Draft minutes of the 13th SDC Meeting_Eng.doc - 1 -

Minutes of the 13th Meeting of the Southern District Council (SDC)

(2012-2015)

Date : 14 November 2013

Time : 2:30 p.m.

Venue : SDC Conference Room

Present:

Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP (Chairman)

Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH (Vice-Chairman)

Mr AU Lap-sing

Mr AU Nok-hin

Mr CHAI Man-hon

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung

Mr CHU Lap-wai

Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus

Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH

Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH

Dr LIU Hong-fai, Dandy, JP

Mr LO Kin-hei

Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada

Mr TSUI Yuen-wa

Mr WONG Ling-sun, Vincent

Dr YANG Mo, PhD

Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP

Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN

Absence with Apologies:

Mr FUNG Wai-kwong (see paragraph 2)

Secretary:

Miss LIN Ming Senior Executive Officer (District Council),

Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

In Attendance:

Ms WAI Yee-yan, Christine, JP District Officer (Southern),

Home Affairs Department

- 2 -

Miss NG Kai-ting, Nettie Assistant District Officer (Southern),

Home Affairs Department

Mr CHAN Ip-to, Tony Senior Executive Officer (District Management),

Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

Ms LO Mun-wah, Cindy Senior Liaison Officer (1), Southern District Office,

Home Affairs Department

Miss CHOW Shuk-yee, Jessica Senior Liaison Officer (2), Southern District Office,

Home Affairs Department

Mr CHOW Wing-che District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent

(Southern), Food and Environmental Hygiene

Department

Mr CHAN Wai-kiu, Alex District Leisure Manager (Southern), Leisure and

Cultural Services Department

Mr WONG Yuet-chung Senior Housing Manager/KWH3, Housing

Department

Mr CHAN Nap-sang, Nelson Chief Transport Officer/HK, Transport Department

Mr Wise CHOY District Commander (Western), Hong Kong Police

Force

Mr LAW Shu-pui Police Community Relations Officer (Western),

Hong Kong Police Force

Mr Matthew CHEUNG, GBS, JP Secretary for Labour and Welfare

Ms Jade LAI Political Assistant to Secretary for Labour and

Welfare

Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP Under Secretary for Transport and Housing

Miss WONG Tin-yu, Agnes, JP Deputy Secretary for Transport and Housing

(Housing)

Mr WONG Kam-sing, JP Secretary for the Environment

Mr Albert LAM Deputy Director of Environmental Protection

(2)

Miss Katharine CHOI Administrative Assistant to Secretary for the

Environment

Ms Michelle AU Political Assistant to Secretary for the

Environment

Mr NG Tak-wing Chief Engineer/Railway Development 1-1,

Highways Department

Mr Stephen WAT Senior Engineer/SIL (1), Highways

Department

Mr David CHAN Senior Engineer/Priority Railway 3, Transport

for

agenda

item 2

for

agenda

item 1

for

agenda

item 3

for

agenda

item 6

- 3 -

Department

Ms. Sandy WU Projects Communications Manager, Mass

Transit Railway Corporation

Mr Bernard WONG Senior Liaison Engineer, Mass Transit Railway

Corporation

Mr Raymond KOO Senior Construction Engineer -Civil, Mass

Transit Railway Corporation

Mr Jimmy CHAN Construction Engineer I -Civil, Mass Transit

Railway Corporation

Opening Remarks:

The Chairman welcomed Mr Matthew CHEUNG, GBS, JP, Secretary for Labour

and Welfare, and Ms Jade Lai, Political Assistant to Secretary for Labour and Welfare, to the

meeting for discussion of agenda item 1.

2. The Chairman also extended welcome to Members and regular government

representatives to the meeting. He advised the meeting that Mr FUNG Wai-kwong had

applied for sick leave, and his leave application was approved in accordance with the

Standing Orders of the Southern District Council (SDC) (2012-2015) (Standing Orders).

3. The Chairman continued that the meeting would be conducted in accordance with

the established arrangement, under which each Member would be allotted a maximum of

two three-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item. He also reminded Members

to speak as concise as possible. The electronic timer would beep when it reached two

minutes 30 seconds and three minutes of each speaking slot respectively. The suggested

duration for discussion of the agenda items had been e-mailed to Members earlier (Reference

Paper 1). Also, the Secretary estimated that the meeting would come to a close no later

than 8:15 p.m., and if Members wished to leave earlier, they should inform the secretariat

staff as early as possible.

Agenda Item 1: “Poverty Line” and Strategy for Poverty Alleviation

[2:33 p.m. – 4:03 p.m.]

4. The Chairman said that this agenda item was put forward by Labour and Welfare

for

agenda

item 6

- 4 -

Bureau (LWB), and the estimated duration for discussion of this agenda item was 1 hour 15

minutes. He also reminded Members to speak as concise as possible.

5. Mr Matthew CHEUNG, GBS, JP, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation

(PowerPoint 1), briefly introduced the Background of the “Poverty Line”, the Functions of

the “Poverty Line”, the Guiding Principles on Setting the “Poverty Line” and the Limitations

of the “Poverty Line” as well as 2012 Poor Population Statistics Key Analysis and

Observations. He then invited Members to give views on the Direction and Strategy for

Poverty Alleviation.

(Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr AU Nok-hin and Mr FUNG Se-goun joined the meeting at

2:43 p.m., 2:41 p.m. and 3:01 p.m. respectively.)

6. The Chairman thanked Mr Matthew CHEUNG, GBS, JP for his thorough brief.

He then invited Members to raise comments and enquiries on the subject.

7. Mr LO Kin-hei welcomed the Government‟s setting of “poverty line”, and

understood that “poverty line” was not “poverty-alleviation line”. Yet he hoped that the

Government‟s setting of “poverty line” could give added impetus to more poverty alleviation

efforts in the future. He remarked that the Government had put in place more than 200

welfare initiatives of various sorts, of which some were implemented by

bureaux/departments other than LWB, such as Education Bureau (EDB). Since different

welfare initiatives had different application requirements and procedures, applicants needed

to apply for each benefit separately through the respective bureau/department. For instance,

application requirements differed for public rental housing (PRH) and Comprehensive Social

Security Assistance (CSSA), and for CSSA and student benefits. Low-income people in

need might find themselves in difficulties. He requested LWB to consider consolidating

welfare initiatives under its purview and adopting common application criteria. Hence,

needy people might submit single application for multiple benefits for which they were

eligible according to approval conditions.

8. Mr AU Nok-hin opined that Hong Kong might not have to turn to welfarism.

However, despite the decreasing number of CSSA applicants and widening wealth gap, the

focus of the community was around the abuse of CSSA rather than concerns about

low-income people. If Hong Kong did nothing to promote greater awareness of the

necessity of welfare, the whole society would be on a path to “death”. He pointed out that

LWB had mentioned about its research on ways to roll out a low-income family supplement.

- 5 -

He would like to know what factors were considered by LWB in respect of either the

proposal of Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS) or the proposal of Oxfam Hong

Kong. With the poverty line pegged at 50% of the median monthly household income,

some poor families such as working-poor households or households with several children

might not be covered. He asked LWB whether a separate line would be drawn on top of

the poverty line as a benchmark to define low-income households. On the other hand, he

also asked if LWB would consider providing rent allowance for poor households who had

been on the Waiting List for Public Rental Housing (the Waiting List) for more than three

years and were living in private buildings for the time being.

9. Mr AU Lap-sing agreed with LWB‟s approach of encouraging CSSA recipients to

get jobs. However, he opined that the Government and the community had been focused

more on helping CSSA recipients and might overlook those working poor who were not on

CSSA. He suggested the Government to consider allocating funding from Social Welfare

Department (SWD) or Community Care Fund (CCF) to provide the working poor with

subsidies equivalent to a certain percentage of their income, thereby encouraging

employment and helping them escape poverty.

10. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH commended LWB for its poverty alleviation measures and

opined that LWB was able to address the two main aspects of poverty alleviation –

encouraging employment and supporting children. He pointed out that the deep-rooted

conflicts in Hong Kong society sprang partly from income disparity. It was more so in

recent years when the middle class had become increasingly discontented as they found

themselves having to pay large amounts of tax and bear heavy burden. They were

dissatisfied with the abuse of CSSA and other welfare benefits and wanted to voice out their

views. He opined that the Government had taken steps in the right direction in its poverty

alleviation strategy and approach, and had the courage to address and deal with problems.

Its commitment was commendable. As regards poverty alleviation strategy, the

Government should encourage employment to help the poor escape poverty. He shared the

experience of some overseas countries in poverty alleviation. In Venezuela in Latin

America, the poor accounted for 70% of the population and the percentage was much higher

than that in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, the government of the country was able to mobilise

social resources effectively to save street children as well as youngsters involved in drugs

and crime through music by bringing them together to form orchestras. Children and

youngsters in the orchestras were provided with musical instruments and daily needs and had

opportunities to take part in performances. Though they were not rich, they enjoyed a

- 6 -

sense of spiritual well-being and regained confidence and dignity. He indicated that

poverty alleviation through music could reshape the mental outlook of children living in

poverty and allow them to develop themselves into contributing members of the society.

11. Mr CHU Lap-wai agreed with the poverty alleviation policy which set out three

main goals to help the working poor, support children from low-income families and

encourage employment. He reflected that some elderly people had once had their own

property but they later went bankrupt or sold the property to settle the debts of their children.

Yet when they applied for PRH, they were turned down by Housing Department (HD) on the

ground that they owned a property in the past. Hence they had to live in subdivided flats.

HD indicated that these elderly people would be eligible for PRH as long as they were CSSA

recipients. In fact, they did not want to apply for CSSA and considered the Old Age Living

Allowance of $2,200 basically sufficient to meet their daily expenses. They only found it

difficult to solve their housing problems and needed help from the Government. He asked

LWB to discuss with HD to explore the feasibility of adjusting the eligibility for the elderly

people aged over 65 to apply for PRH. Besides, even if the elderly people could apply for

PRH, they still had to live in subdivided flats while they were on the Waiting List. He

therefore hoped that LWB could provide them with welfare subsidies other than CSSA. He

stressed that many elderly people were reluctant to receive CSSA. He looked to LWB to

utilise social resources more effectively in such a way to help the elderly solve their housing

problems.

12. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said that upon entering the 21st century, Hong Kong

had undergone economy transformation with factories relocating to Mainland China.

Moreover, the majority of Hong Kong people were dependent on the financial sector, and the

creative industry was stagnant. All these factors combined to adversely impact the

employment scenario, push up property prices and upset the business environment, making it

more difficult to solve the problem of the poor population. She opined that, in the face of

manpower shortage in various sectors, LWB might take a proactive and positive approach to

provide a supplement of $8,000 to the youth for learning vocational skills such as bar

bending and fixing. As there was no way to ensure how the youth use the money if they

were only provided with financial assistance, it would be more desirable to help them

acquire better qualifications and turn into talents required for construction, catering and

finance industries. In addition, she pointed out that not a few civil servants retired at the

age of 50, but in fact many people were still able to work in their 70s and 80s. Hence, it

was hoped that the Government could get the retired civil servants back into the workforce

- 7 -

as they were relatively well educated and could continue to contribute to the society with

their knowledge and experience.

13. Mr Paul Zimmerman praised LWB for its efforts in setting the “poverty line” and

he thought that the community would also commend its efforts. He asked the Government

to enlighten him about the future estimated poor population in Hong Kong based on the

current assumptions. He requested the Government to clarify their assumptions and

predictions.

14. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling hoped that the Government could care about and help

disadvantaged students. She shared that when she was young, her family could not afford

to let her take part in extra-curricular activities. Fortunately, a teacher nominated her to the

Chinese Young Men‟s Christian Association of Hong Kong for learning dance and music.

Moreover, her school subsidised disadvantaged students to take part in choir training and

performance. These experiences helped her a lot especially when she took up teaching later

on. She asked LWB to enhance the subsidy for disadvantaged students taking part in

extra-curricular activities. Besides, she said that many disadvantaged students could not

afford to attend tutorial classes. Though some primary school teachers would provide these

students with after-school tutorials, we could not expect the same to happen in secondary

schools. Therefore, she hoped that LWB would focus more on the needs of disadvantaged

students. For instance, LWB could set up a fund and disadvantaged students might apply

for subsidies for after-school tutorials.

15. Dr LIU Hong-fai, JP said that a “child matching fund” launched by LWB several

years ago was successful in addressing the needs of children. He asked whether the

matching fund was still in operation and how the Government allocate the resources in it.

16. Dr YANG Mo raised the following views and enquiries:

- he concurred with LWB‟s strategy for poverty alleviation. However, he opined

that Hong Kong had no way to get rid of the disparity between the rich and the

poor due to the lack of sound social welfare policies;

- he asked LWB whether it could offer assistance to new arrivals living in poverty.

These people made Hong Kong their permanent residence but had yet to live in

Hong Kong for at least seven years. He opined that the Government should care

about these people as they would be new blood for the society as permanent

- 8 -

residents;

- he asked whether LWB had taken into account the possible labelling and

discrimination problems following the setting of the “poverty line”, which might

have psychological implications on children and the youth; and

- he mentioned that children from poor families made up some 20% of all medical

school students several years ago, but now the proportion dropped to some 10%.

The Government on one hand labeled them as the poor population while on the

other hand did not provide them with any concrete assistance. Many countries

would provide interest-free loans to children from poor families pursuing

bachelor‟s degree, master‟s degree and even doctoral degree programmes, and

allow them to repay the loans in phases after they graduated and got a job. He

hoped that the Government could adopt similar policies to help children from poor

families, so that they would have a better chance for upward mobility.

17. Mr CHAN Fu-ming praised LWB for its plans to draw the poor population into

the labour market, but he wanted to know whether there would be a wage ceiling. Since

there were currently some jobs, such as dish washing, which were relatively high-paid in the

market, it would be better not to set a wage ceiling in order to help people entering the

labour market to get out of poverty as soon as possible.

