Minutes of the 21st Meeting of the Southern District Council (SDC) (2012-2015)

Date : 19 March 2015 Time : 2:30 p.m. Venue : SDC Conference Room

Present: Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP (Chairman) Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH (Vice-Chairman) Mr AU Lap-sing, MH Mr AU Nok-hin Mr CHAI Man-hon Ms CHAN Judy Kapui Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung Mr CHU Lap-wai Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Dr LIU Hong-fai, Dandy, JP Mr LO Kin-hei Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Mr WONG Ling-sun, Vincent Dr YANG Mo, PhD Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN

Secretary: Ms YIP Wai-see, Priscilla Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

1

In Attendance: Mr CHOW Chor-tim, JP District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Mr YEUNG Pok-man, Michael Assistant District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Mr CHAN Ip-to, Tony Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms LO Mun-wah, Cindy Senior Liaison Officer (1), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Miss CHOW Suk-yee, Jessica Senior Liaison Officer (2), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr LEE Kan-fat District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Southern), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr CHAIONG David, Stanley Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong West), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr WONG Yuet-chung Senior Housing Manager/KWH3, Housing Department Mr Nelson CHAN Cheif Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport Department Mr Wise CHOY District Commander (Western), Hong Kong Police Force Mr Billy CHING Police Community Relations Officer (Western), Hong Kong Police Force Mr LAU Kong-wah Under Secretary for Constitutional and for agenda Mainland Affairs item 1 Miss YIU Yuk, Isabel Senior Town Planner/HK 1, for agenda item 2 Dr LUK Che-chung Cluster Chief Executive, Hong Kong West Cluster, Hospital Authority Dr Sidney TAM Deputy Hospital Chief Executive I, Queen Mary Hospital Ms Winnie YIP Cluster General Manager (Administrative Services), Hong Kong West Cluster, Hospital Authority for agenda Ms Pinky MAK Senior Hospital Manager (Planning & item 6 Commissioning), Queen Mary Hospital Mr K L TAM Director of Estates Office, the University of Hong Kong Mr Eddie YIU Assistant Director of Estates Office, the University of Hong Kong

2 Mr David LO Technical Manager of Estates Office, the University of Hong Kong for agenda Ms Jeannie TSANG Faculty Secretary of the Faculty of Medicine, item 6 the University of Hong Kong

Mr NG Tak-wing Chief Engineer/Railway Development 1-1, Highways Department Mr Stephen WAT Senior Engineer/South Island Line 1, Highways Department Ms Doris CHAN Senior Engineer/Priority Railway 3, Transport Department for agenda Mr Ken WONG Project Manager – SIL Civil item 7 MTR Corporation Limited Mr Bernard WONG Senior Liaison Engineer, MTR Corporation Limited Ms Samantha SIU Public Relations Manager - Projects & Property, MTR Corporation Limited

Opening Remarks:

The Chairman welcomed Mr LAU Kong-wah, the Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, to the meeting for discussion of agenda item 1. He also extended his welcome to all Members and regular government representatives for joining the meeting.

2. The Chairman said that the meeting would be conducted in accordance with the established arrangement, under which each Member would be allotted a maximum of two three-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item. He also reminded Members to speak as concise as possible. The electronic timer would beep when it reached two minutes 30 seconds and three minutes of each speaking slot respectively. The suggested duration for discussion of the agenda items had also been e-mailed to Members earlier (Reference Paper 1). The Secretary estimated that the meeting would come to a close no later than 8:40 p.m., and if Members wished to leave earlier, they should inform the secretariat staff as early as possible.

3 Part I – Items for Discussion

Agenda Item 1: Consultation Document on the Method for Selecting the Chief Executive by Universal Suffrage (SDC Paper No. 26/2015) [2:31 p.m. – 4:25 p.m.]

3. The Chairman said that this agenda item was raised by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau (CMAB) to consult SDC about the Consultation Document on the Method for Selecting the Chief Executive (CE) by Universal Suffrage, and Mr CHU Lap-wai and Dr YANG Mo, PhD had also proposed a motion concerning the method for selecting CE by universal suffrage in writing before the meeting. Besides, Mr AU Nok-hin had indicated his wish to make an oral statement in respect of this agenda item in writing before the meeting.

4. The Chairman suggested that Mr LAU Kong-wah, Under Secretary for CMAB (USCMA) should briefly introduce the content of the Consultation Document before Members were invited to give their views on the Consultation Document. Then, Mr AU Nok-hin would make an oral statement, followed by a debate on the motion proposed by the two Members. The estimated duration for discussion of this agenda item was 1 hour and 30 minutes, and Members were reminded to speak as concisely as possible.

5. Mr LAU Kong-wah, USCMA, briefly introduced the Consultation Document as follows:

(i) while the second round public consultation on the method for selecting the CE by universal suffrage had ended, the views and conclusions collected at this meeting would also be incorporated in the report to be released in April 2015. Therefore, he hoped that Members would actively express their views; (ii) it was the aspiration of the Central Authorities, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government and the people of Hong Kong to elect the CE by universal suffrage in 2017. Consultation on and promotion of constitutional development had been undertaken for well over a year and the public had been waiting for years to elect the CE by universal suffrage. We were now only one step away from this goal; (iii) after releasing the consultation report in April 2015, the Government expected to submit to the Legislative Council (LegCo) the resolution on the amendments to Annex I to the Basic Law in due course. Subject to LegCo’s endorsement, which was the third step of the “Five-Step Process” of constitutional development, Hong Kong would have, for the first time in

4 history, the opportunity for members of the public to elect the CE by universal suffrage through “one person, one vote”. The Government looked forward to this opportunity eagerly; (vi) despite public aspiration for universal suffrage, it was considerably difficult for the proposals to be endorsed by LegCo. The Government would continue to do its best in the coming two to three months to show its sincerity in taking forward constitutional development; and (v) he understood that as DC Members maintained very close liaison with local residents, they were very much aware of their sentiments. Therefore, he called upon Members to actively express their views and voice their opinions so as to make progress for constitutional development.

6. The Chairman invited Members to raise their comments.

7. Mr CHU Lap-wai said that the majority of the public supported the Government to promote constitutional reform according to the Basic Law. The existing electoral method was to have CE elected by a 1 200-member Election Committee. If the constitutional reform could be implemented, more than five million eligible voters would be able to elect CE by “one person, one vote” in 2017, which was a great stride in constitutional and democratic development. He took the view that it was very important for Hong Kong to take this step. As every package might have its own downside, he considered that it would do no good to the overall development of Hong Kong if we dragged our feet over this. In view of this, he called for LegCo Members who had made clear their intention not to support the endorsement of the constitutional reform package to think twice and listen to public views before making the decision. As LegCo Members were representatives of the public, they should vote according to public opinion. If the constitutional reform package was voted down, he believed that the whole enterprise of constitutional reform could hardly make a new start within a short period of time. All the Hong Kong people would lose out if the reform was in a stalemate. He called upon all LegCo Members to take heed of public opinion, discuss the restrictions laid down by the Basic Law in a pragmatic manner and stop clutching to those idealistic ideas. Hong Kong could only see benefits in this way. He supported the constitutional reform package proffered by the Government and was looking forward to the election of CE through “one person, one vote” in 2017.

8. Mr AU Nok-hin said that constricted by the “Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC)’s 831 framework”, the election method of CE was indeed universal suffrage “with screening”. He pointed to the fact that the Government lacked sincerity to communicate with the public during the entire consultation process. Citing this DC meeting as an example, he indicated that Mr

5 LAU Kong-wah, USCMA, the representative of CMAB, had made no promise to listen to proposals such as “civil nomination” and “three channels for nomination”. Moreover, the “blank vote proposal” put forward earlier by Mr CHEN Hung-yee, Professor of the University of Hong Kong, had also failed to win Beijing’s support. He quoted from a thesis published by Mr LAU Kong-wah, USCMA, when he was studying at the Department of Public and Social Administration of the City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, pointing out that there were restrictions in DC system. More often than not, the Government was not eager to listen to the views of DCs. What it really wanted to obtain was the rubber-stamp approval from DC Members, which had in turn rendered the DCs toothless. He believed that the Government’s consultation with DCs only aimed to lessen opposition and disseminate information. The attending of DC meetings by CMAB representatives was nothing more than “political shows”. Lastly, he joined the other pan-democrats, shouting slogans of “we want real universal suffrage”, “objection to NPCSC’s 831 framework” and “we need universal suffrage”.

9. Mr LO Kin-hei asked why CMAB sent different representatives to attend meetings of SDC and C&WDC and why it was not Mr TAM Chi-yuen, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs (SCMA), to attend the meeting of SDC. He said that the people of Hong Kong had long been pining for the election of CE by universal suffrage. However, after the “831 framework” was passed by NPCSC in 2014, their hope was dashed. He sensed that the Central Government and the HKSAR Government were both in favour of using the scare tactics, coercing the public to “pocket it first”. They had shown no sincerity to discuss the issue at all. The decision made by the Central Government was indeed against the wishes of most of the local political groups. Even the proposals dished up by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) were more open than that of the Central Government. It was evident that the majority of Hong Kong people would not subscribe to the current package put forward by the Government. He urged CMAB not to treat “taking public opinions into account” as a slogan, and should gauge the real public opinions by means of a “civil referendum”.

10. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling said that as a member of the Education Subsector of the Election Committee, she was eager that the public could elect CE by universal suffrage through “one person, one vote”. She believed that Hong Kong needed a shrewd leader and “one person, one vote” election boasted both representative and practical meanings. A CE elected through universal suffrage could ensure that Hong Kong could keep pace with the times and make progression in the future. She also opined that it was right for CMAB’s representatives to attend DC meetings to listen to Members’ views and answer questions. During the years of British colonial rule, people of Hong Kong had never felt like living on Chinese territories even though

6 Hong Kong had always been a part of China. This must have been the lament of many Chinese and Hong Kong people. She reiterated her support to the election of CE by universal suffrage through “one person, one vote” so as to open up a new chapter in the history of Hong Kong.

11. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said he had pointed out during the last round of constitutional reform consultation that since many political parties and LegCo Members were still waiting for the Central Government to make known its position, they did not dare to put forward their substantial views. He stressed that the constitutional reform package should be decided by Hong Kong people themselves instead of being confined to the “831 framework” formulated by the Central Government. Although the Central Government had a constitutional role to play, the HKSAR Government should not second a decision which was not in line with the wishes of the Hong Kong people. Meanwhile, he found it unacceptable that some political parties from the pro-establishment camp gave blind support to the Central Government’s decision. He opined that neither the Government nor any political parties from the pro-establishment camp had stood out to speak for the people of Hong Kong. Instead of thinking that the Central Government’s decision was inappropriate, they expressed the same standpoint as the Central Government in accordance with its preference. This was a shameful political behaviour. He quoted a newspaper article written by a scholar who had worked as a research officer for the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in HKSAR, saying that the “831 decision” had actually fulfilled the wish of the sovereign of Hong Kong. He considered that the Central Government should not abuse its power to ruin the constitutional arrangements of “one country, two systems” and “Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong”. He also quoted David Webb’s saying, which had earlier pointed out that the Hong Kong Government had secretly changed the English version of 「港人治港」 from “Hong Kong People ruling Hong Kong” to “Hong Kong People administering Hong Kong”. He worried that this meant the constitutional affairs of HKSAR would eventually be decided by the Central Government someday. Therefore, he strongly opposed the existing constitutional reform package.

12. Dr YANG Mo, PhD said that he adopted a more neutral political attitude and had given careful consideration again and again to the positive and negative impacts on Hong Kong if the constitutional reform package was endorsed. Finally, he concluded that the constitutional reform package, if endorsed, would be conducive to the democratic development of Hong Kong without any disadvantages for three reasons, namely: (i) democracy could safeguard the core values of Hong Kong; (ii) democratic development in Hong Kong should evolve in a practical and progressive way instead of undergoing a drastic change. This was the political reality in Hong Kong; and (iii) the election of CE through “one person, one vote” would in fact

7 facilitate democratic development. He opined that the Government did not have sufficient communication with the public and DC Members. He hoped that the Government would enhance communication in the future to promote public awareness of the constitutional reform package.

(Mr WONG Ling-sun joined the meeting at 2:54 p.m.)

13. Mr CHAI Man-hon was disappointed that SCMA was unable to attend the SDC meeting. He was also surprised at the comments made by some government officials such as Mr Andrew FUNG, Information Co-ordinator, who regarded a universal suffrage “with screening” as “French style democracy”, and the pro-establishment camp that treated “a fake universal suffrage” as “a real universal suffrage”. He opined that there was extensive public discussion in Hong Kong as to whether it was necessary to “pocket it first”, such as whether the third runway proposal should be accepted. To ask the public to “pocket” the constitutional reform package was just like the “elective dictatorship” practised during the era of PARK Chung-hee. If the constitutional reform package was endorsed, Hong Kong would only have a dictatorial “fake universal suffrage” that did not meet the international standard. He did not know how the HKSAR Government would promote the constitutional reform package at the next stage, but he believed that the package would definitely be contrary to public opinions, and thus would not be widely recognised by the public.

14. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH remarked that the general public wished to implement universal suffrage for the CE election. If people only insisted on the so-called “real universal suffrage”, he worried that the opportunity to take one step forward would be missed and Hong Kong would come to a standstill. Then, it would be uncertain when Hong Kong people could secure an opportunity to implement universal suffrage for the CE election. After the announcement of the “831 decision”, he had contacted a number of local organisations. He learnt that they generally accepted NPCSC’s decision. He hoped that LegCo Members would listen to the public opinions for implementation of the constitutional reform package.

15. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH said that she had all along kept in touch with the residents in respect of the constitutional reform issue. She noted that the majority of the public hoped that the constitutional reform package for 2017 would be endorsed. Personally speaking, she also supported the implementation of the constitutional reform under the “831 framework”. She stressed that if the election of CE through “one person, one vote” by over five million eligible voters could be implemented, it would be more representative than that conducted by the 1200-member Election Committee anyway. She hoped that the opposition camp in LegCo would give a

8 second thought to the issue and supported the constitutional reform package by taking public opinions into full account, so that universal suffrage could be implemented for the CE election in Hong Kong.

16. The Chairman invited Mr LAU Kong-wah, USCMA, to respond.

17. Mr LAU Kong-wah, USCMA, gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) Members’ questions could generally be grouped under two categories: namely the consultation process for universal suffrage for the CE election and problems involved; and contents of the proposals on universal suffrage; (ii) regarding the consultation process, the HKSAR Government had conducted the consultation exercises with all its efforts and utmost sincerity since commencement of the first round consultation. Over 200 consultation activities had been held and over 120 000 submissions had been received in the first round consultation, while over 100 000 submissions had been received in the second round, reflecting the Government’s open mindedness to public opinions; (iii) SCMA could not attend the SDC meeting due to official commitment but not other reasons. Members’ understanding was appreciated; (iv) the “Five-Step Process” of constitutional development must adopt a step-by-step approach, which was not subject to the Central Government’s direction. Upon LegCo’s endorsement of the proposals, the remaining fourth and fifth steps would commence. Under the strict constitutional procedures, progress to the next step would not be possible if the package was voted down; (v) as for the contents of the proposals on universal suffrage, the community at large hoped to see the endorsement of the proposals, which must be in line with the Basic Law and the relevant decisions of NPCSC. A democratic government without a solid legal foundation could be at great risk. Universal suffrage had its origin in the Basic Law, its timetable set in the NPCSC’s decision, and its framework laid down under the “831 Decision”. We were just one step away from attaining universal suffrage. I hoped Members who opposed the package could listen to public opinions; (vi) an election involving five million eligible voters was definitely better than that involving only 1 200 people, and the results of votes cast by the five million voters in future would also directly affect government policies. Therefore, the proposals would certainly facilitate democratic development; (vii) according to the NPCSC’s decision, forming the LegCo by universal suffrage would only be considered after implementing universal suffrage for the CE election. Hence, discussion on forming the LegCo by universal suffrage

9 could not commence if universal suffrage was not implemented for the CE election; (viii) Hong Kong was an inalienable part of China, and Hong Kong’s constitutional arrangements were also part of China’s constitutional arrangements. Accordingly, the constitutional basis of Hong Kong must involve the Central Government, the HKSAR Government and LegCo as they all had constitutional responsibilities. It could be very dangerous to ignore the Central Government’s views. Any proposal on universal suffrage for the CE election which was inconsistent with the Basic Law or NPCSC’s decision would only fail. It was hoped that Members who opposed the package could understand; and (ix) Members who opposed the package had just shouted the slogan “we need universal suffrage”, i.e. “we want universal suffrage”, which was actually the public’s heartfelt wishes. Since all Members shared the same goal and only disagreed over the nomination procedures, it would indeed be unfortunate if everyone’s common goal was sacrificed due to such disagreement.

18. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN opined that the most disputed issue concerning the constitutional reform was the nomination procedures. Many people had become fed up with the situation, which had merely no progress after months of consultation. He considered Hong Kong a very weird city. People in other cities were fully aware of the operation of the local, provincial and state governments, but in Hong Kong, he could only learn about the HKSAR Government, the LegCo and district councils, with only limited knowledge of the Central Government. Hong Kong people knew nothing about who worked for the Central Government, their posts, salaries, mandates or budgets. He pointed out that it was very strange for people living in a city to be unable to know about the affairs of their government, yet the Central Government wished that Hong Kong people would support and believe in its governance. The future of Hong Kong would be determined by CE candidates who were nominated by the Nominating Committee consisting of a small group of people, but would be empowered with votes in a general election. With the negotiations failed, we need to start working on future opportunities to change the electoral system substantially as a large portion of the public did not accept the proposed constitutional reform package.

19. Mr AU Nok-hin remarked that no one appreciated colonial rule. There had been comments that Hong Kong had been treated as a colony after its return to China as the Central Government had a wrong concept, under which it exercised colonial rule and handled issues in Hong Kong under a political system copied from the Mainland. He pointed out that the copied system included “functional constituency” and “nominating committee”, and the “831 framework” was even more conservative and lacked transparency than in the past. He considered that a higher attendance at

10 consultation forums by government officials was not equivalent to a greater acceptance of public opinions. Instead, the Government should give concrete response to the public’s doubts about the violation of international standard by the “831 framework”. He stressed that more people in Hong Kong objected to, instead of supported, the “831 proposal”. He hoped that Members would have a better grasp of the public opinions.

20. Mr LO Kin-hei raised two questions to CMAB: (1) who the NPCSC had consulted during the first round public consultation on constitutional reform in formulating the “831 framework”; and (2) whether the Government had listened to the aspiration of the millions of people carrying out civil disobedience. He expressed great regret over the Government’s insincerity in listening to different views. He proposed an amendment to the motion at this meeting in the hope that the National People’s Congress would revoke the inappropriate decision of NPCSC. The “831 framework” would only hamper endorsement of the constitutional reform. In other words, the only way to have the constitutional reform endorsed was to restart the entire process by revoking the “831 framework”. He hoped that Members would endorse the amended motion to express the aspiration for the endorsement of the constitutional reform.

21. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that he originally intended to leave the meeting to express his objection. However, he could not help but to express his opinion after listening to the speech of USCMA and other Members. He indicated that the method for selecting CE in 2017 was a biased mechanism “with screening”. In response to USCMA’s opinion that the Central Government assumed a constitutional role in the consultation on constitutional reform, he expressed his awareness that Hong Kong was not an independent political entity, yet the pan-democratic Members still insisted to vote down the constitutional reform package with a view to striving for a “real universal suffrage” for the CE election in 2017. The “831 framework” limited the choice of the general public of Hong Kong by depriving some people of their eligibility. As a result, only candidates fulfilling the requirements of the Central Government and the Communist Party of China (CPC) could stand for the election.

22. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said that as an independent Member, she relayed from the perspective of caring for the public that many people appealed for a CE election through “one person, one vote”. She pointed out that the return of Hong Kong to China was a solid fact. Since Hong Kong was ruled and taken care of by the Mainland, the public should trust the Central Government in its standards for the CE election in 2017. She supported the “831 decision” in the belief that the Central Government would administer good governance in Hong Kong.

11 23. Ms CHAN Judy Ka pui thanked government officials for their recent meeting with the Constitutional Study Group (Study Group) of the New People’s Party. The Study Group had raised a lot of views at the meeting, including optimisation based on the divergent views on the nominating committee, such as increasing the number of seats of the five functional constituencies, in particular the number of representatives in the small and medium enterprise sector; incorporation of the Hong Kong Hair & Beauty Merchants Association, which had 58 000 practitioners at present, in the “Wholesale and Retail Functional Constituency”; incorporation of the existing 20 700 or so health workers in the “Social Welfare Functional Constituency”; as well as increasing the number of seats for female representatives in the nominating committee by reserving a seat for female members in every six seats. She hoped the above views could facilitate stable constitutional development in Hong Kong.

24. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that many pro-Beijing people had fought for the interests of Hong Kong and many members of the public had all along fought for more civil rights and the right of universal suffrage. However, those in power would be afraid of losing their existing rights after coming to power. In response to the remark of USCMA that democracy had to be established on a solid legal basis, he compared the situation of foreign countries with that of Hong Kong and pointed out that even there were regular elections with solid constitutional basis in North Korea, those were absolutely not genuine universal suffrage. The political influence of political parties was completely eliminated in the sense that CE candidates had to quit their political party before taking part in the CE election. He opined that the Government of the current term had disregarded public opinions and failed to try its best to convince those from the Chinese Authority who originally supported constitutional reforms to listen to public opinions in a more open-minded manner, thus leading to the current dilemma.

25. Dr LIU Hong-fai, JP said that Hong Kong was a part of China. The method for selecting CE had been explained in detail in the Basic Law. The drafting of the method for selecting CE had started many years ago and lasted until the recent promulgation of the “831 decision”. It would only be a waste of time and resources if the entire process was restarted at present. He also pointed out that methods of election varied from country to country and there was no such thing as “international standard”.

26. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling regretted that Chinese History was not a compulsory subject under the current secondary school curriculum in Hong Kong. She opined that young people nowadays were not familiar with the history of China. She stressed that the election of CE by five million people through “one person, one vote” was absolutely not an “elective dictatorship”. The public should look at the

12 election of CE by “one person, one vote” with an open mind. The endless debate in the community would only lead to social unrest and Hong Kong could only become better when amiable dialogues were maintained. She hoped every Chinese could make an effort to contribute to the country and should not only make criticisms without offering pragmatic and feasible recommendations. She reiterated that the election of CE by “one person, one vote” was the most desirable choice to foster social progress and maintain the long-term prosperity of Hong Kong.

27. The Chairman said that as no other Members requested to speak, Mr LAU Kong-wah, USCMA, would respond after Mr AU Nok-hin had made an oral statement and Members would then vote on the amended motion.

28. Mr AU Nok-hin made the following oral statement:

“This statement is targeted at 32/F, West Wing, Shun Tak Centre, i.e. Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in HKSAR, and so please let me speak in Putonghua. Just now a Member mentioned the importance of Chinese history. So let us review what CPC had promised the people before coming to power. The editorial of Xinhua Daily, the official newspaper of CPC, published on 2 February 1944 mentioned that: ‘The civil rights of people should be more extensive and more direct for people in the lower strata of society. As for election right, there should be no restriction in the exercise of this right, even to the Central Authorities. This is particularly so for the so-called representative bodies representing the people, be it a parliament or a national people’s congress; they must be formed by representatives elected by the people. Otherwise, these bodies are not people’s representative bodies. The thorough, complete and effective exercise of election right has an inseparable and close relationship with the presence of unreasonable restrictions on and deprivation of the right to be elected. Basically, in a macroscopic perspective, election right already includes the right to be elected. To exercise the right to elect, there must be a target for the exercise of the right to be elected. Hence, the right to elect and the right to be elected should exist at the same time. If the right to be elected is restricted, it means the exercise of the right to elect is also restricted.’ Later, on 29 September 1949, when Kuomintang was defeated, CPC signed the Common Programme of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference with other democratic parties. It is stipulated in Article 4 that: ‘The people of the People’s Republic of China shall have the right to elect and to be elected according to law.’ This was the solemn promise made by CPC to the people before its rise to power. If it has the sincere intention to fulfill its promise, why has it used the ‘831 framework’ laid down by NPCSC to restrict Hong Kong people’s right to be elected? I have studied Chinese History in secondary school. I have also joined more than one ‘national education tour’ organised by pro-Beijing organisations. From these

13 experiences I draw the conclusion that the victory of Hong Kong would lie in the revocation of NPCSC’s 831 framework!”

29. Mr LAU Kong-wah, USCMA, gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) the views of Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms CHAN Judy Kapui, Dr LIU Hong-fai, JP and Mrs MAK TSE How-ling reflected aspirations of many people who hoped to see constitutional development “moving forward” and elect the CE through “one person, one vote”. The coming few months were the critical juncture. He hoped that the majority of the public who used to be silent could express their aspirations. To elect the CE through “one person, one vote” was the political right of Hong Kong people and the “831 Decision” made by the Central Government had also explicitly recognised this right of the people in Hong Kong; (ii) in response to the comments and enquiries made by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr CHAI Man-hon, he pointed out the Government had proactively carried out the task of “moving forward” the constitutional system. Every step, from the provisions of the Basic Law, the constitutional development schedule to the “831 framework”, was accomplished on solid ground. Subject to LegCo’s endorsement of the proposals, the CE election through “one person, one vote” could be achieved. If one hoped to strive for universal suffrage after the revocation of the “831 framework”, presumably it would not succeed and would only lead to endless debate with no hope of reaching any consensus. The opposition camp had objected to the 1 200-member Election Committee system in the past. But if they voted down the current proposals, the method for selecting the CE would only remain at a standstill. In 2017, we could only continue using the 1 200-member Election Committee system for the CE election; (iii) there were no international standards for universal suffrage. According to the documents of the United Nations, every place should lay down its method of implementing universal suffrage by legislation based on its own history, culture, economy, etc. Given the existing provisions of the Basic Law and NPCSC’s decision, Hong Kong people should seize the opportunity to implement universal suffrage; and (iv) the views expressed by Members supporting and objecting to constitutional development at this meeting all had their rationale. In the past year or so, government officials had contacted and discussed with Members with opposing views and had understood their views. There were also voices in support and in opposition among the general public. But he emphasised that the mainstream public opinion was to support the proposals. Thus, in

14 the overall interests of Hong Kong, LegCo Members should endorse the proposals with a view to implementing universal suffrage for the CE election as early as possible.

30. The Chairman said that he had received a motion proposed by Mr CHU Lap-wai and Dr YANG Mo, PhD on the method for selecting CE by universal suffrage prior to the meeting, which read as follows:

“The Southern District Council supports the implementation of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive (CE) election in 2017 in accordance with the Basic Law and the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, so as to allow the five million eligible voters in Hong Kong to elect CE through “one person, one vote” in 2017.”

The motion was seconded by a total of ten Members, including Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr AU Lap-sing, MH, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Ms CHAN Judy Kapui, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr FUNG Se-goun, Dr LIU Hong-fai, JP, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, and Mr WONG Ling-sun. The Chairman invited Mr CHU Lap-wai and Dr YANG Mo, PhD to briefly introduce their motion.

31. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN put forward the order for enquiries and indicated that the discussion over the last 1.5 hours had clearly demonstrated the views and voting intentions of Members. Therefore he suggested that there was no need for the relevant Members to introduce the motion again for discussion. Members should take a vote on the amended motion and the original motion direct.

32. The Chairman said that he understood the reason for Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN to make the comment, but according to the procedures of motion debate under the “Southern District Council (SDC) (2012-2015) Standing Orders” (the Standing Orders), the mover and seconder might speak for up to totally five minutes to briefly introduce their motion.

33. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN suggested the Chairman to ask the movers if they would give up their time of speaking to save time so that the meeting could be conducted more efficiently.

34. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH put forward the order for enquiries and indicated that according to the Standing Orders, each Member could speak for three minutes for each agenda item, hence it was inappropriate to take a vote on the motion directly.

15 35. The Chairman said that the meeting would proceed in accordance with the Standing Orders, and invited Mr CHU Lap-wai and Dr YANG Mo, PhD to briefly introduce their motion.

36. Mr CHU Lap-wai said that as shown by USCMA’s response and Members’ speaking, the community at large had clearly expressed their aspirations on universal suffrage and their views on constitutional development. This motion was proposed in support and recognition of the implementation of the constitutional reform package and the universal suffrage for CE through “one person, one vote” in 2017. Constitutional development was a right conferred on Hong Kong by the Basic Law predicated on a legal basis. Looking back on every constitutional development in the past, the most difficult part was to garner support from two-thirds of the LegCo Members. Under the prevailing political setting, the endorsement of the constitutional reform package was expected to be more difficult. Since the first round consultation on constitutional reform, the pan-democratic Members had adopted a confrontational stance, and stood on the moral high ground to make things difficult for the Government. Their views were pleasant to the ear, yet too idealistic and impractical as they had exceeded the basis of “implement universal suffrage in accordance with the law”. It was disappointing that the pan-democratic Members had clearly expressed their intention to boycott the entire consultation exercise and oppose the endorsement of the reform package by all means upon NPCSC’s decision when the second round consultation had yet to commence. He pointed out that as shown by the results of several recent opinion polls conducted by various agencies, there was wide public support and recognition of the reform package. However, the pan-democratic LegCo Members still said that they would not vote according to public opinions even after the opinion polls results were published and he found such cherry-picking attitudes very disgusting. He could not figure out why the expansion of the basis of voters from an election committee of 1 200 people to all the five million eligible voters in Hong Kong was not considered better. He opined that the over-idealistic pan-democratic Members were selfish in refusing to negotiate or compromise with people with dissenting political views. Their preference for mutual destruction over progress was contrary to the rationale of a democratic society. He continued that as the proposal for universal suffrage allowed Hong Kong people to vote in the CE election, the candidates of the election had to get closer to the public and base their manifestos on public interests for rallying support from more voters. After the implementation of universal suffrage, the public could play a bigger role in monitoring. The pan-democratic Members were self-contradictory if they continued to chant the slogan “we want real universal suffrage” while blindly voting down the reform package and let constitutional development to remain at a standstill. He hoped that the pan-democratic Members would re-consider their decisions to take into account public aspirations and discharge their duties as LegCo Members so as to propel the

16 constitutional reform and give hope to the long-waited CE election through “one person, one vote” in 2017, thus fostering a more democratic constitutional system in Hong Kong.

37. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had just received an amendment to the motion proposed by Mr CHAI Man-hon and seconded by Mr AU Nok-hin at the meeting, which read as follows:

“The Southern District Council supports the withdrawal of the unreasonable constraints to the implementation of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive (CE) election in 2017, as set out by in accordance with the Basic Law and the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on 31 August, so as to allow the five million eligible voters in Hong Kong to election of CE through “one person, one vote” in 2017.”

38. Mr CHAI Man-hon briefly introduced his proposed amendment to the motion and said that there were three serious mistakes in the speech of Mr CHU Lap-wai. Firstly, wrong information was used. The opinion poll conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong revealed that 47% of the public called for rejecting the proposal in view of their opposition to the “831 framework”, only 40% of the public called for “pocketing” the proposal. In this regard, the Government and DAB should not cite that the mainstream opinion was “pocketing” the proposal. Secondly, Mr CHU Lap-wai criticised that pan-democratic Members were “impractical” and “idealistic”, but in the negotiations between the Democratic Party and Beijing in 2010, the Democratic Party was practical and hoped to make progress through negotiations despite public criticism of “betrayal of Hong Kong and going against the will of Hong Kong people”. Nevertheless, there was no achievement after four to five years of negotiations. He emphasised that he did not mean to see catastrophic results, but there was currently a lack of basis for negotiations and room for further discussion. The Government had laid down the framework before discussion, which did not show any sincerity. He believed that Hong Kong people would continue to reject the proposal on constitutional development under the “831 framework”. He opined that the third mistake in the speech of Mr CHU Lap-wai was that he failed to mention the possibility of collecting public views through civil referendum. As a matter of fact, a number of European countries such as Switzerland had enacted legislation on civil referendum, which was an indicator of advancement in a civil society. As regards the comments of some Members that Hong Kong had been returned to China, and the Chinese should be familiar with the history of China, he said that upon Beijing’s successful bid to host the Olympic Games in 2008, Hong Kong people had the strongest sense of identity as Chinese people, in contrast to a new low at the moment.

