Minutes of the Special Meeting of Tai Po District Council in 2020

Date: 21 January 2020 (Tuesday)

Time: 9:37 a.m. to 5:52 p.m.

Venue: Conference Room, Tai Po District Council Present Time of Arrival Time of Withdrawal

Chairman Mr. KWAN Wing-yip Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Vice-chairman Mr. LAU Yung-wai Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Members Mr. AU Chun-ho Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. AU Chun-wah Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHAN Chun-chit, Richard Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Ms. CHAN Wai-ka, Olive Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. HO Wai-lam 10:00 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. LAM Ming-yat, Nick Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LAM Yick-kuen Beginning of the meeting 1:15 p.m. Mr. LI Yiu-ban, BBS, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting 1:15 p.m. Mr. LIN Kok-cheung, Dalu Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. MAN Nim-chi Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. MO Ka-chun, Patrick 2:33 p.m. End of the meeting Mr. SO Tat-leung Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. TAM Yi-pui Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. WONG Siu-kin Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. WU Yiu-cheong Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YAM Kai-bong Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YIU Kwan-ho Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting

- 2 -

Secretary Mr. LEE Yu-sau, Terence Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department

Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting

In Attendance Ms. CHAN Hau-man, Eunice, JP District Officer (Tai Po), Home Affairs Department Miss LEUNG Wing-yin, Tiffany Assistant District Officer (Tai Po), Home Affairs Department Ms. CHU Ha-fan, Jessica District Planning Officer/Sha Tin, Tai Po and North,

Planning Department Mr. KWOK Kin-man, Alex District Lands Officer/Tai Po (District Land Office, Tai Po),

Lands Department Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen Administrative Assistant/Lands (Acting) (District Lands

Office, Tai Po), Lands Department Mr. LI Kwok-keung, Vincent Senior Engineer / 11 (North), Civil Engineering and

Development Department Mr. KWONG Ka-yin Chief Transport Officer/New Territories East, Transport

Department Ms. WONG Mei-yin Chief School Development Officer (Tai Po), Education

Bureau Mr. LAI Siu-kwong District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Tai Po),

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr. LAW Shau-mong Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing & Pest Control) 2, Tai

Po, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Ms. HEUNG Ching-yee, Alice Chief Leisure Manger (New Territories East), Leisure and

Cultural Services Department Ms. LIU Pui-wah, Stella District Leisure Manger (Tai Po), Leisure and Cultural

Services Department Mr. CHAN Kai-lam, Allan Chief Manger/Management (Tai Po, North and Shatin),

Housing Department Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin Senior Housing Manger/Tai Po, North and Shatin 2, Housing

Department Ms. CHAN Sin-yee, Perin, Sindy Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Tai Po/North) 1,

Social Welfare Department Ms. LEE Ching-yee, Patty Senior Liaison Officer(1), Tai Po District Office, Home

Affairs Department

- 3 -

Ms. WONG Yu-hang, Anita Senior Liaison Officer(2), Tai Po District Office, Home

Affairs Department Ms. LEE Ho-yee, Trazy Executive Officer I (District Council), Tai Po District Office,

Home Affairs Department

Absentee

Mr. LEE Kwok-chung District Commander (Tai Po), Hong Kong Police Force

Announcements The Chairman welcomed Members and departmental representatives to the meeting and made the following announcements:

(i) Ms. CHAN Sin-yee, Perin, Sindy, Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Tai Po/North) of the Social Welfare Department (“SWD”), and Mr. LI Kwok-keung, Vincent, Senior Engineer (North) of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”), attended this meeting on behalf of Mr. YAM Mun-ho, District Social Welfare Officer (Tai Po/North), and Mr. CHUNG Wing-hong, John, Chief Engineer respectively, who were both on leave.

(ii) Mr. KWOK Kin-man, Alex, District Lands Officer/Tai Po, and Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen, Acting Administrative Assistant, replaced Ms. LEUNG Miu-yin, Karen, and Mr. CHAN Wing-yiu who had transferred out, to attend TPDC meetings from now on.

(iii) Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin, Senior Housing Manger/Tai Po, North and Shatin of the Housing Department (“HD”), and Mr. LAW Shau-mong, Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing & Pest Control), Tai Po, of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) attended this meeting.

(iv) As some departmental representatives had to leave early, the agenda of this meeting would be slightly modified. In addition, at the Central and Western District Council meeting held last week, the District Officer concerned had led the attending government officials to withdraw from the meeting in protest against the discussion of politically sensitive issues. To prevent the District Officer (Tai Po) from doing do at this meeting, whereby rendering it impossible for the District Council (“DC”) to discuss urgent or livelihood issues, as a result of which the DC would be blamed for “talking about politics only, but ignoring people’s livelihood”, the more

- 4 -

sensitive issues would be discussed later at this meeting, so as to give priority to livelihood issues.

(v) Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) had replied in writing that as the meeting had only one agenda item relating to HKPF, it did not send officers to attend the meeting. In the past, however, even if a DC meeting did not have any agenda item relating to HKPF, its representatives would nonetheless attend the entire meeting. Therefore, the action taken by HKPF this time ran contrary to the usual practice.

2. Mr. AU Chun-wah told the District Officer (Tai Po) that while the DC was an advisory body, departments concerned had basically attended DC meetings on a regular basis over the years. However, HKPF’s representative blatantly refused to attend the meeting this time and showed no respect for TPDC. Should government departments maintain the same attitude in the future and decide arbitrarily whether to attend meetings or not, it would no longer be necessary for DCs to operate further while it was not the way in which the Government should operate either. He opined that HKPF representatives had attended the meetings in the past because the former DC Chairman, who was of the pro-establishment camp, would treat them to meals after the meetings. Given that the incumbent TPDC Chairman was a pro-democracy DC Member, he asked if HKPF representatives would no longer attend DC meetings because they would not be treated to any meals. 3. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that he would like to express opinions to the District Officer (Tai Po) on behalf of the people of Hong Kong. He designedly brought a high-power flashlight to the meeting, with which he had intended to project a light beam on Mr. LEE Kwok-chung, District Commander (Tai Po) of HKPF, to show him how TPDC Members had been insulted by police officers on the scene of anti-government movements. However, HKPF only replied in writing, without sending any officers to attend the meeting. He hoped that the District Officer (Tai Po) would instruct the departments concerned to take follow-up actions. 4. Mr. CHAN Chun-chit, Richard asked the District Officer (Tai Po) to fulfil her statutory duties as a liaison and co-ordinating officer by following up on the issues below:

(i) To write to the Department of Justice (“DoJ”) to ask for the legal justifications for HKPF’s decision of not sending officers to attend this meeting;

(ii) To write to the Commissioner of Police to ask for the reasons why his subordinates did not attend this meeting;

(iii) To write to Mr. LEE Kwok-chung to ask for a written reply to justify his absence from this meeting;

(iv) Since attending TPDC meetings was one of the statutory duties of District Commander (Tai Po) of the HKPF, he requested that a letter be written to the

- 5 -

Secretary for the Civil Service to ask for explanations as to whether Mr. LEE Kwok-chung, as District Commander (Tai Po) of HKPF, had the statutory authority not to attend TPDC meetings, and whether such act violated the Civil Service Code; and

(v) He asked the District Officer (Tai Po) to respond whether she would send the aforementioned letters as requested.

5. Ms. CHAN Hau-man, Eunice said that as far as attendance at TPDC special meeting 2020 was concerned, the Secretariat had contacted as per usual practice the departments concerned before the meeting as regards the arrangements for attending the meeting. Meanwhile, Tai Po Police District had also replied to the Secretariat regarding the issues concerned. 6. The Secretary said that the Secretariat had received an e-mail from Tai Po Police District this morning, which stated that this meeting was a special meeting of which most of the agenda items, except agenda item VII, were not under the purview of Tai Po Police District. Therefore, it would not send representatives to attend this meeting. 7. Ms. Eunice CHAN said that the Secretariat would follow up on the issues discussed at the meeting according to the usual practice. 8. Mr. Richard CHAN said that the District Officer (Tai Po) had not responded whether she would send the aforementioned letters as requested. If the District Officer (Tai Po) would not follow up on DC Members’ requests, he asked whether such requests would need to be handed over to DC for decision. 9. The Chairman suggested that the Secretariat prepare the letters concerned and send them in the name of DC. 10. Mr. Richard CHAN said that he, as a DC Member, was only asking the District Officer (Tai Po) to fulfil her statutory duties and carry out liaison work. Therefore, he was not asking the Secretariat to simply issue the letters, but to issue the letters in the name of the District Officer (Tai Po). If the District Officer (Tai Po) opined that he was just a DC Member to whom she could turn a blind eye, he would like to know whether the matter should instead be resolved by the DC, and the DC should urge the District Officer (Tai Po) to issue the letters. 11. Mr. LAM Ming-yat, Nick’s comments were as follows:

(i) He was very angry that HKPF did not send officers to attend this meeting. The illegal parking problems in Tai Po District were very serious, and many members of the public desperately hoped that DC could resolve them. Therefore, HKPF had to

- 6 -

attend this meeting to discuss such an important livelihood issue. Illegal parking was not a politically sensitive issue, but HKPF nonetheless made up excuses for attending this meeting. He asked if Members had to wait until the next DC meeting or even until HKPF was in a better mood before they could follow up on the issue. If HKPF opined that it was not its duty to deal with illegal parking problems, it should hand the problems over to other departments.

(ii) He had conducted an inspection in the district with FEHD’s staff last week, and thanked FEHD’s staff for being extremely patient when answering questions from members of the public. He had also invited HKPF officers to join the inspection so as to deal with problems such as mendicancy and street obstruction by miscellaneous articles. Not only was handling livelihood issues as easy as pie, it was in fact their duty too. However, HKPF still refused to send officers to attend this meeting. He asked whether HKPF objected just for the sake of objecting and therefore turned down all requests from pro-democracy DC Members.

12. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho’s comments were as follows:

(i) Unlike what was mentioned in HKPF’s e-mail, there was not only agenda item VII at this meeting which was relevant to HKPF, but some other agenda items, namely, agenda item II (about chemical residues in the community), agenda item III (about the Lennon Wall) and agenda item V (about the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry) were also relevant to HKPF. Moreover, it had been stated in the letter for agenda item II that the issue was relevant to HKPF. Even if there was only one agenda item about illegal parking, it nonetheless belonged to the official duties of HKPF. He asked whether Mr. LEE Kwok-chung would be held fully accountable if any person had an accident owing to the fact that HKPF had not listened to DC’s opinions on illegal parking.

(ii) DC Members were representatives of public opinion. HKPF’s refusal to listen to the views of DC Members was tantamount to ignoring public opinion. Its absence from DC meetings was even a gesture of contempt for the representatives of public opinion, about which he was really angry.

13. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong said that if HKPF found it unnecessary to attend this meeting because there was only one agenda relating to HKPF, it would mean that it was not necessary for those government departments present at the meeting, such as the Education Bureau (“EDB”), CEDD, the Lands Department (“LandsD”), the Planning Department (“PlanD”) and SWD, to attend the meeting either. Therefore, he strongly agreed with Mr. Richard CHAN’s request that the District Officer (Tai Po) should write a letter in her name to ask HKPF for a reply. In the past few months, several hundred million dollars’ worth of public money earmarked for other government

- 7 -

departments had been allocated to HKPF to pay for the salaries and overtime work compensation for police officers, while HKPF refused to attend the meeting today as it claimed that there was only one HKPF-related agenda item. He asked how HKPF would explain to other government departments, and whether it enjoyed any privilege that allowed it to do anything it wanted while other government departments had to fulfil their obligations. At the joint committee meeting last time, the District Officer (Tai Po) had indicated that DC Members had violated the District Councils Ordinance. However, HKPF currently violated the Civil Service Code. Why did other government departments attend each and every meeting while HKPF could decide whether to attend or not? In addition to the problem of illegal parking, there was also an agenda item about the Lennon Wall. Members of the public went to the Lennon Wall to put up posters every night, and HKPF always deployed riot police to the area concerned. It was evident that HKPF had a part to play in the Lennon Wall issue. The District Officer (Tai Po) should exercise her authority to liaise with HKPF and ask it to send officers to attend the meeting. If HKPF still refused to give explanations, the District Officer (Tai Po) should be held accountable. He opined that the current Government was at the “rank-and-file” level. The District Officer (Tai Po) had indicated that the establishment of a committee was illegitimate without giving any reason, yet failed to ask HKPF to attend the meeting. As such, her attitude and capabilities remained at the “rank-and-file” level. 14. Mr. AU Chun-ho’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) Even Mr. TANG Ping-keung, the Commissioner of Police, would visit the 18 DCs to communicate with the public. However, being the District Commander (Tai Po), Mr. LEE Kwok-chung refused to attend the meeting on the grounds that there was no more than one agenda item relating to HKPF.

(ii) He asked the District Officer (Tai Po) when she became aware that HKPF would not send officers to attend this meeting. If she had already been informed earlier, why did she not notify DC Members in advance?

15. Mr. YAM Kai-bong’s comments were as follows:

(i) He commended all the representatives of government departments for attending this meeting, as they remained committed to their work even in the absence of issues relevant to their departments at this meeting. The purpose of DC to invite departments to attend meetings was to address the social and district issues of public concern. At this meeting, the agenda items relating to HKPF included not only illegal parking, but also the chemical residues of tear gas in the community. In the past, even when departmental representatives were unable to attend a meeting due to sickness or other commitments, some other people would attend the meeting on their behalf. He asked if there was no one else in the entire Tai Po Police

- 8 -

District who could represent HKPF to attend the meeting. He said that the Chief Executive (“CE”) of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region was not Mrs. Carrie LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor at present. Rather, the city was ruled by a military government, in which Mr. TANG Ping-keung was the CE. In the past, the District Officer (Tai Po) used to be the “small CE” of the district. At present, however, the district commander of HKPF had assumed this role, and could decide whether to attend DC meetings. At the scene of the clashes between HKPF and the public, police officers had provoked, pushed and shouted at DC Members in an extremely impolite manner, while the absence from this meeting was a continuation of such impolite, disrespectful and disregardful behaviours. He hoped that the District Officer (Tai Po) could lead the government departments in the district to cooperate sincerely with DC and discuss issues of public concern. This is of paramount importance.

(ii) Some committees under TPDC had invited HKPF’s representatives to attend their meetings. If the police commander did not attend the DC meeting, did it mean that HKPF would not send officers to attend the committee meetings either? He hoped that the District Officer (Tai Po) and the Secretariat would help clarify it, and invite departmental representatives to attend meetings and answer questions.

16. The Chairman said that as there were still many agenda items to be handled at this meeting, Members should not waste too much time discussing such an irresponsible and low-quality department. Should Members wish to condemn relevant departments or hope that the District Officer (Tai Po) would issue the said letters, they could decide after all Members had voiced their opinions. 17. Mr. WONG Siu-kin agreed that Members should not waste too much time discussing HKPF’s absence from this meeting. Before this meeting, he had not expected and did not want HKPF to attend the meeting. He opined that Members would have no intention to talk to HKPF’s representatives had they been present. As representatives of the public, DC Members were duty-bound to question HKPF directly. However, he did not believe that such questioning would bring forth any change in the society and the system. Even if HKPF’s representatives attended the meeting, they would only become a target on which others would vent their anger. Now that HKPF did not attend the meeting could on the contrary reduce unnecessary disputes at the meeting. He cited the example of the Central and Western DC meeting last week where the Chairman had requested the plainclothes police officers to show their warrant cards. The incident had become a hot topic on the internet, and HKPF’s presence had instead prevented the meeting from running smoothly. As a DC Member of Wan Tau Tong constituency, he opined that HKPF should send representatives to attend the meeting in connection with district issues to work with various departments and respond to questions from DC Members. Relevance of agenda items to HKPF was not a reason for HKPF to attend or not to attend meetings. Despite the fact that not

- 9 -

every agenda item was relevant to all departments, no department could claim that they had nothing to do with district issues. 18. Mr. TAM Yi-pui’s comments were as follows:

(i) He agreed that it was not necessary to spend too much time discussing an absent department.

(ii) Some members of the public had told him about the illegal parking problems in Kei Ling Ha in Sai Kung North.

(iii) He concurred with the suggestion Mr. Richard CHAN had just put forward.

(iv) He looked forward to working with all officials. He did not know what pressure their superiors were putting on them. However, government officials were ultimately accountable to taxpayers.

(v) At the Central and Western DC meeting, Mr. TANG ping-keung had merely presented his own views, with no intention to heal the rift with the public. However, that was not as outrageous as HKPF’s refusal to attend the meeting today. Therefore, HKPF had to be censured.

19. Mr. SO Tat-leung said that there being only one agenda item relating to HKPF had not been the reason for HKPF not to attend the meeting, rather, it did not attend the meeting because there were more than one agenda item relating to it. He asked when in the future a meeting agenda was being drawn up, what Members should expect from HKPF as regards whether or not it would send representatives to attend the meeting. 20. Mr. Nick LAM said that apart from the department which had gone missing, the District Officer (Tai Po) and the Secretariat should also be held responsible for their dereliction of duty. Their behaviour could be seen not only by all people of Hong Kong, but also by Western countries. Their names could also be found in the paper. In addition to being accountable to their superiors, they were also accountable to the public. They should consider whether it was worthwhile to be sanctioned for this totalitarian government and sacrifice their own future. 21. Ms. Eunice CHAN responded as follows:

(i) Tai Po District Office (“TPDO”) treated TPDC and every DC Member with great respect. Therefore, TPDO and the Secretariat adhered to the procedures when following up on every discussion and decision at DC meetings, provided that the discussion and decision complied with the legislation and the Standing Orders. As regards the views of DC on the arrangements for relevant departments to attend DC meetings, it was not the first time such opinions and situations were dealt with at the

- 10 -

meeting. Therefore, as in the past, the arrangements would be followed up according to the valid decisions of DC.

(ii) Regarding Members’ question about when she had become aware that Tai Po Police District would not send representatives to attend this meeting, as soon as she had learnt about HKPF’s notice from the Secretary, she had immediately asked the Secretary to inform the Chairman as quickly as possible.

22. The Chairman said that he had received the notice at about 9 a.m. today. 23. Mr. Richard CHAN said that the District Officer (Tai Po) still had not responded whether she would send the four letters mentioned above in the name of District Officer (Tai Po). 24. Ms. Eunice CHAN said that she had just responded that TPDO and the Secretariat would follow up on every decision made during the discussions at DC meetings, provided that the discussions complied with the legislation and the Standing Orders. 25. Mr. Richard CHAN requested that a vote be taken to ask the District Officer (Tai Po) to send the four letters mentioned above. In doing so, the District Officer (Tai Po) would have to send the letters in her name as required by the statutory resolution made under the laws of Hong Kong and the District Councils Ordinance. He hoped that the District Officer (Tai Po) would abide by the law. 26. The Chairman said that he had not been informed until this morning that HKPF’s representative would not attend the meeting, it was therefore not possible to move motions 10 working days before the meeting. Hence, he approved Members to move impromptu motions in connection with HKPF’s refusal to send representatives to attend the meeting, and the requests they had made to the District Officer (Tai Po). 27. Mr. Richard CHAN moved an impromptu motion as follows: “TPDC requests the District Officer (Tai Po) to send letters in the name of District Officer (Tai Po) to the following departments, including DoJ, the Commissioner of Police, District Commander (Tai Po) of HKPF, and the Civil Service Bureau (“CSB”), to demand explanations for HKPF’s inaction”. He added that the letters were issued in the hope that they would address the failure of HKPF to send representatives to attend the meeting today. The letter to DoJ was to seek legal advice on whether HKPF had any discretion in deciding not to attend DC meetings; the letter to the Commissioner of Police was to demand explanations as to whether his subordinates had violated any requirements and whether they had any authority not to attend this meeting; the letter to District Commander (Tai Po) was to ask him when he had decided not to attend the meeting and the justifications on which his decision was based; the letter to CSB was to ask for an explanation that civil servants had a statutory duty to attend DC meetings, and to ask whether their absence

- 11 -

would violate the Civil Service Code. 28. Mr. AU Chun-wah moved an impromptu motion as follows: “TPDC strongly censures Mr. LEE Kwok-chung, chief superintendent and District Commander (Tai Po) of HKPF, for his absence from TPDC meeting without reasons”. 29. Mr. Richard CHAN suggested inserting such wording as “ask the District Officer (Tai Po) to fulfil her statutory duties” into the motion. 30. The Chairman said that adding the above wording might restrict the actions of the District Officer (Tai Po). If the District Officer (Tai Po) did not have such statutory duties, she would not have to send the aforementioned letters. Therefore, he did not recommend inserting the wording. 31. Mr. Richard CHAN agreed not to insert the wording he had mentioned in paragraph 29. 32. The Vice-chairman suggested replacing “inaction” in the motion with “absence without reasons”. Although HKPF had explained in writing why it did not attend the meeting, the explanations were tantamount to absence without reasons. While the agenda item required HKPF’s presence at the meeting, HKPF nonetheless refused to attend. It showed that the city was currently ruled by a military government. 33. Mr. Richard CHAN said that “inaction” was also a kind of action. However, he respected the views of the Vice-chairman, and had no comment on the change from “inaction” to “absence without reasons”. 34. The Chairman said that DC Members were not legal professionals, while members of the public also wanted to get the meaning of the motion in a straightforward way. Therefore, the wording “absence without reasons” was clearer. 35. The Chairman read out the revised impromptu motion of Mr. Richard CHAN as follows: “TPDO requests the District Officer (Tai Po) to send letters to DoJ, the Commissioner of Police, District Commander (Tai Po) and CSB to demand explanations for HKPF’s absence without reasons today”. The motion was seconded by the Vice-chairman. 36. No Members proposed any amendments. 37. The Chairman asked Members to take a vote on Mr. Richard CHAN’s impromptu motion. Members agreed to vote by open ballot and the results were as follows: For: 18 votes Mr. AU Chun-ho, Mr. AU Chun-wah, Mr. Richard CHAN,

