Minutes of the Fourth Special Meeting ofCentral and Western District Council (2016-2019)

Date : 18 July 2019 (Thursday)

Time : 9:30 am

Venue : Conference Room14/F, Harbour Building38 Pier Road, Central, Hong Kong

Present:

ChairmanMr YIP Wing-shing, SBS, MH, JP*

Vice-chairmanMr CHAN Hok-fung, MH, JP*

MembersMr CHAN Chit-kwai, Stephen, BBS, JP*Mr CHAN Choi-hi, MH, JP (9:31 am – 9:33 am)Ms CHENG Lai-king*Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, JP*Mr HUI Chi-fung*Mr KAM Nai-wai, MH*Mr LEE Chi-hang, Sidney, MH*Miss LO Yee-hang, MH*Ms NG Hoi-yan, Bonnie*Mr NG Siu-hong*Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing*Mr YEUNG Hok-ming*Mr YOUNG Chit-on, Jeremy*

Remarks: * Members who attended the whole meeting( ) Time of attendance of Members

document.docx 1

Item 2Mr Lincoln CHEUNG Representative, 香港青年節點Mr TSUI King-sing Representative, Mid-level Community Development AssociationMr YIP Kam-lung, Sam Representative, Central and Western Concern GroupMr Edward CHEUK Youth Minister, F.S.I. (C.H.K.) AssociationMs WONG Kin-ching -Mr YEUNG Sui-yin Consultant, Protect Kennedy Town Alliance Mr WONG Kai-chiu -Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin -Mr SO Yat-ching -Mr YEUNG Ming-fai -

In Attendance:Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, Susanne, JP District Officer (Central and Western)Ms BOOK King-shun, Emma Executive Officer I (District Council),

Central and Western District Office

SecretaryMs YEUNG Wing-shan, Grace Senior Executive Officer (District Council),

Central and Western District Office

Opening Remarks

2. The Chairman declared the meeting open. He invited Members to observe a minute of silence to mourn Ms POON, victim of the Taiwan homicide case who was murdered on 17 February 2018, Mr LEUNG who fell to his death at Pacific Place on 15 June 2019, Mr CHOW who fell at a pier in Central on 16 June 2019 and died, Ms LO who fell to her death in Fanling on 29 June 2019, Ms WU who fell to her death at International Finance Centre on 30 June 2019 and Ms MAK who fell to her death in Cheung Sha Wan on 3 July 2019.

3. (Mr CHAN Choi-hi shouted “Say no to violence” several times after observing a minute of silence and left the conference room. This caused a hubbub among attendees, and Ms CHENG Lai-king shouted “Police is the most violent” several times in response.) The Chairman asked everyone to keep quiet and said the purpose of this meeting was to provide an occasion for everyone to express their views calmly.

4. The Chairman welcomed all to the fourth special meeting of the Central and Western District Council (C&WDC). He said 10 guests would speak at the meeting and suggested that

document.docx 2

each Member might speak for up to three minutes each time to ensure effective discussion. Members might be allowed to speak for a second time if time permitted. He appealed to all for cooperation and to stay calm and convey different views to the public. He also reminded Members to declare interests as necessary and appropriate. He said the Vice-chairman would first preside over the meeting.

5. (A hubbub in the public gallery) Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing raised a point of order and asked how the meeting could continue given the current disorder at the venue.

6. Mr YEUNG Hok-ming said the meeting could not continue if people in the public gallery chanted slogans loudly. He said there should not be only one single view.

7. Mr CHAN Chit-kwai hoped people in the public gallery would keep quiet so that the meeting could formally start.

8. Ms CHENG Lai-king said the meeting was convened after much effort and hoped that it would not be aborted.

9. The Chairman asked people in the public gallery to keep quiet. He hoped that the meeting could provide an occasion for attendees to express their stance and views and that it would not be aborted because attendees were uncooperative. He called on attendees to remain calm and respect the meeting. Attendees should show mutual respect when a Member or guest was speaking as they had the right to express their views separately. He said warnings would be issued if the situation was out of control and the meeting would be adjourned after two warnings were issued. He remarked that no security staff or uniformed staff was arranged for the meeting. He hoped that everyone could voice their opinions and comply with the rules.

10. Mr KAM Nai-wai raised a point of order. He said he submitted a paper on 11 July which included supplementary questions and invitation to Assistant Commissioners of Police or equivalent officers to attend the meeting. He had also asked the Secretary via email one day before the meeting to invite Secretary for Security, Under Secretary for Security or Commissioner of Police (CoP) to attend the meeting. He opined that the meeting served as a good opportunity and occasion for the politically accountable officials and CoP to explain to the public and Members about the duties carried out by law enforcement officers in the past month or so, as CoP had said he did not see why the public did not understand and always blamed the Police. He said in line with the established practice, C&WDC would invite government departments relevant to the discussion items to attend meetings, and would condemn the departments concerned if they did not attend the meeting. He wished to know whether the relevant department were invited and their replies.

document.docx 3

11. The Chairman noted Mr KAM Nai-wai’s enquiry. The Secretary would respond to Mr KAM’s enquiry when discussion on the relevant agenda item began because at the moment, the meeting was presided over by the Vice-chairman according to the agenda.

12. The Vice-chairman presided over the meeting.

13. The Vice-chairman said the Chairman and Mr CHAN Chit-kwai had requested before the meeting to make an oral statement, so the oral statements would first be taken care of and the point of order raised by Mr KAM Nai-wai would be dealt with next. He said the Secretariat had been informed before the meeting by Mr YIP Wing-shing and Mr CHAN Chit-kwai of their wish to make an oral statement. Pursuant to Order 26 of the C&WDC Standing Orders, any statement and question put to a meeting of the Council must be compatible with the functions of the Council; and pursuant to Order 30 of the C&WDC Standing Orders, a Member who wished to make an oral statement should inform the Secretary before the meeting, but the oral statement should not take more than five minutes. The Vice-chairman said he was notified before the meeting that only two Members had requested to make an oral statement. He invited Mr YIP Wing-shing to make his oral statement.

14. The Chairman said that he, as Chairman of C&WDC, always had faith in practices and principles with emphasis on peace and rationality, and he believed that everything was negotiable. He arranged this special meeting because he believed that C&WDC could provide a platform where attendees could put their political camps and stance aside in relaying the public’s opinions and have thorough discussion on issues, be they territory-wide or related to Central and Western District. He said he was overwhelmed by grief because the Taiwan homicide case, which was the source of the incident, had yet been solved and justice had yet been done to Ms POON, the victim. He also would like to extend his deepest condolences to Ms POON and to the young people who had committed suicide ever since the recent political controversy. He hoped that everyone, no matter what political views and stance they held, would treasure the opportunities to peacefully express opinions in future and he expected that youngsters would treasure their lives more. In addition, he paid tribute to the many who voiced their demands in a peaceful and rational manner, and expressed sympathy to the civilians, police officers and media practitioners who got injured during the confrontations. He explained that the reason he made a joint petition in the capacity of C&WDC Chairman earlier to request discussing the bill at Legislative Council (LegCo) meetings was that many members of the public had relayed to him that the bill was very important and had profound impact. They opined that the bill should be submitted to meetings of the LegCo as early as possible so that an open, fair, just and rational discussion could be held and the public could have a better idea of what the bill was about. His original intention was to let the Government and the general public learn about all opinions, be they for or against the amendment bill, as well as new ideas. He did not support the Government blindly as some people had suggested.

document.docx 4

He continued that the Government had announced that the bill was dead, regardless of whether the bill was withdrawn or not, or was “suspended” or “dead”. If the general public was still doubtful about the choice of word of “dead”, the Government could consider using other wordings to dispel doubts. (The Vice-chairman interrupted the Chairman’s oral statement because persons in the public gallery were chanting slogans loudly. He urged members of the public present to keep quiet, and said he would issue a warning if they disturbed the meeting and the meeting would be adjourned after two warnings were issued. The Vice-chairman asked the Chairman to continue with his oral statement.) The Chairman continued that a series of large-scale social incidents had been triggered after the Government proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO). The issue had yet been settled to date and caused a shock to the whole community. People’s livelihood and the economy had also been affected. He firmly believed that all sectors of the society wanted Hong Kong to be tranquil again but sadly, the tensions still showed no signs of easing. The general public was extremely worried that the confrontations would cause more casualties and push Hong Kong to the point of no return. Hence, he wanted to take this opportunity to solemnly implore all sectors of the community, no matter what political camp they belonged to and what stance they held, to spare no effort to prevent the situation from worsening. He opined that political problems should be resolved by political means. Even if each camp had its own justifications, he hoped that they could seek common ground while accommodating differences and resolve the conflicts. Meanwhile, he appealed to all present to remain dutiful and continue to work hard on improving district livelihood while showing concern for this important issue in Hong Kong. Furthermore, he urged the Government to learn from this legislative amendment exercise. The Government should allow sufficient time for public consultation, enhance exchanges and establish more effective communication channels before implementing policies or introducing important legislation in future. The Government must not overlook the voices and aspirations of the community. He remarked that the Government should adopt a bottom-up approach and address the pressing needs of the public in policy formulation, so that policy implementation could follow public opinions and people’s livelihood more closely to enable the general public to lead a peaceful and contented life.

15. The Vice-chairman invited Mr CHAN Chit-kwai to make his oral statement.

16. Mr CHAN Chit-kwai said many people asked him to relay their views on the incidents triggered by the FOO when he was helping members of the public to do voter registration on the street recently. He said among them, a lady surnamed LAM told him that she graduated from a renowned girls’ school at Mid-Levels in the 60s. Over a hundred of her schoolmates graduating in the same year chatted and exchanged views frequently in a chat group and three to four of them were living overseas. They all strongly condemned the violent and illegal acts during the recent demonstrations. They all opined that Hong Kong was a law-abiding society with stable law and order situation, and society had been functioning efficiently. They agreed

document.docx 5

that the public had the right to express different opinions and criticise the Government’s policy implementation. Yet, they had no right to engage in violent and illegal acts. She asked Members to focus more on livelihood related matters and less on politics. Another lady in her 40s asked him to relay to C&WDC her views. She opined that ever since large-scale demonstrations broke out, great changes had taken place in the Hong Kong community in just a month or so and she doubted if Hong Kong was the place where she was born, raised and familiar with. She said she travelled to Canada to visit relatives early last month and it took her a lot of time to reach home when she returned to Hong Kong about a month later, as roads were closed due to demonstration which resulted in serious traffic congestion. She also said she felt uncomfortable when seeing many violent charging acts on television. She did not emigrate to other countries in the past because she felt that compared to other countries, Hong Kong was more stable, had better law and order and a convenient transport network. Yet, after what had happened on that day, she felt that Hong Kong was becoming increasingly unsafe and less reliable. She was confused about what had happened to Hong Kong. Lastly, Mr CHAN concluded his statement by quoting part of the statement made recently by Professor Wei SHYY, President of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology: “It is distressing and heartbreaking to see how the incident inside the Legislative Council Complex played out. Anyone caring for the future of Hong Kong should make an effort to forge a conversation. Confrontation will only bring more divide and can’t serve the interest of our home; and Hong Kong will be the ultimate loser”.