17 The pro-establishment Members and the Beijing Government should be held responsible for the weak sense of identity. He was of the view that the Chinese could not hold their heads up despite the resumption of sovereignty simply because of the lack of a universal suffrage system. If the current constitutional reform package could be rejected, he believed that re-consideration and fresh planning was possible in the absence of any framework. The victory of Hong Kong would lie in the revocation of the “831 Decision”.

39. Mr. LAM Kai-fai said that the young pan-democratic Members present at the meeting had made sentimental speeches and held strong belief in their ideals to which he showed great respect. He said that he had been exposed to tear gas in his young age and he very much respected the determination of the young generation. That said, he would like to share his personal experience. He was brought up in the British colonial age when all senior officials and police officers were sent to Hong Kong by the British government. Former Governors also served as LegCo Presidents in early years. The judges of the judiciary were all British, there was no democracy at all. It was good for pan-democratic Members to strive for democracy, but frontline slogan chanters would only aspire to fast-track but not gradually developed democracy. If their aim was not achieved, they would find it unacceptable. He said that Members would realise that there was a process in work accomplishment through accumulation of social experience over time. The crux of the debate over universal suffrage at present was not “genuine or not”, but lied in the extent of universal suffrage. There was no so-called “international standard” for the election method, the degree of democracy between the votes of five million people and the votes of 1 200 people was in no way comparable. He stressed that as a SAR but not an independent administrative region, Hong Kong must be integrated into the Chinese regime as a whole and realised the universal suffrage system in a gradual and orderly manner. If there was unreasonable request for universal suffrage in one go, the opportunity to strive for democracy would otherwise be lost.

40. While Mr TSUI Yuen-wa respected the experiences of Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH and middle-aged people, he opined that middle-aged people might fall behind the trends of social development and ideals pursued by young people due to confinement by their own life experiences. He denied the allegation that the pan-democracy camp pursued “absolute democracy” in an attempt to obviate the Central Authorities and establish Hong Kong as an independent country. He pointed out that such allegation was simply a tool used by some members of the pro-establishment camp against the pro-democracy camp with the intention to mislead the public. In response to a Member’s description of Hong Kong people’s miserable experience as second-class citizens under British colonial rule, he said that he had studied Chinese History both in secondary school and university. He believed that his understanding

18 of Chinese History was no less than that of Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and questioned whether the history she studied was biased. He agreed that there was no “international standard” for electoral systems. While both the United States and the United Kingdom were countries with democratic elections, their electoral systems were entirely different and neither had a system of directly electing their heads of state. However, he pointed out that not having something in common did not mean there was no standard. The standard was that members of the public should have the right to vote and the right to stand for election without any constraints. Relatively speaking, why should all sorts of constraints be imposed on Hong Kong? As regards the criticism for “reaching the sky in one step” or “being over-idealistic”, he said that the Democratic Party had put forward a pragmatic proposal in 2010, which was, all of a sudden, supported by the HKSAR Government and Members who had originally opposed it upon endorsement by the Central Government. It showed that they were merely acting according to the will of the Central Authorities. Now that the Central Government was against the pan-democracy camp’s proposal to revoke the “831 proposal”, the pro-establishment camp could only follow the decision of the Central Authorities without questioning it. He opined that the Central Government had excessively interfered with the internal affairs of Hong Kong by imposing unreasonable constraints on the principles of “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” and “one country, two systems”. Despite assuming constitutional roles and powers in the course of constitutional development, the Central Authorities should not restrict Hong Kong people’s right to vote and their right to stand for election.

41. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling said that she had studied History at the Hong Kong Baptist University. It would be ignorant and short of common sense for someone to question that it was not an impartial institute. Regarding a Member’s comment that Chinese people were “unable to hold their heads up”, she hoped that young people would spend more time in studying history. Nowadays, China was held in high regard in a lot of international competitions, which was an indicator of constant improvement as compared with the past. Since Hong Kong was a part of China, the Hong Kong Government was a local government. Therefore, the impacts of the Central Government on Hong Kong’s local administration could not be regarded as “interference in internal administration”. She further reminded that as Hong Kong had been returned to China, it would be very pathetic to keep the mentality of the era of colonial rule. Hong Kong people needed democracy, and the election of CE by “one person, one vote” was indeed a manifestation of democracy. To deprive Hong Kong people of their right to select CE by universal suffrage would be another form of dictatorship.

42. Mr LO Kin-hei opined that it was pitiful to debate whether China had interfered with the internal affairs of Hong Kong at this point. He hoped USCMA

19 could clarify what fell within and outside the scope of interference of the Central Government under “one country, two systems”. He pointed out that the Basic Law has clearly set out the affairs which were within the limits of the autonomy of Hong Kong and those which were state affairs. In respect of the rise of China in recent years, he considered that if the Chinese held their heads up simply because of economic or sports development, and considered themselves a new global force, it would be pitiful in the sense that they held their heads up not because of social, cultural or constitutional advancement. He was of the view that there were radical forces in both pan-democratic and pro-establishment camps, but the radical forces should not be magnified and be viewed as the mainstream, such as the one-sided view of treating the opposite party as independence advocators.

43. Mr CHAI Man-hon responded to Mrs MAK TSE How-ling’s remark that Hong Kong was “a local government”. He said that Hong Kong was not merely a local government under the Basic Law. In fact, Hong Kong people had their own passports, the right to enter or leave Hong Kong, financial system, monetary, legal and final adjudication systems, which illustrated that Hong Kong was not merely a local government. As regards the debate over interference in internal affairs, he opined that the crux of the issue lied in the internal affairs that were within and outside the limits of autonomy. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister would not meddle with London affairs. In Taiwan, the President would not criticise Taipei City Mayor.

44. The Chairman invited Mr LAU Kong-wah, USCMA, to respond.

45. Mr LAU Kong-wah, USCMA, responded that the speeches of Members holding different views might not be in great conflict. Article 1 of the Basic Law provides that the HKSAR was an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China. Chapter II of the Basic Law clearly states the relationship between the Central Authorities and HKSAR, which would not be repeated here. 4 April 2015 marked the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the Basic Law. More information could be provided to the Members who were interested in further understanding the Basic Law by then.

46. The Chairman invited Members to take a vote on the amended motion proposed by Mr CHAI Man-hon.

47. The amended motion was rejected with 5 votes for it, 15 votes against it and zero abstention.

48. The Chairman invited Members to take a vote on the original motion

20 proposed by Mr CHU Lap-wai and Dr YANG Mo, PhD.

49. The original motion was carried with 15 votes for it, 4 votes against it and 1 abstention.

50. The Chairman said that although the consultation had ended on 7 March 2015, the discussion results at this meeting would be incorporated in the report of the second round public consultation.

51. The Chairman thanked Mr LAU Kong-wah, USCMA, for attending the meeting and announced a five-minute break.

(Mr LAU Kong-wah, USCMA, left the meeting at 4:25 p.m.)

(Miss Isabel YIU joined the meeting at 4:34 p.m.)

Agenda Item 2: Motion Debate: Rezoning the Hong Kong Police College at Wong Chuk Hang for Residential Purpose (SDC Paper No. 27/2015) [4:34 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.]

52. The Chairman welcomed Miss Isabel YIU, Senior Town Planner/HK 1, Planning Department (PlanD), to the meeting.

53. The Chairman said that the following motion was moved by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and seconded by Mr CHAI Man-hon:

“This Council requests that the site of the Hong Kong Police College at Wong Chuk Hang should be rezoned for residential purposes, with a view to facilitating public and private housing development. Also, the Government is urged to explore and identify a site for the removal of the Hong Kong Police College without delay.”

54. The Chairman continued that the Secretariat later received the following amendment to the original motion from Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH which was seconded by Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, JP, MH and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH:

“This Council requests that the site of the Hong Kong Police College at Wong Chuk Hang should be rezoned for residential purposes, with a view to facilitating the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate as well as the needs of

21 public and private housing development. AlsoMeanwhile, the Government is urged to explore and identify a site for the removal of the college without delay.”

55. The Chairman said that the written responses of PlanD, the Lands Department (LandsD) and Housing Department (HD) were set out in Annex 3 to the SDC paper. The two Members who moved the motions would take turns to brief Members on the original motion and the amended motion, and then representatives of PlanD and HD would respond.

56. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa briefed Members on the original motion and said that this agenda item had in fact been thoroughly discussed on different occasions and agendas. Most Members, including those from the pan-democratic camp, were supportive of the amended motion. He explained that the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate was not mentioned in the original motion because the Government’s site identification exercise for the redevelopment might cover places other than the Hong Kong Police College (HKPC) at Wong Chuk Hang. If the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate was included in the motion, it might restrict the Government from identifying a site elsewhere. As for the reason for moving the motion, he said that when HKPC was built in 1948, Wong Chuk Hang was still a rural area. It was therefore natural and suitable for the building of the related facilities there. Yet, in the light that Wong Chuk Hang had developed into an urban area nowadays and the Government had been actively identifying sites in different districts in Hong Kong for building more flats, he suggested the Government better utilise the HKPC site by rezoning it for residential purposes. With a site area of 18 hectares and making reference to the area and the number of units of the above-station properties at the adjoining Wong Chuk Hang Station, the HKPC site, after converting into flats, was expected to provide 15 000 to 20 000 residential units to help alleviate the current and future housing demand. To strike a balance among different needs of the community, he suggested that an “integrated development” approach be adopted, i.e. building both public and private housing. Taking into account the existence of police quarters in HKPC, he suggested that some of the units of the future residential development be reserved as disciplined services quarters, so as not to affect the welfare of the members of the disciplined services. The number of quarters units to be made available could even be larger than the existing number of 1 200. He stressed that if the construction of residential units at HKPC commenced now, not only might the housing demand be alleviated, it would also tie in with the schedule of the commissioning of the South Island Line (East) (SIL(E)). If the construction commenced upon completion and occupation of the above-station properties at Wong Chuk Hang Station, the owners of the properties would definitely raise strong opposition due to view blockage. He clarified that he was not calling on the

22 shutdown of HKPC or termination of its training programmes, but simply suggesting its relocation. While he fully understood the importance of the police training facilities to the Police, as stressed by the Security Bureau (SB) and other government departments repeatedly, he hoped that these training facilities could be relocated to the rural areas. In fact, the venue of training would not affect the effectiveness of training for the police. But the vacated site in Wong Chuk Hang could be better utilised. He presented Paper No. 35/2014 of the District Minor Works and Environmental Improvement Committee of the North District Council, which mentioned that the Government had taken the initiative to put forth the feasibility of relocating the police training facilities to Kong Nga Po in the North District. The feasibility study was proposed to SDC by PlanD and the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), and had stated clearly that vacating the police training site could tie in with the future development.

57. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH briefly introduced his proposed amendment to the motion, saying that it was not meant to negate the aim of the original motion but rather an attempt to better manifest the consensus reached by SDC through repeated discussions at previous meetings. Therefore, only the wordings “facilitating the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate” were actually added in the amended motion. He pointed out that SDC did not propose to relocate HKPC at Wong Chuk Hang for considering the Police unimportant or disapproved of their work. He had great respect for the Police for maintaining law and order in Hong Kong, and highly commended their work. He stressed that he put forward the amended motion simply because the Government was in a desperate plight of identifying sites in the Southern District for housing development in order to fulfil the goal of increasing housing supply without considering how to optimise the use of the HKPC site. Regarding whether all the training facilities of HKPC should be relocated, he opined that the matter could be further studied on the premise that the site should be used to meet the urgent need of the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate.

58. Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP supplemented that the Government should identify sites by different means for the rehousing arrangements under the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate. The Development Bureau (DEVB) had previously proposed Kai Lung Wan as the primary option for the reprovisioning of Wah Fu Estate and Members counter-proposed the provision of public and private housing at the HKPC site. He opined that it might indeed be a good thing to have an extra option for the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate.

59. The Chairman asked Miss Isabel YIU whether she had any supplementary information in addition to PlanD’s written response.

23 60. Miss Isabel YIU supplemented that while Members hoped that the proposed relocation of HKPC could tie in with the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate, it should be noted that a feasibility study had to be conducted even if the HKPC were assumed to be relocated and the expected time of releasing the land concerned for development would far beyond five years. Therefore, it might not address the land supply issue in the short to medium term and the rehousing of residents affected by the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate.

61. The Chairman asked Mr WONG Yuet-chung whether he had any supplementary information in addition to HD’s written response.

62. Mr WONG Yuet-chung supplemented that the Government had identified five sites to the south of Pok Fu Lam for the development of public housing. A feasibility study had commenced in early 2015 and was expected to take about a year to complete.

63. The Chairman invited Members to raise their comments and enquiries.

64. Mr LO Kin-hei asked HD whether it would facilitate the rehousing of residents of Wah Fu Estate if a spare site similar to the HKPC site was available. He further asked the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) whether police training would be affected if DEVB and PlanD could identify an alternate site for the purpose. He indicated his support for both the original motion and the amended motion.

65. Mr AU Lap-sing, MH declared interest as a resident in the vicinity of HKPC, yet his justifications were irrelevant to his personal interests. He had reservations over the rezoning of the HKPC site for residential purposes because it was in close proximity to Ocean Park. Future visitors of Ocean Park might shop or dine at the commercial complex, if any, in the newly-built estate, thus disturbing the daily life of the residents. Besides, the amended motion mentioned that the rezoning was to facilitate the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate. But in fact, DEVB had planned to rezone a high-density residential site in the Southern District, and the HKPC site was not the only option available for facilitating the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate. HKPC had constructed a costly building a few years back at about $160 million. Instead of relocation, the Government should consider acquiring the above-station properties of Wong Chuk Hang Station with the same amount to rehouse the residents of Wah Fu Estate, which was considered more appropriate and efficient.

66. Mr CHAI Man-hon said as only PlanD, LandsD and HD had responded on the item, he hoped that SB and HKPF could also give a response to Members’ proposals. He held that the Government often accused the pan-democratic Members

24 of impeding the site identification exercise for development in Hong Kong, but Mr CY Leung, the Chief Executive, and his think tank should be held responsible for the current dilemma as they had not handled the matter properly. He pointed out that HKPF should conduct a detailed study and long-term planning on Members’ proposal. Given the current tight supply of quarters for civil servants and disciplined services staff, it was believed that a mixed development mode could release more land from the HKPC site for building new quarters, thus benefiting both civil servants and disciplined services staff. He was also concerned whether the proposal would impose additional burden to the community but believed that with an area of 18 hectares which was similar to South Horizons and Ap Lei Chau West Estate, 15 000 to 20 000 flats could be provided. He expected that the mistakes made during the development of new towns in the past could be avoided through planning and greening.

67. Mr FUNG Se-goun supported the construction of public housing and Home Ownership Scheme estates, and hoped that the Government could expedite the identification of sites. However, he had reservations over the original motion and the amended motion. He opined that the junction leading to Ocean Park, Wong Chuk Hang and Nam Long Shan Road was too narrow. Many residents had already been concerned about the increased traffic flow upon completion of the above-station properties of Wong Chuk Hang Station. Building dozens of new housing blocks would further aggravate the situation. Therefore, he would not cast his vote on the original motion nor the amended motion, and would make his decision only after obtaining more data on the traffic assessment.

68. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling said that since most of the facilities in Wah Fu Estate, which was built many years ago, were outdated and there was a pressing need to improve residents’ living conditions, she strongly agreed with the identification of sites to rehouse the residents for the early redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate. She was worried that even if the HKPC site at Wong Chuk Hang was used for public or private housing development, residents of Wah Fu Estate might not be benefitted if the project was not specified to tie in with the redevelopment of the estate. Given the long waiting list for public rental housing (PRH) and that many occupants of subdivided units were forced to move out recently, she urged the Government to expedite the construction of PRH. She was aware of the concern of the Police that the number and size of the existing police stations were limited, and HKPC at Wong Chuk Hang was an ideal location for detaining a large number of offenders and suspects in case of major incidents on Hong Kong Island. However, judging from the public perspective, she hoped that the HKPC site could be vacated for PRH development for earlier allocation to those who had been waiting for long. She urged the Government to carefully consider the proposed relocation of HKPC and

25 identify a suitable reprovisioning site, so that the living conditions of residents of Wah Fu Estate could eventually be improved.