- 12 -

Ms. Olive CHAN, Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai, Mr. HO Wai-lam, Mr. KWAN Wing-yip, Mr. Nick LAM, Mr. LAU Yung-wai, Mr. Dalu LIN, Mr. MAN Nim-chi, Mr. SO Tat-leung, Mr. TAM Yi-pui, Mr. WONG Siu-kin, Mr. WU Yiu-cheong, Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Mr. YIU Kwan-ho and Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang Mr. LAM Yick-kuen and Mr. LI Yiu-ban

Against: 0 vote Abstain: 2 votes Total: 20 votes 38. The Chairman announced that Mr. Richard CHAN’s impromptu motion was carried, and asked the District Officer (Tai Po) to write to the government departments concerned according to the above motion. 39. Ms. Olive CHAN said that Members could be absent from DC meetings only for such reasons as sickness or jury service. Therefore, the reasons for absence given by HKPF were invalid. 40. The Chairman said that the rule of absence mentioned by Ms. Olive CHAN applied only to DC Members, but not government officials. As the aforementioned motion had clearly indicated that HKPF’s representative was absent without reasons, it meant that DC did not accept the reasons for his absence. 41. The Chairman read out the impromptu motion moved by Mr. AU Chun-wah as follows: “TPDC strongly censures Mr. LEE Kwok-chung, chief superintendent and District Commander (Tai Po) of HKPF, for his absence from TPDC meeting without reasons”. The motion was seconded by Mr. YAM Kai-bong. 42. No Members proposed any amendments. 43. The Chairman asked Members to take a vote on Mr. AU Chun-wah’s impromptu motion. Members agreed to vote by open ballot and the results were as follows: For: 18 votes Mr. AU Chun-ho, Mr. AU Chun-wah, Mr. Richard CHAN,

Ms. Olive CHAN, Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai, Mr. HO Wai-lam, Mr. KWAN Wing-yip, Mr. Nick LAM, Mr. LAU Yung-wai, Mr. Dalu LIN, Mr. MAN Nim-chi, Mr. SO Tat-leung, Mr. TAM Yi-pui, Mr. WONG Siu-kin, Mr. WU Yiu-cheong, Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Mr. YIU Kwan-ho and Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang

Against: 0 vote Abstain: 2 votes Mr. LAM Yick-kuen and Mr. LI Yiu-ban

- 13 -

Total: 20 votes 44. The Chairman announced that Mr. AU Chun-wah’s impomptu motion was carried. 45. Mr. AU Chun-wah suggested asking the Secretariat to write to the Chief Secretary for Administration (“CS”) to express TPDC’s dissatisfaction with the absence of District Commander (Tai Po) of HKPF. 46. The Chairman suggested writing to the CE and the Commission of Police instead. 47. DC agreed to the Chairman’s suggestion in paragraph 46 above. (Post-meeting note: The letters mentioned in paragraph 46 above had been sent on 2 March 2020.)

I. Request the Government to give an account on the current situation of pneumonia in Hong Kong and matters regarding measures to take in response (TPDC Paper No. 2/2020) 48. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had invited the Food and Health Bureau (“FHB”), the Centre for Health Protection (“CHP”) and the Hospital Authority (“HA”) earlier to attend the meeting. He asked Members to refer to TPDC Paper Nos. 2a/2020 and 2b/2020, which indicated that FHB had submitted a consolidated written reply earlier to Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai’s letter, stating that the departments concerned were unable to attend this meeting as they were currently putting all their efforts in coping with the pneumonia issues. 49. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai went through Paper No. 2/2020. 50. Mr. YAM Kai-bong’s comments were as follows:

(i) Dr. ZHONG Nan-shan, an infectious disease expert from the Mainland, had made it clear yesterday that some pneumonia cases in the Mainland involved human-to-human transmission, and healthcare workers in many hospitals in the Mainland were also infected. This virus had led to a situation similar to the early stage of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (“SARS”) outbreak (during which healthcare workers had been infected and human-to-human transmission had emerged). However, the Government’s response had been very slow in its anti-epidemic work. During the period between the issuance of the captioned paper on 8 January 2020 and the meeting day, there had been a great deal of changes in the epidemic. Meanwhile, President XI Jinping had also instructed

- 14 -

healthcare workers to follow up and carry out prevention and control work in a serious manner. Nevertheless, it was not until yesterday that FHB had announced its plan to step up anti-epidemic measures. He opined that anti-epidemic measures should be enhanced at Express Rail Link, the airport and land control points as early as possible to stop people with the novel pneumonia virus from entering Hong Kong. In addition, he hoped that the department could brief DC on the latest information, including information on epidemic prevention in the community, and respond to the suggestions of DC Members. He recommended that this agenda item be assigned to the Healthcare, Education and Social Services Committee (“HESC”) for further follow-up actions, and representatives of the Department of Health (“DH”) and CHP be invited to attend the meeting.

(ii) When swine flu or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome cases had emerged in Hong Kong in the past, TPDO had coordinated resources and handed out cleaning packs containing such items as bleach, hand sanitiser and face masks. In view of the shortage of masks in the market at present, he suggested that TPDO use departmental resources to purchase cleaning packs, which would be handed out to Tai Po residents to help them step up anti-epidemic work. DC funds could also be used for anti-epidemic purposes, such as purchasing masks and cleaning equipment and the like. He hoped that TPDO and the Secretariat would review the feasibility of the above suggestions.

51. The Secretary said that there was still a remaining balance from the DC funds for the 2019-20 financial year, and the Secretariat was currently calculating the total amount of the said balance. When making purchases, the Government was required to go through procedures such as quotation, vetting and approval. Based on previous experience, the items which DC purchased were usually manufactured by factories in the Mainland. Given that the Chinese New Year holiday in the Mainland usually lasted more than ten days, which was longer than that in Hong Kong, even if the funding allocation process could be completed in a short period of time, funding allocated for the current financial year might not necessarily be used. If the amount concerned did not have to be paid by using DC funds of the current financial year, more time would become available, whereby rendering the suggestion more feasible. 52. The Chairman said that he hoped the DC funds could be made optimal use of wherever possible. Despite the fact that the anti-epidemic items might not be purchased until one or two months later, they had a relatively long shelf life. In the unfortunate event that the epidemic persisted until the middle of this year, the items could still be handed out to the public. 53. Ms. Eunice CHAN said that even in the non-peak season of influenza and before the emergence of Wuhan pneumonia, TPDO had all along attached great importance to encouraging the public to observe personal hygiene. Therefore, it had purchased cleaning packs earlier

- 15 -

through the District-led Actions Scheme, and had arranged for handing them out in the morning of this Thursday (i.e., 23 January). This activity was launched in collaboration with FEHD as part of the Year-end Clean-up Campaign. TPDO had written to TPDC Members last week to invite them to participate in the Year-end Clean-up Campaign and to hand out the cleaning packs. She hoped that DC Members would find time to take part in the activity. DC Members were also welcome to voice their views on the scheme. 54. The Chairman appealed to Members to find time to participate in the aforementioned activity. 55. Mr. WONG Siu-kin’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) According to the latest news, it had been confirmed that Wuhan pneumonia virus could be transmitted from person to person, and 15 healthcare workers had been confirmed to have been infected so far. However, it was not until recently that confirmed cases had been recorded in the Mainland’s large cities such as Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. He wondered whether the public could accept and believe such news. He opined that the actual number of confirmed cases should far exceed the figures announced by the central government. He asked what Hong Kong should do when the notification mechanism in the Mainland was currently unknown.

(ii) Since the virus was confirmed to be transmittable from person to person, had the government departments prepared any ways to deal with it?

(iii) Apart from handing out cleaning packs, did FEHD have any other policies and measures to cope with Wuhan pneumonia?

56. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong said that he had noticed that DH and HA did not send representatives to attend the meeting. Therefore, he agreed to Mr. YAM Kai-bong’s suggestion to hand the agenda item over to HESC for follow-up actions, while representatives of DH and HA should be invited to attend the meeting. 57. Mr. Nick LAM’s comments were as follows:

(i) The Government should step up publicity work. When the Government promulgated anti-epidemic measures, the details were usually explained by officials only. He suggested that the Government draw on its previous experience in inviting celebrities to shoot a promotional video featuring “stopping violence and curbing disorder” before the last DC election, and invite celebrities to shoot a promotional video on anti-epidemic measures so as to enhance the effectiveness of

- 16 -

publicity work.

(ii) The Government should announce the ins and outs of the entire Wuhan pneumonia incident in a highly transparent manner. He agreed with the Government that a lot of fake news was circulating in society. He gave an example of the fake news, which was still circulating nowadays, that the SARS virus in 2003 had been introduced into the Mainland from Hong Kong. The Government had the responsibility to set things right by telling the public the truth. Although the public had very little trust in the Government of Hong Kong at present, the Government was nonetheless duty-bound to reveal the truth. Even if it would be scolded by the public, it should remain committed to performing its duties.

58. Mr. AU Chun-wah said that the Mainland had been covering up the epidemic, and it was not until last night that the news had come to light after the expert team had inspected the relevant locations. While it had been said previously that human-to-human transmission was impossible, experts had now pointed out that it was highly possible. While it had been said that there was no community outbreak, some healthcare workers were currently confirmed to have been infected. As the Mainland had covered up the epidemic, it was not possible for Hong Kong to grasp the situation of the outbreak and take preventive and control measures accordingly. He hoped that the Government would not repeat the mistakes it had made during the SARS outbreak. He understood that the Government had rushed to implement relevant preventive and control measures. However, he still hoped that the departments could send officials to attend the meeting and communicate with DC Members. By doing so, DC Members would be able to catch up on the news in greater detail and inform the public, thereby increasing transparency. As such, the public would not suffer losses due to the fake news circulating in society. He hoped that the Secretariat could relay his views to the departments concerned. 59. Ms. Olive CHAN’s comments were as follows:

(i) Having received a lot of different information, members of the public had many doubts about the Wuhan pneumonia epidemic. In addition, with many residents going to hospital every day, she suggested that Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital (“Nethersole Hospital”) arrange for a visit to the hospital for all DC Members such that they could understand how the hospital coped with the Wuhan pneumonia epidemic, including the isolation wards and the procedures for admitting patients suspected of being infected with Wuhan pneumonia, etc. This would enable DC Members to help clear the doubts among the public.

(ii) At present, members of the public were going everywhere to scramble for face masks. Some face masks were even priced exorbitantly at over $400 for each box containing 50 face masks. She opined that the Government should purchase face

- 17 -

masks and distribute them to people in need via DC Members or other channels.

(iii) Regarding Mr. Nick LAM’s suggestion to invite celebrities to shoot promotional videos, she opined that the DC Members at the meeting were so reputed that the Government might consider inviting them to shoot promotional videos on anti-epidemic measures in collaboration with Nethersole Hospital, with a view to enhancing publicity and raising public awareness of good hygiene.

60. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai’s comments were as follows:

(i) He had written to three departments to ask them to send officials to attend this meeting, but none of these departments sent representatives to the meeting. He felt deeply sorry and disappointed. This issue was closely related to people’s livelihood. He opined that the departments only added the word “enhance” to each of his suggestions, such as “enhance hygiene measures” and “enhance risk communication” and so on, without responding properly but rather perfunctorily. He hoped that the departments concerned could explain their work in detail to the public.

(ii) Wuhan pneumonia was not only closely related to Tai Po residents, but was also associated with immigration matters. If DC’s discussion on immigration matters was regarded as an ultra vires act, then discussing matters about Wuhan pneumonia was also an ultra vires act. He hoped that the CS could explain whether DC violated the law every time it discussed immigration matters.

61. Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang said that he hoped the departments concerned would put more effort in conveying the message to the public that it was necessary to wear a mask when feeling sick. He had learnt from news reports that some members of the public wearing masks on public transport had their masks taken off forcibly by those who were sick. He hoped that the Government would not refrain from conveying the message of wearing masks to the public because of some sensitive issues (such as the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation). 62. Mr. TAM Yi-pui’s comments were as follows:

(i) He hoped that the Government would not turn face masks into scare resources because of political issues such as the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation.

(ii) He suggested using DC funds to purchase face masks for distribution to the public, which would be more meaningful than handing out seasonal delicacies.

63. The Chairman said that before the meeting, he had discussed with the Secretariat how to use the remaining DC funds, and would continue to take follow-up actions.

- 18 -

64. Mr. LAI Siu-kwong responded as follows:

(i) FEHD had stepped up the effort to clean its facilities immediately after the emergence of Wuhan pneumonia, using 1:99 diluted bleach to clean the floor, walls, large rubbish bins and handrails in various places such as public markets, cooked food centres, hawker bazaars, public toilets and refuse collection points. FEHD had also disseminated information to the catering sector, reminding the persons-in-charge of eateries to keep their premises and equipment clean and maintain food hygienic at all times. Stall owners were also advised to clean their stalls thoroughly. FEHD had also written to the stall owners and food premises licensees in its markets and cooked food centres, reminding them to pay attention to the hygiene of their premises and clean them thoroughly to prevent the new infectious disease.

(ii) During the year-end clean-up campaign on 31 December 2019, FEHD had stepped up its cleaning efforts and law enforcement actions in all districts in Hong Kong, with a view to improving environmental hygiene. The year-end clean-up campaign included the implementation of targeted measures in markets, cooked food centres, hawker bazaars, public toilets, refuse collection points, and blackspots where littering and other crimes were common (such as old tenement buildings, streets, back alleys, village houses and construction sites). Meanwhile, temporary waste collection points had been set up for the public to dispose of large household waste. In general, FEHD hoped to improve environmental hygiene and step up the effort to sanitise and inspect its facilities wherever possible. On the other hand, the department had also strengthened law enforcement actions by, for example, issuing fixed penalty notices to those involved in littering, spitting, illegal posting of bills and posters, dirtying public places by feeding wild pigeons or birds, fouling of streets by dog faeces, etc.

65. The Chairman said that a Member had just suggested inspecting Nethersole Hospital to find out how it was coping with the epidemic. He asked the Secretariat to make the arrangements. (Post-meeting note: Having contacted HA after the meeting, the Secretariat was informed that Nethersole Hospital had tightened its infection control measures and therefore could not arrange any inspection for DC Members.) 66. Mr. YAM Kai-bong said that as there was a shortage of face masks in the market at present and cleaners had to work in a dirty environment, he asked whether frontline staff had sufficient protective equipment.

- 19 -

67. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He worried that the inspection of the hospital by DC Members might disturb the work of healthcare workers, and that the hospital would be hindered from carrying out the anti-epidemic work if it had to arrange for the inspection. He opined that they could discuss the arrangements for the inspection, but it was not necessary to inspect isolation wards.

(ii) At present, many people still believed that it was not necessary to wear masks when they got sick. He hoped that government departments could publicise to the public the importance of wearing masks.

(iii) He asked why passengers who entered Hong Kong from Wuhan by Express Rail Link were not required to fill out the health declaration form, while travellers who entered Hong Kong via the airport were required to do so. He wondered whether such arrangements were reasonable. In addition, he wondered whether taking body temperature alone could effectively stop the entry of travellers suspected of being infected with Wuhan pneumonia.

68. Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang said that the SARS outbreak back then had originated from the drainage pipes of a housing estate in Kowloon Bay. He asked whether FEHD would work with other departments to enhance the cleaning of public toilets and sewage systems. 69. Mr. Richard CHAN urged the Government to seriously consider - for the sake of the public’s well-being - shelving the appeal against the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, and encourage the public to wear masks as a preventive measure against the disease. 70. Ms. Olive CHAN said that she understood healthcare workers were very busy, so she agreed to shorten the inspection itinerary so as not to disturb their work. However, she opined that Members should inspect and give advice to Nethersole Hospital before confirmed cases of Wuhan pneumonia were found there. It was because once the hospital had confirmed cases, Members would not be able to find out the situation there in person and offer their opinions. 71. The Vice-chairman said that compared with their Wuhan counterparts who went to hospital for treatment in full protective equipment, Hong Kong citizens had weaker awareness of epidemic prevention. He believed that healthcare workers were very scared, but there were not enough protective measures for them. He hoped that DC could help relay their views to the hospital so that they could be better prepared for the fight. In addition, as he had heard of some rumours about isolation wards, he hoped that the hospital inspection could be arranged for DC Members as soon as possible.

- 20 -

72. Mr. LAI Siu-kwong responded as follows:

(i) In early December 2019, FEHD had asked the staff of the department and its cleaning contractors to wear masks when doing the cleaning, and had checked whether the department’s reserves were sufficient. In mid-December 2019, the department had handed out masks and other items to the cleaning workers again, and asked the contractors to provide masks for their staff. Contractors which had any difficulties in purchasing masks had to report to FEHD. At present, FEHD’s office in Tai Po District had sufficient masks for its staff.

(ii) Since the outbreak of Wuhan pneumonia, FEHD had stepped up the efforts to clean and sanitise the public toilets and refuse collection points under its purview. For example, it had enhanced the cleaning of walls, floors, large rubbish bins, door handles and handrails, and had been keeping track of the developments in the outbreak and the cleanliness in the community.

73. Mr. AU Chun-ho said that there were eight new confirmed cases of Wuhan pneumonia in Shenzhen and three in Zhuhai. He hoped that the Government could raise the public awareness of epidemic prevention as soon as possible. 74. The Chairman said that he would continue to follow up on the issue after the meeting, and would invite the departments concerned to attend HESC meetings for further discussion. In addition, Nethersole Hospital should arrange for DC Members to inspect the anti-epidemic measures in the hospital at an appropriate time, so as not to disturb the work there.

II. Request to set up an inter-departmental working group as soon as possible to deal with issues concerning chemical residues in the community (TPDC Paper No. 3/2020) 75. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had earlier invited FHB, the Environment Bureau and HA to send officials to attend the meeting. In response to Mr. Dalu LIN’s paper, FHB and HA had submitted written replies to the Secretariat (please refer to TPDC Paper Nos. 3a/2020 and 3b/2020), but they both stated that they were unable to attend the meeting, while the written reply from the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) had been tabled (please refer to Annex I to the minutes) for Members’ reference. 76. Mr. Dalu LIN said that as the issue concerned involved the functions of different departments, Members had asked the departments concerned to set up an inter-departmental working group to deal with it. However, the departments’ replies fell short of addressing any single request from Members. Members were unhappy with the information released by FHB

- 21 -

about a month ago, and that was why they had sent the above letter and proposed this agenda item. However, the responses of the bureau and authority concerned to the letter were the same as the ones given a month ago. Wording like “regretful” was not enough to express his disappointment. He went on to introduce Paper No. 3/2020. 77. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that he hoped that all government departments would dissociate themselves from HKPF as soon as possible. Members called for the establishment of an inter-departmental working group because FEHD’s frontline cleaners, in spite of being under-equipped, had to remove the chemical residues of tear gas for the people of Hong Kong, which was no different from pushing them to the brink of death. He hoped that the government departments which had conscience and a sense of justice could pay attention to the safety and health of frontline cleaners. 78. Mr. HO Wai-lam raised the following views:

(i) FHB’s reply did not provide the information which DC Members would like to have. As HKPF had fired tear gas indiscriminately and caused unnecessary injuries to residents, government departments had to disclose the chemical composition of tear gas and other weapons, and how to remove the chemical residues effectively. Unlike what the department had claimed, he opined that these chemical residues could not be removed simply by washing. He had consulted some professionals who had pointed out that the residues could not be washed off in the usual way.

(ii) The department also had to explain to what extent the chemical residues could harm the human body and the environment. Many residents had asked him for help, saying that many children who had passed by or lived near the areas hard hit by HKPF’s tear gas had developed rashes, redness and painful swelling on the skin. There were about 10 such cases, and the situation was very serious. Their parents were heartbroken but had no way to complain. He, too, felt deeply saddened. He asked how residents could claim compensation if they developed complications (such as cancer) a few years later due to the chemical residues of tear gas. HKPF had to disclose the chemical composition of the weapons it used, so as to let the public know whether it had used tear gas or poison gas grenades.