Item 1: Adoption of the Agenda(9:48 am – 10:05 am)

17. The Chairman presided over the meeting.

18. Members had no comment on the agenda. The Chairman declared that the agenda was adopted.

Item 2: Strong Condemnation of the Carrie Lam Administration and the Commissioner of Police for Categorising the Peaceful Protest as a Riot on 12 June 2019, and for Abuse of Force by Firing Directly into Crowds, Resulting in Young Protesters Being Treated Violently, and Causing Injuries to Many

(C&W DC Paper No. 95/2019) (10:05 am – 12:02 pm)

19. The Chairman said that before the discussion began, the Secretary would respond to the enquiry made earlier by Mr KAM Nai-wai first.

20. The Secretary said upon receiving the paper and supplementary questions from Mr KAM

document.docx 6

Nai-wai, the Secretariat had forwarded them to relevant departments for replies and invited the departments to attend the meeting. The Secretariat later received replies from the departments saying that no representative would be attending the meeting. One day before the meeting, the Secretariat received an email from Mr KAM Nai-wai requesting the Secretariat to invite Secretary for Security, Under Secretary for Security and CoP to attend the meeting. The Secretariat subsequently forwarded the email to the Security Bureau and Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) but both replied that no representative would be attending the meeting.

21. Mr KAM Nai-wai said he did not understand why HKPF did not send representative to the meeting, as there were lots of questions to be answered by them. For example, CoP had said no police officer was deployed inside the Legislative Council Complex for worrying that stampedes or police-civilian conflict would be resulted. However, CoP had also said recently that as offenders had entered New Town Plaza, the Police had the responsibility to enter the shopping mall to make arrest. Mr KAM said all these sayings had made Hong Kong people doubtful about HKPF’s enforcement standards. He criticised HKPF and CoP for handling such serious problems in an evasive manner and not sending representatives of the Police Public Relations Branch to the meeting. He opined that C&WDC could not accept such an attitude. He suggested following the established practice and writing to HKPF and Security Bureau in the name of C&WDC to strongly condemn the departments and politically accountable officials for not attending the C&WDC meeting to answer Members’ questions and explain to the public. He continued that he submitted the paper as early as on 25 June requesting to convene a special meeting. He originally thought that the meeting was held as late as today in order to accommodate the schedule of the departments’ representatives, but it turned out that the departments had not sent any representative to the meeting. He reiterated that C&WDC should write to condemn Secretary for Security and CoP for not sending any representative to the meeting.

22. The Chairman shared and understood Mr KAM Nai-wai’s views. He asked the Secretariat to submit both the opinions given by Mr KAM Nai-wai and the minutes of the meeting to the relevant bureau and department, and condemn the bureau and department for not attending the meeting.

23. Mr KAM Nai-wai said the letter should be issued in the name of C&WDC rather than in his name. He pointed out that it was the unanimous view of C&WDC members, instead of his personal opinion, that the departments concerned should be condemned for not attending the meeting. He reiterated that this was also in line with the established practice of C&WDC.

24. The Chairman clarified that the Secretariat would submit the letter together with the minutes in the name of C&WDC to relevant bureau and department.

document.docx 7

25. Mr HUI Chi-fung added that it was an established practice for the Police, a representative in permanent attendance to full Council of C&WDC, to send representative to attend full Council meetings of C&WDC. Hence, he opined that the Police should attend the meeting regardless of whether they were invited. He also strongly condemned such practice of the Police and hoped that the Chairman would strongly condemn the Police in the name of C&WDC, rather than on the behalf of only one Member.

26. Mr NG Siu-hong shared the views of Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr KAM Nai-wai. He said an independent commission of inquiry was necessary because the Police was often absent from meetings of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), C&WDC and LegCo. He opined that the Police should be strongly condemned in order to give an account to protesters and C&WDC. He remarked that family members of police officers were also worried about the way police commanders treated police officers and protesters.

27. Ms NG Hoi-yan said she was dissatisfied with the Police for not sending any representative to the meeting. She said she and some Members had launched a press conference on the ground floor of the building before the meeting commenced to reiterate their five demands and request the withdrawal of the extradition bill. The Police had also deployed officers to monitor the press conference. She questioned why the Police deployed officers to monitor a peaceful press conference but did not send any representative to this C&WDC meeting and answer Members’ questions. She opined that C&WDC meetings were peaceful and she could not comprehend why the Police, as a representative in permanent attendance, was absent from the meeting. She requested that the letter should also ask the Police for an explanation as to why officers were only delegated to the press conference held just then but not to this meeting.

28. The Chairman asked the Secretary to put this on record.

29. Ms CHENG Lai-king said this meeting was the fourth special meeting of C&WDC and had the same functions and purposes as other regular full Council meetings of C&WDC. She asked why all departmental representatives, including those in permanent attendance who always attended full Council meetings, were absent from this meeting. She asked the Secretary why the departmental representatives were all absent.

30. Mr KAM Nai-wai said the only Government representative present here was District Officer (Central and Western) (DO(C&W)). He asked, given District Officer was the “Chief Executive of the district”, whether DO(C&W) had requested relevant departments to attend the meeting. He also asked what the stance of the Government was. He said District Officer was representing the Government and asked whether the Government’s stance was that relevant government departments would be absent from Council meetings whenever the

document.docx 8

extradition law, police-civilian conflict, police performance and offences committed by police officers were discussed.

31. (Some person in the public gallery was shouting through a loudspeaker and caused disturbance) The Chairman asked everyone to keep quiet and issued the first warning.

32. (Some persons in the public gallery kept shouting) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai suggested the Chairman to consider adjourning the meeting. The Chairman issued the second warning and asked everyone to keep quiet.

33. (Some person in the public gallery continued shouting through a loudspeaker and caused disturbance) The Chairman declared the meeting be adjourned for two minutes.

34. The Chairman said the two-minute adjournment was over and asked everyone to keep quiet. He added that no person had been carried away from the conference room during the meetings held in this District Council (DC) term. The Chairman resumed the meeting.

35. Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan said some persons in the public gallery had insulted Members from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) just then, claiming that those who shouted in the public gallery were arranged by DAB. He hoped that the Chairman could maintain order at the meeting should any person insult Members from the DAB again. In response to the suggestion made by Ms CHENG Lai-king during the adjournment that persons who shouted in the public gallery should be requested to remove their masks, he hoped that all those wearing masks in the conference room would remove their masks as well.

36. The Chairman asked everyone to keep quiet.

37. Ms CHENG Lai-king said a pillar had blocked her sight and she could not see the person who was wearing a mask and shouting through a loudspeaker in the public gallery just then. She could only see him when she stood up. She opined that the Chairman would not wish to see people in the public gallery using loudspeaker and causing disruption when he was presiding over the meeting. As far as she knew, 10 members of the public had registered and would speak at the meeting. She hoped that those in the public gallery could focus on listening to the meeting.

38. Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan agreed with Ms CHENG Lai-king that the person who used a loudspeaker in the public gallery should remove his mask, but some people in the public gallery who were also masked and warned by the Chairman a few times not to shout were still disrupting the meeting. He hoped that Ms CHENG Lai-king could treat everyone equally and

document.docx 9

ask those people to remove their masks as well.

39. The Chairman said C&WDC was a democratic council and he did not wish to see people using loudspeaker during meetings. He asked everyone not to use loudspeaker. He also asked everyone not to break the rules of the meeting, even though some Member had used loudspeaker during a meeting before. He said 10 members of the public and 15 Members had yet to speak at the meeting. He hoped that members of the public and Members who had different opinions on the incident could seek common ground while accommodating differences, and let Members and members of the public who held different views participate in the discussion. He understood that different people had different demands, but he hoped that all could cooperate and give each other space.

40. Mr HUI Chi-fung said he had used a loudspeaker during a meeting, and had used a loudspeaker when proposing the motion on “Vindicating the 4 June Incident” in this conference room. He continued that at that time, the Chairman had ordered the security staff to carry him, together with the loudspeaker, away from the conference room, and he was not allowed to return to the conference room afterwards. He reiterated that the Chairman had given such an order and taken such action before.

41. The Chairman clarified that the incident did not happen at a C&WDC meeting of the present term (2016-19). He said he had asked Mr HUI Chi-fung to leave the meeting. He did not wish to see similar arguments happening again at this meeting and hoped that attendees could express their views on Hong Kong and the Central and Western District at this meeting.

42. The Secretary responded to Ms CHENG Lai-king’s question regarding departmental representatives in permanent attendance. She said that usually departmental representatives in permanent attendance would not be invited to special meetings of C&WDC and only representatives from the government department relevant to the issue being discussed would be invited. She said this had always been the approach adopted by C&WDC for special meetings. For regular meetings of C&WDC, departmental representatives in permanent attendance would be present.

43. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze , DO(C&W), gave a supplementary response to Mr KAM Nai-wai’s enquiry. She said the Secretariat had relayed to relevant departments Members’ request of inviting departmental representatives to the meeting, and the departments had submitted a written reply regarding the Members’ questions. She would also relay the comments made by Members and other attendees who spoke at the meeting to relevant departments and take follow-up actions accordingly.

44. The Chairman declared that the guests would speak in the following session. He presented

document.docx 10

the speaking arrangement and points to note. He asked members of the public present to keep quiet and not to use loudspeaker in order to show respect to the spirit of the Council. Members of the public present could leave if they could not accept the content of some of the discussions. He reiterated his hope that attendees could show mutual respect. He also reminded attendees that DC meetings were open meetings and all meetings were recorded in audio and textual forms. Unlike LegCo members, attendees were not protected by Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and everyone was responsible for what he said at DC meetings. As Chairman, he had the responsibility to remind attendees their rights and obligations. He asked attendees to give due consideration to this.

45. The Chairman welcomed the 10 guests for attending the meeting to speak on the issue. They were Mr Lincoln CHEUNG, representative of 香港青年節點 , Mr TSUI King-sing, representative of Mid-level Community Development Association, Mr YIP Kam-lung, representative of Central and Western Concern Group, Mr Edward CHEUK, Youth Minister of F.S.I. (C.H.K.) Association, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Consultant of Protect Kennedy Town Alliance, and individuals Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr WONG Kai-chiu, Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin, Mr SO Yat-ching and Mr YEUNG Ming-fai.

