(Translation)...Ms LEE Pik-yee, Peggy, MH Mr LEUNG Pak-kin Mr LI Wing-choi Mr WONG Wang-tai, Ivan,...

1

(Translation)

Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of the 6th Wan Chai District Council

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Date: 21 January 2020 (Tuesday)

Time: 2:30 p.m.

Venue: District Council Conference Room, Wan Chai District Office,

21/F Southorn Centre, 130 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, H.K.

Present

Chairperson

Miss YEUNG Suet-ying, Clarisse

Vice-Chairperson

Mr MAK King-sing

Members Ms CHAN Yuk-lam

Ms CHEUNG Clara

Ms KOO Kwok-wai, Sabina

Mr LAM Wai-man, Wind, Anson

Ms LAW Wai-shan, Susi

Ms LEE Pik-yee, Peggy, MH

Mr LEUNG Pak-kin

Mr LI Wing-choi

Mr WONG Wang-tai, Ivan, MH

Ms YAU Man-shan, Cathy

Representatives of Core Government Departments

Mr Rick CHAN, JP District Officer (Wan Chai), Home Affairs Department

Miss MAN Ching-in,

Vanessa

Assistant District Officer (Wan Chai), Home Affairs

Department

Miss CHAN Sum-yee, Rita Senior Liaison Officer (Community Affairs) , Home

Affairs Department

Ms SIN Po-king, Crystal Senior Liaison Officer (Building Management)3, Home

Affairs Department

Mr CHAN Sze-tat District Commander (Wan Chai District), Hong Kong

Police Force

Ms CHAN Sin-wern, Winnie Acting Police Community Relations Officer (Wan Chai

District), Hong Kong Police Force

Mr CHAN Lai-man Assistant Division Commander (Operation) (North

Point), Hong Kong Police Force

Miss YIP Hau-yu, Hannah District Social Welfare Officer (Eastern & Wan Chai),

Social Welfare Department

Ms YUNG Chi-wai, Esther Chief Engineer/ S4, Civil Engineering and Development

Department

Mr LAM Chi-ming, Kempis District Lands Officer/Hong Kong East (District Lands

2

Office, Hong Kong East), Lands Department

Mr LUK Chi-kwong Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East), Leisure and

Cultural Services Department

Ms LAM In-va, Eva District Leisure Manager (Wan Chai), Leisure and

Cultural Services Department

Mr LAU Chi-keung District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Wan

Chai), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Mr MOK Ying-kit, Kenneth Chief Transport Officer / Hong Kong, Transport

Department

Representatives of Other Government Departments and Organisations

Ms CHUNG Nga-chi,

Eugenia, JP

Assistant Director (2), Home Affairs Department

Mr TANG Siu-chung Engineer/Wan Chai 2, Transport Department

Absent with Apology

The Hon TSE Wai-chun, Paul, JP

Secretary

Ms WU Lai-shan, Alexandra Senior Executive Officer (District Council)/Wan Chai,

Home Affairs Department

Action

Opening Remarks

1. The Chairperson welcomed Members and representatives of

government departments to the 3rd meeting of the 6th Wan Chai District

Council (WCDC). She particularly extended her welcome to the

following government departmental representatives:

Hong Kong Police Force: Mr CHAN Sze-tat, District

Commander (Wan Chai

District)

Ms CHAN Sin-wern, Winnie,

Acting Police Community

Relations Officer (Wan Chai

District)

Mr CHAN Lai-man, Assistant

Division Commander

(Operation) (North Point)

Social Welfare

Department:

Miss YIP Hau-yu, Hannah,

District Social Welfare Officer

(Eastern & Wan Chai)

3

Action

Lands Department: Mr LAM Chi-ming, Kempis,

District Lands Officer/Hong

Kong East (District Lands

Office, Hong Kong East)

Transport Department: Mr MOK Ying-kit, Kenneth,

Chief Transport Officer/Hong

Kong

Civil Engineering and

Development Department:

Ms YUNG Chi-wai, Esther,

Chief Engineer/S4

Leisure and Cultural

Services Department:

Mr LUK Chi-kwong, Chief

Leisure Manager (Hong Kong

East)

Miss CHOW Yuen On, Alice,

Deputy District Leisure

Manager (Wan Chai)1

Food and Environmental

Hygiene Department:

Mr LAU Chi-keung, District

Environmental Hygiene

Superintendent (Wan Chai)

2. The Chairperson informed the meeting that the Hon Paul TSE

had notified the Secretariat prior to the meeting that he was unable to

attend the meeting since he was on a business trip.

3. The Chairperson invited Members to note the paper and revised

meeting agenda tabled at the meeting. Members would have two

rounds of 3-minute speaking time for each agenda item. Staff of the

District Council Secretariat would help time their speeches and ring the

bell once when the speech reached the 2-minute time limit. When it

reached the 3-minute time limit, the bell would be rung twice.

Item 1: List of Government Representatives of WCDC

(WCDC Paper No. 1/2020)

4. The Chairperson referred Members’ attention to WCDC Paper

No. 1/2020 and the list in its Annex, which set out the government

representatives who attended the meetings of the previous-term Wan

Chai District Council (WCDC). The Chairperson said that when

necessary, the Secretariat would invite relevant government departments

to attend the discussions on individual agenda items.

5. The Chairperson invited Members to put forward their views

and questions on the aforesaid list and arrangement.

6. Ms Peggy LEE made the following comments and enquiries:

4

Action

(i) She agreed that the 14 departmental representatives on the

aforesaid list should be retained. She added that in the

past several terms of the District Council (DC), both the

Buildings Department (BD) and Highways Department

(HyD) did not send any representatives to answer

Members’ questions at Council meetings.

(ii) She pointed out that HyD was responsible for repairing

road-side railings, lamp posts and brick pavements, and

Members would often discuss items related to these

matters at Council meetings, yet the department never sent

along any representatives, thus making Members unable

to monitor the latest situations. She therefore advised the

Chairperson to consider the idea of writing to HyD,

inviting it to join the aforesaid list of government

representatives.

(iii) She also pointed out that Members would often discuss

issues like unauthorised building structures and building

maintenance/repairs at Council meetings. Such

discussions would often touch upon BD’s internal

regulations. She therefore hoped that BD could assign a

representative to answer related questions at Council

meetings. Besides, she also proposed that the Joint

Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints

should send a representative to Council meetings for

answering Members’ questions about water seepage in

buildings. She therefore advised the Chairperson to

consider the idea of writing to BD, inviting it to join the

aforesaid list of government representatives.

7. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam made the following comments and

enquiries:

(i) She agreed with Ms Peggy LAM that HyD and BD should

be invited to join the aforesaid list of government

representatives. She also proposed inviting the

Department of Health (DH) to join the list. She

explained that DH was in charge of the Centre for Health

Protection, so in case of any epidemic outbreak in Hong

Kong, the DH representative attending a Council meeting

could quickly announce and explain to the public all the

anti-epidemic measures taken, the latest facts about border

quarantine and any related epidemiology information.

Members could then disseminate the messages concerned

throughout their respective constituencies to help residents

combat the sudden epidemic outbreak.

5

Action

(ii) She pointed out that dengue fever was a common

mosquito-borne disease in summer, so she hoped that DH

could provide some relevant statistics and conduct case

studies in conjunction with the Food and Environmental

Hygiene Department (FEHD). She added that DH was

responsible for formulating policies and administrative

measures on public health, so a permanent DH

representative on Council meetings could actually answer

the questions raised by Members on public health issues,

such as the number of dementia patients in Hong Kong

and how DH had been supporting the services of the

Social Welfare Department. Such statistics were very

important, as they were needed by Members for reviews

and studies. She therefore hoped that there could be a

permanent DH representative on Council meetings.

8. The Chairperson asked other Members if they had any other

comments to add.

9. Mr Ivan WONG raised a question on the agenda of this meeting,

pointing out that it did not include the item “Confirmation of Minutes of

Meeting”. He enquired if it was necessary for this meeting to confirm

the minutes of the last meeting.

10. The Chairperson asked the Secretary to answer Mr Ivan

WONG’s question.

11. The Secretary said that the first and second meetings of the

District Council were held on 7 January. The Secretariat was in the

process of preparing the minutes of these meetings and would later

disseminate the draft minutes to Members via emails. After Members

had put forward their amendments, the minutes concerned could be ready

for confirmation in the next Council meeting.

12. Mr Ivan WONG made the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He said that the missing of “Confirmation of Minutes of

Meeting” from the agenda was a rare occurrence in the

past. He pointed out that this agenda item was extremely

important because access to the minutes of the previous

meeting could enable Members at a meeting to avoid

repetitive discussions on the same agenda topics.

Moreover, from the minutes concerned, Members could

also get an idea of the discussions in the previous meeting

and follow up the issues appropriately. He said that if

Members had to hold a meeting without the minutes of the

previous meeting, time might be wasted on repetitive

discussions on the same agenda items. He added that

6

Action

Members might also need to read the minutes concerned

in order to decide which topics would need follow-up or

more discussions in the following meeting. Describing

the experience this time as unsatisfactory, he requested the

Chairperson and the Secretary to look into the matter

seriously, so as to avoid its recurrence in the future.

(ii) He advised the Chairperson that when setting dates of

meetings, care must be taken to ensure that the Secretariat

could always have sufficient time to compile the minutes

of the previous meeting. He added that the experience

this time was not satisfactory, so this Council meeting was

rendered unable to achieve its aim of following up various

items of discussion, and its efficiency of solving problems

was reduced accordingly. He hoped that nothing like this

would happen again.

(iii) He advised the Chairperson to convene Council meetings

in accordance with the established schedule and avoid

holding frequent special meetings. He also hoped that

the Chairperson could adhere strictly to the rules

governing DC meetings, not least because most Members

in this term of the Council were first-timers. He said that

the Chairperson could surely be innovative as long as the

new rules she introduced were suitable for this term of the

DC. But before better alternatives were available, the

Chairperson should not lightly alter the existing rules and

practices.

13. The Chairperson asked other Members if they had any

comments to add.

14. Ms Susi LAW proposed that there should be a permanent

representative of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) on

Council meetings. She said that waste recycling was an issue of great

public concern these days and a Community Green Station would soon

be set up in Wan Chai. As she wished to get the latest information

about waste recycling, she would propose a permanent EPD

representative at Council meetings.

15. The Chairperson made the following comments:

(i) She made some additional remarks concerning the list of

government representatives. She proposed that the

Planning Department (PD) should also be asked to join the

list. She said that one main task of PD was to follow up

the urban renewal projects in different districts, and as a

district with many buildings pending demolition, Wan

Chai must face and tackle many related problems. She

7

Action

therefore hoped that the liaison and cooperation between

the Government and the DC could be strengthened. She

requested the Secretary to invite government departments

to assign representatives to attend DC meetings as

proposed above.

(ii) She said that she noted Mr Ivan WONG’s comments on

Council procedure and would request the Secretary to

compile the minutes of meeting in good time before the

next meeting. She also proposed the addition of one

agenda item on reviewing the Standing Orders at the next

meeting. She hoped that Members could voice their

views actively.

16. The Chairperson said that if Members had no more comments,

she would announce the end of discussions on this agenda item.

Item 2: Papers Commonly Used by WCDC 2:35 pm－3:15 pm

Papers Commonly Used by WCDC

(i) WCDC Standing Orders (40 minutes)

(Including Code of Conduct for Members of WCDC and

its Committees)

(ii) Guidelines on the Use of WCDC Funds


17. The Chairperson referred Members’ attention to Paper No.

2/2020 and briefed the meeting as follows:

(i) The Home Affairs Department (HAD) would issue the

model text of District Council Standing Orders (the model

text) to all the DCs at the beginning of each new term.

In response to the recommendations on the management

of conflicts of interest in community involvement projects

made in the Director of Audit’s Report No. 68,

amendments had been made to those model text

provisions concerning the arrangements for declaration of

interests and the management of conflicts of interests

involving the working groups under a DC. According to

the usual practice, the Secretariat had made a number of

proposed amendments to the Standing Orders of WCDC

based on the latest model text released by HAD.

Members could refer to Annex III for details.

(ii) Since their establishment, DCs had been allocated annual

government funding for taking forward their community

involvement projects. Based on the guidelines issued by

HAD, and having regard to past experience and the actual

statistics of funding application and usage, WCDC had

compiled the Guidelines on the Use of WCDC Funds (the

Guidelines). The Guidelines specified the scope of

8

Action

community involvement projects that could be funded by

WCDC, the eligibility requirements, the funding ceiling

per application, the number of applications allowed for

one organisation, the application and vetting procedures,

and the rules of funding usage. For the time being, the

current-term WCDC would continue to handle funding

applications from organisations under the Guidelines

drawn up by its predecessor.

18. The Chairperson asked Members to put forward opinions and

questions on the Standing Orders of WCDC and the Guidelines.

19. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin said that he would like to propose certain

amendments to the Standing Orders, remarking that he and two other

Members had put forward a written motion on deleting from the

Standing Orders those provisions on Co-opted Members. Besides,

since he also proposed the abolition of proxy in voting, he asked if these

two amendment proposals could be discussed together under this agenda

item.

20. The Chairperson responded as follows:

(i) In addition to Mr LEUNG Pak-kin’s two proposals, she

would also like to offer some advice to the District Office.

Right after the commencement of the new term, she

already submitted to the Secretariat a paper containing

proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. For the

moment, she would just put forward some initial thoughts

pending follow-up by the Funding and General Affairs

Committee (FGAC) after its establishment.

(ii) Her proposals included: recording speakers’

names/designations in minutes of meetings; verbatim

records of Council/Committee meetings upon request by

one or more Members; adopting the format of concise

minutes to standardise the writing of meeting records,

rather than merely setting out the final decisions made;

bilingual versions for minutes of meetings; mandatory

presentation of any circularised papers at formal meetings

in case of any opposition to them from Members, rather

than taking their passage for granted; live broadcast of

meetings; submission of relevant papers by government

departments at least three working days before a meeting,

failing which the deletion of the relevant agenda item

might result; the Secretariat’s uploading of the audio

recording and minutes of a meeting to the Council’s

website respectively on the day following the meeting and

within the ensuing three days; amending the Chinese term

“會議記錄” (minutes of meeting) to read “會議紀

9

Action

錄” ; and deleting from the Standing Orders those

provisions on “co-opted membership” and proxy in

voting.

21. Mr Ivan WONG wished to ascertain whether the last Council

meeting had already approved the abolition of “Co-opted membership”

and proxy in voting. He added that some Members were not present at

the second Council meeting either because they did not know it would be

held all of a sudden right after the first Council meeting, or because they

perhaps had other pre-arranged schedules to keep. He therefore

enquired whether the proposed abolition was still awaiting passage at

this meeting; whether it had already been passed at the second Council

meeting held suddenly at short notice; and whether the passage or

otherwise of this agenda item would still need further discussions at this

meeting. He said that he could not make any judgment as he had not

received the minutes of the last Council meeting and could only make

guesses based on common sense. He hoped the Chairperson could give

more background information.

22. Mr LI Wing-choi proposed that the method of computing

Members’ attendance rates set out in the model text should be amended

to include certain additional requirements. For instance, a minimum

attendance of more than half of a meeting’s duration should be required

for a Member to be regarded as having attended the meeting. He

pointed out that there had been many past cases where a Member was

already regarded as having attended a Council meeting after showing up

for just several minutes. He therefore proposed that amendments

should be made.

23. Ms Clara CHEUNG expressed her strong approval of the

Chairperson’s proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. Noting

that the paper did not contain the relevant appendix, she enquired if a

copy of it could be provided to Members for reference. She also said

that as she could not hear the discussion clear enough, she was unable to

grasp the picture fully.

24. The Chairperson said that the purpose of holding the discussion

just then was to collect Members’ opinions. The Secretary would

collate their views and refer them to FGAC for discussion at its next

meeting. This meant that the present discussion was not meant to draw

any conclusion as such. It was just meant to elicit views and opinions

from individual Members. Their views would later be referred to

FGAC, which would vote on the acceptance or otherwise of the various

proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. Also, regarding Mr Ivan

WONG’s question as to whether the abolition of co-opted membership

had already been passed, she pointed out that a written motion on this

issue had been received by this meeting, and the last meeting was

convened with the approval of more than half of the Members as required

under Order 8 of the WCDC Standing Orders. At the last meeting,

10

Action

some Members present proposed that voting on all the relevant motions

should be deferred until this present meeting.

25. The Chairperson announced the start of the second round of

discussion and invited Members to give their advice on refining the

WCDC Standing Orders.

26. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin said that under the Standing Orders, voting

was in the form of an anonymous show of hands. But he proposed that

in case of any major issues, the DC should copy the practice of the

Legislative Council (LegCo), meaning that recorded voting would be

adopted if a request was made by one Member and seconded by another.

27. The Chairperson invited the Secretary to describe the past DC

mechanism in this regard and explain whether this mechanism was

provided for in the Standing Orders.

28. The Secretary replied that under Order 32 of the Standing

Orders, where a motion or an item was to be decided by ballot, the

Chairperson would determine in the light of the views of the majority of

Members present whether the voting should be taken by secret ballot or

by a show of hands. Motions in the previous term of the DC were all

decided by a show of hands in the form of recorded voting, meaning that

all the ayes, nays and abstentions were clearly recorded in the minutes of

meeting together with the names of the Members concerned. She added

that the Chairperson and Members could hold their own discussions on

whether motions and other items were to be decided similarly by

recorded voting in this term of the DC.

29. The Chairperson proposed that the issue be referred to FGAC

for further deliberation. The Chairperson added that while she wanted

to collect Members’ views on the WCDC Standing Orders, she also

hoped that Members could give their advice on the Guidelines. But in

case Members did not have any further opinions at the moment, she

would propose that the matter be referred to the relevant committee for

follow-up.

30. Ms Peggy LEE enquired whether it was absolutely necessary for Members to put forward their proposed amendments at this meeting. Could discussions be deferred, she wondered, until FGAC met? Or, was it in fact mandatory to raise the proposals for discussions in this meeting before referral to FGAC? She wished to clarify which should be the case.

31. The Chairperson said that Members were supposed to put forward some initial ideas in this meeting; the Secretary would record the proposals and refer them to FGAC for discussions at length. Members of FGAC, naturally, could offer further advice in the meetings of the committee, so as to refine the WCDC Standing Orders and the

11

Action Guidelines. 32. Ms Clara CHEUNG proposed an upward adjustment of the sponsorship ceiling for each community involvement project. She considered that the existing ceiling of $10,000 was hardly enough even for a medium-sized project. She thus hoped that discussions could be held and an adjustment made in ensuing meetings.

33. Mr Ivan WONG asked whether the decisions of FGAC would be final, and whether the amendments passed by the committee must still be raised in a Council meeting for approval.

34. The Chairperson asked the Secretary to put Ms Clara CHEUNG’s proposal on record. In response to Mr Ivan WONG’s question, she said that the outcome of Members’ discussion in the committee must be raised in a Council meeting for voting before it could be passed. She asked Members to consider two proposals. The first proposal was to authorise the committee responsible for the domestic affairs of WCDC to follow up the work of amending the WCDC Standing Orders and make amendment recommendations to WCDC for approval and adoption. In the meantime, the Standing Orders of the 5th WCDC would remain in force pending the completion of the amendment exercise. The second proposal was to authorise the committee responsible for funding affairs to review the Guidelines and make amendment recommendations to WCDC for approval and adoption. In the meantime, the Guidelines adopted by the previous-term WCDC would remain in force pending the completion of the review.

35. There being no objection from the Members present, the

Chairperson announced that the two aforesaid proposals were passed.

Item 3:

Establishment of Wan Chai District Council Committees

and review of their compositions


Item 4:

Written motion: Request WCDC for the cancellation of

appointments of “Co-opted Members”


36. The Chairperson proposed holding a joint discussion on Item 3

(Establishment of Wan Chai District Council Committees and review of

their compositions) and Item 4 (Written motion: Request WCDC for the

cancellation of appointments of “Co-opted Members”). Saying that

these two items were in fact inter-related, she asked Members if they

agreed to hold a joint discussion on them. There being no objection

from Members, The Chairperson proposed that Paper No. 3/2020 be

discussed first.

37. The Chairperson said that totally six committees were

established under the previous-term DC to assist it in the execution of its

duties. They were the Community Building and Housing Affairs

12

Action

Committee (CBHAC), the Cultural and Leisure Services Committee

(CLSC), the District Works and Facilities Management Committee

(DWFMC), the Development, Planning and Transport Committee

(DPTC), the Food and Environmental Hygiene Committee (FEHC), and

the FGAC. The Chairperson said that for the respective terms of

reference of these committees, Members could refer to Appendix A(1) to

(6) to the paper. She asked Members whether they would agree to the

establishment of these committees under the current-term DC and said

that they were welcome to offer their advice.

38. Mr Anson LAM said that since DPTC started its meetings at

2:30 p.m. in the last term, members of the committee often could not

have enough time to deal with agenda items like written motions. He

proposed that in this term, DPTC should start its meetings earlier, say, at

10 a.m.. He said that in the last term, the committee’s meetings started

at 2:30 p.m. and would not usually end until 7 p.m. or 8 p.m.. As some

Members might need to leave due to their commitment to district affairs

or meetings of owners’ corporations, the committee had abort its

meetings every now and then.

39. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam raised the following comments and

enquiry:

(i) She would like to give her views on the terms of

reference of DWFMC. She proposed adding

“formulation of district minor works” to its terms of

reference. This would empower Members to revise the

contents of district minor works projects. When

Members or residents proposed the construction of any

district facilities, the committee could, for instance, ask

for the introduction of public engagement in the form of

street booths or workshops for residents. She pointed

out that many a time in the past, residents were not

aware that the DC had allocated funding for a district

facilities project until after its completion, and only to

find that these facilities could not always benefit them.

(ii) She proposed that the Committee should draw up a

master consultancy contract for all related and similar

works projects in the district for signing by the District

Office, so as to expedite works progress and avoid waste

of time and resources.

(iii) She considered that all district minor works projects

should not be finalised until the committee had given its

advice on their designs, exteriors and functions. She

remarked that there had been many defective projects,

one example being rain shelters that could not serve the

avowed purpose. She hoped that such projects would

13

Action

appear no more. She proposed that DWFMC should

inspect all the district minor works projects in the district

and forward the findings to the District Office for

information.

40. Ms Peggy LEE made the following comments and enquiry:

(i) She said that the item she was about to discuss could in

fact be deferred until the discussion on Item 5. She

shared Mr Anson LAM’s comments on the meeting

commencement time for DPTC in the last term of

WCDC.

(ii) She pointed out that in the last term, DPTC were the last

to meet in the meeting schedule for all the committees,

with the result that it could have no more time for a

special meeting before the recess. She therefore

advised the Chairperson to place it at the top of the

meeting schedule in this term. She pointed out that

DPTC was the one committee with the most voluminous

agenda among all the six committees, and the planning

and development items on its agenda would have direct

bearing on the district. She added that the items to be

discussed at the meetings of CBHAC and also CLSC in

July were quite straightforward. In contrast, DPTC

could resume its discussion on development and

planning items only after the one-month recess, thus

slowing down the progress of the various projects. She

agreed with the Chairperson that planning applications

could ill-afford any delay. As each project would need

roughly five weeks for consultation, much time of

planning applications would be wasted if no meeting

could be convened before the recess.

41. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin proposed the establishment of a working

group under the committees for the purpose of discussing ways of

improving community participation and creating more channels for the

public to voice their views in the committees. He enquired if he could

move, at this meeting, a motion on creating the proposed working group

under DPTC. If this was not possible, he could raise the proposal for

discussion in the next meeting of FGAC.

42. Mr Ivan WONG agreed with Mr LEUNG Pak-kin that Members

could not possibly have enough time in Council meetings to discuss the

compositions of its committees, their meeting dates and workings. He

referred to a Member’s proposal of conducting consultation before the

implementation of any initiatives, and commented that public

consultation was quite a slippery notion whose elusiveness could be

compounded by many other associated concepts such as participation by

14

Action

all and public engagement. It would be no simple process to convince

the public that the proposals made in the DC were founded on ample

public consultation. He also had doubts about the actual

implementation of public consultation, as the definition of this notion

would often vary from person to person. In the case of street

interviews, for example, he questioned how large the sample size should

be before the interviews could be called full-scale public consultation.

He repeated that public consultation was itself quite a slippery notion.

He once again expressed his agreement to Mr LEUNG Pak-kin’s

proposal of setting up a working group under the committees to discuss

the technicalities of implementing participation by all and public

consultation. He went on to say that as a DC Member who had

discussed the definition of public consultation many times over the past

16 years of his career, he, for one, would also like to set up a working

group, so that he and other Members could put their heads together in

exploring how public consultation could be put into practice.

43. Ms Susi LAW said that she wished to give some advice on

CLSC. She pointed out that the committee had been organising very

similar activities every year. She thus hoped that its members could

review the contents of past activities, with a view to upgrading the

quality of the activities to be held in this term. She also said that there

was a permanent team of advisers and professionals under the Hong

Kong Arts Development Council (HKADC) to assist it in vetting cultural

and leisure projects. She hoped that CLSC could draw on the

experience of HKADC and put in place a similar mechanism for enlisting

the advice of arts professionals on its activities, with a view to making

its cultural activities more variegated.

44. Ms Clara CHEUNG made the following comments and enquiry:

(i) She agreed to Ms Susi LAW’s proposal of enlisting

professional arts groups to bring in expert opinions on the

committee’s community activities. She also supported

the proposal of Mr Ivan WONG and Mr LEUNG Pak-kin

that a working group should be established to conduct a

review or devise a mechanism for formulating the policy

and strategy of the DC on realising participation by all.

She also wished to invite people from different

professional sectors to participate in the working group’s

discussion on the strategy of taking forward public

consultation.

(ii) She shared Mr Anson LAM’s earlier view that DPTC

often had to hold protracted meetings in the last term.

She pointed out at the same time that some of the items

discussed by the committee were in fact related to

environmental protection, so she proposed that such items

be regrouped under the agenda of FEHC. She also

15

Action

opined that as FEHC could actually join hands with EPD

in many aspects of its work, all these measures could

hopefully ease the shortage of meeting time faced by

DPTC.

45. The Vice-Chairperson made the following comments and

enquiry:

(i) He agreed to the proposal of Mr LEUNG Pak-kin and Mr

Ivan WONG to invite members of the public to take part

in the work of the various committees under WCDC as a

further step to achieve the openness of the DC’s operation.

That said, he queried the proposal of establishing a new

working group under DPTC, arguing that the ideas

discussed by the two Members earlier, such as the holding

of public hearings and the enlistment of community

figures to offer advice on the functions of the various DC

committees, could in fact be the functions of the proposed

working group on openness of the DC. He added that

this proposal should be dealt with when discussing Item 6

on the agenda of this meeting, which touched precisely

upon the establishment of a working group dedicated to

openness of the DC.

(ii) He went on to discuss CBHAC, remarking that its work

also involved matters like social enterprises and civic

education. He then offered his advice, pointing out that

no committee had ever been set up under the DC to deal

with matters related to cooperation with innovation and

technology enterprises. He hoped that CBHAC could

incorporate this into its terms of reference.

46. The Chairperson made the following comments and enquiry:

(i) She agreed with Ms Clara CHEUNG that environmental

issues should be incorporated into the terms of reference

of FEHC. She remarked that all the environmental issues

raised and discussed by the DC in the last term were

spread across the various committees. She thus hoped

that environmental issues could be incorporated into the

terms of reference of FEHC.

(ii) She hoped that after establishment, CLSC could approach

various statutory organizations or bodies like HKADC and

request the permanent attendance of their representatives

at its meetings. She also hoped that other committees

could likewise enlist relevant organisations or bodies as

their partners of work. Members could also make

recommendations on inviting suitable organisations to

16

Action

participate in DC discussions when necessary.

(iii) She approved of Ms CHAN Yuk-lam’s observation,

agreeing that many minor works projects in the district

indeed could not answer the needs of residents.

Remarking that the notion of public consultation had been

put forward just as a mere first step to achieve openness of

the DC, she urged Mr Ivan WONG to join the working

group under DPTC, so that he could give advice on

openness of the DC with his 16 years of experience. She

also hoped that other Members could likewise participate

actively in all discussions. She explained that Members

would need to join hands with the community if the DC

was to achieve true openness and stay abreast of people’s

aspirations.

(iv) She remarked that Members had had quite a variegated

discussion. On the establishment and adoption of the

various committees, she hoped that Members could

thoroughly discuss the technicalities involved. As

regards Members’ earlier proposals on CBHAC, she

requested the Secretary to do a recap to see if there were

any clashes.

47. The Secretary said that the Vice-Chairperson had offered his

advice on CBHAC, proposing that innovation and technology be

incorporated into the committee’s terms of reference.

48. The Chairperson asked Members if they had any further

comments on the establishment of CBHAC.

49. Mr Ivan WONG advised Members not to be so particular about

the naming of the committees. He pointed out that by nature, the

various items discussed in the DC would often cut across several

different committees, with the result that no one single committee could

possibly confine itself to one single area. FEHC, for example, must

naturally deal with food and environmental hygiene issues, but this did

not preclude its discussion of environmental strategies. As all the topics

discussed in the DC tended to be inter-related, instances of one single

committee following through one individual topic were extremely rare;

the closest semblance of this was when a committee having a larger

involvement in the issue took up the leading role. He stressed that the

various committees had never been like independent realms, because a

topic discussed by one committee would often cut across the portfolios of

several others. One example was the improvement project launched

under Canal Road Flyover many years before. As an undertaking

involving multiple areas ranging from culture and street cleanliness to

high technologies, the project actually cut across the portfolios of several

different committees. He thus thought that Members did not need to be

17

Action

so particular about naming. The main purpose of the committee system,

he believed, was to ensure as much as possible that Members could

discuss the various outstanding problems in our society and individual

committees could lead the efforts to resolve them. The implementation

of required measures would inevitably touch upon the terms of reference

of multiple committees. He hoped Members could be clear about this in

the very first place.

50. The Chairperson asked Members to voice their views on the

establishment of the aforesaid committee. There being no objection,

she announced the setting up of CBHAC. She added that Members

likewise had no objection to the establishment of CLSC. She said she

would then read out the names of the other committees. Members

could make a request should they want to make any further comments.

51. The Chairperson formally announced the establishment of

DWFMC and DPTC.

52. The Chairperson pointed out that a Member had proposed the

inclusion of environmental issues in agenda of FEHC. She enquired

whether Members would want to vote on the proposal.

53. The Secretary said that a Member had proposed the inclusion of

environmental issues in the terms of reference of FEHC. She asked the

Chairperson whether it was her decision to defer voting on the

committee’s name until after it had been set up.

54. The Chairperson said that Ms Clara CHEUNG had proposed the

inclusion of environmental issues in the terms of reference of FEHC.

She asked whether Members would agree to add some environmental

references to the committee’s name, changing it to, say, Food and

Environmental Hygiene and Protection Committee.

55. Mr Anson LAM approved of the inclusion of environmental

issues in the terms of reference of FEHC. However, he remarked that

the existing name was already good enough and no change of name was

necessary, as references to environmental protection were already

present.

56. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin suggested that the question of name change

should be discussed by the committee’s members when they met.

There was no need for any voting at this meeting.

57. Mr Ivan WONG remarked that as a name, “Food and

Environmental Hygiene Committee” already implied the inclusion of

environmental issues. He instead suggested that there should be a

standing invitee or representative from EPD at the committee’s meetings.

He pointed out that environmental protection was often about

environmental pollution and noise pollution, so if there was no

18

Action

departmental representative at the committee’s meetings, all would just

be like old wine in a new bottle. He remarked that the committee had

always been involved in environmental protection. He suggested that if

Members really wanted to highlight environmental protection as a new

concern of the committee, they should include noise pollution and other

like issues in the agenda and invite the department to send a permanent

representative to the committee’s meetings.

58. Ms Clara CHEUNG said that the original intent was to make

concise reference to environmental protection in the terms of reference of

the FEHC. She agreed to Mr Ivan WONG’s proposal of inviting

relevant government officials to participate in the committee’s

discussions. In this way, whether the committee’s name was to be

changed would not matter so much.

59. Ms Sabina KOO proposed that as Members had all highlighted

the significance of environmental issues, environmental concerns should

be added to the terms of reference of all the six committees. She also

advocated the establishment of a sustainable community development

committee comprising members from the environmental protection

sector, relevant professions and the innovation and technology industry

She added that such a committee would be of great help to the long-term

development of the district.

60. The Chairperson invited the Secretary to explain the standing

orders pertaining to the establishment of committees.

61. The Secretary said that under Order 33(1) of the WCDC

Standing Orders, WCDC might appoint committees for the purpose of

carrying out its functions and might delegate any of its functions to a

committee. Under Order 33(2), WCDC should determine the

membership, terms of reference and tenure of office of its committees,

and the total number of committees under the Council should be between

four and seven.

62. The Chairperson thanked the Secretary for her explanation.

She then invited Ms Peggy LEE to speak.

63. Ms Peggy LEE agreed that there was no need to change the

committee’s name. She pointed out that the existing terms of reference

of FEHC actually covered a wide range of areas such as healthcare

policies and liquor licensing. If the full range of areas mentioned in the

terms of reference was to be included in the committee’s name, it would

have to be very long. She opined that what should be done was just to

mention in the terms of reference that environmental protection would be

one of the issues to be followed up by the committee, and in this way, its

existing name could be retained.

64. In response to Ms Sabina KOO’s enquiry, the Chairperson

19

Action

replied that a maximum of seven committees could be appointed under

the DC. Hence, the need for establishing one more committee could be

examined after the establishment of the six standing committees.

65. The Chairperson announced that reference to environmental

protection would be added to the terms of reference of FEHC, and

officials from EPD would be invited to attend the committee’s meetings.

She then enquired whether Members would endorse the appointment of

FGAC. There being no objection from Members, the Chairperson

formally announced that the six committees as aforesaid would be

appointed under the current-term DC.

66. The Chairperson asked Secretariat staff to distribute enrolment

forms to Members. She also informed Members that if they wished to

join any of these committees, they could fill out the relevant enrolment

forms. Secretariat staff would later collect the completed forms, and

she would read out the membership list of each committee. She added

that as the Hon Paul TSE could not attend this meeting, Secretariat staff

would contact him on this matter after the meeting.

67. The Chairperson went on to point out that the previous-term DC

once made a decision whereby community figures or representatives of

local organisations who were not DC Members could be appointed to the

committees under the DC as co-opted members for the purpose of

assisting them in carrying out their functions. She said that under the

decision, each Member could nomine one co-opted member and give a

recommendation on which committee the nominee was to join; each

co-opted member could serve on only one committee, and the number of

co-opted members appointed in each committee must not exceed half of

the number of members of the committee. In case there were too many

recommendations for a particular committee, Members would make a

decision by voting. Also, the chairpersons, vice-chairpersons and

co-opted members of the various committees under the previous-term

DC all had a tenure of two years, and co-opted members were all

appointed by FGAC. The Chairperson asked Members to express their

opinions on whether a two-year tenure should continue to be adopted for

the chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of the committees.

68. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin raised a point of order. He remarked that

Members had not yet discussed Item 4 about the written motion on the

cancellation of appointments of “Co-opted Members”. He pointed out

that in order not to waste any time, the Chairperson should first ask

Members to vote on the written motion under Item 4 before proceeding

to discuss whether co-opted members were to be appointed to the

committees.

69. The Chairperson said that she had confirmed with the Secretary

that the proceedings of the meeting had been in order. She pointed out

that in case Mr LEUNG Pak-kin still wished to raise any point of order in

20

Action

the future, he must abide the WCDC Standing Orders. After remaking

that she would just treat the view expressed by Mr LEUNG Pak-kin as an

enquiry, the Chairperson clarified that she was merely recapping the

practice of the previous-term DC and did not mean to say that the

current-term DC would retain the system of co-opted membership.

70. The Chairperson reiterated that Item 3 and Item 4 of the agenda

would be dealt with in a joint discussion. She then invited Members to

first express their views on the tenure of committee chairpersons and

vice-chairpersons. She once again asked Members whether they had

anything more to say on the adoption of a two-year tenure for committee

chairpersons. The Chairperson said that there being no objection from

Members, the adoption of a two-year tenure for committee chairpersons

and vice-chairpersons would be retained.

71. The Chairperson proposed the holding of a joint meeting for the

committees to elect their respective chairpersons and vice-chairpersons

on 4 February. She said that the Secretariat would shortly invite

Members to nominate suitable candidates on or before 3 February. She

also suggested that the relevant elections be done by secret ballot and

enquired if Members had any views on the aforesaid arrangements.

72. Mr Anson LAM enquired whether the election of committee

chairpersons and vice-chairpersons would be the only thing to be dealt

with at the meeting on 4 February.

73. The Chairperson suggested that following the completion of all

the relevant elections and the announcement of their results on 4

February, FGAC should convene a meeting to discuss issues related the

Standing Orders of the DC. The Chairperson asked for Members’

views on the above arrangement.

74. There being objection from the Members present, the

Chairperson announced that Members had unanimously agreed to follow

the aforesaid arrangements in the election of committee chairpersons and

vice-chairpersons.

WCDO


4/2020 and enquired whether Mr LEUNG Pak-kin, the mover of the

motion, had anything to add.

76. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin made the following comments:

(i) As the paper had clearly set out the reasons why he and

the two seconders wanted to move the motion, he would

have nothing to add. Yet, he welcomed other Members

to express their opinions, so that he could know if they

held any divergent views.

21

Action

(ii) The system of appointed membership in DCs was already

abolished by the Government in the last term as part of

Hong Kong’s political development. He and the two

seconders all hoped that this could add to the

representativeness of DCs as players in district

administration. Yet, put simply, the existing system of

appointing co-opted members to help discharge the

functions of DCs actually contradicted the very duties and

functions of DC Members. Because DC Members were

all returned by election, it was only natural for them to

have the right to vote in their respective DCs. But the

continued appointment of co-opted members with the

rights to vote and to be counted towards the committee

quorum would only contradict the elected nature of DCs

and the consequential right of DC Members to vote. In

brief, the system of co-opted membership was in conflict

with the voting mechanism of DCs and their role as

elected bodies.

77. The Chairperson asked the seconders of the motion, Ms Clara

CHEUNG and Mr LI Wing-choi, whether they had anything to add.

78. Ms Clara CHEUNG said that their rationale was in fact very

simple. Having been elected to the DC by the public, all the Members

present were representatives of the people. It was not the case with

co-opted members but they also had the right to vote. This alone could

aptly reflect the unfairness involved. She therefore agreed to Mr

LEUNG Pak-kin’s motion and hoped that other Members could endorse

the abolition of co-opted membership in WCDC.

79. Mr LI Wing-choi remarked that both LegCo and DCs would

invite experts or stakeholders to offer advice on different issues. This

was a very good practice, but it should only be adopted on a case-by-case

basis, because no one could possibly be an expert in all fields. E-sports,

for example, had also come to be regarded as sports, but it was doubtful

whether experts in conventional sports could ever speak on e-sports and

the like. He therefore considered that rather than having any permanent

co-opted members, the DC could invite different people to offer their

advice having regard to the needs of each case, with a view to eventually

abolishing co-opted membership. He added that in the past,

pro-establishment Members sought to appoint various co-opted members

with the very aims of creating more allies in the DC and making their

presence felt by the public. In this way, this unauthorised building

structure simply went on and on. He therefore wished to see the

abolition of co-opted membership.

80. The Chairperson asked other Members to express their views.

22

Action

81. Ms Peggy LEE remarked that considering the rising democratic

aspirations in society, she in principle agreed to revisit the necessity of

co-opted membership. She added that according to the mover and

seconders of the written motion, the DC could set up a system of

standing invitees in case any public-spirited people or professionals

wished to take part in the DC’s special projects. In this connection, she

wished to enquire if the projects under the various working groups would

also be classified as the special projects referred to. She also wished to

know more about the tenure of such standing invitees --- whether they

would have a tenure equal in length to the tenure of the working group

concerned, and whether their tenure would end immediately upon the

completion of the special projects concerned. She said she would like

to know more about other Members’ views in this regard.

82. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin replied as follows:

(i) What he meant was that in case any professionals or

people aspiring to serve the community wished to take

part in the DC’s special projects, the chairpersons of the

working groups concerned could decide who to invite, or

Members could submit proposals to the chairpersons, so

that they could decide whether the people concerned

should be invited to offer advice to the DC at the relevant

meetings.

(ii) Besides, as regards Ms Peggy LEE’s question on the

tenure of standing invitees, he hoped the DC could discuss

whether the tenure was to be case-based or of a fixed

duration of two years. He observed that other DCs

usually fixed the tenure at two years, following the

practice of determining chairpersons’ term of office. In

any case, he said, the most important thing must be the

enlistment of professionals, rather than any lay persons

who were incapable of any input, and whose presence was

purely for voting and constituting a quorum. In fact,

open-ended discussions could be held to decide whether

the invitees were to be standing or non-standing, and

whether individual invitations were to be meeting-based

or case-based. He often heard that some public-spirited

people simply could not afford the time for regular

meeting attendance, while others might just be interested

to offer their professional advice to the DC at certain

meetings or on particular projects. He thus considered

that changes could be made to the idea of standing

invitees.

83. Ms Peggy LEE appreciated Mr LEUNG Pak-kin’s point that

changes could be made. But she wanted to ask if it was necessary to

amend the motion or at least insert a footnote in that case. If the motion

23

Action

with its original wording was passed, she said, all invitees would have to

be standing invitees whose respective tenures must all be determined by

the chairpersons in charge of individual projects/working

groups/committees. On the other hand, if the motion was to be

amended as aforesaid, someone else must move and second the amended

motion. She thus enquired what should be done.

84. The Chairperson pointed out that the motion itself did not make

any reference to standing invitees, and the point on standing invitees was

set out in the background information only. The Chairperson suggested

that a footnote be added to the motion document as advised by Ms Peggy

LEE.

85. The Chairperson again invited other Members to express their

views.

86. Ms Susi LAW also agreed to abolish the voting right of

co-opted members. She explained that all the 13 Members were elected

representatives of the people in the DC, so it might not be quite so fair to

the public if co-opted members of the DC’s committees were to enjoy the

same right to vote as Members themselves. She would therefore

support the motion.

87. The Chairperson said that before proceeding to conduct voting

on the motion, she wished to inform the meeting that the Secretariat had

received a proxy notice from the Hon Paul TSE which read as follows:

“I, Paul TSE Wai-chun, elected member of Broadwood, hereby authorise

Mr Ivan WONG to be my proxy to vote on the cancellation of

appointments of co-opted members at the WCDC meeting on 21 January

2020 (Tuesday).” For this reason, Mr Ivan WONG could cast one vote

as the Hon Paul TSE’s proxy. He could cast two votes inclusive of the

proxy vote.

88. Mr Ivan WONG enquired if he could cast one negative vote and

one positive vote, or even abstain. He remarked that those in favour of

co-opted membership and those against it could both put forward cogent

arguments, and neither side could possibly be totally correct or

absolutely wrong. He once again enquired if he could cast both a

positive vote and a negative one.

89. The Chairperson replied that under standing orders in general,

positive votes, negative votes and abstentions were all permissible voting

decisions. What she wanted to point out earlier was just that proxy

voting was permissible under the WCDC Standing Orders, and Mr Ivan

WONG could vote as the Hon Paul TSE’s proxy in the voting to be held

shortly.

90. The Chairperson invited Mr LEUNG Pak-kin to read out the

24

Action

written motion he had put forward

91. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin read out the following written motion:

“That, as from the commencement of its sixth term in 2020, the Wan

Chai District Council shall totally abolish appointments of co-opted

members to the committees established under it.”

92. The Chairperson asked Members to vote on the motion by a

show of hands and announced the voting results as follows:

Yes: 13 votes (Ms CHAN Yuk-lam, Ms Clara CHEUNG, Ms

Sabina KOO, Mr Anson LAM, Ms Susi LAW,

Ms Peggy LEE, Mr LEUNG Pak-kin, Mr LI

Wing-choi, Mr MAK King-sing, Mr Ivan

WONG, the Hon Paul TSE, Ms Cathy YAU and

Miss Clarisse YEUNG)

No: 0 votes

Abstain: 0 votes

93. The Chairperson announced that the motion was passed by all

the 13 Members present. The abolition of appointments of co-opted

members was passed unanimously by WCDC.

94. The Chairperson said that Secretariat staff would proceed to

collect from Members the enrolment forms for the six committees under

the DC. The meeting would first proceed to discuss Item 5 of the

agenda and the membership lists of the six committees would be

announced before the discussion on the written motion in Item 8.

Item 5: Dates of Meetings of WCDC and its Committees

95. The Chairperson referred Members’ attention to paragraph 3 of

WCDC Paper No. 5/2020 and described the meeting arrangements of the

previous-term WCDC as follows:

(i) A DC meeting would be scheduled at 2:30 p.m. on one

Tuesday in every odd-numbered month; the various DC

committees would take turns to meet in alphabetical order

at 2:30 pm. on the followingTuesdays after the DC

meeting.

(ii) In the event that a Tuesday fell on a public holiday, the

first day after several consecutive holidays, or the day

before or after a major festival, the relevant DC meeting

or committee meeting would be deferred to Thursday in

the same week.

25

Action

(iii) The DC would be in recess for the month of August every

year, during which no meetings of the DC and its

committees would be convened. Consequently, certain

committee meetings would have to be held on the

Thursday before or after a recess.

96. The Chairperson asked Members to express their views on the

meeting arrangements for the current-term DC, and to make decisions on

the following: first, the continued adoption of the arrangements set out in

paragraph 3 of the paper (The views of some Members had already been

received); second, the holding of a joint meeting on 4 February 2020

(Tuesday) for all the committees to elect their chairpersons and

vice-chairpersons, to be followed by a meeting of FGAC forthwith; and

third, the adoption of the schedule of meetings in 2020 set out in the

Annex to the paper. The Chairperson asked the Secretary to recap the

views expressed earlier by Members on the schedule of meetings for the

DC and its committees.

97. The Secretary said that Members had put forward two proposals

regarding committee meetings, one about the starting time and the other

on rearranging the schedule of meetings. The first proposal was raised

by Mr Anson LAM, who hoped that the meetings of DPTC could start at

10 a.m.. The other proposal was put forward by Ms Peggy LEE, who

proposed that DPTC should be the first of all the committees to hold a

meeting after a DC meeting.