79. Mr. Patrick MO said that he was a teacher, and the school where he taught was near the site of the major clash in another district. To cope with the impact of tear gas residues, the school had arranged janitors to work overtime continuously to clean the premises. Meanwhile, many parents (especially of junior students) were deeply worried about whether their children would be affected by inhaling the chemical residues. To his understanding, many schools had used funding to purchase more than ten medical-grade air purifiers, which cost at least $10,000 each. Tai Po Tai

- 22 -

Wo Road was the main area in the district where tear gas had been fired, and there were also several schools and welfare organisations in the vicinity. As such, he hoped that departments concerned could consider providing additional recurring expenses for schools and welfare organisations to purchase air purifiers, with a view to reducing the impact of tear gas on the health of the students and the users of the organisations. 80. Mr. AU Chun-wah raised the following views:

(i) After HKPF had fired tear gas, the tear gas canisters would be left on the ground. He opined that these canisters required special treatment, and HKPF had to collect them by themselves. However, FEHD’s cleaners treated these canisters as ordinary refuse. The protective equipment they used during the cleaning was also very simple, with only labour gloves that offered inadequate protection. Nevertheless, the Government still insisted that there was not any problem. He opined that cleaners should wear equipment specially for handling chemicals. FEHD had the responsibility to provide frontline staff with sufficient equipment and the equipment for handling chemicals. He also suggested that an ad hoc team for special clean-up work should be deployed to places where rallies had been held or tear gas had been fired, so as to ensure the safety of cleaners.

(ii) HKPF had fired tear gas incessantly on Tai Po Tai Wo Road. On one occasion, it had fired tear gas upwards onto the podium and into the flats of housing estates, which was way over the top. A television station had found out during its interviews that tear gas canisters had been fired into the flat of a member of the public. Having no idea how to remove the chemical residues, the owner had to sell the flat. The television station then assisted in checking for the residues in the flat, and found that the residues still remained inside. However, the Government had not taught the public how to remove the residues.

(iii) The tear gas fired incessantly by HKPF on Tai Po Tai Wo Road had caused allergies in many young children aged five or below. Even if the windows of the flats were shut, the tear gas could still waft into the flats through the common corridors, and then it would have no way out. The tear gas would not go away unless all flats on the same floor had their doors and windows all opened at the same time, provided that the air was well circulated. Otherwise, the smell would remain for one to two weeks. The Government had stated that there was no problem with tear gas, which was obviously a lie. As HKPF would not stop firing tear gas at once, he hoped that the Government could draw up guidelines as soon as possible to let the public know what remedial measures could be taken after tear gas was fired, and to offer protection to cleaners.

- 23 -

81. The Vice-chairman raised the following views:

(i) HKPF had fired an enormous number of tear gas rounds in various districts in Hong Kong within a short period of time. In Tai Po District, numerous rounds of tear gas had also been fired in a certain week in November 2019. People were worried if their society would have to bear the serious consequences of tear gas residues 10 or 20 years later. In the past, the Mainland had been criticised for covering up news about viruses and epidemics. At present, however, the Government of Hong Kong was not doing any better. Healthcare workers had no idea how to treat people affected by tear gas. He believed that a responsible government should disclose the composition of tear gas as soon as possible, so that the public could find ways to cope with it.

(ii) Members had written to the departments concerned two weeks ago to call for the establishment of an inter-departmental working group as soon as possible to deal with the problem of chemical residues from tear gas. However, FHB had replied that the impact of tear gas on human’s health depended on various factors, such as the specific chemical composition in tear gas. When Members asked the Government about the chemical composition of tear gas, FHB responded that it had to look at the specific chemical composition of tear gas, the duration of exposure and the dosage, before the impact could be determined. Such response was complete nonsense and totally failed to answer Members’ question. The Government should disclose the composition of tear gas and provide information on its basic elements, such as the ingredients that caused nausea and dizziness. This was all about conscience and commitment that were basically required of a government. It would be terrible for a government to allow the public to keep worrying. In November, he had also been hit by a tear gas round under the footbridge outside Yata Department Store in Tai Po. As he did not know how to handle the clothes contaminated by tear gas, he had no choice but to throw them away, feeling extremely helpless and indignant. He hoped that the representatives of the departments concerned would relay Members’ views to the Administration and set up an inter-departmental working group for follow-up actions.

82. Mr. Nick LAM said that Tai Po Market was less affected by tear gas than other parts of Tai Po. However, some residents living in Tai Po Market were still very worried as to whether the tear gas would be spread through the air to the vicinity, thus affecting their health. Although the data released by EPD indicated that there was no problem with the air quality, not all members of the public had sufficient scientific knowledge to interpret the data. He suggested that FEHD carry out high-profile cleaning work in and around areas where tear gas had been fired, so as to make it clear to the public that the Government was serving them.

- 24 -

83. Mr. TAM Yi-pui raised the following views:

(i) HKPF had used British-made tear gas containing charcoal powder in the past, but it had switched to Chinese-made tear gas containing magnesium or aluminium powder. The tear gas containing magnesium or aluminium powder could produce tremendous heat. At high temperatures, CS (known scientifically as 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile) would be heated up to produce organic chlorides. According to the information on the internet, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, cyanides, nitrogen oxide, etc. would likely be produced too. In addition to disclosing the composition of tear gas, HKPF also had to explain the adverse impact of the gas given out by the breakdown of CS when Chinese-made tear gas was subject to high temperatures.

(ii) When dealing with mass rallies, it was not necessary for HKPF to use powerful weapons to disperse crowds which could cause far-reaching damage to the community. He considered it very important to invite HKPF to attend the meeting and review its guidelines for the use of chemical weapons.

(iii) The reply from EPD mainly addressed the impact of suspended particulates on the overall air quality. However, suspended particulates could remain indoors for several weeks or months. In addition to explaining what suspended particulates were, EPD should also disclose the concentrations of the chemical substances mentioned above.

84. Ms. Olive CHAN raised the following views:

(i) She opined that the reason why the hospital chief executive of Nethersole Hospital did not attend this meeting was that he had no idea about the chemical composition of tear gas. Even if people affected by tear gas went to hospital for treatment, the healthcare workers did not know how to provide appropriate treatment.

(ii) In its reply, EPD only cited the data on the suspended particulates detected at air quality monitoring stations. However, the data did not reflect the toxicity of tear gas and failed to answer the questions raised by DC Members. At present, there was no dioxin monitor across the globe because no one had expected that such a large amount of tear gas could be fired in a region, resulting in a massive quantity of dioxins that polluted the environment. She asked what EPD could do to monitor the concentration of dioxins.

(iii) In paragraph 4 of its written reply, FHB indicated that “members of the public should leave the places affected by tear gas as soon as possible”. She pointed out that HKPF had given warnings only ten minutes or so before it fired tear gas. She wondered how the public could leave the potentially affected area in such a short

- 25 -

period of time. It had also been indicated in the said reply that water and soap could be used to clean places exposed to tear gas. However, having been hit by pepper spray, she found it impossible to wash it off completely, and the stingling sensation had lasted for a whole day. In addition, the written reply also instructed the public to switch off their air conditioners. However, as the air was circulating, the chemical residues had already entered the air conditioners. As the summer was around the corner, members of the public would switch on the air conditioners. It was unknown whether the residues would undergo chemical reactions again and produce toxic gases that might be inhaled by the public. Paragraph 6 of the reply indicated that the department advised the public to consult professional healthcare workers. However, she wondered how healthcare workers could provide proper treatment if they did not even have a clear idea about the chemical composition of tear gas. None of the three written replies submitted by the departments concerned provided any information that Members would like to know. She hoped that the departments would not continue to harbour and cover up HKPF’s behaviours. There was no use covering them up because problems had already arisen.

85. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho raised the following views:

(i) The reply from the departments concerned appeared to be a refusal to set up an inter-departmental working group to deal with the chemical residues of tear gas. If someone developed serious complications in the future due to the chemical residues, he wondered whether the departments concerned would take full responsibility.

(ii) He hoped that the Secretariat would hand the minutes of this meeting over to HKPF, and specify that HKPF had to respond to the views put forward by DC Members.

(iii) FHB replied that currently there was limited information and literature about the long-term impacts of tear gas on the human body. That was why Members requested FHB to disclose the information. However, FHB gave no response.

(iv) Tear gas was used to disperse crowds and protesters, rather than to do harm to their health. After tear gas had been fired, every effort should be made to help them recover. Therefore, he did not understand why HKPF had stated that disclosing the composition of tear gas would affect deployment.

(v) He had earlier told FEHD that he hoped it would carry out cleaning work at several locations where tear gas had been fired (including the vicinity of Tai Po Centre and Providence Bay). The department had responded promptly and followed up on the matter proactively. Nevertheless, FEHD currently acted on limited information and followed DH’s report by using fresh water to clean the areas contaminated by tear gas. He did not know whether the cleaning was really effective. Providence

- 26 -

Bay was the residential area closest to the Chinese University of Hong Kong (“CUHK”). A few days after the “Battle of CUHK”, FEHD had carried out cleaning work at Providence Bay, where a strong odour of tear gas was still present after one week. He opined that FEHD alone could not wash off the tear gas residues thoroughly, and it was necessary to set up an inter-departmental working group to deal with the problem. However, the departments concerned had not answered directly as to whether they would set up an inter-departmental working group. He asked TPDO or the Home Affairs Bureau for their views on the setting up of an inter-departmental working group to deal with the chemical residues in the community.

86. Mr. LAW Shau-mong responded as follows:

(i) FEHD was always concerned about the environmental hygiene of public places. It did not only clean the streets on a routine basis, but also provided street cleaning services as soon as possible after large-scale public events. FEHD also cleaned the affected streets more frequently where the road conditions permitted.

(ii) As always, FEHD was highly concerned with the occupational safety and health of frontline staff. In general, staff would be reminded to use disposable cleaning equipment and wear suitable personal protective equipment such as masks, gloves, sleeves and slip-resistant rubber boots wherever possible when cleaning up tear gas residues. Moreover, N95 (or the same level) masks, goggles and hats should be put on if they were deemed necessary in risk assessments. Contaminated surfaces were usually cleansed with a cloth soaked with soapy water, while hot water should not be used in order to avoid evaporation of the residues. FEHD had once again reminded its staff and issued work instructions to the relevant cleaning contractors. For instance, as regards precautions for removing chemical residues, it was stipulated that high-pressure water jets should not be used for cleaning in order to avoid stirring up residual particles. In addition, when cleaning the streets with street washing vehicles, FEHD staff were reminded to shut down the auxiliary engine of the street washing vehicle or adjust the water pressure of the nozzle to the minimum, so as not to stir up residual particles.

87. Mr. Richard CHAN’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He had been shot by a pepper spray. Whenever he washed his hair with his hands in the following week, his hands were still red and swollen.

(ii) Did the unexploded tear gas ammunition and canisters fired by HKPF fall under the articles regulated by the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (Cap. 238)? What

- 27 -

should the FEHD frontline staff do when they found such items? Would the department handle these items with special care?

(iii) Members called for the establishment of an inter-departmental working group to deal with the chemical residues in the community. However, the written replies from the departments concerned failed to respond to their request. Therefore, he asked whether TPDO had the responsibility to liaise with the government departments concerned and coordinate the matter.

(iv) He asked the Secretariat whether Members should propose a resolution on the establishment of the inter-departmental working group.

88. Mr. Dalu LIN’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He asked whether FEHD had drawn up the guidelines for frontline staff to handle tear gas in accordance with the composition of the tear gas used by HKPF. If the department knew the composition of tear gas, why did it not disclose it? If it did not know the composition, on what basis did the department draw up the guidelines?

(ii) FHB’s written reply only called on the public to trust the Government of Hong Kong, but failed to provide evidence that the Government could properly deal with problems arising from the chemical residues in the community. He also wondered whether the guidelines drawn up by FEHD for frontline staff were practicable.

89. Mr. MAN Nim-chi asked the District Officer (Tai Po) about her views on the establishment of an inter-departmental working group. 90. Ms. Eunice CHAN said that as she had mentioned earlier, TPDO and the Secretariat would follow up on DC’s suggestions and resolutions in accordance with the established procedures. If DC Members had reached a consensus and put forward requests at the meeting, TPDO and the Secretariat would relay DC’s requests to the departments concerned after the meeting. If DC Members would like to obtain further information and opined that certain departments had to attend the meeting, TPDO and the Secretariat would also take follow-up actions in a truthful manner. 91. The Chairman suggested that the District Officer (Tai Po) relay DC Members’ requests and the unanswered questions at the meeting to HKPF and the departments concerned. 92. Mr. LAW Shau-mong responded as follows:

(i) The guidelines for the removal of chemical residues were issued by the FEHD

- 28 -

headquarters to all districts in Hong Kong. The Tai Po District Environmental Hygiene Office of FEHD did not have any information on the composition of tear gas.

(ii) The aforementioned guidelines stipulated that staff who found ammunition, shell cases, dangerous goods or chemical waste had to notify their supervisors immediately, and the supervisors would refer the cases to HKPF or relevant departments for follow-up actions.

93. Mr. Richard CHAN asked whether the ammunition or shell cases mentioned in the FEHD’s guidelines were regarded as controlled items regulated by the laws of Hong Kong. If shell cases were a controlled item regulated by law, the department’s staff should report to HKPF whenever they saw them, and let HKPF seize them. If the FEHD’s frontline staff picked up the shell cases or ammunition before informing their supervisors, how should the supervisors judge whether to report to HKPF or not? 94. Mr. LAW Shau-mong said that he could not provide the information for the time being, and would enquire the relevant personnel at the Tai Po District Environmental Hygiene Office after the meeting. 95. The Chairman asked FEHD to provide supplementary information on the above matter at the next DC meeting. 96. The Vice-chairman said that Section 30 of Chapter 238 of the Laws of Hong Kong stipulated that licences were required for conveying arms and ammunition or removal thereof from Hong Kong, and not everyone (including the frontline staff of the department) could remove ammunition. Even if the ammunition had been fired, it was still ammunition. In the past, there had been some cases in which someone was arrested for picking up and removing shell cases near the firing ranges of the People’s Liberation Army. Therefore, he asked whether the FEHD’s supervisors would ask HKPF for help whenever they found shell cases, and let HKPF seize all the shell cases; or whether the FEHD’s frontline staff would pick them up by themselves. 97. Ms. Olive CHAN’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) As tear gas canisters had been contaminated, they would pollute the environment if dumped arbitrarily at refuse collection points. Therefore, she asked whether FEHD had any guidelines for handling tear gas canisters.

(ii) To ensure the safety of families, it was reasonable to discard items contaminated by tear gas.

- 29 -

98. Mr. LAW Shau-mong said that the department would remind frontline staff to follow the relevant guidelines. If they found any items suspected to be ammunition and shell cases, they had to inform their supervisors immediately. He would provide the relevant statistics after the meeting. 99. The Chairman asked how FEHD would deal with tear gas canisters, such as whether they would be discarded, returned to HKPF or sent to landfills. 100. Mr. LAW Shau-mong said that he could not provide accurate information on this question for the time being. 1 0 1 . The Chairman asked FEHD to answer the questions in writing after the meeting, and send the replies to DC Members via the Secretariat. He also asked the Secretariat to forward the minutes of the meeting to the departments concerned, including HKPF, so that they could respond to and clarify the issues raised by DC Members.

III. Discussion of matters about retaining the Tai Po Lennon Wall (Pedestrian subway Nos. NS142, NS142A, NS156, NS157) (TPDC Paper No. 4/2020) 102. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had earlier invited the Highways Department (“HyD”) to attend the meeting. HyD stated that it was only responsible for the maintenance of subways, and FEHD would submit a written reply about this agenda item, so HyD would not attend this meeting. He asked Members to refer to the FEHD’s written reply which had been tabled (please refer to Annex II to the minutes). 103. The Vice-chairman went through Paper No. 4/2020. 104. Mr. LAI Siu-kwong said that the written reply tabled was a consolidated view suggested by five departments, namely FEHD, HyD, the Transport Department (“TD”), LandsD and HKPF, upon careful assessment. Members of the public had different views on the Lennon Wall. Incidents involving environmental hygiene, fighting, injuries and arson had also taken place there. Moreover, the personal data of police officers and others posted on the Lennon Wall was an invasion of privacy, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data had also received complaints about it. Therefore, the departments believed that the image of Hong Kong would be affected. In addition, the Lennon Wall, situated near Tai Po Market Mass Transit Railway (“MTR”) Station and a transport interchange and next to cycling tracks, was frequented by many pedestrians. People who went there to put up bills and posters containing personal

- 30 -

opinions would affect other road users. Moreover, since June 2019, the departments had received some 600 complaints about the Lennon Wall. Despite the importance of voicing opinions, the Lennon Wall would intensify conflicts between people with different views in society when they all wanted to express their opinions. Therefore, under the current situation, it was not appropriate to retain the Lennon Wall. 105. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong’s comments were as follows:

(i) The Lennon Wall issue was about the use of public space. Residents’ discussion on the use of public space was a process of community empowerment. Only anti-democratic governments would regard this type of acts as scourges and do everything possible to suppress and annihilate them.

(ii) Since the Lennon Tunnel came into existence near Tai Po Market MTR Station in July 2019, many members of the public putting up posters had been attacked by unknown people, but no law enforcement actions had been taken. Meanwhile, when more than a hundred people brought equipment to the Lennon Tunnel in the early morning hours and put up the national flag there, no law enforcement actions had been taken either. The series of chaos and environmental hygiene problems were caused by double standards and unfair law enforcement of the Government. The written reply given by FEHD just now was literally an attempt to pass the buck. Moody’s Investors Service, a credit rating agency, had not downgraded Hong Kong’s credit rating because of the Lennon Wall, but the Government’s improper handling of the issue. In paragraph (i) of the paper, FEHD stated that the Lennon Wall would lead to serious environmental hygiene problems, citing the example of the Lennon Wall’s being smeared with excrement on 29 August. However, on the day when stools had been maliciously splashed onto the Lennon Wall, it was volunteers who cleaned up the dirt whereas FEHD’s staff had never showed up. This was an example of the Government’s “inaction”, double standards and selective approaches.

(iii) Before the meeting, he had conducted a consultation in the district on the Lennon Tunnel. Many residents hoped to retain the Lennon Wall because it contained the voice of numerous Hong Kong people and Tai Po residents. The Lennon Wall did not divide them, but gave them comfort and motivation. Some companions who had once felt gloomy had regained their strength and given up suicidal thoughts thanks to the Lennon Wall. The Lennon Tunnel embodied the solidarity and mutual support among the people of Tai Po. He asked whether any government officials had visited there to appreciate the meaning of the Lennon Wall.

(iv) The Lennon Wall was also about the use of public spaces. Many art groups, artists and painters in the district had told him that they hoped to use public places such as

- 31 -

the Lennon Wall to exhibit their works. The problems mentioned by FEHD, such as the proximity to cycling tracks and the large number of pedestrians during peak hours, were all management problems, which could be resolved by management tactics. For example, FEHD could carry out cleaning work every month or impose measures to prohibit the display of bills next to cycling tracks. By doing so, the problems could be resolved. However, the Government invoked the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance to deploy riot police to suppress those putting up posters, conduct searches and issue penalty notices, which was not a rational way to discuss how public spaces should be used. Part of the Lennon Tunnel was managed by HyD, which nevertheless did not attend this meeting. The Hong Kong Lennon Wall drew reference from the Lennon Wall that had been set up in the Czech Republic as a way to oppose the regime at that time. It provided the public with the most peaceful way to express opinions and alleviate dissatisfaction with the government. If the Government could not even accept post-it notes and posters, he would hardly expect that the Government would listen to the public. He hoped that all government departments would think about how to improve management so as to resolve the aforementioned management problems, such as environmental hygiene, which were only trivial. What mattered most was to provide the public with room to express their views, rather than annihilating all peaceful means of expression. Otherwise, our society would only be pushed to the extreme.

106. Mr. YAM Kai-bong’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) The citizens and young people of the Czech Republic had set up the Lennon Wall in 1988 to express their views to the then totalitarian government in a peaceful and rational manner. They had expressed their views on the wall in the face of the military regime. Nowadays, the voice of the public was posted in some tunnels in various districts of Hong Kong. When members of the public voiced their opinions, why did the Government not listen to them and what was it afraid of? Even if the public could not make their voice heard by the Government, they could somehow release their emotions. The CE had said that she would like to have more communication with the public, but she had held only one consultation session and nothing else. How could the public express their views to the Government?

(ii) FEHD tabled its written reply during the meeting in the hope of muddling through the issue, rendering mutual communication and quality, rational discussions impossible. The refusal to manage the Lennon Wall would only prolong the destruction mentioned by the department and the conflicts between people with different views, and would even lead to clashes between HKPF and the public. FEHD was supposed to take law enforcement actions against illegal display of bills

- 32 -

on the streets. At present, however, members of the public who put up post-it notes on the Lennon Wall would be treated brutally by police officers. He asked if it meant that the law enforcement actions against the display of bills were taken over by HKPF instead.

(iii) In addition, the department refused to retain the Lennon Wall on the grounds of large pedestrian flow. Exactly because of this governance philosophy which the Government of Hong Kong adopted, all petition areas in the territory were located far away from the targets of petitions. He pointed out that the purpose of the Lennon Wall was to allow the public to express their views in a place where they passed by every day. It would be meaningless to set up the Lennon Wall at a deserted place. He hoped that the Government could make proper arrangements, such as conducting monthly clean-up operations at the Lennon Wall to resolve hygiene problems. This would not only allow the coexistence of the views of different people, but also retain the Lennon Wall while keeping it under control. Prohibiting the public from displaying slogans under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance alone was to evade problems, rather than eliminating public outrage. There could be many reasons against the retention of the Lennon Wall. However, there was only one reason in support of the retention, which was to make the public’s voice heard and allow the public to express their views in the most peaceful manner. He hoped that the departments concerned could work with DC Members to think about how to retain the Lennon Wall, instead of tearing it down once and for all.