18. The Chairman invited Mr Matthew CHEUNG to respond to Members‟ views.

19. Mr Matthew CHEUNG gave a consolidated response as follows:

- he thanked Mr LO Kin-hei for bringing out the message that a “poverty line” was

not a “poverty-alleviation line”. “Poverty line” was a tool to measure the poverty

situation and to assist policy formulation. Since poverty line analysis did not

take into account assets, people who were „income poor, asset rich‟ could be

classified as poor. As a result, the “poverty line” should not be regarded as a

“poverty-alleviation line”;

- the assets tests for the Old Age Living Allowance had triggered great

repercussions earlier. However, to ensure that the limited resources available

were used to help elderly people with genuine financial needs, it was necessary to

introduce the income and assets tests. So far, 400 000 needy elderly had received

the Old Age Living Allowance;

- at present, there were 1 020 000 elderly people aged above 65, i.e. one in seven of

our population aged above 65. It was estimated that the number of elderly people

- 9 -

would increase to 2 560 000 by 2041, i.e. one in three of our population was an

elderly person. Alongside decreasing tax revenue, the dependency ratio would

also decline from 5.7 to 1 at present to 2:1 in 2041. It could be imagined that the

tax burden on the working population would grow heavier and heavier;

- in formulating its policies, the Government had to consider whether Hong Kong

could afford the expenditure involved in the long run. In fact, it was essential for

the Government to prudently manage public finances to ensure appropriate use of

resources. Hence, assets tests had to be maintained in poverty alleviation to

target the assistance to the needy;

- it was difficult to standardise the application requirements across all social welfare

items. For instance, the target recipients of assistance of CSSA and PRH were

different. It was not practicable to apply the same application requirements to

both CSSA and PRH. To cite another example, “dual track” approach was

adopted for the Work Incentive Transport Subsidy (WITS) Scheme.

Individual-based applicants could apply in July 2013 at the earliest for WITS

under the “dual track” approach, and so far more than 20 000 citizens had applied

for the subsidy on an individual basis, which was most encouraging. The

application requirements for WITS were relatively less stringent with a monthly

income limit set at $7,700 ($8,105 if inclusive of employees‟ mandatory

contribution to Mandatory Provident Fund) and an asset limit set at $75,000 for

individual-based applications;

- although social welfare items varied in objectives and target recipients of

assistance, the Government was considering doing something by reference to the

one-stop service mode adopted by Australia. In Australia, the grassroots were

only required to fill in a single application form for different social welfare items.

Still, the Government had to check the eligibility of applicants for various

assistance schemes. Moreover, the Government was exploring the administrative

feasibility of adopting “one-stop service” whereby applicants would be checked

for their eligibility for various assistance schemes upon submission of the required

information;

- in the 2013-14 Budget, 55.7 billion was earmarked for welfare expenditure.

There was an increase of 10 billion, or 31%, compared with 2012-13. The Old

Age Living Allowance accounted for 6 billion, and other items such as residential

care services, services for handicapped persons, family services and child care

support were also covered. Of total government expenditure in 2013-14,

expenditure on welfare (55.7 billion), education and health accounted for 19.2%,

21% and 17% respectively. It was evident that the Government was very

concerned about people‟s livelihood;

- 10 -

- although the poverty line was set at 50% of median monthly household income

before government policy intervention, the Government would not ignore those

with income levels near the poverty line;

- as the provision of rent subsidy to applicants on the Waiting List might attract

even more people to apply for PRH, the Government had reservations on this

recommendation;

- a Member suggested that poor working families be provided with assistance other

than CSSA so as to encourage them to take up jobs. In fact, helping the working

poor was one of the future work focuses of LWB. LWB was looking into the

views raised by different groups/persons on how low-income working families not

receiving CSSA should be further assisted, with a view to encouraging

low-income persons to stay in active employment and promoting self-reliance.

To encourage the new arrivals to work, the Government was inclined not to set

any residence requirements;

- LWB would make reference to Venezuela‟s experience as mentioned by Members

of nurturing and changing the lives of children from poor families through music;

- a Member mentioned that some elderly people who had once owned a property

were not eligible for PRH. It was believed that these cases were small by

number. LWB would relay the views to Transport and Housing Bureau (THB);

(Post-meeting notes: According to HA‟s policy on application of PRH, in general,

ex-owners/former loan-recipients of various subsidised home ownership schemes

were ineligible for PRH. However, special consideration would be given to such

applicants (including elderly), who still had to meet the other requirements of PRH

application, on the following five conditions: (1) in adjudicated bankruptcy; (2)

having financial hardship resulting in need for CSSA; (3) adverse changes to

family circumstances such as divorce and death of bread-winner; (4) a significant

drop in household income resulting in difficulties in repaying the mortgages; or (5)

households beset with medical and social problems but not to the extent to qualify

for compassionate rehousing. HD and SWD had an interdepartmental mechanism

in place to handle referrals and to make assessment of and recommendations for

cases under condition (5) and other recommended cases, and would maintain close

liaison on related matters.)

- it was agreed that more job opportunities should be made available to young

people and the issue of retirement age should be given attention. Moreover, apart

from laying ground for upward mobility of young people, this subject was also

highlighted in the recent Consultation on Population Policy to solicit public views;

- to help people escape from poverty through education and change their lives with

knowledge were important directions of poverty alleviation. The grassroots

- 11 -

could equip themselves through education and get rid of poverty by taking up jobs.

Therefore, education and employment should be the two major topics in the

poverty alleviation policy of the Government;

- with an aging population, Hong Kong could foresee a declining trend in its labour

force starting from 2018. At present, Hong Kong had a labour force of 3.88

million, of which the employed population and the unemployed population

accounted for 3.75 million and 0.13 million respectively. The unemployment

rate was 3.3%, which signified virtually full employment. It was anticipated that

a declining trend would be seen starting from 2018, with a yearly decrease of

about 8 000 to 10 000 people. The employed population would be decreased by

more than 200 000 in 20 years;

- an aging population would lead to a decline in productivity, which would in turn

undermine the competitiveness of Hong Kong. Two solutions were available for

Hong Kong to tackle the problem. One was to encourage five categories of

people with working ability to join the workforce, which included unleashing

female workforce. At present, there were about 520 000 housewives aged

between 30 and 59. The society should consider ways to unleash female

workforce, such as strengthening support for child and elderly care services.

Generally speaking, it was not easy for women to go to work since they had to

take care of their family members old and young. The availability of sufficient

support for child care services, after-school care services and carer services was

crucial in determining whether women could join the workforce;

- there were more than 200 000 elderly people in Hong Kong who were “younger

elderly” aged between 50 and 60. At present, Hong Kong did not have a

standardised retirement age. The retirement age was 60 for civil servants and 55

for disciplined services officers. The business people would normally retire at

the age of 65. In fact, many security guards working at single-block buildings

would work until 70 years old. People who retired early would not be very old

and were still capable to work, the Government should explore ways to better

utilise this workforce segment;

- apart from women and retirees, the Government should also consider

strengthening employment opportunities for ethnic minorities. There were about

80 000 Indians, Pakistanis and Nepalese, excluding foreign domestic helpers, with

permanent residency in Hong Kong. At present, many South Asian youths faced

difficulties in finding jobs and some of them might be unemployed;

- besides, strengthening employment opportunities for persons with disabilities and

unleashing the workforce made up of new arrivals who had resided in Hong Kong

for less than seven years, it could help enhance the overall labour force. Also, it

- 12 -

was necessary to provide employment incentives for the poor working families so

that they would take up jobs to improve their living conditions;

- all the points mentioned above were closely related to population policy. It was

hoped that various sectors of the community could express their views on the

consultation paper by 24 February 2014;

- the Government had not made a projection on the number of people living in

poverty, and poverty statistics would be undated annually. Based on 2012‟s

poverty situation and the social-economic characteristics of poor households, the

Government would concentrate on the working poor to offer targeted support.

Also, the Government would pay special attention to households with children and

take note of the recommendations given by Oxfam Hong Kong;

- the Government would further enhance after-school child care services and had

been actively exploring the feasibility of extending the operating hours of such

services so that their parents could pick their children up after work. Though

such an initiative involved complicated overall support measures and was a

massive community project, the Government agreed with this poverty alleviation

direction;

- the “matching fund” mentioned by Members was set up by some enthusiasts in the

community to support the Government‟s Child Development Fund (CDF). LWB

had set up the CDF with a funding of $300 million a couple of years ago, which

had been developed well since then. Up till now, 4 000 children were benefited.

It was expected that some 2 000 more children would join the project. At present,

there were still sufficient resources for the continued implementation of the project.

It was hoped that enthusiastic members of the public would continue to support

the matching initiative. There was a savings programme under the project to

help participating children to accumulate savings. In general, each participating

child would set a monthly savings target at $200 during the two-year savings

period, and a matching contribution of the same amount would be given by

enthusiastic members of the public. Plus the Government‟s special financial

incentive of $3,000, each child would have $12,600 in savings. The project

aimed at instilling asset-building and goal-setting concepts in children. To

ensure sustainability of the project, apart from donations, it was important to have

mentors who would positively affect the lives of the children. LWB invited

members from local communities to take part in the project as mentors;

- LWB was glad that CSSA recipients tried to find jobs with better pay. If a CSSA

recipient earned a salary of $16,000, he/she could retain $2,500 according to the

“disregarded earnings” arrangement. The remaining $12,000 that could not be

disregarded would be recorded by scheme as savings under the Incentive Scheme.

- 13 -

After two years, when the total amount of savings would be equivalent to two

times the asset limit of CSSA, the total savings amounts would be provided by

CCF and be released to the CSSA recipient who would then leave the CSSA net;

- CCF had launched a series of pilot schemes, which was a bold attempt. Some

people had to quitted their jobs to take care of frail elderly persons at home.

With less income, financial situations of some were not as good as before.

Taking the above into account, CCF was studying the feasibility of providing

living allowance to these carers from low-income families; and

- Members were welcome to tell LWB their views and suggestions on the strategy

for poverty alleviation through District Officer (Southern), District Social Welfare

Officer (Central, Western, Southern and Islands) or DC Secretariat.

20. The Chairman thanked Mr Matthew CHEUNG, GBS, JP for his thorough brief

and response to Members‟ enquires. He also thanked Mr CHEUNG and Ms Jade LAI for

joining the meeting.

21. The Chairman announced a 3-minute recess.

(Mr Matthew CHEUNG, GBS, JP and Ms Jade LAI left the meeting at 3:54 p.m.)

Agenda Item 4: Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the 12th SDC Meeting

Held on 12 September 2013

[4:07 p.m. – 4:08 p.m.]

22. The Chairman said that since THB representatives who were going to brief on

agenda item 2 had not yet arrived at the meeting, he proposed to first discuss other agenda

items which were estimated to take short time.

23. Members unanimously agreed to the above proposal.

24. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the draft minutes of the 12th SDC

meeting had been circulated to Members. The Secretariat had not received any amendment

proposals.

25. The Chairman invited Members to endorse the minutes of the 12th SDC meeting.

- 14 -

26. SDC confirmed the minutes of the 12th SDC meeting.

Agenda Item 5: Matters Arising

(SDC Paper No. 80/2013) [4:08 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.]

27. The Chairman invited Members to note the contents of the paper, in particular the

Progress Report on Working Targets of Southern District Council (2012-2015) (the Progress

Report) at Annex. He asked Members if they endorsed the contents of the Progress Report.

He said that if Members had no objection to the contents of the Progress Report, the

Secretary would upload it on SDC website for public access.

28. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that he had just printed out the paper and needed

some more time to read it before giving any comments.

29. The Chairman said that if Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN had any amendment proposal

to the contents after reading the paper, he could raise it with the Secretary. The Secretary

would upload the revised Progress Report on SDC website.

30. The Chairman continued that regarding the revitalisation project of The Old Dairy

Farm Senior Staff Quarters (The Senior Staff Quarters), representative of Commissioner for

Heritage‟s Office of Development Bureau (DEVB) agreed, at the last meeting, at the request

of SDC to contact the Vocational Training Council (VTC) again to confirm its intention to

develop The Senior Staff Quarters. If VTC had no intention to develop The Senior Staff

Quarters, then it would be included in the Revitalising Historic Buildings Through

Partnership Scheme (the Revitalisation Scheme). DEVB later approached VTC again on

the issue. VTC indicated that further study would be needed after details of the

Revitalisation Scheme became public.

31. Mr AU Nok-hin said that in page 16 of the Progress Report on Working Targets of

Southern District Council (2012-2015) at Annex, it was mentioned under the item

“Improving the traffic conditions at Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road and reviewing the planned

use of the site of the ex-Harbour Mission School” that SWD had expressed initial intention

to use the site to construct a residential care home for the elderly. However, the fact was

that the site had yet to finalise the development purpose. Hence he suggested revising the

item as “to construct a residential care home for the elderly or other facilities” in order to

allow flexibility to use the site for other development purposes.

- 15 -

32. The Secretary clarified that the Progress Report only mentioned about the “initial

intention” expressed by SWD representative at the meeting of District Development and

Environment Committee held in July 2012. It did not mean that SDC agreed to and had to

take forward the development plan, and neither did it mean that SDC would regard the

development of the site as a residential care home for the elderly as one of the working

targets.

33. The Chairman said that the contents of the Progress Report only truly repeated

SWD‟s initial intention. If SWD had other plans in the future, it would probably advise

SDC again.

34. Members unanimously agreed to keep the original wording.

35. Members noted the contents of the paper and the above progress.

(Post-meeting note: Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN proposed amendments to certain wording in

the English version of the Progress Report on Working Targets of

Southern District Council (2012-2015) after the meeting. The

Secretariat uploaded the revised report on SDC website on 22

November 2012.)

Agenda Item 10: Application for SDC Fund: 2014 Southern District Youth Football

Training Programme

(SDC Paper No. 85/2013) [4:15 p.m. – 4:17 p.m.]

36. The Chairman asked Members if they had to declare interests on this activity, and

requested Members who had to declare interests to raise their hand as an indication and

complete the Declaration of Interests.

37. Mr WONG Ling-sun raised his hand as an indication.

38. The Chairman invited Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, representative of the Southern

District Recreation and Sports Association (the Association), to briefly introduce the

contents and the budget of the activity.

- 16 -

39. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung said that the Association had applied for an allocation of

$259,000 from SDC for organising the 2014 Southern District Youth Football Training

Programme from 1 January to 31 December 2014. Details of the budget were at Annex of

the paper. She asked Members to endorse the funding application.

(Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung withdrew from the meeting at 4:16 p.m.)

40. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries.

41. Members raised no comments and enquiries.

42. SDC endorsed an allocation of $259,400 to the Association, with half of the

allocation to be paid in advance, for organising the 2014 Southern District Youth Football

Training Programme.

(Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung returned to the meeting at 4:17 p.m.)

