(Translation)

Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the Community Affairs Committee of District Council (5th Term)

Date: 19 January 2016 (Tuesday) Time: 2:10 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Sham Shui Po District Council

Present

Chairman

Mr LEE Wing-man

Members

Mr CHAN Kwok-wai Mr CHAN Wai-ming, MH Ms CHAN Wing-yan, Joephy Mr CHENG Wing-shun, Vincent Mr CHEUNG Wing-sum, Ambrose, MH, JP Ms CHOW Wing-heng, Zoé Mr CHUM Tak-shing Mr HO Kai-ming, Kalvin Mr KONG Kwai-sang Mr LAM Ka-fai, Aaron, JP Ms LAU Pui-yuk Mr LEE Tsz-king, Dominic Mr LEUNG Man-kwong Mr LEUNG Yau-fong Ms NG Mei, Carman Ms NG Yuet-lan Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, MH, JP Mr WAI Woon-nam Mr WONG Tat-tung, Dennis, MH, JP Mr YAN Kai-wing Mr YEUNG Yuk (Left at 2:44 p.m.)

In Attendance Mr MOK Kwan-yu, Benjamin, JP District Officer (Sham Shui Po) Miss CHAN Pui-ki, Kiki Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 1 Mr WAI Chun-yin, Mickey Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2 Ms CHEUNG Ching, Jenny Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Sham Shui Po District Office Ms CHAN Tsz-yee, Emily Senior Liaison Officer 1, Sham Shui Po District Office Ms NG Suk-min, Min Senior Liaison Officer 3, Sham Shui Po District Office

- 2 - Action by

Ms IP Sau-hing Senior Community Relations Officer, Kowloon West Regional Office, Independent Commission Against Corruption Mr TANG Chi-sum, Terence Housing Manager (Kowloon West and ) 6, Housing Department Mr CHAN Wai-kwong Neighbourhood Police Coordinator, Sham Shui Po District, Hong Kong Police Force Ms LEUNG Mei-wah Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Sham Shui Po)2, Social Welfare Department Ms LEE Kar-mei, Camay District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms NG Sau-ling, Steffi Deputy District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po) District Support, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr CHEUNG Kwok-wai, Alex Senior Manager (Kowloon West/Cultural Services), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LAU Siu-mui, Lily Manager (Kowloon West) Marketing, Programme and District Activities, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Miss CHAN Wai-yam, Eunice Senior Librarian (Sham Shui Po), Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Secretary Miss YUEN Ka-man, Carmen Executive Officer (District Council) 2, Sham Shui Po District Office

- 3 - Action by

Opening Remarks

Mr Ambrose CHEUNG welcomed members to the first meeting of the Community Affairs Committee (“CAC”). He said that he would preside at the meeting until the Committee Chairman was elected, following which he would turn the meeting over to the newly-elected Chairman for the remaining agenda items.

Agenda Item 1: Election of Chairman of the Committee

2. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG asked the Secretary to report the nominations received at the close of the nomination period at 8:30 a.m.

3. The Secretary said that at the close of the nomination period at 8:30 a.m. today, the Secretariat had received one nomination form for the office of CAC Chairman. The candidate was Mr LEE Wing-man, whose nomination had been made by Mr YAN Kai-wing and seconded by Mr CHAN Wai-ming and Ms LAU Pui-yuk. In addition, after the close of the nomination period at 8:30 a.m. today, the Secretariat had received another nomination form for the office of CAC Chairman. The candidate was Mr KONG Kwai-sang, whose nomination had been made by Mr Kalvin HO and seconded by Mr YUEN Hoi-man and Mr TAM Kwok-kiu.

4. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG declared that only one nomination received was valid. Accordingly, he declared that Mr LEE Wing-man was elected as CAC Chairman.

5. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the guidelines clearly stated that the nomination closing time was one hour before the meeting started. The meeting time of CAC was scheduled for 11 a.m., and the nomination form was submitted more than one hour before the meeting started, thus he did not understand why the nomination was not accepted; (ii) the close of the nomination period at 8:30 a.m. should only apply to the first meeting.

6. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG thanked Mr Kalvin HO and noted his views.