107. The Chairman said that he had earlier seen hawkers selling stir-fried chestnuts in the subway near Tai Po Market MTR Station. Not only did they affect the air quality in the subway, but they also caused danger and nuisance to the public. He hoped that FEHD would deal with the problem. 108. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) The above written reply was a consolidated view of five departments. He asked which department had taken the lead and written the reply. In addition, it had been very rare in the past for several departments to make a joint reply. He wondered whether this arrangement was made because none of the departments wanted to take responsibility.

(ii) The Lennon Wall was created by the Czech people to commemorate the assassination of John Lennon. Many lyrics of the songs of the Beatles were posted on the wall to disseminate the message of peace and express dissatisfaction with the regime. The original intention was to allow anyone to express their thoughts and

- 33 -

views freely. The departments indicated that the Lennon Wall involved such problems as invasion of privacy, contamination by excrement and arson. However, the contamination by excrement and arson were malicious damage. He said that, for example, if the same logic applied to any shops and facilities that were damaged or smeared with excrement, they would all have to be closed and should not be retained. That was unreasonable. When some members of the public disseminated information and expressed their views on current affairs through the Lennon Wall, those with opposite views would tear the labels off the wall. Then, members of the public would put up new labels again. Conflicts occurred whenever the two parties met, but the Government did nothing to stop them. Therefore, he hoped that the Government could take up the management.

(iii) Some Members suggested drawing reference from the democracy walls at universities, where everyone was allowed to express any opinions on the wall, and the opinions were removed on a regular basis. People who had read the opinions could make their own judgements, and the responsible departments would regularly review and remove any labels involving the invasion of privacy. Strictly speaking, tearing others’ property constituted criminal damage. Hence, if the Government could take up the management in compliance with the law, the conflicts between people with different views could be reduced. Some members of the public who expressed their opinions on the Lennon Wall had been threatened and intimidated by police officers, and some off-duty police officers had been arrested for expressing their views on the Lennon Wall. The Lennon Wall allowed everyone to express their opinions. If the Government treated the issue with indifference, the conflicts would only continue to intensify.

109. Mr. Richard CHAN said that the Vice-chairman had sent a letter on 6 January on behalf of a number of DC Members regarding the Lennon Wall issue. He believed that the Secretariat had forwarded the letter to FEHD, HyD, TD, LandsD and HKPF, and that the District Officer (Tai Po) and other government departments had offered considerable assistance to the functioning of DC. Therefore, he did not accept the paper tabled at this meeting as an official response from the departments. On this premise, DC Members who had proposed an agenda item generally hoped that the government departments would send officials to attend the meeting for discussion. Regardless of their views on the agenda item, the departments concerned should send officials to attend the meeting. Therefore, as he could not accept the aforementioned written reply, it meant that except for FEHD, TD and LandsD that had sent representatives to attend this meeting, all other departments that did not send representatives to attend the meeting (namely HyD and HKPF) did not have strong objections to this agenda item. As such, he moved an impromptu motion as follows: “Expressing gratitude to HKPF and HyD for making no objections to the retention of the Tai Po Lennon Wall”.

- 34 -

110. Regarding the paper tabled by the departments, Mr. TAM Yi-pui raised the following views:

(i) Items (i) and (iv) of the paper indicated that the Lennon Wall had led to fights and divisions. He opined that the fights and divisions were caused by political disputes in society, and they had little to do with the Lennon Wall.

(ii) Item (iii) of the paper was a management problem, which could be resolved by management tactics. The labels put up on the wall should not cause any obstruction to bicycles.

(iii) Although he agreed with item (ii) of the paper as regards the invasion of privacy, he did not agree that the Lennon Wall would affect Hong Kong’s international image. He agreed with Mr. WU Yiu-cheong’s view that the Lennon Wall was a public space. The Lennon Wall in the Czech Republic had become a tourist attraction at present. He said that in 1968, some liberal socialists in the communist party of Czechoslovakia had launched the Prague Spring in the hope of promoting freedom of speech, democracy and public engagement. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union responded with relentless suppression by deploying tanks. He said that if the Soviet Union had not resorted to suppression or if the hard-liners in the communist party had dealt with the situation properly and carried out democratic reforms, the Lennon Wall would have disappeared in the most desirable way. He hoped that the government officials at this meeting could learn from history and reflect on the implications of the above historical event.

111. The Vice-chairman’s comments were as follows:

(i) The paper tabled by the department was an absurd conclusion based on fallacious logic, and he was very angry about it. According to the paper, the Lennon Wall would provoke people with different views in society and make our society even more divided. He opined that the behaviours of HKPF were what made our society more divided. Since June 2019, HKPF had used tear gas to disperse peaceful protesters and demonstrators on numerous occasions, resulting in a belief among the public that peaceful protests and demonstrations were useless. Some members of the public had no choice but to express their views by writing on post-it notes instead. However, the Government still suppressed them, depriving them of the opportunity to voice their opinions. If the public believed that the Government was implementing good policies, the Lennon Wall would be filled with praises for the Government. The criticism of the Government that appeared on the Lennon Wall at present reflected the tyranny currently practised by the Government. The Government should take it as advice and improve its governance rather than resorting to suppression and prohibition that deprived the public of the opportunity

- 35 -

to voice their opinions.

(ii) Item (i) of the paper indicated that there had been hygienic problems, such as the splashing of excretion, at the Lennon Wall. However, the hygiene problems at the Lennon Wall were precisely the reason why the issue was included in this meeting for discussion on ways to manage and retain the Lennon Wall properly. The problem would not be resolved by not retaining the Lennon Wall. He asked whether the Government would like to arrest anyone who put up posters on the wall and walked through the subways, so that the public would communicate only with eye contact but not dare to talk in their daily life.

(iii) Item (ii) of the tabled paper indicated that the privacy of some individuals had been posted on the Lennon Wall. One example was the display of personal information of a police officer in July 2019. In fact, it stemmed from the police officer who had provoked a fight with members of the public. Some people had their privacy disclosed because they had acted shamelessly by hitting members of the public and leaving their heads covered with blood. Had police officers done their job properly without making indiscriminate arrests and using excessive force, their personal information would not have been disclosed by members of the public. Meanwhile, HKPF should also take it as advice. The Government’s attempt to remove the Lennon Wall and stop the public from expressing their views would neither keep Hong Kong’s image as an international society nor maintain social harmony, but was merely creating an illusion of peace. True harmony was achieved only when the public gave heartfelt support to the government that implemented good policies, rather than by giving a decent appearance with the use of superficial elements. Otherwise, it was just putting the cart before the horse.

(iv) Item (iii) of tabled paper indicated that the site was not suitable for retaining the Lennon Wall due to large pedestrian flow. He said that the Lennon Wall was set up at a busy location so that more members of the public could understand the problems currently facing our society and therefore tide over the difficult times together. Had the Government responded to the public’s demands earlier, the Lennon Wall would not have appeared. It was a consequence arising from the Government, which failed to respond to public opinion properly or even disregarded it.

(v) The Lennon Tunnel had come into being in July 2019. It was set up after the public had participated in a number of peaceful marches in June 2019 but ended up being dispersed by HKPF with tear gas. He found it unacceptable that the expression of opinions was suppressed even if it was conducted in a peaceful manner. It was time to discuss how to relieve the unstoppable public opinion, provide the Government with channels for listening to the voice of the public, and adopt targeted measures to promote social harmony and prevent social rifts. If the

- 36 -

Government dealt with the problems by obstructive means, it would not be able to restore social harmony and security, but would only create more violence. This meeting should focus on ways to deal with the above problems properly, so as to provide the public with a channel to express their views appropriately, and to address the issue of the Tai Po Lennon Tunnel in a way acceptable to all parties. The Government should not veto the retention of the Lennon Wall unilaterally without proposing any alternative solutions.

112. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho’s comments were as follows:

(i) The Tai Po District of HKPF had made a written reply to DC that it would not attend this meeting as there was only one agenda item relating to HKPF. However, it contradicted itself by making a joint response with other departments on this agenda item.

(ii) He opined that the first two paragraphs in the tabled paper were illogical and should be written by HKPF. In the paper, there were four reasons against retaining the Lennon Wall, such as fighting to cause injuries and invading the privacy of others, which were exactly the acts committed by some police officers. If the same logic applied, he wondered whether it meant those departments making the joint response all agreed to disband HKPF. While the Government could keep disseminating the message of “stop violence and curb disorder” to incite the public, it did not allow the public to voice their opinions at the Lennon Wall, which was a public space.

(iii) Many newspapers and magazines worldwide had taken photos of the Lennon Walls in various districts of Hong Kong and compared them with the one in the Czech Republic. He opined that the Lennon Wall did not have any adverse impact on Hong Kong’s international image. By contrast, HKPF’s acts had a greater impact on the image of Hong Kong. Therefore, he did not understand the reasons given by the departments against the retention of the Lennon Wall. Not only was the Government of Hong Kong reluctant to listen to public opinion under the existing system, but it did not even agree to the public’s demand for setting up the Lennon Wall.

113. Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang said that if the retention of the Lennon Wall was not endorsed at this meeting, the Lennon Wall would continue to exist nonetheless. The purpose of this agenda item was to discuss how to meet the public’s demand by regulating and retaining the Lennon Wall. HKPF did not handle problems such as arson, fighting and assaults, but dealt with the display of posters on the Lennon Wall. If the Government had managed properly, many problems would not have occurred. If the government departments could not resolve the problems by nullifying public opinion, they should listen to it and seek solutions to the problems.

- 37 -

114. Mr. MAN Nim-chi’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) The layout of the written reply tabled by the departments was very disorganised. He believed that the letter was written by HKPF because police officers neither studied nor work, whereas letters written by other departments in the past were polite and well organised.

(ii) It was stated at the end of the written reply that “for the reasons mentioned above, the Government considers it inappropriate to retain the aforementioned Lennon Wall”. He asked whether the term “Government” referred to the Government of Hong Kong as a whole or the opinions of the five departments above. He found the written reply confusing, and hoped that the Chairman could give some advice. Item (iii) of the paper indicated that “TD believes that some locations may affect other road users”. He showed everyone at the meeting the photos he had taken in the subways concerned the previous night. It could be seen that TD had put up some notices about joint bicycle clearance operations. He asked whether the notices put up by TD affected road users, and how the department judged the extent to which the post-it notes and information put up by the public in the past had affected road users. He wondered if it was legal to display labels as long as no other road users were affected.

115. Ms. Olive CHAN said that the departments concerned tabled the written reply at the meeting in a bid to allow insufficient time for DC Members to respond and prepare. They were not only suppressing DC Members, but also disregarding the role of DC Members as representatives of public opinion. Therefore, she did not acknowledge this paper as a reply from the departments. Furthermore, it had not been specified in the paper by whom the paper was written and who the person-in-charge was. When DC Members would like to make further enquiries, they would not be able to find the person-in-charge. If DC accepted the paper tabled by the departments as a reply today, other government departments might also respond in the same way in future, which was disrespectful to TPDC. In that case. TPDC would no longer have to hold any meetings but discuss by correspondence instead. If the Government did not want the Lennon Wall, the only solution was to listen to public opinion and respond to the public’s aspiration for “five demands, not one less”. 116. Mr. Nick LAM’s comments were as follows:

(i) He was deeply sympathetic to the departments concerned which had been made the meat in the sandwich by the Government and HKPF. Item (iv) of the paper indicated that the Government had received many complaints from the public and users about the location in question. As such, he asked whether the number of

- 38 -

complainants was greater than that of pro-democracy supporters. The Government often mentioned the concept of “silent majority”. However, the results of 2019 DC Election had proven that pro-democracy supporters were the majority indeed. The Government might believe that retaining the Lennon Wall would only satisfy the so-called “yellow ribbons”. However, it should in fact broaden its horizons and consider the overall social interests. The Lennon Wall provided the public with a platform to express their dissatisfaction with the Government. Members of the public with different political views were all allowed to express their views at the Lennon Wall, provided that they respected everyone, did not tear off others’ views and discussed rationally. If the Government demolished the Lennon Wall forcibly, the public would only set up another Lennon Wall somewhere else. Therefore, retaining the Lennon Wall would make it easier for the Government to manage it centrally. If the public found it impossible to sanction someone who deserved to be sanctioned, such as officials who betrayed Hong Kong, police officers who used excessive force and white-clad mobs, they would disclose their personal information as an alternative way to sanction them. The government did not listen to public opinion and continued to oppress the public with structural violence, forcing the public to voice their opinions by various means. When the Government often used the media’s discreditation or foreign intervention as an excuse, it was only adding fuel to the fire.

(ii) While the Government regarded pro-democracy DC Members as enemies, DC Members offered advice to the Government to resolve problems. Mr. LEW Mon-hung, a patriot, also indicated that the Central Government should not regard the pro-democracy camp as enemies so as to restore social harmony. Pro-democracy DC Members suggested that the Government listen to public opinion. However, the Government was too obstinate to do so. To achieve good governance, it was necessary to feel the public pulse and meet public demands so that there would not be opposition to the Government. On 8 January, some masked people ran after members of the public at Lei Muk Shue Estate in Tsuen Wan and attacked them with scrapers, brooms and high-voltage electric guns. According to Ming Pao’s report, HKPF did not arrest anyone on the spot, but only separated the two parties and helped the assailants leave by taxi. It showed that HKPF’s law enforcement actions were unfair. Since the anti-extradition bill movement began in June 2019, incidents involving unfair law enforcement actions had occurred very often. He censured HKPF and the relevant departments for handling issues relating to the Lennon Wall with unfair law enforcement actions, which had sparked public outrage and drawn the attention of international communities. If the Government continued to ignore public opinion, it would have to bear the consequences.

- 39 -

117. Mr. SO Tat-leung said that regarding the reasons given by the departments for not retaining the Lennon Wall, he opined that if the Lennon Wall became official and manageable, the security and hygiene problems would be reduced, and the issues relating to the invasion of privacy could also be managed centrally and effectively. The departments stated that the Lennon Wall would affect social harmony. However, the public would “be made harmonious” if the Lennon Wall was not retained. As regards the impact on Hong Kong’s international image, he opined that Hong Kong could be viewed from two perspectives, namely the people of Hong Kong and the Government of Hong Kong. The international image of the people of Hong Kong was unprecedentedly positive, whereas the image of the Government of Hong Kong was unprecedentedly negative. On average, Hong Kong’s international image remained unaffected. In addition, as could be seen from what had happened over the past six months, the Lennon Wall had not caused any significant impact on traffic. The departments also stated that the Lennon Wall had sparked conflicts between members of the public who had different views, and that was a typical cause-and-effect relationship. He considered it necessary to find out whether the Lennon Wall had led to the different views, or the different views had resulted in the existence of the Lennon Wall. To date, government departments still considered the Lennon Wall as the only tinder in the anti-extradition bill movement, and sought to extinguish it by suggesting various reasons to remove the Lennon Wall. However, the Lennon Wall appeared only because the Government’s public relations personnel or various media outlets had all along failed to express the feelings and views of the public. 118. Mr. AU Chun-wah’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) In general, subways were under the purview of HyD. However, based on the experience in the past six months, subways could be jointly managed by several departments. He asked whether the walls, floor or ceiling of the subways were under the purview of HyD, FEHD or other departments. If the Lennon Wall was retained, DC Members would be able find the departments concerned to deal with issues relating to the subways.

(ii) The Lennon Wall was a peaceful way to express demands. However, the departments stated that the Lennon Wall had given rise to many violent incidents. The departments had to think it over as to whether the violence was caused by freedom of speech or the intolerance of freedom of speech. In addition, the departments also stated that the Lennon Wall would affect Hong Kong’s international image. However, as other DC Members had just mentioned, some countries regarded the Lennon Wall as something glorious and a tourist attraction for the public to express their views. The Lennon Wall had made its mark on the history of the anti-extradition bill movement in Hong Kong, reminding us of the causes of and the problems arising from the movement, as well as those injured and sacrificed because of it. Nevertheless, the Government of Hong Kong did not

- 40 -

want to record this historical event and intended to downplay it, just as how the Chinese Communist Party intended to wipe the June Fourth Incident and what EDB had done to downplay significant events in the curriculum. They did not want the next generation to learn about these events. However, history could not be wiped away.

(iii) In the first few months after the Lennon Wall had come into being, volunteers had taken the initiative to clean the subways in the morning, afternoon and evening by clearing refuse, cleaning with water and removing items that obstructed the road. They manifested the good qualities of the people of Hong Kong. He asked the departments to what extent they believed the Lennon Wall had affected road users. In the first few months of the anti-extradition bill movement, he had often stayed in the Tai Po Lennon Tunnel for several hours at night, hoping to do everything he could to support and protect the residents guarding the Lennon Tunnel. He had witnessed on two occasions that over a hundred people arrived at the Lennon Wall to disperse everyone there, so he called the police. However, HKPF sent no one to the scene until he had called so many times. When police officers arrived, they did not take any action other than merely watching those people leave slowly, and stated that no property was lost or damaged. HKPF also stated that it could do nothing as there were no witnesses and owners. As the people carrying out the dispersion had arrived there by coach, he asked the police officers to jot down the license plate number and the coach driver’s information. Although a police officer replied that the HKPF would handle it, no one had been stopped and searched in that evening. Later, he complained to the Complaints Against Police Office Headquarters, and was told that HKPF was conducting an investigation. However, no results had become available so far. This was not the attitude of proactive investigation and proactive follow-up action like what HKPF had claimed. Due to the absence of HKPF representative at this meeting, the questions he raised could not be answered.

(iv) He requested that Lennon Wall be legalised and regulated for anyone to put up their views without any presumptions so as to respect everyone’s voice. Once the regulated Lennon Wall was established, departments concerned could clean up the area regularly and manage the problem of invasion of privacy. Any views that violated the rules of the Lennon Wall would be cleared legitimately by the departments.

(v) He was understanding towards FEHD, which was responsible for cleaning the Lennon Wall. As FEHD was worried that its staff might have accidents during the clean-up work, he had been maintaining close contact with the superintendents of FEHD to coordinate clean-up operations as early as possible, with a view to reducing conflicts between both parties. The Public Health and Municipal

- 41 -

Services Ordinance was enforced primarily by FEHD, but HKPF also had the authority to enforce it. He had on many occasions asked HKPF to deal with the street obstruction problems caused by the shops at Lane Square in Tai Po and Jade Plaza. However, HKPF had replied that it was mainly responsible for handling criminal cases, and the issue concerned was not its primary duty, whereby shifting the responsibility entirely to FEHD. However, HKPF currently dealt with the Lennon Wall issue in a very proactively manner. He hoped that HKPF could adopt the same attitude in dealing with the illegal street obstruction by shops. As the problem of illegal street obstruction by shops involved interests, in which he wondered if HKPF was involved, and hoped that HKPF could provide reasonable explanations. While he understood that officials in all government departments were under pressure, he hoped that they could do what they should do with their conscience.

119. Mr. AU Chun-ho’s comments were as follows:

(i) It was stated in the reply tabled by the departments that the Lennon Wall would cause serious environmental hygiene problems as well as fighting and injuries. However, he indicated that the volunteers of the Lennon Wall cleaned the subways every day. Apart from the “blue ribbons” who smeared the subways with excrement on purpose, the environment in the subways was often clean and sanitary. In addition, if it were not for the deliberate provocation by the “blue ribbons”, no fighting would have taken place in the Lennon Tunnel. The departments also stated that the Lennon Wall had given rise to problems such as invasion of privacy and personal attacks. However, the police officers who had their privacy disclosed were the ones to behave provocatively first, so it was understandable that their privacy had been disclosed.

(ii) It was also stated in the reply that “the Government did not want to see any more of such violations, which affected social harmony and Hong Kong’s international image.” However, he opined that HKPF’s behaviours had already affected social harmony and Hong Kong’s international image, which had nothing to do with the Lennon Wall. The CE had said that she would listen to public opinion. However, she suppressed public opinion in every single way. He hoped that the other four departments which made the consolidated response with HKPF could listen to constructive advice and support the retention of the Lennon Wall.

120. Mr. Alex KWOK said that the subways, which were government land, were maintained by HyD and managed by several departments which carried out different duties. 121. Mr. KWONG Ka-yin said that it was the official duty of government departments to put up

- 42 -

notices about the clearance of illegally parked bicycles, just as other departments which carried out maintenance and cleaning work. The clearance of illegally parked bicycles in the subways would reduce the impact on road users and allow them to use the road more safely and conveniently. 122. Mr. WONG Siu-kin’s comments were as follows:

(i) He commended the residents who had offered assistance at the Lennon Wall in the past few months. For example, they stayed close to students who were putting up posters on the Lennon Wall so as to ensure their safety. This showed that they were humane.

(ii) The management problems mentioned in the departments’ reply were not the main issues about the Lennon Wall. The reason why the Government did not want to retain the Lennon Wall was that it was more of a political issue than a management one. However, many members of the public wanted to retain the Lennon Wall or set up a permanent Lennon Wall. Under the governance by a government that was not elected by universal suffrage and not widely recognised, the Lennon Wall, once “entering the establishment”, would only become a means for the Government to maintain stability. The idea of “retaining” the Lennon Wall was proposed by those who did not understand the public sentiment and the ins and outs. As the Lennon Wall had been set up spontaneously by the public in the first place, other people had no right to ask whether the Lennon Wall should be retained.

