Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of the HKSAR Fourth Term of Wong Tai Sin District Council

(Summary Translation)

Date: 13 March 2012 (Tuesday) Time: 2:30 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Wong Tai Sin District Council,

6/F, Lung Cheung Office Block, 138 Lung Cheung Road, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon

Present: Chairman: Mr. LI Tak-hong, MH, JP Vice-chairman: Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH Wong Tai Sin District Council Members: Ms. CHAN Man-ki, Maggie Mr. CHAN On-tai Mr. CHAN Wai-kwan, Andie Mr. CHAN Yim-kwong, Joe Ms. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP Mr. HO Hon-man Mr. HO Yin-fai Mr. HUI Kam-shing Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH Ms. KWOK Sau-ying Mr. LAI Wing-ho, Joe Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH Mr. MOK Chung-fai, Rex, MH Mr. MOK Kin-wing Mr. MOK Ying-fan Mr. SHUM Wan-wa

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 1

Mr. SO Sik-kin Ms. TAM Heung-man Ms. TAM Mei-po Mr. TING Chi-wai, Roy Mr. WONG Kam-chi, MH, JP Mr. WONG Kit-hin Mr. WONG Kwok-tung Mr. WONG Kwok-yan Mr. WONG Yat-yuk Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH Mr. Yuen Kwok-keung, Stephen In Attendance: Mr. LAI Yiu-kei, Samson Assistant Director

(Waste Management Policy) EPD )

)For item III(i)

Miss CHENG Ching-mon, Libera

Senior Administrative Officer (Waste Management Policy Division)

EPD ))

Mr. CHAN Kai-wah, Tommy Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional E)2

EPD ))

Mr. WONG Chi-sing, Janson Chief Engineer (Kln) CEDD ) For item Mr. TUNG Hiu-kwong Senior Engineer (Kln) CEDD ) III(ii) Mr. LAM Chun-cheuk Senior Engineer Ove Arup &

Partners Hong Kong Ltd.

))))

Dr. Victor WONG Senior Engineer Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd.

))))

Mrs. HO LOK So-fun, Rosa Chief Architect 3 HD ) For item Mr. CHOI Cheong-fai, Michael

Senior Architect 15 HD ) III(iii)

Ms. NG Yuk-hing, Serena Senior Planning Officer 5 HD ) Mr. NG Pak-sheung Architect 50 HD ) Ms. LI Shuk-ming, Selina Senior Executive Officer (Planning)6 LCSD ) Ms. WONG Yim-hung, Aubrey Executive Officer (Planning)6

LCSD )

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 2

Mrs. Sorais LEE Head (Kai Tak Office) CEDD ) For item Ms. YING Fun-fong Chief Engineer/Kln 3 (Kln) CEDD ) III(iv) Ms. LAI Man-foon, Vivian Senior Town Planner, Pre-Kowloon

East Development Office PlanD )

)

Mr. W. L. HO Director AECOM ) Mr. SHIU Wai-cheun, William, JP District Officer (Wong Tai Sin) WTSDO Ms. NG Wing-yin, Clara District Commander (Wong Tai Sin) (Ag.) HKPF Ms. Lily NG District Social Welfare Officer

(Wong Tai Sin/Sai Kung) SWD

Mrs. SUNG CHEUNG Mun-chi

Chief Housing Manager (Wong Tai Sin, Tsing Yi, Tsuen Wan and Islands)

HD

Mr. LO Kam-yan, Anthony Chief Engineer CEDD Mr. AU Siu-fung, Kelvin Senior Transport Officer / Wong Tai Sin TD Mr. WONG Wai-wan, MH District Environmental Hygiene

Superintendent (Wong Tai Sin) FEHD

Mr. LAM Hok-hay, George District Leisure Manager (Wong Tai Sin)

LCSD

Mr. CHIK Yu-fai, Freddy Assistant District Officer (Wong Tai Sin)

WTSDO

Mr. CHUNG Chan-yau, Patrick

Senior Executive Officer (District Management)

WTSDO

Mr. TING Tin-sang Senior Liaison Officer 1 WTSDO Ms. PANG Suk-wah, Phyllis Senior Liaison Officer 2 WTSDO Ms. TANG Wai-lan, Cecilia Executive Officer I (District Council) WTSDO Secretary: Ms. LAM Pui-fun, Maggie Senior Executive Officer

(District Council) WTSDO

Opening Remark by the Chairman The Chairman welcomed all to the 3rd meeting of the Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC), in particular the Environmental Protection Department (EPD)’s AD (WMP) Mr. Samson LAI, SAO(WMPD) Miss Libera CHENG and SEPO Mr. Tommy CHAN who attended the meeting for agenda item III(i). 2. The Chairman welcomed the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF)’s District

