Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the Tuen Mun District Council€¦ · Mr LEUNG Kin-man, BBS, MH, JP...

Minutes of the 23rd

Meeting of

the Tuen Mun District Council

Date: 9 July 2019 (Tuesday)

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Venue: Tuen Mun District Council (TMDC) Conference Room

Present: Time of Arrival Time of Departure

Mr LEUNG Kin-man, BBS, MH, JP (Chairman) 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr LEE Hung-sham, Lothar, BBS, MH (Vice-chairman) 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr SO Shiu-shing, MH 9:52 a.m. End of meeting

Mr KWU Hon-keung 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr TO Sheck-yuen, MH 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr CHU Yiu-wah 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Ms KONG Fung-yi 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr CHAN Yau-hoi, BBS, MH, JP 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Ms WONG Lai-sheung, Catherine 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr AU Chi-yuen 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Ms HO Hang-mui 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr TSUI Fan, MH 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Ms CHING Chi-hung, JP 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Ms LUNG Shui-hing, MH 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr CHAN Man-wah, MH 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr CHAN Manwell, Leo 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr CHEUNG Hang-fai 9:42 a.m. End of meeting

Ms CHU Shun-nga, Beatrice 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr TSANG Hin-hong 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Ms SO Ka-man 9:30 a.m. 11:57 a.m.

Mr KAM Man-fung 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr MO Shing-fung 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr YEUNG Chi-hang 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr YAN Siu-nam 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr TAM Chun-yin 9:30 a.m. End of meeting

Mr LAU Chun-fai, Lawrence

(Secretary)

Senior Executive Officer (District Council),

Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department

Absent with Apologies:

Mr NG Koon-hung

Mr LAM Chung-hoi

The Hon LAU Ip-keung, Kenneth, BBS, MH, JP

The Hon HO Kwan-yiu, JP

Mr YIP Man-pan

By Invitation:

Ms LO Yuen-shan IP, SIP District Intelligence Section (Tuen Mun),

Hong Kong Police Force

Mr MAK Sai-king Senior Engineer/Planning 2, Water Supplies Department

Ms CHAN Oi-ming Engineer/Planning 8, Water Supplies Department

Mr YIP Lam-fung Engineer/New Territories West (Distribution 2),

Water Supplies Department

Dr LAU Fung-ha, Lesley Head of Art Promotion Office, Art Promotion Office

Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Ms CHUNG Yuen-han Acting Curator (Public Art), Art Promotion Office


Mr Karr YIP Founder and Creative Director, ADO Ltd

Mr Kit CHEUK Project Director, ADO Ltd

Mr Jimmy HO Project Designer, ADO Ltd

Mr Ben SHUM Project Coordinator, ADO Ltd

In Attendance:

Ms FUNG Ngar-wai, Aubrey District Officer (Tuen Mun), Home Affairs Department

Mr LEUNG Tsz-hong, Billy Assistant District Officer (Tuen Mun)2 (Acting),

Home Affairs Department

Ms YAN Yuet-han, Fion Senior Liaison Officer (1), Tuen Mun District Office,


Ms YU Mei-yu, Melinder Senior Liaison Officer (2), Tuen Mun District Office,


Mr KWONG Ka-kuen Senior Liaison Officer (3), Tuen Mun District Office (Acting),


Mr CHEUNG Ka-leung, Tony Chief Engineer/West 3, Civil Engineering and Development

Department

Mr CHENG Kwok-yan, Brian Chief School Development Officer (Tuen Mun),

Education Bureau

Mr LEE Kam-ho, Edwin District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Tuen Mun),

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Ms NGAN Yuen-yee Deputy District Commander (Tuen Mun), Hong Kong

Police Force

Ms NG Man-wai Police Community Relations Officer (Tuen Mun District),

Hong Kong Police Force

Ms LI Pui-kun Senior Housing Manager/Tuen Mun, Housing Department

Ms NG Suet-yee, Joyce District Lands Officer/Tuen Mun, (District Lands Office,

Tuen Mun), Lands Department

Mr TAM Kwok-leung Administrative Assistant, Lands (District Lands Office,

Tuen Mun) (Acting), Lands Department

Ms TAM Yin-ting, Pat District Leisure Manager (Tuen Mun),


Mr NG Yuk-man, David District Planning Officer, Tuen Mun & Yuen Long West,

Planning Department

Mr YU Wai-yip, Ricky District Social Welfare Officer (Tuen Mun),

Social Welfare Department

Mr KWONG Ka-yin Chief Transport Officer, New Territories North West,

Transport Department

Ms YU Tsz-yan, Blanche

(Assistant Secretary)

Executive Officer I (District Council)1,

Tuen Mun District Office, Home Affairs Department

-1-

Action

I. Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed all participants and government department

representatives in attendance to the 23rd

meeting of the Tuen Mun District Council

(“TMDC”).

2. On behalf of the TMDC, the Chairman congratulated Ms CHING Chi-hung

on being appointed as a Justice of Peace, Mr SO Shiu-shing on being awarded a

Medal of Honour, and Mr MO Shing-fung on being awarded the Chief Executive’s

Commendation for Community Service.

3. The Chairman further said Members who were aware of their personal

interests in any matters discussed at the meeting should declare the interests before

the discussion. The Chairman would, in accordance with Order 39(11) of the

TMDC Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”), decide whether the Members who had

declared interests might speak or vote on the matters, might remain at the meeting as

observers, or should withdraw from the meeting. All cases of declaration of

interests would be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

4. Besides, the Chairman reminded members of the public observing the

meeting that the press areas set up on both sides of the screen at the back of the

conference room were reserved for use by media representatives who had registered

and received stickers for identification. Other members of the public observing the

meeting should remain in the public seating area.

5. Moreover, the Chairman said two papers relating to the Fugitive Offenders

Ordinance (“FOO”) were not included in the agenda of this meeting and he had,

through the Secretariat, informed the proposers of the two papers about that earlier.

At their requests, he had subsequently asked the Secretariat to give them written

explanations. In this connection, the Chairman briefly explained again the reasons

why the two papers had not been accepted:

(i) Requests for Withdrawal of FOO Amendments and Setting up of

Independent Commission of Inquiry into Police’s Handling of “12

June” Incident

The Government had already put a halt to the legislative amendment

exercise and the matter concerned was not directly related to district

affairs, so it should not be included in the agenda of this meeting.

- 2 -

Action

(ii) Objection to TMDC Chairman Making Joint Declaration without

Consent

The joint declaration mentioned in the paper was made in the name of

the TMDC Chairman instead of the TMDC. The Standing Orders

had no regulation on the speeches and positions of Members

(including the Chairman) of the TMDC outside its meetings, and the

TMDC should not impose any regulation on Members’ speeches and

positions outside its meetings, so the matter mentioned in the paper

should not be taken as a district affair for discussion at the meeting.

Moreover, the content of this paper was about the TMDC Chairman.

Thus, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the decision on whether

or not to include the paper in the agenda should be made by the TMDC

Vice-chairman. In this connection, the Chairman had consulted the

Vice-chairman, who had said the paper should not be included in the

agenda of the TMDC meeting for discussion.

He added that according to the Standing Orders, the TMDC Chairman’s decisions on

matters relating to the Standing Orders were final and conclusive.

6. The Members who proposed the above paper opined that the TMDC ought to

discuss the paper as the Government had merely suspended the bill instead of

withdrawing it. As for the other paper which had not been accepted, she regretted

that the Chairman had made the declaration in the name of the TMDC Chairman;

she opined that it should have been made in the name of a TMDC Member instead.

Moreover, she said she wanted to read out a joint declaration.