7. Mr KONG Kwai-sang expressed regret over the decision of Mr Ambrose CHEUNG and his failure in clarifying the ambiguities in ordinances and regulations.

8. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) she expressed deep regret over the decision of Mr Ambrose CHEUNG; (ii) she remarked that Mr Ambrose CHEUNG had not fairly addressed the dissatisfaction towards him and the issue; (iii) she opposed the setting of nomination closing time for the office of the Committee Chairman at 8:30 a.m.; (iv) she requested that her views be put on record. - 4 - Action by

9. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) on behalf of the members from the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood, he reiterated that he was extremely dissatisfied with the legal advice from the Home Affairs Department (“HAD”) and the decision of Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, and requested that his views be put on record; (ii) he asked other members to express their views because in a democratic council, members should be perseverant rather than echoing others’ words.

10. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) the nomination closing time for the office of the Chairman was one hour before the meeting started. The meeting time of CAC was scheduled for 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The nomination of Mr KONG Kwai-sang had been submitted at 9:15 a.m., which was an hour and 45 minutes ahead of the scheduled meeting time, he queried why the nomination was invalid; (ii) he requested Mr Ambrose CHEUNG or the District Officer to address their request.

11. Ms Zoé CHOW raised the following views and requests: (i) she expressed regret and asked Mr Ambrose CHEUNG to address their request. She did not agree with the approach of putting the request on record without action; (ii) she wished to speak out and express views through participating in the District Council (“DC”). If views were put on record only, she remarked that she would feel guilty for the support from voters; (iii) she queried whether the nomination closing time was 8:30 a.m. or one hour before the meeting started. She hoped that DC would adopt a consistent approach in handling matters.

12. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views and enquiries: (i) they had submitted nomination forms for the office of chairmen of all committees at 9:15 a.m. It was still understandable why DC Chairman did not accept the first nomination form for the office of chairman. This meeting was scheduled for 11:00 a.m. and they had submitted the nomination form at 9:15 a.m. It was unreasonable if the nomination was deemed invalid. He hoped that Mr Ambrose CHEUNG could explain the reasons for the invalidity of the nomination, and the rationale for setting the nomination closing time at 8:30 a.m. in the notice; (ii) their nomination was in compliance with the relevant ordinance, guidelines and the procedure of submitting the nomination form one hour ahead of meeting; (iii) he requested Mr Ambrose CHEUNG to face up to the problem rather than “making compromise” by saying that he accepted views but indicated that their nomination was invalid. If their future nominations were deemed invalid, they would lose the opportunity to run for election; (iv) they were unable to control the election result, but it would be unreasonable if they were not given an opportunity to run for election. - 5 - Action by

13. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG clarified that he did not “make compromise”. Members were free to express their views and there was no need to speak on his behalf.

14. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu remarked that the minutes of every committee were independent from each other. Even though the query of a member raised at this meeting had been mentioned at a previous committee meeting, he still considered it necessary to make clarification again at the meeting so that the Secretary could allow the public to know members’ discussions at different committees through minutes writing in order to increase transparency.

15. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong proposed that the meeting be adjourned for 5 minutes to allow Mr Kalvin HO to prepare a provisional motion in order to express dissatisfaction and objection to the decision of DC Chairman, to the interpretation of the ordinance by the District Officer and the inconsistencies in their statements.

16. Mr Kalvin HO requested that the meeting be adjourned for 5 minutes to move a provisional motion.

17. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG declared the meeting adjourned for 5 minutes.

[The meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes.]

18. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG declared the meeting resumed, and said that he had received a provisional motion moved by Mr Kalvin HO and seconded by Mr LEUNG Yau-fong. He asked Mr Kalvin HO to introduce the motion.

19. Mr Kalvin HO moved a provisional motion that: “Objection is raised to the Chairman of District Council against his refusal of the nomination for election of the Committee Chairman under a rational, lawful and reasonable situation. The decision of the Chairman blatantly violates the District Councils Ordinance and the guidelines of the Home Affairs Department. The Chairman does not directly respond to the questions of Members. For example, he only says thank you for your views and putting on record. This Committee expresses extreme dissatisfaction and regret in this regard.”

20. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG added the following remarks: (i) there were a total of 22 CAC members. Mr YUEN Hoi-man did not join this Committee; (ii) a member had earlier said that some discussions and principles previously mentioned might be extracted in different minutes. From the perspective of meeting procedure, he did not object to providing an extract of the principles and views he had raised at previous meetings in the minutes of this Committee meeting; (iii) as regards a member’s statement on his failure to give direct response to certain questions, he said that the information concerned had been included in the meeting notice issued by the - 6 - Action by

Secretariat, including the meeting time and remarks, the time mentioned in paragraph 6 and the status of each committee in paragraph 7 for perusal and noting by members.

21. The District Officer added the following remarks: (i) he had explained the practice for election of committee chairmen, however, as the guidelines of HAD were mentioned in the motion, he had to make clarification again; (ii) the law provided that the election of DC Chairman and Vice-chairman shall adhere to the provisions in Schedule 5 to the District Councils Ordinance (“DCO”), which was also stated in the Sham Shui Po District Council Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”); (iii) in respect of the election of committee chairmen, Order 33(3) of the Standing Orders set out that: “A committee of DC was to elect a member of the committee who was also a Member of that Council, as the chairman of the committee”, but there was no mandatory provision to require the compliance with the practice in Schedule 5; (iv) after discussion between HAD and 18 District Officers, the closing time for nomination of DC Chairman and Vice-chairman was set at one hour before the meeting started, and DC had elected its Chairman and Vice-chairman in accordance with this procedure. With regard to this practice, HAD had solicited legal advice to ensure compliance with the requirements set out in Schedule 5 to DCO. As regards the Committee’s approach of adopting the same nomination closing time, he hereby clarified that it was not the requirement of HAD.

22. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the District Officer had reiterated the Government’s position. In short, the election of DC Chairman and Vice-chairman should comply with Section 65 of DCO, and be held in accordance with the procedure set out in Schedule 5. The District Officer’s statement implied that the election of Chairman and Vice-chairman held in early January might not comply with the law. Nevertheless, this was not the focus today, the issue should be addressed separately if required; (ii) just as what the District Officer said, the election of committee chairmen was held at the committee level, the approach, though similar to the election of DC Chairman and Vice-chairman, was not the same. He opined that the approaches for the two elections should be consistent; (iii) the election of committee chairmen should also comply with the law, because the Standing Orders should not exceed the scope of law and the Chairman also agreed to this point in the discussions at another committee meeting; (iv) he did not agree to DC Chairman’s refusal of the other valid nomination and queried whether DCO Section 65 and Schedule 5 were violated. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 stated that: “Nominations may be given at any time up to the time when the person presiding at the meeting calls for the closing of nominations.” He remarked that DC Chairman had not complied with the procedure of the aforesaid ordinance in conducting the election of the Committee Chairman, therefore he did not agree to the approach of DC Chairman.

23. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) on private building - 7 - Action by management, sometimes there might also be non-compliance with legislation, but after committee chairmen or other members had noted the issue, they would endeavour to prevent those circumstances from occurring or taking place. In this light, on the basis of the spirit and principle of the rule of law, he would stand firm on non-compliance issues. He quoted his own example of heading towards Diaoyu Islands to proclaim the territorial rights of China at the cost of his life and explained that it was necessary for him to prohibit the use of violence in the Chamber or a great force to curb local power by illegitimate, irrational and unreasonable means through collusion with Hong Kong Government; (ii) he questioned that DC Chairman had prevented them from running for the election of committee chairmen by administrative means; (iii) he did not agree to the interpretation of the legislation by the District Officer and the decision of DC Chairman. In order to uphold justice, he should solemnly point out that the procedure was unreasonable and violate the spirit of the ordinance, and supported the motion of Mr Kalvin HO; (iv) he emphasised that he did not provoke argument for the sake of argument, rather he should defend his principle.

24. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG made the following response to a member’s remark on his handling of meeting arrangements: (i) he did not agree that there was any breach of DCO in the meeting procedure today; (ii) he would not respond to the views or accusations against him one by one, but this did not mean that he had accepted those views; (iii) If members had any views on the legislation, Standing Orders, principles or voting procedure, they could raise their views through other different means.

25. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG said that the provisional motion moved by Mr Kalvin HO and seconded by Mr LEUNG Yau-fong was about to be dealt with and proposed voting by open ballot. Members did not raise any objection.

26. The Committee voted on the provisional motion moved by Mr Kalvin HO.

27. The voting result was as follows:

For: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu and Mr WAI Woon-nam (9)

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

Abstain: (0) - 8 - Action by

28. The Secretary announced the voting result: 9 members voted for the motion, 12 members voted against it and no member abstained. The Chairman announced that the provisional motion moved by Mr Kalvin HO was not carried.

(The meeting was then chaired by Mr LEE Wing-man in the capacity of CAC Chairman.)

Agenda Item 2: Endorsement of the structure and terms of reference of the Working Groups under the Committee (CAC Paper 1/16)

29. The Chairman invited members to express their views on the structure and terms of reference of the working groups under the Committee.

30. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) when the structure of DC was discussed at the first DC meeting, he opined that the terms of reference of the Working Group on Poverty Problems and Ethnic Minorities (“WGPPEM”) directly under DC were not consistent. Given that the focus of work for ethnic minorities and new arrivals should be put on integration and harmony, while poverty fell under the category of self-reliance, he proposed splitting it into two working groups; (ii) regarding the work for ethnic minorities and new arrivals, it was similar to the work of the Working Group on Elderly and Rehabilitation Services (“WGERS”) under CAC in form, the activities mainly involved publicity and education, which was more likely to be included in the structure of CAC; (iii) he opined that the structure and terms of reference of the working groups under the Committee should be referred to the Committee for consideration. With regard to his views on committee structure raised at the first DC meeting, he asked the Chairman whether it would be dealt with at this Committee meeting.

31. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views and suggestions: (i) at the first DC meeting, Members only endorsed the setting up of two working groups under DC. As regards WGPPEM, DC would first collect views from the public and local organisations for further discussion at the second DC meeting on 2 February; (ii) as local political platform would be discussed at the DC meeting on 2 February, he opined that it would be desirable to discuss it with the issue of WPGGEM; (iii) irrespective of whether a consensus would be reached by then, the issues could still be followed up at individual committee meetings.

32. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) at the first DC meeting, Members had clearly expressed their views on this issue. He enquired why the Secretariat had not been able to set out or extract relevant views for members’ discussion at this meeting and handling after a number of days; (ii) if the issue could only be dealt with at the next DC meeting or future DC meetings, there would be a delay; (iii) the structure of DC had a direct relationship with funding allocation. He - 9 - Action by enquired about the arrangements for funding allocation and terms of reference of this Committee if its structure was changed.

33. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) at the first DC meeting, in addition to the discussion of the terms of reference of WGPPEM, Members also suggested establishing a new committee to listen to local views. Therefore he considered it more appropriate to have a thorough discussion together at the second DC meeting. More public views could also be collected before the meeting; (ii) as regards funding arrangement, the second meetings of all committees would be held after 18 February. Even if there were any changes to the structure, the issue could still be discussed at the committee concerned before funding arrangement on 1 April.

34. Ms NG Yuet-lan remarked that if the issue on WGPPEM would only be discussed at the second DC meeting, she foresaw that many Members would participate in the discussion, resulting in a lengthy discussion. She enquired why members could not first discuss this issue at this Committee meeting if they agreed that there was a need to restructure WGPPEM.

35. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) when there was sufficient time, he did not object to extensive consultation; (ii) however, if the issue on the structure could be dealt with at the committee meeting in February, he queried why co-opted members in working groups were deprived of their right to vote given that there was sufficient time without affecting actual operation; (iii) the Chairman had the right to decide whether to discuss matters relevant to structure at this Committee meeting. As Members had proposed a discussion, he hoped that the Chairman could give consideration to that.