46. The Chairman said requests for speaking from over 10 organisations/individuals had been received before the meeting. According to the previous practice of C&WDC, only a maximum of 10 organisations/individuals could speak and hence, a maximum of 10 organisations/individuals would express their views at the meeting. If any organisation/individual which was allowed to speak was absent from the meeting, the vacancy would be filled by using the precedence list.

47. The Chairman invited Mr Lincoln CHEUNG, the representative of 香港青年節點 , to speak. Mr CHEUNG said he worked in the legal profession and saw the issue from various perspectives that one party was against violence and the other requested an independent commission of inquiry. He believed that everyone at the meeting would agree that Hong Kong people did not wish to see the occurrence of violent incidents. Demands should be put forward to the Government in a peaceful, rational and non-violent manner. In particular, as a legal practitioner, he hoped that the public (especially the young generation) could understand the situation. He continued that he had engaged in quite many legal exchange initiatives with young people and was fully aware of the importance of the rule of law. A press release of the Hong Kong Bar Association also stated that adherence to the law was a cornerstone of the rule of law. What he wanted to emphasise was that Members had the responsibility to make it clear to the public that they were against expressing demands or dissatisfaction through violence. He remarked that he had been in touch with many people from different sectors of the community, including students and government officials, and had even met with Secretaries of Departments. He understood that the Government did take action to improve

document.docx 11

the situation but implementation of measures took time. On the other hand, he said that scenes of Police taking law enforcement actions on television had made the public believe that the Police had been enforcing the law with violence. He noted that some Members had suggested establishing an independent commission of inquiry, but IPCC was also conducting investigation. He reiterated that he absolutely had no desire to see the matter escalated to violence and hoped that everyone, especially young people, would understand that violence would lead nowhere. He opined that the resort to violence would not affect whether the Government would do something or not.

48. The Chairman invited Mr TSUI King-sing, the representative of Mid-level Community Development Association, to speak. Mr TSUI said the extradition bill controversy still had not been settled. There had been incessant confrontations and even violent incidents in society. As a Hongkonger, he was deeply touched when he saw that the large-scale demonstrations took place in a peaceful and rational manner. However, he was anguished because after each large-scale demonstration, some people would exploit public opinion that was expressed in a peaceful and rational manner and resort to violence. There were even confrontations between the Police and the public. He saw that some people had incited youngsters to act violently. He said young people were usually more impulsive and could be easily incited to take some unnecessary actions. Being young at one time, people should understand the thoughts of youngsters. As adults, they should guide youngsters to adopt an independent and rational attitude to analyse matters and to look at how incident unfolded from different angles. They should even encourage young people to communicate with the Government in a peaceful and pragmatic manner. However, what he saw was that some people incited young people to protest violently and even promoted a distorted concept, claiming that “There are no rioters, only tyranny”. He asked whether answering violence with violence could solve problems and what could be solved by adopting such approach. He opined that all would lose out as a result of violent confrontations. Harmony and tolerance in society would be gone, young people would have no more hopes on Hong Kong and dreams of Hong Kong people would vanish. He felt anguished that some young people even committed suicide because of lack of hopes. Hence, he hoped that Members, government officials and the community could put aside their prejudices and hold discussions afresh in a rational manner to address the problems.

49. The Chairman invited Mr YIP Kam-lung, the representative of Central and Western Concern Group, to speak. Mr YIP said the process of amending the FOO began around February/March 2019. He commented that the pro-government camp led by DAB, which always claimed being subjected to smearing, was the most shameless, and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan who served on three councils had an inescapable responsibility. He said they could sue him for defamation if they so wished. He directly criticised DAB for being the most violent and said nobody knew better than DAB about the tactics the Communist Party employed during Cultural Revolution. He also pointed out that Mr YEUNG Hok-ming

document.docx 12

advocated tolerance and rationality in front of a “Lennon Wall” but he opined that DAB was actually the most irrational. When the amendment to FOO was first suggested, many LegCo members from the pan-democratic camp had put forward different proposals including sunset clause and extraterritoriality but were not accepted by the Government. The peaceful, rational and non-violent actions taken by the pan-democrat members of councils, as well as the one million people and two million people demonstrations were all ignored by the Government and the pro-government camp. He condemned DAB, being the largest party in both LegCo and C&WDC, for giving indiscriminate support to the Government’s policy implementation. He urged them not to forget that the number of votes they held were gained through councillors elected with zero vote, so they could not genuinely represent the views of the majority. He opined that it was the Government who closed the door to a peaceful and rational dialogue and sent young people to hell. Three youngsters sacrificed their lives on 15 June, 29 June and 30 June respectively. He directly condemned some Members from the pro-government camp for leaving the previous C&WDC meeting midway and making verbal attacks. He said those Members were heartless and having no conscience. He hoped that Members would ask themselves whether they deserved the salary they received as a district councillor and whether they could hold themselves accountable to all Hong Kong people. He said he was a very rational person but he now felt extremely angry. He said those Members from the pro-government camp who were sneering now would have their names put on the pillar of shame in Hong Kong’s history. The community of Hong Kong would remember Members from the pro-government camp who claimed to build Hong Kong with democracy but were in fact “traitors of democracy” who betrayed Hong Kong.

50. The Chairman invited Mr Edward CHEUK, Youth Minister of F.S.I. (C.H.K.) Association, to speak. Mr CHEUK said F.S.I. (C.H.K.) Association opined that there was no problem with the original intention of proposing the bill. As what the Chairman said earlier on, the bill was prompted by the murder of a Hong Kong citizen in Taiwan. As Hong Kong had no extradition agreement with Taiwan, the Government took remedial action by amending the FOO, with a view to doing justice to the deceased and sending a deterrent message to potential criminals. However, the Government was subject to threats as the matter developed. For example, there were demands for extradition agreement with Taiwan only but not with Mainland China; a demonstration on 9 June against the passage of the bill; protesters surrounded the Legislative Council Complex on 12 June; a demonstration on 16 June demanding the Chief Executive to step down; protesters surrounded the Police Headquarters on 21 and 27 June; protesters broke into and vandalised the Legislative Council Complex on 1 July; protesters surrounded Hong Kong West Kowloon Station and occupied Tsim Sha Tsui and Mong Kok on 7 July, disrupted order in Sheung Shui on 13 July and in Sha Tin on 14 July. He opined that the nature of the matter had changed and so, it was necessary to discuss future problems calmly. He said the most severe impact on society was that some people maliciously attacked police officers. He opined that Hong Kong Police was undoubtedly the most outstanding police team in the world,

document.docx 13

but now police officers were insulted and described as being useless. He commented that the line had been crossed and the Police, which was the mainstay for upholding law and order in society, should not be defamed. He remarked that the Police had exercised great restraint, whereas the use of iron pipes, bricks and chemical powder against police officers and acts of scolding police officers had undermined public morality. Everyone in Hong Kong, including the elders, the middle-aged, youngsters, teenagers and even children, would fall victim and become the ultimate loser.

51. The Chairman invited Ms WONG Kin-ching to speak. Ms WONG opined that it was not necessary to amend the FOO and that those who supported the amendments were not Hong Kong people. They supported the amendment bill even though they knew very well that it would send Hong Kong people to hell, and even deceived Hong Kong people into thinking that the amendments could plug the loopholes of the legislation. She opined that Hong Kong had been doing well and was peaceful in the previous decades even without the extradition bill, but the Government was not receptive to the demands put forward by two million people and legal professional bodies. She asked the Government to withdraw the bill, and said the show of support by DAB and the pro-establishment members of councils repeatedly at council meetings had provoked public protests, resulting in the Police using excessive force against protesters. On 12 June on which the “bloodshed in Central” took place, protesters were beaten up by police officers even when they had no way to escape. Police officers also hindered reporters from recording the scene and attacked them. On 14 June, the Police even entered New Town Plaza in Sha Tin and made arrests there, scaring the public. She opined that the Police should respect people’s basic rights when enforcing the law. Protesters were presumed innocent before trial. Police officers had repeatedly attacked people who showed no aggression, and shot protestors in the head at close range without giving any warning in advance. She enquired about the guidelines on police firing shots, disciplinary actions for non-compliance, and why the Police adopted the strategy of surrounding peaceful protestors instead of dispersing the crowd. She said the protestors had Letter of No Objection and the demonstrations were lawful. However, bean bag rounds and rubber bullets, which were lethal, were used by the Police. She remarked that protesters in Hong Kong were moderate compared to those in other countries (France, for example), but Hong Kong Police had used excessive force against them. She asked the Police and Members not to obscure the facts and categorise the protestors as being violent. She also condemned DAB and the pro-establishment members of councils for ignoring the truth and supporting the Police blindly. Besides, she was dissatisfied with the Chairman for supporting the proposed legislative amendments in the capacity of C&WDC Chairman without consultation. She urged Members to support the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry to clear the names of Police and protesters.

52. The Chairman invited Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Consultant of Protect Kennedy Town Alliance,

document.docx 14

to speak. Mr YEUNG was opposed to amending the FOO and opined that amendment was not necessary. He said the Government had undertaken in 1996 that another law would be enacted in relation to the extradition agreement between China and Hong Kong, and the FOO would not be applicable to extradition to Mainland China. However, the Government proposed the amendments to the FOO on 13 February 2019. He opined that the Government had broken the promise, and the necessity and intention behind the amendments were dubious. Moreover, he said there were serious repercussions and multiple confrontations in the community after the Government proposed the amendments. Students, youngsters and journalists were injured, and some youngsters even committed suicide because of this. Meanwhile, it was revealed that the Police had used inappropriate force, including using excessive force on journalists and protesters by poking people in the eyes with fingers, beating people who were retreating, beating people in the head with baton and using pepper spray at close range. He said even though a mechanism for complaints against the Police was in place at present, he opined that the current Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) and IPCC were defective. CAPO was under HKPF, implying that investigations were conducted by the Police themselves; and IPCC members were appointed by the Government, bringing its impartiality into question. He strongly requested establishing an independent commission of inquiry led by judges to investigate whether the Police had used excessive force. In addition, he condemned the SAR Government and the pro-establishment camp for condoning the abusive use of violence by Police and causing unnecessary confrontations and casualties. He said various sectors of the community had strongly condemned the Police for using excessive force but regrettably, the Government and the pro-establishment members of councils rejected the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry, and at the same time openly and repeatedly supported the use of force by the Police and organised an assembly to support the Police. He opined that it would only lead to expansion of police power and thereby infringe upon human rights of Hong Kong people, which was outrageous. Lastly, he said without prior discussion in and resolution of the Council, Mr YIP Wing-shing signed a joint letter in the capacity of C&WDC Chairman to express support for submitting the bill to the meeting of LegCo direct as early as possible. By doing that, the Chairman was misinterpreting public opinion and misleading the Government. He opined that Mr YIP Wing-shing was abusing his position as C&WDC Chairman and should be strongly condemned.

