Minutes of the Eighth Meeting Of

Minutes of the Eighth Meeting of

Central and Western District Council

Date / : / 16 March 2017 (Thursday)
Time / : / 2:30 pm
Venue / : / Conference Room
14/F, Harbour Building
38 Pier Road, Central, Hong Kong

Present:

Chairman

Mr YIP Wing-shing, BBS, MH, JP*

Vice-chairman

Mr CHAN Hok-fung, MH*

Members

Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, BBS, JP / (2:35 pm – 8:02 pm)
Mr CHAN Choi-hi, MH / (2:35 pm – 6:10 pm)
Mr CHAN Ho-lim, Joseph*
Ms CHENG Lai-king / (2:48 pm – end of the meeting)
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, JP / (3:51 pm – 6:52 pm)
Mr HUI Chi-fung / (2:35 pm – 5:06 pm and 6:15 pm – end of the meeting)
Mr KAM Nai-wai, MH / (2:35 pm – 7:33 pm)
Mr LEE Chi-hang, Sidney,MH / (2:35 pm – 6:28 pm)
Miss LO Yee-hang*
Mr NG Siu-hong*
Ms SIU Ka-yi*
Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing*
Mr YEUNG Hok-ming*

Remarks: *Members who attended the whole meeting

( )Time of attendance of Members

Item 5
Mr LI Kin-yat, Daryl, FSDSM / Director of Fire Services
Mr CHAN Derek Armstrong / Division Commander (Hong Kong Central), Fire Services Department
Mr CHAN Wai-kuen / Assistant Chief Ambulance Officer (Hong Kong), Fire Services Department
Mr LEUNG Lung-kei / Division Officer (Management Group), Fire Services Department
Item 6(i)
Mr WONG Chi-pan, Ricky / Chief Assistant Secretary (Works), Development Bureau
Ms LEE Hoi-lun, Leonie / Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3, Development Bureau
Mr CHU Ho, Larry / Assistant Secretary (Harbour)1, Development Bureau
Mr NG Tit-ho, Leo / Engineer/Central and Western 2, Transport Department
Mr CHAN Wai-kit, Edmond / Senior Estate Surveyor/Central & Harbourfront(District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South), Lands Department
Item 7
Mr Mike BEZZANO / Construction Manager - SCL Civil, MTR Corporation Limited
Mr William CHAN / Liaison Engineer I, MTR Corporation Limited
Ms Samantha SIU / Public Relations Manager - Projects & Property, MTR Corporation Limited
Mr CHU Tun-hon, Vincent / Senior Engineer/SCL 7, Highways Department
Ms LIM Ting-ting, Sylvia / District Leisure Manager (Central & Western), Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Ms LEUNG Fung-shan, Bikin / Executive Officer(Planning), Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Item 8
Mr LAU Yu-hang, Henry / Senior Liaison Officer (Building Management)1, Central and Western District Office
Miss FOK Wai-yi, Winnie / Senior Liaison Officer (Building Management)2, Central and Western District Office
Mr CHAN Joon-sun, Johnson / District Commander (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force
Mr LEUNG Yin-man, Kevin / Police Community Relation Officer (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force
Mr Louie CHAN / Senior Manager, Building Rehabilitation Division, Urban Renewal Authority
Mr Vincent LAM
/ Assistant Manager, Building Rehabilitation Division, Urban Renewal Authority
Item 9
Mr CHAN Joon-sun, Johnson / District Commander (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force
Mr LEUNG Yin-man, Kevin / Police Community Relation Officer (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force
Mr LEUNG Kwok-man, Lautrec / Senior Transport Officer / Central & Western, Transport Department
Ms Dorothy LAU / Assistant Public Relations Manager-External Affairs, MTR Corporation Limited
Item 10
Mr SHEK Chung-tong / Wetland & Fauna Conservation Officer (Enforcement), Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department
Mr LEE Tze-wah / District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent(Central/Western), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
Item 11
Miss AU Wing-yan, Christine / Principal Assistant Secretary(Harbour), Development Bureau
Mr CHU Ho, Larry / Assistant Secretary (Harbour)1, Development Bureau
Miss TSE Siu-man, Ida / Project Co-ordinator(Harbour) , Development Bureau
Ms LIM Ting-ting, Sylvia / District Leisure Manager (Central & Western), Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Item 12
Item 13
Mr Michael MA / Executive Director (Commercial), Urban Renewal Authority
Mr AU Chun-ho, Wilfred / General Manager (Planning and Design), Urban Renewal Authority
Ms Katty LAW / Convenor, Central and Western Concern Group
Mr CHEUNG Chiu-tun / Member, Sai Wan Concern
Mr CHIU Ka-kit / Resident ofCentral and Western District
Mr Dare KOSLOW / Resident ofCentral and Western District