36. The Chairman responded as follows: (i) he agreed that members could discuss the structure. However, not all DC Members had joined CAC. If the discussion was held at a CAC meeting, some other Members were unable to participate in the discussion; (ii) the consensus reached at the first DC meeting was to discuss the restructuring of WGPPEM at the second DC meeting, therefore he considered it more appropriate to discuss the matter at DC meeting.

37. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) this Committee shared certain functions and responsibilities of DC, if WGPPEM was spilt into two, the new working group established after the split was likely to be included in the structure of this Committee. Therefore it was appropriate for this Committee to discuss that; (ii) the directions for poverty work and assistance to ethnic minorities and new arrivals would be different. The former aimed at eliminating poverty problems while the latter involved community education in promoting social integration, which was relevant to the terms of reference of this Committee, therefore it was appropriate to discuss the - 10 - Action by matter at this Committee meeting. But if the Chairman did not want to discuss it here, he would respect the decision of the Chairman.

38. The Chairman reiterated that he would prefer referring this matter to DC meeting for all Members to participate in the discussion, but he also kept an open mind and members could discuss this matter.

39. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) since the direction for discussion had been set at the previous DC meeting, the discussion should be able to be held at this meeting. There was no rule that said all DC Members should be present for discussion at the committee level; (ii) the Secretariat did not perform its duty to produce meeting minutes, nor did they extract the relevant points at the first DC meeting for members’ discussion at this meeting; (iii) since there was a clear view at the first DC meeting, he opined that the matter concerned should be discussed at this Committee meeting, otherwise he would move a motion to raise objection to its failure of discussion.

40. The District Officer responded as follows: (i) although the first DC minutes were not ready yet, the existing information showed that discussion on the structure and terms of reference of WGPPEM would be held at the next DC meeting as concluded at that meeting; (ii) it was the duty of the Secretariat to address the follow-up items raised by Members. The Secretariat had always been committed to their duties and would not make up excuses for any delay.

41. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu remarked that the current agenda item was to endorse the structure of the working groups under the Committee. This provided an opportunity for members to discuss the addition or reduction of working groups. He suggested that the Chairman should initiate discussion on this matter.

42. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) the Secretariat was required to deal with a large volume of Council business and unable to provide the minutes concerned at this meeting. He believed members would show their understanding; (ii) there were two main points on the discussion of the structure at the first DC meeting, the first was community views, the second was whether to split WGPPEM. At that time Members agreed to discuss the matter further at the second DC meeting, while advancing the meeting dates of all committees; (iii) even though the structure of working groups was endorsed right away, it did not mean that no change could be made in the future; (iv) if the structure was confirmed right now, but no decision could be made as to whether a committee or a split working group should listen to local views, it would be more appropriate to have a thorough discussion at the second DC meeting. - 11 - Action by

43. Mr Vincent CHENG said that as far as he understood, some of the non-governmental organisations participating in WGPPEM were also engaged in ethnic minority-related work. They opined that WGPPEM would be a suitable platform to carry out their work. If ethnic minority-related work was allocated to another working group, and that working group might not be of the same scale and have the same resources, they would have reservation over the change. In this regard, he shared the views of Mr Ambrose CHEUNG and opined that further decision could be made after listening to local views.

44. The Chairman added that DC Chairman had issued a paper to Members on 15 January to collect the views of various local organisations and the public. In the paper, it also mentioned that at the first DC meeting, Members had put forth their views on the structure of the Sham Shui Po District Council (“SSPDC”) of the fifth term, including the proposal of establishing a platform for local organisations and the public to express their views to DC on various issues as well as restructuring WGPPEM. Members also agreed that the matter would be further discussed at the second SSPDC meeting on 2 February 2016.

45. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and suggestions: (i) CAC focused on community participation, therefore he would not object to consulting stakeholders by DC Chairman, while he hoped that DC Chairman would not conduct selective consultation. As in the election of the Committee Chairman just then, some local organisations would have the opportunity to serve as co-opted members of the Committee, therefore he suggested the Chairman consider different approaches; (ii) the work on addressing poverty problems and dealing with issues of ethnic minorities and new arrivals was not commensurate. There might be a labelling effect if the same working group continued to work for those two groups of people; (iii) he received opinion, stating that if a working group could be established under this Committee to promote social integration of ethnic minorities and new arrivals, other local organisations not specialising in addressing poverty problems would be pleased to participate in the working group; (iv) the discussion today did not intend to do away with the discussion on 2 February. Despite whether a consensus was reached today, there could still be other views in the discussion by then; (v) he did not agree to the approach of the Chairman whereby the matter would be discussed at the next DC meeting in order to allow those Members not joining this Committee to participate in the discussion. He opined that this Committee could also address this issue and it was not necessary to make a decision through DC meeting.