53. The Chairman invited Mr WONG Kai-chiu to speak. Mr WONG said he, as a resident living in Kennedy Town, would keep asking the pro-establishment members of councils whenever they set up street counters until they apologised and did justice to Hong Kong people. He said it was extremely frustrating that the Government and Members from the pro-establishment camp supported the amendments to the FOO and used the Taiwan homicide case as a pretext to ruin Hong Kong’s “fire rated door” for the sake of the Chinese communist regime, putting Hong Kong people at risk of being extradited to Mainland China. It was also very frustrating that C&WDC had not conducted any local consultation, and just kept calling a

document.docx 15

stag a horse and diverting the attention of the people. He also said Mr CHAN Hok-fung expressed support for the FOO at street counter on 15 June. When asked at street counter on 27 June about the reason for signing a joint letter to support submission of the bill to the meeting of LegCo direct, Mr CHAN Hok-fung said Mr YIP Wing-shing signed the joint letter in his personal capacity. Mr WONG asked why the Chairman of C&WDC could represent the entire council to support submission of the bill to the meeting of LegCo as early as possible without any open discussion. He said the pro-establishment camp and pro-government camp were faithful supporters of the Government’s policy implementation and they were supposed to take orders from the Central Government of China and pass the legislation. It was a pity that the Chief Executive finally announced the bill was dead. At first, the pro-establishment camp was domineering and said the bill must be passed by all means through Second or Third Reading. However, their domineering attitude was now gone and they acted as if they had forgotten their stance after two million people took to the streets. Mr WONG said this was not what any responsible politician was expected to do and they had failed to live up to their supporters’ expectations. He opined that they should not change their political stance whenever they saw fit. Not only did they retreat, they also had no courage to apologise to Hong Kong people. He said he had been pushed and hit by a volunteer of DAB but the Police refused to follow up the case on the ground of insufficient evidence. The Police said that the volunteer did so in self-defence. He did not accept the Police or DAB’s act of harbouring the volunteer.

54. The Chairman invited Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin to speak. Miss CHEUNG said District Council should be a unit well aware of and in the best position to reflect public opinion, but the 18 District Councils dominated by the pro-establishment camp were very incompetent. She opined that Members from the pro-establishment camp had failed to discharge their duties. They represented C&WDC to support the amendments without keeping abreast of and listening to public opinion, truthfully reflecting public opinion to the Government, conducting local consultation, nor discussing the amendments at C&WDC meetings. She said Members from the pro-establishment camp had an undeniable responsibility and the Chairman should bear a major share of it. She said the Chief Executive had described the work in amending the FOO as a failure. The biggest failure was that the pro-establishment camp had not truthfully reflected public opinion to the Government. Now that the extradition bill controversy had seriously split the community and strained relations between police and civilians in an unprecedented manner, Miss CHEUNG opined that the pro-establishment camp must be held accountable. In addition, Mr LEE Chi-hang represented other ten Members from the pro-establishment camp to make a statement condemning the protesters during the C&WDC meeting on 4 July. However, the statement mentioned nothing about institutional violence and dereliction of duty of senior government officials, nor did it hold the Police to account for using excessive force and breaching Police General Orders. She opined that as the pro-establishment camp harboured and defended the Government, the Government remained

document.docx 16

unrepentant and adopted a tough attitude, and continued to connive at police abuse of power, making unreasonable arrests, telling lies and using violence against civilians. Even though the public had divergent views on the extradition law and not everyone agreed with the confrontational tactics adopted by protesters, they were well aware of the malicious acts of the Police, including abusing their power to make unreasonable arrests, hiding their warrant cards intentionally, kept lying to mislead the public, insulting journalists and ambulancemen, and provoking members of the public. The Police Force was thoroughly discredited. She further asked that if Members from the pro-establishment camp considered that protesters who broke the law should be held liable, then why they did not support the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry to investigate police abuse of power and failure in discharging their duties properly during the protests, so as to do justice to the Police and members of the public. She said what the society of Hong Kong was facing today was the result of the pro-establishment camp conniving with and shielding the Police unreasonably. She opined that the damage done to Hong Kong could never be remedied even if Members from the pro-establishment camp attempted to compensate in future.

55. The Chairman invited Mr SO Yat-ching to speak. Mr SO said he was just an ordinary person working in Central. He was proud of being a Hongkonger when the public expressed their demands peacefully on 9 and 12 June. However, he was upset that the nature of the matter had changed with acts such as surrounding Police Headquarters and charging at the Legislative Council Complex taking place. He appreciated the Police for exercising restraint, and condemned political leaders for instigating violent acts, especially some pan-democrat members of councils who harboured those protesters who staged charging acts.

56. The Chairman invited Mr YEUNG Ming-fai to speak. Mr YEUNG said he thought he was attending a LegCo meeting instead of a DC meeting. He remarked that C&WDC did not discuss livelihood issues but instead discussed political issues. He said that the Communist Party of China had been established for 70 years and China was now the world’s second largest economy. Over 100 million trips to overseas were made each year and there was an overall rise in the standard of living in the Mainland. Being born in Hong Kong, he still supported the Government to amend the FOO. He was disappointed that Hong Kong was headed towards something like Cultural Revolution and had become irrational. He asked the press to report fairly what had happened in June, including the chaotic situation in Hong Kong. He said there had been the “709 crackdown” and “4 June incident” in Mainland China. This year also marked the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attack in Xinjiang. However, the situation in Mainland China was calm whereas Hong Kong was in chaos. He opined that protesters could oppose to the FOO but he did not agree with raising the flag of Hong Kong under British colonial rule, as such act was pushing Hong Kong people to confront with 1.4 billion Mainlanders. He said those attendees who had spoken had deviated from the topic of discussion. On one hand, it was a C&WDC meeting and on the other hand, instead of

document.docx 17

condemning the Chief Executive, the discussion only focused on police conduct. Besides, He opined that police violence, as mentioned earlier, was open to debate. He hoped that Hong Kong could recover as soon as possible.

57. The Chairman invited discussion on the paper.

(a) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai said Hong Kong had reached a turning point and he wished that everyone would think twice about where Hong Kong was heading, be it moving forward or going backwards. He said there were signs showing that the number of visitors to Hong Kong had decreased drastically and visitors had instead shifted to adjacent areas. A number of international conferences and exhibitions originally scheduled to be held in Hong Kong had changed the venue of conference/exhibition to another city. Large corporations and overseas companies were reassessing their investments in Hong Kong and considering whether they should reduce the scale of their investments, or transfer some of the assets out of or withdrawing investment from Hong Kong. Business in many sectors had plummeted and the sectors started to lay off their employees. He said everyone should enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of criticising government policies and expressing political views. However, all these should be done in a peaceful and rational manner, and no one had the right to resort to violence. He opined that violence would not help bring changes or reform to society. Rather, it would only create more chaos in society and in the end, Hong Kong would suffer a crushing defeat and both sides would lose out. He supported people to press demands in a peaceful and rational manner but objected to resorting to violence.

(b) Mr KAM Nai-wai said Members were aware of the current political problems but unfortunately, the Hong Kong Government attempted to rely on the Police to solve insoluble problems. He opined that frontline police officers were confused about the situation, and he clarified that police officers using force abusively must be brought to justice in accordance with the penal measures of Hong Kong. He said a protester bit off part of a police officer’s finger and was charged the next day. However, police officers needed not bear any responsibility or be charged for beating people indiscriminately and pepper-spraying District Councillors who held up their hands. The people of Hong Kong perceived such situation to be unfair. He remarked that a speaker had said just now that Hong Kong Police was the most outstanding police team in the world. He opined that it was only the general perception before 12 June, as Hong Kong Police was regarded as “mice on the street” after 12 June. He was dissatisfied that the management of HKPF refused to handle complaints and people could not submit their views on the IPCC website. He quoted an editorial of a newspaper saying that DAB, being the largest political

document.docx 18

party in Hong Kong, was ungrateful and had let Hong Kong down; that DAB had done nothing for Hong Kong over the years but instead attracted a lot of criticism; and that a photo in which six DAB members holding cardboards with words on them was altered to read “DAB is the most shameless”. Mr KAM said how deplorable a political party must be to have given the public such an impression. Hence, he would not mention DAB anymore this day. He asked Members from the pro-establishment camp who were not DAB members that while they were against violent acts by civilians, whether they had expressed views to the Government on behalf of the public and whether they had asked the Government not to amend the FOO on behalf of the public after seeing one million people taking to the streets on 9 June. He said some commented that resorting to violence and inciting young people should be condemned but he opined that nowadays in Hong Kong, the public had access to a large volume of information and young people were capable of independent thinking and would not be easily incited. The Democratic Party advocated peace, rationality and non-violence, but the opinions of one million, or even two million people, were not listened to. He said he had requested a special meeting on 25 June but it was only until 18 July that the meeting could be convened. He considered that this was institutional violence and had distorted the opinion of Hong Kong people.

(c) Ms CHENG Lai-king said that the paper was submitted to the Secretariat on 25 June. The Secretariat had repeatedly asked Members and the meeting could only be finally held today. Ms CHENG said that questions raised in Members’ submissions would be answered by relevant departments in the past. For example, questions concerning transport matters would be answered by the Transport Department, and questions concerning the Police would be answered by HKPF. Noting that this time the reply was made by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government, she asked whether District Office, HKPF, or Security Bureau was the department that answered the relevant questions, and said there was no way to know. She asked whether the SAR Government, which was currently under the leadership of the Chief Executive, was in an unmanned state. She also asked whether it was a shield, and could not understand why the current SAR Government was so weak that the responsible unit for answering the questions could only be the "SAR Government". Ms CHENG also remarked that on her enquiry about the producing of warrant card by police officers, the written reply stated that "A police officer in plain clothes, when dealing with members of the public, shall identity himself and produce his warrant card when exercising his police powers. Police officers in uniform should produce their warrant cards upon the request of members of the public.” (Due to order issues, the Chairman suspended the meeting for two minutes. The meeting resumed after two minutes.)

document.docx 19

Ms CHENG Lai-king said that the submission was about the incident in Admiralty on 12 June, where officers of the Special Tactical Unit were in full gear and did not produce their warrant cards. They were wearing gas masks and no one could see an ID number on their uniform. Hence, if someone was injured and lodged a complaint to IPCC, the police officers involved could not be identified. And so people did not have a channel to lodge complaints. Regarding police violence, Ms CHENG said that incidents still took place in July after submission of the paper on 25 June, including the one took place in front of the Legislative Council Complex, and those happened in Tuen Mun, Kowloon and Sheung Shui afterwards, as well as the recent incident in New Town Plaza. All these showed that there was an increasing level of police violence, which even scared the families of police officers. She questioned whether there needed to be police officer died on duty and buried at Gallant Garden so that the popularity slide of the Chief Executive could be reversed in order to prove to Hong Kong people that the Chief Executive was doing the right thing. Ms CHENG said that the Chief Executive did not step down and hid herself in the Government House. She even did not attend the anniversary celebration ceremony of her alma mater. Ms CHENG also said that she passed by the Government House every day and saw many police officers outside the Government House and even along the entire Upper Albert Road. No one could know the next step of the SAR Government. Furthermore, Ms CHENG asked Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, who was also an Executive Council member, whether he had the responsibility to convey relevant views to the Chief Executive, and opined that he should truthfully relay the current situation. Ms CHENG reiterated her dissatisfaction with the Government's reply. (The Chairman appealed to members of the public in the public gallery to remain calm and allow Members to speak.)