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 3

Commander (WTS)(Ag.) Ms. Clara NG, and the Transport Department (TD)’s STO/WTS Mr. Kelvin AU who stood in for Mr. Vincent FAN. 3. The Chairman informed Members that the agenda had to be revised to accommodate an additional item, “Three-day Duty Visit to Eastern Guangdong by Wong Tai Sin District Council”. The revised agenda had been sent to Members by fax. 4. The Chairman told Members that a list of proposed discussion time for agenda items of the 3rd meeting was tabled for Members’ reference and Members raised no objection to the list. I. Confirmation of the Minutes of the 1st and 2nd Meetings of the Wong Tai

Sin District Council held on 3 January 2012 and 17 January 2012 5. Minutes of the 1st and 2nd meetings of WTSDC held on 3 January 2012 and 17 January 2012 respectively were confirmed without amendment. II. Progress Report on Matters Arising from the 1st and 2nd Meetings of the

Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC Paper 20/2012)

6. Members noted the paper. III(i). Public Consultation on Municipal Solid Waste Charging

(WTSDC Paper 21/2012) 7. The Chairman invited EPD’s AD (WMP) Mr. Samson LAI to introduce the paper. 8. Mr. Samson LAI said he was glad to attend the WTSDC meeting. He pointed out that all waste generated in Hong Kong was dumped into the three soon-to-be-full landfills. Hong Kong had adopted a multi-pronged waste management approach, with the objective to create a sustainable waste management system. One of the major tasks in this connection was to promote recycling of waste, so as to reduce the waste that required disposal at, and our reliance on the landfills. Advanced waste treatment facilities were also required to turn waste into useful resources. EPD had made good progress on the above tasks and, with the wide public support, achieved a very decent municipal solid waste (MSW) recovery rate of 52% in 2010. In early January, EPD had launched a consultation exercise on the proposed introduction of

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 4

MSW charging into Hong Kong as an economic means to reduce the generation of, and to encourage the recycling of waste. He played a short movie on the paper, and emphasised that MSW charging was by no means a revenue-generating initiative. Instead, it was intended to be an economic incentive that might change behaviour and lead people to cut down on waste. Different cities across the world had their own MSW charging systems, which involved different supporting measures and varied complexity. Generally speaking, a quantity-based charging system could create greater economic incentives and was thus more effective in fostering the behavioural changes. However, it would lead to a more complex system that required broad public involvement. Therefore, discussion about the need for introducing MSW charging in Hong Kong should cover factors unique to Hong Kong, such as the operational needs of the existing waste collection system, efficiency of municipal services, environmental hygiene, and whether the economic incentives would drive behavioural change towards waste reduction. EPD would decide the way forward and implementation details on the basis of community consensus. 9. The Chairman said ten DC members of the DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch had made a submission (Annex I) before the meeting. These members included Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH, Mr. LI Tak-hong, MH, JP, Mr. HO Yin-fai, Ms. Maggie CHAN, Mr. Joe LAI, Mr. HO Hon-man, Mr. Stephen YUEN, Mr. MOK Kin-wing, Mr. WONG Kwok-yan and Ms. TAM Mei-po. He invited Mr. Stephen YUEN to introduce the submission. (Ms Maggie CHAN and Ms. TAM Heung-man arrived at the meeting at 2:50 p.m.) 10. Mr. Stephen YUEN thanked EPD for launching the public consultation exercise on “Sustainable Waste Management – Strengthening Waste Reduction: Is Waste Charging an Option?” Regarding the introduction of MSW charging as an MSW reduction measures, the DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch would like to raise seven concerns on the four approaches of MSW charging set out in the consultation paper, namely quantity-based system, proxy system, fixed charge and partial charging:

(i) Although waste charging had been introduced in many countries and jurisdictions with proven effectiveness in waste reduction, it was all new to Hong Kong. Hence, the Government should not decide on the introduction of waste charging solely on the basis of the outcome of the three-month consultation. Instead, sufficient time should be given so that consensus in the community could be built through thorough discussion;

(ii) Supporting measures were indispensable to sustainable and effective

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 5

waste disposal. Consensus in the community should be reached before the introduction of waste charging. Also, a transparent and objective charge determination mechanism should be in place so that the charge was affordable to the general public. Moreover, consideration should be made to exempt financially vulnerable elderly people and CSSA households from waste charging. A reasonably long transition period should be provided too;

(iii) Not only economic means (e.g. waste charging) could reduce the

amount and control the generation of waste. In fact, the Government’s data reveal that its waste recovery initiatives, in particular separation of domestic waste, were very effective. This showcased that the public has fallen into a habit to separate and recover waste. Many people even pointed out that the recovery scheme could be further extended to cover glass, food waste, batteries, etc.;

(iv) A complete waste recovery mechanism should be in place. Waste

charging, even if introduced, could do little to reduce the generation of waste;

(v) Apart from encouraging people to recovery waste, the Government had

to do more to promote the development of green industries in Hong Kong, including recovery and recycle industries;

(vi) International experiences revealed that advanced facilities might be

used to process waste. The Government should keep an eye on the trend and make reference to it; and

(vii) A thorough and sustainable waste management policy should be

supported by a basket of measures, including expansion of landfills, construction of incinerators, introduction of producer responsibility scheme, etc., rather than relying on one or two waste reduction / waste generation control initiatives.