46. The Chairman responded as follows: (i) as concluded in the previous DC meeting, the matter would be discussed at the next DC meeting. If the matter was discussed at this Committee meeting, Mr YUEN Hoi-man might not be able to express - 12 - Action by his views; (ii) he had an open mind for discussion of the matter at this meeting, the aforesaid was his views, not his decision.

47. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) at the previous DC meeting, a local organisation had already requested DC to increase transparency and community participation, and made specific suggestions on the form of participation. For example, a mechanism for participation in discussion should be put in place in every committee, or community participation was allowed by setting up a new committee. Nevertheless, at the previous DC meeting, there was no commitment to establishing a new committee or working group, and the terms of reference of all committees had not included the mechanism for community participation so far, nor was it discussed at the meeting today. He then queried that DC had no intention of establishing a new committee or setting up a mechanism for participation in discussion; (ii) DC should increase transparency and include the gist of the discussion at the previous DC meeting into the discussion of this Committee meeting. He queried whether DC Chairman and the Committee Chairman dragged on the issue.

48. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) the letter issued by DC Chairman to all Members on 15 January served as a follow up to the first DC meeting. Members could express their views over the Committee’s agenda items, but they should not assume that this item would not be brought up for discussion in future; (ii) the structure of the Committee could be determined through different levels of meetings and platforms and there was still room for discussion in future. He hoped that members could trust DC.

49. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and suggestions: (i) up to now, he did not observe that members had a strong trust on DC, therefore he could only exercise his judgment to express his views at meetings; (ii) poverty problems were an important issue in Sham Shui Po District but there were also many new arrivals and ethnic minorities living in the district. Therefore, he considered that a Working Group on Social Integration under CAC should be established, with its terms of reference including the promotion of social integration of ethnic minorities and new arrivals; (iii) as regards whether the restructuring of WGPPEM or changing its name and terms of reference was required, the issues could be discussed at the second DC meeting; (iv) agenda item 2 for this meeting was to endorse the structure and terms of reference of the working groups under the Committee, and hence the matter could be dealt with as soon as possible. Therefore it was appropriate to address this issue here.

50. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) the Working Group on Urban Revitalisation and Historic Buildings Conservation under the second-term DC was included in the Working Group on Private Premises due to resource constraints. - 13 - Action by

Over the years, not much resource had been allocated to the conservation of historical heritage and monuments as well as policy research and study on urban revitalisation; (ii) in fact, if there was an intention of setting up a working group, there would not be constraints on manpower and resources; (iii) at that time, he suggested a working group on poverty be set up, but the then Members indicated that there was no poverty problem in Sham Shui Po District. Finally WGPPEM was established. After its establishment, the Working Group had obtained considerable amount of resources which were allocated to associated organisations, but Members were not fully consulted on the use of resources; (iv) he queried the statement on revising the structure of the Committee in future. He opined that it would be difficult to make changes after endorsement.

51. The Chairman said that he would like to listen to members’ views on a member’s proposal of establishing the Working Group on Social Integration.

52. Mr Vincent CHENG said that he had an open mind on this issue and had also shown his concern. He suggested further discussion at the second DC meeting.

53. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views: (i) she agreed to collect more different views first for discussion at the second DC meeting, and further decide whether a working group should be set up under CAC; (ii) she was a member of the last-term WGPPEM. As poverty problems involved many aspects, she did not intend to label any group. As far as she understood, the scope of services of a number of local organisations were extensive, with service targets covering poor people, new arrivals, ethnic minorities or locally-born Hong Kong people, and their work would include poverty alleviation and promotion of social integration, therefore she considered that it would be appropriate to adopt the form of working group in the last term.