(d) Mr LEE Chi-hang said that many demonstrations and even radical acts had taken place in the past month or so, which had aroused anxiety among Hong Kong people as well as caused harm to and a rift in society. Mr LEE respected the freedom of expression of demonstration participants, and believed that young people addressing social issues should be appreciated. However, he reckoned that Hong Kong was a society ruled by law, and democracy was founded on the rule of law. There would be no democracy without the rule of law. He pointed out that Hong Kong’s rule of law would be ruined if people did not abide by the law. It was therefore necessary to severely condemn violent acts and vandalism by any party in the incident. He agreed with a member of the public who spoke just now that violence could not solve problems. He called on all parties to take a step back instead of charging forward. Regarding the motion proposed at the meeting, Mr LEE said he had two opinions. First, concerning the demand for not prosecuting

document.docx 20

those who engaged in violent acts, he believed that it was contrary to the rule of law. As a practicing solicitor, he considered it totally unacceptable. He also said that he respected those who achieved justice by violating the law and were brave enough to assume legal liability. He believed that the Court would handle the cases fairly and impartially. Second, he believed in the law, and believed that the Court was the most appropriate place to deal with any illegal act with impartiality. Mr LEE did not oppose the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry to investigate the causes and impact of the 612 incident. However, he said that a commission of inquiry only had investigative powers but not powers of sanction. In the end, the pursuit of legal responsibility and punishment of illegal acts had to be handled by the Court, and only the Court was the right place to ascertain the real facts. Hence, Mr LEE said that he could not vote in favour of the motion proposed at the meeting.

(e) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming said that Hong Kong was an inclusive city that valued mutual respect. People with different opinions and of different cultures, races and lifestyles could live in harmony in Hong Kong. He believed that all Hong Kong people would agree with this. (Some observers were yelling and some members of the public were leaving the public gallery at will. As chaos arose, the Chairman adjourned the meeting. The meeting resumed subsequently.) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming continued that he was just named by a public representative, saying that he could not distribute leaflets and that he acted against democracy under the banner of democracy. Mr YEUNG said members of the public knew very well that he was simply distributing leaflets in a public space but was forbidden to do so. As for those who criticised him, their concept of public space seemed to be that only they could have their voices in public spaces and only they could speak and express their views. Mr YEUNG said that distributing leaflets was a peaceful act and hoped that there would be mutual tolerance and respect, but some people would not allow it. He pointed out that it was unhealthy for Hong Kong, which was originally a city with a culture of mutual tolerance and respect, to move towards such a situation. He hoped that all parties would stop and think about it, and refrain from smearing others and promoting violence. He said that the rule of law meant that offenders should be punished under the law. Mr LEE Chi-hang had clearly expressed just now that anyone who broke the law should be punished, regardless of his thinking, ideals and ambitions. This was what underpinned the rule of law. Mr YEUNG added that he appreciated what Hon LAM Cheuk-ting did on the day before the meeting. He said that Hon LAM Cheuk-ting's assistant, probably Mr Winfield CHONG, had taken a picture of a youngster carrying a bag of iron pipes into New Town Plaza. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting considered that it was a dangerous act and this kind of violent charging acts had to be stopped. Mr

document.docx 21

YEUNG also expressed appreciation for Hon LAM Cheuk-ting for having the courage to say the above with a loudspeaker, unlike Hon WAN Siu-kin, Andrew who failed to see what really happened but misled the media and public by making up a story to wrongly accuse police officers before the media. Mr YEUNG reckoned that such behaviour should be condemned. Hence, Mr YEUNG hoped that all parties would commend what was right and criticise what was wrong. If they thought that something was correct, they should use facts to explain instead of telling only part of the story. Mr YEUNG hoped that all parties would stop and think, so that the problems and difficulties facing Hong Kong now could have a chance to be rectified.

(f) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan said that peaceful demonstrators and persons who staged violent charging acts were two different groups of people. Mr CHEUNG remarked that some of his friends had also participated in the peaceful demonstrations, but they did not stay behind to engage in violent charging. However, he pointed out that there was at present a trend of letting preconceptions override facts in society, that is, some people only saw the facts they wanted to see based on their preconceptions. He said this was the biggest problem facing Hong Kong at present. Mr CHEUNG remarked that some Members had said at the meeting that after June, everyone thought that the Hong Kong Police had problems. However, he said that after June, Hon LAM Cheuk-ting, after being harassed and attacked in Admiralty, finally left the scene under the protection of police officers. Even Dr Hon Kwok Ka-ki, a pan-democrat, had immediately called the Police after he was charged at by someone with shoulder in an MTR station. Although Dr Hon Kwok Ka-ki had repeatedly condemned police officers as “black cops” at LegCo meetings in the past few years, he also sought Police help when something untoward happened, reflecting that the Police was indispensable in upholding law and order in Hong Kong. He asked whether people holding different political views could attack the Police wantonly, and could dox (search and disclose personal details of) police officers who upheld law and order, thereby threatening the police officers’ own safety and that of their families, and could use lime powder, iron pipes and bricks to attack police officers during protests. He asked why these acts could be overlooked. Even though some police officers might misbehave, in DCs or even LegCo, Mr CHEUNG had never heard pan-democrat members of councils saying that members of the public should not attack police officers during demonstrations, and they just one-sidedly condemned the Police. He stressed that the fact was there were rioters attacking police officers, but the pan-democrat members of councils had never condemned nor opposed such acts. Mr CHEUNG said that Ms CHENG Lai-king had just now kept questioning that officers of the Special Tactical Unit did not show their ID

document.docx 22

number and warrant cards. Mr CHEUNG responded that the Special Tactical Unit would not appear in peaceful demonstrations. They only showed up in violent situations caused by a group of protesters wearing helmets and masks and holding offensive weapon and iron pipes after peaceful demonstrations. He hoped that Members would conduct thorough analyses and avoid stirring up confusion.

(g) Mr HUI Chi-fung said that regarding the anti-extradition bill movement, as the matter now stood, from the Chief Executive, Secretary for Security, Commissioner of Police to DC members of the pro-government camp were all seeking to divert attention. He said that withdrawal of the proposed legislative amendments was demanded by mainstream society. The said parties should stop playing with the art of double talk. To resolve the current social conflict and upheaval, he said that the Chief Executive should take responsibility and step down, retract the categorisation of demonstration as riot, establish a commission of inquiry to look into police violence and reasons behind the introduction of the proposed legislative amendments. He said that those people he mentioned just now, including Members from the pro-government and pro-establishment camps in this Council, had kept their mouths shut on the above demands. They all diverted attention by shifting the focus to the violent incidents. He said that if those were really violent incidents, regarding Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan’s remark that pan-democrat members of councils did not condemn members of the public for attacking police officers, Mr HUI responded that neither did pro-establishment members of councils condemn the use of violence by the Police. When police officers wielded their batons to beat protesters on their heads, fired shots at young people, the pro-government camp did not utter a word either. In addition, the pro-government camp mentioned nothing about institutional violence. He said that no matter how these young people put up resistance, they were the ones being oppressed. They had been oppressed by despotic rule for a long time. Under a distorted system, they had been forced to accept the passage of many unjust bills and funding applications by the DCs and LegCo that did not represent them, but there was no way to change the situation. He said that some Members and deputations present here opined that these young people could act peacefully and rationally and expressed their views in a better way. Mr HUI emphasised that they did try before. These young people had actively participated in DC and LegCo elections after the Umbrella Movement and were even elected. Just when they formed political groups and built up influences in society, this despotic regime arrested and locked them up, disqualified them from being nominated as candidates at elections of councils. If they could not be convicted for violence, the despotic regime would make use of the content on social media such as Facebook to accuse them of advocating independence and self-determination for Hong Kong, and forbid them

document.docx 23

from participating in the elections. Mr HUI considered that all these were oppression and institutional violence. Therefore, talking about violence, Mr HUI reckoned that there was no reason to blame these young people for standing up and putting up resistance against despotic rule. The community should condemn the despotic regime for abusing its power to oppress citizens and young people. Mr HUI said that as the pro-establishment camp, pro-government camp, the Government and the Chief Executive so far still used the tactic of diversion of attention to evade their responsibilities, in-fighting was ensued. Mr HUI added that he did not know the persons wearing masks and yelling Chief Executive step down in the conference room on the day of this meeting. He also said that if these people returned to the conference room at a later time, making the meeting unable to proceed and thereby preventing the motion which condemned despotic rule and abuse of power by the Police from being put to vote, they were by no means sharing the same goal with democrats, nor were they part of the anti-extradition bill movement. Mr HUI hoped the community and the Council would be mindful that what needed to be done now was to be fully accountable to the public. He opined that those present here who had supported the Government's proposed legislative amendments should come forward to apologise and admit their mistakes. The Chairman must also respond when he was denounced. Mr HUI believed that the Chairman had abused his position as DC chairman, which had become the trigger for the introduction of the bill into LegCo for the Second Reading. He said that the Chairman should bear full responsibility for this. Mr HUI believed that only by doing so, rather than keep blaming the protesters, could help restore calmness in society.

(h) Miss LO Yee-hang said that no one could convince the other side regardless of what he said at this meeting. She first expressed respect for the members of the public who participated in the peaceful demonstrations as she believed that everyone had their own aspirations. She reckoned that the Government should listen to the voice of the public and enhance communication. However, as a practicing solicitor, she did not agree with violent acts, nor did she agree with the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry because the commission itself did not have the power of prosecution and determining legislation. She also pointed out that judicial independence was Hong Kong's core value. Hong Kong had a sound legal system. Everyone was equal before the law. She believed that judges in Hong Kong were well placed to handle all criminal prosecutions relating to demonstrations. She said that even if an independent commission of inquiry was established and it indicated that the Government and the Police were at fault, it did not mean that members of the public who had committed criminal offences were not required to be sanctioned by law. Since Hong Kong was judicially

document.docx 24

independent, judges should not be affected by the results of such a commission’s final report in delivering judgements. Lastly, she said that the community was beginning to be torn apart, which would only lead to a gradual decline of Hong Kong. The economy and people's livelihood had been greatly affected. If these violence and nuisances continued, she believed that the biggest loser would be the people of Hong Kong.