Agenda Item 9: Formation of Committees under Southern District Council and

Appointment of Co-opted Members for 2014-15

(SDC Paper No. 84/2013) [4:17 p.m. – 4:23 p.m.]

43. The Chairman briefly introduced the contents of the paper as below:

- Subject to Section 71(1) of the District Councils Ordinance, District Councils may

set up committees for the purpose of carrying out its functions. At its 1st

meeting on 5 January 2012, the current term of SDC endorsed to establish four

committees, namely the Community Affairs and Tourism Development

Committee (CATC), District Development and Environment Committee (DDEC),

Traffic and Transport Committee (T&TC) and District Facilities Management

Committee (DFMC), and approved the terms of reference of respective

committees. The tenure of office for a Committee Member is two years.

- SDC also endorsed the appointment of Co-opted Members to CATC, DDEC and

T&TC at a quota of five for each committee.

44. The Chairman said that to continue the work commenced by the current term of

SDC, it was suggested that the existing structure should be adopted and the four committees

- 17 -

would be maintained, and also the prevailing terms of reference at Annex 1 should be still in

force. The tenure of office of a Committee Member was two years as from 1 January 2014.

45. The Chairman asked Members if they agreed to the above proposal. If Members

endorsed the proposal, the Secretary would invite Members to join the four committees.

46. SDC would adopt the existing structure and maintain the four committees for

2014-15.

47. The Chairman said that since the tenure of the current term of co-opted

membership would expire on 31 December 2013, SDC Secretariat emailed to all Members

inviting nominations for co-opted membership (2014-2015) for the above three committees

on 17 September 2013, and the closing date was 11 October 2013. Subsequently, the

Secretariat has received nominations from 15 Members.

48. The Chairman continued that the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of

SDC/committees under SDC, together with the District Officer (Southern), held a meeting at

3:30 p.m. on 4 November 2013 to consider the nominations for co-opted membership in

accordance with the above selection criteria. It was decided that all the 15 nominees

satisfied the required qualifications, and with respect to the needs of the respective

committees, the said persons (as set out in the recommendation list at Annex 2) would be

recommended to SDC for the office of Co-opted Member.

49. The Chairman asked Members if they endorsed the recommendation list at Annex

2.

50. SDC endorsed the recommendation at Annex 2.

Agenda Item 7: Provisional Allocation of SDC Community Involvement Project Fund

for 2014-15

(SDC Paper No. 82/2013)

[4:25 p.m. – 4:38 p.m.]

51. The Chairman briefly introduced the contents of the paper as follows:

- 18 -

- every year, funds had been allocated by the Home Affairs Department (HAD) to all

district councils for carrying out minor environmental improvement projects and

community involvement (CI) projects;

- last year, SDC was allocated $14 million for implementation of CI projects;

- the current term SDC had approved the revised submission schedule for fund

applications, under which local organisations were required to submit applications

in three quarters annually, i.e. January to April, May to August and September to

December. Hence, for projects held between January and April 2014, applications

should be submitted in November 2013 for vetting and approval. To tie in with

the arrangement, SDC had to endorse the fund allocation for the upcoming year

every November; and

- since the amount of allocation for 2014-15 would not be announced until early

April 2014, it was proposed to draw up the allocation for 2014-15 based on the

provision for 2013-14 at this stage.

52. The Chairman invited the Secretary to briefly explain the revised funding allocation

in 2014-15, which was based on the resolutions of SDC and its committees, and the actual

expenditure.

53. The Secretary briefly explained the revised allocation of SDC CI projects as

follows:

- the 65th

National Day of the People‟s Republic of China fell on 2014. It was

suggested that in accordance with the established arrangements of SDC, the

allocation for related celebrations would be increased from $520,000 to $800,000;

- in view of the special provision for the promotion of arts and culture and the work

targets of SDC, SDC had launched the first funding scheme for the promotion and

literature and music in 2013-14, and the project ceiling was $50,000. Since the

Southern District Tourism and Culture Festival was held in the same year, it was

decided that a provision of $150,000 each would be allocated for the promotion of

literature and music activities respectively. It was expected that additional

resources would not be available for the scheme until 2014-15. The Community

Affairs and Tourism Development Committee (CATC) would review the funding

arrangements and project ceiling of this special provision later on. Meanwhile,

Members were invited to consider whether a provision of $300,000 each would be

reserved for such purposes respectively as originally planned;

- 19 -

- based on the initial budget provided by the Leisure and Cultural Services

Department, it was proposed that a provision of $106,000 would be reserved for the

preparatory work of the Hong Kong Games 2015;

- to increase the allocation for sports activities or related training programmes so as

to further promote district sports development which included the promotion of

water and beach sports relating to the shorelines and beach facilities in the Southern

District;

- it was proposed to reserve an annual provision of around $35,000 to the “Working

Group on Rehabilitation in the Southern District” under CATC for organising a

carnival “Rehab Power Grow Go Goal in the Southern District” every year;

- noting the positive response to the glass and plastic recycling programmes

sponsored by SDC in recently, it was proposed that the funding earmarked to the

Environmental Protection and Hygiene Working Group would be increased from

$150,000 to $300,000, with a view to strengthening environmental protection

initiatives in the district;

- in the light of SDC‟s resolution, the annual work report in print format would be

scrapped. In view of this, it was proposed that resources would be reserved for

the production of a soft copy only, which would be released to local residents

through the SDC website and SDC Members could send the soft copy to their

mailing lists in the form of an internet link;

- it was decided that from 2013 onward, the spring reception co-organised by SDC

and the Southern District Office would be held at venues of non-government

organisations, and social enterprises would be engaged to provide catering service.

In the light of these changes, the cost of the reception might be higher, so it was

suggested that the allocation should be increased from $28,000 to $30,000;

- in the light of SDC‟s resolution, it was necessary to earmark allocation for

developing five to six application softwares for the “Southern District Literary

Trail”;

- considering that the consultancy study on railway feeder service originally

scheduled for end 2013 was still pending, it was proposed that the initial expenses

reserved for this project should be transferred to 2014-15, that is, a sum of

$300,000 would be earmarked for meeting the expenses of consultancy study;

- to cope with SDC‟s endeavour to promote arts and cultural programmes and festive

activities, it was proposed that a provision equal to the cap at 15% of the approved

allocation from HAD would be reserved for employing contract staff; and

- it was estimated that the over-commitment would be $1,346,100, representing 9.6%

- 20 -

of the allocation. Nevertheless, it was expected that the actual amount of overrun

would be less than the above sum as, according to previous experiences, residue

funds would be returned to SDC upon completion of individual

projects/programmes. Also, SDC could apply for additional funds from HAD to

meet the shortfall as and when necessary.

54. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments and enquiries on the provisional

allocation.

55. Mr CHAI Man-hon wished to know when SDC would discuss the use of the

$300,000 for commissioning the appropriate consultancy studies.

56. The Chairman responded that for the time being, the Council would discuss the

need to reserve $300,000 for consultancy study only, and no decision had been made on the

types of consultancy study to be conducted. If individual committees had resolved that

there was a need for consultancy studies on certain subjects, they could apply to SDC for

funding.

57. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN considered that there was no need for SDC to carry out a

consultancy study on railway feeder service, and it could just ask the Transport Department

for the available study findings and reference data. He supported that various committees

should further discuss the utilisation of the funding originally reserved for the consultancy

study.

58. Mr LO Kin-hei raised enquiries as follows:

- besides the consultancy study on railway feeder service, some Members had

suggested a study on improving the traffic conditions in Aberdeen. He wished to

know if this proposal was on the waiting list of consultancy studies; and

- noting that SDC had employed quite a number of contract staff every year, he

enquired if the Council had autonomy over their remuneration and terms of

employment.

59. The Chairman responded that the Traffic and Transport Committee (T&TC) had

never made a resolution on the need for a study on improving traffic conditions in Aberdeen.

If the Member concerned considered it necessary to make such a study, he should put

- 21 -

forward a proposal for discussion at T&TC meeting and apply funding from SDC after a

consensus was reached in related Committee.

60. The Secretary responded that since SDC was not a legal person, all its contract staff

had to be employed by HAD under the established practice and in accordance with the terms

and conditions for Non-Civil Service Contract Staff (NCSC). Therefore, the ranks and

remuneration had to comply with the regulations of HAD.

61. The Chairman advised the meeting that during the 2013 Summit on District

Administration, he had requested HAD to create a NCSC post of “Programme Coordinator”

(one rank higher than the Executive Assistant under NCSC Scheme) for assisting in the

implementation of and improving the quality of SDC activities. However, at that time the

suggestion was mistaken as a request for additional resources to increase manpower.

62. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH suggested the Council to write to HAD to explain again

the request for creating a post of “Programme Coordinator” above the existing NCSC rank.

63. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH supported the proposal of Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH.

64. Members unanimously endorsed to write to HAD to express the above request.

65. The Chairman enquired if Members agreed to endorse the provisional allocation as

stated in the Annex.

66. SDC endorsed the provisional allocation of SDC CI Project Fund for 2014-15 as

stated in the Annex of the paper.

(Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP and Miss WONG Tin-yu, JP joined the meeting at 4:38 p.m.)

Agenda Item 2: Public Consultation on Long Term Housing Strategy

(SDC Paper No. 79/2013)

[4:38 p.m. – 5:33 p.m.]

67. The Chairman said that this agenda item was put forward by the Transport and

Housing Bureau (THB) and welcomed Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP, Under Secretary for

- 22 -

Transport and Housing, and Miss WONG Tin-yu, JP, Deputy Secretary for Transport and

Housing (Housing), to this meeting.

68. The Chairman said that the estimated discussion time for this agenda item was one

hour and 15 minutes and advised Members to speak as concise and precise as possible.

69. The Chairman invited Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP to briefly introduce the contents of

the paper.

70. Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP said that as the consultation document had already been

distributed to Members for reference, he would not repeat the details and instead wished to

better use the time to hear Members‟ views. He stressed that the Long Term Housing

Strategy Steering Committee (the Steering Committee) issued this consultation document for

the purpose of providing a base for discussion by the society, and it did not mean that the

Government had any preconceived position or policy on the subject. THB hoped that when

the three-month consultation period ended on 2 December 2013, they could consolidate the

views of various parties and formulate a long term housing strategy for Hong Kong.

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

72. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that the public in general understood the shortage of

housing in Hong Kong and supported to increase housing supply. However, he was

concerned that the Government might make mistakes in a rush to search for land for housing

production. He pointed out for example that the design of the present public rental housing

(PRH) was outdated. When the Government hurried to build more housing, it just adopted

the design being used over the years to develop the new PRH estates, which failed to keep

abreast of the times. He then commented that the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) was

slow in adopting new design for PRH. For instance, the district cooling system at the Kai

Tak Development could not be fully utilised, and not much improvement had been made to

the acoustic barriers. If the Government, in a bid to expedite PRH production, constructed

a large quantity of outmoded public housing, it would just create pain for the future. Also,

he considered that massive production of PRH or subsidised housing would keep more

people living in subsidised housing, thus slowing down the upward mobility on the housing

ladder. He pointed out that the increase of subsidised housing seemed to be responding to

public expectations; however, it could not solve the problem in the end. If a large number

of people lived in PRH estates, they would not have to buy their own flats. He believed

- 23 -

that it was more important for the Government to promote the development of private

property market, rather than solely relying on increasing the supply of PRH to solve the

housing problem. Furthermore, he was concerned about the growing trend of building

small flats in Hong Kong. He pointed out that the residential flats in Hong Kong were

among the smallest in the world, and they were smaller than the flats in Shenzhen, Singapore

or Shanghai. People in Hong Kong were living in very small units, but the Government

was still increasing the supply of small-sized units, which caused grave concerns. He

understood that to facilitate the relocation of the affected residents in the same district, the

Government had requested the provision of different types of housing in above-station

developments and urban renewal. However, all in all, it was necessary to increase the

supply of larger units in Hong Kong and stabilise their price. In this way, flat owners living

in smaller units could have a chance to move to bigger ones, allowing the younger

generation to purchase the smaller flats released in the second-hand property market, and

similarly, they might be able to buy a bigger unit in future. He stressed that the continued

focus on production of small units would lead to an imbalance in the demand and supply of

housing in future.

(Mr WONG Ling-sun left the meeting at 4:42 p.m.)

73. Mr AU Nok-hin said that he had exchanged views on rental control with THB, and

basically he understood the reluctance of THB in implementing rental control because of the

actual situations in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, he hoped THB could consider the idea of

rental control came up in the society recently, which was not a mandatory control but

allowed owners to raise the rent when the tenants were changed. He said that considering

the actual situations in Hong Kong, the Government should not rule out the possibility of

rental control too early. As a matter of fact, one or two years ago, people in Hong Kong

generally objected to the proposal of rental control, but time had changed, today people

thought differently. For example, in an article in the Hong Kong Economic Journal written

by Assistant Professor Mr FUNG Kwok-kin of Hong Kong Baptist University, it stated that

nowadays there was room for a more comprehensive study on the rental housing market in

Hong Kong to review the suitability of the introduction of rental control. He believed that

people would readily accept a policy if it was formulated based on relatively objective study

results. Furthermore, he hoped the Government could review the ratio of housing supply in

Hong Kong. The consultation document recommended that the ratio between public and

private housing should be 60:40, while he considered that it should be raised to 70:30 in

order to provide more public housing for people. Although the Government had been

- 24 -

tightening the policy on under-occupation in PRH estates and had endeavoured to recover

misused PRH flats, still such measures did not help much in shortening the waiting time for

PRH allocation. Therefore, the only way to alleviate the pressure on public housing supply

was to build more PRH.

74. Mr LO Kin-hei pointed out that people who were ineligible for PRH but could not

afford a private flat were in a very difficult situation. In the past, the Hong Kong Housing

Society (HKHS), which was a quasi-government body, could help these people to achieve

home ownership. At that time, those who did not meet the income limit of the application

of PRH but could not afford a private flat could consider applying for HKHS‟s Groups A and

B rental housing. However, HKHS had ceased receiving such applications in recent years

and also no new HKHS rental estate was being built. In view of this, he wanted to know if

the Government had any strategic measures to help these people and suggested enhancing

the role of HKHS, so that people could again benefit from the assistance administered by

HKHS.

75. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling commented that the long term housing strategy should

take the welfare of the elderly into consideration. There were many elderly residents in

PRH estates on the Hong Kong Island, but their children were allocated with PRH in

Kowloon or the New Territories. Considering that the elderly would need their children to

take care of them, she hoped THB could relax the transfer policy so as to meet the needs of

the elderly.

76. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung said that many residents had reflected that their salaries just

exceeded the income limit of PRH but did not have enough assets to buy a Home Ownership

Scheme (HOS) or private flat. Therefore, in the long run, she hoped THB could relax the

income limit of application of PRH to cover those whose salaries slightly exceeded the

current limit. Besides, she felt that increasing the production of PRH might not be enough

to resolve the problem and suggested reintroducing the TPS. In fact, the scheme worked

very well in Wah Kwai Estate and Lei Tung Estate in the Southern District. She cited the

case of a single-parent family. The family lived in a rental flat in a single residential block

in Ap Lei Chau Notth and was not a recipient of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance

or any forms of low income supplement. The monthly income of the household was

HK$7,500, however, the rent of the residential unit increased to HK$8,000 upon lease

renewal, which almost depleted the family‟s saving. The mother did not want to live in a

“subdivided unit” (SDU) for fear of the impact on her children, so was forced to pay a high

- 25 -

rent. The family had been waiting for PRH allocation for three years since 2010, but there

were some 10 000 families before them on the Waiting List. The Member concerned

wished the Government could help this kind of families.

77. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying pointed out that the property prices in Hong Kong had

reached the highest point in history. Judging from the large number of cross-border

students, the demand for housing would still be rising in future. The consultation document

also recommended increasing the production of PRH. However, she felt that this might not

be the solution since population would grow steadily at the same time when PRH supply

increased, so suggested that the production of PRH units and HOS flats should be increased

simultaneously. Apart from increasing PRH supply, subsidised home ownership should be

provided for those who were unable to afford home ownership in the private market, which

could also offer an avenue for better-off PRH tenants to move up the housing ladder, thereby

facilitating their upward social mobility and enabling the reallocation of PRH resources to

those most in need. On the other hand, the consultation document stated that the living

conditions of some people in Hong Kong were highly inadequate and there were about 67

000 SDUs all over the territory. She felt that the solutions recommended by the Steering

Committee such as enhancing monitoring, inspection and licensing were virtually incapable

of addressing the problem, and the remedy rested on an increase in the public housing supply

(i.e. PRH and HOS), which could shorten the waiting time for public housing allocation.

She believed that such measures, coupled with transitional housing, could really help those

grassroots living in SDUs.

78. Mr AU Lap-sing hoped the Government could be pragmatic and provide additional

resources for building more public housing based on the actual needs in the society instead

of sticking to the 60:40 split. He did not disagree with Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung‟ s

suggestion to relax the income limit for PRH, but held that the Government should take

precautions to prevent property speculation. He maintained that PRH was subsidised

housing aimed to address the housing needs of the low income groups, which should not be

used for profit-making, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of PRH provision. On the

other hand, according to the Audit Report, there were many vacant PRH units in the territory.

In this regard, the Government should review the allocation of public housing and identify

suitable sites to build more public housing.

79. Dr YANG Mo, PhD raised comments as follows:

- 26 -

- it was not appropriate for the Government to overly intervene the property

market and should let market force play its role. As a matter of fact, it seemed

that the property policy of the present government had already done too much;

- the quality of PRH in Hong Kong was far from satisfactory. With very limited

living space, they compared poorly with their counterparts in the Mainland and

other parts of the world. He hoped the Government could improve the quality

of PRH;

- as an international city, Hong Kong was not just for the Hong Kong people, it

was also an important financial centre and a metropolis in the Asia-Pacific

region where people from all around the world would come here to do business

or work, and their housing needs had to be satisfied. However, the existing

policies had put a lot of obstacles to keeping non-locals from owning a flat,

which was undesirable;

- data showed that many Mainland students in Hong Kong were inadequately

housed. These people could in fact afford to buy a private flat but since they

were not permanent residents in Hong Kong, they were charged a Buyer‟s

Stamp Duty of 15% which deterred them from home ownership. He felt that

as an international city, such a policy was quite harsh and would put a negative

effect on attracting talents from the Mainland and overseas to Hong Kong; and

- strongly opposed to the policy of “Hong Kong property for Hong Kong people”,

which he regarded as a form of “Hong Kong separatism”.

80. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said he was opposite to Dr YANG Mo, PhD‟s views and believed

that the way to address the various problems arising from social policies including housing

was to break away from the traditional “market-oriented” thinking. He said that the current

difficulties encountered by Hong Kong were partly the results of a wide range of traditional

mentality. As the Chief Executive had said, the Government should act appropriately and

proactively, and intervene the market appropriately by increasing the housing production

suitably without trying to completely control the market in a ruthless manner. On the other

hand, he agreed that the supply of PRH and HOS should be increased. HOS could help

people who could not afford private housing but ineligible for PRH to achieve home

ownership and provide an option for those who were newly married or planning to get

married. In fact, in the long run, the difficulties in achieving home ownership tended to

lower the birth rate in Hong Kong, which should warrant the due attention of the

Government. The HOS policy was well-established, however the last term Government

regarded it as market intervention, and now it seemed that the situation was just the opposite.

- 27 -

HOS could definitely help people to achieve home ownership and benefit the society at large.

He further hoped that the Government could endeavour to revitalise the existing housing

resources. In the past, the pricing of HOS was generally lower which cost about several

hundred thousand dollars only, and more than a decade later, today the price soared to two to

three millions. However, owing to the restrictions on the sale of HOS units, despite the

soaring property prices, some HOS owners chose to use their vacant flats for storage instead,

thus leaving valuable housing resources to waste. In addition, he hoped the Government

would consider imposing a land and property tax on developers who hoarded a large quantity

of land for profiteering.

81. Mr CHU Lap-wai hoped that the Government could increase HOS supply for the

young home buyers who were ineligible for PRH but unable to make the down payment for a

private flat. He suggested that the Government could study to put up some HOS for sale to

eligible home buyers at a concessionary price and impose conditions that the flats should be

used for meeting their housing needs only and could not be sold before a prescribed period.

On the other hand, he considered that although increasing production of PRH was important,

it was also necessary to pay attention to the sites of the proposed PRH. According to HD‟s

data, no new PRH estate was built on the Hong Kong Island for years, this resulted in

situations where applicants who had special needs to reside on the Hong Kong Island had yet

to be allocated a PRH unit despite years of waiting. He hoped that the Government could

balance the needs of various districts in the selection of a PRH site. Furthermore, he had

constantly received calls for assistance from overcrowded PRH households, but as most of

them did not meet the requirements laid down by HD, they had to continue to live in their

existing units. There were also PRH units with large kitchen and bathroom, which made it

difficult to partition for rooms. Therefore, he hoped that the Government could actively

improve the quality of PRH such as enhancing the design of PRH.

82. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH said that people living in the Southern District or on the

Hong Kong Island were reluctant to move to Kowloon or the New Territories, and so hoped

that the Government could strike a right balance during site selection for PRH in various

districts. The demand for PRH in the Southern District was in fact very high. She

supported the resumption of the construction of HOS flats, which could meet the housing

needs of those slightly exceeding the income limit of PRH but were unable to afford private

housing. She urged the Government to strengthen control over TPS, reflecting that the

children of some TPS owners sold their TPS flats after their parents had given the flats to

them as a gift, thus rendering the original owners homeless. In addition, she pointed out

- 28 -

that since TPS allowed owners to sell their units after five years, it would easily incite

property speculation. She continued that similarly property speculation also appeared in

HOS market and there was a case that the asking price of a HOS flat in Wah Kwai Estate

was as high as HK$ 3 to 4 million dollars, which most salaried employees could hardly

afford. This situation warranted the Government‟s attention.

83. Mr CHAN Fu-man, MH supported the production of more public housing, but felt

that as a long term housing policy, the Government should consider the strategy holistically,

and should not just focus on building public housing but also be mindful of the impact on

traffic and other supporting facilities in the neighbourhood. He further commented that the

divestment of some of HD‟s retail and car-parking facilities to The LINK had given rise to

many district problems, and also following divestment, the operation mode of places where

residents used to purchase their goods and services had changed. Therefore, he considered

that planning for community services in the neighbourhood should be made before launching

subsidised housing developments. Some media reports recently said that the Government

might be looking for suitable decanting site in Tin Wan of the Southern District to facilitate

the redevelopment of Yue Kwong Chuen. He had grave concerns about a few points

relating to the site selection such as whether the transport facilities in the selected site could

cope with the plan, and urged the Government to consult District Council Members of those

estates planned for redevelopment in advance. Furthermore, he said the Government

should pay due attention to the misuse of PRH resources. He reflected that some tenants

had openly asked the district council members about the market rent of their PRH flats,

which showed the seriousness of the situation. He urged HD to strengthen enforcement

action to address the situation; otherwise, there would be no true remedy for the

under-supply of housing even when the production of PRH was increased.

(Dr YANG Mo, PhD left the meeting at 5:17 p.m.)

84. The Chairman invited Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP to respond to Members‟ comments

and enquiries.

85. Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP gave a consolidated response as follows:

- views of Members were diversed and there were also divergent views on certain

subjects. Nevertheless, one point was very clear: Members generally

acknowledged the strong demand for housing in Hong Kong and the overall

- 29 -

approach should be to increase housing production, especially public housing;

- a number of Members supported the resumption of the construction of HOS

flats and the increase in HOS production. Some Members raised other

questions such as the number of PRH. Also, some Members supported

resumption of the sale of HOS, while others worried that this might lead to

property speculation;

- the consultation document aimed to provide a direction for public reference and

discussion, and the mainstream views generally acknowledged the shortage of

housing in Hong Kong. However, since the production of housing from

planning, design to construction required at least five to seven years, it was

virtually impossible to supply an unlimited number of new flats to satisfy the

needs. Nevertheless, the Government still needed to map out a long term plan

for housing, so that various problems, especially the increase in the future

supply of housing land, could be resolved through careful planning;

- one of the key points in the consultation document was the projection of the

number of new housing units which needed to be built in the next ten years.

The Steering Committee had been working industriously to arrive at the

estimation, based on the data provided by the Census and Statistics Department

and the Government Economists previously, and projected that 470 000 new

units would be needed in future. Some people questioned the accuracy of this

figure, and for this the Steering Committee had spent about 26 pages in Chapter

4 of the consultation document to explain the calculation of the figure of 470

000, and factors affecting the demand of housing such as the number of births,

formation of new households, new arrivals, expatriates and non-local students

coming to work or study in Hong Kong, as well as urban renewal, had been

considered. As it was necessary to provide adequate housing for people living

in subdivided units, bedspace apartments and roof-top structures, their demand

had also been factored in the calculation;

- the figure at 470 000 units was not a “hard target” and could be adjusted in

response to changes in the economic and market conditions as well as the scale

of redevelopment. Because of these, the projection would need to be updated

annually for reference of the Government in setting housing targets;

- in view of the imbalance in housing supply at the moment, the Government

would need to make a bigger commitment in future. Therefore, with respect to

the new housing units to be built, it was recommended that the ratio between

public housing and private housing should be 60:40. A Member had suggested

- 30 -

increasing the ratio of public housing to 70% and even 80%. In this regard,

THB was open to suggestions but at the same time would need to maintain a

suitable balance;

- a Member was concerned that if property prices continued to remain at a higher

level, it would be difficult for those who were ineligible for PRH because of

income limit to achieve home ownership. However, on the other hand, overly

emphasizing the construction of public housing and the suppression of private

property market would lead to shortage of private housing supply and hence

persistently high property prices. This would not be advantageous for people

planning to buy their own houses. Therefore, it was necessary to maintain a

suitable balance between the two sectors, which was what the Government

wished to listen to public views during the consultation;

- a Member hoped that the construction of HOS flats could be resumed and the

quantity of HOS could be increased. In fact, similar recommendation had been

made in the consultation document, which suggested that HOS flats should be

retained in the housing ladder as a supplement between PRH and private

housing. For those who were ineligible for PRH because of income limit and

could not afford private housing, HOS flats could in some way provide an

option for home ownership;

- a Member suggested reintroducing the TPS, but THB had reservation on this as

the scheme was unable to satisfy the new housing demand and it only changed

the status of “tenants” to “owners”, which did not facilitate the release of more

residential units. Besides, the scheme had led to a variety of estate

management problems;

- owing to the physical environment of Hong Kong, the size of flats, irrespective

of whether they were private or public housing, was small when compared with

those overseas. At present, some applicants on the Waiting List were

inadequately housed in SDUs. When setting priority for the allocation of

social resources, consideration might be given to meet the basic housing needs

of these people first before further upgrading the living environment in PRH

estates;

- understood the public aspirations for improvement of living environment.

However, owing to larger physical constraints in the urban area, flats in the New

Territories might be bigger in comparison. At present, the average living space

per person in PRH was about 13 square metres, which certainly could not be

compared with housing in other countries, but it was much better than SDUs;

- 31 -

- the existing Harmonious Families Priority Scheme aimed at encouraging

younger families to take care of their elderly parents by living with or near to

them for the purpose of promoting harmony in the family;

- a number of Members had reflected the difficulties faced by people who had to

suffer from high rent and flat prices because they could not meet the income

requirement of PRH. Since it was not possible to increase housing supply

immediately to improve the situation, the Government had implemented a

number of demand-side management measures in the past year to stabilise

property prices. Although the implementation of these measures might not be

the most desirable because of their possible side-effect, he hoped that the public

could understand that these measures were necessary during the “unusual time”

to relieve the pressure on the property market. In future, when both private

and public housing flat increased and the property prices returned to normal

level, such demand-side management measures could be withdrawn;

- the Government was actively identifying suitable housing land in various

districts. If situation permitted, the Government could consider redevelopment

of PRH estates. However, it was important to note that most of the affected

residents wished for local rehousing, which was one of the major considerations

in any redevelopment plan nowadays. It would cause great anxiety among

residents if a redevelopment proposal was put forward rashly without

comprehensive decanting arrangements;

- similarly, in the redevelopment of Pak Tin Estate, the Government had to

arrange local rehousing for the affected residents before the project could

commence. Also the redevelopment project would take a long time to finish.

In addition, when launching redevelopment or alteration projects, it was

necessary to pay attention to the community facilities and transport supporting

services. As mentioned in the consultation document, when planning for

redevelopment of PRH estates or adding extra units in existing estates, it needed

to take all things into consideration such as traffic, planning and community

facilities before arriving at any concrete plan;

- regarding the strategic directions set out in the consultation document, THB

would consult related District Councils again when concrete plan was available

in order to enhance the design and conceptual ideas of the plan.