In Attendance:

Mr CHAN Joon-sun, Johnson / Chief Superintendent, District Commander (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force
Mr LEUNG Yin-man, Kevin / Chief Inspector, Police Community Relation Officer (Central District), Hong Kong Police Force
Mr WONG Kwok-fai, Alfred / Chief Engineer/Hong Kong (1), Civil Engineering and Development Department
Mr LEE Tze-wah / District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central and Western), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
Ms LIM Ting-ting, Sylvia / District Leisure Manager (Central & Western), Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Mr LEUNG Kwok-man, Lautrec / Senior Transport Officer / Central & Western, Transport Department
Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, Susanne, JP / District Officer (Central and Western)
Ms WONG Suet-yi, Penny / Assistant District Officer (Central and Western)
Miss KWOK Nim-wai, Mercy / Acting Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Central and Western District Office
Ms BOOK King-shun, Emma / Executive Officer I (District Council), Central and Western District Office

Secretary

Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, Grace / Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Central and Western District Office
Opening Remarks
The Chairman welcomed all to the eighth meeting of the Central and Western District Council (C&WDC).
Item 1: Adoption of the Agenda
(2:35 pm – 3:04 pm)
2.The Chairman remarked that Agenda Item 12 “Standing Item: (ii) Report on the projects under the Urban Renewal Authority in the Central & Western District” and Agenda Item 13 “Strongly object to the Urban Renewal Authority breaking its promise by increasing the development plot ratio of H19 project and damaging the community ambience” were dealing with similar topics, and the departmental representatives responding to the above items had other official engagement. To facilitate their attendance, the order of discussion had been revised upon consent of the Chairman,where the standing item concerned had been renumbered as Item 12 and would be combined for discussion with Item 13.
3.Mr HUI Chi-fung objected to the adoption of the agenda. He indicated that he had requested for inclusion of a discussion paper entitled “Objection to the reinstatement of TSA (Territory-wide System Assessment) at Primary 3 level” in the agendaprior to convening of thismeeting in accordance with the Standing Orders, but later learned verbally that the Chairmandis-allowed the inclusion ofthe aforesaid paper for discussion at this meeting. Mr HUIsaid that he had not received a formal reply regarding suchrefusal and requested the item be included in the agenda. He went on saying that the Chairmantold him that the aforesaid paper was related to an educational issue and thus should be submitted for discussion at a Culture, Leisure and Social Affairs Committee (CLSAC) meeting. However, he opined that discussing educational issues at CLSAC meeting was merely a past established practice and should not be the reason for not allowing individual Members tosubmit paper for discussion at a full council meeting. He said that the item on“Objection to the reinstatement of TSA at Primary 3 level”had a significant impact on Hong Kong in general and had caused wide concern among parents, and therefore should be discussed at the highest-level meeting (i.e. full council meeting). He reckoned that the subject would be “degraded” if it was to be discussed at committee meetings. Hence, he proposed not to adopt the agenda.
4.In response to Mr HUI, the Chairman said,firstly,that he personally did not support TSA. The Chairman stressed that he had made it clear to Mr HUI that the reason for requesting the subject to be discussed at CLSAC meeting was that educational issues were under CLSAC’s purview. This was also why the Education Bureau had regular representative at CLSAC meeting to give views on educational issues. For consistency’s sake, he considered it appropriate to discuss TSA-related issues at CLSAC meeting. Besides, the Chairman said thatalbeitmany issues fell under the category of territory-wide issues, not all of them were discussed at full council meeting. Putting a territory-wide educational issue on CLSAC’s agenda for discussion was in line with its terms of reference and usual practice, which involved no change tothe established procedures. The Chairman said that earlier some other Members had proposed to discuss territory-wide educational issues at full council meeting, but the issues concerned were eventually discussed at CLSAC meetings instead. He stressed thatthe matter concerned had been handled in a consistent manner in accordance with the established practice, so there was no “degrading” of individual subjects. Should Mr HUI consider it necessary to change the usual practice or wish to propose that certain territory-wide issues must be discussed at full council meeting, he might consider making such proposals at meetings of the Working Group on Central & Western District Council Affairs or the Working Group on Review of Standing Orders of Central and Western District Council (WG on Review of Standing Orders) for discussion by all Members.