7. The Chairman said he did not allow the above Member to read out the

declaration because the matter concerning FOO amendments was not an item on the

agenda of this meeting.

[At this point, the above Member started to read out the declaration and was asked

by the Chairman to stop. After that, a number of Members debated on whether or

not to allow the declaration, while some Members expressed dissatisfaction because

they wished but were not allowed to speak on the matter.]

8. The Chairman reiterated that he had already made a decision on the

arrangements and this meeting would continue according to the agenda. He asked

Members not to disrupt his chairing of the meeting. Then, the Chairman

announced that the discussion of the next agenda item started.

- 3 -

Action

II. Absence from Meeting

9. The Secretary said the Secretariat had received Mr NG Koon-hung’s

application for sick leave and the notifications from Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr HO

Kwan-yiu, who were absent from the meeting due to other commitments.

[Post-meeting note: The TMDC accepted Mr NG Koon-hung’s application for sick

leave as the Secretariat received a medical certificate from him after the meeting.]

III. Confirmation of Minutes of the 22nd

Meeting held on 7 May 2019

10. The Chairman said that on 28 June 2019, the Secretariat had sent the draft of

the above minutes to all participants in the meeting. As no proposed amendments

had been received thereafter and no amendments were proposed by Members at the

current meeting, the above minutes were confirmed.

IV. Matter Arising

(A) Request the Government to Address and Step Up Efforts to Combat the

“Bogus Refugee” Problem

(TMDC Paper No. 17/2019)

(Paragraphs 28 to 52 of the Minutes of the 22nd

Meeting of TMDC)

11. The Chairman said that at its meeting in May, the TMDC had resolved after

discussion that this matter be further discussed, and the Security Bureau (“SB”) be

invited to send representatives to a meeting to respond directly to Members’

questions and concerns. After that, the Secretariat had received a written response

from the SB and emailed the documents concerned to Members for perusal before

the meeting.

12. A Member said the Government had sent no representatives to the previous

and current meeting. Yet, he believed this was a matter of concern to many

members of the public, and opined that the Government should not disregard the

voice of the district council. He therefore hoped the Chairman would request the

SB to send representatives to the next meeting to respond to the TMDC’s comments

and enquiries on the captioned matter.

13. The Chairman said a letter would be written to the SB requesting it to send

representatives to the next meeting.

[As the discussion of the above matter was closed earlier than scheduled, the

- 4 -

Action

Chairman arranged to bring forward the agenda items not requiring the presence of

invited guests.]

V. Reports from Government

(A) Reports by Tuen Mun Area Committees

(B) The 4th

Report of Tuen Mun District Management Committee 2019

(TMDC Papers No. 23/2019 and 24/2019)

14. Participants perused the contents of the above two reports.

VI. Reports by TMDC Representatives

15. The TMDC representatives had nothing particular to report.

VII. In-house Matters

(A) Members Joining or Resigning from Committees and Working Groups

under TMDC

16. The Secretary reported that no Members had joined or resigned from

committees or working groups under the TMDC over the previous two months.

(B) Position of TMDC Funds as at 21 June 2019

(TMDC Paper No. A39/2019)

17. Participants perused the contents of the above paper.

(C) Applications for TMDC Funds (Projects to be Commenced in September

2019)



19. The Chairman said that during the discussion on the applications for TMDC

Funds, if any Members found that their posts or capacity were related to any partner

organisations or other district organisations of activities in the applications but had

not yet been stated in the Form for Declaration of Interests in Handling TMDC

Funds or the Registration of District Council Member’s Interests, the Members were

required to make declarations even if they did not intend to speak or vote on the

matters concerned. Members should refrain from speaking on any matters in which

they had interests; however, if they wished to speak or vote on the matters

concerned, they should make a request beforehand. The Chairman would, in

accordance with the Standing Orders, decide whether the Members might speak or

vote on the matters concerned, might remain at the meeting as observers, or should

- 5 -

Action

withdraw from the meeting.

20. The Chairman went on to say that the application set out in Paper No. A40

had been recommended by the Finance, Administration and Publicity Committee

(“FAPC”). As the funding amounts in the applications exceeded $100,000, the

applications had to be submitted to the TMDC for approval. The Chairman asked

whether Members endorsed the funding applications set out in the paper.

21. As Members had no comments, the Chairman announced that the funding

application for TMDC Funds set out in the paper was approved.

(D) Applications for TMDC Funds (Projects to be Held in February 2020)



23. The Chairman said that according to the Home Affairs Department’s

requirement, a district council should not commit funding to any items of

expenditure to be incurred after its current term. He further noted that the activity

shown on this paper would be held only after the start of the new term of the TMDC,

so the funding application concerned could be endorsed by the current TMDC in

principle only, and should be subject to final approval by the next TMDC at its first

meeting. In this regard, the application for TMDC Funds shown in this paper had

been recommended by the FAPC. As the funding amount in the application

exceeded $100,000, the application had to be further submitted to the TMDC for

consideration. The Chairman asked whether Members endorsed the funding

application set out in the paper.

24. As Members had no comments, the Chairman announced that the TMDC

endorsed in principle the application for TMDC Funds shown in the paper.

(E) Reports by Committees

(TMDC Papers No. A42/2019 to A47/2019)

25. Participants perused the above six reports.

26. As regards issues about the management of Tuen Mun Park mentioned in the

9th

report of the District Facilities Management Committee (“DFMC”), a Member

said the public’s dissatisfaction about the current situation in Tuen Mun Park was

evidenced by a large protest about the management of Tuen Mun Park on 6 July.

- 6 -

Action

While the authority had used amendments to the Pleasure Grounds Regulation

(“PGR”) as a means to deal with the issues, it took time to amend the legislation.

He had asked the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) and the Hong

Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) if there were any plans in place to tackle the existing

noise and vice problems in Tuen Mun Park, whether the self-entertainment zones

would be abolished, and how removal operations were coordinated. He further

said that according to Section 32 of the current PGR, LCSD officers had the power

to drive away any person who violated the PGR. In this connection, he asked the

LCSD and the HKPF if there were any plans or arrangements in place to drive away

persons who created noise or caused public nuisances, and how Section 25 of the

PGR could be effectively executed after its amendment.

27. The Member who was also the DFMC Chairman said the noise problem in

Tuen Mun Park had been raised at the DFMC meeting on 11 June, and the

committee had requested the LCSD to step up management and explore possible

mitigation measures before the legislative amendment exercise was complete and to

report back on the progress at the DFMC meeting on 20 August. To be fair, the

LCSD might give a report at the next DFMC meeting unless it was well-prepared to

do so at this meeting. Besides, problems in Tuen Mun Park had persisted for more

than a decade and some Members had personally assisted in the department’s efforts

to step up prosecution, but the nature of these problems had already changed. He

suggested the LCSD suspend the self-entertainment zones to ease public discontent.

28. A Member said the noise problem had persisted in Tuen Mun Park for more

than a decade since some singing groups had used loudspeakers in their

performances. Some members of the TMDC and the Legislative Council

(“LegCo”) had visited there. To solve the problem, the TMDC had subsequently

formed a working group and, with the consent of various political parties, set up the

self-entertainment zones and banned the use of loudspeakers. He opined that as

relevant departments had failed to take the problem seriously, the situation had

become worse.