(i) Mr NG Siu-hong requested for the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry, saying that it was a serious and strong request of the democrats and the general public. He considered that the Police had a number of problems. For instance, he queried why the Police ordered the closure of MTR station on the one hand, but squeezed into a shopping mall with several thousand people inside on the other. He could not understand the reason behind such arrangement for the Police and protesters. He opined that such a command had resulted in a melee, and the relevant commander should give an account on this. He believed that the relevant commander would not attend the IPCC hearing. Hence, he reckoned that only by establishing an independent commission of inquiry to look into the incident could the public be convinced, which would have the power to summon the police officers concerned to determine whether they were at fault. He asked whether those who opposed the setting up of an independent commission of inquiry were worried that after its establishment, the commission would reveal that police superintendents, the Commissioner of Police, the Secretary for Security and even the Chief Executive were the “black hand” working behind the scene. He asked who ordered police officers to shoot people in the head and issued commands that led to numerous police-civilian confrontations. He remarked that the Chief Executive had said the Police was professional and had exercised restraint, but he saw police officers chasing and beating protesters and civilians to City Hall in Central and Western District on 12 June. He said that those who assembled in City Hall were the most moderate citizens, who had brought along their children (kindergarten students) and were participating in story-telling activities. But police officers equipped with batons and pepper spray had chased people to this place, resulting in chaos and making the whole place dangerous. He also saw that some protesters who were set to leave were still being pepper-sprayed. He questioned how the Police could be considered as having exercised restraint. In addition, he said that police officers used foul language extensively and appeared to be out of control and in a state of frenzy. He queried that in issuing commands on that day, whether those senior police officers who stayed in air-conditioned rooms had ever considered that their subordinates in the front line were fatigued and not suitable for further operations. Also, he said he saw that police officers did not carry their warrant cards that day, and he was disappointed that representatives of the Police

document.docx 25

did not attend this meeting. He said that the Government’s reply stated that police officers needed not produce their warrant cards in some circumstances, but he did not agree. He said that if police officers could use force without producing their warrant cards, there might be situations where people from the pro-establishment camp impersonating police officers to chase protesters. He also pointed out that police officers had been under great pressure in recent years, and questioned whether the reason why they were so stressful was related to the problems with the internal operation of the Police. He asked why police officers had to stare menacingly at him and a group of Christians when they were making petition and verbally insult the Christians. He questioned whether it was due to workload or faulty commands that police officers were out of control. In addition, he learned that there were grievances among police officers. He said that senior management of the Police must come out and give an account, and opined that an independent commission of inquiry must be formed. In addition, he pointed out that amendments to the FOO had long been advocated by the DAB. And it kept insisting on having the ordinance amended even after Taiwan had indicated that it would not request for extradition of the suspect for trial because of the proposed legislative amendments. Also, the DAB paid no regard to the 130 000 people who took to the streets to oppose the amendments. On the night after one million people marching onto the streets to protest against the amendments, the DAB even issued a statement saying that the proposed legislative amendments should be introduced to the LegCo for the Second Reading as soon as possible. He said that now that two million people had marched onto the streets, but the DAB was still reluctant to support the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry. They also continued to condemn the protesters and called on the Police not to issue Letter of No Objection. He believed that people taking to the streets in demonstration because there were widespread grievances among the public, and doubted whether not issuing Letter of No Objection could actually solve the problem. He also pointed out that the remark made by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan that the Special Tactical Unit would not appear in peaceful rallies was a lie. Mr NG said that during the one million people demonstration on 9 June, the Special Tactical Unit was seen during hours of lawful demonstration and they lined up facing members of the public. He said that there were photos as evidence. He opined that these commands issued by the senior management were problematic, reckoning that it was tiring for the Special Tactical Unit to conduct operation in this manner while protesters participating in the demonstration had no intention of charging. Furthermore, he urged DAB to apologise for misleading the Government and even deceiving the Central People's Government by not conveying the true public opinions on the proposed amendments to FOO, and for keep fooling the public and Hong Kong people. Also, he remarked that at the time

document.docx 26

when the one million and two million people demonstrations took place, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan had suggested the Chief Executive to introduce the bill to LegCo expeditiously. He reckoned that the DAB should promptly apologise for this. He said that Hong Kong people needed a genuine universal suffrage system. Instead of only listening to the views of the small circle, the Chief Executive should listen to public opinions. He believed that a government elected by universal suffrage would not propose amendments to the FOO. In a Legislative Council elected by universal suffrage, the bill for amending the FOO would be vetoed by public opinions. He said that he deeply loved Hong Kong. He did not wish to see more students being beaten up, nor did he wish to see it required a few million people taking to the streets to stop the passage of draconian law that should be objected to.

(j) Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing said that the series of demonstrations and even violent confrontations arising from the proposed legislative amendments in recent days had left society in a state of being torn apart and caused social unrest. The society as a whole had already paid a heavy price. He pointed out that many violent scenes had erupted following the series of demonstrations in recent days. The situation had even grown out of control, resulting in a large number of police officers and civilians injured. The degree of violence had been escalating, causing great worries among the public. He said that the situation at New Town Plaza in Sha Tin on Sunday (14 July) was outrageous. Some police officers were surrounded and beaten up by protesters, attacked with umbrellas and hard objects, even had their fingers bitten off. The community was shocked by these violent acts. He played a video clip circulated online showing the violent acts of protesters, saying that these were not peaceful demonstrations. He reckoned that those protesters should be condemned. He said that the Police was responsible for upholding public order. Without the Police, it would be a loss for Hong Kong people. He asked that without the Police, who was going to protect the life and property of the general public. He also pointed out that Hong Kong was a society ruled by law, and so they would fully support the Police in taking enforcement in accordance with the law and upholding the rule of law. He urged protesters to stop using violence to express their views, so as to allow Hong Kong to return to peace, restore public order and communicate in a rational manner.

(k) Mr YOUNG Chit-on said he noted that over the past month or so, the general public and the public sector of Hong Kong had been under great pressure and facing rift in society. He believed Hong Kong had been hurt. As a citizen or a DC member, he felt sad and worried. He did not see that the direction Hong Kong was heading could promote wound healing. Neither did he see that the Government,

document.docx 27

the public and Members could accept a society that valued inclusiveness, harmony and diversity, which worried him a lot. He said some Members mentioned that they had on 25 June requested a meeting, but it was only until today that the meeting could finally be held. He said he was surprised as he did not understand why the C&WDC had to hold this meeting. He believed that the main function of DCs was to serve the local community of the district and take care of local demand on transport and environmental hygiene services. Even though the topic of the meeting was a cardinal issue of right and wrong and was also a topic of concern to the people of Hong Kong, he considered that it was slightly outside the scope of DC duties. He was worried that the current social trend would encourage the idea of “a high-sounding concept has reason on its side”, which could be used to take over certain tools to achieve a goal. He remarked that this was the case for the holding of this meeting. Seeing that members of the public present here also quarrelled among themselves, he really did not want to see such thing happen. He opined that in these past days, both the Police and the public had crossed the line of law and order in Hong Kong. Regarding the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry, he said he still believed that the IPCC would perform its duty. Living and working in Hong Kong, he believed in the existing regime in Hong Kong and that any imperfection could be improved. He did not wish people to destroy the regime out of dislike. He said that the community should calmly discuss the issue and think about the duties that could be fulfilled, and select the persons who could represent their views to improve the existing regime. He reckoned that there was no one perfect regime. Some people might be very dissatisfied with a regime, others might consider it a good one. While it was unrealistic to hope for a perfect system, all parties could still work together towards a satisfying outcome. He opined that consideration could be given to supporting many aspects in the motion proposed at the meeting, but he really could not support the demand "not to prosecute protesters arrested in the clashes in Admiralty on 12 June". He reckoned that if the Members who raised the demand believed in Hong Kong’s rule of law, such a demand was exactly something that would destroy the rule of law. He said that it was not possible to grant amnesty before arrest and trial. The cases should be tried in a way that both the prosecution and defence would be allowed to provide justifications. Otherwise, acts like jumping over the ticket gates in MTR stations would become a trend. He said he was very worried because his children used public transport every day. He worried that some day when some people were dissatisfied with a certain situation, they would instigate other people to break the law. It would be a highly irresponsible act for the future of Hong Kong. He hoped that all parties could calm down and discuss, and instead of using force, they should use their mouths to express opinions.

document.docx 28

(l) Ms NG Hoi-yan said that the 10 citizens and 14 Members who had spoken just now had raised a lot of issues on violence. She reckoned that society was full of violence. Apart from physical violence, there was also institutional violence. She said that the public could not genuinely choose the candidate they preferred under the current electoral system. Some candidates running for a functional constituency seat could be elected with zero vote, and they accounted for the majority of seats in the LegCo to determine the future of Hong Kong. She doubted whether it was fair to the general public. She opined that now was the time to change such an electoral system. Those who have spoken only focused on the scenes of confrontation after the demonstrations, but Members present here had not said one word about the violent scenes at the assembly in support of the Police on 30 June. She questioned whether resorting to violence in support of the Police was right and clashes after peaceful demonstrations was wrong. She opined that if they were to unanimously condemn violence, then instead of using double standards, they should unanimously "commend what was right and criticise what was wrong" by adopting the same standard in handling similar issues. In addition, she pointed out that for the various demonstrations which had taken place, the demonstrations on 9 June, 16 June and the silver-haired march on the day before this meeting were all very peaceful. She saw both young people and elders taking part in the demonstrations. In particular, on the day before the meeting, she saw in Admiralty that young people bowed and thanked the elders for supporting them. She hoped that the community would not just accuse young people of being dissatisfied with the Government and blame them for being useless. She also said that participants of the Hong Kong Mothers' Anti-Extradition Rally held earlier on included young people, parents and elders from different ethnic groups in society. She opined that people from different ethnic groups in society had unanimously expressed their five demands to the Government. Remarking that some attendees only condemned the violent acts of protesters and played video clips of their violent acts, she questioned why they did not play video clips showing police officers beating protesters in the head. She opined that those attendees should not mislead others and overgeneralise. Also, she said that each person had his own position, as the saying went, “You go on supporting the Government, I will keep fighting for universal suffrage." She said that she was striving for universal suffrage because she did not wish to sit on the fence and could not allow the public being betrayed. She hoped to stand on the side of the public, so she hoped that Members could support the motion proposed by Members from the Democratic Party in the discussion later on. Besides, she said that the Government’s written reply had mentioned about Police’s equipment and that police officers had undergone professional training. It was believed that the public would have

document.docx 29

confidence in the Police’s professionalism. Police officers should also have better emotion management than ordinary people, which was the kind of professionalism that the Police should demonstrate. Ms NG queried why police officers could not control their emotions when chaos arose. In addition, she said that the Government’s written reply showed that the Police believed that pepper sprays, tear sprays, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets and tear gas were all non-lethal weapons, whereas scissors, cutters, multi-purpose knives, blades and lighters were dangerous items. She asked if all those present here also possessed these dangerous items. She believed that in dealing with unarmed civilians, police officers who were adequately equipped should exercise greater restraint.