(iii) Some Members believed that setting up a permanent Lennon Wall could reduce conflicts and problems caused by HKPF’s law enforcement actions at the Lennon Wall. However, he opined that HKPF, the “blue ribbons” and the “indigenous communists” would assault anyone they considered as the “yellow ribbons”, and would arrest them for trumped-up charges. He said that, for example, even if the Lennon Wall was legalised and anyone could put up posters on the Lennon Wall, it was still difficult to ensure that HKPF would not make indiscriminate arrests, abuse its power and go out of control at the lawful Lennon Wall. In the absence of democracy and freedom, and under the governance by a government that was not elected by universal suffrage, the Lennon Wall would only be a means of maintaining stability once it “entered the establishment” and became permanent.

123. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that he had brought a high-power flashlight and intended to show it to District Commander (Tai Po) of HKPF, who, however, did not attend this meeting. He showed everyone at the meeting how bright the light from the flashlight was, so as to demonstrate the situation where HKPF used high-power flashlights to aim at people. He opined that the tabled consolidated written reply was written by HKPF. However, HKPF was the last department on the signature list of the letter, so as to use the other departments as a shield. He hoped that the other

- 43 -

departments could keep their eyes open, become aware of the facts, and dissociate themselves from HKPF as soon as possible. If they continue to side with HKPF, they would eventually be loathed by this generation and even subject to international sanctions. 124. Mr. LAI Siu-kwong responded as follows:

(i) He appreciated and noted the views put forward by all DC Members, and would relay them to the departments concerned. After the Lennon Wall had been smeared by excretion on 29 August 2019, he had led FEHD’s staff to visit the site concerned. However, upon their arrival, the volunteers there had done the cleaning, while FEHD’s staff had started to clean the road surfaces immediately. In addition, as the officers of the Fire Services Department were worried that the liquid was corrosive, they also arrived at the scene to follow up on the situation and communicate with FEHD. If there was any environmental hygiene problem, FEHD’s staff would be obliged to deal with it.

(ii) As the consolidated written reply from the aforementioned departments had summarised the views of five departments, it would take some time to process. He had received the above paper at about 8 p.m. last night and sent it to the Secretariat at 10 p.m. Therefore, he could only distribute it to DC Members at this meeting for reference. He would relay the views of DC Members to the departments concerned.

125. Mr. TAM Yi-pui said that he understood Mr. WONG Siu-kin’s concern about the institutionalisation of the Lennon Wall. However, he opined that DC Members were also part of the system. The most important thing was that they had electorate bases, and had to undergo the process of collecting public opinion. He asked Mr. LAI Siu-kwong whether the above departments had discussed the content of the written reply, or a certain department had drafted a template while the other departments only agreed with the content of the template. 126. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that Mr. AU Chun-wah had shot a video which showed a frontline police officer wearing a hat and a mask who said that “as FEHD does not do (the cleaning), I will do it”. He asked Mr. LAI Siu-kwong what he thought about it. Previously, when FEHD used high-pressure water jets to do the cleaning in the Lennon Tunnel, the posters on the wall got wet. Then, the scraps of wet paper fell down the wall and onto the handrails. However, the cleaners just left without clearing them. Therefore, he hoped that FEHD could remind cleaners to pay extra attention when cleaning up the aforementioned area. 127. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong said that during a district consultation on the Lennon Wall he had conducted in the district, many residents expressed that their worry was not about whether they could continue to put up posters, but about their personal safety during the display of posters.

- 44 -

Many police officers and other unknown persons had used violence against people putting up posters. For example, an old woman had been beaten with an umbrella and ended up with bleeding hands. However, as HKPF currently adopted double standards in its law enforcement actions, he could hardly expect that HKPF would enforce the law fair and square. To everyone’s surprise, the first police officer being arrested since June 2019 was due to his putting up posters on the Lennon Wall, which was really ridiculous and pathetic. If the government departments could not provide DC Members with a concrete response as regards the management of the Lennon Wall at this meeting, according to the findings from his district consultation in Tai Po District, he hoped that DC Members would proactively consider including the Lennon Wall in the Signature Project Scheme so that the public space concerned would be managed by local groups and the DC. 128. Mr. Nick LAM said that the Government had stated that it had received many complaints from the public about the Lennon Wall. As such, he asked about the number and content of the complaints. 129. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai said that as HKPF was one of the departments making the above consolidated reply, he wondered why it did not send officers to attend this meeting on the grounds that there was only one agenda item relating to HKPF. He opined that it had blatantly deceived the DC and disregarded public opinion. He also commended the other departmental representatives at the meeting for standing fast at their posts and respecting the DC. 130. The Chairman said that Members had fully expressed their views on the written reply from the above departments, and some Members had also asked whether they should continue to discuss this issue. He found it not necessary to commend any department or decide whether to accept the written reply from the departments. If the government departments chose to continue with their “inaction”, Members should put forward a feasible plan for the management of the Lennon Wall. He suggested passing the issue to the Environmental Protection, Fisheries, Agriculture, Industries, Commerce, Food and Health Committee (“EFAC”) for further follow-up actions. 131. TPDC concurred with the Chairman’s suggestion to pass the above issue to EFAC for further follow-up actions. 132. Mr. Richard CHAN moved an impromptu motion as follows: “Expressing gratitude to HyD and HKPF for making no objections to the retention of the Tai Po Lennon Wall”. 133. The Chairman said that the departments had already suggested in the paper that “the retention was not appropriate”. Therefore, he asked whether there was any contradiction with the impromptu motion moved by Mr. Richard CHAN. 134. Mr. Richard CHAN said that the written reply from the departments was of poor quality.

- 45 -

For example, it did not state any addressee. Moreover, as Mr. LAI Siu-kwong had received it at only 8 p.m. the previous night, he opined that it should not be acknowledged as a reply from the departments. Given that DC did not accept the paper concerned, any department that had objections should send officers to attend the meeting to raise it. The motion was a result of the departments’ failure to attend the meeting, so there was no contradiction. 135. The Chairman said that the impromptu motion would not be accepted if it was not seconded by anyone. 136. Mr. Richard CHAN said that he welcomed other Members to revise his impromptu motion, but hoped that they understood what consequences would arise if government departments did not attend the meeting. Other Members did not have to thank HKPF, and could also revise his motion. However, he hoped that other Members would understand that they should not accept “rubbish” replies. Members’ condemnation alone was meaningless. The next day, the media would report that HKPF did not object to the retention of the Tai Po Lennon Wall. The message was very clear, and the reason was that it did not attend the meeting to raise objections. 137. Mr. Nick LAM suggested revising the impromptu motion as follows: “Expressing gratitude to HyD and HKPF for making no objections at DC to the retention of the Tai Po Lennon Wall”. 138. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai said that he understood Mr. Richard CHAN’s views, and opined that all Members had the right to move motions. However, Members could also submit papers during the meeting for discussion. To his knowledge, the rules for meeting did not prohibit the submission of papers during the meeting, and no one had refused to accept the papers for the above reason. Although HKPF did not send officers to attend the meeting, other departments such as FEHD had already expressed views on the Government’s behalf about whether to retain the Lennon Wall. Therefore, the wording in the impromptu motion might have to be revised. 139. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong said that he fully understood Mr. Richard CHAN’s motive in moving the impromptu motion. However, he opined that in the past few months, HKPF had demonstrated to the public clearly through its action that it objected the Lennon Wall, and even used violence to oppress members of the public who put up posters on the Lennon Wall. He did not agree that HKPF did not express any objection, nor did he agree to express gratitude to HKPF in any way. Therefore, he did not support the above impromptu motion. 140. Ms. Olive CHAN agreed with Mr. WU Yiu-cheong. 141. The Chairman said that as the impromptu motion moved by Mr. Richard CHAN was not seconded by anyone for the time being, it was difficult to carry on with the discussion.

- 46 -

142. Mr. Richard CHAN revised his impromptu motion as follows: “Expressing gratitude to HyD for making no objections to the retention of the Tai Po Lennon Wall”. The motion was seconded by Mr. MAN Nim-chi. 143. Mr. TAM Yi-pui suggested that Mr. Richard CHAN revise his motion to “Expressing gratitude to HyD for making no objections at the meeting to the retention of the Tai Po Lennon Wall”, because the department had raised objections in the letter but did not attend the meeting to raise objections. 144. Mr. SO Tat-leung said that HyD had stated in the consolidated reply from the departments that it was not appropriate to retain the Lennon Wall. However, it did not express objections to the retention of the Lennon Wall at the meeting. He asked how DC would determine the stance of HyD. 145. The Chairman said that the impromptu motion moved by Mr. Richard CHAN would be put to the vote later. 146. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong said that he did not want to thank the Government in any way. 147. Mr. Richard CHAN’s comments were as follows:

(i) As he opined that the paper tabled by the departments was “rubbish” and had never expressed any objections to DC, it did not contradict his motion.

(ii) He agreed that DC Members and government departments could submit papers at the meeting. However, the DC Members and government departments submitting papers had to attend the meeting. If they chose not to attend the meeting but submitted papers at the meeting, they had to write down the addressees on the papers to show respect for DC. He respected the views put forward by the government departments at the meeting. However, HyD neither sent officers to attend the meeting nor expressed its views properly. If HyD would like to express its views, it should submit papers to DC on its own, instead of making a joint reply with other departments. Therefore, he did not think that HyD had raised any objections to the issue concerned. He welcomed Mr. WU Yiu-cheong’s suggestion to revise the wording in his motion. The purpose was to express that government departments which did not attend the meeting showed no respect for DC, and that was why he felt extremely angry. If he could not make this request, it would be meaningless to hold the meeting.

148. Mr. Richard CHAN accepted the revised motion suggested by Mr. TAM Yi-pui in paragraph 143 above. The revised motion was seconded by Mr. MAN Nim-chi.

- 47 -

149. No Members proposed amendments to the above impromptu motion. 150. The Chairman asked Members to vote on the impromptu motion moved by Mr. Richard CHAN. Members agreed to vote by open ballot. 151. Before the Chairman announced the voting results, Mr. LI Yiu-ban said that he had abstained in the voting just now. However, after consideration, he would like to vote against it because the departments had made it clear in the paper that it was not appropriate to retain the Lennon Wall. 152. Mr. Richard CHAN said that changing voting decisions after voting was against the rules and illogical. Therefore, the change should not be approved. 153. The Chairman said that as Mr. LI Yiu-ban had changed his decision before the voting results were officially announced, his change was accepted. 154. Mr. Richard CHAN objected the Chairman’s decision to accept DC Members’ changes in their votes. 155. The Chairman said that as there was no relevant rule in the Standing Orders, the decision rested with the Chairman. 156. Mr. Richard CHAN said that the decision was problematic in terms of logic. He opined that such acts should not be accepted in DC, or else DC would become indecisive. He also indicated that the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) Members were not allowed to reverse their decisions after voting at the meeting either. 157. Mr. AU Chun-wah said that LegCo Members could check their voting intentions after voting and before the Chairman announced the results. He opined that reference could be drawn from LegCo’s approach that DC Members were allowed to change their decisions before the Chairman announced the voting results. 158. Mr. Richard CHAN asked whether it was necessary to stipulate in the Standing Orders that DC Members could change their voting decisions only within a specific period of time. 159. The Chairman said that the issue concerned could be passed to the Administration and Finance Management Committee (“AFMC”) for discussion. He accepted the change of voting decision by Mr. LI Yiu-ban to “against”. 160. Regarding the voting on the impromptu motion moved by Mr. Richard CHAN, the results

- 48 -

were as follows: For: 2 votes Mr. Richard CHAN and Mr. MAN Nim-chi Against: 1 vote Mr. LI Yiu-ban Abstain: 15 votes Mr. AU Chun-ho, Mr. AU Chun-wah, Ms. Olive CHAN,

Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai, Mr. HO Wai-lam, Mr. Nick LAM, Mr. LAM Yick-kuen, Mr. LAU Yung-wai, Mr. Dalu LIN, Mr. SO Tat-leung, Mr. TAM Yi-pui, Mr. WU Yiu-cheong, Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Mr. YIU Kwan-ho and Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang

Total: 18 votes 161. The Chairman announced that the impromptu motion moved by Mr. Richard CHAN was carried. 162. Mr. YAM Kai-bong moved an impromptu motion as follows: “DC was dissatisfied with and censured HKPF and HyD for sending no officers to attend “the discussion of matters about retaining the Tai Po Lennon Wall”. DC suggested retaining the Tai Po Lennon Wall in and around the pedestrian subways (Nos. NS142, NS142A, NS156, NS157) in Tai Po District.” The motion was seconded by the Vice-chairman. 163. No Members proposed amendments to the motion. 164. The Chairman asked Members to vote on the impromptu motion moved by Mr. YAM Kai-bong. Members agreed to vote by open ballot, and the results were as follows: For: 17 votes Mr. AU Chun-ho, Mr. AU Chun-wah, Mr. Richard CHAN,

Ms. Olive CHAN, Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai, Mr. HO Wai-lam, Mr. KWAN Wing-yip, Mr. Nick LAM, Mr. LAU Yung-wai, Mr. Dalu LIN, Mr. MAN Nim-chi, Mr. SO Tat-leung, Mr. TAM Yi-pui, Mr. WU Yiu-cheong, Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Mr. YIU Kwan-ho and Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang

Against: 2 votes Mr. LAM Yick-kuen and Mr. LI Yiu-ban Abstain: 0 vote Total: 19 votes 165. The Chairman announced that the impromptu motion moved by Mr. YAM Kai-bong was carried. 166. Mr. YAM Kai-bong said that he would like to pass the above issue to the EFAC meeting to be held in the next morning for follow-up actions.

- 49 -

167. The Chairman announced a recess until 2:30 p.m. 168. The meeting resumed at 2:30 p.m.

IV. Request the Government to address “Five demands, not one less” (TPDC Paper No. 5/2020)

V. Follow-up on Tai Po residents’ request to set up an independent commission of inquiry from the last District Council term (TPDC Paper No. 6/2020) 169. The Chairman suggested combining the discussions of agenda items IV and V. 170. Members agreed to the suggestion of the Chairman. 171. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had earlier invited the CE and the CS through the CE’s Office and the CS’s Office to attend the meeting. However, both offices replied that CE and CS could not attend the meeting 172. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong said it was regrettable that the CE and the CS did not attend the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item. After the DC Election had completed not long ago, the unsuccessful candidates from the pro-establishment camp were specially received by the CE. However, DC Members received such a reply when they invited the CE to attend the meeting to discuss issues of common concern for society. When DC Members of the current term took office, the CS had organised a briefing session for new DC Members, to which some 400 DC Members had been invited, where each of them had an average of three seconds to speak. He said that if he had had the opportunity to speak to the CS for three seconds, he would have told him “five demands, not one less”, which he believed was also the expectation of most voters in the last DC Election. The pro-establishment candidates in Tai Po District had suffered a humiliating defeat in the DC Election. On the contrary, pro-democracy DC Members had secured 19 elected seats in Tai Po District, building on the expectation for the five demands among the people of Hong Kong. The briefing session held by the CS, in which he gave lectures to new DC Members unilaterally, had tried to give an impression that he was willing to listen to DC Members. While this agenda item was exactly about something of great concern to the people of Hong Kong both the CE and the CS were absent, whereby demonstratingneither the attitude for addressing public opinion nor the willingness of communication. He wondered whether the current Government was still a rational one, or just an autocratic government full of rank-and-file officials in terms of

- 50 -

attitudes and capabilities. He hoped that the Government could reflect on it. There was not any pro-establishment DC Member in the current term TPDC, while the two ex-officio Members had not returned to the conference room since they left in the afternoon. Given that 17 DCs were dominated by the pro-democracy camp, he hoped that the Government could address public opinion and the five demands. 173. Mr. Nick LAM said that government officials sometimes invited DC Members to have meetings. He opined that it would be better for government officials to come to Tai Po to meet with DC Members than for TPDC Members to meet with them in other districts. DC Members were elected by voters and hence accountable to them. Therefore, they spent as much time as possible on district affairs, which left them with no time to go out to entertain the officials. On the contrary, as the Government was not elected by voters, it did not have to step down for its mistakes, and it was not obliged to work hard either. The situation sounded very miserable, but it was a fact. Hence, officials, who had more time available, should take the initiative to come to Tai Po for the sake of work efficiency. 174. The Chairman said that in the past two or three DC terms, some Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux had come to TPDC to meet with TPDC Members so as to answer questions and listen to opinions. Meanwhile, some Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux had also met with TPDC Members from time to time. However, it was unknown whether this arrangement would remain in place in this DC term. Therefore, DC Members had to seize the opportunity to relay their views in the future. 175. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong moved a motion as follows: “Requesting the Government to address Five demands, not one less”. The motion was seconded by Mr. HO Wai-lam. 176. Mr. Richard CHAN said that the Chairman had just mentioned that the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux had come to the district to meet with DC Members and attend meetings in the past. He asked the District Officer (Tai Po) whether there were any changes to this policy. 177. Ms. Eunice CHAN said that most of the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux had visited DC in the last DC term. The arrangement for the new DC term had to be confirmed with the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux. TPDO would inform DC Members of any updates. 178. Mr. MAN Nim-chi suggested inserting the term “TPDC” into the motion. 179. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong agreed to Mr. MAN Nim-chi’s proposed amendment to the motion.

- 51 -

180. Mr. SO Tat-leung asked whether the motion included setting up an independent commission of inquiry. 181. The Chairman said that the five demands had already included the request for setting up an independent commission of inquiryand they would therefore be dealt with together. 182. No Members proposed amendments to the motion. 183. The Chairman asked Members to vote on Mr. WU Yiu-cheong’s motion. Members agreed to vote by open ballot, and the results were as follows: For: 18 votes Mr. AU Chun-ho, Mr. AU Chun-wah, Mr. Richard CHAN,

Ms. Olive CHAN, Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai, Mr. HO Wai-lam, Mr. Nick LAM, Mr. LAU Yung-wai, Mr. Dalu LIN, Mr. MAN Nim-chi, Mr. Patrick MO, Mr. SO Tat-leung, Mr. TAM Yi-pui, Mr. KWAN Wing-yip, Mr. WU Yiu-cheong, Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Mr. YIU Kwan-ho and Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang

Against: 0 vote Abstain: 0 vote Total: 18 votes 184. The Chairman announced that the motion moved by Mr. WU Yiu-cheong was carried. 185. Mr. Richard CHAN moved an impromptu motion as follows: “TPDC asks the Government to set up an independent commission of inquiry as soon as possible”. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dalu LIN. 186. No Members proposed amendments to the motion. 187. The Chairman asked Members to vote on Mr. Richard CHAN’s impromptu motion. Members agreed to vote by open ballot, and the results were as follows:

- 52 -

For: 18 votes Mr. AU Chun-ho, Mr. AU Chun-wah, Mr. Richard CHAN,

Ms. Olive CHAN, Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai, Mr. HO Wai-lam, Mr. Nick LAM, Mr. LAU Yung-wai, Mr. Dalu LIN, Mr. MAN Nim-chi, Mr. Patrick MO, Mr. SO Tat-leung, Mr. TAM Yi-pui, Mr. KWAN Wing-yip, Mr. WU Yiu-cheong, Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Mr. YIU Kwan-ho and Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang

Against: 0 vote Abstain: 0 vote Total: 18 votes 188. The Chairman announced that the impromptu motion moved by Mr. Richard CHAN was carried.