He requested the Government to study and consider their concerns carefully. 11. Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH said Hong Kong needed to tackle the waste problem promptly. He welcomed EPD’s consultation paper on MSW charging as it would facilitate public discussion on the four approaches of charging that aimed to reduce waste generation and encourage separation and recovery of waste. Among the

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 6

four proposed approaches, he tended to support the quantity-based charging system, viz. charge would be imposed to the public through mandatory use of designated garbage bags. To save money, people would endeavour to produce less waste and use fewer garbage bags, and separate and recycle waste proactively. If the approach was adopted, further discussion on the level of charge might be made. He suggested that the charge should be set at a lower level at the beginning to jump start MSW charging. In addition, he considered that a comprehensive monitoring system or mechanism should be provided to prevent fly-tipping. Dr. WONG also raised objection to the partial charging approach, commenting that all households and individuals would produce waste and thus should hold a stake in this matter and help to protect the environment. If MSW charge was levied from the commercial and industrial (C&I) sector only, the Government was bound to meet objection from food establishments and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). They might even shift the cost to consumers, making it difficult to implement the policy. Moreover, as there were many residential/commercial buildings in Hong Kong, it could be confusing if residential waste and commercial waste were handled together. He then quoted the result of a study recently conducted by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, an entity under the Chinese University of Hong Kong, which revealed that wide public support for MSW charging had yet to be secured. According to the study, less than 60% of the respondents supported MSW charging, but more than 35% of them had voiced against it. Therefore, he believed that it was difficult to introduce MSW charging at this stage. To introduce quantity-based MSW charging successfully, Taiwan (sic.) had conducted more than 1 000 consultation sessions and seminars during the six months before the introduction of the charging scheme. Heavy penalty was imposed to offenders too. To remove obstacles to this policy initiative, the Government should liaise with the public more closely and exercise creativity. For instance, a reward-driven approach might be used so that people would not associate environmental protection with levy. 12. Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH opined that three fundamental problems should be solved before the quantity-based approach could be adopted. First of all, wide public support for the policy should be secured. The Government should also deal with the difficulties, such as enforcement of the policy in multi-storey buildings, availability of refuse collection points and roadside litter bins, handling of fly-tippers who attempted to work around the MSW charging scheme, etc. He enquired if the Government would support MSW charging by educating the public to take the rubbish home for disposal, among other measures, or discussion on the need for such measures would take place after the scheme was endorsed. Secondly, although a large amount of food waste and other recyclable waste was dumped to the landfills, the consultation paper only proposed measures to reduce waste in general, but not anything about waste separation. He hoped that EPD would take this opportunity to launch a carrot-and-stick policy conducive to source separation, in order to promote recycling and reuse of waste.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 7

Charging was an important, yet difficult to implement aspect of MSW handling in Hong Kong, so discussion on this matter should be on the premise that EPD would provide the necessary waste handling facilities. Thirdly, he commented that the Government should first work on C&I waste. In addition to collecting waste charge, it should also let the C&I sector know that they could benefit from engaging themselves in source separation. He remarked that the waste charging policy should be cost-neutral and the Government should not raise revenue from it. In this connection, he enquired how the Government would use the waste charged collected, and whether it would use the money to reward those assisted in source separation, after deduction of administration cost. 13. Mr. MOK Kin-wing opined that the Government should launch a holistic policy to tackle the ever worsening problem of MSW. Last year, the Government had consulted WTSDC on a number of measures, including the producer responsibility schemes (PRSs), designed to reduce waste at source. The subject of discussion at this meeting was another waste reduction measures. He hoped that EPD would formulate a comprehensive waste management policy, rather than consulting the public on individual measures. He pointed out that MSW management was about three “R”s – Reduce, Reuse and Recycling, but EPD’s paper only proposed ways to reduce the generation of waste, but not anything conducive to reuse and recycling. Therefore, he hoped that besides introducing waste reduction measures, the Government should also facilitate the development of green industries. Although the Government collected waste charge from the public, the latter had little idea about how the Government would use the money. In fact, the Government might use the money collected to support recycling industry and other green industries in Hong Kong, so as to promote environmental protection in an all-round manner. In addition, an “exemption” or “allowance” mechanism should be in place, under which a household would be given a specific number of garbage bags free of charge and had to pay only if extra ones were needed. Doing so might discourage the public from producing domestic waste. Exemption might also be granted to the grassroots and people who did not produce much waste. He hoped that waste reduction could be promoted by means of reward, rather than charging which was a kind of punishment. For instance, reward might be given to recyclers. On the other hand, even though recycling programmes were well-received in public housing estates, limited number of recycling activities had been held in private housing estates by management firms and only lukewarm response had been achieved. In this connection, the Government should encourage recycling by using gifts or sponsorship. It would change the public impression that penalty was the only waste reduction measures by the Government. 14. Mr. HO Yin-fai said the discussion of waste charging was necessitated by the facts that the landfills would be full in the near future and the proposed construction of incinerator had not been confirmed. He commented that EPD should draw up a