(m) The Vice-chairman said that many Members had spoken, but there was one thing in common that everyone must uphold. Without such a consensus, it would not be possible for the Hong Kong society to continue to develop. He said that anyone striving for democracy must observe the rule of law. Everyone, regardless of their political stance, should condemn all kinds of violence, including violence committed by rioters in confrontations. He opined that rioters and demonstrations should be separated. He said that protesters were peaceful, while rioters used violence. He said that all rioters should be condemned, including those fighting in front of the “Lennon Walls” as seen on the Internet. He said that such acts should also be condemned. He said that any form of violence could not be tolerated. He was concerned that if the Hong Kong society unlocked a Pandora's box of violence, there would be confrontation every day like the one occurred in Yuen Long recently, and everyone would resort to use force to solve problems. He questioned whether this was what all those present here would like to see. He pointed out that Members from the Democratic Party had only presented their one-side views. He said that if they harboured rioters and those who used violence, legalised the use of violence and glorified such violence in whatsoever manner, he would consider that they were not qualified to talk about democracy as they had acted contrary to the most basic spirit of democracy. The Vice-chairman believed that democracy without the rule of law was basically the same as triad society, which only involved comparing the number of people and connections each side had. This was exactly the case with the Yuen Long incident. He queried whether Hong Kong would eventually become like this. Also, he hoped Members from the Democratic Party could call on their supporters to stop using white terror tactics. He said that many people got their personal information doxxed because they had different views and opinions. Many LegCo members of the pro-establishment camp got their personal information doxxed, including address, telephone number and information on their family members. Many police officers got their ID number, address and telephone number doxxed, even they themselves and their

document.docx 30

children were subject to threats of violence on the street. He opined that Members from the Democratic Party should also come out to condemn this kind of white terror. He asked if Hon LAM Cheuk-ting, who reported to the Police when his information was made public, had spoken up for other LegCo members. He believed that democracy did not mean the defeat of one party by another. Democracy should be tolerant of any voice, rather than just a unilateral expression of views. Otherwise, it would be dictatorship instead of democracy. He said that even if the Democratic Party monopolised the seats of all councils, it would only be an autocratic government and councils. In addition, he said some Members had pointed out that the Police should be capable of exercising more self-restraint. However, he had seen on the Internet that some police officers were being scolded by rioters with foul language for an hour. He said those who thought that one could remain calm when facing such a situation and believed that such provocation was still reasonable were unfit for being members of the Democratic Party. He said that members of the Democratic Party should "be someone like LAM Cheuk-ting" and he expressed support for LAM Cheuk-ting. He also pointed out that Mr Winfield CHONG, who had served in the Central and Western District before and was a disciple of Mr KAM Nai-wai, was also worthy of support. The Vice-chairman agreed that if one spotted a potential of crime, he should be brave enough to come forward and courageously report that someone was taking out iron poles in a shopping mall. Even when attacked by a large group of people, LAM Cheuk-ting could still bravely asked that person not to make any trouble. Such behaviour was indeed the most glorious moment of democracy. He expressed his appreciation to LAM Cheuk-ting. He also hoped that other members of the Democratic Party could also learn from LAM Cheuk-ting, but unfortunately he recently noted that LAM Cheuk-ting had removed relevant photos from the Internet. He opined that LAM Cheuk-ting, having the courage to stop the said behaviour, should carry it through and not be frightened by white terror. Lastly, he said that as LAM Cheuk-ting was also subjected to white terror, he hoped that Members from the Democratic Party could also defend him.

(n) The Chairman said that the Government could consider "withdrawing" the proposed legislative amendments as demanded by the motion. Remarking that the Government had already indicated that "the bill is dead", he questioned why it could not use a word that could dispel misgivings. Also, he expressed doubts about the demand in the motion for the Chief Executive to step down. He said that the Chief Executive had already apologised, and consideration should be given that if the current Chief Executive stepped down, who should be assigned the responsibility to resolve the current tense situation in Hong Kong. He believed that no one would be willing to take up the post of Chief Executive at this time and

document.docx 31

solve the problems currently facing Hong Kong. He said that the current Chief Executive should continue to address the current situation in Hong Kong. In addition, he showed respect for the tens of thousands of people who expressed their aspirations in a peaceful and rational manner, as they brought along their children and took to the streets to express their aspirations even in hot weather or rainy days. He said this showed that apart from the amendments to FOO, many public grievances in Hong Kong had erupted through this issue. He said that the Government had many shortcomings in the recent period which had caused great public discontent. He reckoned that the Government should be down-to-earth by establishing a strategy committee in the long term and extensively invite members of the public and young people holding different views to join the committee. Membership of the committee should comprise members of the public joined through a self-recommendation scheme rather than solely appointed by the Government. He also said that the Government should collaborate with the community in managing Hong Kong on issues including traffic and transportation, environmental hygiene and community building. He said that Hong Kong belonged to all citizens. He hoped that a steering committee could be established for long-term development and longer consultation period on cardinal issues of right and wrong would be provided, so that more people could express their opinions and public aspirations would be heeded more attentively. On the other hand, he said that there were some confrontations after the peaceful demonstrations. He questioned whether it was against the rule of law if a citizen was not prosecuted for breaking the law. Since all those present here were not judges, the matter should be handed over to real judges for handling. He opined that citizens being prosecuted could express their ideas and aspirations to the judge in court, and the judge would make judgement. In response to the reprimand on him for signing a joint letter in the capacity of C&WDC Chairman, he reiterated that he did so in his personal capacity in order to convey the views of the public. Given that some members of the public told him that they were not sure of the details of the proposed legislative amendments, he hoped that the issue could be discussed in a fair and open manner to keep the public informed of the contents of the proposed amendments. He said that support or oppose was not the only option, the community could seek common ground while accommodating differences. The Chinese nation had been a peace-loving and rational nation since ancient times. He hoped that Hong Kong people would cherish their hard-earned achievements and social stability.

58. The Chairman invited Members to express their views in the second-round discussion. He said that the motion would be put to vote after the second-round discussion. The Vice-chairman would take over the chair of the meeting for the second-round discussion.

document.docx 32

59. The Vice-chairman once again invited Members to express their views. Members’ comments were as follows:

(a) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai said that as the seven demands set out in the motion proposed by five Members were bundled up, he wished to express views on each demand separately. Remarking that the Chief Executive had said that the bill was "dead", he considered that it was tantamount to withdrawal. Since the chaos associated with the FOO was caused by the Chief Executive, it should leave to the Chief Executive to resolve the problems she had created. He opined that demanding the current Chief Executive to step down now would be unfair to the next Chief Executive, and therefore did not support putting forward such a demand now. In addition, regarding the demand to not prosecute the protesters arrested in the clashes on 12 June 2019, he said that no one should interfere with the judicial proceedings. Whether or not to initiate prosecution should be the responsibility of the Department of Justice and the Court. Hence, for the time being, neither the Government nor any other person should propose to stop the conduct of prosecutions. He therefore could not support the motion which contained seven demands.

(b) Mr KAM Nai-wai wished to tell Members from the pro-establishment and pro-government camps that the Hong Kong society today was no longer what it used to be. He said that Hong Kong’s society and its people had been fully empowered through the incident arising from the proposed legislative amendments and they knew how to safeguard their rights and interests. He said that the topic of "demand for universal suffrage" was discussed at the previous meeting. He quoted the remark of Mr CHAN Chit-kwai that universal suffrage could not be achieved in one stride and the remark of Mr LEE Chi-hang that the functional constituencies should be retained. He said that Hong Kong’s society and its people could no longer accept such views of the pro-establishment camp. He said that he did not set up a street counter for voter registration on 2 July. However, due to the storming of LegCo on 1 July, many Members from the DAB condemned violence on 2 July and launched publicity for voter registration on the street. Remarking that more than 10 people came to his ward office on their own account that day for voter registration, he said he had not come across such a thing in his 20 odd years as a district councillor. He said he had not called on those people to register because he did not know them. He said this showed that the Hong Kong society had changed, and the public had been fully empowered. He opined that there was a consensus in the community that an independent commission of inquiry was the most basic requirement of Hong Kong people, which could not be reversed. He

document.docx 33

also said that since DAB would only listen to the instructions of the Communist Party, he did not consider DAB's views credible nor had any expectations on DAB. But he hoped that Members of this Council who still had conscience would call on the Government to resolve the current political problems. He said that he would continue to demand the Chief Executive to step down but in fact he did not care whether she would really step down. He was even worried about the Chief Executive’s mental health. He said that now the Chief Executive often stayed in the Office of the Chief Executive and he wondered how she could perform her work. He reckoned that it was now more difficult for the Chief Executive to not step down than otherwise, though he considered that she should be held accountable for the matter. He hoped that everyone could support and use different channels to relay to the Government the demand for establishing an independent commission of inquiry to look into the incident.

(c) Ms CHENG Lai-king said that a demand in the motion was about objection towards the Government’s categorisation of the clashes in Admiralty on 12 June as a “riot”. She said that it could be heard from time to time in TVB’s news reports that the Chief Executive and the Commissioner of Police did indeed and clearly categorise the clashes took place in Admiralty from afternoon to evening on 12 June as a “riot”. She said that she was in Admiralty until 7:00 pm that day and witnessed the Police using the so-called “non-lethal weapons”, including tear gas, bean bag rounds and other bullets, making civilians present at the scene unable to open their eyes. She said that a key factor leading to the Admiralty incident on that day was that there were news saying that LegCo would reconvene at 3:00 pm that day and LegCo members from the pro-establishment camp would take coach to the Legislative Council Complex from the Central Police Station. Ms CHENG said it was at that time emotions of the Police started to run high. She said that at the time members of the public only carried flimsy helmets and wrapped themselves with wrapping film. What she saw was police officers assaulting civilians and media practitioners who covered the event at scene. They also yelled at the crowd with obscene or offensive language. She therefore wondered if police officers were "rioters" instead. She said that she and members of religious groups sang hymns on the same day, but some police officer responded by saying "Ask your Jesus to come down and see us". She said all these reflected that the Police had no respect for religions and the media. She considered the Police over the top as she was very supportive of the media for performing the functions of the “fourth estate”. She said the public saw on television that evening that the Government had categorised the clashes as a "riot". Therefore, the motion included a demand for retraction of the Government’s categorisation of the clashes on that day as a “riot”. As the Police had arrested many people on that day, whether or not the

document.docx 34

clashes were categorised as a “riot” would affect the Police’s decision of whether to charge those arrested with rioting offence. In the case of "riot", insurance companies would not provide indemnity for the casualties and losses caused, and so she reckoned that the motion had to express such demand very clearly. In addition, she remarked that there were seven demands in the motion, including the immediate "withdrawal" of the proposed amendments to FOO. She pointed out that Mr CHAN Chit-kwai had misquoted that the Government had "withdrawn" the bill. She emphasised that the Chief Executive only mentioned that the bill was “dead”. However, LegCo did not have procedure for making a bill "dead", it only had procedure for "withdrawal" or "postponement" of bills. In addition, she considered that the Chief Executive should admit her mistakes and step down immediately. Seeing the attitude of the Chief Executive in an event in celebration of the Lo Pan (Master) Festival and her remark that she would always support the Police, all these showed that she was being unjust. Ms CHENG believed that it was the Chief Executive’s unfairness which had led to the current situation of police leveraging the Chief Executive’s authority to continue attacking civilians. It would be very serious if the situation continued. She said that family members of some police officers had expressed to her their worries about the situation, and some former police officers were glad that they had already retired. She believed that political issues should be resolved by political means. Frontline police officers should not bear the responsibility and receive orders to attack civilians. She said that as police officers were now sandwiched in between, an independent commission of inquiry should be established so that justice could be done for both civilians and police officers.