98. The Chairperson enquired if Members had anything to add.

She said that disregarding the meeting of FGAC to be held on 4

February, she hoped the schedule of committee meetings could be

rearranged as proposed by Ms Peggy LEE. This would mean that

DPTC would be the first of all the committees to hold a meeting after a

DC meeting, and the last to do so would be FGAC. The Chairperson

invited the Secretary to outline the rearranged schedule of meetings.

99. The Secretary said that if DPTC was to be the first of all the

committees to hold a meeting after a DC meeting, the schedule of

meetings would be as follows: DPTC, CBHAC, CLSC, DWFMC, FEHC

and lastly, FGAC, in that order.

100. There being no objection from Members, the Chairperson

announced the adoption of the aforesaid schedule of meetings.

101. The Chairperson asked the Members present whether they

would like to decide the starting time of DPTC at this meeting or leave

the decision to the committee itself. She invited Members to vote on

the proposition that DPTC should start its meetings at 10 a.m..

26

Action

102. Mr Ivan WONG said that a meeting of DPTC could be as long

as four to six hours. He said that if the meetings started at 10 a.m., he

would like to know if there would be any lunch break. He proposed

that the meetings should start at 9 a.m. instead.

103. Mr Anson LAM pointed out that other DCs would also reserve a

lunch break for their Members. He clarified that he had mentioned 10

a.m. as a mere example only, and other hours of the day, say, 11 a.m. or

12 noon, could also be possible. But he thought that 10 a.m. would be

the best time. He said that when he was the vice-chairperson of

DPTC in the previous term, every meeting of the committee would

overrun by as long as four to five hours. He noted Mr Ivan WONG’s

earlier remark that a meeting of the committee often lasted four to five

whole hours. But he added that what actually happened, to be exact,

was that a meeting often had to be aborted after going on for four to five

hours. The committee’s meetings, he said, often had to discuss many

agenda items about planning and development. Transport issues were

one example, and discussions on one single bus routes programme

already took as long as three to four hours. He thought that if the

meetings continued to start at 2:30 p.m., there would not be enough time.

He knew that other Members all had many district affairs commitments

in the evening, such as attending meetings of owners’ corporations. He

therefore suggested that the committee’s meetings should start at 10 a.m..

104. Mr Ivan WONG suggested that to give Members time for lunch

before a meeting, the starting time should be set at 12:30 p.m.. He said

that to start a meeting at 10 a.m. would not be a sensible arrangement,

adding that Members’ district affairs commitments would not be

affected, as meetings of owners’ corporations would generally start at 8

p.m. or even 9 p.m..

105. Ms Peggy LEE agreed to Mr Anson LAM’s proposal that the

starting time should be 10 a.m..

106. The Chairperson said that with the exception of Mr Ivan

WONG, the majority of Members agreed to start the meetings of DPTC

at 10 a.m.. She announced that the passage of the proposal and asked

the Secretary to put down on record that the committee’s meetings would

start at 10 a.m..

107. The Chairperson said that the various committees would hold a

joint meeting on 4 February 2020 (Tuesday) to elect their chairpersons

and vice-chairpersons, and the completion of the meeting would be

followed immediately by a meeting of FGAC. She enquired if

Members would consent to the above. There being no objection from

the Members present, the Chairperson announced the passage of the said

arrangement.

27

Action

108. The Chairperson referred Members’ attention to the dates of

meetings in 2020 as set out in the Annex to the paper and invited them to

cast their votes. She also asked the Secretary to outline the rearranged

schedule of meetings.

109. The Secretary pointed out that according to Members’

amendments to the proposed dates of meetings in 2020, the first

committee to hold a meeting after a DC meeting would be DPTC, and

the meeting commencement time would be changed to 10 a.m.. She

enquired whether Members would consent to the meeting dates and times

set out in the Annex, and whether they wished to comment on any issues

besides the meeting to be held on 4 February.

110. There being no further comments from Members, the

Chairperson declared the passage of the three proposals under this

agenda item.

Item 6:

Establishment of three Working Groups for community

safety, openness of the Council and review of the

construction of Moreton Terrace Activities Centre (Titles

of Working Groups to be confirmed) to facilitate the

implementations of specific tasks by WCDC

111. The Chairperson said that at the second meeting held on 7

January 2020, WCDC held some initial discussions on setting up three

working groups for community safety, openness of the WCDC and

review of the construction of Moreton Terrace Activities Centre. Based

on Members’ views, she had drafted the names of the three working

groups and their terms of reference for their information and discussions.

112. The Chairperson drew Members’ attention to the paper tabled at

the meeting and invited them to speak on the names and terms of

reference of the three working groups to be set up.

113. Ms Clara CHEUNG suggested that Mr LEUNG Pak-kin’s

proposal be incorporated into the terms of reference of the working group

for openness of the WCDC. Specifically, persons from different

professional sectors and organisations were to be invited to discuss with

WCDC how to establish a clear framework of participation by all in DC

business based on the community views collected and the conduct of

opinion polls.

114. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam approved of Ms Clara CHEUNG’s view.

But she also referred to the ninth function of the working group for

openness of the Council set out in the paper, which read, “Listening to

and following up stakeholders’ views on the openness of the Council and

the enhancement of its transparency.” She opined that this function

already covered the aforesaid proposal, as it could enable the working

28

Action

group to invite relevant professionals to its meetings for the purpose of

expressing views or offering concrete advice on its work.

115. Mr Ivan WONG said that one of the working groups discussed

under this item was on the construction of the Moreton Terrace Activities

Centre, which was also the subject of the written motion under Item 8.

As the two agenda items dealt with the same subject, he advised the

meeting to defer discussions on the construction project until Item 8.

116. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin proposed the establishment of a working

group on bringing forth and improving community participation. He

stressed that this proposed working group would not be needed, of

course, if its terms of reference overlapped with those of the three

aforesaid working groups. Yet, if the Council ever agreed that the

enhancement and improvement of community engagement should be

given greater emphasis, it could consider setting up this proposed

working group to deal horizontally with the community involvement

work across all the various committees. Should any items of its work

overlapped the terms of reference of the committees in the future, the

tasks concerned could be handed back to them.

117. Ms Susi LAW did not agree to Mr Ivan WONG’s proposal of

combining the discussion of this agenda item and Item 8. She said that

the point at issue was a signature project in Wan Chai, and such signature

projects were likewise found in other districts. She considered that

Wan Chai District must establish a working group for monitoring the

progress and arrangements of this signature project costing over $100

million.

118. When responding to Mr Ivan WONG’s proposal, Ms CHAN

Yuk-lam remarked that the working group concerned would be mainly

tasked to monitor the progress and effectiveness of signature projects in

Wan Chai, and to review previous decisions, such as the decision

concerning the common use of venues as handball and volleyball courts.

The written motion under Item 8 would not touch upon these matters, so

it was justified to set up the aforesaid working group.

119. The Chairperson advised that for other Members’ information

and discussion, Ms Clara CHEUNG could put down in writing all her

proposed amendments to the terms of reference of the working group on

openness of the Council. Besides, suppose the construction of the

Moreton Terrace Activities Centre was really going to be terminated in

the end, as even Mr Ivan WONG might also agree, she would think that

the name of the working group could be changed to “Working Group on

Signature Projects in Wan Chai”. In this way, the project would no

longer be the working group’s sole concern. She pointed out that even

when the name was changed to this, the working group could still

monitor the project, as the working group’s main task would be to

monitor the works progress of signature projects in Wan Chai and to

29

Action

offer feasible recommendations on such works. And, she considered

that the name “Working Group on Signature Projects in Wan Chai” could

make the present discussion distinct from the discussion under Item 8,

showing that there were no repetitive discussions on the same subject.

She also advised Mr LEUNG Pak-kin to first set out the terms of

reference of the working group he proposed to set up. Discussions

could then be held at a Council meeting to work out how it could be set

up and named.

120. DO(WC) remarked that Members’ advice on openness of the

Council and horizontal efforts to bring forth and improve community

involvement was all worth consideration. But he added that as could be

learnt from Members’ discussions, Council meetings aside, WCDC

would set up six committees and three working groups, meaning that it

would have to deal with lots of routine Council work. As there were

only 13 Members in WCDC, he advised Members to consider the need

for striking a balance between the number of committees and working

groups and the need for attending meetings. He also advised that if any

types of work could be taken up by an existing working group, there

would be no need to set up any extra committee or working group.

121. The Chairperson enquired if Ms Clara CHEUNG had finished

writing up her amendments to the terms of reference of the working

group on openness of the Council.

122. Ms Clara CHEUNG suggested that the expression “stakeholders

and professional sectors” be added to the ninth function of the working

group on openness of the Council set out in the paper. She said she had

no other suggestions on the rest of terms of reference.

123. The Chairperson suggested that Ms Clara CHEUNG’s proposed

expression be amended to read “stakeholders and people from various

professional sectors”.

124. Ms Clara CHEUNG agreed to the Chairperson’s suggestion.

125. The Chairperson recapped the discussion as follows:

(i) WCDC was to set up three standing working groups

directly under it, namely the Working Group on Signature

Project Scheme in Wan Chai District, the Working Group

on Community Safety in Wan Chai District, and the

Working Group on Improving Transparency of Wan Chai

District Council.

(ii) There was no amendment to the respective terms of

reference of the Working Group on Signature Project

Scheme in Wan Chai District and the Working Group on

Community Safety in Wan Chai District as set out in the

30

Action

paper. The ninth function of the Working Group on

Improving Transparency of Wan Chai District Council

would be amended to read “Listening to and following up

the views of stakeholders and people from various

professional sectors on the openness of the Council and

the enhancement of its transparency.” The rest of the

terms of reference would be the same as how they were

set out in the paper.

126. The Members present had no objection to the outcomes of

discussions as recapped above.

127. The Chairperson announced WCDC had endorsed the

establishment of the three aforesaid standing working groups and their

respective terms of reference. She further suggested that the

chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of these working groups be elected

on 4 February 2020 before the meeting of FGAC, i.e., following the

elections of the chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of the various

committees.

128. There was no objection from the Members present.

129. The Chairperson announced the endorsement of the aforesaid

arrangements for electing the chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of the

working groups. She said that the Secretariat would shortly contact

Members via email and invite them to join the working groups. The

Chairperson advised Members to note the date of meeting and deadline

for nominating the chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of the working

groups as set out in the email.

Item 7:

Proposed Candidates for Appointment to Regional

Advisory Committee of Hospital Authority and

Membership of the Hospital Governing Committee of

Ruttonjee & Tang Shiu Kin Hospitals

(WCDC Paper No. 10/2020 & No. 11/2020)


No. 10/2020 and No. 11/2020.

131. The Chairperson informed the meeting that the Hospital

Authority (HA) had extended a written invitation to WCDC, asking for

the nomination of one Member for its consideration of appointment to

the Hong Kong Regional Advisory Committee and another Member for

its consideration of appointment to the Hospital Governing Committee of

Ruttonjee and Tang Shiu Kin Hospitals. The two appointments were to

take effect on 1 April 2020.

132. The Chairperson enquired if there were any nominations from

Members, and whether any Members would like to be considered for

31

Action

appointment to the committees concerned.

133. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam said that she was interested to serve as a

member of the Hong Kong Regional Advisory Committee and requested

other Members to render their support.

134. Ms Susi LAW said that she would like to serve as a member of

the Hospital Governing Committee of Ruttonjee and Tang Shiu Kin

Hospitals. She added that as the two hospitals were located in Oi Kwan

area, she hoped that she could enhance communication and exchanges

with them as a member of their governing committee.

135. The Chairperson enquired whether there were nominations from

any other Members.

136. There being no nominations from the Members present, the

Chairperson announced that WCDC would nominate Ms CHAN

Yuk-lam to HA for its consideration of appointment to the Hong Kong

Regional Advisory Committee. WCDC would also nominate Ms Susi

LAW to HA for its consideration of appointment to the Hospital

Governing Committee of Ruttonjee and Tang Shiu Kin Hospitals.

Item 8:

Written motion: Termination of Construction of

Moreton Terrace Activities Centre


137. The Chairperson welcomed Ms Eugenia CHUNG, Assistant

Director (2) of HAD, to the meeting and referred Members’ attention to

Paper No. 7/2020 and the written reply of HAD.

138. The Chairperson said that the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre

project was passed under highly contentious circumstances, and funding

for it was approved by the Finance Committee of LegCo in November

2018 during the tenure of the previous-term DC. She pointed out that

since the project did not have the blessing and support of the community,

she must move this motion as the people’s representative, in order to

reflect the voices of different social strata. She added that the

authorities concerned had never released any project details such as

works expenses and progress despite the huge costs involved, which was

why she already advised the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) and the

government departments concerned to terminate the construction of the

Moreton Terrace Activities Centre as soon as the District Council

Ordinary Election was over. She maintained that the DC was

duty-bound to monitor the work of the Government, so she hoped that

the relevant government departments could answer Members’ questions.

139. The Chairperson invited the seconders of the motion to give

further comments.

32

Action

140. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam said that they had held a meeting on this

project with the representatives of HAD and the departments concerned.

At this meeting, they urged the departments concerned to disclose the

contract provisions on project termination and indemnity, so as to show

public accountability. However, using sanctity of contracts as an

excuse, the departments had refused to entertain the request, thus

denying the public of their right to know. In view of the public demand

terminate the project, she requested HAD to provide the public with

information relating to this construction project.

141. Ms Susi LAW added that this signature project was passed by

Members of the previous two terms of WCDC unbeknownst to many

people in the district. According to some people, they were not aware

of the erection of this $140-million activity centre in the district until its

actual construction got underway. She hoped that with its mandate

from the public, the current-term DC could do a new round of extensive

consultation on this project. She also pointed out that as this was a

signature project of Wan Chai District, the Government should give

residents a full account of all the project details, including the mode of

cooperation with the contractor, the progress of works and the costs

involved. As the works had only just begun, she maintained that such a

request was perfectly reasonable.

142. The Vice-Chairperson said that in its written reply, HAD

claimed that it had not estimated the financial implications of terminating

the project. But he pointed out that as early as December last year, they

already wrote a letter to the department, informing it clearly that since

the public had the right to know and most residents were inclined to

calling a halt to the project, they would like to know the total costs

involved in case the project was to be terminated. However, since then,

they had never received from the authorities concerned any information

about the date of awarding the project contract, the tender invitation

document and the evaluation criteria therein. He therefore requested the

authorities to respond to the above requests.

143. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam said that the Architectural Services

Department (ASD) had awarded the building services engineering works

of the project to Wenden Engineering Service Co Ltd, but information on

the Internet showed that this contractor had been charged for defrauding

the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (EMSD) of $425,000

using a false quotation (though the accused was found not guilty).

Feeling worried about ASD’s award of the works to this contractor, she

requested the departments concerned to disclose relevant information to

allay her anxieties.

144. Mr Ivan WONG hoped that DO(WC) could first explain the

position of the Government. He added that several Members had

described the project as being opposed by the majority of Wan Chai

residents or even Hong Kong people; in this connection, he would like to

33

Action

ask these Members to give concrete examples of such dissenting

opinions and also disclose the sources of their information. He further

asked whether such dissenting opinions were the findings of any massive

opinion poll or consultation, and whether they were simply personal

perceptions. He pointed out that the project had been examined and

passed by the Members of the previous two terms of WCDC. For this

reason, he wished to know whether the opponents of the project had ever

conducted any independent, sizeable and credible opinion poll or

consultation over the past four years. He said that they should do so

and draw a conclusion based on concrete statistics and empirical

evidence. They must not jump to any conclusion based purely on

personal perception and unscientific observation, claiming that many

people were opposed to the project.

145. Ms Peggy LEE made the following comments and enquiry:

(i) She said that back in 2013, the then WCDC intended to

construct a community hall to serve as a venue of cultural

performances and seminars for residents. However,

since the community hall constructed, i.e. the present Wan

Chai Activities Centre, was unable to meet the

requirements of fire services regulations, it could only be

used as a conference venue, rather than a venue of

entertainment performances. Thus, the only venue in the

district that could be used as a performance venue was the

Leighton Hill Community Hall (LHCH). Subsequently,

when all DCs were each granted $100 million for the

launching of signature projects, the then WCDC

immediately went ahead with two rounds of public

consultation respectively from February to March 2013

and from July to August 2014. At the time, many

residents were concerned about the availability of

alternative volleyball venues after the demolition of the

Moreton Terrace Volleyball Courts, and they requested

DO(WC) and WCDO to respond to their concern. After

receiving a reply, the residents concerned did not raise any

further objection. They, however, requested LCSD to

convert the then handball pitch in Victoria Park into a

shared venue for handball and volleyball games. The

then handball court was large enough to be converted into

two volleyball courts. Hence, the handball court started

to be used as a multi-purpose venue from 7 a.m. to 11

p.m., i.e., either as one handball court or as two volleyball

courts. She requested the relevant representative of

LCSD to say more on the relevant arrangements.

(ii) She asked DO(WC) and the relevant representative of

HAD whether the Government would still continue with

the project if the meeting approved its termination. If

34

Action

yes, she remarked, the meeting’s disapproval would be no

more than a gesture. In that case, it would be more

realistic to discuss how the project was to be monitored in

areas like costs and expenses, works progress and

effectiveness. Like Mr Ivan WONG, she would also like

to know the specific details of the objection, as she wanted

to respond to or address all such concerns, so as to allay

people’s anxieties.

(iii) She said that the meeting could first examine the designed

facilities of the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre like the

quantity and types of rooms and see if they could be

improved. It could then decide which facilities were to

be retained and what alternative facilities were to be

provided. Also, some local organisations had told of a

shortage of venues for holding functions in the district,

saying that it was difficult to book the Leighton Hill

Community Hall, as it was very popular and used also by

government departments. She hoped that there could be

an open and transparent mechanism for venue allocation

in the future, so as to ensure fairness to all organisations.

146. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam referred to the claim of Mr Ivan WONG

and Ms Peggy LEE that the proposal of constructing the Moreton Terrace

Activities Centre was preceded by consultation in 2013. She responded

that the construction project would incur huge public expenses, so

Members had to have the relevant data and progress report, so that they

could appropriately follow up, say, the decision of ASD to award a

$20-million contract to a disreputable contractor. She said that

Members’ objection was not a mere gesture. Rather, they wanted to

take concrete actions to show accountability to their supporters. She

also pointed out that a site on Caroline Hill Road was likewise

government land, so Moreton Terrace was not the only option for

constructing a community hall.

147. Mr Anson LAM said that even though HAD had not estimated

the financial implications of terminating the project contract, it should

still be able to provide information about the project expenses incurred so

far.

148. Mr Ivan WONG requested the opponents of the project who

were present at the meeting to reply directly to his query and provide him

with the sources of the relevant intelligence, opinion polls and public

consultation. He said that he had doubts about the reliability and

representativeness of all such information and opinion polls. He

remarked that Members should not oppose the project solely based on

their political stance and personal perception. He added that unless a

contractor really committed an offence, in which case a report should be

made to the ICAC, the sanctity of contracts must be upheld. He once

35

Action

again requested the opponents of the project to answer his question

directly and produce evidence to support their argument.

149. The Vice-Chairperson said that according to records,

discussions on the project already started as early as the time of the 4th

WCDC. He said that as local organisations were the only ones invited

by the then WCDC to take part in the consultation, the consultation could

hardly command any recognition. He pointed out that the inadequacy

of the consultation could be evidenced by the fact that many Wan Chai

residents were simply unaware of the project until its construction works

got underway. He added that during the second round of consultation in

2014, when a joint letter with 1 135 signatures against the project was

received, the authorities simply counted the letter as one single written

submission. Dismissing this practice as unreasonable, he added that

many residents had since been voicing objection to the project and

questioning the integrity of the project contractor. For this reason, he

queried the authorities’ justifications for insisting on continuing with the

project and requested the departments concerned to halt the works and

disclose information about the expenses, progress and indemnity for

contract termination, so that the DC could conduct a fresh round of full

and comprehensive consultation as the basis of examining whether the

project should continue.

150. In response to Mr Ivan WONG’s question, Ms Sabina KOO said

that residents’ unawareness of the project until building works actually

commenced could aptly show the shortcoming of the authorities’ practice

of restricting consultation to organisations. She also requested the

department to tell her the location of the Victoria Handball Pitch, the

time required to convert it into volleyball courts and also the booking

procedures.

151. In response to Mr Ivan WONG’s question, Ms Susi LAW said

that the data they quoted were from the summary of consultation findings

in 2013. She pointed that at the public consultation session on 24

February 2013, there were 14 attendees most of whom were

representatives of various organisations. Totally 62 submissions were

received on the occasion. Of these, 54 submissions were for the project.

In July 2014, the second consultation session was held. At this session,

13 oral submissions were collected, but the summary of consultation

findings did not specify which sides these oral submissions were on.

Also, on 19 July 2014, the area committees collected 16 submissions, but

the summary of consultation findings again did not specify which sides

the submissions were on. During the public consultation period in July

2014, totally 24 written submissions were collected; one of these written

submissions, a joint letter with 1 135 signatures, was against the

construction project, but it was subsequently counted as one single

written submission. Then, when the Town Planning Board held its

consultation in May 2015, it collected eight submissions against the

project and five submissions expressed concerns. She therefore hoped

36

Action

that a working group could be set up to monitor the implementation of

signature projects in the district, and to conduct a widely representative

public opinion survey. In this way, residents’ need could be thoroughly

examined and the latest public opinions collected.

152. DO(WC) gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) He noted Members’ concern over the public consultation

efforts in 2013/2014. In February 2013, a consultation

session was organised by WCDO, and more than 90% of

the submissions received were in favour of the project.

The Moreton Terrace Activities Centre project had not

quite taken shape when the first round of consultation was

held, and only an initial idea about the building of a

performance venue was put forward. But when the

second round of consultation was held in July 2014, the

Government had already come up with quite a refined

concept. Efforts were made to introduce the Moreton

Terrace Activities Centre project with the aid of a design

blueprint, a set of bilingual pamphlets and leaflets and a

questionnaire for opinion collection. He thus considered

that the consultation back then should be deep and

extensive enough, adding that the views collected at the

time were mostly in favour of the project. Also, the joint

submission mentioned by Members could actually prove

people’s awareness of the project and in turn the openness

of the consultation, otherwise a joint submission with such

a considerable number of signatures could not have been

possible.

(ii) He pointed out that some views set out in the joint

submission were against the construction of the Moreton

Terrace Activities Centre, and there were also other views

which asked for alternative arrangements after the

demolition of the Moreton Terrace volleyball courts.

Staff of WCDO subsequently contacted the persons

concerned and explained to them the alternative

arrangement proposed at that time, i.e. the use of the

Victoria Handball Pitch also as volleyball courts. He

went on to say that this alternative arrangement was not

perfect, as it was marked by both advantages and

disadvantages. For example, the venue in Victoria Park

could be used for both handball and volleyball games after

conversion, while the venue in Moreton Terrace was

wholly dedicated to the latter. But then, the Moreton

Terrace Volleyball Courts were sub-standard in size, not

suitable for holding formal matches. On the other hand,

the shared venue in Victoria Park was spacious enough to

hold formal matches of both handball and volleyball and

37

Action

accommodate spectator stands. Thus, the two venues

both had their respective advantages and disadvantages.