(Mr FUNG Se-goun left the meeting at 5:30 p.m.)

- 32 -

86. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that THB still had not responded on the proposal of

revitalising HOS policy.

87. Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP responded that he noted two streams of thought on the HOS

policy. Some Members wished to revitalise HOS market to expedite the turnover of HOS

flats; while some believed that HOS flats should be used for addressing the long-term

housing needs of the public and should not encourage property speculation. In this stage,

THB wished to hear the views of different sectors before formulating a suitable policy.

88. In closing, the Chairman concluded that most Members were positive toward the

recommendations in the consultation document. This consultation would end at 2

December 2013 and if Members had other views, they could forward them to the Steering

Committee during the consultation period.

89. The Chairman thanked Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP for joining this meeting and asked

when THB would consult SDC on the South Island Line (West) (SIL(W)) project.

90. Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP responded that the consultant would submit a report by end

2013, and afterwards THB would carefully study the feasibility of various options

recommended by the consultant. THB expected to present the SIL(W) and the long term

railway development planning of Hong Kong to the Council in 2014.

91. The Chairman asked whether the long term planning of Hong Kong railway system

would be published in early, mid or end 2014.

92. Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP responded that some of the railway projects had to

coordinate with other development plans including those of the North East New Territories,

Hung Shui Kiu and Tung Chung, and the public consultation on these development plans

were being conducted concurrently. Since railway development had to dovetail with the

land use, coordination was needed among related policy bureaux. He fully understood the

deep concerns of the Chairman and Members on the SIL(W) and said that THB would

consult SDC once the long term railway development plan was ready.

93. The Chairman thanked Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP and Miss WONG Tin-yu, JP to join

the meeting and announced a three-minute recess.

- 33 -

(Mr YAU Shing-mu, JP and Miss WONG Tin-yu, JP left the meeting at 5:33 p.m.)

(Mr WONG Kam-sing, JP, Mr LAM Kai-chung, Miss CHOI Man-yee and Ms AU Wing-tsz

joined that meeting at 5:38 p.m.)

Agenda Item 3: Comprehensive Waste Management Blueprint 2013-2022

[5:38 p.m. – 6:27 p.m.]

94. The Chairman said that this agenda item was put forward by the Environment

Bureau (ENB), and welcomed Mr WONG Kam-sing, JP, Secretary for the Environment, and

the following representatives to the meeting:

- Mr Albert LAM, Deputy Director of Environmental Protection (2)

- Miss Katharine CHOI, Administrative Assistant to Secretary for the

Environment

- Ms Michelle AU, Political Assistant to Secretary for the Environment

95. The Chairman said that the estimated discussion time for this agenda item was one

hour, and invited Mr WONG Kam-sing, JP to briefly introduce the subject.

96. Mr WONG Kam-sing, JP, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (PowerPoint 2),

briefly introduced the “Comprehensive Waste Management Blueprint 2013-2022”, waste

reduction in the Southern District, and ENB‟s concurrent actions relating to “Use Less”,

“Food Wise Hong Kong” campaign, “Clean Recycling”, “Waste-to-Energy” (WtE) and

“Clean Landfilling”.

97. The Chairman commended ENB for the contents of the PowerPoint presentation,

and invited Members to raise comments or enquiries on the subject.

98. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN showed some photographs on overseas waste recovery

work to the departmental/bureau representatives and Members. He suggested that ENB

should adopt similar waste recovery modes in which people would put clean packaging and

other potential recyclables in transparent plastic bags for disposal. He opined that to raise

the recovery rate of municipal solid waste (MSW) in Hong Kong, the articles should be

cleaned thoroughly first, and then put in transparent plastic bags, and finally put into

- 34 -

transparent recycling bins, so that waste collectors could see what were inside the bins. It

did not matter if different types of recyclables were put together into the same plastic bag

because recyclers would screen and separate the waste anyway. He supported MSW

charging and the reduction target of waste arrived at landfills. However, he opined that

complementary polices should be in place before implementing MSW charging, otherwise,

the new policy would only cause inconvenience to the public and defeat the purpose.

Furthermore, he suggested that when implementing the waste reduction policy, ENB should

start with the suppliers and retailers first before launching the charging scheme to the

consumers. He opined that the Government should demonstrate its commitment and

capability to push for waste reduction policy by targeting business conglomerates, business

sector, manufacturers and dealers first, and the general public later on. Only in this way the

Government could earn pubic support. Finally, he pointed out that the Environmental

Protection Department and Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) were

responsible for different areas of environmental protection work. In this regard, he urged

the Government to revamp the functions of various departments concerned so as to save time

and energy. He commented that the revamp of departmental functions could demonstrate

the Government‟s willingness to remove internal obstacles to green policy, and afterwards, it

would be in a better position to raise problems to the public in the search for solutions.

99. Mr AU Nok-hin raised comments and enquiries as follows:

- every year, the Environmental Protection and Hygiene Working Group

under SDC was allocated funding to organise activities to promote

environmental protection and waste recovery at district level, such as glass

bottle and food waste recovery, etc. Last year or so, when liaising with

local organisations for organising recovery programmes, some organisations

expressed concern over the cleanliness of the recovered glass bottles and the

odour emitted. He opined that the Government should strengthen related

publicity and education;

- wished to know whether ENB had provided support to non-government

organisations (NGOs), especially the recyclers, in a bid to ensure smooth

progress of related work;

- as the recovery of food waste was an important issue, he wished to know

further details on the “centralised treatment of food waste”;

- wished to know further details on the concept and functions of “community

green stations”, so that its practicability at district level could be considered;

- 35 -

and

- as ENB stated that incineration was the growing trend for waste treatment,

the Member wished to know the estimated percentage of waste treated by

incineration in Hong Kong in future.

100. Mr CHAI Man-hon shared Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN‟s views that government

departments in charge of cleaning and hygiene should be re-structured, as interdepartmental

coordination was obviously lacking at the moment. Since the abolition of the Urban

Council which was formed by democratic election, the efficiency of departments and the

operation of related monitoring mechanism were far from satisfactory. So improvements to

the system should be made. Take Taipei city and Seoul as examples, waste recovery was a

“municipal government” initiative in Seoul; while in Taipei city, with an area of only 200

km2 (which was much smaller than Hong Kong with an area of 1 100 km

2), it was able to

implement waste recovery more successfully owing to its smaller scale. He suggested

dividing Hong Kong into “residential districts” for implementation of environmental policies,

and empowering District Councils (DCs) to administrate and regulate related measures. He

believed that such an arrangement would effectively monitor the work of related departments

such as FEHD. Furthermore, he expressed concern over the destination of waste collected

from recycling bins. According to a recent news feature, recyclables were eventually

dumped at landfills instead of being taken to recovery parks. As a matter of fact, though

recycling bins had to be provided at refuse collection points, there was no provision to

require contractors to deliver the recyclables collected to recovery parks. He suggested that

during contract renewal, FEHD should add new clauses requiring contractors to deliver

recyclables to recovery parks. He opined that in future, a targeted approach should be

adopted when dealing with district-specific or specific problems (such as environmental

protection). If the Government continued to take an across-the-board approach when

dealing with environmental protection issues, not only related polices were doomed to

failure but also would further burden the complementary facilities.

101. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH said that the current 3-colour recycling bins proved to be

effective in waste paper and aluminum can recovery, but performance on plastic bottles

recovery was poor since many recovered plastic bottles were just dumped at landfills. It

was noted that many plastic recovery parks were already at full capacity and unable to take

more plastic recyclables. To deal with the situation, she suggested waste reduction at

source. At present, many goods were extravagantly packed despite their small size, to

reduce waste, the Government should instruct manufacturers to minimise unnecessary

- 36 -

packaging materials. In addition, after tenants had moved out of public housing units, HD

would carry out renovation even though the units were not in very poor conditions,

generating construction waste such as debris. She suggested that government departments

should set a good example by taking measures in line with policies on environment

protection and waste reduction.

102. Mr LO Kin-hei said that all along the Government had discussed with DCs on

environmental policies such as “waste recovery” and “waste reduction at source”, but in vain.

The crux was DCs lacked the authority, so were not obliged to support the Government‟s

effort in identifying sites for provision of incinerators and landfills. This was the reason

why ENB had met with objections every time the subject was raised for discussion with

every DC. ENB‟s PowerPoint presentation contained many insightful proposals; however,

it needed incentives rather than publicity and education to put them in practice at district

level. In other words, the Government had to find ways to induce the cooperation of the

public and DCs, and to make DCs not to object to the establishment of facilities such as

community green stations, incinerators, landfills, etc. This was a genuine and perpetual

challenge that ENB would need to face and resolve. Taking Taipei city as an example, the

Taipei City Council could determine waste treatment methods on its own, or even make

profits from the sale of recyclables and electricity generation, thus reducing residents‟

electricity expenses. Although the introduction of WtE incineration had been discussed in

Hong Kong, as there were only two electricity companies in Hong Kong, people thought that

the availability of WtE incineration still could not help reduce the high electricity expenses.

ENB should foster a conducive environment for people to envisage immediate benefits,

otherwise an unrealistic theory would only be an empty talk despite how noble the cause was.

Also, according to his understanding, some overseas technology and equipment could

separate mixed recyclables for waste treatment. If it was true, and the introduction of such

facilities would enhance the effectiveness of waste recovery in Hong Kong.

103. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling opined that waste management policies should base on

the principle of “education first, charging later”. For the time being, the effectiveness of

environmental education in secondary and primary schools was not satisfactory, and related

departments should strengthen the education on waste reuse amongst students. Recently,

she taught kindergarten pupils to use waste plastic bottles as planting pots, in the hope of

educating the next generation about waste reuse. Also, she pointed out that many voluntary

organisations and volunteers in Taiwan and Seoul would recycle waste for reuse in home

decoration. The Government should promote such waste environmental concept in primary

- 37 -

and secondary schools, to make students understand the importance of waste recycling. In

addition, she commented that many people, irrespective of whether they lived in private

buildings or public housing estates, filled their flats with refuse, which deteriorated

environmental hygiene. In view of this, she suggested that the Government should regulate

such behaviour through legislation.

104. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that when selling policies relating to “offensive” facilities

to DCs, the Government had met with objections almost every time. He believed that such

“populism” was difficult to resolve under the present political scene in Hong Kong. He

suggested that the Government should put forward more barter proposals under which much

welcomed facilities were provided in conjunction with “offensive” facilities. This could

help taking forward the more controversial policies and minimising district objections.

This was the “incentives” which Mr LO Kin-hei was talking about. In addition, recently he

had joined the advisory committee for MSW charging, and learned that the public had two

different views on this issue: the green groups wished for the early implementation of MSW

charging; while property management companies had great reservation on the subject.

Therefore, in the first place, it was necessary to offer incentives to solicit the support of

property management companies, in order to forestall resistance and concern against MSW

charging. Many management companies worried that with the implementation of MSW

charging, refuse collected would be piled up at the corridor, the lobby or on the street, and

also, the execution of specific arrangements would burden their workload. If these

problems could not be resolved, the overall progress of the scheme would be hindered

despite its good intention. Also, as the Chairman of the Environmental Protection and

Hygiene Working Group, he would like to propose a pilot scheme to convert Ap Lei Chau to

a “green island” with the resources from SDC or the Environmental Protection and Hygiene

Working Group. Under this proposed scheme, Ap Lei Chau would establish itself as a

“glass recovery island” and glass recovery would be implemented all over the island.

However, the above proposal could only be implemented with sufficient resources and full

interdepartmental coordination. With reference to the experiences of similar pilot schemes

implemented in Taipei and Seoul at district level, he suggested that a green pilot scheme

could be launched in one district or even several districts in Hong Kong. If the area

covered in a selected district was too large, it could be subdivided into several specific

regions for implementation, e.g. a pilot scheme could be launched at Ap Lei Chau in the

Sothern District first. In this way, the DCs, housing estates, district councillors, residents

and various government departments concerned could work in a concerted effort to promote

environmental protection.

- 38 -

105. The Chairman invited Mr WONG Kam-sing, JP to give a response.

(Dr LIU Hong-fai, JP left the meeting at 6:20 p.m.)

106. Mr WONG Kam-sing, JP gave a consolidated response as follows:

- the views generally supported the basic principle of quantity-based waste

charging. As the implementation arrangements would be complicated, he

wished to hear views from various stakeholders during the consultation

which lasted for a few months, to enable ENB to work out details to address

district-specific situations;

- ENB had been keeping close communication with property management

companies in Hong Kong, and the latter was aware of the fact that

quantity-based waste charging would be the direction to pursue. However,

it was necessary for the parties concerned to work out situation-specific

implementation details and determine which types of incentives should be

offered for the successful implementation of the said scheme;

- in the light of legislative proceedings, it was estimated that MSW charging

could not be implemented until 2016. As it was three years to go before

2016, interdepartmental coordination and construction of complementary

facilities could be carried out concurrently within this time frame;

- regarding views on the waste recovery mechanism (such as putting refuse in

transparent plastic bags), ENB would further explore the feasibility after

collecting views from various sectors;

- the capacity of food waste processors in residential estates was small, and

each processor could only handle food waste collected from around 100

households. In view of this, the Government opined that a centralised

treatment facility was more efficient for the intended purpose;

- in the short run, ENB endeavoured to reduce food waste and encourage food

donation under the territory-wide “Food Wise Hong Kong” campaign;

- on waste recovery, meanwhile, ENB was closely cooperating and discussing

with FEHD on matters relating to roadside 3-colour recycling bins. He

stressed that Members should not worry too much about 3-colour recycling

bins as waste recovered through this way only accounted for a very small

proportion of the total quantity of recycled waste in Hong Kong. In

- 39 -

future, the department concerned would include clauses concerning waste

recovery arrangements of 3-colour recycling bins during contract renewal,

so that public confidence on such efforts would not be undermined;

- the current solid waste recovery rate in Hong Kong was 48%, and many

housing estates had maintain an even higher recovery rate;

- agreed that the whole recovery chain should be reviewed. ENB would

convene a meeting with the recycling industry shortly and planned to

strengthen support for the stable development of the industry. Also special

support would be given to low-end recyclables such as food and plastic

waste;

- it took a longer time to launch infrastructural projects such as incineration

facilities. He called on public support to waste management initiatives so

as to reduce reliance on landfilling in the long run;

- the Shek Kwu Chau project had reached its final stage after almost 20 years‟

discussion. He called on public support for early project implementation;

- was aware that while it was necessary to cater to the needs of the territory, it

was equally important to address the aspirations of local community. In

view of this, he would like to hear more local views in order to get a

balanced picture;

- apart from the Shek Kwu Chau facility which could treat about one-third of

the solid waste in Hong Kong, in the long run, ENB would carry out a

territory-wide consultancy study on the application of state-of-the-art

technology on waste treatment;

- called on public understanding and patience as landfill expansion was based

on practical needs. ENB would try to address the needs of the affected

regions as far as possible while catering for the needs of Hong Kong at

large ; and

- the “Environment and Conservation Fund” would provide additional

funding to support waste reduction and recovery at district level. In

future, a grant of $200 million would be allocated to support green

initiatives, and half of the allocation would be dedicated to waste reduction

and recovery work in the coming year. It was hoped that cooperation

amongst various sectors, NGOs and districts concerned could be

strengthened to promote waste reduction and recovery.