69. Mr AU Nok-hin requested the representative of HKPF to respond to this issue and relay Members’ requests to the relevant policy bureaux. He also urged the bureaux concerned to give written responses.

70. The Chairman spoke in his capacity as the DC Member of Chi Fu constituency. He thanked Mr TSUI Yuen-wa for moving the motion which was in line with the concept of “addressing district issues at the local level” advocated by Mr CY LEUNG, the Chief Executive. No one, as a matter of fact, was more familiar with the situation and circumstances of the Southern District than DC Members present at this meeting. Therefore, he firmly believed that the land use proposed by Members could better meet the needs of the community. He was inclined to supporting the amended motion moved by Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH because it clearly reflected the consensus previously reached within SDC that the 18-hectare HKPC site at Wong Chuk Hang should tie in with the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate and construction of public and private housing. As regards HD’s response which quoted the 2014 Policy Address mentioning that the development moratorium at the south of Pok Fu Lam would be lifted for PRH development in support of the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate, he estimated that the plan might still remain unimplemented after 20 years if the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate, a housing estate with a rather long history and most facilities being worn out and outdated, would be undertaken in such a way. The reasons included the enormous difficulties in identifying the reprovisioning site which were hard to resolve, the small size of some selected sites which limited their effectiveness, the damage to the landscape and environment of Pok Fu Lam, the possible serious traffic congestion in Pok Fu Lam or even the entire Southern District, and the anticipated strong opposition from the nearby residents. Due to the various factors above, the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate would not be implemented in the foreseeable future, he therefore supported the amended motion moved by Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH.

71. The Chairman invited Mr WONG Yuet-chung to respond.

72. Mr WONG Yuet-chung responded that in view of the current long waiting list for PRH, HD was very eager to secure land for executing its construction programmes. Therefore, any piece of land, no matter large or small, would be taken into active consideration by HD as long as the Government would make arrangements. For the HKPC site at Wong Chuk Hang, the key consideration was whether it could tie in with the schedule of the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate. However, even if it could not match the time of redeveloping Wah Fu Estate, HD would nonetheless give

26 active consideration as long as land was available for the provision of public housing.

73. The Chairman invited Mr Wise CHOY to respond.

74. Mr Wise CHOY responded that it was stated in PlanD’s written response that HKPF had no plan to relocate HKPC at present. However, the police sites would accommodate the Government’s overall demand on land use.

75. The Chairman invited Members to start the second round of speaking.

76. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN pointed out that it was not unprecedented to relocate police facilities for facilitating the development of new towns. However, as the decision was to be driven by the policy bureaux instead of PlanD, PlanD’s response served little help in taking forward the entire proposal and SDC should meet with Mr CHAN Mo-po, Secretary for Development, to discuss the proposal instead of listening to PlanD’s response. He pointed out that if Wah Fu Estate was to be reprovisioned in either Chi Fu or HKPC, HD should analyse and study the feasibility of the two sites in greater detail. He continued that this was not the first time for SDC to propose a study on the feasibility of relocating HKPC. The Government must actively respond to SDC’s proposal instead of merely pointing out the difficulties involved. SDC’s request was very clear, and he hoped that Mr CHAN Mo-po would listen to the request and conduct a detailed feasibility study on the two proposed sites at Chi Fu and HKPC to compare the pros and cons of both options. He pointed out that the original motion did not mention the relocation of HKPC was to facilitate the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate. If the development of the Police training school was to facilitate more residential developments in the Southern District, more serious traffic congestion might be caused in the district. Therefore, he was not in favour of the original motion.

77. Mr LO Kin-hei enquired what actions would government departments such as PlanD and HKPF take accordingly if the motion was carried by SDC.

78. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that according to past records, the site of Wong Chuk Hang Estate was first reserved for rehousing residents of Wah Fu Estate but was subsequently handed over to the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation for construction of SIL(E). As a result, no suitable sites could be identified to rehouse residents of Wah Fu Estate upon its redevelopment. He supported the amended motion because the HKPC site, given its relatively large area, could not only rehouse residents of Wah Fu Estate affected by the redevelopment, but also tie in with the redevelopment of Yue Kwong Chuen. He stressed that he had put forward an agenda item on relocating HKPC in 2013 but he had no intention to show any

27 disrespect for the Police. In fact, he also supported the proposed construction of both PRH and police quarters on the HKPC site. Real estate developers had been vying for the HKPC site adjoining Shouson Hill for ten years. If the site was eventually acquired by real estate developers, it would be unfair to those in need of subsidised housing. As the HKPC site was located between two future MTR stations, he believed that the existing traffic congestion could be alleviated by making specific traffic arrangements in the overall planning. He also proposed that the dilapidated Wong Chuk Hang Sports Centre be included in the planning of future development projects.

79. The Chairman invited Miss Isabel YIU to respond.

80. In response, Miss Isabel YIU explained that the site concerned was a government land zoned “Government, Institution or Community” on the outline zoning plan, which was currently occupied by the Police College of HKPF. PlanD would take consideration of Members’ suggestions in its planning, but prior consent of SB and HKPF was required for relocating HKPC.

81. In closing, the Chairman said that the Secretariat would write to the relevant policy bureaux to convey SDC’s decision and request for follow-up actions if the original motion or the amended motion was carried.

82. The Chairman invited Members to vote on the amended motion moved by Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH.

83. The amended motion was carried with 15 votes for it, 0 vote against it and 4 abstentions. Since the amended motion was carried, there was no need for Members to vote on the original motion.

(Dr LIU Hong-fai, JP was not at the meeting during the ballot.)

[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat sent a letter, enclosed at Annex 1, to DEVB to convey SDC’s decision on 28 April 2015. Reply from DEVB on 12 May 2015 is at Annex 2.]

84. The Chairman thanked Miss Isabel YIU for attending the meeting.

(Miss Isabel YIU, Mr Wise CHOY and Mr Billy CHING left the meeting at 5:15 p.m.)

28 Agenda Item 3: Confirmation of the draft minutes of the 20th SDC meeting held on 15 January 2015 [5:15 p.m.]

85. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the draft minutes of the 20th SDC meeting had been circulated to Members for comments. The Secretariat had not received any amendment proposals so far.

86. The Chairman invited Members to endorse the minutes of the 20th SDC meeting.

87. SDC confirmed the minutes of the 20th meeting.

88. The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned for five minutes.

(Mr WONG Ling-sun left the meeting at 5:15 p.m.)

Agenda Item 4: Matters Arising (SDC Paper No. 28/2015) [5:21 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.]

89. The Chairman invited Members to note the contents of the paper.

90. Mr FUNG Se-goun said that when meeting the Director of Civil Engineering and Development at the last meeting, he had requested the CEDD to discuss and cooperate with other departments when undertaking slope maintenance or strengthening works in order to widen the adjacent footpaths. However, as CEDD would not conduct improvement works for slopes that were safe, and slope areas were not within the jurisdiction of other departments, some requests for widening footpaths were not followed up. He took the slope at 34-36 Island Road as an example, summarising that both CEDD and the Transport Department (TD) had no immediate plan to undertake improvement works and construct footpaths there respectively. In this regard, he hoped that SDC could follow up this issue.

91. The Chairman suggested the Secretariat liaise and follow up the issue with CEDD.

92. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that he had made repeated requests for the matter be discussed at meetings of the Traffic and Transport Committee (TTC) but was rejected by the Chairman of TTC. He opined that TD should give a clear account and provide a list of the road sections without footpaths and the alternative paths for

29 pedestrians at TTC meetings. If no alternative could be provided, TD should also indicate the number of pedestrians affected. He held that for the road sections connecting two major areas, the provision of footpaths was particularly essential. If TD could provide the list and the priorities of improvement works on footpaths, pedestrian facilities could then be built by CEDD during slope strengthening works. He pointed out that it was completely unacceptable for the non-provision of footpaths for the large number of roads adjacent to newly-built slopes in the Southern District. If TD could not provide the list concerned, TTC could reflect the situation to the Transport and Housing Bureau and request for follow-up actions.

93. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH suggested SDC submit the relevant documents to the departments concerned after the meeting in order to reflect Members’ concern over the issue.

94. Mr FUNG Se-goun agreed that the issue should be followed up after the meeting but he hoped that the results could be included in the follow-up items.

95. The Chairman said that the Secretariat and the Assistant District Officer (Southern) would follow up with the departments concerned after the meeting and would report the results under Matters Arising at the next meeting.

[Post-meeting note: TTC had liaised and followed up with the relevant government departments and the results would be accounted for in TTC’s progress report.]

96. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that he had asked CEDD to provide the total expenditure on slope works in the Southern District for the last decade at the last meeting but CEDD did not give a response.

97. The Chairman said that the enquiry concerned had been referred to TTC for follow-up. The relevant information would be provided at the next TTC meeting.

98. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that he had requested MTR Corporation Limited (MTRC) to improve the street level views of the rail and Wong Chuk Hang Station and the related facilities but MTRC had yet to give a concrete reply on the site visit and schedule of improvement. He noticed that construction works was underway in Wong Chuk Hang Station but the design was still unsatisfactory. Therefore, he requested MTRC to make immediate improvement.

30 99. The Chairman opined that the above enquiry was related to the works progress of the South Island Line (East) (SIL(E)) and the progress report of which was a standing agenda item of SDC. Besides, MTRC would arrange a site visit for Members in due course. Therefore, he suggested Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raise the above enquiry under the agenda item of SIL(E) progress report so that the representatives of MTRC and the relevant departments could respond accordingly.

Agenda Item 5: Enhancement of District Administration (SDC Paper No. 29/2015) [5:30 p.m. – 6:08 p.m.]

100. The Chairman said that this agenda item was raised by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and invited him to briefly introduce the item.

101. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN briefly introduced the item as follows:

(i) he agreed with the Government’s policy of enhancing district administration through strengthening the functions of District Councils (DCs); (ii) the first written enquiry put forward before the meeting was about the details of the pilot scheme implemented in Sham Shui Po and Yuen Long. It could be seen from the response that emphasis was put on identifying “community black spots”. In fact, SDC had all along spared no effort on this front; (iii) the second enquiry was about the Government’s strategies on environmental hygiene management and the impact brought by the pilot scheme while enhancing the powers of DCs, but the Home Affairs Department (HAD) did not respond directly; (iv) the third enquiry was raised on whether the Government would accept the recommendations made by SDC on the pilot scheme to improve district administration and whether additional resources would be allocated to DCs for effective implementation of the pilot scheme; (v) the fourth enquiry suggested each DC to prepare a District Annual Report (DAR) to give an account of all committed and planned projects in the district, but no feedback had been received from HAD; (vi) the fifth enquiry suggested each DC to maintain a District Plan (DP) which would be derived from the current information provided by various departments, including infrastructure and public facilities. Jointly shared by District Offices (DOs) and DCs, the DP would cover all infrastructure and facilities in the district, and clarify the boundaries of management responsibility of government sites and various facilities; (vii) the sixth enquiry proposed that each DC should prepare a District Urban

31 Enhancement Plan (DUEP). In light of the successful trial in Kowloon City with the District Urban Renewal Forum, a similar process could be introduced in the Southern District. He hoped to gain the support of the Development Bureau (DEVB) to jointly formulate the DUEP of the Southern District in order to build a better community with the concerted effort of professional organisations and community members; and (viii) the final suggestion was to set up a District Development Office under the DEVB to promote district development and improve local facilities – based on the Energizing Kowloon East Office. He opined that the suggestion would require the support of the Chief Executive or Secretaries of Departments, and proposed that consideration be given to implementing the relevant pilot scheme in the Southern District, which could serve as a reference for other DCs should the scheme be proven successful.

102. The Chairman said that the written responses of HAD, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and Planning Department (PlanD) were set out at Annex 2 of the paper.

103. The Chairman asked whether Mr LEE Kan-fat had anything to add other than the written responses from the departments.

104. Mr LEE Kan-fat said that he had nothing to add for the time being.

105. The Chairman invited Members to raise their comments or enquiries.

106. Dr YANG Mo, PhD asked to whom the enquiries should be addressed to as government departments did not send any representative to the meeting.

107. The Chairman responded that a Summit on District Administration would be organised by HAD in each DC term to listen to the views of DCs. Moreover, the District Officer (Southern) also attended the meetings of SDC and would relay the views of Members to HAD if necessary.

108. Dr YANG Mo, PhD raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) as announced in the Policy Address, the Government introduced a pilot scheme in Yuen Long and Sham Shui Po because they had a mix of different natures of district characteristics and issues. He opined that the Southern District was very different from the two districts and would like to know the concrete reasons for rolling out the scheme in the two districts; (ii) in respect of the management and environmental hygiene problems of some

32 public areas to be tackled by the District Management Committees (DMCs) as stated in the Policy Address, he asked how to define clearly and specifically what the problems were; (iii) if Members could only advise on the decisions made by DMCs and the final decision of whether to accept the views would rest with the government departments, he doubted that such a practice would run contrary to the concept of “addressing district issues at the local level and capitalising on local opportunities”; and (iv) according to the written responses of government departments, the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) and HAD would make clear to other bureaux/departments that they should carry out the decisions of DMCs as far as practicable in all districts. He asked whether the final decision-making power rested with DMCs or bureaux/departments if there were divergent views among the parties concerned.

109. Mr CHAI Man-hon agreed to grant more power to DCs and to enhance district administration. However, he opined that the current mode of operation would only create more district issues instead of handling them effectively. He pointed out that the key solutions to district issues often lay in the capability of the Members of the constituencies concerned, the manpower of DOs and the enthusiasm of staff members. According to the District Councils Ordinance (Cap. 547), the scope of functions of a DC might be very wide or very narrow. If a DC could give full play to its functions, with the support of adequate financial resources, it could conduct all kinds of works for the benefit of the district, such as improvement and beautification works. However, if Members lacked the enthusiasm and did not optimise the use of financial resources, nor did they cooperate with DOs to perform their functions, district issues could not be addressed in any way. This was exactly the current situation. He opined that the operation mode of DCs was outdated. DCs used to play the role of assisting the then Urban Council through the area committees in taking district issues forward effectively. With the dissolution of the Urban Council, the district offices of FEHD were unwilling to devolve administrative power. As a result, hygiene problems such as toilet management could not be solved effectively. In addition, this had run contrary to the Government’s undertaking to devolve power to DCs after the dissolution of the Urban Council. He appealed to Members to utilise the power conferred by the District Councils Ordinance and district financial resources. At the same time, he appreciated those Members who were reaching out to the district in that direction. He looked forward to the continued concerted effort among Members to work towards a better Southern District. He urged the Government to seriously review and amend the District Councils Ordinance, instead of making “patchy fixes” to trivial matters.

33 110. Mr AU Nok-hin was of the view that the pilot scheme in Yuen Long and Sham Shui Po was nothing more than “old wine in a new bottle”. Even without the pilot scheme, DCs could still manage to handle district issues, such as offering assistance to street sleepers, providing support to “three nil” buildings, conducting anti-mosquito work/cutting grass, clearing illegally parked bicycles and curbing shop front extensions. He agreed that certain experience in Yuen Long and Sham Shui Po could serve as a good reference for the Southern District. For example, some volunteers serving street sleepers in the district had reported that they did not know what public resources were available for helping street sleepers. The Southern District could draw reference from the Sham Shui Po District’s experience of cooperating with the Society for Community Organisation to help street sleepers. He was of the view that the key to enhancing district administration was to implement specific proposals with the aim of “addressing district issues at the local level and capitalising on local opportunities”. The crucial points of district administration reform were “resources” and “power”. Achievements could hardly be attained if there was no fundamental change in those two aspects.

111. Mr LO Kin-hei opined that the effectiveness of the pilot scheme was doubtful, as the current administration of Yuen Long and Sham Shui Po under the pilot scheme could be achieved even in its absence. He pointed out that the key to district administration was how determined the DOs, the Chairmen of DCs and DMCs were to address problems. If Yuen Long and Sham Shui Po were determined to address their problems, they could be solved even without the pilot scheme. Hence, there was basically no significant change in the system based on the pilot scheme. He also considered that the direction of positioning DMCs coordinated by District Officers at the core of the pilot scheme was undesirable, and power should be delegated to DC Members instead of District Officers or DOs. He pointed out that any project that DCs wished to introduce could not be implemented in case of disagreement between DCs and DOs. As such, the scheme should be led by DCs. He also noted that there was much for other districts to learn from the many new attempts made in Kwun Tong District under the “Energizing Kowloon East” initiative, such as face-lifting back alleys and spaces beneath flyovers.

112. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa supported the major principle of enhancement of district administration, which he considered that two aspects were involved: first, enhancing District Officers’ power; second, strengthening DCs’ functions. He said that the future direction should be the delegation of the former Urban Council’s authority to DCs as promised by the Government. Yet, the current progress in this area remained very slow. He pointed out that at present, both District Officers and DCs experienced the same difficulties at the district administration level, and lacked the substantive power to direct other government departments to cooperate with them.

34 Therefore, he queried the effectiveness of the current district administration enhancement scheme.

113. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN reiterated that his proposal could help District Officers tackle district problems effectively. For example, the proposal of a DAR prepared by each DC would be an effective means to show DC’s annual work progress, and thus the government departments would have a hard time explaining why the progress was behind schedule. Right now, most of the discussions were only covered in minutes. DAR could be a more powerful tool to make sure that government departments would respond and give support to districts. In addition, DP was a simple but powerful visualised administrative tool to show clearly the Government’s work to the public. A similar plan had been carried out in Kwun Tong District and it had proved to be practicable. If DCs were delegated with formal power, he believed that his proposal would help improve district administration. He said that he would send his proposal to the Chief Executive in response to the Policy Address, and he would also submit a copy to the Chairman, who was a member of the Summit on District Administration. He hoped that the Chairman would discuss the proposal with HAD and the relevant government departments to study how the recommendations could be implemented. He also suggested that Southern District could be a pilot scheme district in addition to Sham Shui Po and Yuen Long, and hoped that the Government would support this idea.

114. Mr AU Nok-hin added that if the pilot scheme was to be implemented, he would also like to suggest HAB implement the scheme on a pilot basis in Southern District. Moreover, he opined that the Summit on District Administration aimed at investing resources in districts for relevant stakeholders to share, but not reforming power distribution sincerely.

115. Mr CHAI Man-hon enquired whether the government departments would give a response.

116. The Chairman responded that Mr CHOW Chor-tim, JP would respond after Members expressed their views. HAD would submit written responses to Members’ enquiries in writing after the meeting.

117. Mr CHOW Chor-tim, JP responded that the pilot scheme differed from other schemes in that the Government allocated resources to the relevant districts for implementing the scheme. Resources provided included additional short-term manpower, which might not be necessarily provided to DOs, but directly to any specific department responsible mainly for following up the key tasks of DMCs, in order to solve the more urgent problems in the short run. The Government planned

35 to review the pilot scheme in August 2015. If the outcome of the review was positive, the scheme would be implemented in all 18 districts upon completion of a study on enhancing the scheme. The focus of the scheme was on the coordination of various departments’ work by DMCs, which could consult DCs on the specific direction for scheme execution. It was too early to discuss the full implementation of the scheme at the present stage as the review had yet to be conducted. However, Members’ comments were conducive to the formulation of review direction and future ways of implementing the scheme by HAD.

(Dr YANG Mo, PhD left the meeting at 5:57 pm.)

118. Mr CHAI Man-hon raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) “affiliation” must be clearly defined in future discussions or studies. In the past, as District Officers had the same power as that of the present District Lands Officers, they used to have great power to request for the Lands Department’s cooperation under the system. However, since District Officers nowadays did not have the same power, the distribution of power, such as whether the district offices of FEHD should follow District Officers’ orders, should be defined clearly in the future; (ii) individual studies on the improvements to district administration could be carried out by respective districts. For example, it would be most beneficial if EPD and FEHD could delegate their power to DCs to formulate the strategies on environmental protection and refuse collection; (iii) it was not desirable to provide resources in an “across-the board” approach as it could not create a strong incentive for districts. In comparison with the municipal councils of foreign countries which normally had the power of taxation and deployment of financial resources, whether the model of the former Urban Council should be re-adopted in Hong Kong would be worth studying. Nevertheless, resources should not be provided for each district in an “across-the-board” approach at least; (iv) the relationship between DMCs and DCs should be further explored. Since DCs were unable to access the information of DMCs except the Committees’ regular reports, DC Members did not have a high level of participation, resulting in a lack of mutual understanding between DCs and DMCs; and (v) the HAD should actively explore the ways to enhance Members’ participation, so as to strengthen their role in district administration.

119. Mr LO Kin-hei said that the pilot scheme included those special powers in respect of recruitment and financial arrangements. In fact, it was possible to handle the problem with similar measures under the existing system. He cited an example

36 that DC of each district employed contract staff, but, based on past experience, most of the posts were administrative assistants and activity coordinators, etc. DCs should be allowed to make their own decisions to recruit staff of other posts to take up the building liaison work. He also considered that should schemes similar to “Energizing Kowloon East” of Kwun Tong District be implemented in Southern District, coordination by officials of the same rank as the Assistant Director of Planning was not necessary. The key to the scheme was to carry out studies first, and then facilitate cooperation between various departments in accordance with the study results. He proposed that SDC should consider allocating resources to conduct studies at district level for the next term of DC to follow up the matter with reference to the study results.

120. The Chairman appreciated Mr LO Kin-hei’s proposal. However, he pointed out that since the financial estimates of SDC for this year had been prepared already, further arrangements could only be made by the next term of DC. He was of the view that if the Government was to delegate its power to DCs to enhance district administration, the only way it could help District Officers lead other government departments was to conduct an organisational review. He had also suggested at the Summit on District Administration that the posts of District Officers should be taken up by principal officials under the accountability system. He concluded that Members had raised a lot of comments on the improvements to the Pilot Scheme on Enhancement of District Administration. He believed that the comments would help enhance the effectiveness of the Government’s review on the pilot scheme. The Secretariat would forward Members’ comments to HAD for reference. He hoped that their comments would facilitate HAD’s consideration of further implementation of the pilot scheme in all 18 districts in Hong Kong.

(Dr LUK Che-chung, Dr Sidney TAM, Ms Winnie YIP and Ms Pinky MAK, Mr K L TAM, Mr Eddie YIU, Mr David LO and Ms Jeannie TSANG joined the meeting at 6:08 p.m.)

Agenda Item 6: Progress Report on Queen Mary Hospital Redevelopment Project (SDC Paper No. 30/2015) [6:08 p.m. – 6:56 p.m.]

121. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of the Hospital Authority (HA) and the University of Hong Kong (HKU) for joining the meeting:

(i) Dr LUK Che-chung, Cluster Chief Executive, Hong Kong West Cluster, HA;

37 (ii) Dr Sidney TAM, Deputy Hospital Chief Executive I, Queen Mary Hospital (QMH), HA; (iii) Ms Winnie YIP, Cluster General Manager (Administrative Services), Hong Kong West Cluster, HA; (iv) Ms Pinky MAK, Senior Hospital Manager (Planning & Commissioning), QMH, HA; (v) Mr K L TAM, Director of Estates Office, HKU; (vi) Mr Eddie YIU, Assistant Director of Estates Office, HKU; (vii) Mr David LO, Technical Manager of Estates Office, HKU; and (viii) Ms Jeannie TSANG, Faculty Secretary of the Faculty of Medicine, HKU.

122. The Chairman invited the representatives of HA and HKU to report on the latest development of the QMH Redevelopment Project and the Proposed Academic Building at No. 3 Sassoon Road respectively.

123. Dr LUK Che-chung, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (PowerPoint-1), briefed Members on the latest progress of the project items in Stage 1 and the preparatory work for the project items in Stage 2 of the QMH Redevelopment Project, as well as the measures to enhance the waiting area for green minibus (GMB) Route No. 63.

124. Mr Eddie YIU, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (PowerPoint-2), briefed Members on the sites, background, proposed uses and site analysis of the HKU’s Proposed Academic Building at No. 3 Sassoon Road.

125. The Chairman invited Members to raise their comments and enquiries.

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

(i) he thanked QMH and HKU for being flexible in their approach and maintaining close cooperation with the community, which set a good example of how to build effective working relationships. He found it encouraging; (ii) he was delighted to know that the design of the new building block at No. 3 Sassoon Road had been modified by taking into account the local views, such that widening works could be implemented at Pok Fu Lam Road to provide convenience to the people waiting for buses at the bus stop; (iii) it was believed that the planned footbridges could reduce the possible risk of jaywalking; (iv) as the new building block was about the height of its nearby buildings, he believed that this could avoid blocking the residents’ views of its neighbours.

38 On the whole, there was a positive response to the Proposed Academic Building; (v) regarding the QMH Redevelopment Project, he asked the Hospital to provide the related traffic impact assessment (TIA) report to SDC for their internal reference at least. Furthermore, he wished that the provision of TIA reports to SDC could become a usual practice in future; (vi) he had submitted comments on the rooftop helipad of the proposed new block to the Director of Environmental Protection in a bid to clarify some technical issues such as the ambient noise level. Unlike the urban area in general, Pok Fu Lam had a relatively tranquil environment. Thus it was essential to set the permissible ambient noise level of ambulances in a prudent manner. He requested that the level should be set at 65 decibels instead of 85; (vii) he wished that there will be a fair sharing of helicopter medical services among hospitals with helipads and to avoid shifting all traffic to Po Fu Lam; (viii) it was hoped that the enhancement works for Road D at QMH would include a pedestrian footway soonest; and (ix) in general, he was satisfied with the progress of the construction works, and commended that it was encouraging to see that the various stakeholders had been maintaining a close cooperative relationship in this project.

127. Mr LO Kin-hei raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) despite that the extension of footbridge was considered a positive measure to facilitate pedestrian crossing of a carriageway for public safety, he assumed that jaywalking could not be completely eliminated even with the provision of a footbridge; (ii) in light of the fact that the completion of the new building block would cause the vicinity of Sassoon Road to end up in a more cramped condition than before, he hoped that the proposed new block design could be improved wherever possible, so as relieve the pressurised feeling; and (iii) although a concrete plan on the South Island Line (West) (SIL(W)) had yet to be determined, and the Government might not have required QMH to reserve some area for railway station purpose in future, he would still take the trouble to remind the Hospital that consideration should be given to the needs of the future railway station while devising the Redevelopment Project. He considered that if space could be reserved at the preliminary stage of planning to tie in with the railway development, it would be easier to take forward the subsequent work.

(Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN left the meeting at 6:33 p.m.)

39

128. Mr CHAI Man-hon raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he thanked QMH and HKU for arranging a meeting prior to this meeting, so that he could raise quite a number of comments on the design of the new building block at No. 3 Sassoon Road; (ii) he objected to the existing preliminary design of the new building block at No. 3 Sassoon Road and urged the department concerned to implement a bus stop improvement project in conjunction with the redevelopment. He opined that it was opportune to carry out expansion works for the bus stop at QMH or even to develop the bus stop into a bus interchange. In view of this, apart from the proposal on extending the bus stop by 13 metres, he also requested that Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), the Highways Department and Transport Department (TD) should explore the feasibility of converting part of the existing rest garden for bus stop purpose, so that the bus stop could be upgraded to comply with the specifications of an interchange. As the location concerned would not be served by railway until at least ten years later, bus was still one of the means of major public transport for the vicinity in the foreseeable future. Hence, the integration of part of the LCSD’s rest garden with the existing bus stop was required to upgrade the bus stop facility in collaboration with TD; and (iii) as regards how pedestrians would be attracted to use the footbridge for crossing the road, he suggested that the vertical distance between the footbridge and bus stop should be minimised and the footbridge should be extended to the neighbourhood of the student residence. With the addition of a covered access, it was believed that more pedestrians could be attracted to use the footbridge.

129. Mr AU Lap-sing, MH hoped that TD would explore how the said pedestrian crossing facility could be further improved, so as to minimise the danger of pedestrian crossing. Concerning the slide on Land Exchange with the location indicated in blue in PowerPoint-1, he enquired whether the site would still be used as its original store at No. 3 Sassoon Road or for any other purposes after the land exchange.

130. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH opined that the proposed new building at No. 3 Sassoon Road had a nice design. But she hoped that the existing design of the narrow bus stop at QMH could also be improved making use of this opportunity. She agreed that even though the bus stop could be extended for 13 metres, it was not yet enough to fulfill the needs. Therefore, the relevant departments should be requested to designate the area of the rest garden for bus stop purpose in order to cater for the needs of bus interchange in future. As regards the design of the waiting area

40 of GMB Route No. 63, she supported the use of ceiling-mounted screen partition with a view to allowing better penetration of natural light and air ventilation. She enquired when the works would commence and how long it would last if the design of QMH was confirmed. Since the rainy season was approaching, she hoped that the works could be completed as soon as possible.

131. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH expressed his support for the various Members’ views above. He reiterated that with the implementation of the new block project at No. 3 Sassoon Road, the relevant departments should also consider how traffic linkage could be provided to enable full accessibility for the site. He also opined that the project must be forward-looking, taking into account the needs of accommodating the station exits of the SIL(W). If the existing bus stop was widened, it could provide convenience for the passengers to interchange buses at the Queen Mary Hospital Station. As such, there should be some reserved area to cater for the future needs.

132. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH agreed that the design should be forward-looking and that a connecting access should be reserved for the SIL(W) in future.

133. The Chairman invited the HA representatives to respond.

134. Dr LUK Che-chung thanked and noted Members’ views. He said that in planning the project, they would consider in terms of its flexibility, development area reserved, forward-looking approach as well as taking into account the user-oriented mindset. To align with the development of the railway, he said that QMH would discuss such matters as reserved area with MTR Corporation and the Government in due course.

135. Ms Winnie YIP responded that for the waiting area of GMB Route No. 63, the Hospital considered that it was more feasible to adopt the ceiling-mounted screen partition due to its better ventilation and shorter installation time. The nuisance caused to the public would also be minimised correspondingly. She said that the works was expected to be completed in four to six months, based on the Consultant’s assessment. Subject to the support of SDC, the Hospital would approve the relevant estimate of the works soon.

136. The Chairman invited the representatives of HKU to respond.

137. Mr K L TAM gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) regarding the design of the footbridge, the University would focus attention on the convenience of access, comfort, and attractiveness of the footbridge in

41 an effort to educate and encourage students to use the footbridge. He gave an example that the University could consider using temperature control and covered facility to enhance the attractiveness, access convenience and comfort of the footbridge; (ii) in response to some Members’ opinions that the new building would bring a pressurised feeling to the vicinity of Sassoon Road, the University could add greenery to the external walls of the building. This would create a better impression visually according to the past experiences; (iii) as regards improvement to the bus stop, the role of the University was rather passive. But if more information was available, the University would be willing to make adaptation to the design; and (iv) SIL(W) was also of great importance to the University. Since the Main Campus of HKU had a long distance away from the Sassoon Road Campus, it was inconvenient. But for the time being not much information was available yet, thus little could be done for any further arrangement. If the relevant departments provided more information in future, the University would consider the steps to be taken accordingly.

138. The Chairman asked the representative of TD if he had any response.

139. Mr Nelson CHAN said that if land resumption was to be effected for the bus stop at QMH, TD would make the necessary arrangement accordingly.

140. The Chairman asked the representative of LCSD if he had any response.

141. Mr David CHAIONG said he had no specific response for the time being. But LCSD would cater for the overall design of the QMH Redevelopment Project as far as possible.

142. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that as Members had just learned the enhancement proposal for the bus stop in this meeting, more time might be required to study it. He thus suggested that the proposal should continue to be followed up by the Traffic and Transport Committee (T&TC) and that LCSD and TD were expected to be able to submit a detailed plan by then to include the bus stop as northbound interchange bus stop of the Southern District. He pointed out that TD once mentioned that it was not able to develop the said area into an interchange bus stop due to a lack of space. He believed that if there was an extra area of over 50 m2, it could facilitate implementation of the proposal.