(iii) Each court conversion at the multi-purpose ball court in

Victoria Park would take roughly 10 to 15 minutes.

There would be no reservation priority for either handball

games or volleyball games. The venue would be set up

in accordance with the user’s choice of ball game. Staff

of LCSD would provide on-site assistance in setting up

the venue as required. According to the statistics of

LCSD, the closure of the Moreton Terrace Volleyball

Courts had not led to any capacity problem in the Victoria

Park ball court.

153. Ms Eugenia CHUNG, Assistant Director (2) of HAD gave a

consolidated response as follows:

(i) HAB and HAD had clearly stated their position on

Members’ proposal of terminating the Moreton Terrace

Activities Centre project. She reiterated that the project

had received support and funding following scrutiny and

discussions in two terms of WCDC and two terms of

LegCo. The works contract had been awarded and

construction was already underway. The Government

would continue with the project and see to it that the

contractor completed the construction works as per the

project scope approved by the Finance Committee of

LegCo and the works contract it had signed.

(ii) She said that at an informal meeting held earlier and in a

subsequent written reply, she already gave very thorough

answers to Members’ questions on the Moreton Terrace

Activities Centre project. She reiterated that the

Government had no intention whatsoever to call a halt to

the project, which was why it would not, in principle,

estimate the financial implications of terminating the

project. And, technically speaking, any indemnity would

have to be determined by negotiations between the two

parties, rather than any unilateral decision of either party.

As the whole process would involve complex

computations, she hoped that Members could appreciate

the impracticability of providing them with any relevant

figures.

(iii) She further pointed out that under the General Conditions

in government works contracts, the Government could

terminate a contract if the contractor concerned failed to

perform to its satisfaction. In such cases, a new

contractor must still be identified to complete the

38

Action

remaining works. But this provision would not apply to

the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre if the reason for

terminating the works contract was not the contractor’s

unsatisfactory performance. She emphasised that the

financial consequences of project termination must be

settled by both parties to the contract through negotiations,

and any settlement scheme must be based on mutual

consent, rather than the unilateral decision of either party.

She illustrated her point by referring to a fitting-out works

contract setting out the completion dates of individual

works items and the corresponding works payment

schedule. She said that if, at a certain stage of works, the

entrusted party of the contract wanted to terminate the

contract without cause, it would need to negotiate an

indemnity with the contractor, rather than merely making

the payments due under the works payment schedule.

The reason was that the contractor had already procured

the materials and hired the workers necessary for the

completion of this fitting-out works contract. Also, since

the contractor had already reserved a time slot for the

contract and thus forgone other works projects, it would

certainly claim damages if the entrusted party suddenly

terminated the contract without cause. All these factors

must be considered during the discussions on indemnity.

The process would be interactive, and a contract could not

be terminated at any arbitrary request of either party.

Out of respect for the spirit of doing fairness to all

contractual parties, the works contract for the Moreton

Terrace Activities Centre did not contain any termination

clauses which specified that contract termination could be

possible upon the completion of individual stages of

works with the payment of the specified amounts of

compensation. At the aforesaid informal meeting and in

the subsequent written reply, she also explained that even

the suspension of the project would face the same

problems. Since the costs of hiring workers and

procuring materials and machinery would only increase in

the course of project delay, any suspension of the project

would inevitably increase the total project costs, resulting

in wastage of public money and works delay.

(iv) She pointed out that the pre-construction expenditure of

the project was not paid from the funding of $140 million

approved by the Finance Committee. Rather, the

Government had allocated separate resources to meet the

expenses of feasibility studies, commissioning a

consultant and conducting a tender exercise. All such

pre-construction preparations had incurred roughly $2

million.

39

Action

154. DO(WC) gave the following response:

(i) He said that the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre project

would not be terminated, but he also pointed out that the

Government was not entirely unheeding of the views of

Members and residents. He could appreciate volleyball

enthusiasts’ wish to have standard-sized volleyball courts

in the district, and he agreed that sports would have

wholesome effects on people’s mental and physical health.

Yet, due to land shortage in the district, the need for

balancing the variegated needs of the community must be

considered in the course of land use planning, which was

why it was hard to provide residents with perfectly

satisfactory sports facilities. He added that the

Government would endeavor to formulate the best

possible land use planning given the constraints of land

scarcity.

(ii) He also briefed Members on the planning information

about Ka Ning Path Garden, as this was related to the

topic under discussion. With a staircase leading from its

entrance on Eastern Hospital Road, Ka Ning Path Garden

was a secluded park next to Buddhist Wong Cheuk Um

Primary School and Sir Ellis Kadoorie (Sookunpo)

Primary School. The other nearby schools were Hotung

Secondary School and Buddhist Wong Fung Ling College.

It was a passive park equipped with a simple kiosk and

just a few amenities for children and the elderly, which

was why its usage had been low. For this reason,

WCDO had held some discussions with the DC Member

of this area, Mr Anson LAM, in the hope of optimising its

use. Besides, Buddhist Wong Cheuk Um Primary

School next to the park was a very small school facing a

shortage of space and facilities for school activities. In

this connection, Ka Ning Path Garden could be used to

provide the school with more space and facilities for its

functions. Hence, WCDO had been exploring the

conversion of Ka Ning Path Garden and other leisure

facilities with low usage, in the hope that facilities of

greater appeal or serving broader purposes could be

provided to the public and students of nearby schools.

WCDO would join hands with LCSD and ASD to explore

various feasible options. Initial studies showed that the

site occupied by Ka Ning Path Garden was suitable for

conversion into volleyball courts. He thus hoped that

thorough discussions on this topic could be held with

Members at the relevant working groups, with a view to

taking forward the project together.

40

Action

(iii) He opined that in the densely populated urban areas, no

suggestion could possibly command the support of all.

There were schools, households, hospitals and many other

stakeholders in society, all with different and unique

demands. He thus hoped that when discussing the issue

in the future, Members could thoroughly study the

feasibility of the above proposal having regard to all

relevant factors and the consultation held by WCDO.

(iv) WCDO was open to any ideas on the format of

consultation and welcomed Members’ advice and

suggestions. Following the consultation, the DC could

hold further discussions to consider and examine the

views collected. He said that Ka Ning Path Garden was

just one option and Members were encouraged to put

forward other suggestions, with a view to improving the

environment and facilities of the district and optimising

the use of DC resources. He added that there were two

types of DC funding, namely the Community Involvement

Programme for organising activities and the District

Minor Works Programme. He encouraged Members to

put forward their district minor works proposals, so that

joint efforts could be made to improve the district and

residents could be provided with more community

facilities.

155. The Chairperson made the following comments and enquires:

(i) She pointed out that the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre

project was a project inside her constituency, which was

why she already raised many questions about it in the

previous term of the DC. She added that all these

questions were recorded in the relevant LegCo papers.

She queried whether the representative of HAD had ever

studied all these questions and the replies to them before

coming to this meeting. She considered that the

preparation work of the department left much to be

desired.

(ii) The recent District Council Ordinary Election was very

significant, in the sense that it could show the people’s

concern about the Government’s work. All the options

and projects proposed by the Government, regardless of

how big or how small the costs were, would be the

people’s concern. The people were concerned not only

about the projects or options per se but also about how

they were consulted.

41

Action

(iii) Hong Kong was a tiny but densely populated place, and

any last remaining vacant sites in the urban areas would be

designated for commercial use, one example being the

land use planning for a site on Caroline Hill Road. The

site was originally for Government, Institution and

Community use, but it had been re-designated for

commercial use. It was only after protracted discussions

that a law courts building was added to the land use

planning.

(iv) She urged the Government not to polarise the different

needs of community groups. Earlier, she and other eight

WCDC Members had met with the representatives of

HAD and other relevant departments. And, at the

meeting, they already advised the Government to call a

halt to the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre project,

making it very clear that given the Government’s

reluctance to disclose the provisions of the project

contract, the new DC would not approve and accept the

continuation of the project.

(v) The Government said that the contract provisions

concerned were confidential commercial information, but

she could not believe that such a project contract did not

contain any termination clauses. She pointed out that at

the meeting in December, she already told the

departmental representative that at meetings of the DC,

she would definitely ask for an estimation of the financial

implications of contract termination. And, she also

requested the departmental representative and the

contractor to make the estimation as soon as possible.

(vi) According to LegCo papers, the department estimated that

the expenditure on the project at the end of 2020 would

just be $50 million. If the department had not revised the

schedule of works payment, it would surely be appropriate

to estimate the financial implications of contract

termination at this point in time. She requested HAD to

provide the contract information required, and she also

hoped that the Government could increase the

transparency of the project, so that the public could

monitor all project details.

(vii) In response to the remarks of DO(WC), she said that with

its long history, the Moreton Terrace Volleyball Courts

had been the training ground for many volleyball learners

or even Hong Kong representatives. Booking of the

Moreton Terrace Volleyball Courts was open to the

general public, but booking of venues in the Moreton

42

Action

Terrace Activities Centre under construction would be

exclusive to organisations/institutions. Despite long

years of discussion, the various sides were still unable to

agree on how the general public could be allowed to book

the venues in the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre. She

then referred to the signature project under the Yau Tsim

Mong DC, pointing out that its booking was similarly

exclusive to organisations/institutions. She thus

remarked that the only beneficiaries of many signature

projects would just be organisations/institutions in the end.

As many people never joined or belonged to any

organisations/institutions, she questioned how signature

projects could ever benefit these people.

(viii) Conveniently located, the Moreton Terrace Volleyball

Courts was a rare public space and sitting-out area freely

accessible to all residents in the district. As for Ka Ning

Path Garden, its conversion into a public volleyball court

was not without any objection. Earlier, some residents of

the adjacent Fontana Gardens attended a meeting of

LegCo and voiced their objection. In this connection,

she would invite Mr Anson LAM to add a few words a

moment later. She also pointed out that this also

evidenced the inadequacy of the discussions in LegCo.

(ix) She pointed out that according to the Chairperson of the

previous-term DC, Tai Hang Residents’ Welfare

Association was in support of the project. Yet, after the

project had been approved, a representative of the

Association told her that the Association was in fact

against the proposal and did not know why someone

should have said the otherwise in the LegCo meeting.

She thus cast doubts on how the Government handled

people’s opinions. She also wondered why the

consultation of the previous-term DC should have made

such a mistake of misrepresenting stakeholders’ opinions,

and why the misrepresentation was even presented at a

LegCo meeting as the basis of a legislative decision. She

suspected that the discussion of the previous-term DC on

the project might be marked by certain problems that

might require rectification. Even though the project was

already underway, the current-term DC was still

duty-bound to follow up the issue and request the

Government to call a halt to the project, so that it could

give a full account of the whole project and rectify all

mistakes.

(x) In response to Mr Ivan WONG’s talks about public

opinion support for Members’ views on the project, she

43

Action

said that the election of the nine pro-democracy Members

to the DC was precisely a concrete proof that the people

all wanted to say no to such white-elephant projects. She

also considered that the DC could follow the practice of

the Kwun Tong DC and use the $200,000 dedicated to the

reunification reception for conducting an opinion poll.

This could be a form of opinion survey that the

current-term DC could consider.

(xi) Actually, in the previous two terms of the DC, many

residents did voice their objection to the project.

Members of the current-term DC were only asking the

department concerned to disclose the financial

implications of terminating the project contract. They

were prepared to discuss the feasibility of terminating or

revising the project at a later time. But the Government

was unwilling to disclose the information and let Members

discuss the matter. She said that the representative of

HAD who attended this meeting had not sought to evade

the issue. Hence, she hoped that the representative could

tackle the issues within her portfolio.

156. Mr Anson LAM made the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He clarified that the meeting mentioned by DO(WC)

earlier was just a simple exchange of views. Speaking of

the conversion of Ka Ning Path Garden as an alternative

arrangement, he pointed out that Fontana Gardens was

close to the hillside and residents were thus more

concerned about the noises generated by the volleyball

courts. He added that the spiking in volleyball games

might cause noise nuisance to nearby residents.

(ii) He pointed out that the volleyball courts in Moreton

Terrace were open all day, so he would like to know the

opening hours of the future volleyball courts in Ka Ning

Path Garden, because the owners’ corporations and

residents of Fontana Gardens were extremely concerned

over this.

(iii) He said that if the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre was

to go ahead as planned, he would like to know if Members

could still offer advice on its architectural fittings and

design, such as the provision of an elevating stage and

indoor volleyball courts.

157. Ms Sabina KOO said that since the design of the Moreton

Terrace Activities Centre was inadequate in many ways as shown by

Members’ comments, and also since its construction would necessitate

44

Action

the removal of an existing sports venue, she must question why the

authorities should insist on continuing with such a project that simply did

not serve the interests of the people. She also queried why the

Government could not disclose the termination clauses and schemes for

Members’ reference when they assessed the practical implications of

project termination. She did not know what Members could possibly do

to make the authorities disclose the relevant information and why the

Government should insist on constructing an activities centre so full of

inadequacies in design. She reiterated that Wan Chai District did not

need such a strangely-designed project.

158. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin said he understood the supplementary

information and explanation given by DO(WC) on public consultation.

As he could recall, there was only a span of 21 days between the time

when the project was first mooted and the holding of the first-round

consultation. Besides, during the first round of public consultation,

there were no online documents and information about the project. He

asked government departments to understand that sometimes, due to

public opinions, certain projects might indeed have to be suspended or

terminated. For this reason, they should not refuse to discuss and

prepare for the issue of project termination on the grounds that it had

never occurred before. At the meeting earlier, he already expressed his

unequivocal hope that the Government could provide the financial

implications of terminating the project. He opined that the Government

simply should not refuse to make the estimation on the mere excuse that

it had no plan to terminate the project. When there were clear public

opinions asking for project termination, the Government was, however,

reluctant to provide the required information, thus stifling all room for

discussion. This was certainly not a healthy way of communication.

One reason why so many novices had been elected to the current-term

DC, he opined, was the good sense of these new Members themselves.

He could appreciate the Government’s position, but he still thought that

the Government should provide all information about the implications of

terminating the project, so that Members could in turn discuss with

residents what arrangements were to be made. He reiterated that the

Government must not think it could muddle through on the mere excuse

that it had not made, and would not make, any such estimation. This

certainly was not a satisfactory practice, he said.

159. Ms Clara CHEUNG expressed her regret at the failure of the

then WCDC to consult the public adequately, and she expected the

current-term DC to make improvement in the time to come. She

sincerely hoped that HAD could disclose the financial implications of

terminating the project and the works expenses incurred thus far. She

said that in case the construction of this activities centre had to be

pressed ahead, she wanted to know if there would still be any works

items which the DC could discuss, or any issues on which consultation

could be held to let the public take part in decision-making. She went

on to ask how the general public could make bookings after the

45

Action

completion of the activities centre. She said that as had been pointed

out by many Members, it was generally very difficult to book the

facilities under HAD, and individuals not belonging to any

organisations/institutions would face even greater difficulty. She thus

wanted to have an in-depth understanding of the booking arrangements.

She also said that according to a discussion paper of the LegCo Public

Works Subcommittee, the Government would need to incur an annual

recurrent expenditure of $4.9 million on the activities centre following its

commissioning. She thus asked which department would be

responsible for this recurrent expenditure, and what operational

arrangements would be made after the commissioning of the activities

centre.

160. DO(WC) gave the following response:

(i) On the design of the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre,

ASD had commissioned a contractor to undertake the

works as per the design plan set out in the funding paper

approved by LegCo. As a result, no major changes

would be made to the overall design plan. But if

Members put forward any suggestions that could optimise

the use of the activities centre and such suggestions did

not deviate from the original design plan, ASD could still

give thoughts to them.

(ii) Under the existing design plan, an activities room

measuring 100 square metres would be located on the

ground floor of the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre.

This activities room would be provided with foldable table

tennis tables and could also be used as a lecture hall or a

mini-exhibition hall. The second and third floors of the

activities centre would be an assembly hall about 200

square metres in size which could be used for staging

small-scale performances. As the Leighton Hill

Community Hall could accommodate performances that

were larger in scale, the Moreton Terrace Activities

Centre could serve a diversion purpose, meaning that

organisations holding activities of smaller scales could

book the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre, while those

holding functions larger in scale could use the Leighton

Hill Community Hall. In this way, organisations could

choose the venue that could suit their particular needs and

purposes. Different venues would impact participants’

moods differently, and in this connection, following the

completion of the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre,

there would be two different venues that could suit the

respective needs of different users.

(iii) He added that planting pots under the Community Garden

46

Action

Programme would be provided on the rooftop of the

Moreton Terrace Activities Centre. Given the land

scarcity in Wan Chai, there was only one Community

Garden in the district at the moment, the one located in

Wan Chai Park. However, as the tree foliage there had

got denser and denser, almost blocking out the sun, the

site had become not quite so suitable as a venue of

planting pots. The rooftop of the Moreton Terrace

Activities Centre, in contrast, could provide a much large

open space with plenty of sunshine. He thus believed

that the rooftop would be a more suitable site for a

Community Garden. He also said that Members could

offer their suggestions within the framework of the above

design plan, with a view to gearing the project more for

the convenience and benefit of the public after its

completion.

161. Ms Eugenia CHUNG, Assistant Director (2) of HAD, gave the

following response:

(i) Referring to Members’ concern over the financial

implications of terminating the project, she stated that as

the Government’s position was to bring the project to

completion, it would not make any such estimation as

requested. Technically, she would say that should either

party ask for contract termination, any compensation

arrangements must be drawn up with the agreement of

both parties. If the contractor claimed that it had

incurred certain costs on raw materials and manpower and

thus requested the Government to pay a specified sum of

compensation, the Government could not possibly accede

entirely to its demand. The Government would need to

assess the compensation claim and audit the expenses

associated with it. The process would be prolonged, and

negotiations with the contractor might have to be held. If

both parties could not reach any agreement, it might even

be necessary to resort to litigation. It would not be

appropriate for the Government to attempt to make any

such financial estimation, as the Government could not

possibly know how much the contractor had invested at

this stage. Members, she hoped, should realise that due

to its position, the Government would not make any

estimation; not only this, there would also be many

technical and practical difficulties.

(ii) As explained by DO(WC), should Members think that

certain engineering works items of the Moreton Terrace

Activities Centre could still be improved, the authorities

could make corresponding arrangements based on their

47

Action

advice, provided that it was possible to adjust the scope of

works and the management plan for the centre in the

future. This could gear the centre more for the benefit of

the public and should be a more pragmatic approach.

162. DO(WC) added the following remarks:

(i) According to the latest estimation, the Moreton Terrace

Activities Centre would require an annual recurrent

expenditure of $4.9 million after its completion. This

expenditure would cover the upkeep and repairs costs

incurred by EMSD and ASD, security and cleaning fees,

water and electricity charges, plant care costs under the

Community Garden Programme and salaries of Assistant

Community Organisers responsible for managing the

activities centre. The annual recurrent expenditure of

$4.9 million would be borne entirely by the Government.

(ii) As regards booking arrangements, the Government’s

tentatively proposal was to follow the same arrangement

adopted for Leighton Hill Community Hall, i.e., bookings

for venues in a quarter should be made in the first 10 days

of the preceding quarter, with any vacant time slots arising

thereafter open to replacement bookings. The Moreton

Terrace Activities Centre would mainly accept bookings

from organisations based on a priority system assigning

preference to government departments and DC Members’

offices, followed by owners’ corporations or charitable

organisations in the district. All such organisations

would mostly be exempt from venue charges. The free

use of the venues in community halls was in stark contrast

to the fees charged by other similar venues in the district,

such as the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition

Centre. Hence, it was believed that the fee arrangements

for community halls would be welcomed by the public.

As the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre was a public

facility, the Government’s principle was likewise to

maximise its use by members of the public, which was

why booking of its venues would be exclusive to

organisations basically. In general, unless a commercial

organisation could show clearly how the public would

benefit from its booking of a venue in the activities centre,

the Government would not entertain booking applications

from commercial organisations lest they might use the

venues to reap commercial benefits. Also, if the venues

in the activities centre were open to booking by

individuals, it would likewise be difficult for the

Government to ascertain afterwards whether any

48

Action

individual users had used the venues for illicit purposes or

commercial profits. Therefore, booking by organisations

would be a more easily managed system of venue

reservation. And, the experience of the Leighton Hill

Community Hall could show that this system had been

effective. If Members had any other opinions, he would

be happy to listen to them.

163. The Chairperson recapped the discussions as follows:

(i) She opined that the Government was just unwilling,

certainly not unable, to disclose the termination clauses.

Throughout the discussions, Members had been mindful

of the sanctity of contracts. But they also believed that

every contract must contain certain termination clauses,

and they were only asking the Government to disclose the

relevant parts of the provisions. If the Government was

unable to making the relevant estimation, it should

disclose the information and let professionals in the

community render their assistance, rather than doing

nothing when faced with difficulties. She said that the

public were not happy because they simply did not believe

that the Government could have signed such a stupid

contract.

(ii) She said that disclosing the termination clauses of a

contract would have the least impact on commercial ethics

when compared with disclosing other clauses. She thus

queried why commercial confidentiality should take

precedence over the right of the public to know. She

pointed that what the public disliked most was the

Government’s behaviour of treating the public coffers as

its own purse, rather than the purse of all Hong Kong

people. It was totally unreasonable to let government

departments decide all on their own how public money

was to be used. She maintained that the Government

could decide how to use the people’s money, but it had

failed to keep the gate well.

(iii) She said that the Government could not have paid the total

expenses of the Moreton Terrace Activities Centre all in

one lump sum. She said that if the Government had

followed a payment schedule, she would like to know how

much it had paid thus far. She maintained that the

Government simply must not withhold all information

about the project from the DC.

(iv) As regards public consultation, she pointed out that the

49

Action

residents living within a radius of 100 metres from the

works site all said that they had never received any

consultation document. And, the joint letter signed by

over a thousand volleyball court users was treated by the

Government as merely one submission. She questioned

the Government how it would interpret public opinions

and how it could make the public believe and accept its

consultation findings.

(v) The Victoria Park Handball Pitch was the main venue

used by the handball sector on Hong Kong Island. The

Hong Kong Handball League comprised more than 60

teams, all of which faced immense difficulties in renting

training venues. Yet, the Government had sought to

polarise the needs of different stakeholders and different

sports sectors using the same venue. She queried

whether this was good planning and pointed out at the

same time that the Victoria Park Handball Pitch was

simply not a suitable venue to be shared by two

ballgames. She agreed that Hong Kong faced a severe

shortage of sports venues, and that there was a need to

identify more sites for community uses in the district.

But she reiterated that the Government should not polarise

the needs of different stakeholders using the same venue.

(vi) She said that Members had long since pointed out that the

Government had chosen the wrong site. She would like

to raise this point once again here, in the hope that the

Government could disclose the termination clauses. In

this way, Members would all see that its refusal was

simply the result of its unwillingness to do so.