54. Mr WAI Woon-nam said that the issue of splitting WGPPEM had not yet been solved. He worried that there would not be sufficient time to discuss and deal with the issue in view of the considerable amount of Council businesses on 2 February, and the matter would be further delayed. In addition, he raised the following views and suggestions in respect of the terms of reference of the Vetting Sub-committee (“VSC”): (i) he suggested reviewing the priorities of funding applications, including funding allocation to organisations of different nature, and review reserved-funds activities; (ii) the procedures of vetting reimbursement claims after the completion of activities were complicated, organisations were required to make rounds of amendments for funding applications and funding reimbursements; (iii) VSC members did not take part in post-activity vetting procedures, he suggested that the reports submitted by the organisations could also be submitted to VSC for review after completion of the activities. - 14 - Action by

55. The Chairman responded as follows: (i) a member suggested establishing a Working Group on Social Integration under CAC, but there were also Members suggesting further discussion at the next DC meeting. Having regard to all views, he decided to discuss the matter at the second DC meeting for thorough discussion. Any follow-up items at that time could be discussed further at future meetings of the Committee; (ii) he suggested endorsing the structure and terms of reference of VSC and WGERS.

56. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views and suggestions: (i) he suggested including the authority to review or conduct a random check of activity reports in the terms of reference of VSC; (ii) the vetting standard of the Secretariat was not consistent, VSC should monitor the consistency of funding approval.

57. The Chairman responded as follows: (i) he agreed that attention would be required to address the complexity of funding application procedures; (ii) the existing terms of reference had already included activity funding allocation and vetting; (iii) the actual approach for monitoring could be discussed at future VSC meetings.

58. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and suggestions: (i) the current terms of reference could not reflect the problems in actual operation; (ii) he suggested specifying the monitoring function in the terms of reference of VSC; (iii) the monitoring function covered the activities approved by VSC, he suggested giving consideration to extending the monitoring function to all DC funds.

59. The Chairman quoted the terms of reference of VSC, among those, item 3 was: “To design/revise the application form of community building funds and reports of activities/programmes, if necessary.” In other words, VSC had the right to monitor the contents of activity reports.

60. The District Officer responded as follows: (i) he understood that local organisations might encounter problems in funding applications or submission of income and expenditure statement, but he hoped that members could bear in mind DC funds were public funds. For the use of public funds by any organisations, the Secretariat staff would vet the applications as per established procedure and basis in line with funding approval criteria and process the applications conscientiously. There was no inconsistency in processing; (ii) if the organisations had any enquiries on the guidelines in funding applications, the Secretariat and District Office staff would be pleased to explain. The Secretariat was duty-bound to ensure the proper use of public funds.

61. The Chairman said that the terms of reference had already included monitoring function, and the views would also be put on record for VSC Chairman, after being - 15 - Action by elected, to follow up.

62. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and suggestions: (i) the terms of reference of the working groups had to be determined now; (ii) he proposed adding “monitoring the use of funds” or similar wordings in the terms of reference of VSC.

63. The Chairman said that item 3 of the terms of reference had included monitoring function, as VSC had the right to design or revise activity reports.

64. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the terms of reference indicated administrative initiative to simplify procedure and provide convenience to subvented organisations, rather than activity monitoring; (ii) in the past, DC had arranged manpower to monitor those activities, but the current terms of reference did not reflect this function. He suggested revising the terms of reference to enable the public to know this duty of VSC.

65. The Chairman said that over the past four years, DC had monitored the activities and Members also took turn to attend the activities for monitoring purpose.

66. Mr CHUM Tak-shing said that as activity monitoring had long been carried out, this function should be supplemented in the terms of reference.

67. The District Officer added the following remarks: (i) if necessary, Members could refer to the application forms, income and expenditure statements and vouchers of DC-funded activities; (ii) in the past, DC had a mechanism to select activities for Members to take turn to monitor.

68. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong said that DC was monitoring DC-funded activities and might consider specifying the monitoring function in the terms of reference to allow the public to know more clearly about DC’s duties.