29. A Member said a group of people had joined a march on 6 July this year

petitioning the liberation of Tuen Mun Park. He remarked that the TMDC had

been following up on this matter for many years but relevant departments did not

take the problems seriously. Members had requested the LCSD to amend the

legislation, but legislation amendment was a time-consuming exercise. Therefore,

at the previous meeting the DFMC had requested the Police to combat vice activities

- 7 -

Action

and hoped the Police would report back on the progress at this or the next DFMC

meeting. Moreover, he asked the LCSD whether it was possible to change the

existing standard for regulation of loudspeakers (i.e. the difference between the level

of background sound and the level of music performers’ voice) from five to three

decibels, or even to two or one decibel, before the legislation was amended, so as to

reduce the nuisance to the public. Furthermore, he suggested that after the

legislation was amended, the LCSD request security guards to fulfill their duty in

providing support, so as to make prosecution more effective. In addition, he hoped

the legislation would be amended on a full scale to ban reward giving and the use of

loudspeakers. Also, he agreed with the abolition of the self-entertainment zones.

30. A Member said that at the DFMC, he had raised certain issues in Tuen Mun

Park, Tsing Tin Playground and Butterfly Beach Park, and enquired about law

enforcement or prosecution figures. The current problems involved not only

noises, but also indecent conduct, breaches of rules and giving of rewards, with

suspected involvement of Two Way Permit holders in particular. The public had

reported and complained to Members about this for many times. He suggested the

Police, the LCSD, the Immigration Department (“ImmD”) and other departments

work together to deal with the issues. In addition, he hoped relevant departments

would report on the directional work at this or the next DFMC meeting.

31. A Member said the self-entertainment zones had been set up for performance

by singing groups back then, with a ban imposed on their use of loudspeakers;

however, the nature of things had changed, with performance groups not only

singing and dancing but also using loudspeakers and causing the noise problem

these days. She was worried that before the legislative amendment exercise was

complete, people annoyed by the noise problem in Tuen Mun Park would clash with

performing groups when expressing their demands in marches. In view of this, she

suggested that before the legislative amendment exercise was complete, the LCSD

abolish the self-entertainment zones, ban the use of loudspeakers and drive away

persons who used loudspeakers, so as to prevent clashes happening again.

32. A Member said that while Tuen Mun Park was not within his constituency,

he felt pity because residents in his constituency were plagued by the noise problem.

He said that over the previous decade or so, he had repeatedly requested various

government departments to address what residents and owners’ corporations in

Century Gateway, Kam Wah Garden and The Trend Plaza wanted, but in vain.

When Secretary for Administration had visited Tuen Mun the year before, the

- 8 -

Action

Member had used a loudspeaker to relay requests to the secretary but had been

driven away after doing so. Members at meetings had time and again advised the

Government to ameliorate the problem but, disappointingly, they had been ignored.

The public were angered as a result. In 2014, he had suggested the LCSD amend

Section 25 of the PGR, ban the use of loudspeakers as well as the giving of rewards

and red packets, install gates for management, and step up law enforcement, but the

Government had taken no follow-up action. It was not until recently that the LCSD

engaged in the legislative amendment. Besides, he had lodged complaints that had

successfully made offenders liable for prosecution and a fine of $1,200, but it was

regrettable that procedures were complicated and prosecutions took as long as one

and a half year.

33. A Member expressed agreement, saying that the current situation was

different from before when the self-entertainment zones had been set up: in the old

days users had played the pianos and sang for their own entertainment, whereas the

situation today became worse and worse, with some users increasing the volume of

loudspeakers and activities like the giving of red packets and rewards being seen.

She suspected that the LCSD was unable to abolish the self-entertainment zones, and

public discontent was down to the belief prevalent among government departments

that “the less one does, the fewer mistakes one makes; the more one does, the more

mistakes one makes”. While Members had repeatedly requested government

departments to tackle the noise problem in Tuen Mun Park, no concrete action had

been taken, and cases of relevant departments joining the Police for law enforcement

were no longer heard about. Tuen Mun Park was in a terrible mess, with not only

the noise problem but also indecent conduct. As it took time to amend the

legislation and the LegCo could not call a meeting for the time being, she suggested

the LCSD step up efforts to deal with the situation in the interim period to prevent it

from worsening further. In addition, she agreed that the LCSD be allowed time and

give a report at the next DFMC meeting.

34. A Member said that in those days, singing groups had complained about each

other as they had raised their volume to attract fans, so the TMDC had been

unanimously of the view that the self-entertainment zones should be set up to

regulate such activities. Also, the council had consulted affected residents in Yau

Oi Estate with a view to controlling volume and, thus, the situation. Slight

progress had been made, with no more complaints received from residents. Yet,

the working group tasked with the setting up of the self-entertainment zones had not

- 9 -

Action

kept up its efforts, and the situation spiralled out of control again. Furthermore, she

noted that several months of peace had been restored in Tuen Mun Park after the

Police’s law enforcement action against noises produced by singing groups, adding

that this, coupled with a previous case of councillors being driven away, was

compelling evidence that the Police had the ability to enforce the law no matter

whether the legislation had been amended or not. While supporting the abolition of

the self-entertainment zones, she was worried that other places would be affected.

She therefore recommended caution when handling the proposal.

35. A Member said councillors were not indifferent to the problems. She had

requested at a number of meetings that relevant departments and the TMDC should

look squarely at the problems in Tuen Mun Park, but other councillors had reminded

her not to repeat the requests that were already being handled by a relevant working

group. She further noted that if it had been young people who engaged in music

and dancing performances in Tuen Mun Park, they would have been driven away by

the LCSD; however, the Tuen Mun Park was affected by the noise problem and

became a venue for pornographic performances. She remembered that an elderly

person had failed to leave quickly and fallen down in a government enforcement

action in Tuen Mun Park and, unfortunately, passed away later. Since then, no

government departments dared to handle the issues, thus leading to the current

uncontrolled situation. She was dissatisfied with the relevant departments as they

merely awaited the legislative amendment but put no alternative measures in place.

Moreover, she hoped things could be put right after a large number of people had

taken to the streets seeking liberation of Tuen Mun Park and requesting government

departments to redress the situation in Tuen Mun Park without delay. She said

Tuen Mun had been proud to be a community free of vice establishments, but it had

changed materially. She opined that the TMDC should certainly be held

responsible for that. She said district councillors ought to monitor the operation of

government departments, improve the lives of people and build a better community.

She suggested the Chairman, the Tuen Mun District Office (“TMDO”) and other

relevant departments work together to ameliorate the situation in Tuen Mun Park as

soon as possible. Also, he urged the Police to step up enforcement to eradicate vice

conduct.

36. A Member said the nature of the self-entertainment zones had changed and

the TMDC should suspend the self-entertainment zones in accordance with the

wishes of the public. As it took time to amend the legislation and LegCo meetings

would resume only in October at the earliest, he suggested the LCSD give responses

- 10 -

Action

on the feasibility of and the time required for the suspension of the

self-entertainment zones. He added that after the suspension of the zones,

departments would have to make further arrangements in accordance with the

circumstances subsequent to the legislative amendment. He understood that many

users might not take part in entertainments in the self-entertainment zones and the

suspension of the zones might not be a solution to all problems, but the TMDC

might still express public opinions and its tough stance. Besides, he opined that the

legislative amendment plan represented the culmination of Members’ efforts in

urging government departments to tackle the problems, so Members should not sell

themselves short as long as they worked with dedication and a clear conscience.

37. A Member reckoned that while the LegCo could not have meetings at the

moment, departments could still estimate the timeline for the legislative amendment

exercise to be carried out after the LegCo resumption. Therefore, he asked the

LCSD about the time required for the legislative amendment exercise, the expected

effectiveness after the legislative amendment. He also asked whether, if the

problem remained unsolved after the legislative amendment was complete and the

self-entertainment zones were abolished, the Government would put in place

measures such as referring the issues to the Police to solve the increasingly serious

vice problem. He also wanted the Police’s responses to his questions.