164. The Chairperson announced that the meeting would proceed to

vote and read out her written motion as follows: “That this DC urges the

Government to expeditiously terminate the construction of the Moreton

Terrace Activities Centre.” The Chairperson asked Members to vote by

a show of hands and announced the voting results as follows:

Yes： 9 votes (Miss Clarisse YEUNG, Ms CHAN

Yuk-lam, Mr LI Wing-choi, Ms Cathy YAU,

Mr MAK King-sing, Ms Susi LAW, Ms

Clara CHEUNG, Ms Sabina KOO and Mr

LEUNG Pak-kin)

No： 2 votes (Ms Peggy LEE and Mr Anson LAM)

Abstain： 0 votes

165. The Chairperson announced the passage of the motion and

asked Ms Eugenia CHUNG to relay Members’ views to the relevant

50

Action

departments and policy bureaux.

Item 9:

Written motion: Urging the Government to respond to

the five demands



8/2020 and the written reply of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF).

167. Ms Susi LAW proposed to suspend the meeting and wait until

the relevant departmental representatives arrived before starting the

discussion on the motion.

168. The Chairperson asked other Members if they agreed to

suspending the meeting for five minutes.


Chairperson announced the suspension of the meeting for five minutes.

(Meeting suspended for five minutes)

170. The Chairperson announced the resumption of the meeting.

171. The Chairperson said that despite her prior invitation, the

Security Bureau, HKPF and relevant government departments had not

assigned any representatives to respond to the written motion at this

meeting. Disappointed, she wished to express her regret at the refusal

of the relevant departments to listen to the people’s views on the Five

Demands in the DC. The Chairperson invited Ms Cathy Yau to say

more on her written motion.

172. Ms Cathy YAU said that this written motion urged the

Government to respond to the Five Demands, in addition to reorganising

the police force and the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC).

She expressed her regret that HKPF had only given a one-sentence

written reply, saying that as the Special Administrative Region

Government had repeatedly responded to this topic, the Wan Chai police

district would have no further comments. She said that the

Government’s forcible attempt to amend the Fugitive Offenders

Ordinance (FOO) eventually triggered the “Anti-extradition to China”

Movement, and the community already put forward the Five Demands as

early as half a year ago. Yet, it was only after a prolonged delay that

the Government finally acceded to the first demand, namely the

withdrawal of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in

Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019. She therefore

urged the Government to respond fully to the Five Demands, hold the

police accountable for their violence and reorganise the police and IPCC,

so as to bring forth social reconciliation. The Five Demands were: the

51

Action

withdrawal of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in

Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, the establishment

of an independent commission of inquiry, retracting the definition of the

protests as riots, the release of and exoneration for all arrested protesters,

and the introduction of “dual” universal suffrage. She was sure that

following all the media coverage, what had happened in Hong Kong over

the previous six months would leave a deep imprint on the minds of

Hong Kong people. The first tear gas bomb to batter the district was

fired by the police on 4 August 2019 in Percival Street, Causeway Bay.

Since then, and up to 1 January 2020, the police had fired even more tear

gas bombs in Wan Chai District and many incidents of violence had

occurred. As a former member of the police force, she quoted section

10 of the Police Force Ordinance, saying that one duty of the police force

should be to take lawful measures for preventing injury to life and

property. Yet, according to media reports, once when the police were

firing tear gas bombs to dispel the crowds, other members of the force

were seen throwing some rubbish bins of FEHD onto the street from the

footbridge leading to the Immigration Tower. This was blatant

vandalism, and it was just sheer luck that no member of the public was

hurt. Referring to an IPCC member’s comment that one could not tell

whether the people in blue vests were really members of the Media

Liaison Cadre, she queried whether this IPCC member could be capable

of grasping the truth in the course of the IPCC investigation.

173. The Chairperson said that this written motion was seconded by

totally eight Members, namely herself, Ms CHAN Yuk-lam, Mr LI

Wing-choi, Mr MAK King-sing, Ms Susi LAW, Ms Clara CHEUNG,

Ms Sabina KOO and Mr LEUNG Pak-kin. She asked whether the

seconders had any further comments.

174. Ms Susi LAW said that every time when Chief Executive Carrie

LAM spoke on the demand for setting up an independent commission of

enquiry, she would divert people’s attention to the IPCC investigation.

Ironically, all members of the International Expert Panel had resigned.

These experts remarked that IPCC had very little power, as it could

neither summon any witnesses nor compel the police to provide any

evidence. Worse still, all police complaints must be lodged with the

police force itself, and IPCC could only review those complaints that had

been investigated and referred to it by the police. She maintained that

IPCC was incapable of any investigation in the true sense of the word, as

its power and independent investigation capability were both severely

limited. Many Hong Kong youths had been harmed in the previous six

months, much to the sorrow of all in Hong Kong. It was hoped that the

Government could respond positively to the Five Demands, so as to

resolve the perennial social problems. The incident on 12 June had

been defined as a “riot”, and the police had since been arresting and

charging many young people for rioting, but she for one queried the

grounds for such charges. She pointed out that as at 18 January 2020,

as many as 539 people had been charged for rioting. If all of them were

52

Action

convicted, their total imprisonment might be as long as 5 390 years.

She thus urged the relevant departments to respond positively to this

issue.

175. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam said that an independent commission of

inquiry and the reorganisation of the police force could both be workable

solutions, as could be shown by the policing problem in Northern

Ireland. She pointed out that from the 1960s onwards, clashes between

the police and the people were the order of the day in Northern Ireland,

thus pushing the relationship between the two to the brink of demise.

Subsequently, in 1999, the Northern Irish authorities released an

independent inquiry report with recommendations on reorganising the

police force and setting up an independent police monitoring body with

real powers. The relationship between the police and the people

henceforth started to improve gradually, eventually lifting the popularity

rating of the former from rock bottom to 81%. She opined that only a

police monitoring body with real powers could turn the police into an

effective, efficient and impartial law-enforcement force that would

willingly hold itself accountable to the law and the community. Many

aggrieved individuals, she said, simply could not see any possibility of

redressing their grievances, as they must first disclose who they were, or

they must first lodge their complaints with the police in the hope that the

investigation reports on their complaint cases could eventually be

reviewed by IPCC. And, it must be noted that IPCC did not have any

real power to investigate police violence. She said that it was a matter

of extreme urgency to introduce reform that upheld human rights and

human dignity. The necessity of such reform could explain the huge

reverberation in society and the insistence on “Five Demands, Not One

Less”. She believed that although no representatives of the relevant

departments were present at the meeting, they would still be able to hear

the voices.

176. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin said that the nonattendance of the relevant

government departments at this meeting was indicative of their neglect of

Members’ suggestions on the current social problems. Expressing his

regret, he explained that as reported recently by the media, the Moody’s,

an international credit rating institution, had lowered Hong Kong’s credit

rating due to the Government total indifference to the recent protests and

people’s aspirations. He opined that if the Government kept refusing to

answer the Five Demands and continued with its total indifference, Hong

Kong’s status as an international financial centre would decline sooner or

later, and Hong Kong people would cease to see any rays of hope and

prospects. He said that by persistently refusing to heed the Five

Demands and tackle the problem of police brutality, the Government had

in fact been playing a game of mutual destruction.

177. Ms Clara CHEUNG agreed to the other seconders’ views and

stressed that “dual” universal suffrage must be introduced as early as

possible. She explained that Chief Executive Carrie LAM had dared to

53

Action

ignore people’s opinions repeatedly only because she did not need the

people’s mandate. As early as June 2019, when activities against the

amendment of FOO started, people already put forward their demand for

“dual” universal suffrage. Also, for many years already, people had

been asking for the introduction of “dual” universal suffrage in the

annual march on 1 July. And, there was also the Basic Law, which

stipulated clearly that Hong Kong people were entitled to a certain

degree of autonomy and self-rule. She therefore urged the Government

to implement “dual” universal suffrage as early as possible.

178. Mr Ivan WONG remarked that any independent commission of

inquiry to be set up should also look into the parts played by churches

and teachers. And, it was also necessary to investigate certain media

which used our public money to produce one-sided news reports. He

maintained that society should consider how an independent commission

of inquiry was to be appointed, because even if it was appointed by the

Chief Executive, some people would still complain about unfairness.

He added that it should be for the court to determine the definition of a

riot. As regards the demand to release participants and protesters

arrested for rioting, he questioned whether those people arrested for other

reasons during the riots were also to be released. He advised that

Members should consider whether their above demands were at all

practicable in Hong Kong, a society upholding the rule of law. He said

that if an arrested person was relatively young in age, it might be

possible to consider giving him lenient treatment under the established

legal framework, such as a caution under the Superintendent’s Discretion

Scheme or a bind-over order. But if an arrested person or participant

was over 18, he must be strictly dealt with under the law lest people

might get the wrong message. He maintained that thoughts must first

be given to the arrested person’s age and degree of involvement before

deciding whether leniency could be possible under the established legal

framework.

179. Ms Peggy LEE said that she only agreed to some of the Five

Demands. She considered it necessary to set up an independent

commission of inquiry to conduct a comprehensive investigation which

covered not only police brutality but also all acts of violence in the

“Anti-extradition to China” movement. She maintained that this was

the only way to do justice to all Hong Kong people. She remarked that

society must consider how to reorganise the police force, so as to

safeguard Hong Kong’s rule of law and its law and order. She went on

to say that the future development of society should likewise be

considered. She was convinced that given the rule of law in Hong

Kong, the court would surely make a fair ruling if an arrested person was

indeed innocent, or if a police officer was really guilty of violent acts.

She agreed that if an arrested person was young in age, he or she could

be given discretionary treatment. She added that Article 45 of the Basic

Law clearly provided that Hong Kong people were entitled to “dual”

universal suffrage; the method for selecting the Chief Executive would

54

Action

be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong SAR

and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress,

with the ultimate aim being selection by universal suffrage. She

maintained that the composition of tear gas must first be dealt with as a

matter of urgency, because not only Causeway Bay but also the Southorn

area had been battered by tear gas. As the police had never disclosed

the composition of the tear gas used, people could not know whether

there was any harmful component. She strongly requested the police to

avoid or even stop the use of any tear gas before the composition was

disclosed. She said that some residents whose windows were smashed

had enquired with her how they could claim compensation. She for one

could not understand why no government officials had stepped down to

show accountability. The Government never listened to the voices of

the one million people who took to the streets, and it did not withdraw

the amendment bill until it was already too late. But then, no

government officials had to step down. She stressed that matters

affecting residents’ living must be dealt with first.

180. Mr Anson LAM remarked that if an independent commission of

inquiry was to be set up, its investigation must not be confined to police

brutality. To begin with, it was necessary to establish a direction of

investigation to determine whether the movement should be classified as

a riot. He pointed out that all places along the tramline in Wan Chai

had been impacted by the tear gas fired by the police, and the police had

also practised tear gas firing in Mount Butler Firing Range. He hoped

the DC could advise the police not to practise firing any tear gas with

unknown components over there. As doing so would affect nearby

residents, he hoped the police could give a reply in good time.

181. The Vice-Chairperson referred to the Government’s saying that

rather than establishing an independent commission of inquiry, it would

at most consider the setting up of an independent review committee with

no power of investigation and adjudication. But people’s wish to

establish an independent commission of inquiry, he said, actually

stemmed from the fact that unlike the powerless IPCC, such a

commission would have the power, capability and credibility required to

investigate the police force and all the police brutality over the last half

year. He therefore totally disapproved of some Members’ attempt to

change the focus, stressing that what people wanted was the setting up of

an independent commission of inquiry to look into the issue of police

brutality. He also believed that an absolute majority of the public

actually agreed that all the recent disputes were attributable to the

Government and the police. The existing predicament had emerged

only because the Government had used police batons and tear gas bombs

to suppress people’s political demands, rather than seeking any political

solutions. He also agreed that only the implementation of “dual”

universal suffrage could close the rift in society, and that reorganising the

police force was an imperative. He referred to the “21 July Incident” at

Yuen Long Station of the West Rail Line to illustrate his point, saying

55

Action

that the police had done practically nothing in the aftermath of the rural

thugs’ attacks on people. He thus opined that the police force was

plagued with systemic defects, and it would be hard to restore public

confidence in it unless it was given an overhaul. Another case in point

was the mass round-up on 1 January 2020, in which several hundred

completely innocent people were arrested. He suspected that the police

had already gone out of control and thus considered it necessary to

reorganise the force and set up an independent commission of inquiry to

investigate police brutality.

182. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam referred to some Members’ worry that

while reorganising the police force might adversely affect law and order,

there was even no guarantee of any improvement afterwards. But she

maintained that it was still necessary to do so, because in the process, it

would be possible to study lots of information about the clashes between

the police and the public in the “Anti-extradition to China” movement

over the last half year. And, investigation could also be conducted to

ascertain whether any police officers had refused to display their Warrant

Cards and committed any acts of violence, such as treating arrested

protesters with excessive force. Actually, certain police officers had

indeed been caught showing media workers’ Identity Cards before live

broadcast cameras. She opined that such acts must be checked and

restrained, adding that in the course of reorganisation, various reviews

and adjustments would have to made in order to reinstate discipline in

the police force. She also considered it necessary to check the power of

the police under the Public Order Ordinance by incorporating the

provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

She stressed that in the process of reorganisation, it would also be

necessary to review all the ordinances used by the police for enforcement

and how these ordinances had been enforced. Therefore, an

independent commission of inquiry with concrete power must be set up

to check and restrain the police force, and to request it to take up

responsibility for all law-enforcement irregularities.

183. Noting that the written motion only mentioned reorganising the

police force, Ms Peggy LEE enquired whether the word “review” should

be added to make it more precise. She considered that if the terms of

reference and power of IPCC were not reviewed, then even the

replacement of all its existing members would be of very little use. She

said that under the existing mechanism, a person who wished to

complain against the police must first approach the Complaints Against

the Police Office. After acceptance of the complaint and following the

completion of investigation, a report would be submitted to IPCC for

scrutiny. She opined that this mechanism could not meet people’s

expectation about monitoring the police force. She thus thought that the

coverage of the written motion was not comprehensive enough. Also,

she agreed that the Government must take concrete actions to answer

people’s demands and return peace to the city as soon as possible.

56

Action

184. Mr LI Wing-choi remarked that rather than merely granting

discretionary treatment to arrested persons younger in age, the authorities

must also release all arrested persons and withdraw all the charges

against them. In the mass round-up mentioned earlier, for example,

many arrested persons had still been charged for rioting even without

sufficient evidence. He maintained that political problems must be

resolved politically, adding that as evidenced by human experience at all

times and in all places, greater government suppression would only result

in fiercer resistance from the people. He hoped that the Chief Executive

could grant amnesty and discretionary treatment to all incriminated

persons, releasing all those protesters arrested since 12 June 2019 and

withdrawing all the charges against them.

185. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin said that the Government did not withdraw

its amendments to the FOO until after 300 000 people, one million

people and two million people had taken to the streets. Over the last six

months, the Government had stepped up its suppression of the people

and depended solely on the police as a means of resolving all political

problems, thus resulting in more and more arrests. Frankly, the hurling

of bricks and “fitting-out works” were acts which never occurred until

after the people’s demands had been persistently denied. Had the

Government responded to people’s aspirations earlier, such incidents

would not have occurred. He said that those teachers or so-called

abettors mentioned by Mr Ivan WONG had long since been arrested and

suspended from duties even before their conviction in court. Some

firemen and civil servants were likewise suspended from duties before

the completion of independent investigation. He referred to a case in

which the then Secretary for Justice decided not to charge AW Sian on

the grounds of public interests. He pointed out at the same time that

“dual” universal suffrage should have been implemented in 2007 and

2008, but nothing had ever happened so far.

186. Ms Sabina KOO said that the date of this meeting was 21

January 2020, meaning that it had already been six whole months since

the incident in Yuen Long occurred on 21 July 2019. Yet, only 36

persons and six people had been respectively arrested and prosecuted so

far. She maintained that the police had failed in their duty to protect the

public, and that they had purposefully allowed such mayhem to happen

in society. She hoped that with an independent commission of inquiry,

our society could at least see a belated return to justice and public

confidence could thus be restored. As regards the lowering of Hong

Kong’s credit rating from Aa2 to Aa3 by the Moody’s, this actually

showed the international community’s perception that the Hong Kong

SAR Government was incompetent and could not come up with any

policies and measures to improve the situation. An independent

commission of inquiry could set a clear demarcation date. Incidents

that happened before this demarcation date must be investigated. And,

incidents which occurred after it were to be followed up equally

seriously. This was the only way to resolve the problems.

57

Action

187. Ms Cathy YAU recalled that in mid-June 2019, the then

Commissioner of Police, Stephen LO, said that five people had been

arrested for participating in riots. His classification of the protests as

riots led her to consider whether she should remain in the police force.

She understood that it would be for the judges concerned to decide

whether the arrested people were to be convicted. But she still thought

that society at large should consider treating the younger ones leniently,

and that the authorities should withdraw all the charges against those

who had been arrested for staging political protests in the streets.

188. Responding to Ms Peggy LEE’s hope that our society could

soon return to peace, Ms Susi LAW remarked that if the Government

continued to ignore the Five Demands, it would be very difficult for Ms

Peggy LEE’s hope to come true. She opined that since the Government

put forward its amendments to the FOO, people had had to live under

great fears and white terror. And, during all this time, several firings of

live rounds at innocent people had occurred. In Sai Wan Ho, for

example, a young man with no intent to harm anyone was shot by a

policeman while crossing the thoroughfare of the area. She could not

see why the Government should still think that the police had not

committed any acts of violence. She maintained that an inquiry into the

police force must cover as many details as possible and propose both

short-term and long-term remedies, so as to ensure that the police could

remain capable of maintaining law and order and the Government could

provide the public with a reasonable living environment. She quoted an

earlier study conducted by the Faculty of Medicine of the University of

Hong Kong and pointed out that 20% of Hong Kong’s population, or one

in every five persons in Hong Kong, had symptoms of depression and

post-traumatic stress disorder, or even suicidal tendency. It was also

reported by the media that many young people were prepared to die for

the cause of resistance and had even written their last words. She urged

the Government to answer the Five Demands and bring society back to

peace.

189. The Chairperson said that she was at the scene of the “riot” on

12 June, staging a hunger strike against the amendments to FOO on the

footbridge leading to the Central Government Offices. Since the very

beginning, the Government had been ignoring the many conventional

protests put up by peaceful, rational and non-violent protesters, including

hunger strikes, marches and letters requesting a meeting with the Chief

Executive. And, despite the strong views expressed by LegCo

Members, the Government still turned down all the demands and even

resorted to yet tougher means in an attempt to force through its

amendments. Tear gas bombs were no longer used for the original

purpose as suggested by their very name. Instead, they had been fired

repeatedly at the crowds like live munitions. Many a time when she

turned around during her fight at the frontline, she would see numerous

youngsters persevering with their fight despite the fear written on their

58

Action

faces. It was not enough for the Government to respond to any single

demand out of the Five Demands, and she reiterated that the Five

Demands were the consensus of all in civil society. “Five Demands.

Not One Less”.

190. The Chairperson said that Members had had enough discussion

on this topic. She invited Ms Cathy YAU to read out her written

motion.

191. Ms Cathy YAU read out the written motion as follows: “That

this DC urges the Government to respond to all the Five Demands and

reorganise the Hong Kong Police Force and the Independent Police

Complaints Council.”

192. The Chairperson invited the Members present to vote on Ms

Cathy YAU’s motion by a show of hands. The voting results were as

follows:

Yes: 9 votes (Ms CHAN Yuk-lam, Ms Clara CHEUNG, Ms

Sabina KOO, Ms Susi LAW, Mr LEUNG

Pak-kin, Mr LI Wing-choi, Mr MAK king-sing,

Ms Cathy YAU and Miss Clarisse YEUNG)

No: 0 vote

Abstain: 2 votes (Mr Anson LAM and Ms Peggy LEE)

193. The Chairperson announced the passage of the motion and

requested the police representatives to note Members’ views. She also

hoped that the Chief Secretary for Administration could respond to the

motion.

(Mr Ivan WONG left the meeting at 5:45 p.m..)

Discussion Items

Item 10: Concern over social impacts of installing fences on

footbridges in Wan Chai District

194. The Chairperson welcomed Mr TANG Siu-Chung, Engineer/

Wan Chai 2 of the Transport Department (TD), to the meeting and

referred Members’ attention to the written replies from ASD, EPD, Fire

Services Department (FSD), HyD, HKPF and TD. The Chairperson

invited Members to share their opinions regarding the discussion items.

195. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin noticed that fences, or mesh walls, had

been installed on many footbridges in Hong Kong for no good reason.

He asked why the relevant government department had done so. He

said that as could be seen from some newsreel footage he watched

months before, many rubbish bins were actually hurled onto O’Brien

59

Action

Road from the footbridge overhead, but the Government had not

installed any mesh walls there. Similarly, another busy footbridge

posing even greater danger due to its location on the main parade route

on Hong Kong Island, the one near Arsenal Street, had not been installed

with any mesh walls either. He asked the department concerned to

disclose the reasons for installing mesh walls on footbridges, and to

explain why it had chosen to do so on footbridges outside the procession

route, rather than those posing greater danger due to their location on the

parade route.

196. Ms Susi LAW said that the same phenomenon could be

observed in Wan Chai and other districts, and these “caged footbridges”

had come to impact people’s lives severely. The situation in Wan Chai

District was particularly serious as eight footbridges in total had been

installed with mesh walls with no good reason. Despite her request for

more information at the previous meeting, she did not receive any reply

from the department concerned until the morning before this meeting.

She thus raised a series of questions: Why were these mesh walls

installed in the very first place? Which departments were involved in

initiating, designing and constructing them? How come all these works

could bypass the usual public consultation procedure and proceed

without any consultation with the DC and the public? Would the

Government again bypass the established procedure and install mesh

walls on more footbridges in the time to come? How were the works

costs met? Could these mesh walls meet fire safety requirements?

Had there been any assessment of how seriously the half-enclosed design

of these mesh walls would affect the psychological well-being of the

public? Would this unexplained move of the Government to install

mesh walls on footbridges cause any hindrance to people when they got

around in the streets? She expressed her strong dissatisfaction at the

incident and urged the government departments to respond positively.

197. Ms Peggy LEE quoted HyD as saying in the second paragraph

of its reply that since the urgency of the situation called for the speedy

completion of the works, it was not possible to hold any district

consultation beforehand. She was disappointed at the failure of HyD to

assign its representatives at the committee’s meetings despite her

repeated requests. She said that she had been unable to put any

questions to the department as a result. She asked the Secretariat to ask

for a written reply from HyD after the meeting. She wanted to know

the standards adopted by the department to define the word urgency,

because she feared that once such a bad precedent was set, the

department would be able to take whatever measures it liked in the

future, and other government departments might follow suit. Though

she understood that there might not be enough time to conduct public

consultation in some urgent cases, she insisted that this move was

undesirable. Therefore, the department must put forward justifications

to convince her that the situation was indeed so urgent as to warrant the

60

Action

installation of all these unsightly mesh walls on footbridges. She

remarked that Hong Kong was already miserable enough, too miserable

to stand all these unsightly footbridges enclosed by mesh walls.

Besides, she made it a point to say that she was against the installation of

any mesh walls on the footbridge above O’ Brien Road. She said she

was very glad that the department had not done so. She added that she

failed to follow the department’s criteria of choosing footbridges for

mesh wall installation and could not but regret the failure of the

department to assign any representatives to this meeting.

198. The Chairperson said that she had actually tendered attendance

invitations to many relevant departments, but the Members present could

see for themselves how these departments had responded.