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 8

package of long-term strategies to address the solid waste problem, instead of doing so in a piecemeal manner. Even though waste charging was in place, if waste had nowhere to go except the landfills, the amount of waste would not be reduced. He opined that most waste, such as batteries, plastic bottles, food waste, etc., could be recycled and reused. Hence, in addition to charging, EPD should also formulate forward-looking strategies for waste recycling and reuse. Mr. HO used food waste as an example and said such waste could be used to produce methane and other forms of energy, fertilizer, dog food and other animal feed and thus should be used wisely. The Government might also make reference to a study on development of green industries and the associated employment opportunities conducted by the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) many years ago. (Mr. CHAN On-tai arrived at the meeting at 3:05 p.m.) 15. Mr. HUI Kam-shing agreed that the Government should take steps to reduce the generation of solid waste, but pointed out that since Hong Kong people produced a huge amount of waste, the charging scheme should be underpinned by a comprehensive recycling mechanism and other supporting measures. The existing recycling facilities failed to handle all kinds of waste. For instance, there was not any kitchen waste collection point, and the 3-coloured recycling bins were not designed for waste glass bottles, plastics, etc. Therefore, if the purpose of waste charging was to reduce waste rather than to generate revenue, the Government should improve the recycling facilities. Otherwise, waste charging could only cause problems when the public were charged due to the absence of these facilities. He agreed that waste charging could help reduce waste, encourage waste recycling and facilitate waste separation, but there was still waste that could not be handled by the public themselves. Therefore, the Government should determine a level of allowance on the basis of the average amount of waste that an ordinary person would produce. The Government should be responsible for waste management, and the public would unavoidably produce a certain amount of waste. The consultation paper set out that waste charging could create economic incentives conducive to waste reduction, but the Government should develop green industries as well. At present, waste recycling services were available for newspaper, clothes and aluminium cans, but few were eager to recycle non-marketable waste such as glass bottles, plastic-ware, etc. Hence, the Government should not only rely on market. Instead, it should use economic incentives to encourage people in engaging recycling proactively, in a bid to develop the relevant industries. 16. Mr. Joe LAI commented that even though waste charging was depicted as a way to create economic incentives in the consultation paper, it was actually an “economic penalty”. Hong Kong lagged far behind other cities in waste management. Although a charging system was about to be introduced, the recycling industry had yet

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 9

to be established locally. He enquired if EPD would teach the public on the value of various kinds of waste to facilitate waste separation. Also, he commented that if the people did not know the value of waste, they would not know how to carry out waste separation properly and thus the waste separated would still have to be transported to the landfills. Therefore, besides introducing a charging system, the Government should also identify ways to promote the development of green industries because sending all waste to the landfills was meaningless and had nothing to do with waste reduction. It was true that waste charging could create a short-term deterrence effect, but the waste would still be there if effective waste separation was not carried out, and the Government could not but continue to hike the charge level. Finally, he commented on the different levels of waste charge for different places. For instance, the waste charge in the Mainland was RMB 3-5 per head, and ranging from tens to hundreds dollars in other places. However, the paper did not mention how the charge level in Hong Kong would be determined, so he requested the Government to provide more details to facilitate public understanding of waste charging, and not to implement MSW charging until wide consensus had been reached by the community. 17. Mr. SO Sik-kin concurred that the Government should manage waste in a sustainable manner. Even though a punitive charging scheme was straight-forward and effective, it should not be implemented casually. As recycling and waste separation required autonomy of the people, publicity and education should play an essential role. He pointed out that besides providing incentives and rewards, education might also be useful in promoting waste management. A case in point was the television announcements of public interest (APIs) produced by Taiwan, Japan and western countries that served both educational and publicity purposes. The Government should formulate long-term waste management strategy. Some of the listed companies were now using waste to generate power. It was not only alleviated the pressure on landfills, but also made good use of valuable waste. He also suggested renewable energies such as wind farming etc. be used. Moreover, the Government should take the initiative to promote waste recycling and separation. He often found that brand new furniture or electrical appliances in good working order were dumped at some private and public housing estates. In this regard, he advised the Government to encourage non-government organisations to collect and refurbish these items for onward donation to people in need, so that these recyclables would not be dumped at landfills, which was a waste of resources. The Government should carefully consider all proposals, rather than relying on punitive measures. 18. Mr. MOK Ying-fan opined that a Government with good accountability should formulate long-term (waste management) strategy. The current waste reduction proposal was of piecemeal nature. Households created solid waste, so did builders, property developers, private and public entities, food premises, etc. The Government’s waste management efforts should cover all of these sources of waste, instead of