69. The Chairman proposed revising item 3 of the terms of reference of VSC as: “To design/revise the application form of community building funds and reports of activities/programmes and monitor activities sponsored by community involvement projects, if necessary.” No member raised objection. Members unanimously endorsed the structure and terms of reference of VSC and WGERS.

Agenda Item 3: Inviting Members to join the Working Groups

70. The Chairman said that the Secretariat would send a form after the meeting to invite Members to join working groups. He asked Members to submit the reply slip to the Secretariat on or before 22 January 2016 (Friday).

Agenda Item 4: Election of Chairmen of the Working Groups - 16 - Action by

71. The Chairman said that as in the practice of previous election arrangement, the election of chairmen of the working groups would be held by a show of hands, and invited members to nominate candidates for VSC Chairman.

72. Mr CHUM Tak-shing nominated Ms NG Yuet-lan as VSC Chairman, whose nomination was seconded by Ms Carman NG and Mr WAI Woon-nam. Ms NG Yuet-lan accepted the nomination.

73. Mr Aaron LAM nominated Mr LEE Wing-man as VSC Chairman, whose nomination was seconded by Ms LAU Pui-yuk and Mr CHAN Wai-ming. Mr LEE Wing-man accepted the nomination.

74. The Chairman said that a total of two nominations for VSC Chairman had been received, the candidates were Ms NG Yuet-lan and Mr LEE Wing-man.

75. Mr WAI Woon-nam suggested the Chairman ring the bell to notify members to return to the conference room for voting.

76. The Chairman said that the practice of the Committee would follow that of DC, but there was no such arrangement at DC meetings for the Committee to follow. If deemed necessary, members could reflect their views at DC meetings.

77. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong enquired about the quorum.

78. The Secretary said that the quorum was half of the total members of the Committee.

79. The Committee then conducted a voting for VSC Chairman by a simple show of hands and open ballot. The voting result was as follows:

Ms NG Yuet-lan: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu and Mr WAI Woon-nam (9)

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

Abstain: (0) - 17 - Action by

80. The Chairman announced that Mr LEE Wing-man had obtained an absolute majority of votes and was elected as VSC Chairman.

81. The Chairman then asked members to nominate candidates for WGERS Chairman.

82. Mr CHUM Tak-shing nominated Ms Carman NG for WGERS Chairman.

83. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that all the work would only be started after 18 February. This Committee focused more on community participation and what set it apart from other working groups was that it would accept co-opted members. Since a number of co-opted members might be interested in joining WGERS, he suggested holding the election of WGERS Chairman after the list of co-opted members was endorsed.

84. The Chairman responded as follows: (i) other working groups would also accept co-opted members; (ii) the co-opted members of committees were nominated by Members, while working groups would invite different local organisations to serve as members; (iii) he remarked that it would be more appropriate to hold the election of WGERS Chairman now.

85. The Chairman announced that the election of WGERS Chairman would continue. The candidate was Ms Carman NG, whose nomination was seconded by Mr KONG Kwai-sang and Mr WAI Woon-nam. Ms Carman NG accepted the nomination.

86. Mr Vincent CHENG nominated Mr CHAN Kwok-wai as WGERS Chairman, whose nomination was seconded by Mr LEUNG Man-kwong and Ms Joephy CHAN. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai accepted the nomination.

87. The Chairman said that a total of two nominations for WGERS Chairman had been received, the candidates were Ms Carman NG and Mr CHAN Kwok-wai.

88. The Committee subsequently conducted a voting for WGERS Chairman by a simple show of hands and open ballot. The voting result was as follows:

Ms Carman NG: Ms Zoé CHOW, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms Carman NG, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu and Mr WAI Woon-nam (9)

- 18 - Action by

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

Abstain: (0)

89. The Chairman announced that Mr CHAN Kwok-wai had obtained an absolute majority of votes and was elected as WGERS Chairman.

Agenda Item 5: Any other business

90. Members did not raise any other business.

Agenda Item 6: Date of next meeting

91. The next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 25 February 2016 (Thursday).

92. There being no other business, the meeting ended at 4:23 p.m.

District Council Secretariat Sham Shui Po District Office February 2016