107. The Chairman said that a number of Members had put forward suggestions and

- 40 -

comments to ENB, and the Secretary for the Environment had given a comprehensive

response. He wished that ENB and SDC would continue to maintain close ties in future to

take forward green work properly.

108. The Chairman thanked Mr WONG Kam-sing, JP and the three representatives for

joining the meeting. He announced a three-minute recess.

(Mr WONG Kam-sing, JP, Mr LAM Kai-chung, Miss CHOI Man-yee and Ms AU Wing-tsz

left the meeting at 6:27 p.m.)

(Mr NG Tak-wing, Mr WAT Wai-ching, Mr CHAN Gin-wing, Ms Sandy WU, Mr Bernard

WONG, Mr Raymond KOO and Mr Jimmy CHAN joined the meeting at 6:37 p.m.)

Agenda Item 6: Progress Report of the South Island Line (East) Scheme

(SDC Paper No. 81/2013)

[6:37 p.m. - 7:50 p.m.]

109. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from relevant government

departments and MTR Corporation Limited (MTRC) to the meeting:

- Mr NG Tak-wing, Chief Engineer/Railway Development 1-1, Highways

Department (HyD)

- Mr WAT Wai-ching, Senior Engineer/South Island Line 1, HyD

- Mr CHAN Gin-wing, Senior Engineer/Priority Railway 3, Transport Department

(TD)

- Ms Sandy WU, Projects Communications Manager, MTRC

- Mr Bernard WONG, Senior Liaison Engineer, MTRC

- Mr Raymond KOO, Senior Construction Engineer - Civil, MTRC

- Mr Jimmy CHAN, Construction Engineer I - Civil, MTRC

110. The Chairman invited MTRC representatives to report on the progress of

construction works.

111. Mr Bernard WONG, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (PowerPoint 3),

reported on the progress of construction works, the park opposite to Kwun Hoi Path,

- 41 -

temporary traffic management schemes and progress of blasting works.

112. Ms Sandy WU, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (PowerPoint 3), presented

the progress of community liaison activities and Community Liaison Group (CLG)

meetings.

113. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries on the progress

report by MTRC.

114. Mr AU Nok-hin asked when MTRC would present station design to SDC,

including the number of MTR shops and availability of facilities such as book drop boxes

and 3-colour recycling bins. In addition, he wished to know whether MTRC would

implement site formation and beautification works before surrendering the project site

concerned to the Government.

115. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung enquired about the estimated completion date of the works

at the Ap Lei Chau Drive site and when the road section could be re-opened for public use.

As for the design of the pet garden, she opined that the design of dog latrine would cause

hygiene problems, and therefore suggested replacing it with manure collection boxes and a

hydrant. Furthermore, she requested MTRC to provide a more detailed layout showing the

distribution of the dedicated areas for small- and large-sized dogs, and bench design. The

paper mentioned that a section of the walkway at Ap Lei Chau Drive would be closed in

phases between the fourth quarter of 2013 and the first quarter of 2014. She wished to

know when road closure would be implemented and which road section would be affected.

116. Apart from the number of MTR shops and related facilities, Mr CHAI Man-hon

wished to know the tenant mix inside the stations. He disliked the idea of introducing

shops which were relatively profitable without paying attention to passengers‟ practical

needs. Also, he requested MTRC to provide a more detailed layout on the park for

Members to consider the integration of peripheral amenities in the walkway design.

Furthermore, he suggested that suitable plant species should be introduced to beautify the

surrounding environment of the park.

117. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH raised comments as follows:

- blasting works at Yuk Kwai Shan had caused persistent nuisances to residents,

- 42 -

leading to many complaints. Subsequently, MTRC had convened an

interdepartmental meeting and promised to follow up on the matter. He

commended MTRC for living up to its promise on the matter. However, he

wished that MTRC should not just follow up on individual complaints, but

routine monitoring of contractors‟ work was needed. Also, noise mitigation

measures should not be neglected despite the tight project schedule;

- many residents complained about the on-going blasting works. He wished

that the project could be completed by end 2013;

- requested MTRC to submit the design of the plant building at the next CLG

meeting;

- MTRC had promised to plant trees at Yuk Kwai Shan in compensation of the

trees removed for the project works, and that more trees would be planted than

before. He wished that MTRC could keep its promise and should not just

muddle through;

- after project completion, it was expected that Yuk Kwai Shan would become a

scenic spot in the Southern District. He hoped that the plant building would

not cause visual impact to the surroundings; and

- a section of Lee Nam Road adjacent to Yuk Kwai Shan became dilapidated as a

result of excavation works. He requested MTRC to apply noise-reducing

surfacing at the hidden slope near the work site in restoration works.

118. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling reflected that residents complained that as a result of

MTR project works, sludge was found outside the outfall at the slope near Yuk Kwai Shan,

leading to drain blockage after heavy rain. She urged MTRC to follow up on the matter.

She thanked MTRC for constructing the “南 堤 綠 徑 ” (the open space at Kellett Bay

waterfront), but reflected that dog fouling was found everywhere on the footpath, and even

more, some dogs fought with each other inside the park, which caused inconvenience to park

users. Earlier on, she had requested MTRC to erect conspicuous signs showing “no dogs

allowed”. She stressed that “南 堤 綠 徑 ” was not a pet garden, so dogs should not be

taken into the park and fouled the footpath. Moreover, it was found that many adults and

children had violated the restriction of no cycling in the park, which had posed danger to

pedestrians. She requested MTRC to take measures to improve the situation.

119. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH said that earlier on, she had received a letter concerning

the construction of a pedestrian footbridge near Precious Blood Primary School (South

Horizons), stating that the project would be carried out between early November and end

- 43 -

2013. However, the SDC paper showed that the project period was from the fourth quarter

of 2013 to the first quarter of 2014. The former scenario meant that the project could be

finished within two months, while the latter took six months. She wished to know the

correct project timetable.

120. Mr LO Kin-hei said that during the past six months or so, he had repeatedly

requested MTRC to provide information on the site underneath Sham Wan Towers, including

the types of facilities to be provided in future, the locations where piled foundations could be

and could not be constructed, and why the width of a Lei Tung Station exit at Ap Lei Chau

Main Street could not accommodate a travelator. So far related information was yet

available. Furthermore, he asked whether drinking fountains would be installed inside

stations to facilitate passengers.

121. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa pointed out that no shelter would be built above a part of the

pet garden beneath the temporary footbridge near the MTR work site. Previously he

thought the viaduct could serve as a shelter in its own right, and that the road section

concerned was relatively short, so he had not made such a request. However, after

inspecting the actual environment, he discovered that the road section concerned was much

longer than he imagined. To avoid inconvenience caused to residents relating to the

construction of a shelter after project completion, he suggested that MTRC should construct

a shelter in conjunction with other project works. Furthermore, he would like to follow up

on his suggestion raised at the last meeting. At present, there was a sitting-out area at the

entrance of the ex-Wong Chuk Hang Estate site. If the size of the sitting-out area was

reduced, the vehicular access could be widened. However, it seemed that MTRC had

reservation on this proposal. He requested the government departments concerned to

advise on the proposal and consider its feasibility. He emphasised that widening the

vehicular access concerned could help relieve the busy traffic in future and pedestrians

would not be affected by such works.

122. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH reflected that recently residents complained that dump

trucks were driving in high speed in the neighbourhood of Bel-Air, Aberdeen Praya Road

and Shek Pai Wan Road, Aberdeen. These dump trucks had taken advantage of their size to

bully the small-sized vehicles, thus posing danger to road users. He urged MTRC to

remind its contractors about the behaviours of dump truck drivers, and also hoped that the

Police would pay due attention to the situation.

- 44 -

123. Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP raised enquiries concerning Lei Tung Station as

follows:

- regarding the area between the subway from exit A to Ap Lei Chau Main Street,

a building was under construction on one side while the other side would be

used for residential and hotel development. He enquired about the intended

purpose of the open space surrounded by the two buildings and exit A, and

whether it was reserved for the construction of facilities or a shelter, etc.

- a building structure containing four lifts was under construction at exit B. He

enquired about the people flow diversion at the said station exit; and

- given that the building structure mentioned above was very close to Lei Tung

Commercial Centre under the Link, he asked if a shelter would be provided

between these two buildings.

124. Mr AU Lap-sing reflected that a mobile vending truck often parked at the junction

of northbound lane at Nam Long Shan Road near the bus stop, selling stuff like safety

helmets and rain boots, and many workers of the MTR work site patroned the outlet. Such

hawking activity in the middle of the carriageway was dangerous. He requested MTRC to

pay due attention to the situation.

125. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said that MTRC had targeted to complete blasting

works in end 2013 or first quarter of 2014, and wanted to know if it implied that the

frequency of blasting works would diminish gradually during summer vacation in 2014.

126. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised enquiries as follows:

- MTRC had promised to plant trees at the Cyberport, but there was no progress

so far. He requested MTRC to explain the matter; and

- in a letter from THB to Legislative Councillor Mrs IP LAU Suk-yee it had

made promises regarding the reinstatement works at the Telegraph Bay

temporary barging point. In this regard, he urged TD and the government

departments concerned to explain related project progress.

127. The Chairman invited Mr Bernard WONG to give a response.

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

- 45 -

- anticipated that compilation of information on station design would start in

early 2014, and complete information would be submitted to Members for

reference no later than mid-2014;

- the provision of facilities such as book drop boxes and recycling bins was still

on a trial basis. MTRC needed to evaluate their effectiveness before

extending these services to other lines, and provision of such facilities in MTR

stations in the Southern District would be considered then;

- regarding sites used for MTR project works, restoration works would be carried

out in accordance with the prescribed standards before surrendering them to the

Government;

- would further consider the views on dog latrine. However, the adoption of

proposals would depend on whether the proposed facilities met the actual

needs;

- the design of road arrangements at Ap Lei Chau Drive had now reached the

final stage. Since laying of cable ducts would need to be carried out after the

re-opening of Ap Lei Chau Drive, it was necessary to implement temporary

road closure to the carriageway and walkway concerned in phases. A section

of Aberdeen bound lane would be closed first. Members of local

constituencies would be notified about the arrangements before project

commencement;

- at the meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee on 18 November 2013,

staff from the train car unit would present train car design to Committee

Members, and further information would be available then;

- trees bearing flowers would be planted at the park beneath Ap Lei Chau Bridge.

He hoped that this arrangement was in line with Members‟ expectation;

- thanked Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH for his compliments on the work of MTRC. In

fact, MTRC had made rigorous efforts in monitoring project works, the Yuk

Kwai Shan project in particular. However, no matter how hard MTRC had

tried, sometimes contractors and their subcontractors would just carry out

works when supervisors did not notice the situation. MTRC would continue

to step up monitoring to minimise project impact on residents;

- earlier on, MTRC had met with residents in South Horizons to explain the

facilities in the plant building. Also, MTRC had invited Mr LAM Kai-fai,

MH, a Member of local constituency, to inspect a similar facility at Tsueng

Kwan O Line. The plant building was divided into rooms to accommodate

- 46 -

communications and signal systems for station operation. In addition, some

air-conditioning facilities would be installed inside. However, there would not

be any window on the side facing residential area;

- planned to plant over 100 trees at Yuk Kwai Shan, while some water plants

would be grown in the plant building to enhance greening;

- as for the provision of road facilities after the completion of resurfacing works

at Lee Nam Road, MTRC would coordinate with HyD in pursuit of a suitable

design that could cater to local needs;

- regarding construction works of the pedestrian footbridge near Precious Blood

Primary School (South Horizons), the temporary traffic arrangements with

respect to pillar construction would last for two months, nevertheless, the whole

footbridge could only be completed in the second quarter of 2014. After

project completion, it was still necessary to carry out ancillary works such as

illumination installation and decoration;

- would follow up on the sludge problem adjacent to Yuk Kwai Shan, so that

nearby residents would not be affected by related works;

- had already drawn contractors‟ attention to the management of “南堤綠徑” .

Only pets carried in bags or on leash would be permitted inside the park, and

cycling was forbidden. Also, the contractors would be reminded to instruct

management staff to step up monitoring in accordance with the prescribed

guidelines;

- the ex-Harbour Mission School site between Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road and Ap

Lei Chau Path was a Government land. The addition of facilities there should

be proposed to the Lands Department for consideration;

- the width of the subway at Ap Lei Chau Main Street was similar to the one

between MTR Causeway Bay Station and Times Square. The addition of a

travelator would make the overall space very narrow. Therefore, MTRC had

no such plan for the time being;

- it was a good idea to provide drinking fountains in stations. However, as this

facility was not yet available at existing stations, he would need to forward this

suggestion to colleagues responsible for train operation to consider its

feasibility;

- regarding the construction of a shelter proposed by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, MTRC

would need to discuss and follow up with relevant government departments;

- as the gazetted design plan of the South Island Line (East) (SIL(E)) did not

include the widening of vehicular access near the sitting-out area at Nam Long

- 47 -

Shan Road, it would be difficult at this stage to incorporate related works in the

existing project scope;

- had been following up on the problem of dangerous driving by dump truck

drivers. He encouraged Members, upon receipt of such complaints, to

immediately forward information such as licence plate numbers to MTRC for

following up;

- stressed that stringent traffic control measures had been in place at the

Cyberport. In fact, MTRC had instructed to dismiss several drivers of the

work site concerned, who involved in dangerous driving. This showed that

MTRC had paid due attention to the matter;

- at present, the area outside Lei Tung Station exit A was an open space.