VI. Follow-up on the motion of no confidence in the then TPDC Chairman Ms. WONG Pik-kiu in 2019 (TPDC Paper No. 7/2020) 189. The Vice-chairman went through Paper No. 7/2020. 190. The Chairman said that if the Chairman of DC did anything against the expectations of the public, a motion of no confidence could still be moved against him even if he was no longer the Chairman. Therefore, he would learn a lesson from it. 191. The Secretary said that Orders 54 to 56 of Part Q of the Standing Orders set out how to deal with motions moved by Members to warn against (or censure) the violation of the codes of conduct by DC Members and Members of the committees under TPDC. To his understanding, as Ms. WONG Pik-kiu was not an incumbent DC Member, this part of the Standing Orders might not be applicable at present. 192. Mr. Richard CHAN said that to his understanding, the Standing Orders did not regulate the act of censure by DC Members against non-DC Members. Therefore, they could continue the discussion without violating the Standing Orders. 193. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that he really detested such behaviours as “kicking someone when they were down” and “blaming the dead”. However, as the Chairman of the last DC term had forcibly deprived Members of their right to express views, he believed that Members who had experienced it were terribly angry. Hence, he would respect the intentions of the five re-elected Members. The evil deeds and decisions of the Chairman of the last DC term were recorded in

- 53 -

black and white. Not only the incumbent Members in this DC term could carry out the monitoring, but the future DC could also continue to discuss such behaviours. Therefore, he hoped that the Chairman could take it as a reminder. 194. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai agreed with Mr. MAN Nim-chi. This agenda item was a matter arising from a previous meeting, not a discussion targeting Ms. WONG Pik-kiu on purpose. In addition, the behaviours described in the paper had taken place indeed. Therefore, they had to be recorded as a reminder for the Chairmen or other Members in future. Most DC Members at this meeting were new and had not attended the meeting concerned. If a motion was moved for the aforementioned reason, the public might think that DC Members were not objective enough. Therefore, he suggested considering whether it was necessary to move the motion. 195. Mr. LAU Yung-wai said that he should be the DC Member whose microphone had been switched off most frequently, and he had very often been treated unfairly. As the meeting concerned had been aborted in the end, the last meeting of the previous DC term had never been held. Meanwhile, the person in question did not have to take any responsibility after losing the election either. He opined that there was no need to “blame the dead”, but a record had to be kept. 196. The Chairman said that the motion in the paper did not violate the Standing Orders, depending on whether the motion was seconded by any Members and put to the vote. If new DC Members were not clear about the matter and did not want to vote, the choice was theirs. 197. Mr. Dalu LIN said that the Secretary had just stated that the discussion fell under the scope of Part Q of the Standing Orders, while Order 58 of the Standing Orders stipulated that “motions moved under Order 54 of the Standing Orders had to be discussed behind closed doors”. As such, he asked whether the discussion had to be continued in the same way. 198. The Secretary said that the motion in the paper did not contain wording such as warning or censure, and its nature was different from those mentioned in Order 54 of the Standing Orders. Therefore, Part Q should not be applicable to the current situation. 199. Mr. Richard CHAN said that Part Q of the Standing Orders was to regulate the censure or warning against incumbent DC Members, and the Standing Orders did not contain any provision that prohibited DC from censuring someone who was not an incumbent DC Member. Therefore, even if such wording as warning or censure was used, the motion was not regulated by Part Q of the Standing Orders. 200. The Secretary said that the Secretariat could only respond to questions according to the Standing Orders, and the District Councils Ordinance only indicated that DC could be authorised

- 54 -

to draw up standing orders. If the Standing Orders did not mention the situation concerned, he was not in a position to supplement or explain further. Order 53 of the Standing Orders indicated that “the Chairman of DC had to ensure that all the provisions in the Standing Orders were complied with. The decision made by the Chairman of DC on matters relating to the Standing Orders was final”. To put it simply, should a situation arise that was not mentioned in the Standing Orders, the Chairman of DC might have to exercise his authority to decide how to deal with it. 201. The Chairman said that he would let the re-elected Members decide whether to move the motion. 202. Mr. YAM Kai-bong said that the voting to be conducted at present should have taken place four to five months ago. However, the biggest punishment for elected members should be given by voters. Any DC Members who acted against the performance required of DC Members would end up in this situation. The votes cast by the public to express opinions were already a punishment for the unsuccessful candidates. As such, he was not in favour of moving the motion at present. 203. Members agreed to the recommendation of the Chairman that it was not necessary to move the motion, and history would judge the behaviours concerned.

VII. Follow-up on the enforcement against illegal parking in Tai Po District (TPDC Paper No. 8/2020) 204. The Chairman said that the paper submitted by HKPF on this agenda item had been tabled (Annex III to the minutes) for Members’ reference. 205. Mr. Nick LAM went through Paper No. 8/2020. 206. Mr. KWONG Ka-yin responded as follows:

(i) TD understood DC Members’ concerns over the demand for parking spaces. Hence, TD would install on-street metered parking spaces and motorcycle parking spaces at suitable locations as long as road safety and other road users would not be affected. Meanwhile, it would maintain close liaison with relevant departments to identify vacant government land for use as car parks on short-term tenancy, provided that the land had not been planned for long-term uses or would not be developed in the near future. At present, eight sites in total in Tai Po District that had not been used for long-term development were used as temporary fee-paying public car parks, providing a total of 1 200 parking spaces.

- 55 -

(ii) Following the “single site, multiple use” principle, the Government also provided public car parking spaces in suitable projects of government, institution or community facilities and public open spaces. At present, there were two public car parking facilities under construction or planning in Tai Po District, including the sports centre, community hall and football pitches in Area 1, Tai Po, which would be completed between 2021 and 2022. By then, the sports centre would provide 213 public parking spaces, of which 200 were private car parking spaces. Another parking facility was located at the football-cum-rugby pitch project in Area 33, Tai Po. If the situation allowed, the underground car park in the project would provide at least 300 parking spaces for private cars, light goods vehicles, medium good vehicles, heavy goods vehicles, coaches and motorcycles. It was expected that after the completion of the above projects, the supply of parking spaces in Tai Po District would be improved.

207. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho raised the following views:

(i) In 2019, HKPF had provided DC Members with a dedicated hotline for dealing with illegal parking problems. He had called the hotline many times but could not reach it. He asked whether the hotline had been cancelled. If yes, HKPF should inform DC Members. As HKPF did not send officers to attend this meeting, he asked the Secretariat to relay the views of DC Members to HKPF.

(ii) As regards the alley near Wang Fuk Court Carpark on Island House Lane, both sides of the alley had been occupied by illegally parked vehicles for a long time. This had once prevented an ambulance from entering the alley. In addition, the illegal parking problem in the vicinity of Providence Bay was serious, with a large number of illegally parked vehicles on the two lanes and near the roundabout. He understood that the problem was due to the shortage of parking spaces there. As such, he had suggested that LandsD convert the area under the footbridge near the existing temporary car park into a temporary car park altogether. However, LandsD had replied that it could not expand the car park until a year later because of the contract. As the new housing estates in the vicinity of Providence Bay would be completed one after another in 2020, he hoped that TD could come up with other ways to resolve the problem of insufficient parking spaces.

208. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that TD had said it would increase the number of parking spaces in government buildings to be built in the future, so as to resolve the problem of illegal parking in Tai Po District. He hoped that TD could be more aggressive by, for example, digging a few more floors under the building as car parks. The land resumption by the Government had reduced the number of parking spaces. Many car owners were forced to park illegally, which eventually affected other road users. He suggested that TD provide additional on-street metered parking

- 56 -

spaces without affecting the existing road design, and carry out planning with government departments to substantially increase the number of parking spaces in buildings. 209. The Vice-chairman raised the following views and questions:

(i) In his constituency (namely Old Market and Serenity), the illegal parking problem in the vicinity of Tai Po Old Market and Tai Po Tau Road was very serious. There had even been three cars parked side by side on the carriageway of Chui Wo Lane, which was not a normal situation. He asked the Secretariat to relay his views to HKPF and ask them to follow up on the above situation as soon as possible.

(ii) In the Daan Park in Taiwan, there was a large two-storey underground car park. He suggested that the same facility be built under the ball courts and parks in Hong Kong so as to directly resolve the problem of insufficient parking spaces in the territory at present. He hoped that TD could consider the above suggestion seriously.

210. Mr. Richard CHAN raised the following views and questions:

(i) DC had written to HKPF on 13 January, and HKPF had replied to the Chairman using a letter paper in HKPF’s style. However, when DC Members issued a joint letter to the department on 6 January regarding the Tai Po Lennon Wall, they only received a consolidated reply from HKPF and other departments, and the addressee in the letter was Ms. Lee. He opined that this reflected HKPF’s indifference and contempt for other government departments.

(ii) A passing bay in Tai Wo was painted with hatched markings, but illegal parking still took place there. He suggested that TD adopt other measures to resolve the problem of illegal parking. For example, it could install road dividers in the area concerned so that vehicles could only pass through but not stay there.

(iii) As HKPF did not take law enforcement actions, he suggested improving the establishment by incorporating the traffic warden posts into TD’s establishment.

211. Mr. TAM Yi-pui raised the following views and questions:

(i) Some villagers in Yung Shue O had expressed that the villagers living in more remote villages often had to drive to a place close to Sai Sha Road (such as Shui Long Wo and Kei Ling Ha) to park their vehicles before transferring to other means of transport. However, the parking spaces there were often occupied by vehicles that had not been used for a long time. He hoped that TD would deal with the problem.

- 57 -

(ii) The problem of illegal parking stemmed from insufficient parking spaces. However, due to the conflict between the conservation of greening zones in rural areas and the demand for parking spaces, the issue had to be discussed in detail.

212. Mr. Nick LAM raised the following views:

(i) He inferred that political incidents were the reason why HKPF refused to send officers to inspect the illegal parking problem in the district. It was because HKPF was worried that police officers who were issuing penalty tickets to illegally parked vehicles would be harassed and attacked by people with different political views. He said that he would not mind accompanying police officers to conduct patrols in the district and issue penalty tickets to illegally parked vehicles. At the same time, he could also introduce the illegal parking blackspots in the district to HKPF.

(ii) As traffic wardens were responsible for handling livelihood issues, he did not see any particular prejudice against traffic wardens in society for the time being. He suggested deploying traffic wardens to issue penalty tickets.

(iii) He understood that the root causes for illegal parking included, among others, insufficient parking spaces and high parking fees at car parks. While additional parking spaces could not be provided in the short term, law enforcement actions were necessary to ensure the rights of other road users before sufficient parking spaces became available. Issuing penalty tickets and imposing fines for illegally parked vehicles, however, had not been able to resolve the problem of illegal parking. He opined that it was probably because the penalties were not heavy enough. As such, he suggested increasing the penalties. For example, the amount of fines could be increased in proportion to the number of violations, and the vehicles involved could even be towed away and seized.

(iv) He had called the police station many times to report illegal parking, but no one answered. He suggested setting up a dedicated hotline for dealing with illegal parking problems.

(v) At present, the permitted parking hours at some blackspots were four hours (8 a.m. to 10 a.m., and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.) or 12 hours. However, many vehicles were parked illegally outside the permitted hours. He had written to TD in the hope of extending the permitted parking hours. Nevertheless, TD processed his request slowly. He hoped that it could expedite the handling of the above suggestion.

(vi) He had consulted the public on ways to resolve the problem of illegal parking. Some suggested that the time limit of metered parking spaces be reduced from two hours to half an hour, so that people would not leave their vehicles there for a longer time than actually required for the sake of not wasting the parking hours they had

- 58 -

purchased. In addition, he suggested converting the car parks at Kwong Fuk Square and Po Heung Square into multi-storey car parks. Meanwhile, those involved in illegal parking should be mandated to attend traffic rules courses, so that the offenders would not only have to pay money but have to devote time as well. This could enhance the deterrent effect.

213. Mr. Dalu LIN raised the following views and questions:

(i) In the area off Plover Cove Garden, vehicles struggled to travel on the road every day. A lot of vehicles were parked at the nearby corner, preventing buses from passing through. In addition, many large vehicles were parked near the roundabout on Kwong Fuk Road between Wang Fuk Court and Kwong Fuk Estate. Some members of the public had expressed that the vehicles would block their view and result in blind spots, which could cause danger easily. He hoped that the problem could be dealt with as soon as possible.

(ii) He agreed with the suggestion to incorporate traffic wardens into TD’s establishment. By doing so, TD would be responsible for managing traffic wardens and issuing penalty tickets to those involved in illegal parking. When the public encountered illegal parking problems, they would no longer have to seek assistance from HKPF only.

(iii) Given the shortage of parking spaces, it was necessary to keep identifying new sites for the construction of car parks. However, land resources were limited, and it was not possible to change the width of the road. He suggested that in addition to providing more parking spaces, the Government could consider prohibiting vehicles from entering some parts of Tai Po town centre during specified periods. In addition, as there were many bicycles in Tai Po District, the Government could consider some traffic management concepts. For example, Tai Po could be turned into an area where bicycles were an alternative mode of transport. He hoped that solutions to the problem would be worked out through discussions.

214. Mr. YAM Kai-bong raised the following views:

(i) HKPF could not find time to deal with illegal parking problems probably because of the social events. His and Mr. KWAN Wing-yip’s constituencies (namely Fu Ming Sun constituency and Yee Fu constituency) were located next to Tai Po Police Station. District Commander (Tai Po) and other officers of HKPF drove past On Po Lane and entered the minor road next to Ming Nga Court every day. They should be able to see the illegal parking problems along the way, but the situation there remained unchanged. It was not until the recent week that police officers had

- 59 -

started to show up and take prosecution actions. The issues mentioned by Members just now had also been brought up at the Traffic and Transport Committee (“TTC”) meetings in the past. One of them was the proposal to build underground parking lots in the parks, which had long been implemented in various places such as Taipei and Japan, while the space under flyovers could be used to provide ordinary parking spaces or parking racks which could substantially increase the number of parking spaces for private vehicles and large vehicles. The Government should consider new ways with a creative mindset, instead of leaving the space idle in a wasteful manner.

(ii) He suggested referring to the ways adopted by other regions to deal with illegally parked vehicles. He said that in Taiwan, for example, the government contracted out the work to the elderly or other people, who would patrol the areas they were assigned. Once they found any vehicles for which the parking fees had not been paid, they would issue penalty tickets. A similar practice was also adopted by the Mainland. In addition, the approaches adopted at Whampoa Garden and City One Shatin could also serve as a reference. Once illegally parked vehicles were found within the housing estates, they would be impounded within a few minutes.

(iii) The Government often stated that priority should be given to people’s livelihood. Resolving the problem of illegal parking was a demand of the public and the Government was duty-bound to provide parking spaces and improve their planning, rather than putting the blame largely on motorists. At present, during certain periods, it was not even possible to find a parking space in Tai Po Market that was illegal but did not affect others. This problem had to be addressed indeed. However, when the illegal parking problems near Tai Po Police Station were left unattended, it was difficult to alleviate the illegal parking problems on other streets in the district.

(iv) He suggested passing the issue to TTC for further follow-up actions and urging the departments to respond proactively.

215. Mr. KWONG Ka-yin responded as follows:

(i) Regarding the problem of illegal parking in various parts of the district which DC Members had mentioned, the departments such as TD and LandsD had been making continuous efforts to identify suitable government land for use as temporary car parks, provided that the land had not been planned for long-term purposes in the near future.

(ii) TD had been following the principle of “single site, multiple use” in an attempt to increase the provision of parking spaces in development projects of the Government. For example, it would build an underground car park at the

- 60 -

integrated sports centre project in Area 1, Tai Po. It would also continue to look for relevant development opportunities that could increase the provision of car parks.

(iii) As regards the problem relating to the hatched markings at the passing bay in Tai Wo, TD would study the feasibility of the suggestion.

(iv) To his understanding, HKPF had the power to take law enforcement actions against illegal parking, whereas traffic wardens were responsible for assisting HKPF in carrying out the work.

(v) Regarding Mr. Nick LAM’s suggestion about the parking hours during peak hours, he clarified that the restricted hours in restricted zones (such as 7 a.m. to 10 a.m., or 4 p.m. to 10 p.m.) did not refer to no-parking hours. Instead, the restriction was about not allowing vehicles to pick up and drop off passengers or to carry out loading and unloading activities on that roadside during the specified period. Outside the restricted hours, vehicles could only pick up and drop off passengers or to carry out loading and unloading activities.

(vi) TD provided on-street parking spaces where they did not obstruct traffic, taking into account the traffic flow at the locations concerned. Owing to the limited number of and high demand for parking spaces in some areas, parking spaces had been metered to deter prolonged parking. At present, the operating hours of most metered parking spaces were 8 a.m. to midnight from Mondays to Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays and general holidays. DC Members were welcome to raise any views to TD about changing the operating hours of the metered parking spaces at certain locations in the district.

216. Mr. HO Wai-lam raised the following views:

(i) He regretted that HKPF did not send officers to attend the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item.

(ii) The illegal parking problem on the trunk road from Chung Nga Road to Fu Heng Estate was very serious. The situation where two or three vehicles, including coaches and other large vehicles, were parked side by side, occurred often, whereby preventing other vehicles from approaching the roadside. Children had to walk through the gap between vehicles before getting aboard, which was very dangerous. He had also witnessed an accident there which led to complete closure of the entire road. Ambulances could not use the road to get to the hospital. After calling HKPF, HKPF still had not sent officers to the scene. In the long run, he found it necessary to build more underground car parks and deploy traffic wardens to patrol the district.

- 61 -

217. Mr. Patrick MO raised the following views:

(i) He would like TD to provide the number of parking spaces in the district that would be available for large vehicles in the future. Based on his observations, providing sufficient parking spaces in Tai Po District could alleviate the illegal parking problem in the district. However, it was difficult for large vehicles (such as coaches) to find suitable space for parking. Many professional drivers were residents of nearby housing estates. Owing to the requirements of their jobs or companies, they had to park their vehicles near their homes. He hoped that when TD increased the number of parking spaces in the future, it could take into consideration the needs of heavy vehicles and large vehicles and provide more parking spaces for them.

(ii) He agreed that high technology should be used to help with the management of illegal parking problems in the long run. For example, with the help of internet protocol cameras at illegal parking blackspots, information of vehicles involved in prolonged illegal parking could be transferred to HKPF for follow-up actions.

(iii) In his constituency (namely Tai Po Kau constituency), the illegal parking problems in Lai Chi Shan and Wun Yiu, which were near the expressway, were very serious in the morning. They affected not only the pick-up and drop-off of minibus passengers, but also the traffic flow towards the expressway. He hoped that relevant departments could take follow-up actions.

(iv) The design of rural roads was backward. With the population growth in the rural areas in Tai Po District, the traffic flow in the rural areas also increased. He hoped that TD would conduct a feasibility study on the widening of roads or the provision of additional passing bays in response to the increased traffic flow on some road sections.

218. Mr. SO Tat-leung raised the following views:

(i) The shortage of parking spaces in rural areas stemmed from improper planning. While private parking spaces of villagers could be adjusted temporarily, illegal parking blackspots in his constituency were the locations where holiday goers from other districts parked their vehicles illegally. One of such locations was the roundabout at Sam Mun Tsai Bus Terminus. Many visitors who went there on holidays to have fun or meals would park their vehicles there, which prevented buses and minibuses from passing through. He had witnessed two buses getting stuck there. The road design there made it very convenient for parking. He hoped that TD could improve the situation by using hardware facilities to make

- 62 -

illegal parking more difficult there.

(ii) Although free parking spaces were available in Tai Mei Tuk, they were occupied by vehicles that had not been used for many years. Meanwhile, a large number of visitors went to Tai Mei Tuk on holidays and parked their vehicles illegally at Tai Mei Tuk Bus Terminus, preventing buses from stopping there. Citing social movements as the reason, police officers came to handle the situation 45 minutes after he had called HKPF. As Ting Kok Road was a one-way carriageway, the illegal parking had caused heavy traffic congestion there. Fortunately, no ambulance had to use the road on that day. Otherwise, it would not be able to enter the road. He hoped that TD could follow up on the above problem.

219. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong raised the following views:

(i) The problem of illegal parking was, to a certain extent, caused by the shortage of parking spaces. However, he also opined that the deterioration of the illegal parking problem within a few months was definitely related to HKPF’s indifference and countenance to the problem. In his constituency (namely Sun Fu constituency), there were several illegal parking blackspots. Some residents in Kam Shan had reflected that as the road was occupied by illegally parked vehicles, it took about 20 minutes to travel from Kam Shan Road to Kwong Fuk Road during the morning peak hours; the situation on Pan Chung Road was more serious, as the street washing vehicles of FEHD had been unable to enter Pan Chung Village to do the cleaning in the recent five months due to illegally parked vehicles; congestion also occurred at the residents’ bus pick-up and drop-off area next to Tai Po Market MTR Station during the morning and evening peak hours due to illegal parked vehicles, with traffic queues extending from Tai Po Market MTR Station to the intersection on Nam Wan Road; many large vehicles were parked at the road section connecting Tat Wan Road and Ma Wo Road every night, and small vehicles and medium vehicles were also parked there recently. The aforementioned illegal parking problems in different areas were actually caused by HKPF’s failure to take law enforcement actions in the past few months with the excuses of social unrests and manpower shortage, thus making all roadsides in Hong Kong a “parking paradise” for motorists. However, the shortage of HKPF manpower was only an excuse. If members of the public put up posters on the Lennon wall, a team of riot police would always be present and ready to arrest them. As HKPF did not send any officers to attend this meeting, he hoped that HAD could help inform HKPF of the illegal parking blackspots mentioned by DC Members, and put extra effort into the crackdown on illegal parking.

(ii) He hoped that HKPF could provide DC with the number of fixed penalty notices

- 63 -

issued for illegal parking each month from January 2019 to January 2020, so as to find out how the situation of illegal parking had been worsened by HKPF’s countenance and indifference in the recent few months. He would like HAD to relay his request to HKPF.

220. Mr. WONG Siu-kin said that regardless of political views, every district would like to resolve the problem of illegal parking as soon as possible. There were several illegal parking blackspots in Wan Tau Tong, including Wan Tau Tong Bus Terminus. As the bus terminus was close to the MTR station, there were only a handful of whole-day bus routes. Therefore, on both weekdays and holidays, many private vehicles were parked at the bus terminus starting from noon. He asked whether TD could resolve the illegal parking problems by improving the planning of the bus terminus. In addition, at the bus stop near somewhere under the footbridge of Uptown Plaza, many residents’ buses could not stop on the roadside due to illegal parking problems. Passengers (including wheelchair users) also found it inconvenient that they could not get to the pedestrian way directly after getting off the bus. 221. Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang raised the following views:

(i) The illegal parking problem on Fung Yuen Road was so serious that minibuses and buses could not enter the road, approach the stops and make U-turns. The illegally parked vehicles even occupied pedestrian ways, making it impossible for pedestrians to walk through. He hoped that when HKPF took prosecution actions, it could also adopt other approaches such as towing vehicles away, so as to resolve the above illegal parking problem.