38. A Member said the TMDC had been following up on the noise problem for

many years, adding that if the problem had been peculiar to Tuen Mun Park, the

Government would have not amended the legislation in this regard. She said that

while legislation amendment was often a time-consuming process, different

follow-up action could be taken before that. She hoped Members would pull

together to address the issues regardless of their political affiliations, and she

believed departments would not procrastinate. She noted that many parents had

brought their kids along to join the march on 6 July, as children had the right to

enjoy the park too. The noise problem deterred residents living around the park

from opening windows. In her view, departments should work together to tackle

the noise problem, curb the giving of red packet rewards and carry out joint

operations for tougher law enforcement.

39. A Member said the legislative amendment had been discussed for seven or

eight years but problems in Tuen Mun Park had never been ameliorated, adding that

Members were not shy about following them up but they felt powerless. As the

Government needed more time to deal with the problems, he hoped the Chairman

- 11 -

Action

would take the lead in requesting the LCSD to temporarily suspend the

self-entertainment zones in Tuen Mun Park, so that departments could proceed with

the legislative amendment exercise.

40. Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD gave a consolidated response to Members’

comments and enquiries as follows:

(i) The purpose of setting up the self-entertainment zones in Tuen Mun

Park back then was to minimise noises by regulating the activities of

singing groups rather than to condone or try to legitimise such

activities. In fact, neither using loudspeakers nor singing in the park

was a violation of the PGR, as long as such activities did not cause any

nuisance. The current problem was that the legislation concerned

was outdated and thus required amendments. The LCSD kept an

open mind about the proposal to abolish the self-entertainment zones,

and it would hear Members’ voice to improve the system and relevant

legislation;

(ii) On the PGR amendment, the department had consulted the LegCo

Panel on Home Affairs in April this year about the proposal to amend

Section 25 of the PGR. The panel had supported the department’s

proposal to replace the texts “user of the pleasant ground” with

“person” in the provision. It had also requested the LCSD’s full

review of Section 25 of the PGR, in which consideration should be

given to not only the above amendment, but also such measures as

restricting the audio coverage of loudspeakers, confiscating the audio

equipment of offenders and stepping up prosecution for the giving of

monetary rewards. The LCSD was seeking legal advice on the

proposals, hoping that more in-depth and better amendments could be

made during the legislative amendment; and

(iii) Before the legislative amendment was complete, the LCSD would

continue to regulate singing activities in Tuen Mun Park and carry out

joint operations with the Police when appropriate to maintain order in

the park.

41. The Chairman said that while there were two self-entertainment zones in

Tuen Mun Park, many people sang outside the zones. If the self-entertainment

zones were abolished, these people would go elsewhere for performance. He

would like the LCSD to pay attention to and follow up on this situation.

- 12 -

Action

42. Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD said the self-entertainment zones had been set up

in 2006, but circumstances had changed with the passage of time. In a court case

involving a music performer, the court had ruled that members of the public were

free to sing or play musical instruments in parks, provided that they did not cause

any nuisance to other users “in the venues”. Therefore, many people engaged in

music performance outside the self-entertainment zones. This was the reason why

the LCSD proposed the current legislation be amended for more effective control of

the noise nuisance, and it would step up regulation of singing activities before the

legislative amendment was complete.

43. Ms NGAN Yuen-yee, Deputy District Commander (Tuen Mun) of the HKPF,

gave a consolidated response to Members’ comments and enquiries as follows:

(i) On noise, the Police would carry out joint operations at the LCSD’s

request and help along the department’s law enforcement. The Police

welcomed the LCSD’s request for joint operations;

(ii) On vice activity, the Police had received a report on 7 June this year of

people behaving indecently and receiving money on public occasions

in Tuen Mun Park. The Police had carried out three observations so

far. A large number of staff in the Tuen Mun Police District had been

deployed to operations relating to opposition to FOO amendments in 9

June this year. After the completion of the operations relating to

opposition to FOO amendments, the Tuen Mun Police District would

redeploy its staff for operations in Tuen Mun Park; and

(iii) On indecent dressing and behaviour, the Police knew the PGR

stipulated that dressing should be appropriate and indecent behaviour

was not allowed. In this regard, the Police welcomed the LCSD’s

proposals for joint operations and the Police would offer full assistance

in helping the LCSD to carry out observations or prevent disturbance

to public peace.

44. In response to the two departments’ replies, a Member said these people were

apparently causing nuisances to others, whether within or outside the

self-entertainment zones. He noted that the women who performed hot dances

were very inappropriately dressed, so he asked whether prosecution should be

initiated by the Police or the LCSD. He opined that the LCSD, the Police and the

ImmD should carry out joint operations. Besides, he called for abolition of the

self-entertainment zones, a strict ban on the use of loudspeakers, prosecution for

reward giving and prosecution against suspected offenders who held Two Way

- 13 -

Action

Permit. He opined that it would be too late if the above steps were taken only after

the completion of the legislative amendment exercise.

45. While agreeing with the abolition of the self-entertainment zones, a Member

said the zones were not the crux of the problem. He explained that people

suspected of vice activity did not do activities in the self-entertainment zones, so he

asked whether, in addition to abolishing the self-entertainment zones, departments

would fence off the zones being used by these people. Besides, he enquired how

the LCSD and the Police interpreted Section 32 (Power to remove nuisance makers)

of the PGR. He said that over the years, he had asked a number of times why

departments did not initiate removal operations, and what he referred to were not the

joint operations conducted by the department each year, which were actually of no

help. Whenever he went to the park together with departments for joint operations,

he was scolded by the male audience for singing performances. Therefore, he

asked whether departments would take decisive action to remove people who caused

nuisances to others in the park.

46. A Member hoped the LCSD and the Police would carry out more joint

operations as soon as possible against indecent behaviour and the noise nuisance.

He said the park was very noisy and he was unclear how the LCSD measured sound

volume. Besides, he asked whether the department could lower the standard for

regulating loudspeakers to two or one decibel to reduce the nuisance in the short

term.

47. A Member believed the Government was stumped. She noted that under

the relevant legislation, any person who produced noise, used a loudspeaker,

behaved indecently in a public venue, did any act that disturbed others or the public

in a public place, engaged in entertainment and begging, etc. might be subject to

prosecution, but the LCSD took no enforcement action and other departments did

nothing too. In view of this, she suggested the TMDO join other departments to

seriously address problems in Tuen Mun Park rather than just wait for the

completion of the legislative amendment exercise. Besides, she hoped the

Chairman would lead the TMDC’s efforts to restore order.

48. A Member said Tuen Mun Park was managed by the LCSD, and the Police

merely supported its operations. While the TMDO had made reports and remarks

on the situation in the district, nothing had been achieved over more than a decade

and responses by LCSD representatives were all the same. In his view, the

- 14 -

Action

TMDC’s consensus was that to solve the problems, the legislative amendment

should be coupled with a four-pronged approach, which focused on the use of

loudspeakers, reward giving, performing singers and audience dispersal.

49. A Member said the problems were acute and, instead of just talking about

keeping an open mind, the LCSD should decisively abolish the self-entertainment

zones before the legislative amendment to ease public discontent and restore the

park into its original state. He would like the Chairman to lead the TMDC’s efforts

towards the abolition of the self-entertainment zones with effect from the next day

and an end to all singing activities in the park, without which any noise control

would not be much help.

