Institution or Community (“GIC”) site; designate the area between Billion Plaza I and II in Cheung Sha Wan as “Non-building Area”; and set building height restrictions ranging from 60 metres to 120 metres for the vicinity to improve ventilation. However, the quantification report with the proposed amendments submitted by PlanD to the Town Planning Board (“TPB”) had tried to play down the impact of the proposed development on air ventilation by using average figures. He reckoned that the quantification report adopted data of higher wind speed in Lai Chi Kok district, which failed to reflect the full picture of lower wind speed in affected inner roads. The benchmarks used by the report were also biased. He asked PlanD to give an account on what recommendations of the consultancy report it would adopt; (ii) PlanD had not yet submitted the proposed amendments to TPB before the second DC meeting during which DC stated clearly its objection to the proposed amendments. Given that PlanD had already submitted the proposed amendments to TPB and public consultation was launched by TPB, he reckoned that DC should stake out its position to - 50 - Action by

TPB and the public and address residents’ demands regarding light pollution and other details. The motion passed by the second DC meeting, in a broader sense, aimed to request PlanD to withdraw the proposed amendments while the motion moved by him now shed light on residents’ concerns. The two motions had nothing in common.

153. Mr YUEN Hoi-man continued to introduce Paper 55/16, pointing out that since the vacancy rate of Cheung Sha Wan Cooked Food Market (“CFM”) was as high as 57% and its facilities were far from satisfactory, the Government should examine the feasibility of installing air-conditioning system and consider its long-term development and relocation.

154. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had invited the Development Bureau (“DEVB”) and the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) to send staff to the meeting but the parties concerned failed to do so. DEVB said that PlanD would give response on behalf of it. He also asked Members to refer to SWD’s written reply (Paper 79/16) in response to Paper 54/16.

155. Mr LAI Kah-kit gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) Regarding the future operation of Cheung Sha Wan CFM, FEHD had no plan to relocate it for the time being. If the site occupied by it was to be used for other purposes, FEHD would play along with the arrangement.

(ii) There were now 28 stalls in Cheung Sha Wan CFM, with a vacancy rate of about 57%. Since the electricity demand of stalls at the time when the market was built was different from that of today, the electrical installations could only cope with the electricity demand of about 12 stalls. FEHD was now exploring with CLP Power Hong Kong Limited the increase of electricity supply for the market. If the electricity supply could be increased, FEHD would consider putting up vacant stalls for open auction.

(iii) FEHD was carrying out technical feasibility study on the installation of fire services equipment in Cheung Sha Wan CFM.

(iv) From July 2015, the Government had lowered the bar for installing air-conditioning system in public markets from mustering the support of 85% of the tenants to 80%. A survey was conducted by FEHD in this February on whether air-conditioning system should be installed in Cheung Sha Wan CFM. Nine of the 12 tenants supported the installation of air-conditioning system (75%), two objected the proposal and the reminder one had yet to - 51 - Action by

reply. If that tenant supported the installation of air-conditioning system, the support rating would reach 83%.

(v) CFMs and public markets adopted the same standard. FEHD would conduct technical feasibility study if 80% tenants supported the installation of air-conditioning system. Since tenants had to pay for the air-conditioning fees, some of them might not support the installation of air-conditioning system.

156. Mrs Helen KWOK introduced Response Paper 79/16.

157. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) DC had expressed reservation during the meeting held on 2 February this year on the rezoning of GIC site next to Cheung Sha Wan Police Station for commercial use; (ii) he was disappointed that government departments had hushed up the study carried out in the past. He pointed out that Phase I Redevelopment of So Uk Estate was now completed and the in-taking was expected to start at the middle of this year but the relocation of Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale Vegetable Market and Cheung Sha Wan Temporary Wholesale Poultry Market were still on the drawing board. Because of this, the report on the Air Ventilation Assessment Study for Cheung Sha Wan District carried out by the Government in 2010 pointed out that enough breezeways had to be provided to cope with the high density development in the district; (iii) at present the population of SSP was running close to 400 000 and was expected to grow to 500 000. He queried whether the number of GIC sites was enough to meet the demand of future population and opined that the proposed commercial development had neglected the need for providing breezeways in the district; (iv) according to the Response Paper of SWD, the utilisation rate of child care centres was 100%. In view of the growing population in the district, he opined that SWD should strengthen child care service, not merely extend the service hours. Regarding elderly services, the elderly had to wait for 26 months before admitting to care and attention homes, which was too long. Moreover, the Response Paper of SWD did not mention the service needs of persons with disabilities in the district. Because of this, he did not accept the proposal of rezoning GIC sites for commercial uses; (v) he cited ZCB in Kowloon Bay as an example, pointing out that since residents as well as people working there needed a place to relax themselves, there should be some GIC sites for use of open space in Cheung Sha Wan industrial and commercial district.

158. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) PlanD said that after consulting the government departments concerned it was certain that there was no need to provide GIC facilities at the relevant site and the site could be used for private development. He took the “Four Little Dragons” and Hoi Lai Estate as examples, - 52 - Action by pointing out that the proportion of young people was relatively high in Hoi Lai Estate but there was no children and youth services centre near the “Four Little Dragons”. He reckoned that the relevant government departments should not gauge the actual demand for social welfare facilities of some individual areas with all the social welfare facilities available in SSP District in mind. He queried why government departments did not build children and youth services centre on the neighbouring site in Cheung Shun Street; (ii) it was known that a government building would be built next to Wing Cheong Estate. He questioned why government departments said that there was no need to provide more community facilities when dental service and clinic for the elderly was inadequate in the district. He held the view that the site in Cheung Shun Street might also be used for building clinic; (iii) he reckoned that the concentration of community facilities and service to a certain area by the Government had left residents of Cheung Shun Street unable to enjoy those facilities and service. PlanD should take the initiative to make proposals of providing more community facilities to other government departments so that residents living near Cheung Shun Street and people working in the neighbouring industrial area could also enjoy such service; (iv) Cheong Wah Street Refuse Collection Point (“RCP”) had adversely affected the environmental hygiene near Cheong Wah Street and Shun Ning Road and caused nuisance to residents nearby. He believed that the service areas of the proposed Wing Hong Street Permanent RCP and Cheong Wah Street RCP should partly overlap. The Government might transfer the refuse of Cheong Wah Street RCP to the future Wing Hong Street Permanent RCP so as to reduce the amount of refuse handle by the former one.

159. Mr Vincent CHENG raised the following views: (i) many buildings were now installed with LED lighting installations or large television walls, causing light pollution problem. For example, the large television wall of Golden Shopping Centre had seriously affected residents and road users in the vicinity. Currently, there was no law regulating light pollution. He held the view that the problem should be tackled at source and suggested PlanD study the issue of light pollution. He also asked whether the Department would reflect residents’ concerns over light pollution to TPB; (ii) there was a serious shortage of parking space in SSP District. If buildings were to be built at the site in question, the problem of inadequate parking space should be taken into account.

160. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views: (i) he expressed regret about PlanD’s submission of paper containing the proposed amendments to TPB, and opined that the information provided in the paper was untrue. He said that the paper mentioned the low usage rate of Yu Chau West Street Cooked Food Hawker Bazaar; however, the three stalls operating there still enjoyed high patronage especially during breakfast and - 53 - Action by lunch hours. The problem was that the Government did nothing to help the Bazaar compete with other restaurants in that area, resulting in the folding of many stalls. He therefore opined that PlanD should explain the low usage rate of Yu Chau West Street Cooked Food Hawker Bazaar to TPB and help it learn the situation; (ii) a provisional motion was passed in the second DC meeting, requiring the expansion of the future Wing Hong Street Permanent RCP so that Cheong Wah Street RCP could be shuttered for good. PlanD’s paper also mentioned that FEHD was now vigorously studying with the relevant departments so as to increase the amount of refuse handled by the future Wing Hong Street Permanent RCP. He hoped that the departments concerned could promise to transfer refuse of Cheong Wah Street RCP to the future Wing Hong Street RCP so that Cheong Wah Street RCP could be shuttered for good; (iii) he expressed strong dissatisfaction at the amendment item B proposed by PlanD. During its meeting held on 2 February, DC asked PlanD to withdraw the proposed amendments and fully consult all stakeholders; he hoped that PlanD would give an account on the consensus reached to date.

161. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he together with PlanD met residents in early April this year to discuss the rezoning of the site in Cheung Shun Street. Residents made suggestions on various aspects including the number of parking spaces, community facilities, transportation, air ventilation and light pollution etc. and they reckoned that the site in question could be used for other purposes; (ii) he hoped that PlanD would respect the motion passed by DC during its second meeting and withdraw the proposed amendments. He understood that the paper had been submitted to TPB but he still hoped that the vetting procedures could be put on hold to allow PlanD to listen to more residents in respect of the development of the site. He even reckoned that residents could be invited to make representations at TPB meeting to increase transparency of the vetting procedure and facilitate the making of proper decision by TPB; (iii) the most desirable option was to withdraw the proposed amendments as per the motion passed by the second DC meeting. If that was not possible, he hoped that PlanD would give an account on how the issue would be handled; (iv) community facilities were now inadequate in the district, he opined that PlanD should address residents’ demands for community facilities by means of planning.

162. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) she was disappointed by the paper of PlanD. She held the view that the consultation was a sham one since the Government stuck to its old plan despite DC’s objection; (ii) she hoped that PlanD would mull over the suggestions made by various parties and respond to Members’ demands; (iii) she opined that when building the new Wing Hong Street Permanent RCP, the Government should consider how to increase the amount of refuse to be handled by it so - 54 - Action by as to absorb refuse from Cheong Wah Street RCP. Cheong Wah Street RCP was allocated at the ground floor of a building, causing great nuisance to residents nearby and affecting building structure. She believed that the Government should listen to the views of residents and solve the problem. In view of this, she required the departments concerned to consider expanding Wing Hong Street Permanent RCP and take into account community needs.

163. Mr Aaron LAM raised the following views: (i) a resident forum was held recently to collect opinions about the planning of the site in Cheung Shun Street, during which residents pointed out that there were no nurseries, elderly and family service centres etc. near Cheung Shun Street. He would like to take this opportunity to relay residents’ views to the relevant government departments, in the hope that they would take into account community needs when developing the site in question. They should also consider factors such as transportation, number of parking space, air ventilation and light pollution etc. when conducting land use assessment for that site; (ii) DC had moved a motion for that issue, he hoped that the government departments concerned and TPB would respect DC’s views.

164. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) he shared the stance of residents towards the development of the site in Cheung Shun Street. He believed that DC should stand its ground and ask PlanD to withdraw the proposed amendments as well as fully consult stakeholders; (ii) he did not oppose using the site in Cheung Shun Street for the relocation of Cheung Sha Wan CFM. He suggested that PlanD construct a modern cooked food centre or community facilities at the open space next to Cheung Sha Wan CFM. The 12 stalls in Cheung Sha Wan CFM should be given the priority to move in and operate while stalls of other CFMs in the district might also be allowed to move there.

165. The Chairman raised the following views in respect of the provisional motion moved by Mr YUEN Hoi-man: (i) he stressed that DC would like to uphold its demand made at DC meeting held on 2 February for PlanD to withdraw the proposed amendments and heed residents’ demands. Given that the provisional motion of Mr YUEN Hoi-man involved many details and Members might not be able to make decision in a short period of time, he suggested Mr YUEN Hoi-man consider raising his opinions by a representation. Otherwise, DC must vote on whether such motion should be moved before voting on the provisional motion in question according to the Standing Orders; (ii) Members hoped that PlanD would withdraw the proposed amendments. Although the paper had already been submitted to TPB, he reckoned that PlanD could still consider withdrawing the plan during the course; (iii) the provisional motion moved - 55 - Action by by Mr YUEN Hoi-man did not state clearly the requirement for PlanD to withdraw the proposed amendments. He worried that the public might mistake DC’s stance and therefore would like Mr YUEN Hoi-man to explain the stance of his motion.

166. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views: (i) the tenants of Cheung Sha Wan CFM were deeply concerned with development issues of CFM, including the relocation arrangement and electricity supply. Moreover, the conditions of sewers and environmental hygiene of Cheung Sha Wan CFM were unsatisfactory and the existing arrangement of FEHD could not improve its operation and management; (ii) regarding the installation of air-conditioning system, he reckoned that FEHD’s applying the standard for markets on Cheung Sha Wan CFM would be unfair to its tenants. He hoped that DC would urge the Government to carry out study on the installation of air-conditioning system in CFM and to consider relocating that CFM for the long-run; (iii) he cited Mong Kok CFM as an example, pointing out that the Government had set aside some areas for use of CFM when Mong Kok was under redevelopment. He therefore opined that the facilities and management could be improved effectively if the authorities could take into account the relocation of CFM during the land planning stage, which would benefit all parties; (iv) at present the child care service in the district could not satisfy community needs. The area near Cheung Shun Street had a younger population; child care service was needed by many families. Under family-friendly policy, he believed that the establishment of child care service centre at the site in Cheung Shun Street would benefit the whole community; (v) he learnt that the temporary car parks at the site in Cheung Shun Street could provide about 180 parking spaces. The waiting time for allocation of a monthly parking space was more than a year but the Government’s option could only provide about 85 parking spaces, which could not solve the problem of serious shortage of parking space in the district; (vi) the Environment Bureau and EPD shunned from using “illumination” as the criteria to measure light pollution. Some of the suggestions in his provisional motion aimed to limit the hours lighting installations could be used and prohibit shop owners from installing them at a place facing residential blocks which would affect residents; (vii) he queried the adoption of average figures in the report issued by the Government, pointing out that it failed to fully reflect the air ventilation data of the RCP in question. He also pointed out that EPD did not included Cheung Shun Street RCP and Cheung Shun Street Public Toilet in its Air Ventilation Assessment Study. The Government had assessed the odour problem and air ventilation of Yu Chau West Street RCP but nothing had been done for Cheung Shun Street RCP and Cheung Shun Street Public Toilet. He reckoned that the departments concerned did not conduct tests at some special test points such as Cheung Shun Street RCP and Cheung Shun Street Public Toilet as per Clause 29 of Annex A of the Technical Guide for Air Ventilation Assessment Developments in Hong Kong. - 56 - Action by

Therefore he asked DC to urge the Government to study air ventilation problem proactively to ensure that air ventilation of the location in question would not deteriorate; (viii) DC passed the motion at its meeting held on 2 February based on the paper submitted by PlanD when Members knew nothing about the air ventilation report or data at that time. In the light of the air ventilation information of the relevant project announced by the Government, he hoped that specific views of DC based on the latest information could be further reflected to TPB before the end of TPB’s public consultation on 11 May this year. The issue should not be left for discussion in the next meeting.

167. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) he was not suggesting to discuss the item concerned at the next meeting. Instead, with reference to the latest information on the relevant planning provided by the Government, DC maintained its view raised at the second meeting which requested PlanD to withdraw its proposed amendments; (ii) all the views raised by Members at this meeting would be reflected to PlanD and relevant government departments; (iii) he considered that at present the Government had not sufficiently consulted the stakeholders in the district and was unable to answer technical issues. Therefore, he hoped that departments concerned could respond to the above issues as soon as possible.

168. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he considered that DC’s stance of requesting PlanD to withdraw its proposed amendments had not changed. Mr YUEN Hoi-man’s provisional motion had more concretely reflected the present stance. He not only requested PlanD to withdraw the proposed amendments but also stated the grounds for the objection which included light pollution, air ventilation and insufficient parking space. He also further expressed DC’s requests of maintaining the GIC use of the site and constructing an integrated community building to provide childcare, handicap and elderly services as well as carpark and cooked food market; (ii) Mr YUEN Hoi-man’s provisional motion had provided detailed justifications and was therefore more lengthy. He considered that it could be trimmed down to: “Since the revised document submitted by PlanD was not in line with the spirit of DC’s motion made on 2 February this year in which it requested the Department to withdraw its proposed amendments, adding that the Department failed to provide information on ventilation corridors and light pollution to this Council for discussion before public consultation and this Council had clearly requested to assign the site for community use, this Council objects to the proposed amendments.” Concerning the provisional motion moved by Mr YUEN Hoi-man, it could be regarded as an appendix; (iii) it was a procedural problem that the Government had not provided relevant documents for the consideration of stakeholders during the consultation period. - 57 - Action by

169. The Chairman advised that according to Order 24(2) of the Standing Orders, he suggested Members to vote on whether Mr YUEN Hoi-man could move a motion on this topic or not.

170. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that the provisional motion further indicated the stance of DC and was not served to replace the motion carried at the second DC meeting.

171. The Chairman said it would be handled in accordance with the Standing Orders.

172. The meeting voted on whether Mr YUEN Hoi-man could move a motion on this topic or not.

173. The voting result was as follows:

For: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YUEN Hoi-man (7)

Against: Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kwok- wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG, Mr YAN Kai-wing (12)

Abstain: (0)

174. The Chairman announced the voting result: 7 Members voted for the motion, 12 voted against it and no Member abstained. The Chairman announced that in accordance with Order 24(2) of the Standing Orders, less than half of Members present at the meeting agreed that Mr YUEN Hoi-man might move a motion on this topic. He then expressed that DC supported the views of Mr YUEN Hoi-man and the motion carried at the second DC meeting was maintained.

175. Mr CHUM Tak-shing stated that although Mr YUEN Hoi-man could not move a motion on this topic, he should be allowed to state his views.

176. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that the provisional motion aimed at stating the stance of DC more explicitly. Even though it was not allowed to move a motion on this topic again, Members should be given the chance to state their views. - 58 - Action by

177. The Chairman remarked that as the provisional motion of Mr YUEN Hoi-man had not yet been delivered to Members, it would be supplemented now and Members would be allowed to state their views.

178. Mr YUEN Hoi-man felt sorry for the result of voting. He raised the provisional motion because the latest information announced by the Government failed to relieve the anxiety of residents. The Council had previously requested PlanD to withdraw its proposed amendments and he considered it a mild way to address the issue. He held that the Council had to bring out its concerns over the proposed amendments more clearly.