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 10

households only. He commented that every family produced waste and the richer the community was, the larger amount of waste was produced. The problem could never been solved without a broad and visionary proposal. To win public support to the policy, the Government should proposed a forward-looking strategy and let people know the way forward. As the proposed construction of incinerator had yet to be confirmed, the Government might not be able to secure public support to its waste treatment proposal. Finally, he repeated his objection to the Government’s piecemeal waste reduction proposals. 19. Mr. SHUM Wan-wa opined that it was necessary to support green policy. However, since charging was a sensitive issue to the public, he advised the Government to consider formulating a broad-based policy centring on sources of waste, such as glass, food waste, etc., instead of implementing piecemeal measures. He said communication was essential in implementing policy. As mentioned in EPD’s video, Taiwan had held more than a thousand consultation sessions to create an atmosphere conducive to implementing the policy. To this end, the Government should take the initiative to recycle glass and food waste, or to incinerate waste. Afterwards, it might discuss with the public the effectiveness of such efforts, and eventually proceed to the study on the feasibility of charging and other waste reduction methods. Currently, the Government had no long-term policy at hand but a few ad-hoc proposals. He suggested that examples be drawn from other cities to encourage people to discuss the vitally important problem of waste management. 20. Ms. CHAN Yuen-han commented that even though the principle of “Polluters Pay” underpinning waste charging was morally acceptable, it also showcased that the Government imposed levy on the public before trying its best to fulfil its responsibilities. This was unreasonable. When the Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags was about to be launched, she had shown her support to the Scheme in the capacity of a LegCo member, but also her objection to the way of implementation by the Government, in consideration of the unknown use of the levy collected and the Government’s failure to show the public the way forward of the policy. Recycling of food waste was carried out by a number of non-government organisations, including Ms. YEUNG Shek-tai in Wong Tai Sin who had started her waste collection endeavour in Choi Wan Estate more than a decade ago. As no corresponding action had been taken by the Government, waste separated was not treated further but transferred to landfills. Therefore, she opined that other factors should also be considered. In 1994-95 FTU had requested the Government to develop the recycling industry when the society was undergoing economic restructuring and the unemployment rate surged, so that people could join the industry and make a living. During a visit to U.S.A., she had been impressed by the sound development of green industries. On the other hand, the Hong Kong Government was attempting to impose

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 11

levy on the public without first reviewing the existing policy. Although local people and organisations had started waste recycling long ago, the Government had yet to take any corresponding action. She disagreed with what Mr. John TSANG, the Financial Secretary, had said in the budget proposal, viz. recycling industry in Hong Kong had matured. She said logistic represented a large portion of running cost of the recycling industry. It would be a huge burden to small operators if they were required to send the waste to Tin Shui Wai and Yuen Long. There was a recycling site in Kowloon Bay, but 70% of the area had been designated for property development, reflecting the Government’s lack of planning. She reiterated her support to the principle of “Polluters Pay”, but commented that the Government should formulate a comprehensive waste recycling policy. 21. Mr. WONG Yat-yuk supported the Government’s direction of waste reduction. Regarding the rise in overall recovery rate for MSW from 43% in 2005 to 52% in 2011, as set out in Fig.3, Pg. 11 of the consultation paper, he enquired if the Government had calculated the rate directly from the amount of waste dumped and generated, or other methods had been used. In addition, he pointed out that the Government had limited the growth of green industries. For instance, operators based in Yau Tong were forced to move to remote areas in the New Territories due to high rent and land resumption, but the relocation hiked transportation cost, and the Government had not provided any assistance and support. He was concerned on the fairness and prudence on waste charging. There were lots of multi-storey buildings in Hong Kong, within which there were different types of flats, and even sub-divided flats. In this connection, he suggested the Government identify ways to implement waste charging in these buildings. Also, he worried that the policy would meet objection from small shops and the grassroots. 22. Mr. Samson LAI’s response to Members’ enquiries and advice was summarised below:

(i) Vision The Government kept on stepping up its waste management efforts. In 2005, it had published a policy paper on sustainable waste management through a multi-prong approach. The Government had also proposed an action plan in early 2011,

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 12

setting out a comprehensive package of measures to achieve the aforesaid goal.