5.The Chairman further said that in the Central and Western District, all District Council memberswere also members of the CLSAC. Together with the co-opted members, and a representative from the Education Bureau acting as regular member in the CLSAC, there were even more participants in aCLSAC meeting than in afull council meeting, thereby allowing a wider and more proper discussion of educational issues. According to Standing Order No. 34(1), a district council might appoint committees for the purpose of carrying out its functions and might delegate any of its functions to a committee. In that case, committees were the equivalent of district council in carrying out the relevant functions,and committee meeting was the equivalent of district council meeting, so there was no difference in terms of grade. To his understanding, if the educational issue raised by Mr HUI was submitted for discussion at the CLSAC, it would be discussed on 2 March 2017, earlier than if it was submitted for discussion at a full council meeting (i.e. 16 March 2017). Hence, such decision would facilitate earlydiscussion of Mr HUI’s paper.
6.Mr HUI Chi-fung said that he had followed the meeting procedures in seeking to include the aforesaid subject in the agenda of this meeting for discussion, and asked the Chairmanbased on which provision of the Standing Orders was his requestrefused. He cited Standing Order No. 6 “The Chairman shall approve the agenda for a meeting of the Council and shall ensure that items included in the agenda are compatible with the functions of the Council as laid down in section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance”,reckoning that the Chairmanwas only responsible for ensuring items included in the agenda were compatible with the functions of the Council as laid down in section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance. Since section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance stated that district councils might discuss issues related to the public and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, “Cancelling TSA”ought to be accepted as a discussion item on the Council’s agenda. He opined that it was unjustifiable to refuse his request simply on the ground that conventionally educational issues should be discussed at CLSAC meeting.
7.Mr KAM Nai-wai said that according to his understanding of the conventional practice in district councils, chairman of district council might suggest members to put various topicsto discussion at committee or working group meetings. However, if member insisted to discuss a subject at a full council meeting and the subject concerned was not incompatible with the functions of the council as laid down in section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance, and unless the meeting agenda was full, the chairman of district council in theory should not refuse such request. Mr KAMquoted Agenda Item 11 of this meeting, “Strongly request for securing a community garden in the Central and Western District harbourfront”, as an example, saying that according to the Chairman’s principle, such item should also be put to discussion at a CLSAC meeting. He opined that items proposed by Members, except thoseincompatible with the functions of the Council, ought to be accepted by the Chairman for discussion at a full council meeting. He considered it necessary to sort out the principles.
8.Mr CHAN Ho-lim said that he had sought to include the discussion paper on “Improvement to the measures preventing wild pigs straying in the community” in the agenda of the full council as early as 7 November 2016, but such item was only accepted for inclusion in the agenda of the full council meeting held in March 2017. He wished to know the maximum number of papers submitted by Members that could be discussed at each full council meeting, and based on that number, whether the paper submitted by Mr HUI could be discussed at this meeting.
9.Mr CHAN Chit-kwai opined that it was clear that the terms of reference of the CLSAC covered discussion of issues on social services and social affairs (including education, culture), and it was thus appropriate to put educational issues todiscussion at CLSAC meetings. He also considered that the Chairmanwas empowered to make relevant decision and arrangement. He quoted personal experience that he had sought approval for discussion of anitem on“Chinese History be made a compulsory subject”, but the Chairman opined that according to usual practice, such issue should be put todiscussion at a CLSAC meetingas it was an educational issue of a territory-wide nature. And he acceded to the Chairman’s decision. He reckoned that if the Chairman grantedMr HUI approval to put an educational issue of a territory-wide nature to discussion at thefull councilthis time, hewould raise question on the inconsistent approach adopted by the Chairman. He reiterated that the Chairmanwas empowered to decide whether to include an issue in the agenda of the full council, and did not see putting an educational issue of a territory-wide nature todiscussion at a CLSAC meeting as “degrading”. Moreover, given the meeting date of the CLSAC was earlier than that of the full council, it was appropriate to putMr HUI’s paper on educational issue to discussion at a CLSAC meeting.