143. Mr LO Kin-hei said that one of the reasons why students did not often use footbridge was that the escalator was situated at a relatively distant location. If the

42 students had to use the footbridge for crossing the road, they had to use staircase instead. Moreover, quite a number of students believed that it was not too dangerous to cross on the ground level, so the utilisation rate of the footbridge was relatively low. In addition, according to his understanding, the University seldom consult its students for the works carried out in the campus. However, in view of the fact that the construction of footbridge was closely related to the students, he hoped that the University would consult the students. In this way, the University could collect students’ opinion about the footbridge while encouraging students to participate in the community affairs.

144. Ms Winnie YIP added that the site mentioned by Mr AU Lap-sing and marked blue on the map was part of the proposed new block of the Hospital. As for the existing store at No. 3 Sassoon Road, it was currently used by QMH for storage. The Hospital would identify another place for relocating the stock now being kept in the store.

145. Mr K L TAM thanked Members for their views and reiterated that the University’s design would be considered from the viewpoint of access convenience, comfort and attractiveness. The University would make every effort to understand the users’ needs. He said that the University had organised several roving exhibitions and would explore ways of further involving more stakeholders.

146. In closing, the Chairman concluded that SDC would continue to support the QMH Redevelopment Project, and Members had indicated their support in principle for HKU’s submission on the Proposed Academic Building at No. 3 Sassoon Road. Meanwhile, a number of views had been raised, including:

(i) it was hoped that the existing bus stop at QMH could be widened in order to make it a bus interchange in future. SDC requested that HKU, TD and LCSD should follow up this proposal proactively and that the matter should be further discussed at the meeting of T&TC; (ii) residents should be encouraged to use footbridge as far as possible. Also, the design of the proposed new block should reduce the pressurised feeling and restore the academic atmosphere in the vicinity of Sassoon Road; and (iii) it was hoped that a reserved area would be allowed to accommodate the station exits of the SIL(W) in future.

147. The Chairman thanked the representatives of HA and HKU for joining the meeting.

(Dr LUK Che-chung, Dr Sidney TAM, Ms Winnie YIP, Ms Pinky MAK, Mr K L

43 TAM, Mr Eddie YIU, Mr David LO and Ms Jeannie TSANG left the meeting at 6:56 p.m.)

(Mr NG Tak-wing, Mr Stephen WAT, Ms Doris CHAN, Mr Ken WONG, Mr Bernard WONG and Ms Samantha SIU joined the meeting at 6:58 p.m.)

Agenda Item 7: Progress Report of the South Island Line (East) Scheme (SDC Paper No. 31/2015) [6:58 p.m. – 8:18 p.m.]

148. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of the relevant government departments and the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) to the meeting:

(i) Mr NG Tak-wing, Chief Engineer/Railway Development 1-1, Highways Department (HyD); (ii) Mr Stephen WAT, Senior Engineer/South Island Line (1), HyD; (iii) Ms Doris CHAN, Senior Engineer/Priority Railway 3, Transport Department; (iv) Mr Ken WONG, Project Manager – South Island Line Civil; (v) Mr Bernard WONG, Senior Liaison Engineer, MTRC; and (vi) Ms Samantha SIU, Public Relations Manager - Projects & Property, MTRC.

149. The Chairman invited the representatives of MTRC to report the latest progress of the project.

150. Mr Bernard WONG, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (PowerPoint 3), introduced the works progress, the temporary traffic management scheme and the progress of the blasting works.

151. Ms Samantha SIU, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (PowerPoint 3), introduced the community liaison activities.

152. The Chairman invited Members to raise their comments or enquiries.

153. Mr AU Nok-hin put forward the order for enquiries and asked when he could make an oral statement.

154. The Chairman said that Mr AU Nok-hin might make an oral statement after Members had raised their comments.

44 155. Dr LIU Hong-fai, JP said that while the representative of MTRC had reported a delay in the works at Admiralty Station, the works in the Southern District were almost completed. Therefore, he suggested the early removal of the unnecessary water-filled barriers on the roads by MTRC to widen the roads for smoother traffic flow.

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

(i) the footbridge on Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road had been open for public use since 29 January 2015. Although the lighting of the footbridge had been slightly enhanced, there was still room for improvement. She hoped that MTRC would conduct further testing; (ii) as the signs of the footbridge were rather ugly, she hoped that the department concerned would replace them as soon as possible; (iii) she would like to know the arrangements for renovating and cleaning the walls of the ramp linking South Horizons to Ap Lei Chau Estate; and (iv) MTRC was temporarily responsible for the management and daily cleaning of the works site at Lei Tung Estate. However, the hygienic conditions of the site were poor as repeatedly reflected by the estate office. MTRC failed to regularly follow up and take action. Therefore, she hoped that MTRC would pay more attention and follow up on the issue.

157. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH opined that the design of the footbridge on Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road was simple yet modern which was compatible with the setting around South Horizons. However, the walls of the ramp mentioned by Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH were indeed appalling. He had requested HyD to follow up as soon as possible but no reply was received so far. Therefore, he strongly demanded that follow-up action be taken by HyD. Besides, he urged MTRC to follow up on the resurfacing of paving blocks under the footbridge carefully so that no injury would be caused due to uneven road surface. He hoped that the greening work of the stone wall of Yuk Kwai Shan End Plant Building could tie in with the commissioning of the South Island Line (East) (SIL(E)) in 2016. As the works in the Southern District were scheduled for completion in late 2015, he enquired about the feasibility of opening the section between South Horizons and Ocean Park first for test runs.

158. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung reflected that she could hardly contact the relevant staff of the engineering section of MTRC after receiving residents’ complaints or views recently. She thus urged Mr Bernard WONG and Mr Michael LEUNG to give a clear account of the succession arrangement. Furthermore, she hoped that MTRC could provide detailed information of the pet garden. She learned that the handover of the pet garden at Sham Wan Tower would be delayed. She enquired whether

45 MTRC had made efforts to tie in with the lift construction works and urged MTRC to provide design information of the pedestrian subways.

159. Ms CHAN Judy Kapui reflected that even though MTRC had dimmed the lights on the footbridge, she still received complaints about the dazzling white light from many residents. She thus suggested using more delicate yellow light or installing light casing to prevent the light refraction from affecting residential units. She further indicated that the owners’ committee of South Horizons had, at a Community Liaison Group meeting, requested MTRC to provide information of the noise produced by the electric fans in Yuk Kwai Shan End Plant Building. MTRC replied that according to the environmental assessment report, the estimated noise level would not exceed 55 decibels. As such, she enquired whether a further test would be carried out upon completion of the End Plant Building and what remedial measures MTRC would take if the noise level exceeded 55 decibels during the test. Furthermore, she hoped to know the operation time of the End Plant Building.

160. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling reflected that some residents had complained about frequent traffic diversion due to the SIL(E) project which had affected the traffic of the district. Many residents were also worried whether the commissioning of SIL(E) would be further delayed. She thus urged MTRC to recover the progress wherever possible. She further said that the dust generated by the project had caused nuisance to the residents in the vicinity. She hoped that in compensation, MTRC could reinstate the site to a more desirable state when returning it in the future. She also urged MTRC to return the works site as soon as possible so that it could be used by SDC and government departments for other purposes.

161. Mr AU Nok-hin raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he agreed to Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung’s comment that the effort of the community liaison work for SIL(E) had been weakened since the transfer of Mr Bernard WONG, making it difficult to follow up on the community affairs; (ii) he requested MTRC to provide the layout of the works site next to Sham Wan Tower to facilitate Members’ understanding of the appropriate use of the site in the future; (iii) MTRC had planted trees at a location near the bridge in Ap Lei Chau Park without consulting Members’ views beforehand. This had caused concern about the future planning of that location. He suggested that MTRC should consult Members of the locations for tree planting; (iv) he urged MTRC to give an account of the progress of the Wong Chuk Hang Station public transport interchange (PTI); and

46 (v) he enquired about the completion date of the works in the Southern District and whether the railway section in the Southern District could commence service first in case only the works at Admiralty Station were delayed.

162. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that he had reflected to MTRC the hope of arranging for a site visit to Wong Chuk Hang Station PTI to have an understanding of the current situation there so that Members could raise comments and suggestions. Nevertheless, the site visit scheduled next week did not cover the PTI. He thus urged MTRC to make arrangement as soon as possible. Otherwise it would be difficult to make modification once the works of the PTI had reached a certain stage. Concerning the works carried out by MTRC on the pavement at Nam Long Shan Road Cooked Food Market, some residents had reflected that thin and long iron sheets were used as the surface cover of the temporary pavement. This was rather dangerous as the elderly people might fall down easily. He reminded MTRC not to neglect safety for the sake of work convenience. As MTRC would soon commence the temporary diversion works of Sham Wan, the road junction would become narrower. This had caused concern about the impacts on the bus stop and traffic nearby. He urged MTRC to confirm that the bus stop would not be relocated and the size of the works site would be reduced as much as possible, with a view to minimizing the impacts.

163. Mr LO Kin-hei enquired if there was any discrepancy between the current progress of the underpinning works at Admiralty Station and the expected target of commissioning by the end of 2016. Noting that there was a works delay at Exit B of Lei Tung Station, he was concerned whether the return of the relevant road surface would also be delayed. He opined that no matter there was works delay in the station or not, it was technically feasible to return the road surface first.

164. The Chairman invited the representatives of MTRC to respond.

165. Mr Ken WONG gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) the Admiralty Station underpinning works of the SIL(E) project are now progressing at a rate in line with the set target. MTRC had accounted in the progress report in May 2014 that there was a six-month works delay. While the works progress from November 2014 to February 2015 could meet the expected target, the existing delay could not be recovered. MTRC was still aiming at commissioning at the end of 2016, but the actual opening date could only be accurately estimated upon completion of the underpinning excavation works at Admiralty Station. It was expected that the works would be substantially completed by mid-2015;

47 (ii) the Nam Fung Tunnel excavation works had been completed. While the tunnel structural works had been completed by 95%, track-laying works had been commenced for a section of the tunnel which was 2.5 km in length. Therefore the works progress of Nam Fung Tunnel would not affect the date of commissioning; (iii) due to the unforeseen adverse ground conditions encountered at the shaft formation level, the shaft structure construction works at Exit B of Lei Tung Station was delayed. MTRC had expedited the works progress by all means, including the addition of night-shift work. Residents’ expectation of returning the road surface as soon as possible was well understood, and it was estimated that the road surface could be returned in the first half of 2016, while other roads and public facilities of the Southern District were estimated to be returned by the end of 2015; and (iv) in response to some Members’ suggestion on the commissioning of the railway service for the Southern District first, MTRC had not made such arrangement in the earlier planning and designing stage, and signaling design as well as train safety would also be involved. Currently, the primary target was the commissioning of the railway to Admiralty Station as soon as possible. Testing would be carried out for the entire line from South Horizons Station to Admiralty Station during the final stage. A partial opening of the railway would be technically difficult as it would hamper the conduction of the relevant tests.

166. Mr Bernard WONG supplemented as follows:

(i) the government departments concerned had reminded MTRC to hand over the above-ground works sites and regularly review the works area required. Due to safety reasons, road sections closed for the works would not be opened part by part upon partial completion of works. This is especially the case in the Wong Chuk Hang area where several new roads will be commissioned. , MTRC would open the roads systematically to avoid causing any chaos to road traffic; (ii) he would follow up on whether a safer approach could be adopted for the footpath of Nam Long Shan Road Cooked Food Market; (iii) he noted Mr TSUI Yuen-wa’s view on the narrowing of the junction in Sham Wan. MTRC had discussed with several government departments and highlighted that the bus stop concerned would not be relocated but the area of the minibus stop might be reduced; (iv) MTRC had been following up the issue concerning the footbridge on Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road, including the lighting and signs, and would pay more attention to the resurfacing of paving blocks under the footbridge. MTRC

48 would maintain liaison with Members and take follow-up actions; (v) the formal noise emission test of Yuk Kwai Shan End Plant Building would be monitored by EPD. MTRC would submit reports to EPD to justify that the noise generated by the End Plant Building was in compliance with the legislation. The usage rate of the End Plant Building was relatively low at night, mainly for maintenance purposes; (vi) he noted the views concerning the works site at Lei Tung Estate. If the site was under the purview of MTRC, it would surely take follow-up actions and improve the hygiene; if not, it would refer the issue to the relevant government departments for follow-up; (vii) the delay of the major works at Lei Tung Station had resulted in the delay in handing over the roads around the station and the peripheral works sites. Given that it was infeasible to hand over the entire site for the time being, MTRC would consider opening a small area first, and hoped SDC would accept this arrangement; and (viii) MTRC would coordinate as far as possible with the contractor to conduct the lift construction works as mentioned by Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung.

167. The Chairman invited the representatives of HyD to respond.

168. Mr Stephen WAT gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) he confirmed that there was no discrepancy in the progress percentage in MTRC’s reports submitted to SDC and the Government; and (ii) he would reflect Members’ concern over the hygiene problem of the wall of the ramp linking South Horizons to Ap Lei Chau Estate (West) to the relevant colleagues after the meeting.

169. The Chairman invited Members to start the second round of speaking.

170. The Chairman invited the representatives of MTRC to respond.

171. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH stressed his hope that MTRC would follow up the lighting issue of the footbridge on Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road.

172. The Chairman asked the representatives of MTRC to respond to the lighting issue of the footbridge again.

173. Mr Bernard WONG responded that though MTRC had implemented improvement measures before, but since residents still considered the lighting of the footbridge unsatisfactory, MTRC would continue to follow up the matter.

49

174. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung hoped that Mr Bernard WONG would provide the contact information of the responsible staff of MTRC for the relevant district works after the meeting. She said that the provision of additional recreational and sport facilities or the greening at Ap Lei Chau Park in the future had been discussed at the meeting. Some Members had inspected the site with staff of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) and it was only surrounded with wire mesh. However, it was found in late December 2014 that trees had been planted there. MTRC failed to explain the reason immediately upon her enquiry and responded later that it had transplanted trees from Ocean Park to the site which would be returned to LandsD in the future. She asked whether the trees had been transplanted there at LandsD’s request and enquired which department would be responsible for the maintenance of the trees. She hoped that MTRC would explain why it had not notified SDC before transplanting the trees.

175. Mr CHAI Man-hon hoped that MTRC would closely follow up the handover arrangements for the works site so that SDC or government departments would not implement the works again after the handover, which would be a waste of resources. Also, he enquired about the layout of the Wong Chuk Hang PTI. Since the PTI was part of the non-railway works of the SIL(E) project which had obtained the funding approval of LegCo, and its construction had been entrusted to MTRC by HyD, SDC was responsible for the supervision over the PTI. However, SDC had not received the detailed layout plan to date. In this connection, he asked MTRC whether the site inspection could only be arranged at a later time and was concerned that only slight modification could be made in response to Members’ suggestions by then, just as the inspection for the extended Island Line to Western District which had become a mere visiting programme. Moreover, he also wanted to know the actual commissioning date of the station and the details of the interchange concessions to be offered in the future.

176. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH hoped that HyD would provide an actual follow-up schedule for the cleaning and renovation of the wall of the ramp linking South Horizons to Ap Lei Chau Estate (West). She also pressed on the follow-up arrangements for the signs at the footbridge and how MTRC would solve the hygiene problems arising from the temporary management of the works site at Lei Tung Estate.

177. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that he had proposed the temporary opening of the Wong Chuk Hang PTI for coach parking at the meeting of the Ocean Park Community Liaison Group to alleviate traffic congestion, thus he strongly hoped that the site inspection scheduled a few days later could also cover the Wong Chuk Hang

50 PTI to facilitate on-scene study on the feasibility of opening the PTI for coach parking. He continued that as residents mainly alighted at the Sham Wan Bus Station, he hoped MTRC could provide more details on the changes to the bus stop after the meeting and reduce the impact on residents as far as possible. He reflected that lighting was too strong when MTRC carried out works at Ap Lei Chau Bridge at night and residents around Aberdeen Main Road were affected. On the other hand, the Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) had started to fight for the provision of an entrance at Sham Wan two years ago but it was impossible to provide an entrance there as elevated rail tracks were adopted at Wong Chuk Hang Station. In this connection, he requested MTRC and government departments to clearly respond whether they had received any formal request or recommendation from FTU. He worried that MTRC and government departments had indirectly misled residents by responding that the issue could be studied.