50. A Member reckoned the biggest concern was actually the reward giving

culture, indecent behaviour and singing activities outside the self-entertainment

zones. The TMDC hoped law enforcement could be stepped up, and the LCSD

should study putting concrete plans into action as soon as possible, no matter

whether the department sought support from the TMDO or the Police. Moreover,

he said many residents used cycle tracks in Tuen Mun Park and there were often

residents’ reports of the noise nuisance in Tuen Mun Park. He opined that relevant

departments should spare no efforts in tackling issues about the management of

Tuen Mun Park, which had impacts on Tuen Mun.

51. A Member opined that the existing nuisances in Tuen Mun Park needed to be

tackled without delay. She noted that if the TMDC made loud sounds in its

activities in Tuen Mun Park, management staff in the park would request it to lower

the sounds; therefore, the department should be able to put noise controls into real

practice in the park. Moreover, she believed the department was able to, and

should immediately, deal with matters involving indecency.

52. The Chairman asked if it was the case that the LCSD had used to provide

loudspeakers and control noises in the self-entertainment zones, but some members

of the public did not follow the rules and use powerful loudspeakers, hence the

reason for the noise problem. He understood that residents had just sung and

played musical instruments without affecting others at first, but later they had

become too noisy and created a nuisance to others. He opined that the community

did not want this situation to continue and asked whether the LCSD could make

some arrangements first.

- 15 -

Action

53. Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD said the LCSD currently provided low-power

loudspeakers for participating groups to use in the two self-entertainment zones of

Tuen Mun Park, so the department was able to control the noises produced by the

groups concerned. As for the abolition of the existing two self-entertainment

zones, she said it was the former Leisure and Culture Committee of the TMDC that

had approved the setting up of the self-entertainment zones in 2006, so Members

might consider letting the TMDC or the DFMC decide whether to abolish the

self-entertainment zones.

54. A Member held the view that the TMDC could decide directly whether to

abolish the self-entertainment zones, because they had been set up by the Leisure

and Culture Committee. She noted that back then, the public had to enter a ballot

before using the self-entertainment zones and they were very obedient to rules, but

the nature of the self-entertainment zones had changed, so she hoped they could be

abolished. Besides, she requested the LCSD to assign more security guards to keep

an eye on performers.

55. A Member agreed to letting the TMDC decide whether to abolish or

temporarily suspend the self-entertainment zones. He understood this might not be

a full answer to the problems but could respond to the public’s demands, while

arrangements for legislative amendment or law enforcement could be further

followed up.

56. A Member said members of the public could use loudspeakers in the two

self-entertainment zones. He had no comment about the abolition of the

self-entertainment zones, but opined that the critical thing was how to control the

problem of noises from singing groups. Therefore, the LCSD and the Police

should take strict enforcement action to solve the existing problems in Tuen Mun

Park.

57. A Member enquired whether departments had carried out removal operations

in accordance with Section 32 of the PGR (i.e. Power to remove persons

contravening this Regulation, etc.). He said some activities involving prostitution

and begging in the park were suspected business run by syndicates. He therefore

asked whether the Police had look into this and whether it would give the TMDC a

report on interim findings of its investigation.

58. A Member said the main problem was not the fact that the nature of the

- 16 -

Action

self-entertainment zones had changed, but rather the LCSD’s failure to enforce the

law. He added that the department simply assigned security guards to regulate

performers, yet the guards were eventually driven out. He reckoned that

departments had not enforced the law strictly in the first place, and the situation was

hard to manage as more and more performers had come later. He opined that the

TMDC should decide whether to abolish the self-entertainment zones and press

departments to take follow-up action. Efforts led by District Officer (Tuen Mun)

(“DO(TM)”) would certainly bear fruit as she was the top leader of Tuen Mun.

59. A Member said he had no objection to the abolition of the self-entertainment

zones, but would like participants at the meeting to consider the possibility that

performers would be forced to go elsewhere (e.g. Tsing Tin Playground and

Butterfly Beach Park) after the abolition of the self-entertainment zones. He

wanted to know what action departments would take and how many operations there

would be.

60. While expressing support for the abolition of the self-entertainment zones, a

Member pointed out that singing groups’ performances took place not only in the

zones but in other parts of Tuen Mun Park. She further said Section 25 of the PGR

(i.e. Music and singing) stated that “save where the Director has, in writing,

permitted the operation or playing of, or the making of any sounds by means of, any

such instrument or the singing of any song, no person shall, in any pleasure ground,

to the annoyance of any other user thereof operate or play, or make any sounds on,

any musical or other instrument, including any gramophone or radio apparatus or

sing any song.” In this connection, she opined that as performers had no written

permission from the department’s director, departments should strictly enforce this

ordinance.

61. A Member reckoned that the TMDC could decide whether to abolish the

self-entertainment zones. But she noted that the self-entertainment zones were not

places with the most serious problems, so in addition to the abolition of the zones,

large loudspeakers or indecent shows should also be banned in the whole park.

Besides, she suspected the park was infiltrated by triad gangs and hoped the Police

take follow-up and law enforcement action.

62. The Chairman told the LCSD representative that Members unanimously

requested the two self-entertainment zones be abolished and the relevant legislation

be enforced in other parts of Tuen Mun Park in accordance with other existing

- 17 -

Action

provisions that vested power with Director of Leisure and Cultural Services.

63. Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD said the department would manage pleasure

grounds in accordance with the PGR. The LCSD measured the level of

background sound in Tuen Mun Park every day at a time when no singing activity

was there, and if the voice of singing groups’ performances exceeded the

background sound level by three decibels, the department would advise them to

lower their voice. The department would hear the TMDC’s or the DFMC’s

opinions on a downward adjustment to the noise limit.

[Post-meeting note: The LCSD said that with effect from 1 August, the standard for

regulating noise in Tuen Mun Park had adjusted from three to two decibels.]

64. The Chairman asked if Members had any further comments on the abolition

of the self-entertainment zones and the downward adjustment to the standard for

regulating loudspeakers.

65. A Member opined that the TMDC should take this opportunity to follow up

on the problem and empower the LCSD to hire more security guards as soon as

possible to control noise in the entire Tuen Mun Park, while the Police could be

requested to deal with indecent activities of performers.

66. The Chairman said comments from Members alone might not suffice to

empower the LCSD to take such action.

67. A Member agreed to the abolition of the self-entertainment zones, but opined

that a blanket ban of loudspeakers in all playgrounds or parks was necessary to solve

the problem completely.

68. A Member reckoned that lowering the noise limit was unnecessary as

different departments could enforce laws in respect of indecent dressing, improper

behaviour and nuisances to others. Moreover, she had no objection to the abolition

of the self-entertainment zones, though she had doubt about its effectiveness. She

said that in the previous week, she had visited Tuen Mun Park and observed that the

elderly people listening to music and enjoying leisure time there had not been very

noisy. She reckoned that departments should be able to identify people who really

created nuisances, but they had been inward-looking and inactive over the years.

She further said that the current legislation was already adequate for the purposes of

- 18 -

Action

enforcement by departments. She hoped that after the abolition of the

self-entertainment zones, the LCSD, the Police and other departments would deal

with issues in other parts to ensure a peaceful Tuen Mun Park.

69. A Member noted that the LCSD could not institute prosecution before the

legislation was amended. Therefore, he asked whether the department could join

the Police to carry out removal operations according to Section 32 of the PGR. As

the existing problems gave rise to a lot of conflicts, which required considerable

human resources from the LCSD and the Police to deal with. In his view, resources

should be used to solve problems rather than to deal with conflicts that occurred

every day in different places. He hoped the LCSD and the Police would consider

invoking Section 32 of the PGR to carry out removal operations before the

completion of legislative amendment exercise, as so to solve the problems.