10.Mr LEE Chi-hang said that according to his understanding, the item on “Strongly request for securing a community garden in the Central and Western District harbourfront” was included in the agenda of this meeting because according to past practice, issues related to harbourfront affairs would be discussed at a full council meeting. He said that similar practices had also been adopted by the C&WDC in the past by agreeing to putcertain specific issues to discussion at full council meetings. However, he opined that as issues related to education of a territory-wide nature were used to be put to the CLSAC, it was not proper to bypass the CLSAC and put such issues direct to full council. He stressed that the purpose of establishing various select committees and inviting government representatives to serve as regular members of these committees was to enable the C&WDC to address and discuss efficiently a wide range of subjects. Members should be aware of and abide by such principle.
11.In response to Mr KAM’s enquiry, the Vice-chairman said that the item on “Strongly request for securing a community garden in the Central and Western District harbourfront” had been discussed at the Working Group on the Central & Western District Harbourfront (WG on Harbourfront) under the C&WDC, and was put to the full council upon agreement by the members of the WG on Harbourfront. He indicated that it was usual practice to put discussion papers of working groups to discussion at the respective full council/committee. The Vice-chairman said that the committees under the C&WDChad different functions, and there was neither a difference in terms of gradenor level of functions between full council and committees. He opined that Mr HUImight consider putting the item to discussion at the Legislative Council (LegCo) should he wish tohave a higherlevel discussion.
12.Mr HUI Chi-fung considered it necessary to clarify Members’ right to raise issues. He said that he had proposed to discuss the item on “Cancelling TSA” at a full council meeting in accordance with relevant meeting procedures, and queried whether the Chairmanwas empowered to put the subject to discussion at committee meetings and refuse putting it to the full council. Mr HUI suggested the Chairman re-consider putting the aforesaid subject to discussion at this full council meeting, and said that should the Chairman insist on refusing such request, he might consider lodging a judicial review against such decision.
13.In response to Mr CHAN Ho-lim, the Chairmancitedthe Central and Western District Council Standing Orders No. 13, saying that in principle, no more than eight items (three being papers submitted by government departments and five by Members) should be raised for discussion at each meeting of the Council, and the Chairman would, depending on the length and level of complexity of the agenda of individual meetings, adjust the number of items on a discretionary basis to avoid lengthy meeting. In response to Mr KAM Nai-wai’s enquiry,the Chairmanindicated that the item on “Strongly request for securing a community garden in the Central and Western District harbourfront”was included in the agenda of this meeting because it was an item for discussion at the WG on Harbourfront under the C&WDC. Since decisions made by a working group required endorsement from the respective district council/committee, the item concerned was approved for putting to discussion at the full council. In response to Mr HUI, he said that he had made it clear to Mr HUI that educational issues should be put to the CLSAC as the terms of reference of the CLSAC covered discussion on issues related to education, medical and health, social welfare, employment, etc. Members should respect the division of responsibilities of committees and that not all the papers could be put to discussion at the full council; and such decision was made in accordance with established practices. The Chairman further supplemented that according to the experience of other district councils, many of them also put TSA-related issues to discussion at their respective committeesspecialising in social affairs. He emphasised that such arrangement was not intended to “degrade” the subject concerned; rather it was made according to the Standing Orders and the respective functions of the Council and committees. Hence, he opined that no amendment was needed for the agenda.