(ii) First-line Measures – Reduce the Generation of Waste In the past few years, the Government had taken a number of measures to reduce the generation of waste. Following the enactment of the legislation on Producer Responsibility Scheme in 2008, the Government had launched the Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags in 2009. Riding on the success of these endeavours, which provided financial incentives to encourage the public to reduce waste at source, the Government had launched a consultation exercise on extending the Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags to all retailers in 2011. As the proposed extension had won wide public support, the Government was taking follow-up actions in this regard. In addition, the department was preparing to introduce a new Producer Responsibility Scheme for waste electric and electronic products. It had reported and submitted proposals on both scheme to LegCo in 2011, and would expedite the preparation of the legislative proposal;

(iii) Second-line Measures – Promote Recycling and Reuse The most important task under the multi-prong waste management approach was the promotion of waste reduction at source and waste recycling. The Programme on Source Separation of Domestic Waste, aimed to improve availability of recycling facilities, had been launched in 2005 and had gradually reached over 80% of Hong Kong’s population up to now. The recovery rate of domestic waste in 2010 had reached 40%, up from 16% in 2005; whereas the overall recovery rate for MSW had risen from 43% in 2005 to 52% in 2010. The above figures showcased the success of the programme. The Government had undertaken to raise the target further and try to achieve an MSW recovery rate of 55% in 2015 by stepping up promotion and publicity on waste reduction and recycling. The department would continue to improve the waste collection network and provide more supporting facilities, such as setting up more collection points for recyclables, in order to promote

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 13

waste recycling. With the assistance from schools and social welfare organisations, the department had set up more than 350 collection points for recyclables in the urban area. In addition, it intended to join hands with local stakeholders and DCs and sponsor relevant district-based activities. It would also support promotional and educational efforts concerned, as well as recycling programmes through the Environment and Conservation Fund (ECF), in a bid to step up efforts in waste recycling and source separation.

(iv) Third-line measures – Proper Waste Handling The Government had to handle non-recyclable waste properly. Hong Kong now relied principally on strategic landfills to dispose of its waste, but the three existing landfills would be exhausted in a few years. Given the scarcity of land resources in Hong Kong, it was not sustainable to dump waste in landfills and Hong Kong would lag behind other countries in waste management. Therefore, the Government was actively pursuing the development of advanced waste treatment facilities. For instance, state-of-the-art incineration technology might be adopted to reduce the volume of waste by 90% and turn waste into energy and resources. EPD proposed that an energy-generating modern incineration facility be built on an artificial island near Shek Kwu Chau. The proposal would be submitted to LegCo for consideration. Moreover, the department was building a Sludge Treatment Facility and planned to develop an Organic Waste Treatment Facility in phases to treat food waste from the C&I sector. The Government would continue its publicity efforts for the public to understand the waste management strategy.

(v) MSW Charging and the Supporting Measures In the policy paper published in 2005, the Government had pointed out that places with a quantity-based charging systemwere more successful in waste recycling, and the consultation document submitted had also set out the Government’s findings

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 14

of the studies and trial schemes conducted in the past few years. In response to some Members’ worry, viz. waste charging was a penalty, he quoted the Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags as an example, and said people had raised similar concern during the consultation exercise on the Scheme as plastic shopping bags were a necessity. However, the Scheme was operating smoothly and effectively under the current approach. The Scheme intended to create economic incentives to let people understand plastic shopping bags’ cost and impact on the environment and, subsequently change their lifestyle and use fewer plastic shopping bags. International experiences revealed that quantity-based approach was more effective in creating economic incentives and behavioural change, but it required more complicated supporting measures. He noted Members’ advice on exemption, reward and allowance, but commented that these measures could make the charging scheme even more complex and less practical. On the other hand, simplifying the charging scheme could reduce the effectiveness. In this regard, the department would listen to the comments through the consultation exercise, and formulate the way forward and implementation details of the charging scheme, with the basis of the consensus reached. He also noted Members’ concerns about the uses of the MSW charge collected by the Government, and the measures in support of collection of recyclables. He commented that if the public were willing to surrender their recyclables, the Government would certainly take the necessary measures and provide the required channels. The Government would continue to support the waste recycling industry through the EcoPark, and promote waste recycling by improving the network and facilities for collection of recyclables.

(vi) Way Forward on Handling Recycled Waste Glass Bottles Hong Kong had used recycled glass bottles in its own beverage production industry. As the industry had moved away from

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 15

Hong Kong, demand of recycled glass bottles had dropped and thus the bottles had to be dumped in landfills. In fact, the Government had always been taking a leading role in the recycle of glass bottles, and some of the recycling programmes were sponsored by the ECF and the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust. Also, EPD had launched the Glass Container Recycling Programme for the Hotel Sector jointly with the Hong Kong Hotels Association. At present, waste glass bottles collected were mainly used to produce environmentally-friendly floor tiles, whereas the Government was the sole user of such tiles. Currently, about 90% of the floor tiles used in Government projects were environmentally-friendly tiles and thus there was limited room for market expansion. The department would continue to identify market for recycling/reuse of waste glass locally; and Food Waste The Government was planning to build two organic waste treatment facilities (OWTF) to recycle food waste generated from the C&I sector. Even though 3 300 tonnes of food waste was produced in Hong Kong everyday, only 500 tonnes generated from the C&I sector would be handled by OWTF due to the limited capacity. However, EPD would develop OWTF in a progressive manner and would gauge the effectiveness of OWTF before building extra ones. In addition, EPD would promote food waste reduction among the public and the food industry through Save Food Day, Green Lunch Charter and simplification of Chinese banquet menus. Sponsorship would also be provided to promote recycling of food waste in district level. Apart from recycling the food waste, the experience generated from this initiative would also be helpful in drawing up the way forward on food waste recycling.