However, after completion of construction works, a pedestrian access would be

built to connect the new building to the station in future;

- there would be four passenger lifts connecting to Lei Tung Commercial Centre

at Lei Tung Station exit B. When leaving the station, passengers would exit

from the lift doorway facing the bus terminus, and so would not be obstructed

by people waiting to enter the lift. Moreover, after passengers exited the lift,

they could not go into the bus terminus directly because of the railings, instead,

they had to use the entrance of Lei Tung Commercial Centre to enter the bus

terminus. Also, an access ramp would be provided to facilitate wheelchair

users in going directly to the entrance of Lei Tung Commercial Centre;

- was aware of a mobile vending truck doing business at the bend of Nam Long

Shan Road. MTRC had tired a number of times to drive away the vending

trunk, however, because it moved around for business, it was difficult to

eradicate the problem. MTRC would pay due attention to the matter in future;

- the progress of blasting work was on schedule, and the frequency of blasting

would be reduced gradually. It was expected that all blasting works would be

completed in the summer vacation in 2014, and the frequency of explosive

delivery from Chung Hom Shan would be reduced correspondingly; and

- planned to commence tree planting at the Cyberport in end November 2013,

and related preparatory work was at the final stage.

129. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that TD representative had not yet responded to his

enquiries.

130. Mr WAT Wai-ching, HyD representative, responded that as he did not have the

- 48 -

letter mentioned by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN on hand, he could only give a response after he

got to know the contents of the letter.

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

132. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling reiterated that dogs should not be allowed in the “南 堤

綠 徑 ”, otherwise the situation of dog fouling would deteriorate in future. She thanked

MTRC for constructing the “南 堤 綠 徑 ”. However, she pointed out that the existing dog

fouling problem had deprived residents of the enjoyment at the park. She did not

understand why MTRC was reluctant to forbid dogs into the park, and wished that MTRC

could hear public views seriously.

133. Mr LO Kin-hei enquired again about the width of the subway at Ap Lei Chau Main

Street, and wanted to know which facilities could not be altered to make room for the

travelator. He pointed out that previously MTRC had promised to provide related

information, but now it failed to live up to its promise. During the past six months, he had

been asking MTRC for the information repeatedly, but so far not even a simple answer was

given. He questioned whether MTRC would only give a response to written requests. He

wished that MTRC could establish a good working relationship with Members.

134. Mr CHAI Man-hon requested for public participation in determining the tenant

mix of MTR shops. He pointed out that a long time ago, he had proposed to engage the

public in train car design, but MTRC failed to do and now it was already too late. He

hoped that MTRC would not commit the same mistake again in the choice of in-station

facilities. MTRC should hear public views as early as practicable in the choice of facilities

and shops that were cost effective and could bring convenience to the public. In addition,

he suggested that residents should be allowed to have a say on the choice of tree species,

with a view to encouraging active public participating in public affairs.

135. Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP said that as the exits of the four passengers lifts at

Lei Tung Station exit B were very close to Lei Tung Commercial Centre, it was expected

that many residents would gather at the entrance of the commercial centre waiting for the

lifts during morning peaks. In this connection, he asked how MTRC and The Link would

coordinate and manage people flow at the location concerned. Furthermore, MTRC stated

that passengers would enter and exit the lifts from opposite doorways. However, he did not

quite understand how the two doorways opened and closed simultaneously at the same floor.

- 49 -

He commented that if the two doorways opened simultaneously, there might be no way to

prevent incoming passengers from entering the lift on the exit side; and if the doorways were

opened consecutively, it would take more time for users using the lifts.

136. Mr AU Nok-hin was discontented that MTRC planned to just surrender the work

site to the Government without enhancements. He pointed out that MTRC had constructed

facilities such as connecting footbridges at many MTR above-station property development

projects. If MTRC would consider enhancements only to increase the value of its own

properties without paying attention to other facilities in the district, such behaviour was

discriminating. He supported the construction of a travelator at the subway at Ap Lei Chau

Main Street and a shelter at Lei Tung Station exit B, with a view to bringing convenience to

residents. He strongly requested MTRC to consider the above suggestions all over again.

137. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that the letter he just mentioned was issued by Mr

Paul LAW Siu-chung of THB and referred to Mr. Stephen Wat as the officer in charge. He

questioned why the departments concerned were suddenly ignorant of the contents of the

letter issued by THB. Regarding the on-going stringent traffic control measures at the

Cyberport as mentioned by MTRC, he commended MTRC for related work, and opined that

future projects could draw on this successful experience. Also, he appreciated that dogs

were allowed in “南 堤 綠 徑 ”. He stressed that dogs had a positive impact on public

health. Regardless of concerns over dogs inside the park, these could easily be solved with

proper design and management of facilities. Dogs should not be prohibited from entering

the park.

138. The Chairman invited Mr Bernard WONG to give a response.

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

- had already increase the frequency of cleaning work at “南 堤 綠 徑 ”, and would

continue to strengthen management;

- the width of the subway near Lei Tung Station exit A was about four metres,

which was quite narrow, so it was not suitable to install a travelator there;

- the stations of SIL(E) were smaller than the existing stations, so there would be

less MTR shops correspondingly. As such, MTRC intended to retain shops that

were commonly found in other stations that could bring convenience to

passengers, e.g. convenience stores and automatic teller machines, etc.

- 50 -

- a list of tree species was now available and he could follow up with Mr CHAI

Man-hon on the subject after the meeting, There was still room for adjustment

if there were further views on the choice of tree species;

- regarding the lift at Lei Tung Station exit B, time set function was available for

lift doorway operation. For instance, the doorway facing the bus terminus could

be opened first for passengers to depart the station, and a few seconds later,

passengers waiting at the lift exit facing the shopping centre could enter the lift.

The train operation unit would make suitable adjustments based on actual

operational needs; and

- MTRC had reached an agreement with the Government beforehand that apart

from the addition of certain facilities at the Government‟s request, only the

original facilities would be reinstated during site restoration.

140. The Chairman asked if representatives from government departments had anything

to add.

141. Mr WAT Wai-ching thanked Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN for providing further

information on the aforesaid letter. As mentioned in the letter, discussion was being held

among HyD and the departments concerned on how to take forward the project. HyD

would make every effort to address local residents‟ aspirations.

142. In closing, the Chairman concluded that Members had put forward a number of

suggestions and views at the meeting. He hoped that Members and MTRC would

strengthen communication at future CLG meetings, while only key areas of routine matters

would be reported at SDC meetings.

143. The Chairman thanked the representatives from the departments concerned and

MTRC for joining the meeting.

(Mr NG Tak-wing, Mr WAT Wai-ching, Mr CHAN Gin-wing, Ms Sandy WU, Mr Bernard

WONG, Mr Raymond KOO and Mr Jimmy CHAN left the meeting at 7:50 p.m.)

Agenda Item 8: Amendments to Standing Orders of SDC (2012-2015)

(SDC Paper No. 83/2013)

[7:50 p.m. – 8:33 p.m.]

- 51 -

144. The Chairman briefly introduced the contents of the paper:

- on 17 October 2013, SDC held the “Workshop to Review SDC Standing Orders”

(the workshop), and Members were invited to submit amendment proposals

relating to the Standing Orders before the workshop;

- 14 Members had attended the workshop during which a number of amendment

proposals were thoroughly discussed. Subsequently, Members reached

consensus on most amendment proposals. Details were at the Annex; and

- at this meeting, the discussion would be concentrated on amendment item no. 4

that required further discussion, that is, Order 24(1) concerning the adjournment

of debate (“A motion to adjourn debate on a motion or discussion of an item by

the Council may be moved by the Chairman or a member who has neither moved,

seconded or spoken on any motion bearing on that item. In case of such a

motion being defeated, a second motion for such adjournment may be moved in a

similar manner after further discussion”). At that time, Members generally

agreed that it was necessary to add a new clause on the termination of debate.

However, the wordings of the new clause and the arrangements for motions that

had yet been voted after a motion debate had been terminated were pending for

further discussion.

145. The Chairman said that during the workshop, a number of Members had suggested

adding a new clause on “Adjournment of Motion Debate”. Also, Mr CHAI Man-hon had

submitted related amendment proposals before the meeting. Related supplementary notes

(Reference Information 2) were tabled at the meeting.

146. The Chairman invited Members to take turns to give views on the proposals in the

Annex, and then decided whether the proposals should be endorsed. Afterwards, Members

should discuss the proposals set out in the supplementing notes.

147. The Chairman presented amendment proposal no. 1 in the Annex. According to

the discussion results in the workshop, the mover(s) and seconder(s) of a non-motion-related

proposal should be allotted the same duration (that is, a total of five minutes) for presentation.

Therefore, it was proposed to add Order 13(5): “Unless approved otherwise by the Chairman

or by the Vice Chairman in the absence of the Chairman, members who move a

non-motion-related proposal (including the proposers and the seconders) may speak for up to

- 52 -

totally 5 minutes to present or sum up the proposed motion, while all members (including

those who raise the proposal) may speak up to 3 minutes during discussion of the motion.”

148. While Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN respected the discussion results in the workshop, he

suggested fine-tuning wordings in the English version for a more precise meaning.

149. The Chairman responded that later on, the Secretary would follow up with Mr Paul

ZIMMERMAN when revising the English version of the Standing Orders.

150. Members unanimously endorsed to add Order 13(5).

151. The Chairman presented amendment proposal no. 2 in the Annex. According to

the discussion results in the workshop, the seconder of the original motion could neither

raise an amendment to motion nor second the amendment to the original motion. Therefore,

it was proposed to amend Order 19: “After a motion has been put to the meeting for

discussion, a member (except the members who moved and seconded the motion) may

move to amend the motion or second the motion.”

152. Members unanimously endorsed the amendments to Order 19.

153. The Chairman presented amendment proposal no. 3 in the Annex. According to

the discussion results in the workshop, subject to SDC‟s acceptance of the ground for

absence of a Member, the Member concerned could appoint another Member to put forward

and explain the motion or non-motion-related proposal on his/her behalf. Therefore, it was

proposed to:

- amend Order 23:

“Subject to the consent of the Council to his or her application of

absence (normally, the Council shall only give consent to application of

absence filed on the grounds listed at Order 51(1)), the member who

moved the motion, if absent, may appoint in writing another member to

move and introduce the motion on his or her behalf with permission of the

Chairman.”; and

- add Order 13(6):

“Subject to the consent of the Council to his or her application of absence

(normally, the Council shall only give consent to application of absence

- 53 -

filed on the grounds listed at Order 51(1)), the member who moved the

non-motion-related proposal may appoint in writing another member to

introduce the proposal on his or her behalf with permission of the

Chairman.”

154. Members unanimously endorsed the amendments to Order 23 and addition of

Order 13(6).

155. The Chairman presented amendment proposal no. 5 in the Annex. According to

the discussion results in the workshop, Order 24(2) was not applicable to the debate of a

motion adjourned under Order 24(1). Therefore, it was proposed to amend Order 24(2):

“Where the Council has taken a decision on a specific question, no further discussion shall

be proposed in relation to that question within half a year except with the permission of the

Chairman or over half of the members of the Council, except for the debate of a motion

adjourned under Order 24(1).”

156. Members unanimously endorsed the amendments to Order 24(2).

157. The Chairman presented amendment proposal no. 6 in the Annex. According to

the discussion results in the workshop, to ensure the orderly proceeding of meeting, a

number of restrictions should be imposed on oral statement. Therefore, it was proposed to

amend Order 29: “If a member wishes to make a statement in writing at a meeting, he or she

is required to send his or her statement to the Secretary 12 clear working days before the

meeting. Unless agreed otherwise by the Chairman, a member who wishes to make an

oral statement shall submit a notification in writing at least 3 clear working days before

the meeting. The statement should be of relevance to the subjects for discussion at the

meeting concerned. Each member can make only one oral statement for each agenda

item; and each oral statement shall not take more than 3 minutes.”

158. Mr LO Kin-hei suggested that the restrictions under Order 29 should be listed in

point form to facilitate Members‟ reference.

159. The Chairman accepted Mr LO Kin-hei‟s proposal.

160. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa suggested adding wordings “unless otherwise agreed by the

Chairman” before “12 clear working days before the meeting” to enhance the flexibility

- 54 -

when dealing with oral statements.

161. Mr AU Nok-hin wished that Members could re-consider whether the time allotted

to an oral statement should be reduced from five to three minutes.

162. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH opined that it would be more suitable to allot five minutes

for an oral statement. However, he would respect majority views.

163. The Chairman said that whether the time allotted to Members‟ speech was

sufficient depended on individual needs. However, in the light of the fact that each

Member was entitled to two rounds of speaking with respect to each agenda item, and a

three-minute slot for making an oral statement, Members should have sufficient time to

express views thoroughly under this arrangement.

164. Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP said that normally the making of oral statement was

intended for expression of one‟s stance rather than elaborating views, so the duration was not

the most important thing. He opined that it was more suitable to allot three minutes for an

oral statement.

165. The Chairman said that as the subject had been discussed during the workshop and

Members present at the workshop agreed that the time limit should be set at three minutes.

In this regard, he suggested adopting this amendment proposal. Also, the details of the

clause concerned would be listed in point form, and wordings “unless otherwise agreed by

the Chairman” would be put before “12 clear working days before the meeting”.

166. Members unanimously endorsed the above amendments to Order 29.

167. The Chairman invited Members to discuss the amendment proposals in the

supplementary notes.

168. The Chairman presented item no. (A) in the supplementary notes. He said that

during the workshop, a number of Members had put forward amendment proposals to Order

24(1) and considered that this Order should be split into two sections, as follows:

- 55 -

- Order 24(1)(a):

“A motion to adjourn debate on a motion or discussion of an item by the

Council may be moved by the Chairman or a member who has neither

moved, seconded or spoken on any motion bearing on that item. In case

of such a motion being defeated, a second motion for such adjournment

may be moved in a similar manner after further discussion. In case a

motion to adjourn debate is approved, the Chairman shall announce

the time and related arrangements of resumption of debate as soon as

practicable.”; and

- Order 24(1)(b):

“A motion to close debate on a motion or discussion of an item by the

Council may be moved by the Chairman or a member who has neither

moved, seconded or spoken on any motion bearing on that item. In case

of such a motion being defeated, a second motion for such closure may be

moved in a similar manner after further discussion. In case a motion to

close debate is approved, the Chairman shall immediately deal with

the remaining motions that have not been voted and/or conclude the

subject as appropriate.”