199. The Vice-Chairperson said it was a pity that HyD had failed to

send representatives to this meeting, and he hoped questions could be put

to them in writing afterwards. He remarked that the Advisory

Committee on the Appearance of Bridges and Associated Structures (the

Advisory Committee) under HyD had formulated certain guidelines on

the appearance and design of bridges and associated structures. After

consulting members of the industry, he had come to realise that the eight

Wan Chai footbridges installed with mesh walls were a departure from

the guidelines concerned. He challenged the department, asking it to

tell him if the urgency and temporary nature of the mesh walls could be

any sensible justifications for the contravention. He further asked

whether the department had in fact bypassed the Advisory Committee

and the normal procedure. He said he had read Chapter 15 of

“Structures Design Manual for Highways and Railways” (the Manual),

and had thus learnt that no mesh walls were to be added to footbridges.

He hoped the department could provide a written reply.

200. Ms Susi LAW asked the department whether it would once

again take a similar sudden move to launch large projects at different

locations in the territory. She also asked the department to disclose the

justifications for installing mesh walls on footbridges. She said if the

Government wanted to stop the throwing of objects off footbridges

during processions, it must realise that responding to the people’s

demands would be the only ultimate solution. She considered that the

Government’s top-down move to erect mesh walls on footbridges

overnight was an absurd and forcible measure, one which paid no regard

to the impact on the hundreds of thousands of people who used the

footbridges in the district every day. She urged the Government to face

the problem squarely as early as possible.

201. Ms Peggy LEE asked the department to disclose the conditions

that would lead it to consider the removal of the mesh walls, and whether

there was a timetable for that.

61

Action

202. Ms Clara CHEUNG expressed deep concern over the

installation of mesh walls on footbridges, saying that there should be a

better and more prudent approach to our cityscape planning. She went

on to mention something similar she had noticed, the tall water barriers

outside police stations in different localities. Passers-by thus had to

squeeze through the very narrow walkways between the tall walls of

police stations and water barriers. She opined that the water barriers

outside police stations were similar in nature to the mesh walls on

footbridges, so she wished to know whether the police would promptly

review this temporary measure and improve the situation, so that people

could get around without any fear.

203. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam said that the relevant government

departments did not give their replies until the eleventh hour, and HKPF

simply answered that the erection of mesh walls was a collective

decision of the Government. She stressed that in case the Government

wanted to make any collective decision, especially when the decision

was about emergency and temporary measures, it should consult DCs.

The reason was that DC members were representatives of the people and

as such, they should have the right to know what was going on,

especially in times of great emergency. She pointed out that the written

replies of the departments did not explain why the mesh walls were

installed in the very first place, nor did they say anything about the

impact on people’s psychological well-being and whether the

half-enclosed design was inhumane. One written reply, she said,

claimed that footbridges were generally of limited length. But she

pointed out that this was not the case with the footbridges concerned, as

the longest of them was 140m in length. The mesh walls installed

would pose very great danger in case of accidents and would exert stress

and strain on footbridge users. She hoped that the departments could

explain why they had skipped the usual district consultations when

making this collective decision, and whether this practice of ignoring

public opinions would continue in the future. She also called on the

departments to address the issue and give serious replies to members’

questions.

204. Pointing out that the meeting had been going on for four hours,

Mr LEUNG Pak-kin said that no government departments, except HAD,

had sent any representatives to this meeting to respond to this agenda

item. He wished to thank HAD, but at the same time, he wondered if

the departments concerned were just treating the DC as a mere pen pal,

as they would only write it letters and would not attend its meetings.

He considered that the departments’ refusal to attend this DC meeting to

answer the written question presented to them must be an intentional

defiance of the established procedure. He commented that the

Government’s defiance of the very procedures it itself had been

emphasising was highly undesirable. He hoped the Secretariat could

62

Action

urge government departments to send representatives to answer questions

at DC meetings. He said that all agenda items of this meeting were

very important, so he hoped that the departments concerned could make

improvements.

205. Ms Sabina KOO said that after the erection of mesh walls on

footbridges in the district, no fewer than 10 kaifongs had approached her,

trying to ascertain what had happened. She pointed out that it was the

duty of DCs to speak for the public, so she hoped that the Government

could notify Members in advance of what it planned to do, so that there

could be communication with DC Members and the public. She said

that people who had to use these footbridges with mesh walls on their

ways to work every day would feel like being imprisoned. She asked

the department whether it had ever assessed the impact on these people,

and whether psychiatrists’ advice had ever been sought. She said that if

this was indeed a collective decision of the Government, she would be

appalled, because this would mean that the Government actually saw no

need for notifying the public or consulting DCs when making decisions.

206. The Chairperson invited the departmental representatives to

respond to questions from the Members.

207. Mr TANG Siu-chung of TD replied that his department was

responsible for managing the traffic on public roads (including

footbridges) in the district. Speaking on the agenda item “Concern over

social impacts of installing fences on footbridges in Wan Chai District”,

he said that as mentioned by HyD in its written reply, it had recently

installed temporary mesh walls on certain public footbridges in the

district out of public safety concern. This was meant to stop people

from hurling objects down onto nearby roads (especially trunk routes)

and prevent obstruction to the travelling public. The footbridges in

question were designed with sufficient width room, so the installation of

temporary mesh walls would not narrow their circulation areas and cause

any fire safety concerns. It was observed that the footbridges concerned

could still serve the public as usual.

208. The Chairperson asked Mr TANG Siu-chung to answer the

Vice-Chairperson’s question concerning the Manual.

209. The Vice-Chairperson repeated that according to Chapter 15 of

the Manual, the installation of temporary mesh walls on footbridges

would be against the rules. He asked the representative of TD to reply

on the appropriateness of the installation works.

210. Mr TANG Siu-chung of TD replied that the addition of mesh

walls was just of a temporary nature. It was believed that the

department responsible for the works must have considered the light

63

Action

weight of mesh walls and the structural integrity of the footbridges

before putting this temporary measure in place.

211. The Chairperson wished to know whether the contravention of

the guidelines and rules in the Manual would entail any consequences or

necessitate the activating of any procedures.

212. Mr TANG Siu-chung of TD replied that the Advisory

Committee would normally be invited to give advice on the appearance

of facilities such as pedestrian walkways. Yet, as mesh walls on

footbridges were just temporary installations having only short-term

impact on the appearance of footbridges, consultation with the Advisory

Committee might not have been necessary in this case. But he added

that as he did not belong to the department concerned or the Advisory

Committee, what he said was only his personal opinion.

213. Mr CHAN Sze-tat of HKPF replied that he had nothing to add

concerning the written reply from HKPF on the installation of mesh

walls on footbridges. On the question raised by Ms Clara CHEUNG, he

said that the installation of mesh walls on footbridges and the erection of

water barriers were two different issues, adding that he did not have any

relevant information at hand.

214. The Chairperson asked whether the Police had provided any

input in the course of making this so-called collective decision.

215. Mr CHAN Sze-tat of HKPF replied that the Wan Chai police

district had not provided any input.

216. Ms Sabina KOO did not agree to TD’s claim that the

footbridges concerned could still meet fire safety requirements after the

erection of mesh walls because the installation works had not reduced the

width room of the footbridges. She said that in case of fire on a

footbridge, for example, the pedestrians there could have many ways of

escape if the footbridge was not fitted with any mesh walls. They could

jump down from its two sides if rescue cushions were in position. Yet,

this way of escape was not quite so feasible after the erection of mesh

walls. She therefore thought that this collective decision of the

Government had totally disregarded public safety.

217. Mr LI Wing-choi asked whether the selection of footbridges for

installing mesh walls had anything to do with the operational strategies

of the police. He asked whether those footbridges which had not been

selected for installation were in fact vantage points suitable for firing tear

gas.

218. The Vice-Chairperson requested the department to further

explain the claim that the erection of mesh walls was a collective

64

Action

decision of the Government. Specifically, he wanted to know when the

decision was first made, and whether there were any timetables for

re-assessing the situation, holding further discussions and removing the

mesh walls erected. He also requested the department to give a clear

account of the opinions given by different departments on the matter.

219. Mr TANG Siu-chung of TD replied that since the mesh walls

were just installed on the two sides of the footbridges, there was no

noticeable change to their overall widths and no narrowing of their

circulation areas either. Hence, there was no impact on fire safety. As

regards fire escape routes and means of escape, they were the

responsibility of FSD and it had already provided a written reply. In

response to the Vice-Chairperson’s question concerning the collective

decision of the Government, he said that he did not take part in making

the decision, so he did not know which government departments were

involved. But he added that the mesh walls had been installed out of

public safety concern, and the aim was to stop people from hurling

objects onto nearby roads (especially trunk routes) and prevent

obstruction to the travelling public.

220. The Chairperson pointed out that various government

departments had provided written a reply, but HKPF was the only one

which referred to the mesh walls as a collective decision of the

Government. She thus asked HKPF to disclose the government

departments involved in making the decision and the specific details of

the decision.

221. Mr CHAN Sze-tat of HKPF responded that as an officer

attached to the Wan Chai District, he took no part in making this

collective decision and was only informed of it afterwards. Hence he

was unable to answer the questions. As regards whether there were any

tactical considerations when selecting footbridges for mesh wall

installation, he was unable to give any reply because Wan Chai police

district had not provided any input to the selection process.

222. The Chairperson said that Ms Cathy YAU had personally

inspected the eight footbridges discussed in this meeting. Members

were all baffled by the sudden appearance of caged footbridges in the

district. This meeting was originally meant to give the departmental

representatives an opportunity to make up for the lack of district

consultation, and to give specific details of the decision and the impact

on people’s daily life. Yet, much to her regret, she found that this

meeting could not possibly see any fruitful discussion. HKPF was the

only department which admitted that the erection of mesh walls was a

collective decision. But all those government officials who took part in

making the decision were absent. She said that this was unfair to all the

attendees at this meeting. She hoped that exchanges of a more

constructive nature could be seen in the future meetings of the DC, as

65

Action

this was a goal which the current-term WCDC longed to achieve. She

said that the oft-repeated sight of departmental representatives failing to

answer Members’ questions was highly unsatisfactory. She expressed

her regret that this meeting was unable to obtain adequate information

about the issue. She would pursue this issue in the forthcoming

meetings of WCDC and its committees, and she hoped that the next time

when the DC discussed this issue again, what happened at this meeting

would not repeat itself. In the forthcoming meetings of WCDC and its

committees, she would pursue all the questions left unanswered by the

departmental representatives at this meeting, namely which departments

were involved in making this collective decision, when the decision was

made, what were specific contents of the decision, how the installation

projects were funded, when the mesh walls would be removed, and

whether the commencement of the projects were preceded by any

assessments. She asked the Secretary to relay all the opinions and

questions raised by Members at this meeting to the relevant government

departments. The discussion of this agenda item would continue in the

coming WCDC meetings.

223. The Chairperson said that Members had already indicated their

wishes to join the six committees to the Secretariat. She read out the

Membership lists of the committees under the 6th WCDC as follows:

(i) CBHAC

Ms CHAN Yuk-lam, Ms Clara CHEUNG, Ms Sabina

KOO, Mr Anson LAM, Ms Susi LAW, Ms Peggy LEE,

Mr LEUNG Pak-kin, Mr MAK King-sing, Ms Cathy

YAU and Miss Clarisse YEUNG

(Post-meeting note: Subsequent to the meeting, Mr LI

Wing-choi and the Hon Paul TSE expressed their wishes

to join this Committee.)

(ii) CLSC



Mr LI Wing-choi, Mr MAK King-sing, Ms Cathy YAU

and Miss Clarisse YEUNG

(iii) DWFMC



Mr LEUNG Pak-kin, Mr LI Wing-choi, Mr MAK

King-sing, Mr Ivan WONG, Ms Cathy YAU and Miss

Clarisse YEUNG

(iv) DPTC


66

Action


Mr LEUNG Pak-kin, Mr MAK King-sing, Mr Ivan

WONG, Ms Cathy YAU and Miss Clarisse YEUNG

(Post-meeting note: Subsequent to the meeting, Mr LI

Wing-choi and the Hon Paul TSE indicated their wishes to

join this Committee.)

(v) FEHC




King-sing, Ms Cathy YAU and Miss Clarisse YEUNG

(vi) FGAC




King-sing, Ms Cathy YAU and Miss Clarisse YEUNG

(Post-meeting note: Subsequent to the meeting, the Hon

Paul TSE indicated his wish to join this Committee.)

224. The Chairperson said that the Hon Paul TSE was unable to

indicate his intention to join the committees today since he was absent

from the meeting. Committee Members could elect their chairpersons

and vice-chairpersons at the meetings of their respective committees as

arranged by the Secretariat.

Item 11:

Information Paper: Position of the Wan Chai District

Council Funds and the District Works Project Funds



No. 9/2020.

226. The Chairperson said that DCs were allocated with provision by

the Government every year to fund community involvement projects in

the districts. In 2019/2020, a provision of $16,648,000 was allocated to

WCDC to fund community involvement projects in the district.

Besides, also in 2019/2020, WCDC was allocated $10,669,000 to

implement projects of district minor works. The Chairperson said that

Annex I to the paper set out the position of WCDC Funds, and Annex II

gave the particulars of district minor works provision and the progress of

projects. The uncommitted sum of WCDC Funds 2019/2020,

amounting to roughly $1,230,000, would be at the disposal of the

current-term WCDC from January to March 2020.

67

Action

227. The Chairperson told the meeting that the close of account for

WCDC Funds in 2019/2020 had to be done before 31 March 2020.

Thus, if WCDC decided to organise any activities with the uncommitted

funds of this financial year, such activities must be completed within

February 2020, so as to allow sufficient time for the applicant

organisations to compile and submit their reimbursement applications

and supporting documents, and for the Secretariat to vet the applications

and decide whether the applicant organisations would need to revise their

applications or submit any supplementary information. In this way,

reimbursements and close of account could both be completed before 31

March 2020.

228. The Chairperson invited Members to share their opinions on the

disposal of the uncommitted funds.

229. After listening to the Chairperson, Ms Peggy LEE said that

given such a tight schedule, the DC could not possibly identify any

applicant organisations unless FGAC could convene a meeting on 4

February to examine the applications received. And, even if an

organisation could be identified to submit a funding application, it would

still be difficult for the DC to make sure that it could really complete

everything as required before the close of account on 31 March. She

thus suggested returning the remaining $1,230,000 to the Government,

but she also enquired if this would result in a funding cut of $1,230,000

for the DC in the next financial year. She would like to hear the advice

of DO(WC) in this regard. She also pointed out that even if an activity

was somehow put up using the $1,230,000, the great haste would make it

impossible for the organiser to do a good job anyway.

230. Ms Susi LAW agreed that it would be a bit of a rush for the DC

to dispose of the $1,230,000 within such a short timeframe. She thus

asked whether the money could be carried forward to the next financial

year. She thought that compared with its predecessor, the current-term

DC should have more ideas about the holding of activities. It should

have plentiful ideas, or even initiatives, about the holding of different

cultural and leisure activities. She thus suggested that the money be

carried forward to the next financial year, believing that this would be

useful to the DC in its work.

231. Ms Clara CHEUNG asked whether the funding for WCDC in

the next financial year would be reduced if the organisations concerned

could not complete everything before the close of account on 31 March.

She also said that in case the uncommitted funds could not be carried

forward to the next financial year, she would suggest using the money to

launch a health check programme in the district as soon as possible.

She explained that many kaifongs had been battered by tear gas but not

every one of them could afford immediate medical attention or

medication, even if they knew that they were unwell. Considering the

68

Action

urgency of the situation, she would like to raise this initiative.

232. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam asked DO(WC) whether it was mandatory

to use the remaining $1,230,000 for different activities. Specifically,

she would like to know if the DC could come up with a new project and

use all this money to finance and complete it within February. She also

wished to know whether the funding for WCDC in the next financial

year would be reduced by $1,230,000 in the event that this project could

not be completed before the end of February.

233. DO(WC) gave the following replies:

(i) He thanked Members for raising questions about DC

funding, as their questions would give him a chance to

give them a better picture of the funding mechanism.

(ii) For the purpose of illustration, he assumed that the

funding for the DC was $16,648,000 per financial year.

This meant that this amount of funding would be allocated

to the DC every year without any variation whatsoever.

He explained that under the Government’s accounting

policy, no unused funding from one financial year could

be carried forward to the next. And, at the same time,

there did not exist any rule under which the amount of

unused funds in one financial year would lead to a

corresponding deduction from the funding for the next

financial year. The amounts of funding in different

financial years would have nothing to do with one

another, in other words.

(iii) The unused funding of $1,230,000 had been reserved by

the previous-term WCDC under an HAD guideline

requiring it to put aside 5%-10% of the yearly funding for

the current-term WCDC, so that it could meet its spending

from January to March 2020. Though there were only

three months left in the current financial year when the

current-term DC assumed office, funding must still be

reserved for it, so that it could have the means to fund

worthwhile projects or meet emergency needs. When

the previous-term DC put aside this $1,230,000, it did not

specify how the current-term DC should dispose of the

money, and it did not require the money to be evenly

distributed to all committees or designate the money for

any particular purposes either. In other words, it was all

up to the current-term DC to decide how to dispose of the

money.

(iv) Generally speaking, DCs themselves seldom played the

69

Action

role of events organisers. In most cases, they would

invite funding applications from organisations, and

following vetting, successful applicants would be granted

funding to organise the activities concerned. He agreed

with Ms Peggy LEE that time was indeed running out, so

if Members happened to have any good ideas, they should

go right ahead. Time was indeed running out, but if an

organisation managed to organise an activity and

complete the reimbursement procedures before the close

of account on 31 March, the expenses involved

(amounting to, say, $1 million) could still be paid by the

funding for the current financial year. But in case the

organisation concerned could not make it until April, the

money would have to be counted as a funding item in the

following financial year. In that case, supposing WCDC

would receive a funding of $16,648,000 in the next

financial year, the actual amount of funding at its disposal

would be less than this sum, just $15 million or so, rather

than $16 million, because a funding item of $1 million

would be carried forward due to its failure to meet the

close of account deadline in the current financial year.

Therefore, the DC should contemplate the holding of an

activity against the time available for completing all

reimbursement procedures before the close of account.

As a matter of principle, the Government would like the

DC to spend all the funding allocated to it to benefit the

public. But sometimes things just might not work out as

desired.

(v) The DC would usually prepare its annual budget based on

an over-commitment of 20% of its approved provision,

because it was expected that not all approved funding

applications would be able to meet the close of account

deadline at the end of a financial year.

(vi) He told the meeting that he intended to approach HAD in

March on the approved provision for WCDC in the

coming financial year. Once he was informed of a rough

figure, he would discuss the allocation of funding within

WCDC with the Chairperson of the DC and the

chairpersons of its various committees. Generally, the

DC would do the internal allocation at an earlier time,

rather than waiting until April lest there might not be

enough time to make full use of the approved provision

for the financial year concerned. The internal allocation

of funding each year was determined entirely by the

Chairperson of the DC, the chairpersons of its various

committees and Members.

70

Action

(vii) He drew Members’ attention to the table in Annex I. He

pointed out that funding would be reserved for every

committee, but the amount of funding would vary from

case to case depending on the outcomes of negotiations

among committee chairpersons based on their respective

annual plans. Apart from reserving funding for the

committees, the DC would also follow the established

practice of putting aside $800,000 to entertain funding

applications from organisations in the district. The

funding ceiling for one successful application was

$10,000. But this funding ceiling had remained

unchanged for many years, so he also agreed that a review

could be conducted to see if there was any need to make a

slight upward adjustment to reflect the effect of inflation.

But he also advised that should Members really decide to

raise the ceiling, they must also consider various other

issues, such as the adequacy of this $800,000 after the

raise, how best to optimise this sum of money, and which

areas would likely need a bigger reservation of funding,

etc. Members could discuss all these issues later.

234. The Chairperson thanked DO(WC) for his explanation and

asked if there were any further comments from Members.

235. Ms Sabina KOO told the meeting that she had observed a

shortage of facilities in the community parks of Wan Chai. For

example, Tai Wo Street Playground in the Hennessy Constituency was

basically equipped with no facilities at all. She hoped that three to four

exercise facilities could be installed in the Playground as soon as

possible for seniors’ daily use. Besides, she also proposed to examine

the need for new sports facilities and the conditions of existing facilities

at other playgrounds in the district. Following this, the DC might

consider using this uncommitted amount of funding for facility

acquisition and replacement.

236. The Chairperson concluded that Members generally agreed that

if organisations in the district were to be invited to apply for the

uncommitted funds to organise activities at this stage, there might not be

enough time for them to meet the close of account deadline for this

financial year. Besides, some Members hoped that the DC could make

the best use of the uncommitted funds for the benefit of the community

and residents. And, as advised by DO(WC), good proposals from

Members should still be explored though time was running out. She

hoped that if any such proposals were deemed feasible, government

departments could assist the DC in following up the proposals. But in

case no proposals were deemed feasible, the DC should not insist.

71

Action

237. The Chairperson declared the end of discussion on this agenda

item.

Item 12:

“District Councils Challenge Cup” of Standard

Chartered Hong Kong Marathon 2020


238. The Chairperson said that Standard Chartered Hong Kong

Marathon 2020, organised by Hong Kong Amateur Athletic Association

and title sponsored by Standard Chartered Bank, would be held on 9

February 2020. The organising committee of Standard Chartered Hong

Kong Marathon 2020 had sent a letter to invite the enrolment of

Members of all DCs in the District Councils Challenge Cup (the

Challenge Cup), a race in which WCDC had taken part before. If the

current-term DC decided to form a team and participate in this race, it

should note that the ten-person team representing it must consist of at

least one WCDC Member. She asked Members whether they were was

interested to take part in the race, and whether they would support the

formation of a team to represent WCDC.

239. Mr LI Wing-choi asked about the entry fees and other relevant

arrangements.

240. The Secretary said that the previous-term WCDC also took part

in the race in past years. And, to show its support, it would pay the

entry fees and travelling expenses for its representative teams in addition

to providing them with simple meals.

241. DO(WC) explained that in the past, the usual practice was for

an organisation to first submit a funding application in relation to the

activity concerned, and the DC would rarely give itself funding and

organise the event itself. The usual practice was for an organisation to

file a funding application for vetting and approval by the DC.

242. The Secretary added that the previous-term DC would enlist the

assistance of the WanChai Sports Federation in forming a team after

deciding to compete in the race, because oftentimes, too few Members

would like to take part. The WanChai Sports Federation would then

submit an application for funding to cover the entry fees and the costs of

quick meals and transportation on the day of event.

243. Ms Sabina KOO asked whether participating Members must run

the full distance of the competition within a prescribed race time.


No.12/2020. The Challenge Cup was a team competition with a race

distance of 10 Km. Ten runners from each team would compete in the

race, and the results of the best seven in each team would be counted.

72

Action

No race time was stated in the document, but the best three teams would

win. She invited interested Members to raise their hands and asked

Members if they would agree to the formation of a WCDC team for the

race.

(Mr LI Wing-choi and Ms Sabina KOO raised their hands to indicate

their interest.)


Chairperson announced that a WCDC team would be formed to

participate in the Challenge Cup. She nominated Mr LI Wing-choi and

Ms Sabina KOO to run in the race as representatives of the WCDC and

follow up the matters related to forming a DC team.