(ii) Despite the presence of metered parking spaces on Ting Lai Road, many large vehicles and coaches were parked illegally there, seriously blocking the view of residents who were crossing the road.

(iii) There was a public swimming pool in San Wai Tsai. When summer came, a large number of people would go to the swimming pool. By then, the situation of illegal parking would be very serious.

(iv) There were illegally parked vehicles in the vicinity of Po Heung Street and Po Heung Estate, whether next to the pedestrian ways or next to the planters beside the fast lane. Only the middle of the road was left for vehicles to travel through.

(v) He hoped that small kerbs could be installed at the residents’ bus stop in Tai Wo so that vehicles could not be parked illegally there but could only leave after picking up and dropping off passengers.

(vi) He suggested building a large car park at Tai Po Industrial Estate for residents in rural areas to park their vehicles before transferring and connecting to other means

- 64 -

of transport. The bus terminus there had direct bus routes to Kowloon and Hong Kong, and some people could also transfer to MTR. This would not only alleviate the problem of illegal parking, but also reduce the burden on Tolo Highway. In addition, he suggested converting the greening area near Three-meter Bridge in Kau Lung Hang into a large car park and interchange station, so as to increase the provision of parking spaces and reduce the pressure on the roads in Tai Po District.

222. Ms. Olive CHAN raised the following views and questions:

(i) She was very disappointed with HKPF’s written reply regarding its refusal to send officers to attend this meeting. When DC Members would like to discuss livelihood issues, HKPF responded with a political attitude. However, during discussions on political issues, it used livelihood issues as an excuse. She would like the Secretariat to inform HKPF of the illegal parking blackspots mentioned by DC Members.

(ii) The problem of illegal parking on Fuk Wo Road (including Fook Wo House at Tai Wo Estate) in her constituency (namely Tai Wo constituency) was serious. The illegally parked vehicles even blocked emergency access, and had once prevented fire engines and ambulances from entering the housing estate to carry out rescues. A lot of vehicles were parked on Kwong Fuk Road near the petrol filling station, at the roundabout, in the open spaces and at the emergency access, thus preventing the entry of emergency vehicles. A large number of coaches were parked at Tai Wo Bus Terminus in the morning, leading to traffic congestion, during which vehicle horns kept hooting and caused noise nuisance to nearby residents.

(iii) To her understanding, there were only five traffic wardens responsible for issuing penalty tickets against illegal parking in Tai Po Police District at present. As Tai Po Police District covered North District and Tai Po, it was really difficult for them to oversee such a large area. She asked whether it was possible to increase the number of traffic wardens. When police officers of HKPF did not take law enforcement actions against illegally parked vehicles, the duty should be handed over to traffic wardens.

223. Mr. AU Chun-wah raised the following views:

(i) The problem of illegal parking did not occur in the recent six months only. Members had been raising the problem before June 2019, when HKPF had set up the first dedicated hotline in Hong Kong for illegal parking problems. Through the hotline, Members could inform HKPF of illegal parking blackspots for follow-up actions. They did not have to call the police station or the 999 emergency hotline

- 65 -

before being put through to the patrol officers or patrol cars, which would affect the routine patrols of police officers. However, since June 2019, HKPF had claimed that due to manpower and resource constraints, neither the said hotline nor the telephone numbers of the officers from HKPF’s traffic division who attended TTC meetings regularly could be reached any more. Members had to write to the district commander of the police district concerned and copy the letter to the regional commander of the New Territories, the Commissioner of Police and the CE, before the situation of illegal parking was relieved gradually. Penalty tickets could reduce illegal parking. The more penalty tickets were issued, the fewer illegal parking problems would arise. Although the fine was only a few hundred dollars each time, the penalty tickets, when accumulated, could also have certain deterrent effect on motorists. Therefore, as long as HKPF started issuing penalty tickets to illegally parked vehicles again, most illegal parking problems could be resolved.

(ii) At present, the units of parking time available for purchase included half an hour, one hour, 1.5 hours and 2 hours. If the parking time of parking meters had to be limited to half an hour, it was necessary to think about whether the area concerned was so busy that vehicles should stay there for a shorter duration. He hoped that TD could explain the reasons for setting different units of parking time for the parking meters in different locations.

(iii) At previous meetings, Members had suggested that HKPF increase the manpower of traffic wardens. Eventually, two additional traffic wardens were deployed to Tai Po Police District, which covered Fanling, Sheung Shui, Tai Po, etc. To his understanding, during the last DC term, the traffic wardens in Tai Po Police District mainly conducted inspections in Tai Mei Tuk and at the covered walkway next to Tai Po Market MTR Station. They would go to the vicinity of Tai Po Market and Tai Po Centre only when they had sufficient time. As a result, they were left with no more time to deal with the illegal parking problems in other parts of the district. Therefore, the dedicated hotline he had mentioned above for dealing with illegal parking problems was necessary. TPDC had once written to HKPF in the name of the committee, hoping that the manpower of traffic wardens could be increased substantially. He concurred with Mr. YAM Kai-bong that by hiring more traffic wardens, HKPF would definitely be able to use the revenue from penalty tickets to cover the costs incurred in the salaries. He said that Taiwan, for example, hired staff who were specifically responsible for conducting patrols and issuing penalty notices on a number of streets under their purview and towing away the non-compliant vehicles immediately. This measure had a deterrent effect.

(iv) He was a motorist himself, and had parked his vehicle illegally. However, he did not mind being issued with penalty tickets or having his vehicle towed away

- 66 -

because everyone was held liable for the violations committed. As HKPF did not send any officer to attend this meeting, while TD was not in a position to provide the operation details of HKPF’s law enforcement actions, the problem of illegal parking could not be resolved. He opined that the shortage of HKPF manpower was not the truth, as there were a large number of police officers on standby at the police headquarters and ready to be deployed in case of mass rallies. He understood that HKPF had to be on standby on relatively sensitive days. However, arresting members of the public who put up posters on the Lennon Wall was not the only duty of HKPF. Police officers on standby could deal with illegal parking problems from Monday to Thursday, or during the morning or evening peak hours. Even when those police officers were issuing penalty tickets to illegally parked vehicles, they should be able to leave for somewhere else anytime to handle other incidents and arrange their tasks flexibly. As HKPF’s operations were carefully considered and well-planned, they should be able to assemble and head out immediately at the command of the commander. Unless the frontline police officers were so uncontrollable that it took the commander some time to get them together, it was unreasonable that such a well-disciplined disciplinary force could not carry out the work.

(v) TD had just stated that it would provide additional parking spaces in Area 1, Tai Po. However, some pro-establishment DC Members in the last DC term had requested that the number of parking spaces be increased to 400. Nonetheless, TD had denied the request with various excuses and cited the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines as the reason. Despite repeated requests from DC Members, the number in the end was increased to only 200.

(vi) On Pong Road, On Tai Road, On Chee Road and On Cheung Road were the heart of Tai Po Central. Members had brought up the serious illegal parking problems on the streets concerned before June 2019. The area off the taxi stand on On Cheung Road outside Jade Plaza was occupied by illegally parked vehicles, which forced taxis to stop in the surroundings and occupy a lane, while the middle of the carriageway was marked with double white lines, which prevented motorists from overtaking. As a result, traffic queues extended to the outside of Tai Yuen Estate Car Park. He had inspected the area with the staff of TD and the traffic division of HKPF. TD’s staff was proactively exploring ways to improve the situation, whereas HKPF did not take any action. In addition, in the area off the Bank of China on On Chee Road outside Jade Plaza, illegal parked vehicles often obstructed buses from turning into the road, and no police officers came to deal with the situation even after he called HKPF; on On Tai Road and On Pong Road, congestions were frequent and led to the hooting of vehicle horns, and a police officer living in Tai Po Centre had complained to him about the problem. While

- 67 -

illegal parking had to be dealt with by the law enforcement actions of relevant departments, what mattered more was the self-discipline of motorists, who should park their vehicles in areas that did not affect others. Illegal parking was a wrong behaviour. If vehicles were parked in areas that obstructed others and no contact information was left behind, traffic congestion would be resulted. He hoped that the residents in Tai Po District and the people of Hong Kong could exercise self-discipline.

224. Mr. MAN Nim-chi raised the following views:

(i) Plastic poles had been installed on On Chee Road between Eightland Garden and Treasure Garden some years ago. Subsequently, he had suggested installing plastic poles on On Man Square and On Ho Lane. Installation of plastic poles had been effective in reducing illegal parking in the beginning. Later, however, they had disappeared for various reasons. It was said that the former Commissioner for Transport found the appearance of the plastic poles unpleasant, and hence they were not installed any more. He hoped that TD could install plastic poles anew at locations where they had been installed, and explore the possibility of installing them where they had not been installed in the past, so as to put an end to illegal parking without affecting the cityscape.

(ii) He suggested that more areas be marked with double yellow lines to tie in with HKPF’s law enforcement actions. Double yellow lines meant that parking was not allowed, whereas single solid yellow lines and various colour sign posts indicated that pick-up and drop-off or loading and unloading activities were allowed within the specified time periods, but parking was not allowed. Some sections of Tai Po Tai Wo Road were marked with double yellow lines, so was the road section of On Cheung Road between Jade Plaza and Treasure Garden. However, after 11 p.m. every day, at least five or six 24-tonne goods vehicles of various models always unloaded goods there. He would like the department to review the design of the roads concerned.

225. Mr. Nick LAM raised the following views:

(i) Some members of the public had stated that the vehicles of some shops had occupied metered parking spaces over extended periods of time. He suggested drawing reference from Taiwan’s practice by issuing penalty notices to those vehicles at regular intervals and asking them to pay the rent for the parking spaces concerned.

(ii) As some members of the public had stated that the rent for parking spaces was too

- 68 -

high, he suggested introducing rent control or adjustment.

(iii) In his constituency (namely Tai Po Market constituency), the illegal parking blackspots with more serious problems included: 1 to 25 Kwong Fuk Road near Standard Chartered Bank, where one side of the road was full of vehicles that had been parked over extended periods of time. Since the area concerned was the intersection of three roads, illegal parking could lead to traffic congestion, with many vehicles hooting their horns during both peak and non-peak hours; 27 to 51 Kwong Fuk Road near China Light and Power Company Limited; Nam Shing Street, where buses could not enter and other vehicles could not get through in serious cases, and if buses stopped at the crossroad, they would paralyse several roads at the same time; Po Heung Street (between Wah Lap Restaurant and the roundabout); the bus stop at Kwong Fuk Road where the prolonged parking of taxis at the loading and unloading area prompted goods vehicles to load and unload at the bus stop, and buses could not stop there as a result, forcing passengers to enter the carriageway before getting aboard, which was very dangerous; and Wan Tau Street and Heung Sze Wui Street, where he had observed that the situation of illegal parking had improved recently, but more improvement was still to be made. Meanwhile, the locations where illegal parking problems were less serious included Yan Hing Street, On Po Road and Tsing Yuen Street, where many vehicles also hooted their horns during peak hours, and the situation remained to be addressed.

226. Mr. KWONG Ka-yin responded as follows:

(i) TD would examine the traffic condition in the vicinity of Tai Wo bus stop which DC Members had mentioned.

(ii) He noted DC Members’ views on the provision of additional parking spaces for heavy vehicles, while TD had kept improving the designs of rural roads in line with the needs of district development. TD was conducting a consultancy study on automated parking systems (“APSs”) to ascertain the feasibility and applicability of APSs in Hong Kong. The study was scheduled for completion in early 2020. TD would also take forward APS pilot projects so as to acquire and consolidate experience in building, operating and managing different types of APSs and the associated financial arrangements. This would pave the way for wider application of APSs in government and privately operated public car parks in the future.

227. Mr. Dalu LIN moved an impromptu motion as follows: “DC urges the Government to consider transferring traffic wardens to TD’s establishment and giving them law enforcement powers”. The motion was seconded by Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang.

- 69 -

228. Mr. Richard CHAN said he opined that the original intention of the motion was to transfer traffic wardens to TD’s establishment, or to give TD law enforcement powers to create new posts. However, as traffic wardens already had the power to enforce the law, the meaning of the motion was not clear enough. 229. Mr. MAN Nim-chi suggested amending the motion as follows: “DC urges the Government to consider transferring the law enforcement power of traffic wardens to TD’s establishment”. 230. The Chairman asked whether Mr. MAN Nim-chi meant to allow TD to deploy staff to perform the duties of traffic wardens so that it would no longer have to rely upon traffic wardens to exercise the power. 231. Mr. Richard CHAN agreed with Mr. MAN Nim-chi. The enforcement power could be handed over to TD, just as the operation mode of the Tobacco and Alcohol Control Office. 232. Mr. Dalu LIN agreed with the suggestion put forward by Mr. MAN Nim-chi in paragraph 229 above. 233. The Chairman said that if Members made a decision too hurriedly, the meaning conveyed by the motion might not be comprehensive enough, and they might encounter the problems they had faced during the discussion on the committees’ terms of reference, in which case Members might not be able to achieve their expected outcomes. 234. Mr. SO Tat-leung said that the literal meaning of Mr. MAN Nim-chi’s suggestion in paragraph 229 above was that the enforcement power of traffic wardens would be handed over to TD, while the traffic warden posts in HKPF would still exist but have no enforcement power. 235. The Chairman said that Members could consider whether it was necessary to move the motion at present. Illegal parking problems had also been discussed at TTC meetings in the past. He suggested that Members could move the motion at TTC meetings after detailed consideration. If HKPF’s representative attended TTC meetings, Members could express their views directly to HKPF. 236. Mr. Dalu LIN withdrew the motion for further discussion later. DC agreed to withdraw the motion at present. 237. The Chairman asked TD’s representative to take note of the views of DC Members, and make every effort to deal with the problems within its capacity. He also asked the Secretariat to forward the minutes of this meeting to HKPF, so that it would be aware of the views and illegal parking blackspots suggested by DC Members. In addition, HKPF’s written reply indicated that

- 70 -

DC Members could call the relevant chief superintendents of HKPF to provide the locations of illegal parking blackspots in the district. The Chairman could provide their contact numbers if Members needed them.

VIII. Discussion of District Council’s enhancement of public engagement (TPDC Paper No. 9/2020) 238. The Vice-chairman went through Paper No. 9/2020. 239. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that he agreed to the recommendation of the Vice-chairman. At present, some Members used their own mobile phones to give live broadcasts of DC meetings via their personal online platforms. However, when adjusting the angles of mobile phones, the positions of the public gallery and reporters had to be taken into account. Such technical constrains made it impossible for them to record videos that reflected the whole picture. If modern technologies could be adopted and DC resources could be used to enhance the transparency of the meetings, the result would be beneficial. 240. Mr. YAM Kai-bong’s comments were as follows:

(i) The functions and workload of DC, which were of great concern to the public, were increasing gradually. When Members gave live broadcasts of DC meetings in the past, many residents watched them, left comments or expressed views in real time. For example, as many members of the public were concerned about traffic issues, they could express their views through real-time comments, which enabled Members to relay the views to TD and the bus companies at once. Minutes of meetings were uploaded to DC’s website a month or so after the meetings. However, Members would like to respond immediately and interact with the public so as to enhance the transparency of DC. He opined that the suggestion was somewhat feasible as it did not require high-technology facilities.

(ii) The public ought to monitor the operations of DC. The remarks and responses of both DC Members and the departments had to be brought to light. As all DC papers, DC Members’ remarks and the departments’ responses could be made public at a later time, why was it not possible to give live broadcasts? He hoped that DC resources (such as the funding for District Minor Works or the funding provided by HAD for DC Secretariat) could be used to purchase live broadcast equipment, including cameras, audio facilities and computer systems, for Members to give broadcasts on their own platforms, or for the public to watch in real time. As he understood, pro-democracy DC Members in different DCs had proposed to give live broadcasts of DC meetings. The primitive methods for live broadcasts no

- 71 -

longer sufficed. Therefore, he hoped that HAD and the Secretariat could respond to the issue.

241. Mr. Nick LAM agreed with the proposal to give live broadcasts of DC meetings. As the public was very concerned about the affairs of DC, he suggested that in addition to online live broadcasts, community facilities such as the large screen on the wall of Tai Po Community Centre could be used to broadcast meetings. This would enable DC to reach out to those without internet access, because having no internet access did not mean that these people did not care about political or livelihood issues. By watching DC meetings, members of the public could learn more about society and make judgments, thereby arousing their interest in political affairs. When all members of the public took part in political affairs, the Government could not state that some people were deceived. He also suggested working with public transport operators (such as MTR Corporation Limited or Kowloon Bus (1933) Company Limited) to replay the footage of DC meetings in the compartments. 242. The Vice-chairman’s comments were as follows:

(i) DC had always been criticised for its lack of transparency. Some netizens had pointed out that DC’s website automatically blocked searches from external search engines, making it impossible to search anything about DC. He opined that this was the reason for the lack of transparency of DC and the limited public understanding and engagement in DC. In addition to giving live broadcasts of meetings, the Administration should also improve the website for more people to understand the functions of DC, thereby monitoring it.

(ii) He suggested collaborating with community organisations in the production of newspapers, because the paper-based method allowed people with no internet access to understand the operations of DC as well as the community news and information on the situations of the district. DC should adopt a multi-pronged approach for development, with a view to enhancing public engagement.

243. Mr. Richard CHAN said that he highly recognised and agreed with the use of DC resources to give official live broadcasts or other proposals that would help increase transparency. 244. Mr. Patrick MO said that as far as he knew, the topics covered in the current curriculum were related to DCs. For example, the primary school curriculum included a section called “our government”, whereas the Liberal Studies subject in secondary schools included a topic on public engagement. He suggested cooperating with the schools in the district and regularly inviting students to observe the meetings, so as to increase their understanding of DC operations and their awareness of public engagement.

- 72 -

245. The Vice-chairman suggested inviting the District Officer, government officials and DC Members to hold meetings in broad daylight. For example, meetings could be held in various parts of Tai Po town centre, such as Tai Po Waterfront Park, venues of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department or Tai Po Mega Mall. This could familiarise the public with the work of DC, or provide them with the opportunity to talk about the situations of the district or put forward their demands directly to the government departments. 246. Mr. Nick LAM agreed with Mr. Patrick MO. However, he opined that the conference room might not have enough room for a large number of students. Therefore, he suggested that schools could play the footage of DC meetings during the assemblies to increase students’ understanding of DC operations. 247. Mr. Richard CHAN opined that the DC conference room was not spacious enough, and suggested providing a larger space and more equipment for DC. 248. Mr. TAM Yi-pui said that he was very supportive of the suggestion to give live broadcasts of meetings. He also suggested organising meetings with the public to introduce to them the structure and functions of DC as well as livelihood issues, such as the statutory powers of DC. 249. Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang’s comments were as follows:

(i) He suggested holding public hearings for members of the public to put forward their demands and suggestions to DC Members directly, while Members could make proposals based on the public’s suggestions so as to follow up on the demands and expectations of the public.

(ii) In addition to DC’s website, he also suggested keeping up with trends by creating a Facebook account for DC. Besides, projects such as territory-wide policy discussions or community petition proposals could also be implemented, and proposals which secured a certain number of signatures from the public would be discussed at DC meetings.

250. Ms. Olive CHAN’s comments were as follows:

(i) She agreed with Mr. LAU Yung-wai’s proposal to hold DC meetings in public places, and opined that this method could allow the public to gain a better understanding of the work of DC Members.

(ii) She hoped to hear the voice of teenagers. In the past, there had been youth councils in which teenagers acted as DC Members and held meetings. This could not only raise the political awareness among teenagers, but also inspire DC

- 73 -

Members. 251. The Chairman said that the youth council had been one of the projects implemented by the Working Group on Youth Projects under a certain committee many years ago. Considering that Members had discussed whether the system of Co-opted Members should be retained, he did not know whether Members had the same thought on the setting up of youth councils. 252. Ms. Eunice CHAN responded as follows:

(i) DC Members had put forward many creative and inspiring suggestions on this issue. Regarding the live broadcasting of DC meetings, as far as she understood, the Standing Orders did not prohibit the live broadcasting of DC meetings. As regards the use of DC resources to purchase video recording, audio and computer systems for live broadcasting, specific proposals had to be submitted and then handed over to the corresponding working group, which would take further follow-up actions to determine their feasibility.

(ii) Regarding the suggestions to allow other organisations to play the recordings of the meetings and to invite schools to use the footage, DC Members could also consider handing them over to the relevant working group for further follow-up actions.

(iii) Further studies had to be conducted on the suggestions to publish newspapers, invite schools to observe DC meetings, play the footage of DC meetings at school assemblies, and allow meetings to be held in places other than the conference room. However, more specific proposals had to be drawn up before consulting the relevant departments on the resources required by each proposal and the legal issues involved.

(iv) Regarding whether DC had the power to hold public hearings similar to those of LegCo, she suggested following up on the issue by checking whether such a power was conferred by the District Councils Ordinance.