179. The Chairman said that Members, having noted the content of the provisional motion of Mr YUEN Hoi-man, might revote on whether Mr YUEN Hoi-man could move a motion on this topic or not.

180. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu challenged the Chairman’s decision of revote, saying that Members had already casted their votes formerly.

181. Mr CHAN Wai-ming said that the Chairman had provided sufficient time before voting for Mr YUEN Hoi-man to elaborate his provisional motion and he had listened carefully to Mr YUEN Hoi-man’s explanation and had a preliminary understanding of his motion. Since DC had made a decision and stated its stance in respect of the said topic at the second DC meeting, the Chairman then handled the matter in accordance with Order 24(2) of the Standing Orders. He found it resentful that someone had criticised the voting stance of other Members and therefore made the above clarifications.

182. Mr YUEN Hoi-man hoped that DC would urge the Government to install air conditioning system in Cheung Sha Wan CFM. He thought that the market was very important to the district concerned.

183. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) this Council was very concerned about the air conditioning and electricity supply problems in Cheung Sha Wan CFM and agreed with Members’ suggestions regarding the air-conditioning system of Cheung Sha Wan CFM; (ii) according to the information provided by FEHD, only one tenant of Cheung Sha Wan CFM had not indicated whether it supported the installation of air-conditioning system or not. If that tenant showed its support, the supporting rate would amount to 83%. Therefore, he called on that tenant to make an early reply and the Government should also carry out feasibility study with respect to Members’ - 59 - Action by suggestions; (iii) DC had two proposals on the long term operation and relocation of Cheung Sha Wan CFM, i.e. relocate Cheung Sha Wan CFM to the site at Cheung Shun Street or relocate it to the rest area adjacent to it.

184. Mr YUEN Hoi-man said FEHD mentioned that it would begin to study the feasibility of installing air-conditioning system once the support rate of tenants reached 80%. However, he considered that the existing criteria could not cope with the special operating conditions of CFMs. Since the support rate of tenants had reached 75%, he hoped that DC could urge FEHD to commence the study on the installation of air-conditioning system in Cheung Sha Wan CFM.

185. The Chairman said that the stance of the Council was requesting FEHD to study the feasibility of installing air-conditioning system in Cheung Sha Wan CFM immediately.

186. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views: (i) since a motion on this topic had been carried at the second DC meeting, Members could not move another motion on this topic again within six months unless agreed by the Chairman or over half of the Members present at the meeting. Therefore, the previous voting was carried out subject to the Standing Orders rather than the content of the provisional motion. He respected the provision of the Standing Orders and therefore objected to the moving of another motion on this topic again; (ii) the motion carried at the 2nd DC meeting requested PlanD to withdraw the proposed amendments and fully consult local stakeholders. To his understanding, the provisional motion of Mr YUEN Hoi-man did not go against the motion carried in the at the second DC meeting in principle. Therefore, he considered that it was not necessary to amend the requirement.

187. Mr Kalvin HO said that the motion carried at the second DC meeting emphasised the withdrawal of the proposed amendments and full consultation of local stakeholders. Nevertheless, PlanD still submitted the proposed amendments to TPB and proceeded on the land modification procedures. Therefore, another motion was moved again today to protest against the action of PlanD. The two motions shared the same stance but carried different meanings.

188. Mr Yan Kai-wing said that Members had clearly stated their views no matter at today’s meeting or at the second DC meeting. According to Order 24(2) of the Standing Orders, once DC had made a decision on a topic, Members could not move another motion on that topic again within six months unless agreed by the Chairman or over half of the Members present at the meeting. He thought that its spirit was avoiding - 60 - Action by the raising of multiple motions on the same topic. The vote he casted moments ago was focussed on whether another motion could be moved again.

189. The Chairman said that since Members had noted the provisional motion of Mr YUEN Hoi-man, he suggested voting again in accordance with Order 24(2) of the Standing Orders on whether Mr YUEN Hoi-man could move another motion on this topic.

190. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said according to the Standing Orders, Members were not allowed to vote on the same motion rather than the same topic. The motion carried at the second DC meeting requested PlanD to withdraw its proposed amendments but the existing provisional motion of Mr YUEN Hoi-man did not carry the word “withdraw”. Instead, the motion objected to the proposed amendments. For this reason, it was a new motion.

191. Mr Vincent CHENG agreed with the views of Mr Dennis WONG. However, since Members might have different understanding of the provision of the Standing Orders, he suggested taking a few minutes’ break so that Members might give due consideration to it.

192. The Chairman said Members had already stated their views clearly. Therefore, he considered it not necessary to adjourn the meeting and suggested to enter the voting procedures.

193. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that if the meeting voted on whether Mr YUEN Hoi-man could move a motion on this topic again, he would not participate in the voting.

194. The meeting once again voted on whether Mr YUEN Hoi-man could move a motion on this topic or not.

195. The voting result was as follows:

For: (0)

Against: Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr YAN Kai-wing (10)

- 61 - Action by

Abstain: (0)

196. The Chairman announced the voting result: 0 Members voted for the motion, 10 voted against it and no Member abstained. The Chairman announced that in accordance with Order 24(2) of the Standing Orders, less than half of Members present at the meeting agreed that Mr YUEN Hoi-man might move a motion on this topic again. Therefore, Mr YUEN Hoi-man could not move a motion on this topic again.

197. Mr YUEN Hoi-man said that PlanD did not answer how many items under the existing planning had taken into account the views of the 2010 study report concerning the air ventilation situation in Cheung Sha Wan district.

198. The Chairman said that DC would continue to reflect views to government departments concerned through different channels and it was hoped that PlanD would respond to Members’ enquiries before May this year.

(l) Motion: Sham Shui Po District Council in support of the “Confirmation of the redevelopment timetable of Tai Hang Sai Estate within this year, Government-led to assist re-development” (SSPDC Paper 56/16)

199. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu introduced Paper 56/16 and supplemented the follows: (i) according to census statistics in 2011, one third of the population in Tai Hang Sai Estate (“THSE”) was 65-year-old or above. However, since there were no lifts in THSE, it was very inconvenient to residents; (ii) during the last two terms of DC, there had been discussions on the redevelopment of THSE. It was held that although THSE was built on private site, the site was actually leased to the Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited (“HKSHCL”) by the Hong Kong Government at a concessionary price (i.e. one fifth of market price) for the building of THSE over 50 years ago. It was stipulated in the land lease that the flats of THSE should be rented to low-income families. Now that DC considered that the Government should not regard THSE as private housing. This paper requested the Government to redevelop THSE within this year and assume a leading role in arranging the redevelopment; (iii) HKSHCL had recently submitted a planning application to TPB, requesting for relaxation of plot ratio and building height restriction. Since there was no representative from PlanD at this meeting to facilitate discussion on this item, he requested the Chairman to allow Members to discuss HKSHCL’s planning application before the end of the consultation period. Moreover, he hoped that DC could show objection to HKSHCL’s application to TPB for transferring the THSE into saleable use. - 62 - Action by

200. The Chairman welcomed representatives from HD to the meeting.

201. Mr WONG Yuet-chung introduced Paper 76/16 on behalf of the Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”) and supplemented that: (i) according to the land lease, HKSHCL had to provide at least 1 600 rental units to accommodate low-income families; (ii) the Government understood DC’s concern over the redevelopment of THSE and departments concerned were willing to listen to the views of Members.

202. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) since HKSHCL had submitted its planning application to TPB in accordance with Section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance, members of the public could only express their views by means of written submission to TPB; (ii) he held that one of the main considerations was whether affected residents could be properly rehoused. Recently, HKSHCL issued a notice to residents, offering three rehousing proposals to them. The first proposal was rehousing affected residents to old units in THSE. However, in his opinion, this proposal was not practical because THSE was already in dilapidated condition. The second proposal was allowing affected residents to purchase redeveloped units with a 30% discount. However, according to the census statistics conducted five years ago, one third of the population in THSE was elderlies at 65 or above. The median household income was below $20,000. It was believed that they could not afford to purchase the units. Moreover, he was concerned whether the proposal would violate the lease requirement of providing rental units to accommodate low-income families. According to the existing long-term housing policy, the Government would lay emphasis on housing supply in the coming ten years. In a recent Budget debate in the LegCo, the Secretary for Transport and Housing advised that the provision target of private housing for the coming ten years had more or less been achieved and about 17 000 to 20 000 units would be provided. Yet, Hong Kong still lacked public subsidised housing (public housing or Home Ownership Scheme flats). The turning of THSE into saleable use did not conform with government policy. The third proposal was that HKSHCL would offer a one-off cash compensation to affected residents in exchange for their rights of tenure. He held that all these three proposals were not proper rehousing solutions; (iii) another main concern was the plot ratio. Currently, there were only 1 600 units in THSE. However, HKSHCL planned to build 4 900 to 5 000 units at its site of 2.09 hectares. To his knowledge, the land lot of Phase 2 and Phase 5 of Shek Kip Mei Estate doubled that of THSE in size but only 4 000 units were built on it. Therefore, the development plan of HKSHCL would have serious impact on MTR and local traffic as well as the activity space of pedestrians and residents; (iv) HKSHCL did not conduct any community impact assessment; (v) currently, Shek Kip Mei Estate and Nam Shan Estate in the neighbourhood of THSE had already been included as target estates under the redevelopment project of aged Public - 63 - Action by

Rental Housing (“PRH”) estates. Although there was no concrete redevelopment timetable yet, he believed the two estates would soon be redeveloped; (vi) if the plot ratio of THSE was released from 5.5 to around 7, local traffic, environment and air ventilation, etc. would seriously be affected. He hoped that Members would object to HKSHCL’s planning application and request the Government to intervene into THSE’s redevelopment issue as soon as possible. He considered that the Government might build 4 000 units to accommodate 1 100 affected households and at the same time relieve shortage in public subsidised housing supply.

203. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) DC had in the past discussed the development of THSE; (ii) the Government granted the site of the existing THSE to HKSHCL over 50 years ago for the development of a rental estate but HKSHCL now applied to TPB to redevelop the estate by phases for sale. Supposed that over 4 000 units would be built, saving 1 000 units reserved for rehousing affected residents, HKSHCL could still profited from the sale of about 3 000 units. He queried why the Department did not take measures to restrict the development. He suggested reserving the rental units to affected residents after the redevelopment of THSE. Even if the redeveloped units were put on sale, THSE residents should be given priority to purchase unit at a concessionary price; (iii) the Government should take the lead in the redevelopment of THSE and give a favour to THSE residents, allowing them to purchase units at a concessionary price; (iv) TPB’s paper revealed that HKSHCL planned to redevelop THSE by two to three phases. If THSE residents were rehoused to redeveloped buildings under phase one, these building would enclosed by other newly completed screen-like buildings ten odd years later. He doubted why THB did not take measures to restrict the development or request the developer to carry out development from outside first so that THSE residents might have the preference of choosing buildings at the outer part of the development and enjoy a better view and living environment.

204. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views: (i) the Chief Executive mentioned about the redevelopment plan of THSE in the 2015 Policy Address. However, he regretted that the planning application HKSHCL submitted to TPB did not cover any rehousing proposal. He also considered that the application could not protect the affected residents; (ii) years ago, the Government granted the THSE site to HKSHCL on preferential terms so that it might build rental units for the grassroots but the current planning application of HKSHCL revealed that 70% of the future redeveloped units would be offered for sale to make profit. He considered it not an effective way to utilise public funds. The Government should take the initiative to notify TPB of its objection to profit-making with public funds by commercial bodies; (iii) the planning - 64 - Action by application did not cover any assessment on the impacts of the redevelopment on local traffic, transport and other ancillary facilities. Currently, there were only about 1 000 households in THSE. He worried that the community could not support the future population density of 4 000 to 5 000 households; (iv) the Government should shoulder responsibility for the redevelopment of THSE instead of passing the buck to HKSHCL.

205. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) the Government granted the site to HKSHCL at a low price years ago to tackle the housing needs of the grassroots. Now that the facilities in THSE had dilapidated and there was indeed a need for redevelopment. If the purpose of redevelopment was to take care of the grassroots, he did not understand why HKSHCL would apply to TPB for a relaxation of building height restriction. He queried that HKSHCL had aimed at building more units or even building luxury flats; (ii) the Government should play the role of gate-keeper, stopping HKSHCL from applying to TPB for a relaxation of building height restriction. Since HKSHCL had promised to take care of housing needs of the grassroots in THSE, he demanded that Government to jointly develop THSE with SHSHCL so as to stop it from building luxury flats under the guise of increasing building height.

206. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views: (i) in recent years, both the Government and developers had been trying to increase the building heights on all categories of land disregarding the actual needs; (ii) years ago, the Government granted the site of THSE at a low price, which in a way could be regarded as providing subsidy to the developer. Now that if the Government relaxed the building height restriction, it might cause suspicion that “transfer of benefits” might be involved; (iii) the building of THSE was intended to provide low-rent housing to Hong Kong citizens. TPB should request the developer to provide air ventilation assessment, make an overall planning and make it clear to the public that the site of THSE belonged to Hong Kong citizens. DC should also urge the Government to take the lead to redevelop the THSE.

207. Mr YAN Kai-wing raised the following views: (i) SSPDC had always been supporting the redevelopment of local public housing estates and the renewal of private buildings. He believed that Members would unanimously support the redevelopment of THSE, proper rehousing of residents concerned and improvement of their livelihood; (ii) the outstanding problem was whether the site of THSE was owned by the Government or private entity. It was pointed out in the Government’s response paper that the site owner was HKSHCL. If so, redevelopment application had to be initiated by HKSHCL. He requested HD to reply whether there was any existing mechanism for the Government to resume the land; (iii) the existing problem was that although DC supported of redevelopment, it was unable to get hold of the way of redevelopment to be - 65 - Action by adopted by the Government.

208. Mr WONG Yuet-chung gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) THSE situated at New Kowloon Inland Lot No. 4479. The site was granted to HKSHCL years ago at a concession rate. As such, the site became a private property not owned or managed by the Government or the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority had no means to resume the land mandatorily.

(ii) The redevelopment arrangement of THSE depended on HKSHCL. HKSHCL had the right to decide on whether to redevelop the estate or not as well as how and when to proceed with the development so long as it complied with the conditions of relevant legislations and the land lease.

(iii) HD noted Members’ objection to the planning application of HKSHCL.

(iv) LandsD had no right to resume the land unless the development had violated the land lease conditions.

(v) Even if TPB granted permission to the planning application of HKSHCL, HKSHCL still had to apply for lease modification so as to turn the rental units of THSE into saleable units. In that case, the Government might adjust the land premium accordingly.

209. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the motion paper requested the Government to initiate the redevelopment but did not specifically request the Government to resume the land. Nevertheless, he considered that land resumption by the Government or even land donation by developer was a feasible option. He pointed out that the land lease condition had stipulated the Government might resume the land. He thought that the Government had the right to resume the land if it was in public interest to do so; (ii) the existing point of issue was about the regulation of land lease. The redevelopment of THSE might have been implemented were it not for the fact that the manager of THSE was not cooperative and was unwilling to respond to the needs of residents. In the event that DC and the public disagreed with the modification of land lease conditions by HKSHCL, HKSHCL could only maintain the status quo and the issue would enter a deadlock state. Therefore, since DC had agreed to the need of redeveloping THSE, the Government should proactively study the regulation of land lease concerned; (iii) HKSHCL had caused delay to the development chance for 6 to 7 - 66 - Action by years and the long-standing vacant of part of the units in THSE had resulted in wastage. It was contrary to the public interest. Besides, HKSHCL’s proposal of turning the rental units for saleable use had violated the land lease condition. Even if THSE had to be redeveloped and turned into saleable units, it was not necessary to be handled by HKSHCL. As such, the Government should take an active role in the redevelopment plan.

210. Mr YAN Kai-wing raised the following views: (i) the existing paradox was that the Government and the private company shirked the responsibility to each other. He considered that the Government and the private company should consult the views of residents and adjust the redevelopment plan accordingly; (ii) he thought the premise was whether the “redevelopment” mentioned in the motion paper was feasible.

211. Mr WAI Woon-nam hoped that HD would convey the views of Members to THB. He thought that HKSHCL should, while redeveloping THSE, properly rehouse the affected residents. For this reason, the Government should take the lead and assist the redevelopment, sparing public housing units for rehousing of THSE residents, and allow THSE residents temporarily rehoused in public housing units to have the option of moving back to THSE after phase I redevelopment was completed.

212. Mr Kalvin HO pointed out that since HD regarded THSE as subsidised housing, its residents were unable to apply for other subsidised housing or enjoy other housing benefits. For example, THSE residents could not apply for the flats at 3 Muk Chui Street (“煥然一居”) developed by URA. Also, THSE residents who were civil servants could not apply for public housing. As such, HD should not shirk its responsibility in this matter and the Government had the responsibility to lead the redevelopment of THSE.

213. The Chairman said that according to Paper 56/16, the original motion should be “Sham Shui Po District Council supports the implementation of the timetable for THSE redevelopment in this year and the Government to take the lead to assist the redevelopment”. He also enquired Mr TAM Kwok-kiu who was the seconder of the motion.

214. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that the seconder was Ms Zoé CHOW.

215. The Chairman said that he received an amended motion proposed by Mr YAN Kai-wing and seconded by Mr CHAN Wai-ming. The motion read as follows: “Sham Shui Po District Council supports the implementation of the timetable for THSE redevelopment in this year and the Government to assist the redevelopment”. - 67 - Action by

216. Mr YAN Kai-wing introduced the amended motion. The original motion requested the Government to lead the redevelopment but the Government had stated that THSE was not managed by it. He worried that if both sides refused to concede, the target of implementing the timetable for THSE redevelopment in this year as proposed by the original motion could not be realised. Therefore, he considered it necessary to delete the words “take the lead” in the original motion.

217. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) she did not understand why the Government would not take the lead in the redevelopment of THSE. It was DC’s duty to push the Government to take the lead in the redevelopment plan; (ii) she thought the request of THSE residents was to demand the Government to take the lead in the redevelopment of THSE. Therefore, she did not understand why it was necessary to delete the words “take the lead” in the original motion.

218. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the deletion of the words “take the lead” in the original motion was tantamount to agreeing that the Government needed not take the lead in the redevelopment of THSE and that the site of THSE should be developed by HKSHCL; (ii) public opinion on this matter was very clear. 99% of THSE residents demanded the Government to redevelop THSE and 600 households responded to the “one-household-one-letter” campaign. The opinion survey carried out by last term DC Member and mutual aided committee of the district concerned also revealed the same result; (iii) in the residents’ meeting held on Sunday, residents also clearly objected to the redevelopment of THSE by HKSHCL mainly because the company’s redevelopment direction deviated from the financial status of residents and failed to provide a proper rehousing proposal for the residents; (iv) DC’s standpoint had always been requesting the Government to take the lead in the redevelopment of THSE and further discussion on how to take the lead could be conducted.

[Post-meeting note: Concerning point (ii), Mr TAM Kwok-kiu supplemented that the opinion survey was conducted by last term DC Member and chairman of mutual aided committee of the district concerned.]

219. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) the denial of THSE residents from applying other subsidised housing by the Government represented that the Government admitted THSE was subsidised housing. The Government should therefore be responsible for the redevelopment of THSE. As such, the original motion demanded the Government to take the lead in the redevelopment; (ii) the deletion of the words “take the lead” in the original motion was not conducive to the matter; (iii) DC should push the Government to take the lead to assist the redevelopment and prohibit HKSHCL from - 68 - Action by building luxury flats at the site of THSE.

220. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) she queried that the amended motion proposed by the pro-establishment camp had ignored public opinions; (ii) 99% THSE residents and the residents presented at today’s meeting demanded the Government to take the lead in the redevelopment. She felt indignant that some Members had turned their backs on public opinion, making it that justice could not be manifested.

221. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu proposed an amendment to the amended motion raised by Mr YAN Kai-wing.

222. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) he believed that Members would consider from the angle of residents. However, Members might have different views on legal aspects and the role of stakeholders; (ii) members might learn the role of Government from the response paper of THB. No matter Members agreed to its reply or not, if THSE was private property, the Government had its limitations regardless of its stance; (iii) although Members concerned about the needs of residents, the redevelopment plan of HKSHCL might not be able to tie in with residents’ needs; (iv) he invited Mr TAM Kwok-kiu to introduce his proposed amendment to the amended motion.

223. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that he understood Members’ concerns over the redevelopment of THSE and hoped that the redevelopment plan could be realised early. He considered that the Government had been too passive on this issue and therefore proposed the following amendment to the amended motion raised by Mr YAN Kai-wing: “Sham Shui Po District Council supports the implementation of the timetable for THSE redevelopment in this year and the Government to take the lead in the redevelopment”. He said the amendment explicitly express that DC’s stance of requesting the Government to take the lead in the redevelopment of THSE, which included the request for representatives of government departments to raise objection to the planning application concerned at the meeting of TPB in May this year and to review whether it was feasible to actively intervene into the redevelopment proposal of THSE on the ground of violation to land lease conditions.

224. Mr YAN Kai-wing raised the following views: (i) he considered that the amendment to the amended motion had no difference to the original motion; (ii) DC had always been in support of redevelopment. The redevelopment issue of THSE had been discussed for years. It failed to take the first step forward because the Government and - 69 - Action by the developer passed the buck to each other.

225. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) elected councillors should pay heed to the aspirations of THSE residents and request the Government to take the lead in the redevelopment plan; (ii) there were contradictions in the views of Mr YAN Kai-wing. She took that HKSHCL would not take the lead in the redevelopment of THSE. Members had the responsibility to request the Government to take the lead in the redevelopment in view of public opinions; (iii) the amendment was proposed because it was necessary to request the Government to take the lead in the redevelopment plan.

226. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) the Government had admitted its responsibility in its policy on subsidised housing. Therefore, the Government should take the lead to assist the redevelopment of THSE. If the Government did not take the lead in the redevelopment, the redevelopment of THSE could never be realised; (ii) the deletion of the words “take the lead” in the original motion on the ground of assisting the redevelopment of THSE was deceptive and misleading to residents; (iii) “take the lead” was most important in the motion. It was vital for requesting the Government to shoulder its responsibility or else the Government would turn a blind eye to the redevelopment issue.

227. The meeting voted on Mr TAM Kwok-kiu’s amended motion by open ballot and the result was as follows:

For: Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam and Mr YUEN Hoi-man (7)

Against: Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong and Mr YAN Kai-wing (10)

Abstain: (0)

228. The meeting voted on Mr YAN Kai-wing’s amended motion by open ballot and the result was as follows:

For: Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, - 70 - Action by

Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong and Mr YAN Kai-wing (10)

Against: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam and Mr YUEN Hoi-man (8)

Abstain: (0)

[Some observers making comments]

229. The Chairman announced a 5-minute break.

(The meeting adjourned for 5 minutes)

230. The Chairman announced that the meeting was resumed and asked the Secretary to announce the voting results of the two amended motions.

231. The Secretary announced that 7 Members voted for Mr TAM Kwok-kiu’s amended motion, 10 voted against it and no Member abstained. Regarding Mr YAN Kai-wing’s amended motion, the Secretary announced that 10 Members voted for it, 8 voted against it and no Member abstained.

232. The Chairman declared that Mr YAN Kai-wing’s amended motion was carried.

233. The Chairman concluded that SSPDC was very concerned about the redevelopment issue of THSE and expressed concerns and reservations on the redevelopment plan and arrangement of HKSHCL.

234. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that today’s meeting did not formally discuss the planning application for the relaxation of building height limit for THSE submitted by HKSKCL to TPB. Since there might be an extended meeting for today’s meeting, he hoped that the Chairman would invite representatives from PlanD to discuss on the application at the extended meeting.

235. The Chairman said that he hoped that discussion on the redevelopment issue of THSE could be arranged within two weeks and representatives from PlanD be invited to facilitate discussion.

(m) Request to follow-up and implement the “New Phase Bazaar Activities Programme” - 71 - Action by

(SSPDC Paper 57/16) (n) Develop bazaar in Sham Shui Po to promote a better livelihood (SSPDC Paper 58/16)

236. Mr WAI Woon-nam introduced Paper 57/16 and supplemented that the Concerning CSSA and Low-income Alliances (“the Alliances”) suggested utilising idled school premises in SSP District for developing local grassroots bazaar.

237. Mr CHAN Wai-ming introduced Paper 58/16.

238. The Chairman welcomed representatives from FEHD and LCSD to the meeting.

239. Mr CHAN Hon-kwong gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) The Government was open-minded on organising bazaars with local characteristics in each district. SSP District had successfully organised similar activities last year.

(ii) FEHD suggested organising such activities with a district-led approach to select suitable venues and modes of operation in view of the needs of different districts. Organisers should seek the agreement of relevant owners or managers on the operation venue and time of the bazaar and the support of district council and local parties concerned.

(iii) FEHD would fully support organisers to organise the activity provided that it was not objected by departments concerned and had no impact on food safety, environmental hygiene and public order.

240. Ms Camay LEE introduced Response Paper 78/16 and supplemented that:

(i) Application for the use of recreational venues under LCSD for non-specific purpose had to be submitted at least three months prior to the date of activity. Nevertheless, the application from the Alliances was only submitted one to two months prior to the date of activity. Since the soccer pitch of Maple Street Playground was very popular, it was already fully booked when the Alliances submitted its application. LCSD had explained the booking procedures to the Alliances and the latter had shown its understanding.

(ii) LCSD had to balance the needs of different users. Take the soccer pitch of - 72 - Action by

Maple Street Playground as an example, LCSD had to strike a balance between the needs of soccer fans and users of non-specific purpose. Therefore, the Department had to process applications for non-specific purpose in accordance with the existing mechanism.

(iii) Since the utilising rate of the soccer pitch of Maple Street Playground was very high, LCSD had suggested the Alliances consider booking other less popular local venues, such as the soccer pitch of Fat Cheung Street West Playground, for organising bazaar. The Alliances had previously organised bazaar at the basketball court of Maple Street Playground. LCSD hoped that it would proactively consider the suggestion of the Department.

241. Mr Vincent CHENG raised the following views: (i) DC had always been supporting the organisation of different kinds of bazaar in the district. He considered that the Kiu Kiang Street Bazaar Pilot Scheme had successfully brought out the characteristics of bazaar. Therefore, he suggested drawing the past experiences to extend the Kiu Kiang Street Bazaar Pilot Scheme and further discussing the issue at the Working Group on Poverty Problems and Ethnic Minorities (“WGPPEM”); (ii) DC should foster and study with the Education Bureau (“EDB”) on how to utilise idled school premises in the district for organising different types of activities; (iii) apart from the Maple Street Playground, there were many other local venues (such as Lei Cheng Uk Playground and Po On Road Playground) available for organising bazaar. Parties concerned might try different venues to observe the effectiveness and impacts on nearby residents.

242. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views and suggestions: (i) according to his understanding, the applicant had submitted their venue application to LCSD three months in advance but LCSD replied that no priority could be given to them because their application was for non-specific purpose; (ii) the Hong Kong Coliseum (“HKC”) was frequently used for organising music concerts which also belonged to non-specific purpose. He queried that LCSD had applied a double standard when considering venue applications. He requested LCSD to fairly allocate the soccer pitch of Maple Street Playground for organising bazaar and other activities; (iii) residents hoped that bazaars would provide an opportunity for traders to earn their living, create people flow in SSP and display the affectionate characteristic of SSP to outsiders. However, it was disappointing that LCSD had rejected the applications on different grounds; (iv) one of the purposes of bazaar was to attract visitors from other districts. However, the location of Fat Cheung Street West Playground was inconvenient and outsiders were rarely seen. He hoped that LCSD could be people-oriented, pay heed to the views of traders and DC, - 73 - Action by maintain close contact with applicants and DC and allocate its venues for organising bazaar as soon as possible.

243. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views: (i) she supported the grassroot bazaar programme. She had in the past explored ways to improve the bazaar programme with the Alliances. She considered that short, middle and long term programmes should be devised step by step and believed that other Members would gave their supports to the bazaar programme; (ii) the Kiu Kiang Street Bazaar Pilot Scheme launched last year was very successful. Government departments should proactively promote the Scheme so that more grassroots people might participate; (iii) she suggested exploring more venues for organising bazaar and rolling out pilot schemes in local soccer pitches or idled sites. She understood that LCSD might be challenged by other stakeholders in the handling of venue applications for non-specific purpose. However, it should attempt to work it out even if it had to consult the views and seek the support of residents when it considered the venue use of individual application; (iv) in the long run, the Government should assign venues (such as idled school premises in the district) for organising bazaar so as to provide options for the grassroots and local residents.

244. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) bazaar programme required suitable venue and there were plenty soccer pitches under LCSD which might serve the purpose. He queried that LCSD did not have an objective standard in handling venue applications because it had granted applications for holding Lunar New Year Fair, “Poon Choi” feast and national celebration activities (which were all non-specific purposes) at its soccer pitches but rejected applications for holding bazaar; (ii) he held that LCSD should be people-oriented. Fat Cheung Street West Playground was not inconvenient and not suitable for holding bazaar but the soccer pitch of Maple Street Playground was near to residential areas. As such, he hoped that bazaar could be held at Maple Street Playground seasonally; (iii) Lunar New Year Fair generally lasted for five days and bazaar organiser only wanted to hold bazaar at specific hours of one of the weekends in every season. He hoped that LCSD would treat all kinds of activities equally and without bias.

245. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he supported the three requests put up by the Alliances and suggested the Chairman invite representatives from the EDB to attend the next DC meeting and respond to the request of making use local idled school premises for holding local grassroots bazaar; (ii) previously there was organisation organising an art fair (which was also a non-specific purpose) in Mei Foo to entertain the needs of different residents. He held that LCSD should listen to DC’s views of granting LCSD’s venues for holding bazaars; (iii) it was hoped that the bazaar - 74 - Action by programme could be confirmed at WGPPEM; (iv) many venues with high people flow under HD (such as the soccer pitch between Block 21 and Block 24 of Shek Kip Mei Estate and Lai Kok Estate Market) could be used for holding bazaar. On the other hand, Fat Cheung Street West Playground was not convenient and might not be suitable for holding bazaar. He opined that a venue of low people flow could still be considered for holding bazaar if its location was convenient and complemented with sufficient promotion. He invited representatives from HD to discuss the matter at the meeting of WGPPEM.

246. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views and suggestions: (i) the requests of the Alliances were clear; (ii) he suggested improving the Kiu Kiang Street Bazaar Pilot Scheme with the experience gained from last year; (iii) in the middle run, he suggested organising bazaars in different local venues seasonally to promote the characteristics of bazaar in the community. He understood that LCSD had to consider the priority of different uses during the approval process and therefore suggested to consider the soccer pitches under HD (such as Shek Kip Mei Soccer Pitch which was bigger in size), the soccer pitch of Po On Road Playground or community halls under the District Office; (iv) in the long run, EDB might have already formulated plans on the development of idle school premises in the district. Therefore, he considered that committees or working groups concerned should, when considering the bazaar programme in future, invite EDB to discuss how to utilise local idled school premises to develop bazaar with DC and stakeholders.

247. The Chairman concluded that: (i) both DC and the Government would endeavour to promote the bazaar programme and the main considerations were venue and people flow. He suggested confirming the venue of bazaar programme at the meeting of WGPPEM to be held on 27 April 2016; (ii) the Dawn Market Programme proposed by the Alliances was a short-term proposal. The Alliances tentatively planned to hold a dawn market at Kiu Kiang Street between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday of the second and fourth weeks from June to August this year. The number of stalls would increase from last year’s 30 stalls to 40 stalls or more. DC supported the programme and he urged the organiser to submit application to relevant government departments as soon as possible so that WGPPEM might discuss the matter at its meeting to be held on 27 April 2016. It was believed that LCSD and FEHD would take expeditious action to dovetail with it; (iii) he suggested WGPPEM focus its discussion on the selection of bazaar venue, such as Maple Street Playground, St Francis of Assisi’s Caritas School, other venues mentioned by Members or even the site under Mei Foo Flyover. In the long run, he suggested consulting EDB on the utilisation of idled school premises in the district; (iv) he called on all parties to continue to promote the bazaar programme in SSP - 75 - Action by

District.

248. Mr WAI Woon-nam said he supported DC motivating the bazaar programme. Knowing that the organiser might now submit its application to LCSD, he enquired whether LCSD would respond to questions on venue application.

249. The Chairman said that the Alliances was welcomed to submit venue application to LCSD. He understood the concerns of Members but thought that LCSD might not be able to make any promise at today’s meeting. Therefore, he suggested following up this issue at the meeting of WGPPEM.

(o) Request of forming a Working Group on Yen Chow Street Fabric Market under Sham Shui Po District Council to follow-up the matter in the long term (SSPDC Paper 59/16)

250. Mr WAI Woon-nam introduced Paper 59/16.

251. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) if today’s meeting needed to be extended, he proposed to follow-up discussion on the issue of Yen Chow Street Fabric Market at the extended meeting so that the matter could be addressed to earlier; (ii) DC unanimously agreed that the issue of fabric market involved not only the resettlement of traders but also the development of the fabric market into a “Dongdaemun” in Hong Kong. Therefore, it required a wider scope of participation, including further discussion on its design and planning. If the relevant details had to be discussed at DC meeting every time, discussion on other issues might be affected. Therefore, he suggested forming a working group to materialise the development of the fabric market, allowing more stakeholders to join the discussion and even invite through DC more experts to take part in the development; (iii) at the last DC meeting, the Chairman concluded that the issue would be referred to a working group for following-up actions three months later. He held that it was the right time to form the working group; (iv) at the workshop organised by traders, all participants called on DC to form a working group on fabric market. Therefore, he hoped that its intention could be established at today’s meeting.

252. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) Members learned earlier at the workshop organised by the trader that FEHD had all along been discussing with traders the relocation arrangements for the fabric market, including the study of the design proposal of Tung Chau Street Temporary Market, so as to rehouse the 53 traders. He held that the direction of current discussion was positive. The implementation of - 76 - Action by traders’ proposal and promotion of the development of fabric market by the government departments concerned were being awaited.; (ii) in the long run, DC might follow-up the issue of fabric market at working group level. Since working group was mainly an operation and implementation platform, he held that it should be processed in stages. Presently, the progress might be monitored through DC meetings in order to motivate government departments concerned to implement a proposal accepted by traders, the matter could be further followed up when it came up with a concrete proposal; (iii) he suggested following-up the fabric market issue at the Working Group on Markets, Street Traders and Food Safety (“WGMSTFS”) under the Environment and Hygiene Committee if necessary. The Market Management Consultative Committee of Tung Chau Street Temporary Market under FWHD might also dovetail with the work of the working group. At present, it was advisable to observe the development.

253. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) there had been concrete planning proposals on the development of fabric market. He held that it was not ideal to discuss the relevant details at every DC meeting. It was necessary to form a working group to follow-up the matter; (ii) the forming of a working group might allow stakeholders of the fabric market to participate in the discussion. With a view to creating a fashion and creative industry successfully, participation of departments concerned and motivation by the Government were vital. Although it might not be necessary to form a fabric market working group immediately, DC should prepare for the discussion at working group level; (iii) since the fabric market issue was not simply related to the rehousing of traders, he did not agree the issue to be followed-up at WGMSTFS. Although both committees and working groups were authorised by DC, the forming of an ad-hoc fabric market working group could let government departments concerned have a better understanding of the intention of DC. Therefore, it would be more suitable to follow-up the issue with a fabric market working group; (iv) with a view to demonstrating DC’s determination to push forward the development of fabric market, it should first confirm the need to form a fabric market working group, and then decided when to form it and invite stakeholders to join it as appropriate.