23. Ms. CHAN Yuen-han commented that EPS should not pay lip service only, and pointed out that Hong Kong had no recycling industry. She thus suggested the Government do something to create the industry. In consideration of the limited power of EPD, she suggested the department discuss with the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau and work out a holistic development plan for the recycling industry.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 16

24. The Chairman asked EPD to note and follow up Members’ advice, and pointed out that Members might submit their views to EPD by the end of the consultation exercise on 10 April 2012. Finally, he thanked Mr. Samson LAI and other representatives from EPD for attending the meeting. (Mr. Samson LAI and other representatives left the meeting at this juncture.) III.(ii) Kai Tak Development —Infrastructure at North Apron Area of Kai Tak

Airport – Stage 3 Infrastructure Works (WTSDC Paper 22/2012)

25. The Chairman welcomed Chief Engineer (Kowloon) Mr. Jason WONG and Senior Engineer Mr. TUNG Hiu-kwong of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), and Senior Engineers Mr. LAM Chun-cheuk and Dr. Victor WONG of the Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd. 26. Mr. Jason WONG made a PowerPoint presentation on the paper. Highlights were as follows:

(i) Background

Kai Tak Development was one of the ten large-scale infrastructure projects. The works concerned would be implemented in phases. Stage 1 infrastructure works at the North Apron Area of Kai Tak Airport had commenced in July 2009 and was anticipated to complete in 2013. These works would complement development of public rental housing (PRH) and Government offices (now called the “Trade and Industry Tower”) in the North Apron Area. Stage 2 infrastructure works had also commenced in 2011 and was anticipated to complete in 2014. The works concerned would support development of the seven plots of land designated as “Residential” and “Government, Institution or Community (G/IC)”. The proposed Stage 3 infrastructure works would provide infrastructures to serve the G/IC facilities, comprehensive development area (CDA), and commercial and other specified uses developments at the North Apron Area. The proposed road network including the proposed vehicular tunnel and pedestrian facilities such as footbridge and subway would greatly enhance the connectivity between Kai Tak Development Area (KTDA) and

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 17

San Po Kong Area after the completion. Not only could these facilities meet future needs for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, they would also support development projects in the vicinity.

(ii) Scope of Stage 3 Infrastructure Works

The works comprised:

(a) A total length of approximately 1 500 m of carriageways and associated footpaths including a dual 2-lane Road D1 (part) and Road L2 (part); single 2-lane Road L1 (including vehicular tunnel of about 390m in length) and Road L11;

(b) Subway SW2 of about 300m;

(c) Subway SW3 extension of about 20m;

(d) Footbridge FB3 across Prince Edward Road East (PERE);

(e) Improvement works to roads and associated footpaths with San Po Kong Area;

(f) Permanent closure of King Hong Street, King Fuk Street (part) and Sze Mei Street (part) and the associated footways;

(g) Re-alignment of Concorde Road and demolition of the existing Concorde Road Flyover;

(h) Associated landscape, drainage, sewerage, water mains and utility works; and

(i) Provision of necessary environmental mitigation measures and implementation of an environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) programme.

Landscaping was one of the major elements in Stage 3 infrastructure works. CEDD would plant lots of trees along carriageways and walkways. Design of the proposed footbridge FB3 would be based on footbridge FB1 currently under construction; whereas subways SW2 and SW3 would look like subways SW1 and SW5 currently under construction. Improvement works would also be carried out in the pedestrian

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 18

subway across PERE, including optimisation of lighting system, paving of non-slippery floor tiles, replacement of wall tiles, and provision of covers and elevators at the entrances.

27. Mr. LAM Chun-cheuk made a PowerPoint presentation on traffic and environmental impacts. Highlights were as follows:

(i) Traffic Impact

(a) As Sze Mei Street was currently a one-way street, vehicles from Choi Hung Road had no direct access but had to route through Choi Yee Lane. Stage 3 infrastructure works included widening of Sze Mei Street to make two-way traffic. Also, two junctions would be added to Choi Hung Road for direct vehicular access to Sze Mei Street. These works would alleviate traffic congestion at Choi Yee Lane and complement the traffic facilities to be built in Stage 3 infrastructure works. Stage 3 infrastructure works also included widening of Luk Hop Street, Tsat Po Street and Sam Chuk Street to accommodate two-way traffic, as well as improvements to the junction of Sze Mei Street and Luk Hop Street.