253. The Chairman suggested that the issue be handed over to the Working Group on Promotion of Tai Po District Council for detailed discussion. It was because the live broadcasting by the Secretariat, the regular consultations in the community in collaboration with TPDO, and the holding of meetings in other parts of the community had to be considered in detail and implemented step-by-step. While it was a good thing to enhance the transparency of DC, it was nonetheless necessary to consider the impact in other aspects and carry out long-term planning. 254. Mr. Richard CHAN appealed to Members for their active participation in the Working Group on Promotion of Tai Po District Council, and advised them to give their opinions proactively in the working group.

- 74 -

255. Mr. Nick LAM asked whether TPDC had set up any working group on the management of television screens at community halls in the past. 256. Mr. YAM Kai-bong said that the Working Group on Facilities Management had been set up under the former District Facilities Management Committee, and it was responsible for managing the community halls and television screens in the district. 257. Mr. WONG Siu-kin asked whether there were any measures to ensure the safety of DC Members in the event that people with different political views came to make trouble for DC Members who were having meetings in the conference room. 258. The Secretary said that according to Order 49(3) of the Standing Orders, “if the Chairman of DC or the Chairman of committees / working groups considers that a member of the public observing the meeting was behaving in an disorderly manner and obstructing the meeting despite warnings being given, the Chairman can order that person to leave the meeting venue immediately”. 259. The Chairman said that the staff of the Secretariat were currently being relied upon to help enforce the above provision. The issue concerned could be discussed at AFMC to determine whether it was necessary to hire temporary security guards for certain sensitive issues. He also asked Members to actively participate in the Working Group on Promotion of Tai Po District Council to discuss feasible plans for promoting TPDC.

IX. Meet the Public Scheme (TPDC Paper No. 10/2020) 260. The Secretary went through Paper No. 10/2020. 261. The Chairman said that if Members agreed to the arrangements set out in the captioned paper, the Secretariat would draw up the duty roster as soon as possible and hand it to Members before the start of the Meet the Public Scheme. He also said that as Chinese New Year fell on February, if the Meet the Public Scheme was launched in February, it might be a bit of a rush. Therefore, he suggested that the scheme be launched officially from March onwards. 262. Mr. AU Chun-wah asked how often each Member would be on duty. 263. The Secretary said that according to the current suggestion, two DC Members would meet the public together every month. As there were 21 DC Members in TPDC, it would take about

- 75 -

10 months to complete one cycle. It meant that the DC Members on duty in March would be on duty again at the end of the year or early next year. 264. The Chairman asked whether the TPDC notice boards in the district could be used to promote the Meet the Public Scheme. 265. The Secretary said that the notice boards currently displayed information such as DC Members’ details and dates of meetings, and the Secretariat also intended to use the notice boards to promote the Meet the Public Scheme. 266. Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang said that elderly people living in villages might not be able to use phones or computers to obtain community information. Hence, he asked whether Members would be allowed to use TPDO’s or DC’s notice boards in villages to put up publicity materials to provide villagers with information on various services such as vaccination or identity card replacement. 267. Mr. AU Chun-wah suggested that the public be met by three DC Members at a time so as to increase shift turnover. 268. The Chairman said that the existing notice boards of TPDO and DC were mainly used by TPDO to put up notices and publicity information about the entire DC. However, publicity materials of individual DC Members were not displayed there. He suggested that feasibility of putting up publicity information of DC Members on DC’s notice boards be discussed at upcoming committee meetings. 269. Ms. Eunice CHAN said that notice boards of TPDO were produced by the Works Section of TPDO to be erected in villages for the display of works-related notices, so as to meet the statutory requirements that the public could express opinions during the objection period. 270. The Chairman asked whether it was possible to reserve some space on the notice boards for DC Members in the constituencies concerned to put up publicity materials. 271. Ms. Eunice CHAN said that the notice boards of the Works Section were mostly located in rural areas, and few of them were in urban areas. Therefore, it should be noted that some constituencies did not have notice boards for DC Members to put up publicity materials. 272. Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang said that compared with DC Members in urban areas, it was more difficult for DC Members in rural areas to carry out publicity work in their own constituencies. As the notices on the notice boards in some villages were obsolete and had not been cleared and updated for a long time, he suggested that DC Members be allowed to put up publicity materials on the back of the notice boards so that they could provide the villagers with the latest information.

- 76 -

If TPDO needed to put up works-related notices, it could also put them on top of the publicity materials. 273. Ms. Eunice CHAN said that the issue concerned was related to the locations available for each DC Member in the district to put up banners. The staff of TPDO Liaison Section would contact the DC Members concerned after the meeting to discuss the suitable locations in their constituencies for putting up publicity materials, with a view to meeting the needs of every DC Member. , Other DC Members were welcome to contact the staff of TPDO Liaison Section should they have any needs and opinions in this regard. 274. Mr. Richard CHAN’s comments were follows:

(i) He thanked the District Officer (Tai Po) for raising her concern about the potential unfairness among DC Members. Given that notice boards were provided at the housing estates of HD in urban areas, he opined that it was not unfair to allow DC Members in rural areas to use TPDO’s notice boards. He also believed that the issue concerned could be left to the decisions of DC Members.

(ii) In a village in his constituency, a notice board was still displaying the publicity materials put up by a former DC Member when he ran for election 12 years ago. It meant that the notice board had not been updated for more than 12 years, which was a waste of resources.

275. The Chairman asked the District Officer (Tai Po) to follow up on the issue with the DC Members in rural areas after the meeting. He opined that the constituencies in urban areas were smaller than those in rural areas, which made it easier to carry out publicity work. If DC Members in rural areas could be provided with locations for publicity work, that would be of great help for them to connect with the residents. In addition, regarding the suggestion that the public should be met by three DC Members instead, he opined that it could help prevent the situation where two DC Members could not attend the meeting due to sickness. 276. Mr. MAN Nim-chi asked whether the three-DC Member combinations for meeting the public in this DC term had been confirmed. 277. The Chairman suggested that combinations of DC Members be arranged for one year first, after which a review would be conducted. 278. Mr. AU Chun-wah’s comments were as follows:

(i) He suggested drawing lots every year to determine the combinations of DC Members.

- 77 -

(ii) In his constituency (namely Tai Po Central constituency), there were two large housing estates where the display of DC Members’ publicity materials was not allowed. He suggested adopting the practice of other DCs which used minor works funding to provide notice boards in the district for DC Members to do publicity work. He had suggested allowing DC Members to put up publicity materials on notice boards. However, the suggestion had been rejected on the grounds that DC resources should not be used for personal publicity of DC Members. He requested that the Secretariat examine the provisions concerned to see if his understanding was correct.

279. The Secretary summarised Members’ proposed amendments to the Meet the Public Scheme as follows:

(i) The public would be met by three DC Members together every time;

(ii) The Meet the Public Scheme would commence in March 2020; and

(iii) The Secretariat would compile a duty roster for Members by drawing lots every year.

280. TPDC endorsed the suggestions in Paper No. 10/2020 regarding the Meet the Public Scheme, as well as the amendments set out in paragraph 279 above.

X. District Management Committee Report to the TPDC (TPDC Paper No. 11/2020) 281. Mr. Nick LAM said that he was doubtful as to whether the penalty tickets issued by FEHD to non-compliant shops could effectively stop the violations. For non-compliant shops that had high sales volumes, the impact was indeed minimal even if they received two penalty tickets in a day. He suggested that FEHD consider increasing the fines for each repeated violation committed by a shop within a short period of time. The fines would be recalculated only when the situation improved within one month, so as to enhance the deterrent effect. In addition to penalising non-compliant shops, he had also discussed with FEHD’s staff the use of incentives to encourage shops to abide by the law. Shops with good track records could be highly recognised by, for example, organising award presentation ceremonies where shops with good track records were awarded certificates or quality certifications as a means of promoting the shops. By using both rewards and punishments, the problem of violations by shops could be alleviated. 282. The Chairman said that the District Management Committee (“DMC”) was a meeting attended jointly by various government departments, the Chairman and Vice-chairman of DC, and

- 78 -

the Chairmen of various committees. The committee’s report would be submitted to DC for approval. If there were no special issues, detailed discussions would usually not be held. Therefore, he suggested that Members discuss the views at the committee meetings. 283. Mr. AU Chun-ho said that paragraph (b) of the Current Situation under Item II in the captioned paper stated that “HD’s staff conducted a total of 22 hawker control operations in November and December 2019 to expel illegal hawkers from the housing estates. The operations were conducted mostly at the illegal hawking blackspots in Tai Yuen Estate and Kwong Fuk Estate”. He asked HD’s officials how many hawker control operations had been conducted in Tai Yuen Estate during the aforementioned period. When he walked past the restaurant in Tai Yuen Estate every morning, he always found several fish stalls occupying the entire road as they were hawking, and poured sewage into the sewers improperly. In summer, the foul odour was so strong that no matter how many times the management office cleaned the floor, the situation did not get any better. He had on many occasions reported the problem to the responsible HD manager, and asked how HD would take law enforcement actions against the hawkers. However, he had not received any reply yet. 284. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho said that he had complained about some real estate agents in the vicinity of Pak Shek Kok which put tables, chairs and tents on the street to promote and tout for business. He asked whether FEHD would regard these real estate agents as hawkers and take regulatory actions, or the issue concerned was under the purview of other departments. 285. Mr. Richard CHAN suggested that the hall at the vacant school premises mentioned in Item V in the paper be used for holding DC meetings. 286. Mr. Patrick MO asked about the content of the detailed design service contracts for the vacant school premises projects in Tai Po District, such as what types of services would be provided, and when they were expected to complete and commence service. 287. Mr. LAW Shau-mong thanked Mr. Nick LAM for his suggestions. He would discuss with the superintendent of FEHD in Tai Po District the proposal to use both rewards and punishments in the law enforcement actions against street obstruction by shops. 288. Mr. Allan CHAN said that the hawker clearance operations in Tai Yuen Estate were carried out by outsourced property management companies. HD would urge the outsourced property management companies to enhance management and conduct joint operations with FEHD to tackle the problem. 289. Mr. Alex KWOK said that regarding the promotion of property by real estate agents in public places, enforcement actions adopted were similar to those for dealing with telecommunications

- 79 -

companies which used roll-up banners to promote telecommunications services on the streets, i.e., departments concerned would take action according to their relevant legislation. The above issue was not under the purview of the District Lands Office, Tai Po. 290. Ms. WONG Mei-yin said that the vacant school premises of the former Church of Christ In China Kei Ching Primary School had been returned to LandsD. At present, SWD was following up on the renovation works concerned. 291. Ms. Sindy CHAN said that the school premises of the former Church of Christ In China Kei Ching Primary School would be converted into elderly and rehabilitation facilities. SWD had conducted a tender exercise for the detailed design service contract of the project, and tender evaluation was currently underway. Upon completion of the evaluation, the construction works would begin. 292. Mr. AU Chun-ho said that to his understanding, the outsourced property management companies should have no authority to conduct the control operations. The responsible HD manager had said that HD would deploy a special task force to deal with the problem. However, the problem remained unresolved despite a number of actions taken. He hoped that HD could provide the number of operations conducted and penalty tickets issued. 293. Mr. Allan CHAN said that he could furnish the aforementioned information to Mr. AU Chun-ho after the meeting. 294. The Chairman asked HD to contact Mr. AU Chun-ho after the meeting to discuss ways to step up law enforcement actions. 295. Mr. Nick LAM said that many residents had complained about the serious problems of mendicancy and prostitution in the district. As such, he asked whether the departments would drive them away during the joint operations, and hoped that the departments concerned could provide the relevant figures. 296. The Chairman said that as the department responsible for dealing with the problems concerned did not attend this meeting, he suggested handing the issues over to DMC for follow-up actions.

XI. Naming of Public Rental Housing (PRH) buildings of public housing development in Area 9 Tai Po and Chung Nga Road East (TPDC Paper No. 12/2020)

- 80 -

297. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin went through Paper No. 12/2020. 298. The Chairman said that it had been pointed out earlier that some of the above buildings would be allocated for the Home Ownership Scheme and the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme. He asked whether it was currently confirmed that all of these buildings would be used for PRH. 299. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that according to the current information, the housing blocks in the first and second phases of the development would be used for PRH. 300. Mr. Nick LAM’s comments were as follows:

(i) Characters used for the proposed names of some buildings were rather uncommon, such as Gap Tip House and Hin Tip House, which might cause misunderstandings when people unfamiliar with the area were asking for directions.

(ii) As the above public housing estate was named after butterflies, he suggested that the exterior of the housing blocks be decorated with features of various butterflies to better align with the theme of butterflies.

301. Mr. MAN Nim-chi agreed that some characters or pronunciations were less common, and hoped that HD could provide the English names of these housing blocks for Members’ reference. 302. Mr. TAM Yi-pui said that this public housing estate was adjacent to Tai Po Fung Yuen Butterfly Reserve (“Tai Po Fung Yuen”), and the naming of the above housing blocks could also serve education purposes for the public. As such, he suggested providing ecological education facilities in the housing estate. 303. Mr. YAM Kai-bong asked whether the English names of the above housing blocks would be based on Cantonese pronunciation or the scientific names of the butterflies in English. 304. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin responded as follows:

(i) As the construction site of the above housing estate site was adjacent to Tai Po Fung Yuen, the architect used butterflies as the design concept of the housing estate. After numerous discussions on the names of the housing blocks, the final names were educational.

(ii) For Gap Tip House, the character “蛺” had two pronunciations, namely “gaap” and “haap”. HD eventually adopted the pronunciation of “gaap”, and would later provide the Secretariat with the Chinese and English names of the housing blocks

- 81 -

for DC Members’ reference. HD had also noted the views of DC Members.

(Post-meeting note: HD had provided the information concerned for the Secretariat on 3 March 2020, and the Secretariat had forwarded the information to DC Members on the same day.)

305. Ms. Olive CHAN asked whether the English names of the housing blocks would be based on Cantonese pronunciation. 306. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that Cantonese pronunciation would be used for the English names of the housing blocks. 307. Mr. AU Chun-wah asked whether the character “蛺” as in the scientific name of nymphs (蛺蝶) was pronounced as “gaap”, or HD had chosen “gaap” between the two pronunciations of “蛺”. 308. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that after looking up the information on the internet, they found that the character “蛺” had two pronunciations. When naming housing blocks, HD had to consider other factors. For instance, the Housing Authority had to assign codes to housing blocks (the code of Gap Tip House, for example, was GPT), and the codes had to be different from those of other housing estates in Hong Kong. Therefore, it eventually named the housing block as Gap Tip House. 309. Mr. AU Chun-wah said that he understood “蛺” had two pronunciations. However, he would like to know the correct pronunciation of the scientific name of nymphs, rather than the pronunciation chosen by HD for the sake of convenience. 310. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that “蛺” as in the scientific name of nymphs was also pronounced as “gaap”. 311. The Vice-chairman’s comments were as follows:

(i) Given the large variety of butterflies, he wondered whether HD would consider replacing some names that could easily cause confusion, such as Gap Tip House.

(ii) He suggested avoiding the use of characters with the radical “虫” as the first character of the names of housing blocks, so as not to give a negative connotation.

312. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that HD had consulted relevant government departments including TPDO as well as DC Members on the naming, and had adopted the views of all parties. Moreover, the above housing estate would be completed soon. In addition, the use of characters with the radical “虫” as names of housing estates, such as Butterfly Estate in Tuen Mun, had been

- 82 -

working effectively all along. HD had also consulted the Hongkong Post on the names concerned, and opined that the names would not cause misunderstandings and revulsion among residents. (Post-meeting note: Regarding the names in question, TPDO had consulted the DC Members concerned, who did not have any comments on the names.) 313. Mr. HO Wai-lam asked what impact there would be if the names were not endorsed by DC today. 314. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that the housing estate would be completed soon, and there would still be a lot of work to do after DC endorsed the naming, so time was quite limited. In the process of naming, HD had consulted many stakeholders before naming the housing estate as “Fu Tip Estate”, considering that its construction site was adjacent to Tai Po Fung Yuen and Fu Heng Estate. Therefore, the name reflected the characteristics of the district. 315. Mr. Nick LAM said that as HD had already decided on the name of the housing estate, any views proposed by DC Members would not affect the naming. He wondered why it still consulted DC. As HD had stated that it had consulted various departments on the naming, he wondered why it did not consult DC first. If it had not been possible to conduct consultation due to the suspension of DC’s operation, he asked whether HD had carried out any informal consultation with the incumbent DC Members, in addition to the formal consultation with the DC Members at the meeting. 316. Mr. Richard CHAN said that the names of the above housing blocks were very beautiful and educational. He opined that there was no problem with the use of characters with the radical “虫”. Butterflies were beautiful creatures. The transformation from insects into butterflies seemed to carry a symbolic meaning that Hong Kong had experienced a great shock and then transformed into something beautiful. According to the “Chinese Character Database: With Word-formations Phonologically Disambiguated According to the Cantonese Dialect” of the CUHK, “蛺” was pronounced as “gaap”. Therefore, he agreed with the name of Gap Tip House. 317. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that she thanked Mr. Richard CHAN for his support. HD had communicated with Mr. MAN Nim-chi, Mr. HO Wai-lam and the Chairman of DC about the naming. Their comments were “no comment, no objection and accepted”. 318. The Chairman said that most important of all, the names of housing blocks and housing estates had to carry an auspicious meaning. There was no big problem with the names of the housing blocks.

- 83 -

319. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin strongly agreed with the Chairman, and said that she hoped the residents could live in peace and work in contentment. 320. Mr. Allan CHAN said that HD chose to use butterflies as the theme of the housing estate because its construction site was adjacent to Tai Po Fung Yuen. Given the large variety of butterflies, and after careful consideration and discussion with the architect on the design concept, it eventually chose the aforementioned butterflies as the names of the housing blocks. 321. Mr. HO Wai-lam said the naming of the housing blocks after butterflies that had been killed during the construction of this housing estate showed that HD still had conscience. He indicated that as the housing estate was close to Pinehill, the name “Fu Chung Village” was also auspicious. 322. TPDC endorsed HD’s proposed names of the PRH blocks at the public housing development in Area 9 Tai Po and Chung Nga Road East. 323. The Chairmen said that HD was quite ingenious in the naming of housing estates in recent years. One example was Po Shek Wu Estate in Sheung Shui. He hoped that HD could keep it up.

XII. Any Other Business (I) “Market Management Consultative Committee” of public markets managed by the

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (TPDC Paper No. 13/2020) 324. Mr. LAI Siu-kwong went through Paper No. 13/2020. 325. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong nominated Mr. WONG Siu-kin and Mr. Dalu LIN nominated Mr. WU Yiu-cheong to join the Market Management Consultative Committee in Tai Po Hui Market. Mr. WONG Siu-kin and Mr. WU Yiu-cheong accepted the nominations. 326. Mr. Richard CHAN nominated Mr. YIU Kwan-ho and Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang nominated Mr. Richard CHAN to join the Market Management Consultative Committee in Plover Cove Road Market. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho and Mr. Richard CHAN accepted the nominations. 327. TPDC endorsed Mr. WONG Siu-kin and Mr. WU Yiu-cheong joining the Market Management Consultative Committee in Tai Po Hui Market, and Mr. YIU Kwan-ho and Mr. Richard CHAN joining the Market Management Consultative Committee in Plover Cove Road Market.

- 84 -

(II) Nomination of TPDC representatives to the Regional Advisory Committee of Hospital

Authority (TPDC Paper No. 14/2020) 328. The Secretary went through Paper No. 14/2020. 329. The Vice-chairman nominated Ms. Olive CHAN, and Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai nominated Mr. YAM Kai-bong. Ms. Olive CHAN and Mr. YAM Kai-bong accepted the nominations. 330. Ms. Olive CHAN withdrew. No other Members at the meeting were nominated. 331. TPDC endorsed the appointment of Mr. YAM Kai-bong as a member of the Regional Advisory Committee of Hospital Authority. (III) Forms for Registration of Personal Information and Interests of DC Members 332. The Chairman said that pursuant to the Standing Orders, Members were required to register their personal interest once a year. He asked Members to return the completed personal interest registration forms, both the original copy and the digital copy, to TPDC Secretariat on or before 31 January 2020 for filing and public inspection. In addition, he also asked Members to return their completed curriculum vitaes to the Secretariat by the said deadline. The forms had been put on the meeting table for Members to fill out. The digital file of the personal interests registration form could be downloaded from TPDC’s website, and the Secretariat would also send the digital file to all Members by e-mail. (IV) Matters arising from the DC meeting on 7 January 2020 333. Mr. Richard CHAN said that at the last DC meeting, he would like the Secretariat to ask DoJ whether DC had the legal status to apply for judicial review. In this connection, he asked whether the Secretariat would respond to this issue at this meeting. 334. The Secretary said that as the Secretariat had been busy preparing for several meetings in the recent one or two weeks, it did not have time to deal with the aforesaid matter. However, it would follow up on Mr. Richard CHAN’s request as soon as possible. In addition, some of the matters arising which Members had brought up at the last DC meeting, such as adding selection criteria for the appointment of Co-opted Members, were being dealt with currently and would be

- 85 -

reported at the AFMC meeting tomorrow.

XIII. Date of Next Meeting 335. The next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 24 March 2020 (Tuesday). 336. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

Tai Po District Council Secretariat March 2020