178. Mr LO Kin-hei understood that there were delays in the shaft works at Lei Tung Station but as partial road closure had resulted in serious traffic congestion at Lei Tung Estate, residents hoped that MTRC could open the road as soon as possible upon completion of the structural works. If MTRC planned to extend the daily construction time, he hoped it could notify SDC of the details of the arrangement concerned. He also urged MTRC to provide detailed information of the former site of the Harbour Mission School in Ap Lei Chau, including the extent and area occupied by MTRC as well as the feasibility of various types of works. He hoped representatives of MTRC could reflect the views of SDC on the provision of a shelter for the queuing area at Lei Tung Station to the railway operation and management division in order to tie in with the implementation of the works.

(Mr Fergus FUNG left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.)

179. The Chairman invited the representatives of MTRC to respond.

180. Mr Bernard WONG gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) the original route of Nam Long Shan Road had been restored just before Lunar New Year. MTRC was resurfacing the ramp and proceeding with the staircase works of the fire escape below the station. The PTI was still used as a works site where a large quantity of construction materials was stored and could hardly give Members an overall impression of the PTI. He believed that it would be more appropriate to conduct a site inspection in or after mid-2015 and Members would be invited to give their views by then; (ii) trees removed due to the works of the SIL(E) project would be replanted. The number of trees would increase and the planting locations were

51 approved by LandsD. Locations available for tree planting were limited in the Southern District and MTRC had tried its best. The arrangement concerned had been confirmed in as early as 2010. The requirement would continue to be fulfilled at the handover stage and it would be difficult to make changes at the current stage. Follow up actions could be taken if local views reflected that the future use of the land had to be changed; (iii) the signs of the footbridge on Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road were included as a follow-up item of MTRC; (iv) he would ascertain which department was responsible for the management of the temporary works site of Lei Tung Estate before taking appropriate follow-up actions; (v) according to records, MTRC did not receive any request from FTU for the provision of entrance at Sham Wan and the provision of entrance must be gazetted before implementation to obtain community consensus and support of SDC; (vi) MTRC would continue to communicate closely with the community on the works arrangement of Lei Tung Station at night and the noise generated would comply with the requirements of EPD; and (vii) the former site of the Harbour Mission School in Ap Lei Chau would be used as the slip road to Ap Lei Chau Bridge. The area of the remaining site was not large and the relevant staff was consolidating the information concerned.

181. Ms Samantha SIU added that Mr TSUI Yuen-wa’s enquiry about the lighting of Ap Lei Chau Bridge had been received. MTRC’s engineering and environmental protection sections were following up the matter. Appropriate adjustments could be made if necessary.

182. The Chairman asked Members whether they had any other comments or questions.

183. Mr LO Kin-hei hoped that MTRC would respond to the enquiry about the construction of a shelter for queuing area at Lei Tung Station.

184. Mr Bernard WONG responded that although MTRC could only carry out works within its works area, it was open to the construction of a shelter. If Lei Tung Commercial Centre and the Owners’ Corporation had any suggestions that would be convenient to the residents, MTRC would facilitate with the arrangements as far as possible. However, as the shelter was not included in the delivery requirements, its construction could not commence before delivery.

185. Mr AU Nok-hin asked MTRC whether it could transplant the trees elsewhere

52 at LandsD’s request. If yes, SDC would request LandsD to transplant the trees at Ap Lei Chau Park to other appropriate locations.

186. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa urged the government departments concerned to respond to whether they had received a formal request from FTU.

187. Mr Stephen WAT thanked Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH for their opinions on the wall of the ramp linking South Horizons to Ap Lei Chau Estate (West). He would reflect their opinions to his colleagues for prompt follow-up actions and reply. Regarding FTU’s request for the provision of additional station entrances/exits in Shum Wan, he did not have any information in hand at the moment. He would check the records after the meeting.

188. Mr Bernard WONG responded that the works site at Ap Lei Chau Park had been handed over to LandsD for management. Although no consensus had been reached over the future land use of the site, LandsD could remove the trees according to the established procedures once a consensus was reached.

(Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP left the meeting at 8:12 pm.)

189. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH pressed for a response to the hygiene problem of the works site at Lei Tung Estate.

190. Mr Bernard WONG responded that he would ascertain which department was responsible for managing the works site before taking appropriate follow-up actions.

191. The Chairman asked Mr AU Nok-hin to make an oral statement.

192. Mr AU Nok-hin made an oral statement as follows:

“The performance of MTRC was far from satisfactory in recent months. It made no response to district demands for improvement of its facilities, neglected regular community liaison work and went back on its pledge of reporting the works progress. All these feed into the perception of a flash in the pan and there is no need for MTRC to take heed of district opinions and aspirations upon completion of most of the works under SIL(E). In view of this, I would like to lodge a formal complaint by means of oral statement so as to set the record straight. In short, the performance of MTRC can only be termed as ‘failing to build, to listen and to pay attention’.

‘Failing to build’ refers to the fact that MTRC had promised to build a pet garden

53 when Ms WONG Chiu-yong was in charge of the project. However, after the project was well under way, some community facilities built by MTRC had failed to meet district aspirations. From the unpainted new bus shelter constructed in 2014 near Tung Hing House which had stoked local discontent to its refusal to build a shelter between Lei Tung Station and Lei Tung Commerical Centre, it is evident that the attitude of MTRC towards community aspirations has changed. MTRC had repeatedly shirked responsibility when facilities were found to be left out. It shunned from building a shelter as in other stations to provide shading for residents who are expected to queue between the station and the commerical centre. It broke faith with the residents and was irresponsible.

‘Failing to listen’ refers to the fact that when Mr Bernard WONG was in charge of the SIL(E) project, he had kept close contact with the local community to make timely report on the works progress even though he could not make promise to satisfy local demands. However, community liaison work had been neglected after he was transferred to another post. There is no regular reporting mechanism now and MTRC has not provided sufficient works information for Members during the limited number of meetings. As the temporary traffic arrangements may vary from time to time and a little alteration will greatly affect road traffic, the lack of liaison work was really unacceptable.

‘Failing to pay attention’ refers to the fact that MTRC had sent representatives to give explanations when some residents suspected that its construction works had caused structural problems in their flats. However, MTRC was so unaccountable that it had failed to give any concrete reply since the end of 2014 when Members repeatedly raised questions on various issues including:

(i) to provide a layout for the MTR works site near Sham Wan Towers, setting out clearly where the site and the park are and where buildings can be built; (ii) whether a review can be conducted to assess if it is appropriate to replant trees in Ap Lei Chau Park; (iii) to provide detailed information of the Wong Chuk Hang PTI; and (iv) the completion dates for various MTR stations in the Southern District. If the project in Admiralty Station is the cause of delay, whether the stations in the Southern District can commence service first.

I urge MTRC to review its performance and make improvement as soon as possible.”

193. The Chairman said that SDC would follow up on the handover arrangements of the five works sites and the details were set out in Reference Paper 2. Members were invited to raise their comments or enquiries.

54

194. Members raised no comments or enquiries.

195. The Chairman thanked the representatives of the departments and MTRC for attending the meeting.

(Mr NG Tak-wing, Mr Stephen WAT, Ms Doris CHAN, Mr Ken WONG, Mr Bernard WONG and Ms Samantha SIU left the meeting at 8:18 p.m.)

Agenda Item 8: Establishment of an “Organising Committee for Celebration of the 66th National Day in the Southern District” (SDC Paper No. 32/2015) [8:18 p.m. – 8:20 p.m.]

196. The Chairman briefed Members on the contents of the paper as follows:

(i) every year, SDC would set up an organising committee dedicated for organising large-scale events in celebration of the National Day in the district;

(ii) in 2014, SDC had organised two National Day celebrations, namely, “Dragon and Lion Dance Performance in Celebration of the National Day” and “Fine Music - Kite-flying Fun Day in Celebration of the National Day”, with a view to enhancing the festive atmosphere in the district; and (iii) at its 18th meeting on 18 September 2014, SDC endorsed that an allocation of $500,000 should be earmarked for organising the celebrations for the reunification of Hong Kong and the National Day in 2015. In order to facilitate an early start of the preparatory work for the National Day celebrations of 2015, it was now proposed that in accordance with the arrangements in 2014, an Organising Committee for the Celebration of the National Day (OCND) should be set up under SDC for coordinating the National Day celebrations in 2015. The proposed terms of reference and composition of the OCND were set out in paragraph 4 of the paper.

197. The Chairman asked whether Members supported the establishment of the “Organising Committee for the Celebration of the 66th National Day in the Southern District” and endorsed the proposed terms of reference and composition.

198. There was no objection from Members.

55

199. In closing, the Chairman concluded that SDC endorsed the establishment of the “Organising Committee for the Celebration of the 66th National Day in the Southern District”, in a bid to proceed with the related preparatory work as soon as possible. The Secretariat would issue an invitation to Members for joining the above OCND, and Members might sign up for membership at the Secretariat after the meeting.

(Dr LIU Hong-fai, JP left the meeting at 8:20 p.m.)

Agenda Item 9: Application for SDC Fund: Employment of Contract Staff for the Secretariat (SDC Paper No. 33/2015) [8:20 p.m. – 8:24 p.m.]

200. The Chairman asked the Secretary to brief Members on the contents of the paper.

201. The Secretary proposed that in 2015-16, the Secretariat should continue to employ contract staff, including four full-time Executive Assistants (EAs), five full-time Project Coordinators (PCs) and not more than 20 part-time Project Assistants (PAs), at a proposed budget of $2,099,836, representing 15% of the total allocation to SDC. She continued that the estimated expenditure had taken into account possible wage adjustment for contract staff starting from August 2015. Also, the adjustment rate was based on the Composite Consumer Price Index in December 2014.

202. The Chairman invited Members to raise their comments or enquiries.

203. Mr LO Kin-hei said that over the years, SDC Funds had been utilised for the employment of contract staff. As the relevant staff members were not part of the regular staff establishment, adjustment to their salaries could only be made according to the inflation rate. Hence, the staff members concerned were unable to pursue long-term career opportunities and enjoy job security, which was unfair. He suggested that the Home Affairs Department (HAD) should consider extending the contract period of contract staff in order to enhance their sense of belonging.

204. The Secretary responded that in general, the criteria of employing contract staff were applicable to the 18 districts across the territory, while the terms and conditions of the employment contract were drawn up by HAD. Should there be special needs, SDC might reflect the views to HAD accordingly.

56

205. Members did not raise further views on the subject.

206. In closing, the Chairman concluded that SDC endorsed an allocation of $2,099,836 for the Secretariat to employ four full-time EAs, five full-time PCs and not more than 20 part-time PAs in 2015-16.

Agenda Item 9: Application for SDC Fund: Aberdeen Dragon Boat Races 2015 (SDC Paper No. 34/2015) [8:24 p.m. - 8:27 p.m.]

207. The Chairman invited Members to make declaration of interests with respect to this activity. If there was an interest to declare, they should raise their hands and complete the “Declaration of Interests for Project Financed by SDC Funds” as appropriate.

208. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Mrs MAK TSE How-ling declared their interests to the meeting. Details of which were given at Annex 3.

209. The Chairman invited Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Vice Chairman of the Aberdeen Dragon Boat Race Committee to briefly introduce the fund application.

210. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH said that the Aberdeen Dragon Boat Race Committee and the Southern District Dragon Boat Race Committee organised dragon boat races at Aberdeen every year in order to pass on the dragon boat culture. This year, the Dragon Boat Races were scheduled to be held on 20 June 2015, i.e. on the day of Tuen Ng Festival, at the seashore off the Aberdeen Promenade. Details of the activity and budget had been annexed to the SDC paper.

211. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries on the subject.

212. No Members raised comments or enquiries on the subject.

(Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Mrs MAK TSE How-ling withdrew from the meeting at 8:26 p.m.)

213. The Chairman asked Members whether they endorsed the fund application submitted by the Aberdeen Dragon Boat Race Committee.

57

214. Members did not have any queries.

215. The Chairman concluded that SDC endorsed an allocation of $466,000 to the Aberdeen Dragon Boat Race Committee for organising the “Aberdeen Dragon Boat Races 2015”, and agreed that an advance payment of half the allocation would be made to meet the initial expenses.

(Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Mrs MAK TSE How-ling returned to the meeting at 8:27 p.m.)

Agenda Item 11: Application for SDC Fund: Promotion of “Southern District Literary Trail” (SDC Paper No. 35/2015) [8:27 p.m. - 8:37 p.m.]

216. The Chairman asked the Secretary to brief the meeting on the paper.

217. The Secretary briefly introduced the paper as follows:

(i) SDC started to plan for the “Southern District Literary Trial” in 2010, which connected the footprints of five renowned Chinese literati (namely Eileen CHANG, HU Shih, CAI Yuanpei, XIAO Hong and XU Dishan) by establishing commemorative landmarks along the way; (ii) At its 18th meeting on 18 September 2014, SDC endorsed that an allocation of $330,000 be reserved in 2015-16 for the promotion of the “Southern District Literary Trial” and an allocation of $120,000 for other promotional activities or publicity materials, i.e. adding up to a total of $450,000; (iii) The works for the landmarks of Eileen CHANG, HU Shih and CAI Yuanpei were expected to be completed by the second quarter of 2015, while the works for the remaining two landmarks would also commence subsequently. In order to publicise the completion of the three landmarks, it was proposed that a Literary Carnival be co-organised with the Southern District Office in the vicinity of the open space at Repulse Bay beach (i.e. outside The Pulse shopping centre) on the afternoon of 18 July 2015 (Saturday). Also, the Opening Ceremony of the “Southern District Literary Trail”, comprising literary and arts activities as well as performances by various groups, were planned to be held in collaboration with The Pulse in the shopping centre. The venue would be sponsored by The Pulse. The said programme would serve as a signature event in the arts and cultural aspect of the Southern

58 District, with a view to introducing the “Southern District Literary Trail” to the general public and tourists through the promotion of literature, so as to appreciate the literary ambience of the District; (iv) To strengthen the promotion of the “Southern District Literary Trail”, it was proposed that LCSD should be invited to organise a thematic exhibition on the “Southern District Literary Trail”, book displays of the five literary writers and subject talks, etc. at the Aberdeen Public Library from May to July 2015. The budgetary spending on these activities had been included in the Allocation of Southern District Council Funds for Community Involvement Projects for 2015-16 with funding earmarked to LCSD under the item “District library promotional activities”. Since the provisional allocation of the related item was already approved in the 18th SDC meeting on 18 September 2014, SDC did not need to endorse the allocation of fund again for this programme; (v) To enhance publicity effect, it was also suggested that a public relations (PR) agency should be engaged to make a publicity plan and produce publicity materials under the framework of the above programmes for the “Southern District Literary Trail”; (vi) The initial estimated expenditure comprised two parts: first, engagement of arts and literature groups or a production company to organise the related activities (including the venue setting, fees for performing groups and transportation services etc.), which was estimated to be $330,000; second, engagement of a PR agency to make a publicity plan and produce publicity materials, which was estimated to be $120,000; and (vii) Members were invited to consider supporting the above proposals and endorsing the related allocation of $450,000. Subject to SDC’s funding approval, the Secretariat would proceed to the procurement procedures immediately and report to the Council on the budgets of the proposed activities upon completion of such procedures. If there was an over-budget of the proposed activities as estimated, the Secretariat would submit application to SDC for further consideration and approval of additional allocation.

218. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries on the subject.

219. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that the entire promotional programme only focused on a carnival held on an afternoon, and that cost $330,000. It was hardly acceptable. He stressed that promotional activities should possess sustainable elements and by all means avoid “one-off” activity. He enquired whether adjustments could be made to the format of the entire programme and suggested that PR agency should be engaged

59 to design publicity materials or disseminate online messages in order to make the promotional effect last. Moreover, he also wished to know the details about the sponsorship from The Pulse.

220. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said that the venue was suitable for setting up landmarks of the Literary Trail. Also, it had gained support from the local community for SDC had shown concern for the community while arousing public interest in arts. From the point of view of tourism promotion, the programme to be organised this time could help further promote the literary characteristics of the Southern District.

221. The Chairman invited the Secretary to respond.

222. The Secretary responded that the literary and arts activities would contain various activity elements, such as the Opening Ceremony of the “Southern District Literary Trail” and activities for promoting the landmarks on the Trail. As for The Pulse, it mainly involved sponsorship of venue.

223. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa reiterated that sustainability of the activities could be of great benefit to the project as a whole. He illustrated that if schools of the Southern District were invited to assist or participate in the activities, it would be beneficial to the publicity aspect. He opined that spending $330,000 for just a half-day activity was not economically viable.

224. The Chairman thanked Mr TSUI Yuen-wa for his comments and said that he had contacted the Southern District Joint Schools Conference and invited them for participation in this programme. As regards how the sustainability of the programme could be enhanced, it should be tasked to the Secretariat for further discussion and following up with the Community Affairs and Tourism Development Committee (CATC).

225. The Chairman asked Members whether they endorsed the programme proposal mentioned in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the SDC paper and the allocation of fund proposed in paragraph 7.

226. Members did not have any queries.

227. In closing, the Chairman concluded that SDC endorsed the programme proposal at paragraphs 4 to 6 of the SDC paper and agreed to allocate fund in the amount of $450,000 for the promotion of the “Southern District Literary Trail”, covering the publicity cost of promoting the “Southern District Literary Trail” and the

60 cost for organising the Opening Ceremony of the “Southern District Literary Trail” and literary activities. The programme mentioned above would be referred to CATC for its action and follow-up.

Agenda Item 12: Any Other Business [8:37 p.m. – 8:53 p.m.]

Discussion Items for Meeting with Legislative Council (LegCo) Members on 7 May 2015

228. The Chairman said that LegCo Members would hold a meeting with SDC Members on 7 May 2015 (Thursday) to discuss and exchange views on issues of mutual concern, in particular issues that aroused concerns or had impact on the territory. For this purpose, the Secretariat had invited Members to suggest discussion items for the meeting by email earlier but no suggestion was received.

229. The Chairman asked Members whether they had any suggestion on the discussion items and reminded Members that the items should be limited to topics that SDC and the Committees had discussed and reached consensus upon. Besides, given the limited meeting time, the LegCo Secretariat proposed that the number of discussion topics should not exceed five. LegCo Members had met SDC Members on 8 May 2014, during which the following items had been discussed:

(i) conservation and promotion of fishermen culture in Aberdeen; (ii) transport support facilities for tourism; (iii) traffic issues in Aberdeen; (iv) proposals on lifting the development moratorium in the neighbourhood of Wah Fu Estate to the south of Pok Fu Lam for public housing development; and (v) traffic problems caused by the development of Wong Chuk Hang and Ocean Park.

230. The Chairman invited Members to propose discussion items.

231. Mr LO Kin-hei opined that such meetings were ineffective and therefore SDC should discuss with the LegCo Secretariat as to how to enhance effectiveness. He pointed out that the minutes of previous meetings were not received until after six to nine months and no topic had achieved progress as a result of meeting LegCo Members. While he did not object to such meetings in the future, he doubted their effectiveness.

61

(Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying left the meeting at 8:40 p.m.)

232. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung suggested having discussion on the provision of lifts at Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park in order to expedite the progress of the related works.

233. Mr AU Nok-hin suggested having discussion on the unforeseeable completion of SIL(E) and SDC’s wish for the HKPC site at Wong Chuk Hang to be developed for residential purposes.

234. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH pointed out that traffic issues were of paramount importance for the Southern District. Therefore, he suggested having discussion on the development of SIL(E) and the South Island Line (West) (SIL(W)) as well as the proposal of utilising the site next to Ocean Park for temporary coach parking.

235. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH held that, given the extensive implications and difficulties involved in the proposed relocation of HKPC, it was necessary to push ahead its development through discussion and exchange of views with LegCo Members.

236. Mr AU Lap-sing, MH said that some of the topics previously discussed at the District Facilities Management Committee (DFMC) had yet to achieve actual progress. Therefore, he hoped that those topics could be brought up to LegCo Members. First, regarding the construction project of a footbridge and two lifts connecting Wind Tower Park and Ap Lei Chau Estate, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department had completed a technical feasibility study in 2013 but no actual progress had been achieved so far. Besides, DFMC had proposed the construction of public piers in Deep Water Bay and Repulse Bay for water sports in 2012. However, since no department undertook such works, there was no progress so far even though DFMC had subsequently written to CE.

237. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling agreed that the development of SIL(W) should be a major discussion item.

238. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH suggested having discussion on the Aberdeen Tourism Project, which included previously discussed topics such as the concern on the development of recreational fisheries in the Southern District, the optimisation of the theme of traditional fishing harbour culture in the Southern District, and the revitalisation of barges at the Typhoon Shelter from the perspective of tourism promotion.

62

239. The Chairman concluded by consolidating the views of the Members who had spoken and suggesting that the discussion items include the lifts at Wind Tower Park, rezoning the HKPC site at Wong Chuk Hang for residential purposes, the issue of coach parking, SIL(W), the construction of public piers in Deep Water Bay and Repulse Bay, and the Aberdeen Tourism Project. He asked the Secretary to prepare the relevant documents. To start the meeting between SDC Members and LegCo Members, the Chairmen of the respective Committees would introduce the discussion items one by one, and then supplemented by other Members.

Timetable for Submission of Applications for SDC Fund

240. The Chairman said that every year, SDC would allocate funding to subsidise various kinds of Community Involvement (CI) projects organised by local organisations. According to the current timetable, if local organisations would like to apply for SDC fund to organise “district CI project” and “projects mainly consisted of Cantonese-Opera” which had been scheduled for January to April 2016, the deadline of submitting application forms was 12 October 2015.

241. The Chairman further pointed out that as the current DC term was expected to be suspended in the last quarter of 2015, and according to HAD’s “Guidelines on the Use of DC funds”, DC could, in the last year of the current term, commit the expenditure for activities to be organised during the first three months of the new DC term as necessary. But it was advised that the activities to be organised within this period and their relevant funding should be endorsed by the new DC term. Therefore, the Secretariat suggested the following amendments to the deadline of funding applications for CI projects scheduled for January to April 2016:

(i) the deadline of submitting funding application forms for activities scheduled for January to March 2016 would be advanced to 10 August 2015, so that the applications could be vetted by the Vetting Sub-committee and the Community Affairs and Tourism Development Committee of current term; (ii) the deadline of submitting funding application forms for activities scheduled for April 2016 would be changed to 14 December 2015, so that the applications would be approved by the new SDC; and (iii) if the proposal was endorsed, the Secretariat would inform the person-in-charge of various local organisations, schools and voluntary bodies of the Southern District in writing after the meeting, and to upload the amended timetable for submission of fund applications to the SDC website.

63 242. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments and enquiries regarding the above suggestion.

243. Members did not raise any comments or enquiries.

244. SDC endorsed the above suggestion.

Sending Teams to Participate in the Aberdeen Dragon Boat Races 2015

245. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, on behalf of the Aberdeen Dragon Boat Race Committee, cordially invited SDC to send teams to participate in the regional competition of the international dragon boat races under the Aberdeen Dragon Boat Races 2015.

246. SDC endorsed sending teams to participate in the Dragon Boat Races mentioned above.

Southern District Signature Projects

247. Mr LO Kin-hei enquired about the progress of the Southern District Signature Projects, and the date of next meeting of the Focus Group on Southern District Signature Projects (Focus Group).

248. Mr YEUNG Pok-man replied that he had been following up and discussing with the Tao Heung Group on its proposal submitted in September 2014. As the proposal had been completed, the next meeting of the Focus Group would be arranged shortly.

Part II – Items for Information

249. The Chairman invited Members to note the following documents:

(i) Report from the Area Committees (SDC Paper No. 18/2015); (ii) Report of the 19th Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee (SDC Paper No. 19/2015); (iii) Report of the 19th Meeting of the Community Affairs and Tourism Development Committee (SDC Paper No. 20/2015); (iv) Report of the 19th Meeting of the District Development and Environment Committee (SDC Paper No. 21/2015);

64 (v) Report of the 19th Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee (SDC Paper No. 22/2015); (vi) Report of the 185th Meeting of the Southern District Management (SDC Paper No. 23/2015); (vii) Report of the 3rd Meeting of the 5th Hong Kong Games Organising Working Group (SDC Paper No. 24/2015); and (viii) Financial Statement in respect of SDC Funds (as at 9.3.2015) (SDC Paper No. 25/2015).

Date of Next Meeting

250. The Chairman informed the meeting that the 22nd SDC meeting would be held on 14 May 2015 (Thursday) at 2:30 p.m.

251. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council May 2015

65 Annex 1

(Summary Translation)

Letter from the Chairman of SDC to the Secretary for Development Dated 28 April 2015 concerning the Rezoning of the Hong Kong Police College at Wong Chuk Hang for Residential Purpose

Background

SDC has made repeated discussions on the land planning in the district and the Government was urged to identify sites for increasing the public housing supply in the district and facilitating the redevelopment plan of Wah Fu Estate. One of the options was to study the relocation of the Hong Kong Police College (HKPC) at Wong Chuk Hang so that the site could be converted to residential use.

At a number of its meetings, SDC has put forward various options and justifications on the above proposal for the consideration of the various bureaux and departments, including the Development Bureau (DEVB), Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), Housing Department (HD), Planning Department (PlanD), Lands Department and Transport Department, and they were urged to actively explore the feasibility of this proposal. However, no definite replies have been received so far. The synopsis of the discussions is set out at Annex 1.

Latest Discussion

At the 21st SDC meeting on 19 March 2015, Members debated the motion concerning the rezoning of the HKPC at Wong Chuk Hang for residential purpose. A vast majority of Members voted for the following amendment to motion (with 15 votes for it, zero vote against it and four abstentions):

“This Council requests that the site of the Hong Kong Police College at Wong Chuk Hang should be rezoned for residential purposes, with a view to facilitating the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate as well as the needs of public and private housing development. Meanwhile, the Government is urged to explore and identify a site for the removal of the college without delay.”

To recap the written replies of the various departments, PlanD indicated

66 that the Security Bureau and HKPF had no plan to relocate the HKPC; LandsD stated that the planning matter of the HKPC site and site search for the relocation of HKPC were outside the purview of LandsD; and HD stated that the study on the proposed rezoning of the HKPC site for residential use and the site identification for the relocation of HKPC were under the purview of DEVB and PlanD, and trusted that DEVB and PlanD would take the proposal into account. (The responses of the bureaux and departments concerned are at Annex 2.)

Members who spoke up at the above meeting generally agreed to the need of setting up police training facilities, but considered that the effectiveness of the training would not be affected by the site selected for provision of the said facilities. In view of the rapid development in the vicinity of Wong Chuk Hang and the imminent commissioning of the South Island Line (East), the Government should make good use of the 18-hectare HKPC site by rezoning it for residential purpose, in order to facilitate the redevelopment plan of Wah Fu Estate and address the imminent need for development of public and private housing estates. (The extract of draft minutes of the relevant discussion is at Annex 3.)

Proposal

Given that land is a precious resource in Hong Kong, DEVB as a bureau overseeing land use planning in the territory is supposed to optimise the use of land resources, so as to foster the sustainable development of Hong Kong. DEVB is urged to coordinate with the relevant bureaux and departments, in a bid to actively study the proposal on the relocation of the HKPC for rezoning it for residential purpose. As the upcoming SDC meeting will be convened on 14 May 2015, SDC looks forward to an early reply from DEVB.

67 Annex 1 to Annex 1

(Summary Translation)

Southern District Council

Synopsis of the Discussions concerning “Rezoning the Hong Kong Police College at Wong Chuk Hang for Residential Purpose”

Relevant Date of SDC Paragraphs Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Meeting Meeting in the Minutes1 14 March 9th Agenda Item 1 30 and 34 A Member suggested that the Planning 2013 Meeting (Meeting of Department (PlanD) should consider rezoning the Director of existing “Government, Institution or Community” Planning with (GIC) site of the Hong Kong Police College SDC Members) (HKPC) at Wong Chuk Hang. He also pointed out that when the HKPC was first established, the area was a countryside which suited the purpose of providing training for policemen. However, with the completion of the railway project in future, Wong Chuk Hang would become a populace urban area with busy traffic. Therefore, PlanD should optimise the use of the site, for example, developing it into a composite residential area comprising both private and subsidised housing, so as to relieve the housing demand in the district.

18 July 11th Agenda Item 6 397 to 416 SDC recognised the contribution of the HKPC at 2013 Meeting (Housing Wong Chuk Hang to the community of Hong Problem and Kong. However, it was considered that in Development in consideration of facilitating local development the Southern and optimising the use of land resources, the District) Government was urged to explore the feasibility of rezoning the HKPC site at Wong Chuk Hang for a public-private residential mixed zone. As this proposal not only involved the Security Bureau and Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) but also required the support of the Development Bureau (DEVB). PlanD was urged to convey SDC’s views to the relevant departments, DEVB in particular.

21 1st Agenda Item 1 5 to 63 and 64 SDC urged the Government to include the HKPC February Special (Redevelopment to 112 site as a possible site for rehousing the residents 2014 Meeting of Wah Fu in Wah Fu Estate; and Members wished that the Estate) and Government should consider the feasibility of Agenda Item 2 using the HKPC site instead of only the five

1 The minutes of the meeting have already been uploaded to the SDC website – (http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/south/en/2012_2015/committee_meetings.html)

68 Relevant Date of SDC Paragraphs Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Meeting Meeting in the Minutes1 (Uplifting of the government sites in Pok Fu Lam for decanting the Development residents in Wah Fu Estate. Moratorium at South of Pok Fu Lam, i.e. the Area Close to Wah Fu Estate)

20 March 15th Agenda Item 2 72 to 73; 81 to Members made a proposal on the relocation of the 2014 Meeting (Meeting of 83; and HKPC at Wong Chuk Hang to the Commissioner Commissioner Reference of Police. of Police with Information 3 SDC Members) and 6

15 May 16th Agenda Item 4 34 to 78 SDC made a request to the Under Secretary for 2014 Meeting (Land Use Development that DEVB should study the Review - Sites proposal on the relocation of the HKPC at Wong Suitable for Chuk Hang for the construction of public and Conversion for private housing as soon as possible. Housing Development in the Short to Medium Term)

19 March 21st Agenda Item 2 (The minutes SDC endorsed the amendment to motion as 2015 Meeting (Rezoning of of the meeting follows: the Hong Kong will be Police College uploaded to “This Council requests that the site of the Hong at Wong Chuk the SDC Kong Police College at Wong Chuk Hang should Hang for website upon be rezoned for residential purposes, with a view Residential SDC’s to facilitating the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate Purpose) confirmation as well as the needs of public and private housing at its 22nd development. Meanwhile, the Government is meeting to be urged to explore and identify a site for the held on 14 removal of the college without delay.” May 2015.)

Annex 2 to Annex 1 can be downloaded at http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/south/doc/en/dc_meetings_doc/2015/21/S_2015_27_EN _Annex_3.pdf

69 Annex 2

(Summary Translation)

Letter from DEVB in reply to the Motion on Rezoning the Hong Kong Police College at Wong Chuk Hang for Residential Purpose

As stated in the reply of the Planning Department to the SDC Secretariat, the site of the Hong Kong Police College in Wong Chuk Hang, Aberdeen falls within an area zoned “Government, Institution or Community” on the Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan. Apart from providing basic skills training to new Police recruits, the College is also used for other training units to provide in-service training for officers, including Junior Police Officers Development Learning Division, Learning Technologies Division and Examinations and Assessment Centre. The training programmes are of paramount importance to the HKPF in maintaining and enhancing its professional quality. The existing facilities in the College are able to meet the training needs of the HKPF in the relevant areas. The Security Bureau and the HKPF have no plan to relocate the College.

70 Annex 3

21st Meeting of Southern District Council (2012-2015) Declaration of Interest

Members of Vetting Subcommittee who have already declared interests at the meeting on 2.3.2015 did not have to declare interests again at this SDC meeting. (Extract of declaration of interest of the captioned Vetting Subcommittee Meeting is at Reference Paper-4)

Agenda Project Title Organiser/ Co-organisers Member Capacity in the Being an Applicant executor of Organisation the project

Organiser : Aberdeen Dragon Boat Race Committee - - - Aberdeen Dragon 10 Boat Race 2015 Co-organiser: Southern District Dragon Boat Racing Mrs. MAK TSE How-ling, Member No Committee Ada

71