254. Mr LAI Kah-kit said that FEHD had twice met with representatives of fabric market to discuss the rehousing arrangements in March this year. Yesterday FEHD also received a proposed layout plan in relation to the merging of Block 1 to Block 3 of Tung Chau Street Temporary Market into a new fabric market. Since the relocation proposal and timetable were not yet confirmed, the Department considered it not the most suitable time for forming a working group to thoroughly deliberate the development of fabric market at the present stage. - 77 - Action by

255. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views: (i) many traders, organisations and residents were very concerned of the development of fabric market. Traders had clearly expressed at the last workshop that let alone the handling of the relocation problem of traders in the short term, it was more important to motivate the long term development of fabric market; (ii) he understood that it might not be necessary to form the fabric market working group right now but DC should make ready to form the working group so as to support the long term development of fabric market; (iii) he worried that government departments might shirk their responsibilities and hence DC should offer supports to traders.

256. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) the consensus about fabric market reached at the second DC Meeting was that DC would consider forming a working group three months later. Therefore, he suggested all parties concerned continue to follow-up the fabric market issue in the coming few weeks; (ii) according to his understanding, discussion between FEHD and traders were in good progress and relevant layout plan and planning proposal were ready. It would first make plans on Block One to Block Three of Tung Chau Street Temporary Market and then make arrangements for Block Four and Block Five. It might be named as “3+1+1” proposal for the moment. The Government initially announced to resume the site of fabric market in mid of this year. He hoped that DC could reflect to government departments concerned that no action should be taken before a consensus had been reached; (iii) DC directionally agreed that the fabric market issue covered not simply the relocation of traders but also the development of the entire fabric market. Therefore, he suggested the Government continue to work out a concrete proposal with traders in the coming few weeks; (iv) he concluded at the last DC meeting that the issue would be passed to a working group for follow-up action after a consensus had been reached. Therefore, DC would now mainly give support to the negotiation between traders and government departments concerned. After a consensus had been reached, concrete implementation method and design would then be discussed at a working group.

257. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) last DC meeting considered to form a working group on the issue and it now proposed to confirm the formation of the working group. He thought that all parties were getting close to a consensus and their deliberation had made certain progress; (ii) he learned earlier about the “3+1+1” proposal on the relocation of traders. He held that if it could be confirmed at this meeting that the issue be followed-up by a working group, then once the “3+1+1” proposal was confirmed, the working group could forthwith come into operation and follow-up the allocation of Blocks and design of Tung Chau Street Temporary Market; (iii) what at issue was whether the Administration would resume the site of the fabric - 78 - Action by market in June this year. The stance of the last meeting was that the site of the fabric market should not be resumed before any consensus had been reached. He requested representative of FEHD to respond on this.

258. Mr LAI Kah-kit said that regarding the resumption of the site of the fabric market, FEHD had to consider the feasibility of the proposal before deciding on any adjustment to the removal date. If there was any decision, the Department would inform traders as soon as possible.

259. The Chairman expressed that the direction of DC was to organise a working group at appropriate time.

260. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu suggested the Chairman and Vice-Chairman draft the terms of reference of the said working group and submit it to the next DC meeting for discussion.

261. The Chairman concluded that the most important thing at issue was to reach a consensus on the fabric market issue by all parties. It was hoped that decision bureaux and government departments concerned could come up with a consensus proposal in the coming few weeks.

(p) District-led Actions Scheme (SSPDC Paper 60/16)

262. The District Officer introduced Paper 60/16.

263. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) according to the proposal of the District Office, the current stage of District-led Actions Scheme (“the Scheme”) would last for 18 months. He held that since DC had already set two projects, i.e. “strengthening support to street sleepers” and “strengthening support to ‘three-nil’ buildings” under the Scheme, the Scheme could be included as one of the work targets of this term of DC and its results could be reviewed in the medium term. He worried that if its work stage was set at 18 months, the time schedule would be too tight and might not be able to reach the anticipated results; (ii) the problem of street sleeping in SSP was prominent. Government departments should allocate more resources to address the problem. Regarding “strengthening support to street sleepers”, he held that the Scheme should line up with the direction of developing the Tung Chau Street Temporary Market into a creative fabric market and address the problem of rehousing street sleepers rather than simply paying visits to street sleepers; (iii) he thought that “strengthening support to ‘three-nil’ buildings” was a good idea and suggested inviting partners to increase the - 79 - Action by synergic effect or following the example of “strengthening support to street sleepers”, hiring relevant parties to promote the formation of OCs in more buildings.

264. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he thought that the work of “strengthening support to street sleepers” would be more useful to those who newly became street sleepers while it was not easy for habitual street sleepers to quit the line. Since resources were limited and the number of street sleepers might still increase, he suggested making those who newly became street sleepers as the main supporting target so as to reduce new street sleeping cases. Besides, he worried that the Government would focus on improving city landscape rather than taking the decrease of street sleepers as a performance indicator; (ii) he recognised the results of the work of “strengthening support to ‘three-nil’ buildings” and considered it useful to the formation of OCs in “three-nil” buildings; (iii) before deciding to support the Scheme or not, he hoped that the District Officer would supplement that apart from “strengthening support to street sleepers” and “strengthening support to ‘three-nil’ buildings”, whether consideration had been given to other scope of works or evaluation on the effectiveness of different scope of works had been done.

265. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views: (i) she supported the Scheme; (ii) the pedestrian flow at the two subways in Cheung Sha Wan was high. It was hoped that more efforts would be spared in handling the street sleeping problem over there; (iii) regarding “strengthening support to ‘three-nil’ buildings”, she received a case in which a building had formed an OC but the OC was not yet skilful enough in improving the management of the building. She had referred the case to District Office but since the building was no longer a “three-nil” building, it could not be followed-up as a targeted building under the Pilot Scheme. She thought that even though a building had formed an OC, it might not be able to upgrade its building management level immediately. Therefore, it was suggested that District Office should handle it discretionally and consider employing management companies to extend and modify the requirements of the Scheme so as to offer more support to newly formed OCs.

266. The District Officer gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(i) When planning the Scheme, District Office had discussed thoroughly with SWD and received valuable comments from the latter. The work of “strengthening support to street sleepers” was indeed more useful to those who newly became street sleepers. However, during the process, it was found that some habitual street sleepers, reluctant of street sleeping though, were unable to quit the line with their own efforts. Therefore, the Scheme - 80 - Action by

had started off with love and care to help street sleepers quit the line for long.

(ii) Many complaints from residents in respect of environmental hygiene problems were received previously. If street sleepers could be helped quit the line and their numbers could be reduced, environmental hygiene problems in the district might be improved. On the contrary, if emphasis was placed solely on clearing the belongings of street sleepers, it would only drive street sleepers to other places and would not help resolve the problem.

(iii) DC’s support was very important to the implementation of the Scheme. In the past, with the assistance of various organisations and the participation of SWD, habitual street sleepers had quit the line. Apart from visits by social workers, services like training on motivation and ability, restructuring of community networks, job referral and subsidise for purchasing household electric appliance had helped street sleepers establish their interpersonal connections and rebuild their lives and thereby reintegrate into the society. Among the closely followed 99 street sleeper cases, 40 of them had unceasingly quitted the line for 6 months. It was believed that the number would continue to increase and it was hoped that DC would support the extension of the Scheme.

(iv) Regardless of the future development of the fabric market, helping street sleepers to quit the line and improving the environmental hygiene in the district would create a win-win situation for the community. Hence, work would be done in this direction in the future.

(v) The problem of street sleepers gathered underneath the Tung Chau Street Flyover and in the pedestrian subways along Cheung Sha Wan was a main target in the future Scheme.

(vi) he maintained an open mind on the timetable of the Scheme and District Office would continue to review the situation and effectiveness of the implementation of the Scheme and report to DC and the District Management Committee (“DMC”) which had all along been concerning this issue.

(vii) In addition to management problems, poor management in “three-nil” buildings would also cause fire and other hidden safety risks because garbage disposed at rear staircases would obstruct fire exits. While providing - 81 - Action by

one-off cleansing service for “three-nil” buildings, the Scheme would also step up publicity and education, helping owners understand the importance of building management and taking it as an entry point for encouraging them to form OCs.

(viii) Apart from “three-nil” building problems, there were many other issues in the district, such as wild pigeons, shop front extensions and second-handed electric appliance trading problems, needed to be handled. DMC and other committees under DC would continue to follow-up these issues and comments from Members were welcomed.

(ix) Consultants of OCs should possess professional knowledge and experience. The Building Management Professional Advisory Service Scheme launched by District Office was currently offering support to “three-nil” buildings. Since there were plenty “three-nil” buildings in the district, there were still about 700 “three-nil” buildings after the implementation of the Pilot Scheme. It was hoped that the support offered to “three-nil” buildings could be extended. He was open-minded on setting the duration of the Scheme at four years and District Office welcomed the meeting to make suggestions on the work priority of the Scheme so as to improve the work. At present, it was suggested that the contract periods for outsourcing services would not be too long. Nevertheless, it would be reviewed regularly and the progress would be reported at DC.

(x) District Office would also take the initiative to contact and find out the situation of newly formed OCs through the Scheme, helping them to run smoothly.

267. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) ways to handle street sleepers and “three-nil” buildings were a bit different. The problem of street sleepers was more complicated and required more time to handle. Setting the duration of the Scheme at four years could allow more time for organisations concerned to do planning and deployment and reduce administrative barriers; (ii) there were certain number of shelter for street sleepers in the district. District Office should review whether their services could satisfy local needs and whether their operation could tie in with the actual situation of street sleepers. He did not agree to drive away street sleepers and opined that District Office should consider how to take care of the needs of street sleepers, such as building a shelter for street sleepers at the carpark opposite to Tung Chau Street. - 82 - Action by

268. The Chairman concluded that the meeting noted the views of Members and agreed to support the District-led Actions Scheme Paper 60/16.

(q) Proposed allocation of Sham Shui Po District Council Funds in 2016-2017 financial year (SSPDC Paper 61/16)

269. The Chairman hoped that Paper 61/16 and Items 3 to 5 could be handled in this meeting while unhandled papers could be discussed at extended meeting or next meeting as appropriate.

270. The Secretary introduced Paper 61/16.

271. Mr WAI Woon-nam said that the reserved funding for 2015-2016 financial year was $3,566,000 among which $3,289,375 had been spent. On the other hand, among the $2,865,000 non-reserved funding allocated, $2,374,813 had been spent. According to past experience, organisations applied for reserved funding, which were more experienced in organising activities, would generally fully utilise their funding. However, in 2015-2016 financial year, the actual expenditures of organisations applied for non-reserved funding fell short of the allocationand resulted in a balance. He said an overrun by 17% was estimated for the budget for 2016-2017 financial year. Having considered that there was a balance in the provisions for some of the organisations in 2015-2016 financial year, he suggested marking up the overrun budget so that the quota for application of non-reserved funding by local organisations could be enlarged and more organisations could be benefited.

272. Mr Kalvin HO said that $220,000 had been reserved in the DC Central Fund for the community participation workshop (“CPW”) and he enquired about the details of it.

273. The Chairman said that the $220,000 reserved for CPW would be used to organise two community participation meetings (“CPM”). He would invite all Members to meet with the Sham Shui Po Citizens on 27 April this year to discuss on the arrangement of CPM. CPMs were planned to be held in June and December this year.

274. The Secretary responded that in view of Members’ opinion, the non-reserved fund in 2016-2017 financial year had been increased by 5% to $3,008,250 after consulting the Committee Chairman.

275. The District Officer responded that if the actual expenditure in the financial year exceeded the overall provision of HAD, it would be met by allocation in the following - 83 - Action by financial year and affect the amount of provision available. Therefore, the overrun budget for this financial year was set by Chairman, Vice-chairman and Committees Chairmen after prudent deliberation and its amount was similar to that of previous years.

276. The Chairman announced that the proposed allocation of Sham Shui Po District Council Funds for the 2016-2017 financial year was endorsed.

Item 3: Reports from Committees and Working Groups under the District Council

(a) Reports from Committees

(i) Report from the District Facilities Committee (SSPDC Paper 63/16)

(ii) Report from the Community Affairs Committee (SSPDC Paper 64/16)

(iii) Report from the Environment and Hygiene Committee (SSPDC Paper 65/16)

(iv) Report from the Transport Affairs Committee (SSPDC Paper 66/16)

(v) Report from the Housing Affairs Committee (SSPDC Paper 67/16)

277. The meeting noted the above reports.

(b) Reports from Working Groups directly under the District Council

(i) Report from the Working Group on Poverty Problems and Ethnic Minorities (SSPDC Paper 68/16)

(ii) Report from the Working Group on Healthy and Safe Community (SSPDC Paper 69/16)

278. The meeting noted the above reports.

Item 4: Report on District Management Committee Meeting (SSPDC Paper 70/16)

279. The District Officer opined that DMC had held meetings on 29 January and 11 March this year respectively. Report on the meeting of 11 March was tabled for reference. The two reports concerned mainly on the District-led Action Scheme. - 84 - Action by

280. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu suggested listing the two reports of DMC as Papers 70A/16 and 70B/16 respectively to facilitate Members’ reference.

281. The meeting noted the papers.

Item 5: Any other business

282. The Chairman said that the Secretariat would invite Members in writing to meet with Sham Shui Po Citizens or other local organisations to discuss arrangement for CPM.

(a) Nomination of a Gender Focal Point for the Women’s Commission (SSPDC Paper 71/16)

283. The Chairman said that the Women’s Commission had invited DC to appoint a Member as its Gender Focal Point for this DC term. The Chairman invited Members to nominate.

284. Mr LAM Ka-fai nominated Ms LAU Pui-yuk and the nomination was seconded by Mr Vincent CHENG. Ms LAU Pui-yuk accepted the nomination.

285. Since there was only one nominee, the Chairman announced that Ms LAU Pui-yuk was nominated as the Gender Focal Point on behalf of DC.

(b) Nomination of a co-opted member for the Task Force on Harbourfront Developments in Kowloon, Tsuen Wan and Kwai Tsing under the Harbourfront Commission (SSPDC Paper 72/16)

286. The Chairman said that the Harbourfront Commission invited DC to nominate a Member as the co-opted member for the Task Force on Harbourfront Developments in Kowloon, Tsuen Wan and Kwai Tsing under the Commission. The Chairman invited Members to nominate.

287. Mr Vincent CHENG nominated Mr LEUNG Man-kwong and the nomination was seconded by Ms Joephy CHAN. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong accepted the nomination.

288. Since there was only one nominee, the Chairman announced that Mr LEUNG Man-kwong was nominated as the co-opted member of the Task Force on behalf of DC. - 85 - Action by

(c) Nomination of a member for the Panel for the Selection of Target Buildings under the Independent Checking Unit of the Transport and Housing Bureau (SSPDC Paper 73/16)

289. The Chairman said that the Panel for the Selection of Target Buildings under the Independent Checking Unit of THB invited DC to nominate a Member as the member for the Panel. The Chairman invited Members to nominate.

290. Mr Vincent CHENG nominated Mr LEE Wing-man and the nomination was seconded by Ms LAU Pui-yuk. Mr LEE Wing-man accepted the nomination.

291. Since there was only one nominee, the Chairman announced that Mr LEE Wing-man was nominated as the member of the Panel on behalf of DC.

(d) Nomination of a member for the Panel for the Selection of Target Buildings under the Independent Checking Unit of the Buildings Department (SSPDC Paper 74/16)

292. The Chairman said that the Buildings Department invited DC to nominate a Member as the member for its Panel for the Selection of Target Buildings. The Chairman invited Members to nominate.

293. Mr CHAN Wai-ming nominated Ms LAU Pui-yuk and the nomination was seconded by Ms Joephy CHAN. Ms LAU Pui-yuk accepted the nomination.

294. Since there was only one nominee, the Chairman announced that Ms LAU Pui-yuk was nominated as the member of the Panel on behalf of DC.

(e) Nomination of a candidate for the Secretary for Development to consider for appointment to the disciplinary board in accordance with Sections 5(3A) & 11(4A) of the Buildings Ordinance (Chapter 123) (SSPDC Paper 75/16)

295. The Chairman said that the Building Authority invited DC to nominate a Member as an individual “lay-person” for the Secretary for Development to consider for appointment to the disciplinary board in accordance with the Buildings Ordinance. The Chairman invited Members to nominate.

296. Ms LAU Pui-yuk nominated Mr Vincent CHENG and the nomination was seconded by Mr CHAN Wai-ming. Mr Vincent CHENG accepted the nomination.

297. Since there was only one nominee, the Chairman announced that Mr Vincent CHENG - 86 - Action by was nominated as the member of the disciplinary board on behalf of DC.

(f) Nomination of a member for the Management Committee of Jockey Club Creative Arts Centre

298. The Chairman said that Jockey Club Creative Arts Centre invited DC to nominate a Member as a member of its Management Committee. The Chairman invited Members to nominate.

299. Mr CHAN Wai-ming nominated Mr CHAN Kwok-wai and the nomination was seconded by Mr Vincent CHENG. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai accepted the nomination.

300. Since there was only one nominee, the Chairman announced that Mr CHAN Kwok-wai was nominated as the member of the Management Committee on behalf of DC.

(g) New Posting of Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2

301. The Chairman announced that Mr Mickey WAI, Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2 would soon be posted out and this Council took this chance to extend gratitude to him.

302. Mr Mickey WAI thanked last term DC for its support to the District-led Actions Scheme. He also thanked the current DC for pushing forward the Scheme. He hoped that DC would continue to maintain close cooperation with the District Office and all government departments and looked forward to further cooperation with DC in his new post.

303. The Chairman thanked Mr WAI for his contribution to this DC during his term of office.

Item 6: Date of next meeting

304. Next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 14 June 2016.

305. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu enquired whether there would be an extended meeting. He said that the HKSHCL had submitted a planning application on the comprehensive redevelopment of Tai Hang Sai Estate to TPB and relevant public consultation period would end on 26 April 2016. As such, he suggested DC convene a meeting before 26 April 2016 to discuss the issue. - 87 - Action by

306. The Chairman responded that he would fix a meeting date with PlanD.

307. There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m.

District Council Secretariat Sham Shui Po District Office June 2016