169. The Chairman presented item no. (B) in the supplementary notes, that is, the

amendment proposals put forward by Mr CHAI Man-hon before the meeting. Details were

as follows:

- amend Order 16:

“A motion shall be in writing and signed by the member concerned. The

Chairman shall decide whether to accept the motion or not based on

the following principles:

(1) its subject matter and terms must be compatible with the functions of

the Council; and

(2) its subject matter and terms should be meaningful, and not

redundant with the contents of any other motions accepted for

discussion.”;

- add Order 18(3) (the original Order 18(3) would become Order 18(4)):

“The Chairman may, according to the circumstances of the meeting,

determine the time allowed for introduction and discussion of a motion;

and where appropriate, combine similar motions for discussion at the

- 56 -

same time.”; and

- amend Order 24(1):

“A motion to adjourn debate on a motion or discussion of an item by the

Council may be moved by the Chairman or a member who has neither

moved, seconded or spoken on any motion bearing on that item. After a

motion to adjourn debate is approved, no voting will be carried out for

the remaining motions that have not been voted yet. In case of a

motion to adjourn debate being defeated, a second motion for such

adjournment may be moved in a similar manner after further discussion.”

170. Mr CHAI Man-hon called on Members‟ support to his amendment proposals to

Order 16 and addition of Order 18(3). As Order 24 involved a greater controversy, he

suggested to the Chairman that discussion on the subject would be withheld at this meeting.

171. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling said that during the workshop, Members had discussed

Order 24(1) and put forward amendment proposals under item no. (A), so she did not

understand why the Member concerned had put forward written amendment proposals

afterwards. She questioned the necessity of discussing the subject again, and commented

that Members should respect the resolutions made during the workshop.

172. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that the Member concerned could have come up with

better proposals after the workshop, so it was nothing wrong for him to put forward such

proposals at this SDC meeting. As a Member who had not attended the workshop, he

opined that given that the amendment proposals concerned were reasonable, practical and

non-political, they should be discussed at the meeting.

173. Mr AU Nok-hin opined that it was justifiable for people to put forward better

proposals after thorough consideration. If all discussion results during the workshop were

regarded as final resolutions, then it was meaningless for Members to discuss the subject at

SDC meeting. He stressed that Members should have the right to submit further proposals

before the meeting for SDC‟s consideration.

174. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH said that Members had thoroughly discussed a number of

amendment proposals during the workshop, and Members present at the workshop had

already fully expressed their stances and grounds. The objective of this meeting was to

seek Members‟ consensus on how to deal with “filibuster”, so as to strike a balance between

- 57 -

respecting Members‟ right to speak up and ensuring smooth meeting progress.

175. The Chairman clarified that during the workshop, Members had not yet reach

consensus on the amendment proposals to Order 24(1), and item no. (A) in the

supplementary notes was amendment proposals put forward by some Members, which were

pending for further discussion at this meeting. He suggested that Members should

concentrate discussion on the amendment proposals to Orders 16 and 18(3) under item no.

(B).

176. Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP said that the wordings “should be meaningful” in

the amendment proposal to Order 16(2) were controversial, and anticipated this clause would

arouse much disputes in its interpretation as circumstances required. In this regard, he

suggested adding “The decision of the Chairman shall be final” to the clause. Moreover, he

had no objection to the addition of Order 18(3).

(Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN left the meeting at 8:50 p.m.)

177. The Chairman agreed to Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP‟s suggestion, and opined

that the newly added wordings should be fine-tuned as “The decision of the Chairman on the

above restrictions shall be final”.

178. The Secretary suggested that amendments should be made as follows:

“Order 16:

1. A motion shall be in writing and signed by the member concerned. The

Chairman shall decide whether to accept the motion or not based on the

following principles:

(a) its subject matter and terms must be compatible with the functions of

the Council; and

(b) its subject matter and terms should be meaningful, and not

redundant with the content of any other motion accepted for

discussion.

2. The decision of the Chairman on orders 16(1)(a) & (b) shall be final.”

179. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH suggested replacing the wordings “最 終 裁 決 權 ” with “最

終 決 定 權 ” (both meant final decision).

- 58 -

180. SDC endorsed the amendment proposals to Order 16 as fine-tuned by the Secretary

and the addition of Order 18(3).

181. Considering that there was no imminence to amend Order 24(1) and the meeting

was a bit behind schedule, the Chairman suggested that the discussion of the subject should

be postponed to the next meeting under the agenda item of “Matters Arising”.

182. SDC endorsed that above arrangement.

183. The Chairman supplemented that the amendment proposals passed by SDC just

then were applicable to the meetings of SDC and all committees under SDC.

Agenda Item 11: Any Other Business

[8:34 p.m. – 8:56 p.m.]

Centennial Dinner of the Board of Management of the Chinese Permanent Cemeteries

184. The Chairman said that The Board of Management of the Chinese Permanent

Cemeteries (BMCPC) was going to celebrate the 100th

anniversary of its establishment, and

would organise a centennial dinner on 6 December 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at Metrepol Restaurant,

Admiralty, Hong Kong. BMCPC would like to invite two Members to the dinner on

SDC‟s behalf.

185. The Chairman asked if Members agreed to accept the invitation, and if yes, SDC

would need to nominate two representatives to the dinner.

186. Members unanimously agreed to accept BMCPC‟s invitation, and endorsed that Mr

CHAN Fu-ming, MH and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying would join the dinner on SDC‟s behalf.

Nomination for Appointment to the Disciplinary Boards by Secretary for Development

under Section 5(3A) and 11(4A) of the Buildings Ordinance, Cap 123

187. The Chairman said that subject to Sections 5(3A) and 11(4A) of the Buildings

Ordinance (Cap 123), the Secretary for Development would, from time to time, invite

- 59 -

suitable organisations to submit nominations for appointment to the disciplinary boards

under DEVB. The nominees should be “lay members”. The “lay member” nomination

list of the upcoming term would be effective between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2016,

during which nominees might be required to attend no more than two hearing sessions.

Normally, the hearing sessions would take a half day to two days, depending on the

complexity of individual cases. Currently, nominees would entitle to remuneration at

$1,250 for half-day and $2,500 for full day attendance at hearing sessions.

188. The Chairman continued that DEVB invited SDC to nominate a Member as

individual “lay member”. The nominee should not be related to the building industry in

any way and could speak Chinese and English preferably. In response to the Government‟s

policy to encourage women participation in public affairs, DEVB wished that SDC could

nominate a female member.

189. The Chairman asked whether Members agreed to accept the invitation.

190. Members unanimously agreed to accept the invitation.

191. The Chairman said that earlier on, the Secretariat had asked whether Members were

interested in being nominated as a “lay member” via email. Subsequently, Mr AU Nok-hin,

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN had indicated their interest in related

work. In this regard, he invited Members to consider nominations from these interested

Members.

192. Mr AU Lap-sing nominated Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP.

193. Mr AU Nok-hin said that after consideration, he would like to withdraw from the

nomination and he nominated Mr CHAI Man-hon.

194. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung said that she would like to withdraw from the nomination

as there were already many nominations.

195. The Chairman would like to share his experience in related work. He said that he

had been a member of the disciplinary boards for six years. The nominees‟ main duty was

to attend disciplinary hearing sessions under the boards. The hearing sessions would be

conducted mainly in English and supplemented in Chinese, so a bilingual member would be

- 60 -

more suitable for the purpose.

196. SDC endorsed to nominate Mr CHAI Man-hon as a “lay member” of the

disciplinary boards.

The 48th

Hong Kong Brands and Products Expo Fair – Invitation for Performing

Groups from 18 Districts

197. The Chairman said that the 48th

Hong Kong Brands and Products Expo Fair would

be held from 4 December 2013 to 6 January 2014 at Victoria Park. The organiser invited

all DCs to send a performing unit to perform at a selected time slot, and an allowance of

$3,000 would be provided to each participating unit.

198. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling said that as SDC had sent “中 國 舞 集 ” (a Chinese

dance group) to perform at the expo fair in 2012, she suggested that the dance group should

be invited to participate in the event again in 2013.

199. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH said that as “中 國 舞 集 ” was tasked to perform at the

closing ceremony of the Southern District Tourism and Culture Festival in end 2013, she

would need to discuss with the dance group whether it could participate in the two events

simultaneously.

200. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH suggested inviting “Music for the Growing Mind” to

perform at the expo fair on behalf of the Southern District.

201. SDC endorsed that “Music for the Growing Mind” would be tasked to perform at

the expo fair on SDC‟s behalf.

202. The Secretary supplemented that apart from the allowance of $3,000, if the

organisation concerned would need to apply for additional fund from SDC, SDC could give

in-principle approval to reserve funding at this meeting, and then the organisation would

submit fund application for the consideration of the Community Affairs and Tourism

Development Committee (CATC) at its meeting on 25 November 2013.

203. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH said that additional funding was not required after

consideration.

- 61 -

(Post-meeting note: As the performance would last for 30 minutes, and children members

of “Music for the Growing Mind” could only perform a couple of

songs, at its meeting of on 25 November 2013, CATC endorsed to

invite the Hong Kong Youth Symphonic Orchestra to join the

performance at the expo fair. Also, it was agreed that an allocation

of $5,000 would be earmarked for this purpose. At its meeting on 2

December 2013 for resumption of discussion on outstanding agenda

items, CATC endorsed to reserve the said funding amount.)

2014 Hong Kong Flower Show “Green Stalls”

204. The Chairman said that the “2014 Hong Kong Flower Show” would be held

between 7 and 16 March 2014 at Victoria Park. The organiser wished to invite SDC to

participate in the “Green Stalls” to arouse public awareness of greening and promote

greening work in the district.

205. The Chairman asked whether Members agreed to accept the invitation, and if yes,

whether the Environmental Protection and Hygiene Working Group would be tasked to plan

and organise related work according to the previous arrangements.

206. SDC endorsed to accept the invitation, and the Environmental Protection and

Hygiene Working Group would be tasked to follow up on the matter.

Nomination for Member of the Regional Advisory Committee of the Hospital Authority

207. The Chairman said that the current membership term of the Regional Advisory

Committee of the Hospital Authority would expire on 31 March 2014. The Hospital

Authority invited SDC to nominate a SDC member to join the advisory committee as

individual member. The tenure of office was from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2016. Mr

AU Lap-sing was appointed a member of the advisory committee in the current term.

208. The Chairman asked whether Members agreed to accept the invitation, and if yes,

SDC would need to nominate a member to the advisory committee.

209. SDC endorsed to accept the invitation and that Mr AU Lap-sing was re-nominated

- 62 -

a member to the advisory committee.

SDC Christmas Party 2013 (18 December 2013)

210. The Chairman said that the SDC Christmas Party would be held at noon on 18

December 2013 (Wednesday) at SDC Conference Room, and invited Members to mark their

diary accordingly. Similar to the arrangements in 2012, Members were required to bring

food to the party. Also, assistants of SDC Members were welcome to join the party. Later

on, the Secretariat would notify Members about detailed arrangements via email.

211. Members noted the above arrangements.

HSBC Community Festival - Request for Use of SDC Logo (8 December 2013)

212. The Chairman said that HSBC would launch the “HSBC Community Festival” on 8

December 2013, so as to commend local organisations (including organisaiotn in the

Southern District) under the “HSBC Community Partnership Programme” for their excellent

work. HSBC would like to obtain SDC‟s consent for the use of SDC logo on the backdrop

of the ceremony and in related website.

213. The Chairman asked whether Members agreed to HSBC using SDC logo in the

above event.

214. SDC consented to authorising HSBC to use SDC logo in the “HSBC Community

Festival”.

The 12th

Meeting of the Community Affairs and Tourism Development Committee (25

November 2013)

215. The Chairman said that the 11th

meeting of CATC under SDC was suspended

because more than half of the Committee Members had left the meeting prematurely. In

view of this, the discussion of two outstanding agenda items would be resumed at the 12th

CATC meeting on 25 November 2013. The 12th

CATC meeting was the last meeting of the

current term of CATC. As there were many agenda items, it was expected that the CATC

meeting would be adjourned not until around 9:15 p.m.

- 63 -

216. The Chairman reminded Members to attend the meeting as scheduled, and that they

should tried their best to stay at the meeting until the end, so as to prevent the situation of

leaving agenda items behind in the absence of a quorum.

Invitation to Participate in MTR South Island Line (East) Nine-a-side Football

Competition 2013

217. The Chairman asked if Members had other matters to raise for discussion.

218. Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP said that MTRC had organised a football

competition comprising teams from MTRC, SDC, Ocean Park and the Hong Kong Police

Force. MTRC planned to launch the football competition again in 2013, and the qualifying

matches and final would be held on 26 and 27 November 2013 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Being the champion of the said competition on SDC‟s behalf in 2012, the Southern District

Football Team stated that it would be happy to join the competition on SDC‟s behalf in 2013

again, and wished to obtain SDC‟s consent to this arrangement.

219. The Chairman said that while SDC agreed to send a team to participate in the

competition, it seemed that MTRC had yet to issue an invitation to SDC.

220. The Chairman invited Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP to follow up on matters

relating to the competition, and reminded MTRC to issue the invitation to SDC.

(Post-meeting note: MTRC issued an invitation to SDC on 21 November 2013.)

Part II – Items for Information

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

- Report from the Area Committees (SDC Paper No. 71/2013)

- Report of the 11th

Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee

(SDC Paper No. 72/2013)

- Report of the 11th

Meeting of the Community Affairs and Tourism Development

Committee (SDC Paper No. 73/2013)

- Report of the 11th

Meeting of the District Development and Environment

- 64 -

Committee (SDC Paper No. 74/2013)

- Report of the 11th

Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee (SDC Paper

No. 75/2013)

- Report of the 178th

Meeting of the Southern District Management Committee

(SDC Paper No. 76/2013)

- Report of the 1st and 2

nd Meetings of the Focus Group on Southern District

Signature Projects (SDC Paper No. 77/2013)

- Financial Statement in respect of SDC Funds (as at 4.11.2013) (SDC Paper No.

78/2013)

Date of Next Meeting

222. The Chairman informed the meeting that the 14th

SDC meeting would be held on

16 January 2014 (Thursday) at 2:30 p.m.

223. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council

January 2014