246. The Secretary added that the event would be held on 9

February, and the organiser hoped that DCs could submit their

participant lists and registration forms as soon as possible within two

days. The Secretariat would contact both Members after the meeting.

247. Ms Peggy LEE said that as she was a Vice-Chairman of the

WanChai Sports Federation, she could say a few words about the past

experience in this regard. As the WanChai Sports Federation had been

offering a regular marathon training course, the previous-term WCDC

decided to enlist its assistance in forming a team for the Challenge Cup

and invite it to file an application for funding to cover the entry fees and

the costs of quick meals and transport, etc. Since some team members

lived in far-off places and public transportation services such as those of

the MTR were not available in the small hours, they might need to go to

the event venue by taxi. She considered it reasonable for WCDC to

sponsor WCDC representatives in the marathon, but she also believed

they would not mind paying those fees. This was the past experience of

WCDC.

248. The Chairperson asked the Secretary if there would be enough

time to process a funding application.

249. The Secretary said that the organiser would like DCs to finalise

and submit their lists of participants and registration forms as soon as

possible within two days. Normally, the FGAC was the committee

responsible for vetting organisations’ applications for funding to cover

the costs of events and activities. Since time was running out in this

case, Members might wish to consider some special arrangements.

250. The Chairperson said if Members had agreed on which

organisation was to be invited to file an application for funding to cover

the entry fees and related expenses of participating in the race, they

should make a proposal and call upon on the organisation to submit an

application as soon as possible.

73

Action

251. Ms Peggy LEE said that it was not appropriate for her to say

either yes or no, but once the DC decided to invite the WanChai Sports

Federation to file a funding application, she would contact its Chairman

the following day and ask him to form a team and submit a funding

application as quickly as possible.


Chairperson announced that WCDC had resolved to invite the WanChai

Sports Federation to assist in forming a team and submit a funding

application, and the funding application to be submitted would be

discussed in FGAC meeting to be held on 4 February.

Applications for District Council Funds

253. The Chairperson said that this meeting would need to scrutinise

a total of 15 applications for DC Funds filed by organisations in the

district.

254. The Chairperson reminded Members to declare their interests at

the meeting when the necessity arose. She also reminded them to fill

out the “Registration Form for Declaration of Interests in Respect of the

Use of DC Funds for the Implementation of Activities/Programmes”, and

to withdraw from the meeting when the necessity arose. The

Chairperson said that the Secretary would be invited to brief the meeting

on the points to note concerning each funding application, and this would

be followed by Members’ discussion.

Item 13:

Wan Chai Kai-fong Welfare Association: Cantonese

Operatic Show for Wan Chai


255. The Chairperson drew Members’ attention to WCDC Paper

No.13/2020, and reminded Members that some of them would need to

withdraw from the meeting and leave the conference room. The

Chairperson referred to the two Notes in the document, and asked the

Secretary to provide supplementary information.

256. The Secretary provided the following supplementary

information. Remark (1): Under the Guidelines on the Use of WCDC

Funds, as the Leighton Hill Community Hall (LHCH) is equipped with

advanced sound equipment for hirers’ use, no application for WCDC

funding to cover the renting of any outside sound equipment shall be

approved. The DC may however consider granting exceptional

approval if an applicant organisation can provide special and cogent

justifications. As explained by the organiser, it wished to seek

exceptional approval, as the sound equipment at LHCH could not meet

the needs of 30 performers, and it would be necessary to rent additional

74

Action

sound equipment and hire an audio system controller. Remark (2):

Under the Guidelines on the Use WCDC Funds, the distribution of gifts

shall be limited to children, the elderly and persons with special needs.

The applicant organisation explained that as shown by past experience,

people who sought admission tickets of such events should mostly be

senior citizens. It was also hoped that the offer of gifts could encourage

the participation of the elderly and others in the district. Members were

thus requested to consider lifting the restriction in respect of gift

recipients.

257. The Chairperson invited Members to give their opinions.

258. Ms Clara CHEUNG quoted the paper as saying that the aim of

the proposed activity was to promote Chinese cultural heritage through

the provision of Cantonese Opera programmes to Wan Chai residents.

She dismissed the proposal as lacking in concrete details. It was not

known, for example, which Cantonese Opera titles were to be selected

for performance or singing in order to achieve the avowed aim of

promoting Chinese cultural heritage. She remarked that the quality of

the proposal left much to be desired, so she would not support the

funding application. And, even if it was to be approved, the funding

amount must be reduced. She said that just having a group of people

singing whatever Cantonese opera titles they liked would be no different

from a karaoke gathering and definitely would not need as much as

$10,000.

259. Ms Susi LAW noticed from the paper a postage item for mailing

300 notification letters to residents in the district. Since the population

in the district was so large, she just wondered which 300 people would

be the lucky ones to receive a letter from the organisation. She hoped

that information about DC-funded activities could be made more widely

accessible to residents, rather than being restricted to the members of

applicant organisations. Besides, she considered that the wages of

porters hired to move chairs were slightly above the market rate, as they

were hired for four hours at an hourly rate of $100. She also cast doubt

on whether the offer of gifts to the elderly could ever add to the appeal of

the activity, arguing that the appeal of the activity should depend on its

quality, i.e., the quality of programme contents and the music offered.

She thus failed to follow the justification for this expenditure item.

260. The Chairperson asked whether WCDO had ever contacted the

organisation on these questions. She also asked whether WCDO could

give any answers on its behalf.

261. The Secretary said the organisation had not provided any

information that could answer Members’ questions. The Secretariat

could request the organisation to provide supplementary information

after the meeting and forward it to Members.

75

Action

262. The Chairperson said that as the funding application might be

contentious in some ways, she would advise Members to vet and approve

it by circulation of papers after the organisation had provided

supplementary information.

Item 14: Tai Hang Tam Kung Association Limited: Spring

Dinner Reception


263. The Chairperson referred Members’ attention to the WCDC

Paper No. 14/2020 and asked Members to consider whether to support

this funding application of $10,000.

264. Ms Susi LAW made the following comments and enquiries:

(i) The item of postage expenses showed that 150 stamps

would be purchased, but this should just be enough for

notifying members of the applicant organisation and a

handful of residents in Wan Chai. She hoped that the

various funding applications could benefit as many

residents in the district as possible, so she had reservation

about the number of people who would be notified in this

particular case. Specifically, she would like to know

who the 150 recipients were.

(ii) As for food expenses, she commented that the price of

$3,600 per table was rather expensive, as the market price

was just around $2,000 plus. She thus questioned if the

estimated food expenditure was too high. Besides, she

queried why the expenses for 60 bottles of beer should be

listed independently as Item (g) in the proposal. She

opined that the price per table should be inclusive of

beverages.

265. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam wished to add some words concerning Ms

Susi LAW’s concern. She noted from the paper that the venue of the

activity was yet to be confirmed, but the price per table was already set

out. She advised Members to defer their discussions until the applicant

organisation confirmed the venue and did a new expenditure estimate.

266. The Vice-Chairperson said that Ms Susi LAW was right in

raising her concern over the issue of postage in these two activities. He

said that some applicant organisations might have focused on particular

groups of people as recipients of their services or participants in their

activities. But DC-funded activities should be for everyone living in

Wan Chai. He suggested that when applicant organisations organise

their activities in the future, they should increase the openness of their

76

Action

invitations, with a view to reaching all Wan Chai residents, and they

might even upload application forms to the WCDC website.

267. DO(WC) would like to add some points for Members’

reference. As Members could see, those organisations applying for a

funding of $10,000 actually came from a wide variety of backgrounds,

each serving its own type of clients. For example, an owners’

corporation would of course serve its own building, and the activities it

organised would naturally be meant for the residents of the building.

Funding approval was certainly within the authority of the DC, but he

also wished to make one point. Tai Hang Tam Kung Association, as its

very name suggested, was a local organisation in Tai Hang area, so it was

only natural for it to focus mainly on Tai Hang residents. But in the

case of other applicant organisations, they were actually dedicated to

serving all the residents in Wan Chai District. This was the difference

to be noted here. Hence, it might not necessarily be feasible to require

that the DC-funded activities held by applicant organisations must be

geared to the needs of all Wan Chai residents. There was also one

funding-related difference to note. In some cases, as in the Cantonese

Operatic Show, the total estimated expenditure and the funding applied

for were the same, both being $10,000. But in other cases, the funding

applied for would just be a portion of the total expenditure. For

instance, the total expenses of the activity proposed by Tai Hang Tam

Kung Association would be $81,000 plus, and the funding of $10,000 it

was seeking would just be a portion of the total expenses. In the

funding application, the organisation set out all the expenditure items,

and it could be seen that the $10,000 it was asking the DC to sponsor

would cover the food expenses only. All other expenses, such those of

postage and photography service, would not be covered by WCDC

funding.

268. The Chairperson thanked DO(WC) for the information he had

added. Regarding Members’ queries about certain expenditure items in

this funding application, e.g. the item of beer cost, the Chairperson asked

if the Secretary had any more information to add and whether she would

need to ask for further information from the applicant organisation.

269. The Secretary said that the documents submitted by the

applicant organisation did not contain any further information. But she

wished to give some more information for Members’ reference. As

Members could notice, the venues of some activities were not yet

confirmed. This was because an organisation might not proceed with

any technicalities of preparation like price quotations until the DC had

approved its funding applications. Usually, an organisation would

proceed with price quotations and decide on a restaurant only after the

DC had approved its funding applications. Therefore, the figures set

out in the funding application at this stage were mere estimates. The

actual costs could be ascertained only after the completion of price

77

Action

quotations, and the Secretariat would not know the actual expenses until

it handled the reimbursement application after the completion of activity.

If the actual expenditure turned out to be less than the estimation, the

Secretariat would only pay a reimbursement equal to the actual

expenditure, although the DC had approved a funding of $10,000.

270. Ms Susi LAW noticed that as stated by the applicant

organisation in the application documents, the Cantonese Operatic Show

for Wan Chai and the Spring Dinner Reception were both organised for

all Wan Chai residents. She hoped that applicant organisations could be

more specific with the categories of target residents in the future, so that

the DC could have a clearer picture of the applications. Besides, she

also hoped that organisations submitting multiple funding applications

could seek to serve a wider range of residents.

271. The Chairperson said that as certain organisations did not

furnish all the required information in the applications discussed earlier,

she would suggest the method of approval by circulation of paper after

all the required information had been submitted by the applicant

organisations, as proposed just then.

272. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam said that after listening to the Secretary’s

explanation, a question arose in her mind, as she had come to realise that

many applicant organisations would submit a funding application based

on mere estimates without getting any price quotations. She advised

that there should be a review in the direction of requiring applicant

organisations to possess some prior market knowledge like price

quotations before submitting their applications, so that Members could

know that price quotations had been obtained and discuss whether the

prices quoted were in fact reasonable. She considered such a process

necessary, as WCDC funds were taxpayers’ money.

273. The Chairperson asked the Secretary to put this point on record.

She also said that this matter should be further discussed in FGAC

meeting later.

Item 15:

Buddhist Ho Poon Yuet Ping Cultural and Service

Centre for the Elderly: Lunch Gathering for the

Elderly



No. 15/2020 and asked Members to consider whether to support this

funding application of $7,816.

275. The Vice-Chairperson pointed out the amount set out in Item 9

of the paper was incorrect, saying that it should be $7,816 instead of

$10,000.

78

Action

276. As regards price quotations, Ms Susi LAW advised the DC to

consider the practices of government departments and other

organisations which had to vet and approve funding applications, one

example being HKADC. She hoped that funding proposals from

applicant organisations could include a set of price quotations, or

preferably as many as three sets. That way, Members could make price

comparisons and get to know the usual price quotations in connection

with various contractors and venues. She opined that this could

facilitate Members’ vetting of funding applications.

277. DO(WC) said that the advice put forward by Ms Susi LAW

merited Members’ thorough consideration. When the Government

proceeded with works projects, it also had to follow certain rules, the

Stores and Procurement Regulations (the Regulations). Under the

Regulations, the numbers of price quotations required for works projects

of different values were set out. In some cases, only price quotations

were required, but in some others, invitations to tenders would need to be

conducted. In the case of the DC, many funding applications would just

involve $10,000 or several thousand dollars, even. The amount applied

for would not be large in most cases. Well, some applicant

organisations were themselves sizeable non-governmental organisations

and they might have put in place certain internal procurement guidelines

or rules similar to the Regulations. But other applicants might just be

very small organisations having several staff members only. Therefore,

the DC might sometimes need to exercise a certain degree of discretion

having regard to funding amounts and activity types, rather than adopting

any across-the-board rules.

278. The Chairperson thanked DO(WC) for his extra advice. She

said she wished to repeat the advice she gave to applicant organisations

in the last term of WCDC, the advice that they should avoid using

one-off, non-recyclable items such as event backdrops. She hoped that

FGAC could later follow up the use of such materials, such as

photography props.

279. The Chairperson asked Members to consider whether to support

this funding application of $7,816 and to make a decision. She also

asked the Secretary to make the numerical correction mentioned by the

Vice-Chairman.

280. There being no objection, the Chairperson announced the

endorsement of this funding application and asked the Secretary to put

on record the remark about event backdrops.

Item 16:

Causeway Bay Kai-fong Welfare Advancement

Association: One-day Trip to Ngong Ping, Po Lin

Monastery and Tai O

79

Action



No. 16/2020 and asked Members to consider whether to support the

funding application of $7,018.

282. The Vice-Chairperson supported the Chairperson’s earlier

proposal to add a guideline on environmental considerations to the

Guidelines. He noticed from the paper that the applicant organisation

would make a PVC banner; he proposed the deletion of this expenditure

item, and opined that it was better to reuse old materials. Besides, he

noted that the travel agency charged a package tour fee of $338 per head.

He said that as shown by the information he gathered, the price of a

similar package tour in the market was merely $200. He thus suspected

a case of overpricing here.

283. The Chairperson said that although the applicant organisation

had not applied for DC funding to pay the costs of the PVC banner, the

DC would still be concerned about such expenditure items, including the

items on non-reusable plastic materials and banners. She explained that

even though the cost of a PVC manner was not an item seeking DC

funding, the use of such a banner in an activity partially funded by the

DC would still affect it somehow. That was why the DC would keep

following up this item. The Chairperson then asked Members to

consider the funding application as it was and decide whether they would

support the requested funding of $7,018.

284. The Chairperson announced that except Ms Susi LAW, all

Members supported this funding application. The application was

therefore endorsed.

Item 17:

Carnation Women’s Association: Chinese New Year Trip



No. 17/2020 and asked Members if they would support this funding

application of $7,018.

286. The Vice-Chairperson noticed that the price for the proposed

one-day tour was $305 per head. But as he found out from his Internet

searches, the prices of similar tours could be much lower, just around

$100. He therefore had many doubts about this funding application.

287. The Chairperson commented that the rest of the funding

applications to be dealt with at this meeting were all marked by the same

problem. Since these applications mostly involved the organisation of

tours and banquets for which price quotations could be obtained easily,

she would propose to require the applicant organisations to furnish the

80

Action

DC with further information about price quotations. Following this,

Members could consider whether to give approval by circulation of

papers.

288. DO(WC) pointed out that it was of course up to the DC to draw

up rules on how organisations were to apply for DC funding and what

supplementary documents they should submit. But he added that as far

as he knew, many applicant organisations had been following more or

less the same practice for years. The DC could require organisations to

submit three sets of price quotations, but it must at the same time

consider whether the purpose of doing so was to require them to accept

the lowest prices. Even the Regulations provided that depending on the

circumstances of a case, the Government could have a choice between

accepting the lowest price quotations and the alternative approach of

applying a price-weighting of 70% and a quality-weighting of 30%. He

asked Members to consider how exactly they would like to draw up the

relevant rules. Did they, for example, want applicant organisations to

accept the lowest price quotations for all activities funded by the DC?

He added that the DC must also take account of the complexity of the

rules, bearing in mind that while some organisations were quite sizeable,

others might just have several employees.

289. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam thanked DO(WC) for his supplementary

information. She replied that by asking organisations to submit price

quotations for activities like tours and banquets, Members did not mean

to say that organisations must accept the lowest prices. The request

actually stemmed from the fact that when vetting funding applications

and deciding whether the proposed prices were reasonable, Members

simply could not have any market price information to form a basis of

consideration. Members could not possibly be expected to do their

individual market research in order to determine the reasonableness of

the proposed prices. Therefore, she proposed to require the applicant

organisations to conduct quotation exercises before submitting

applications, so that the DC could have an idea of the market prices and

Members could thus decide whether to support the funding applications

concerned.

290. Mr LI Wing-choi agreed that applicant organisations should be

required to submit three sets of price quotations for each funding

application, but he added that the DC would not be obligated to take the

lowest quotation. The point of requiring price quotations was to give

Members a basis of consideration, and enable them to compare quality of

service or food of certain service providers when studying the funding

applications.

291. The Chairperson asked the Secretary to provide additional

information.

292. The Secretary added that the procurement of stationery, supplies

81

Action

and services was governed by the Guidelines. Two price quotations

were recommended for items valued at less than $5,000; two quotations

for items with a value of $5,001 to 50,000 were required; five quotations

were required for items with a value of $50,001 to $1,430,000. As for

services, two quotations were recommended if the service was valued at

$9,000; two quotations were required if the service was worth $9,001 to

$50,000; five quotations were required if the service cost $50,001 to

$1,430,000.

293. DO(WC) asked the Secretary for more details about the above

provision.

294. The Secretary added that when applying for reimbursement,

organisations must submit price quotations for the services or supplies

purchased according to the schedule stated above.

295. DO(WC) asked if quotations were necessary for items of

activities like tours and banquets.

296. The Secretary said that in the previous-term DC, the Secretariat

would definitely ask an applicant organisation to submit price quotations

and completed quotation forms if the proposed tour or banquet was

valued more than $50,000, so as to compare the different sets of price

quotations. If the value was less than $50,000, normally, the Secretariat

would only make random requests to organisations for the submission of

price quotations. However, she suggested Members to decide whether

the above approach should be revised in the coming FGAC meetings.

297. DO(WC) said that as he learnt from the Secretary’s explanation,

organisations were required to submit price quotations at the time of

applying for reimbursement after the completion of activities, not at the

time of funding application. A funding application of $10,000 would

not normally contain any expenditure item exceeding $50,000. In such

cases, the organisations concerned might only be randomly requested by

the Secretariat to provide price quotations for checking. If the DC

required applicant organisations to submit price quotations at the time of

application, it might need to say clearly whether they were always

required to take the lowest prices in the course of procurement, or

whether they could sometimes depart from the practice of always taking

the lowest prices for certain special reasons. He hoped that rules like

these could be set down to allow applicant organisations to grasp the

requirements of the DC.

298. The Chairperson thanked DO(WC) for his advice and asked if

Members had any other opinions to share.

299. Ms Susi LAW referred to the tour fee of $305 per head set out

in the funding application, and remarked that if Members wanted to

know whether this was the market price, they would need to have a bit of

82

Action

common knowledge or do some market research. She hoped that

applicant organisations could provide at least one or two price quotations

for Members’ reference. The names of service providers or suppliers

should also be disclosed in funding applications, as applicant

organisations would probably have decided which service provider or

travel agency to select at the time of application. In this way, the DC

could access the required records should it decide to assess any specific

activities after their completion. She said that this would be of help to

the DC when it handled the many similar funding applications in the

future. Besides, she also cast doubt on the itinerary of the proposed

one-day tour for elderly people and all residents in the district, saying

that it might not actually be possible to complete the whole itinerary

within one day. She also questioned whether such a tour would be good

to elderly people’s health, and whether they could have the strength and

energy required of such an activity. She hoped that the applicant

organisation could give more information about these questions.

300. The Chairperson said that as she could observe from the

discussion, it was the hope of Members to obtain price quotations from

the organiser of this proposed tour, but she thought that this new practice

and the related technicalities would need further discussion in FGAC.

She asked the Secretariat to contact the applicant organisation to check

whether it had sought any price quotations. If yes, she hoped that the

organisation could submit the quotations to the DC as supplementary

information for Members’ consideration. Also, she said that Members

should indicate their wish if they thought that when the DC handled

similar funding applications later, the applicant organisations should be

asked to clarify whether they had sought any price quotations. As for

the funding application under discussion, she proposed to deal with it

by circulation of papers, subject to Members’ agreement.

301. Ms Peggy LEE said that she would certainly support Members’

proposal of introducing this new arrangement to enhance the

transparency of funding applications in respect of price quotations. But

she said Members should note that the Secretariat would need two days

to prepare the papers for circulation; the Lunar New Year holidays were

fast approaching, and Members must be given some time to reply. She

then reminded Members that the activity was proposed to take place on

22nd February. She added that applicant organisations had all been

submitting their funding applications in accordance with the guidelines

adopted by the previous-term DC. Thus, she feared that if the new

arrangement caused any delay to the activity under discussion, the

applicant organisation might form a misunderstanding that the DC was

employing a stalling tactic to make things difficult for it. After all, the

guidelines adopted by the previous-term DC did not require the

submission of price quotations at the time of funding application for the

DC’s vetting. She understood that it was always within the right of the

DC to request applicant organisations to supply more information, but

she also wondered why anyone should thus think that this funding

83

Action

application could not be approved at this meeting. As she saw that

approval by circulation of papers would be applied to quite a number of

funding applications, she was not sure if the Secretariat could have

enough time to prepare all the papers for circulation. She went on to

say that the earlier suspension of the operation of the DC had caused

considerable delay to the processing of funding applications. She

therefore advised the meeting to vet this funding application in

accordance with the guidelines adopted by the previous-term DC. She

agreed that in case of necessity, it was perfectly okay to request the

applicant organisation to furnish further information. But it should be

recognised that in that case, the applicant organisation would need time

to obtain price quotations in order to meet the requirement under the new

arrangement. It might thus be unable to hold the activity on 22nd

February as proposed, and the application might have to lapse unless the

DC decided to ask the applicant organisation to change the date.

302. Ms Susi LAW said she could appreciate Ms Peggy LEE’s point

that these funding applications were received at the time of the

previous-term DC. But it was not her intention to cause any

inconvenience to the applicant organisations, and her only aim was to

obtain more information before considering whether the contents of these

activities could justify their expenses. She said if the DC considered

that a certain activity was unsatisfactory and in need of quality

enhancement, it should clearly communicate its expectations and

standards to the applicant organisation in good time. She also thought

that re-scheduling an activity should not be such a big problem if the

required publicity had not yet started. The most important thing was the

good relationship among residents and organisations in this district, and

everyone could rest assured that the current-term DC would also

welcome funding applications from different organisations in the coming

year.

303. Having looked at all the funding applications which Members

wanted to scrutinise by circulation of papers, the Vice-Chairperson said

that only the activity under Agenda Item 14, the Spring Dinner Reception

to be held by Tai Hang Tam Kung Association, was scheduled in

February. The rest were to take place in March. He believed that in

the case of those activities to be held in March, there should be enough

time for the Secretariat to prepare the circulation of papers for Members’

approval. But for the one organised by Tai Hang Tam Kung

Association on 22 February, Ms Peggy LEE’s worry about insufficient

time for circulation of papers might be valid. Therefore, he asked the

Secretariat to tell the meeting how much time was needed for the

circulation process. If it was confirmed that there would not be enough

time, he would advise Members to re-consider the advisability of

handling this funding application by circulation of papers.