70. The Chairman concluded by saying that Members agreed to request the

abolition of the self-entertainment zones and call on departments to take joint action

to step up enforcement and amend the legislation as soon as possible to minimise

impacts of noises on residents. In addition, he asked whether the LCSD could

enforce the law in respect of Section 25 of the PGR.

71. Ms Pat TAM of the LCSD said the department would certainly handle any

complaints from park users affected by nuisances.

72. The Chairman hoped the LCSD representative would report to the

department’s director about the matter so that more resources and staff could be

provided to enforce the legislation as soon as possible.

73. DO(TM) said Members’ views were noted, and the LCSD representative had

replied that matters relating to the legislative amendment were already being dealt

with at the LegCo, and management and law enforcement would be stepped up

before the completion of the legislative amendment exercise. With respect to

Members’ proposal for joint operations, the TMDO would assist the LCSD and the

Police in strengthening management and enforcement.

74. The Chairman instructed the LCSD representative to step up law

enforcement in accordance with the TMDC’s views.

- 19 -

Action

VIII. Discussion Items

(A) Improvement of Water Supply to Tsing Shan Tsuen, Tuen Mun


75. The Chairman declared his interest as an executive of the Managing Trustees

of the Charitable Trust of Tsing Shan Monastery, but said that he had no direct

personal or pecuniary interest in the captioned matter. He asked if Members agreed

that he would continue to chair the discussion of this matter. Members

unanimously agreed with that.

76. Mr TO Sheck-yuen declared his interest as an executive of the Managing

Trustees of the Charitable Trust of Tsing Shan Monastery. He said he would not

join the discussion of this matter. The Chairman agreed with that.

77. The Chairman said the TMDC had discussed this matter earlier and

representatives from the Water Supplies Department (“WSD”) had said at a meeting

in January this year that a report would be given to the TMDC after the feasibility

study on the works. In this connection, he welcomed Mr MAK Sai-king, Senior

Engineer/Planning 2, Ms CHAN Oi-ming, Engineer/Planning 8, and Mr YIP

Lam-fung, Engineer/New Territories West (Distribution 2) of the WSD, who joined

the meeting to provide updated information for the TMDC.

78. Then, Ms CHAN Oi-ming of the WSD gave a PowerPoint presentation to

introduce the latest progress of the water supply improvement works in Tsing Shan

Tsuen, Tuen Mun. She said the technical feasibility study on the works had been

complete in June 2019, adding that the department would actively follow up on the

investigation and design work under the project and, where possible, compress the

works programme to provide mains water for residents at the earliest possible date.

The above works were due to start in the fourth quarter of 2020 and finish in the

second quarter of 2022.

79. A Member was glad to hear that the WSD had completed the preliminary

study. She expressed the hope that during the construction of the fresh water pump

house, the department would minimise noise by putting up covers and growing

plants. The proposed fresh water tank would be built at the location of an existing

pavilion on Tsing Shan Path. Villagers or hikers walking uphill or downhill might

need to rest at the pavilion. While there was another pavilion nearby, residents did

not choose to take rest at the pavilion because of the poor ventilation there. Hence,

she asked whether the department would provide a replacement sitting-out facility.

- 20 -

Action

80. Mr MAK Sai-king of the WSD said that when planning to build a fresh water

pump house on Hing Choi Street, the department had noticed the potential noise

problem, so mitigation measures (e.g. keeping machinery in concrete structures and

growing plants) would be put in place to minimise noise. Besides, when

demolishing the existing pavilion at the location of the proposed fresh water tank,

the department would liaise with the TMDO to see how to cater for the needs of

hikers.

81. The Chairman thanked the WSD for solving the problem with fresh water

supply in Tsing Shan Tsuen. He would like the department to expedite the works.

IX. Reports from Government (continued)

(C) Report by Tuen Mun Police District


82. Participants perused the contents of the above report.

83. The Chairman welcomed Ms NGAN Yuen-yee, Deputy District Commander

(Tuen Mun), and Ms LO Yuen-shan, IP, SIP District Intelligence Section (Tuen

Mun), to the meeting.

84. Ms NGAN Yuen-yee, Deputy District Commander (Tuen Mun), elaborated

on the report by the Tuen Mun Police District, saying that the crime figure for

January to May 2019 was 1 086 cases, representing a decrease of 11.3% (109 cases)

on the same period of the year earlier. Cases with increases in crime figures

compared to the year-ago period mainly involved indecent assault (increasing from

26 to 31 cases), telephone scam (increasing from 6 to 11 cases) and snatching

(increasing from 1 to 2 cases). The Police would step up publicity efforts in

schools to prevent sex crimes. On telephone scam, the Tuen Mun Police District

had instructed the Police Community Relations Office to distribute promotional

leaflets in housing estates, including private ones, to raise public crime prevention

awareness. Moreover, the Police would make more frequent patrols, especially at

night.

85. With respect to the “liberating Tuen Mun Park” activity held on 6 July, a

Member enquired whether the Police had arrested any protesters. Besides, she said

rules stipulated that the Police should show the red warning banner before using

pepper spray. Yet, some members of the public had recorded the Police showing

- 21 -

Action

the red banner only after using pepper spray. She wanted a response from the

Police.

86. A Member said that in the “liberating Tuen Mun Park” activity held on 6

July, two members of the public had been suspected of assaulting protesters, and

some protesters had besieged a taxi in the belief that the Police had harboured the

assaulters and sent them to the taxi. On behalf of the public, he asked why the

Police had harboured the persons suspected of assaulting protesters and whether

there was a double standard in law enforcement. Moreover, according to Section

54 (2) of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232), if a police officer found any person

intending to commit any offence, the police officer might arrest the person even if

there was no report of offences. He asked why the Police had not arrested the

persons involved in the case.

87. With respect to the “liberating Tuen Mun Park” activity held on 6 July, a

Member said most people had left peacefully after the march, though a small

number of people had dashed onto the road and besieged the police station, accusing

the Police of harbouring some persons. Some video recordings showed that some

persons suspected of recording others’ faces had been besieged, verbally abused and

requested to surrender their phones. He enquired what action the Police had taken

on the above occasion. He also asked the Police to give an account of the whole

incident so that the public could know more about it.

88. A Member said that on 6 July, a person who had been assaulted had

requested the Police to handle the case, but the Police had protected the assaulter and

let him leave the scene instead. She questioned why the Police had not taken the

persons involved to the police station but used an inappropriate approach that

sparked public anger instead. She guessed that the Police had wanted to settle the

issue peacefully and avoid a chaotic situation, but given the witnesses to and the

video recordings of the case on that day, the Police should have taken three persons

involved to the police station as well for further action.

89. A Member remarked that images seen by individual persons might be

incomplete, so she supported the setting up of an independent commission of inquiry

into the incidents on 12, 16 and 19 June as well as 1 and 6 July.

90. A Member said that on 6 July, he had been at the scene and witnessed some

people dashing onto the road, surrounding the police station, blocking Tuen Mun

- 22 -

Action

Heung Sze Wui Road, and causing more than one hour of congestion. In his

opinion, actually there was no need to set up an independent commission of inquiry

as the facts spoke for themselves. He said two parents had called him that day,

saying that their kids could not go to toilets during the congestion, which had lasted

more than an hour. He opined that instead of representing love for Tuen Mun, the

above activities had disrupted order. Moreover, a pregnant woman had called him,

saying that red paint had been splashed on her home and she had reported the case to

the police, but police officers had arrived only about 30 minutes later because police

manpower had been used to deal with people surrounding the police station. He

hoped that when judging a matter, one should not only focus on upholding justice

but also give a clear and true account of the facts in the matter. He supported the

Police in driving out the people concerned on that night.