(d) Mr HUI Chi-fung criticised that most of the Members from the pro-establishment camp who had spoken just now, including the Chairman, were utterly hypocritical. He said that Members observed a minute of silence led by the Chairman at the beginning of the meeting and the names of the young people who died in the anti-extradition bill movement were mentioned. Also, several Members urged young people to return to peace, calmness and rationality so as to bring society back to harmony. But in reality Members from the pro-establishment camp subsequently said young people were rioters and used violence, and reckoned that they should be arrested and tried in court. He considered that Members from the pro-establishment camp were very hypocritical and had no conscience. Also, he opined that what Members from the pro-establishment camp did was not for society’s sake, but to further generate division and turmoil in society. He opined that if the pro-government camp and the Government continued to be evasive and did not seek a solution to the problem, there would only be more young people willing to sacrifice themselves because of a sense of helplessness. Besides, amidst

document.docx 35

more police-civilian conflicts, police officers would also suffer injuries. He believed that family members of frontline police officers were furious because of the wrong decisions made by the HKPF’s senior management, which had hardly hit frontline police officers. He reckoned that Hong Kong was at a watershed moment, whether the pro-establishment members of councils and the Government would continue to safeguard their political and vested interests, powers and positions, or let Hong Kong take a step forward. He asked whether the pro-establishment members of councils and the Government wished to lead Hong Kong towards an accountable, open and transparent government and a just society, or tyrannical rule marked by corruption, favouritism, abuse of power and oppression of its people. He hoped that Hong Kong would be given a way out, and he once again strongly condemned and criticised Members from the pro-establishment camp. Meanwhile, he again raised the demands stated in the motion, including "withdrawal" of the extradition bill, acceptance of responsibility by and stepping down of the Chief Executive, retraction of the categorisation as a “riot”, and establishment of an independent commission of inquiry, so as to enable Hong Kong to move forward.

(e) Mr NG Siu-hong said the Police and other government departments did not send representatives to attend the meeting. The only government official present was DO(C&W). He enquired with DO(C&W) whether she had conveyed the views of the local community and C&WDC to the Government and about the Government’s response. In addition, he said that the Anti-riot Squad and Special Tactical Unit were out of control on 12 June and they chased and beaten the masses to the outside of community facilities, including City Hall and City Hall Public Library. He wished to know the stance of DO(C&W) and asked whether DO(C&W) had conveyed the relevant views to the Government. He said that there were kindergarten students and parents inside City Hall at that time. He saw the Anti-riot Squad rushing into City Hall without giving any opportunity for the civilians inside to leave safely. In response to Mr YOUNG Chit-on's remark that complaints against the Police should be lodged to the IPCC under the existing system, he said that there was precedent of establishing an independent commission of inquiry to conduct thorough investigation, and it was part of the system. He said the public was of the view that investigation into the matter should be led by a retired judge of high credibility. He reiterated that an independent commission of inquiry was also part of the system, and queried why Members had to rely on the untrustworthy IPCC. In addition, he explained that some people jumped over the ticket gates at Sha Tin MTR Station because police officers attacked them in an uncontrolled manner. Worrying that they would be subdued and arrested by police officers after being beaten with batons with blood

document.docx 36

all over their body, they had to run to escape and thus could not spare time to purchase ticket before passing through ticket gates. He said that at that time in the shopping mall, there were citizens having meals as well as protesters stopping by after the peaceful demonstration, he questioned why the Police treated them like this. He asked why people who "ran for their lives" in a hurry and thus could not purchase tickets were reproached, while those who gave orders to chase and beat protesters were not blamed. He said that the discussion by Members from the DAB had deviated from the topic. Also, he asked why DAB, on the night after one million citizens had expressed their demands, immediately suggested that the Government should expedite scrutiny of the proposed amendments to FOO. He asked if such judgement was wrong and whether DAB would apologise. He asked Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan that as a member of the Executive Council, whether Mr CHEUNG immediately suggested the Chief Executive to expedite scrutiny of the bill the night after one million people had expressed their demands. Furthermore, he said that Members from the pan-democratic camp and the general public were striving for a truly democratic system in the age of empowerment. Without a truly democratic system, there would be no true justice nor true happiness. He hoped that everyone would work together and Hong Kong people would keep fighting.

(f) Ms NG Hoi-yan made a clarification in response to the Vice-Chairman ’s remark. The Vice-chairman said that Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, a fellow party member of Ms NG, made a report to the Police only when being doxxed online. Ms NG said that Mr LAM Cheuk-ting made a report to the Police because he was captured by some people on the footbridge leading to Tamar Park on 30 June who threatened to throw him off the footbridge, and he also received threats from online social media. She hoped that the Vice-chairman would browse Mr LAM’s social media platforms to clarify the facts. Furthermore, for the Sha Tin iron pipe incident, she did not understand why Member from the DAB said with certainty that the photo was provided by Mr Winfield CHONG. She reckoned that when receiving information, one should grasp the full picture rather than just focusing on a certain aspect. She said to Members from the pro-establishment camp that not only protesters were involved in violent acts, the use of violence was also seen in the assembly in support of the Police. She reckoned that all these should be treated equally. In addition, she opined that an independent commission of inquiry must be established to investigate the root cause of the incident and who ordered the Police to use firearms and force against protesters.

(g) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan remarked that he said earlier at the meeting that Members from the pan-democratic camp should not only see what they wanted to see. He said that there were indeed cases of police officers being assaulted by

document.docx 37

protesters. He queried why Members from the pan-democratic camp did not condemn these acts. He said that Ms NG Hoi-yan did not explicitly indicate in her response just now that whether Members from the Democratic Party would condemn protesters’ violent acts. Instead, she only asked why Members from the pro-establishment camp did not condemn the attack on Democratic Party member on 30 June. He made it clear that the violence in any rallies since June should be condemned. He asked if Members from the Democratic Party should also condemn the violent acts in any rallies since June in order to make it clear that all violent acts should not take place. He did not wish to see some Members, when being accused of tolerance to violence, sidetracking the issue by asking whether others would condemn the 30 June assembly. (Mr HUI Chi-fung interrupted, asking if Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan would condemn the Police. The Chairman stopped Mr HUI from interrupting Mr CHEUNG's speech. Mr CHEUNG asked Mr HUI not to interrupt his speech. There was a moment of overlapping of voices) He reiterated that illegal acts of any person since June should be followed up and condemned. He was most disappointed that whenever there were calls for condemning violence in one voice, some Members would evade responding by sidetracking the issue. He said this was the current political reality.

(h) The Chairman hoped that his views on the motion would be put on record. Regarding the demand for "withdrawal" of the proposed legislative amendments, he hoped that the Government would consider using better wording to dispel public doubts. Also, he was puzzled who could take over to follow up the current situation if the current Chief Executive was to step down. Furthermore, he said that the existing IPCC could investigate the Police and that the Chairman of IPCC, Mr Anthony NEOH, SC, was a person with credibility. He hoped that Mr NEOH could initiate an investigation. However, if members of the public in general believed that it was necessary to set up an independent commission of inquiry, he would urge the Government to consider it.

60. Mr NG Siu-hong once again enquired whether DO(C&W) had conveyed to the Chief Executive the views of the residents in the Central and Western District on the entire matter of proposed amendments to FOO, and whether she had expressed her stance on the Police rushing into City Hall on 12 June. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), responded that the activities mentioned by Mr NG Siu-hong were conducted in a fair and open manner for the public to express their views. Government departments would be capable of listening to the voices of different people. She said that as District Officer, she would convey the various views of the local community and society to the relevant departments.

61. (The Chairman resumed the Chair) The Chairman said that the item had entered the voting

document.docx 38

stage. He invited Members to vote on the following motion. The following motion was not adopted after voting:

Motion: “The Central and Western District Council strongly demands:

that the proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance be withdrawn immediately;

that Carrie Lam to admit her mistakes and step down immediately;

retraction of the Government’s categorisation of the clashes in Admiralty on 12 June as a “riot”;

condemnation of the Police for the violent oppression of and use of rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, pepper balls, and tear gas against peaceful protesters on 12 June;

accountability for the decision to fire in the clashes in Admiralty on 12 June;

not to prosecute protesters arrested in the clashes in Admiralty on 12 June; and

that the Government to set up an independent commission of inquiry to thoroughly investigate the clashes in Admiralty and the Police’s violent oppression of peaceful protestors on 12 June.”

(Proposed by Mr KAM Nai-wai and seconded by Ms CHENG Lai-king)

(5 affirmative votes:

Mr KAM Nai-wai, Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr NG Siu-hong, Ms NG Hoi-yan)

(10 dissenting votes:

Mr YIP Wing-shing, Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, Mr CHAN Choi-hi (with Mr CHAN Hok-fung being his authorised representative for voting), Mr LEE Chi-hang, Mr YEUNG Hok-ming, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Miss LO Yee-hang, Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing, Mr YOUNG Chit-on)

(0 abstention vote)

document.docx 39

Item 3: Any Other Business(12:02 pm)

62. The Chairman closed the discussion on this item.

63. There was no other business.

64. The Chairman declared the end of the meeting. The meeting ended at 12:02 pm.

The minutes were confirmed on 26 September 2019

Chairman: Mr YIP Wing-shing

Secretary: Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, Grace

Central and Western District Council SecretariatSeptember 2019

document.docx 40