304. The Chairperson asked the Secretary for advice.

84

Action

305. The Secretary replied that Secretariat staff were doing a check at

the moment. And, she had the impression that about half of the funding

applications involved an activity scheduled in February. The

Secretariat could contact the applicant organisations the following day

for additional information. But she had no idea as to when they would

be able to provide the required information. If the organisations could

answer the request within one or two days, the Secretariat could quickly

collate the information and pass it to Members. But if the organisations

were required to submit price quotations, more time would probably be

needed. However, Members should note that in general, organisations

intending to hold an activity in late February would need to start the

publicity work in late January, i.e., one month in advance.

306. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam could appreciate Ms Peggy LEE’s concern

that when these organisations submitted their funding applications, they

did not know that the DC would ask for price quotations. She agreed

that time was indeed running out, so she advised the Secretariat to

contact these organisations and ask them to supply the information as

soon as possible. She also proposed that the DC could request the

organisations to furnish the information before a certain date, so that

Members could do the checking by circulation of papers and decide what

to do.

307. The Chairperson asked the Secretary to brief the meeting on the

dates of events set out in the funding applications.

308. The Secretary told the meeting that after counting, it was found

that eight events were recommended to be held in February and the rest

in March.

309. The Chairperson said that at the moment, the DC was

processing the funding application under Agenda Item 17 and the

suggested event date was 23 February. As Members had divergent

views on the submission of price quotations, the DC would deal with this

funding application by circulation of papers, provided that the Secretariat

could obtain the price quotations required in good time.

310. The Secretary said the Secretariat would contact the

organisations the following day and ask if they could submit information

within one or two days for Members’ consideration.

311. The Chairperson asked the Secretariat to inform Members in

due course whether the organisations could provide such information.

312. Ms Peggy LEE said that at this meeting, the DC should decide

what should be done in case the applicant organisations really could not

supply the required information before the specified date. Would the

DC reject the funding application forthwith? Would it simply ask them

to re-schedule their events? Or, would it ask them to revise the

85

Action

application documents and submit a new application? She advised that

a fallback plan should be drawn up.

313. The Chairperson asked Members whether they had any opinions

on this.

314. Ms Clara CHEUNG asked whether Members were supposed to

deal with these funding applications by circulation of papers after the

applicant organisations had submitted the information.

315. The Chairperson asked the Secretary to give details of the

arrangement.

316. The Secretary said that the previous-term DC also asked for

supplementary information from applicant organisations on some

occasions. In such cases, the Secretariat would contact the

organisations after the meeting and asked them to submit supplementary

information. The information would then be circulated to Members for

their voting. This practice could be adopted as long as Members agreed

so in the meeting.

317. In response to the Secretary’s saying that some organisations

might need more time for preparation, Ms Susi LAW said that if it was

really decided to require the submission of price quotations later, the DC

should advise applicant organisations as early as possible that they could

seek clear advice from the Secretariat in case they had any difficult

questions.

318. Ms Clara CHEUNG said that for the batch of funding

applications under discussion, the DC could allow the applicant

organisations to submit further information to back up their applications

before a specified date. If the organisations had already obtained

quotations, they should be able to provide the information very soon.

But she believed that even if they could not provide any quotations

readily, the DC would not make life difficult for them this time around.

It would still handle their applications by means of approval by

circulation of papers. In this way, the matter could be handled

smoothly.

319. The Chairperson commented that Ms Clara CHEUNG’s

proposal could serve as the conclusion of this discussion. She

suggested the DC to handle the rest of the funding applications as

proposed by Ms Clara CHEUNG.

320. DO(WC) noticed that Ms Clara CHEUNG had suggested setting

a deadline for the applicant organisations to submit supplementary

information. He said that in that case, the DC would need to decide on

a deadline so that the Secretariat could handle the matter accordingly.

Normally, when additional information was required, the Secretariat

86

Action

would, as much as possible, wait until the organisations concerned could

submit the required documents. But what the DC was talking about was

a deadline for submission. If the organisation concerned could meet the

deadline, the supplementary information received would be circulated to

Members. If not, the Secretariat would inform Members that the

organisations had failed to do so, and Members would still consider the

application. Whichever the case might be, it was necessary to designate

a deadline so that the Secretariat could follow up the cases.

321. The Chairperson thanked DO(WC) for his reminder. She

asked the Secretary to propose some dates for Members’ consideration.

She then invited Ms Peggy LEE to give her view.

322. Ms Peggy LEE suggested allowing seven working days for

organisations to give their replies, as she opined that one week should be

a reasonable period for getting quotations.

323. The Secretary said that counting in the intervening Lunar New

Year holidays, it would already be early February after the passage of

seven working day from the day of this meeting. The Secretariat would

certainly pass the information to Members without any delay, but there

might not be enough publicity time for those activities proposed to be

held on 8th February or around 20th February, and the organisations

concerned might have to reschedule their events.

324. The Chairperson wondered whether the tight schedule could still

allow seven working days. She thus suggested that the organisations

concerned should be requested to submit an initial quotation before the

Lunar New Year holidays. Members could then look at the applications

during the holidays.

325. Ms Peggy LEE asked if it was feasible to give the applicant

organisations three working days.

326. DO(WC) said that the Lunar New year was fast approaching.

If an organisation had already obtained some price quotations, it should

be able to submit the information right away. But in case it had not

done so, it would have quite a hard time, particular when it had only a

very small number of employees.

327. Ms Peggy LEE agreed to Ms Clara CHEUNG’s proposal. If

the applicant organisations could provide the required information, it

could be referred to Members for reference. But if they could not do so

before 8th February, there should be some kind of lenient treatment this

time around, and their applications should still be circulated to Members

for their consideration. This would mean that even in the absence of

any price quotations, the DC could exercise discretion and endorse the

applications concerned. In this way, there would be no need for any

deadline.

87

Action

328. The Chairperson summed up that the DC would request the

applicant organisations to submit price quotations on or before 8th

February. If they failed to do so, their funding applications would still

be circulated to Members. But she said that in that case, the Secretary

would need to specify that the organisations concerned could not provide

the necessary information.

329. Ms Peggy LEE suggested allowing applicant organisations to

give the necessary supplementary information at the time of

reimbursement application. She was aware that the activity proposed

by Tai Hang Residents’ Welfare Association was to be held on 8th

February. The Secretariat could contact it by telephone the following

day. If it already had price quotations on hand, the information could

then be forwarded to Members immediately. The problem would then

be solved. If they had not done so and would not be able to submit it

within three days, she would suggest Members to handle the application

by discretion.

330. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam understood Ms Peggy LEE’s concern and

was aware that the venue of the Chinese New Year Evening Variety

Show to be organised by Tai Hang Residents’ Welfare Association on 8th

February was still pending confirmation. But as the Show was soon to

take place, she believed the organisation should already have a venue in

mind. She was therefore confident that the Association could provide a

price quotation for Members’ reference. She asked the Secretary to

contact the Association the next day and ask it to inform the DC of the

prices offered by the restaurant it liked, so that the information could be

circulated to Members as soon as possible. In this way, Members could

exercise their discretion and process the application as quickly as

possible. She pointed out that Members did not intend to stand in the

way of the applicant organisations. Even if it could not provide any

price quotations at this moment, it would certainly be able to do so after

the completion of the activity on 8th February.

331. The Chairperson suggested making it all simple by fixing the

deadline on 8th February. If further information was needed, the DC

would negotiate another date with the Secretary. As there was an

urgent need to deal with those activities to be held in February, she

suggested giving priority to their applications while those to be held in

March could be processed in the FGAC meeting on 4th February.

332. The Secretary wished to confirm that the Secretariat was to

contact the applicant organisations the following day and ask them to

submit supplementary document to the Secretariat within the week of

this meeting. Whether or not an organisation could meet the deadline,

the Secretariat would still circulate their funding applications documents

to Members for examination.

88

Action

333. The Chairperson asked if Members had other opinions on the

processing procedure stated by the Secretary.

334. DO(WC) suggested the DC state its requirement clearly to the

applicant organisations. He said the DC should state whether Tai Hang

Residents’ Welfare Association, for example, could just submit the price

quotation from the restaurant it eventually chose for the activity on 8th

February, as suggested by Ms CHAN Yuk-lam. If this was not the case,

the DC should confirm whether applicant organisations were required to

submit two or three sets of price quotations as discussed earlier.

335. The Chairperson recapped the requirements. First, in case the

venue of an activity was stated as “yet to be confirmed” in the funding

application but the applicant organisation had subsequently made a final

decision, it should inform Members accordingly. Second, on the issue

of price quotations, applicant organisations should at least obtain three

sets of price quotations and state which service provider or supplier

would be chosen. If the accepted offer was not the lowest one,

justifications should be provided. Better food quality could be an

acceptable reason.

336. The Vice-Chairperson asked how many price quotations the

applicant organisation should provide if the banquet expenses were more

than $50,000, standing at $100,000. He also asked whether the DCs in

the past had ever requested applicant organisations to provide any price

quotations. He noticed that no quotation was included in the funding

application under discussion. Besides, he asked whether the funding

applications which had already been approved at this meeting should be

required to follow the same procedure: submission of price quotations

before 8th February for Members’ approval by circulation of papers.

337. The Chairperson said that 8th February should be the deadline in

all cases. On this basis, funding applications could be divided into two

groups. The first group comprised those activities which were proposed

to take place in February. They would be handled in the way as

discussed earlier. The other group comprised those activities proposed

to be held in March. These would be processed in the meeting on 4th

February. She pointed out that the one-day tour to be organised by

Causeway Bay Kai-fong Welfare Advancement Association would be

held in March. She therefore thought that Members should consider

whether the same requirement should also be applied to the two funding

applications that had already been endorsed, and whether all

organisations should be similarly treated. She said that the DC must not

make the public think that it was adopting two sets of different standards.

338. The Secretary wished to confirm whether the deadline of 8th

February would also apply to activities to be held in March. As regards

Members’ earlier discussion, she also wished to clarify whether applicant

organisations with activities scheduled in February would need hand in

89

Action

their price quotations within the week of this meeting. And, in case

they failed to do so, she wished to know if they were to furnish the

information by 8th February at the latest.

339. The Chairperson recapped the requirement yet again. All

funding applications with activities scheduled in March would be

processed in the FGAC meeting on 4th February, and applicant

organisations with activities scheduled in February would need to submit

their price quotations within the week of this meeting. Whether

applicant organisations had already provided their price quotations, the

DC would finish the vetting by 8th February and the application result

would be released on 8th February.

340. Ms Peggy LEE asked whether applicant organisations should be

required to submit their price quotations before 4th February for

Members’ consideration because an FGAC meeting would be convened

that day to vet the applications involving activities to be held in March.

341. The Chairperson commented that setting the deadline on 4th

February was quite an ambitious attempt but she was worried that there

might not be enough processing time. If Members wanted to have the

price quotations to help them vet the funding applications in the meeting

on 4th February, the Secretary would need to work extra hard. The

Chairperson concluded that all funding applications discussed in this

meeting would be handled under this approach and would not be

discussed or vetted one by one. The applications that had been

endorsed would be treated in the same way.

342. Members raised no objection regarding the arrangement.

(Mr Ansom LAM left the meeting at 7:35 p.m..)

Item 28:

Written Motion: Opposition to the Inclusion or

Acquisition of New Weapons by HKPF for Law

Enforcement Operations



No. 29/2020 and asked Mr LEUNG Pak-kin to say more on the motion

he had put forward.

344. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin expressed his objection to the inclusion or

acquisition of new weapons by HKPF for law enforcement operations

before any independent commission of inquiry was established by the

Government and an open investigation was completed. He opined that

in the absence of an effective mechanism to prevent the disproportionate

use of force by the police, any acquisition of new weapons would only

provoke public queries and agitation. He also commented that the

introduction of new weapons was no efficacious means to address the

90

Action

existing tensions between the police and the public.

345. The Chairperson invited Ms Clara CHEUNG, the seconder of

the motion, to give her view.

346. Ms Clara CHEUNG pointed out that the pay raise for the police

force had created huge controversies and the over-time subsidies

incurred, amounting more than $0.95 billion, also provoked public

outcry. She said that the absence of clear guidelines on the use of force

in major incidents was also one reason why she opposed the inclusion or

acquisition of new weapon by HKPF.

347. The Chairperson invited Mr LI Wing-choi, another seconder of

the motion, to give his opinions.

348. Mr LI Wing-choi said the main duty of the DC was to protect

the well-being of residents in the district. With Wan Chai on the main

route of public processions, he was worried that the introduction of new

weapons, namely net guns and stun guns, would jeopardise the safety of

Wan Chai residents. Therefore, to ensure their safety, he seconded this

motion against the inclusion or acquisition of new weapons by HKPF.

349. The Chairperson asked whether other Members had anything to

add.

350. The Chairperson pointed out that the three representatives of

HKPF had provided a written reply on the discussion item before they

left. She referred Members’ attention to the document the Secretariat

was distributing.

351. The Chairperson asked the Secretary to read out the written

reply from HKPF.

352. The Secretary read out the written reply from HKPF as follows:

(i) The Police take exception to the motion moved by the

Member. In fact, the use force by the Force has always

been governed by stringent internal guidelines. Members

turn a blind eye to rioters’ malicious acts and single out

the work of the Police in stopping violence and curbing

disorder for attack. This is tantamount to putting the cart

before the horse.

(ii) As an advisory body in district administration, the DC has

always endeavoured to address people’s pressing needs.

We believe people are eager to restore peace in society so

that they can all live and work in contentment. As DC

Members play a significant role in this regard, they should

work with the Government and the community to

91

Action

condemn violence and take concrete actions to support the

Police in fighting crimes.

(iii) The Police will continue to consider all proposals which

can effectively enhance operational efficiency. We will

also review our operational needs and the level of force

used. We will introduce suitable gear and measures

whenever appropriate, so as to maintain the

professionalism of frontline officers in an increasingly

difficult environment.

353. The Chairperson invited Members to put forward their views.

354. Ms Susi LAW said that various kinds of protests and clashes

between the Police and the people had been common scenes in Wan

Chai. Over the past six months, the Police had used a multitude of

weapons, including bean bag rounds, pepper balls, pepper based solution,

tear gas of with unknown composition and water canon vehicles that

sprayed blue liquid. She opined that the weapons currently in use were

already sufficient for the Police to perform their duties. The acquisition

of new weapons would only aggravate the social unrest. Besides, she

hoped the Police would disclose the chemical composition of tear gas

and the intended effects of each type of weapons.

355. Mr LEUNG Pal-kin disagreed to the claim of the Police that DC

Members had turned a blind eye to the malicious acts of the rioters. He

questioned why there was no signature on the reply and cast doubt on

their claim that they had been following stringent internal guidelines on

the use of force.

356. Ms Peggy LEE could appreciate that the duty of the Police was

to stop violence and curb disorder. She agreed that the Police had the

power to arrest lawbreakers and bring them to justice. But she was

concerned about the acquisition of any new weapons by the Police, as the

public had long since been expressing disapproval of their existing

weaponry. Since the representatives of HKPF had already left and thus

could not respond to the questions asked by Members, she doubted

whether it was appropriate to vote on the motion in this meeting.

357. Ms Cathy YAU made the following comments and enquiries:

(i) She doubted the effectiveness of new weapons on

stopping violence and curbing disorder. She also

commented that the written reply of HKPF showed a

total indifference to the opinions of Members, who

represented the public.

(ii) During her inspection on the footbridges in Wan Chai on

30 December 2019, she saw workers installing mesh

92

Action

walls on the footbridge near Telecom House in the

presence of uniformed policemen. She said that the

police representative had disclaimed any responsibility

in the installation of mesh walls on footbridges, but this

contradicted the expression “take concrete actions to

support the Police on fighting crime” in their written

reply.

(iii) Some kaifongs had told her that very few policemen

were seen on the beat in the streets these days, and they

were concerned about public security. She also

commented that the stationing of two uniformed officers

on the footbridge during the installation of mesh walls

was a wasteful deployment of police personnel.

358. Ms Sabina KOO opined that any new weapons acquired by the

Police could not possibly address all the existing problems, which could

only be resolved politically. She thus wondered what kinds of

powerful weapons the Police actually wanted to acquire for the purpose

of restoring peace in society. She questioned the truth of what the

Police said in the written, the claim that there were stringent guidelines

on the use of force. She also asked why frontline police officers should

wear masks and refuse to display their warranty cards when performing

law enforcement duty.

359. Ms CHAN Yuk-lam made the following comments and

enquiries:

(i) The Police should elaborate on the stringent internal

guidelines on the use of force. She said the Police

should also explain why policemen were permitted to

beat people on the head with their weapons these days,

whereas in the past this was strictly forbidden. She

doubted whether policemen had really been strictly

observing the guidelines.

(ii) The Police had ignored enquiries from Members, and the

written reply could not clear their doubts. She urged

the Police to send representatives to the DC and

positively reply to Members’ questions on the internal

guidelines formulated for the use of force, and the

grounds for inclusion or acquisition of new weapons.

(iii) She pointed out that no proposal of inclusion or

acquisition of new weapons could enhance the

operational efficiency of the Police. They should listen

to the demand of the people and review the chemical

composition of tear gas munitions.

93

Action

360. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin suggested the Police consider following the

DC practice of maintaining a clear set of Code of Conduct for their

Members. The Police should also disclose the internal guidelines on the

use of force and the Police General Orders, so that Members and the

public could have a better understanding of them.

361. Ms Susi LAW made the following comments and enquiries:

(i) She wanted to know more about the stringent internal

guidelines on the use of force referred to by the Police,

and hoped that the guidelines could be disclosed. She

also wished to know the rules governing the use of each

type of weapon and other related codes, as she could not

understand why policemen should, for example, attempt

to scare people on the way home after work by beating

their protective shields.

(ii) The Police must explain why anti-riot police officers

should carry any guns. This would create fear and deter

the elderly, children and pet owners from going out.

Their freedom of movement was thus restricted.

(iii) The ways in which policemen used their weapons during

public processions, such as tying up the limbs of

teenagers and children with plastic straps, had created

widespread fears. There must be clear provisions in the

stringent guidelines stipulating how policemen should

use their weapons, the force with which they used them

and the proper attitude towards the use of weaponry.

She opposed the inclusion or acquisition of new weapons

by the Police before an independent commission of

inquiry was established and an investigation report was

made public.

362. Ms Clara CHEUNG suggested that until the Police replied to the

questions from Members, the DC should withhold the passage of this

motion.

363. The Vice-Chairperson made the following comments and

enquiries:

(i) The written reply of the Police did not respond positively

to the enquiries of Members, nor was it written in the

official format. He hoped the Secretariat could ask

HKPF to issue a written reply in the formal format to

directly respond to the questions from Members.

(ii) He could not understand why the Police must acquire

94

Action

new weapons and pointed out that their existing

weaponry was already adequate. Any upgrading of the

force used by the Police would probably lead to more

casualties. The stun gun was a highly dangerous

weapon which could cause dire consequences if it was

used to deal with people with subclinical cardiovascular

diseases.

364. Mr LI Wing-choi echoed the opinions of other Members and

held the view that the Police should provide another reply on this agenda

item. But he opined that since the Police had made their stance

perfectly clear, Members could vote on the agenda item in this meeting.

365. Ms Clara CHEUNG said that Members could vote on the

motion in this meeting and invite the Police to give another response.

366. Ms Peggy LEE said that the representatives of HKPF attending

the meeting were standing invitees. She was worried that they would

leave the meeting early again.

367. The Chairperson raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) The written reply of the Police did not look formal and

official as there were wrongly used Chinese characters,

overtones of intimidation and inappropriate expressions.

She hoped HKPF clarified whether this written reply was

a formal and official one.

(ii) The law enforcement of the Police had infringed upon

people’s right to peaceful assembly and freedom of

speech. As Ms Susi LAW said, the use of weapons by

the Police had restricted people’s freedom of movement.

She advised Members to carefully consider whether they

should vote on the above agenda item in this meeting.

(iii) She could not understand why the Police wanted to avoid

questions from Members and wondered if HKPF was

afraid of representatives of the people. She doubted if

the Police could still maintain their professionalism in

the past when performing duties. She commented that

it was unacceptable for HKPF to give a reply with no

signature to Members’ enquiries.

368. The Chairperson invited Mr LEUNG Pak-kin to read out his

written motion.

369. Mr LEUNG Pak-kin read out the following written motion:

“Opposition to the inclusion or acquisition of new weapons by

95

Action

HKPF, including stun guns, net guns and so on, for daily law

enforcement or handling of protests and anti-riot operations.”

370. The Chairperson asked Members to vote by a show of hands and

announced the voting results as follows:

Yes： 10 votes (Ms CHAN Yuk-lam, Ms Clara CHEUNG,

Ms Sabina KOO, Ms Susi LAW, Ms Peggy

LEE, Mr LEUNG Pak-kin, Mr LI

Wing-choi, Mr MAK King-sing, Ms Cathy

YAU and Miss Clarisse YEUNG)

No： 0 votes

Abstain： 0 votes

371. The Chairperson announced the passage of the motion. This

agenda item would be discussed again in the next meeting. She asked

the Secretariat to invite HKPF to the coming meeting and respond to

Members’ questions.

Item 29:

Any Other Business

(a) Pneumonia cases of novel coronavirus infection

372. In response to the recent outbreak of pneumonia cases of novel

coronavirus infection in Hong Kong, the Chairperson hoped the DC

would express concerns over the current situation to the Centre for

Health Protection (CHP) in writing. She questioned if the relevant

departments had put in place comprehensive precautionary measures at

immigration control points such as the high speed rail station. As only

very few incoming travellers were requested to receive screening, she

opined that the current prevention measures was inadequate and

suggested the Secretariat write to relevant departments, namely the

Immigration Department (ImmD) and CHP, for updates and follow-up of

the prevention measures targeted at the pneumonia cases.

373. In view of the severe outbreak, Ms Susi LAW predicted that the

spread of virus would worsen during the Lunar New Year, when people

in Hong Kong visited Mainland China. She called on the Government

to implement more emergency measures, such as setting up contingency

isolation wards at the airport and high speed rail station, as well as

strengthening publicity so as to enhance public awareness of epidemic

prevention.

374. Ms Peggy LEE suggested adding an item in the meeting agenda

of FEHC and inviting representatives from departments, such as DH and

ImmD, to the committee for discussions on measures to tackle the

pneumonia cases of novel coronavirus infection in the territory.

375. The Chairperson supported the proposals from Ms Susi LAW

and Ms Peggy LEE and asked the Secretariat to follow up the matter.

96

Action

Item 30: Date of Next Meeting

376. The Chairperson announced that the next meeting would be held

at 2:30 p.m. on 24 March 2020 (Tuesday).

Adjournment of Meeting

377. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at

8:30 p.m..

Wan Chai District Council Secretariat

March 2020

These minutes of meeting were confirmed on 24 March 2020.

(Translation)...Ms LEE Pik-yee, Peggy, MH Mr LEUNG Pak-kin Mr LI Wing-choi Mr WONG Wang-tai, Ivan,...

Documents

Transcript of (Translation)...Ms LEE Pik-yee, Peggy, MH Mr LEUNG Pak-kin Mr LI Wing-choi Mr WONG Wang-tai, Ivan,...