91. A Member said the incident on 6 July had started at 3:00 p.m. and ended at

9:30 p.m. Perhaps Members had visited there or taken part in it and shared what

they had observed with others. However, the Police was supposed to have the best

knowledge about the incident as there had been police officers in different positions.

The Member therefore hoped the Police would give the TMDC a full report of what

had happened that day, so that Members could know the details and take follow-up

action where necessary.

92. A Member said she opined that the Police had handled reports of cases in an

inappropriate manner, but she had never expressed support for disturbances.

93. Ms NGAN Yuen-yee, Deputy District Commander (Tuen Mun), gave a

consolidated response to Members’ comments and enquiries as follows:

(i) On the use of pepper spray, the display of the red banner and the

incident of a taxi being besieged, protesters had not yet left but

gathered at the northern exit of Tuen Mun Park confronting and

arguing with police officers on the scene at 6:00 p.m. that day. Seven

minutes later, 32 of the protesters had attempted to intercept a taxi

carrying persons who had earlier clashed with other protesters. As a

person was being besieged by protesters at that time, the Police had not

enquired about the person’s identity and the purpose of him going to

Tuen Mun Park, worrying that he would be injured. At that time, the

Police had been busy helping the taxi to leave, in order to avoid risks.

During the course, police officers had surrounded the taxi so that it

could move and leave slowly without being charged by protesters.

- 23 -

Action

As a police officer had been struck by protesters, the Police had used

pepper spray for twice, with the red banner displayed at more or less

the same time. She said that according to the Police General Orders,

the Police should give sufficient warning before using force, but in

case of impending dangers, the Police might use force without

violating the police orders. The Police would look into this incident

in greater depth;

(ii) The Police had not arrested any person on the night of 6 July;

(iii) A man had been besieged and requested to surrender his phone.

According to a report, the Police had taken the man to Tuen Mun

Police Station for further follow-up. The man had sought medical

treatment and his injury was not serious. Moreover, he had made a

report to the Police claiming to have experienced illegal detention,

snatching and assault. The case was still under investigation and the

Police would track down and arrest four persons involved in the case;

(iv) Thanks were extended to Members for their comments. The Police

would review the operation in order to make better arrangements in the

future; and

(v) The Police had received a large number of cases after 6 July. It was

not appropriate to provide information at this meeting as most of the

cases were under investigation. The Police would report on them

after the investigations.

94. A Member asked whether the Police would track down and arrest two

persons who were suspected of having assaulted protesters.

95. Ms NGAN Yuen-yee, Deputy District Commander (Tuen Mun), said that if

Members had relevant video recordings, they might give them to the Police for

follow-up.

96. The Chairman thanked Ms NGAN Yuen-yee, Deputy District Commander

(Tuen Mun), for her responses.

(D) Signature Project Scheme in Tuen Mun District


97. The Chairman welcomed Dr Lesley LAU, Head of the Art Promotion Office

(“APO”), and Ms CHUNG Yuen-han, Acting Curator (Public Art) of the APO, the

LCSD; and Mr Karr YIP, Founder and Creative Director, Mr Kit CHEUK, Project

- 24 -

Action

Director, Mr Jimmy HO, Project Designer, and Mr Ben SHUM, Project Coordinator,

ADO Ltd, to the meeting.

98. DO(TM) updated Members about the project “Promotion of Youth

Development in Tuen Mun”, saying that the assessment for the fourth “Young

Dreamcrafters - Youth Social Innovation Incubation Scheme” run by the Youth

Space had been conducted on 11 May 2019, with a total of five youth teams passing

the interviews. The youth teams would carry out their social innovation plans in

Tuen Mun.

99. DO(TM) then updated Members about the project “Revitalisation of Tuen

Mun River and Surrounding Areas”. Works for Choi Yee Bridge Garden had been

substantially complete and the contractor was engaging in water pipe connection and

tree replanting. After the completion of the work and the LCSD’s acceptance of

the venue, Choi Yee Bridge Garden could be open to the public, with September set

as the target date. As regards the works for the installation of decorative light

posts, the Highways Department (“HyD”) expected to complete all the street light

installation works in this quarter. As regards the public art scheme “Viva! River”,

representatives from the LCSD APO and ADO Ltd, the project management team,

had attended the TMDC meeting in September 2018 to give Members an

introduction to the scheme, including details about the six sets of artworks to be

installed at four locations in the district and the public engagement activities to be

held in the district by local artists and designers. After securing the TMDC’s

support, the APO and ADO Ltd had actively planned the project under the scheme

over the previous nine months. She said representatives from the APO and the

project management team were going to introduce the final design of the six sets of

artworks and related publicity plans to Members.

100. Dr Lesley LAU of the APO and Mr Karr YIP, Founder and Creative Director

of ADO Ltd, gave PowerPoint presentations respectively to introduce the public art

scheme in the Signature Project Scheme (“SPS”) project “Revitalisation of Tuen

Mun River and Surrounding Areas”.

101. A Member expressed support for the above scheme and commended the

artworks for being able to pick resources from Tuen Mun and use them in Tuen

Mun. As most who took part in the creative production were young people, he

hoped they could promote Tuen Mun’s history and culture while showcasing their

creativity. Moreover, with many non-governmental organisations taking part, the

- 25 -

Action

scheme highlighted the concept of inclusion and collaboration in the community.

He commended the artworks for their environmental concepts and hoped the team

could promote the artworks across Hong Kong.

102. A Member said artwork displays could refresh the image of the community.

He suggested brief introductions be provided next to the artworks to let the public

understand their concepts and meanings. Besides, he enquired about the time for

the artwork displays and the repair and upkeep of the artworks. He asked whether

the artworks would be cleaned and repaired if there were bills or graffiti on facilities

in the parks, and how to remind the public not to vandalise the artworks.

103. A Member hoped the Secretariat would provide Members with the slides of

the PowerPoint presentation after the meeting. He said the public might associate

the hemispherical design of one of the artworks with burial. He suggested the team

modify the design.

104. A Member said he was more concerned about artwork maintenance as he did

not want to see creative producers’ efforts wasted. He added that it was difficult to

ask the Architectural Services Department to repair artwork installations in LCSD

parks. Besides, he asked whether the HyD was responsible for artwork

installations on the roadside. In this connection, he said the HyD had sought the

TMDC’s opinions on noise barriers in the district, but the department had

undertaken their maintenance for a period of just two years, and it turned out that the

maintenance duties fell on the TMDC. In view of this, he asked which department

would be responsible for the upkeep of the artworks under this scheme in the future.

105. A Member found the artworks very beautiful and hoped more opportunities

could be provided for artists to showcase their creativity in Tuen Mun. He believed

some artworks might wear out very soon, so he asked whether maintenance costs

were covered by the SPS funding for Tuen Mun and whether the LCSD would be

responsible for maintenance.

106. The Chairman said the Secretariat would send the PowerPoint slides to

Members after the meeting.

[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat sent the PowerPoint slides to Members after the

meeting.]

- 26 -

Action

107. Dr Lesley LAU of the APO gave a consolidated response to Members’

comments and enquiries as follows:

(i) To distribute the six sets of artworks evenly and widely, the team

recommended the artworks be displayed at Choi Yee Bridge Garden,

Tuen Mun Riverside Park, Tsing Yin Garden, and Pui To Road

(South) Rest Garden;

(ii) To deepen the meaning of the project, the team would organise fringe

activities for the public, and different kinds of activity and creative

production would also be held mainly at the above four places and

Tuen Mun River, so as to use artworks to show the beauty of the

river;

(iii) On maintenance and upkeep, the APO was always committed to

promoting public and community art. It installed artworks in

LCSD-managed parks and other districts, and was responsible for the

repair and maintenance of the artworks. The APO would also

inspect and maintain the above six sets of artworks regularly. In

case of any damage, it would invite experts from the Conservation

Office to do repairs. In addition, the APO would earmark funding

for the maintenance and upkeep of the public artworks it managed;

(iv) On introductions to the artworks, the team planned to put up

interpretation panels next to the artworks to introduce the plans and

concepts behind the artworks. Besides, the concepts of the creative

production and information about the artists would be available on

the Internet for the public to view via a QR code;

(v) On materials, artworks made of metal or stoneware could be

maintained regularly since they were harder and more durable.

Moreover, the artists would use materials that were fit for outdoor

display to produce their artworks. The artists and the APO would

undertake regular inspections and replace broken parts of the

artworks; and

(vi) The APO would relay Members’ views to the artists for them to

improve and refine the artwork design.

108. A Member said the APO had explained in detail that it would follow up on

upkeep of the artworks in the long term after the warranty periods.

109. The Chairman asked DO(TM) and the APO to continue to implement this

scheme.

https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/tm/tc_chi/members/info/dc_member_list_detail.php?member_id=1559

https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/tm/tc_chi/members/info/dc_member_list_detail.php?member_id=1559

- 27 -

Action

X. Members’ Enquiries to Government Departments

110. Members had no questions for the representatives of the major government

departments.

111. The representatives of all the major government departments except the

TMDO left the meeting at this point.

XI. In-house Matters (continued)

(E) Reports by Committees (continued)

(TMDC Papers No. A42/2019 to A47/2019)

112. Participants perused the above six reports.

113. The Chairman referred Members to paragraph 4 of Paper No. A44, which

stated that the Environment, Hygiene and District Development Committee

(“EHDDC”) had discussed the “Request for Relocation of Cargo Working Area in

Area 16, Tuen Mun”, and suggested the above matter be referred to the Working

Group on Development and Planning of Tuen Mun District of the TMDC.

114. The Member who was also the EHDDC Chairman agreed with the above

suggestion.

115. As Members had no further comments, the Chairman announced that the

matter be referred to the Working Group on Development and Planning of Tuen

Mun District.

116. Besides, the Chairman referred Members to paragraphs 9 to 12 of Paper No.

A45, which were about a report by the Working Group on Reviewing Clause 40(6)

of the Tuen Mun District Council (2016-2019) Standing Orders. The report said

the FAPC had resolved to select the area on the right side of the screen at the back of

the conference room as a designated area. Moreover, the FAPC had passed the

proposed amendment to Order 40(6) of the Standing Orders, which was shown in

paragraph 10 of the report. The proposed amendment was as follows:

Order 40(6) of Standing Orders

When observing a meeting of the Council or its committees, the media and

members of the public who have made written applications and obtained

authorisation in advance may, without prejudice to the normal conduct of the

- 28 -

Action

meeting, take photos, make audio or video recording, or make live

broadcasts. The above members of the public should not use flash when

observing the meeting of the Council or its committees in a designated area.

117. The Member who was also the FAPC Chairman invited Members to give

ideas as to when the above arrangement be put into effect and consider the above

working group’s proposal for installation of closed-circuit televisions (“CCTVs”).

118. A Member expressed support for the selection of the area on the right side of

the screen at the back of the conference room as a designated area. Besides, the

Member hoped that CCTVs would be installed in the conference room to record

meetings and that security guards would be hired.

119. The Chairman said that if Members agreed with the above proposed

amendment, they should also consider its effective date, which could be the date of

the next meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee (“TTC”) of the TMDC (i.e.

12 July) at the earliest, the date of the next meeting of the Commerce, Industry and

Housing Committee of the TMDC (i.e. 19 August), or alternatively, the date of the

first meeting in the next term of the TMDC. Implementation details, such as

whether members of the public should be allowed to erect tripods for photo-taking

and whether members of the public should be allowed to return to the public seating

area after leaving the public photo-taking area, could be thrashed out at this meeting,

or left to the FAPC for further discussion.

120. A Member said CCTVs should be installed at the same time when the public

were allowed to make video records in the conference room. As for whether

members of the public should be allowed to erect tripods for photo-taking, she noted

that the area on the right side of the screen at the back of the conference room had a

capacity of only five persons. She was worried that there could be risks if tripods

were erected there at the same time. Hence, she did not agree with the erection of

tripods. As for whether members of the public should be allowed to return to the

public seating area after leaving the public photo-taking area, she opined that they

might return to the public seating area if there was still space.

121. As there were other details that needed to be discussed at length, the

Chairman said it would be left to the FAPC to take care of implementation details.

122. As Members had no further comments on the report, the TMDC endorsed the

- 29 -

Action

contents of the above six report were endorsed.

(E) Reports by Working Groups


123. Participants perused the above report.

124. As Members had no further comments on the report, the Chairman

announced that the contents of the report were endorsed.

XII. Any Other Business

(A) Result of Salary Review for Administrative Assistants of Home Affairs

Department

125. The Chairman said the Home Affairs Department had reviewed the salary of

its Administrative Assistants. In accordance with the result of the review, Director

for Home Affairs had approved an increase in the salary of Administrative Assistants

from $21,930 to $24,700 with effect from 1 July 2019.

126. The Chairman further said two Administrative Assistants of the TMDC were

employed using TMDC Funds and, in the light of this salary adjustment, the total

adjusted salary of the two Administrative Assistants in the remainder of the current

financial year was about $51,000. The above amount was already included in the

funding that the TMDC had granted earlier for hiring designated staff to assist in

district council duties. The Chairman would like Members to take note of the

above arrangements.

(B) Progress towards Commissioning of Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link

(Northern Section)

127. A Member noted that according to the Special Traffic Arrangements under

Planning to and from Tsang Tsui Columbarium during Grave Sweeping Periods, a

paper recently released by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, a bus

route running between Tsang Tsui Columbarium and MTR Tsing Yi Station via Tuen

Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link (Northern Section) (“TM-CLKL”) was expected to come

into service in 2022. In view of this, he wondered if the above paper implied that

the commissioning of TM-CLKL would be deferred until 2022. He requested that

a letter be written to the HyD asking for an explanation of whether the

commissioning of TM-CLKL would be deferred.

128. The Member who was also the TTC Chairman said that not only should a

- 30 -

Action

letter be written, but the HyD should also be invited to send representatives to the

next TTC meeting to give an explanation. The Vice-chairman agreed with the

above idea.

129. A Member remarked that the HyD’s response, which said TM-CLKL would

be commissioned in 2020 at the earliest, was hypocritical rhetoric. He hoped the

HyD would provide an exact date at the next TTC meeting.

130. The Chairman said a letter would be written to the HyD requesting it to send

representatives to the next TTC meeting to give an explanation.

[Post-meeting note: The letter was sent on 9 July. The HyD subsequently provided

the written response.]

131. There being no other business, the Chairman closed the meeting at 12:32

p.m. The next meeting would be held on 24 September 2019 (Tuesday).

Tuen Mun District Council Secretariat

Date: August 2019

File Ref: HAD TMDC/13/25/DC/19

Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the Tuen Mun District Council€¦ · Mr LEUNG Kin-man, BBS, MH, JP...

Documents

Transcript of Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the Tuen Mun District Council€¦ · Mr LEUNG Kin-man, BBS, MH, JP...