(b) To dovetail with the road improvement works in San Po Kong, part of the Sze Mei Street and King Fuk Street would be permanently closed and converted into open space.

(c) Currently, vehicles going to KTDA had to route through King Hong Street and a flyover across PERE. A new vehicular tunnel joining Kai Tak City Centre and San Po Kong would be built to replace the said flyover, in Stage 3 infrastructure works.

(d) Currently, no vehicle longer than 7m was allowed to enter King Hong Street. The addition of a slip road connecting PERE would allow long vehicles at King Hong Street to go to PERE direct.

(e) To improvement pedestrian connectivity between San Po Kong and KTDA, CEDD would build a new pedestrian

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 19

subway SW2 and a new footbridge FB3. The existing pedestrian subway SW3 would also be extended.

(f) 28 parking spaces for goods vehicles, 2 parking spaces for private cars and 2 parking spaces for disabled cars would be affected by the extension works. All of these parking spaces would be re-provided after the completion of works. To minimise the impact on traffic flow, most of these parking spaces would be relocated away from the carriageway. In addition, most of the traffic improvement works in San Po Kong would be carried out beside carriageways and thus would not affect the traffic.

(ii) Environmental Impact

(a) The proposed road D1 was a designated project under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance. Environmental Permit had been issued to CEDD to construct and operate the proposed Road D1. The other parts of the proposed works were not designated projects under the Ordinance.

(b) Portions of the existing Kai Tak East Playground and Sam Chuk Street Sitting-out Area would be affected by Stage 3 infrastructure works.

(c) To ensure the construction works were carried out in a manner that met the prescribed environmental standards, environmental monitoring and audit on site would be carried out by Independent Environmental Checker appointed by CEDD. During construction stage, CEDD would require the contractor to carry out appropriate dust control and noise mitigation measures such as the use of quiet powered mechanical equipment, proper material handling, frequent washing and water spraying, provision of wheel washing facilities and use of tarpaulin sheet to cover materials on site and on dump trucks. Moreover, the department would endeavour to reduce the amount of sewage discharge and install sewage treatment facilities.

28. Mr. Jason WONG added that Stage 3 infrastructure works would be gazetted

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 20

according to Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Cap. 370) and Water Pollution Control (Sewerage) Regulation (Cap. 358). Upon completion of the statutory procedures and the detailed design, CEDD would submit funding application to LegCo in respect of the construction works. (Mr. WONG Kwok-tung left the meeting at 2:45 p.m.) 29. The Chairman pointed out that a submission by him and Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH was tabled (Annex II). He asked Mr. LEE to introduce the submission. 30. Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH introduced the submission on requesting the Government to re-pave PERE with sound absorbent. Since PERE was a trunk road with ever increasing traffic flow, residents nearby suffered much from the noise and other pollutants emanated from it. A lot of commercial buildings would be completed in KTDA, further increasing the traffic volume and noise level of this trunk road. Before relocation of the Kai Tak Airport, noise from PERE could be dispersed to the airport and seashore. However, the upcoming commercial development in KTDA would form an acoustic wall with buildings in Tung Wui Estate, the Latitude, Rhythm Garden, Choi Hung Estate and commercial premises in San Po Kong, intensifying the noise impact on buildings along PERE. Hence, he and the Chairman suggested (i) space between commercial buildings in Kai Tak and PERE be reserved for planting tall, sound-absorbing trees; (ii) the section of PERE between Tung Wui Estate and Rhythm Garden be re-paved with state-of-the-art sound absorbent; and (iii) trees be planted at the central divider or both sides of PERE. It was foreseeable that development of Kai Tak would intensify the noise pollution at PERE. The Government should be responsible for taking measures to reduce noise impact to the environment and the residents. Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH commented on Stage 3 infrastructure works. He supported CEDD’s efforts to improve the road system to dovetail the development of Kai Tak, as the existing flyover might not be able to cope with the increased traffic between San Po Kong and KTDA in future. Besides providing two additional junctions at Choi Hung Road to allow direct vehicular access to Sze Mei Street, the department should also widen the section of Choi Hung Road connecting Po Kong Village Road, to reduce the traffic congestion at Choi Hung Road near the Wong Tai Sin Police Station. In addition, Mr. LEE requested the department not to demolish the existing flyover until completion of the vehicular tunnel across PERE, and to keep an eye on the road safety impacts after widening of Tsat Po Street into a two-way street. He pointed out that goods vehicles illegally parked at King Fuk Street often occupied the carriageway and affect the traffic at the single two way road. Also, he had reservation over the proposed relocation of some parking spaces to Sam Chuk Street, commenting that this was not an effective way to curb illegal parking of goods vehicles. Hence, he suggested the matter be followed up by TD and HKPF. Finally, he said the

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 21

Sam Chuk Street Sitting-out Area had room for improvement, and urged the department to join hand with the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) to enhance the facilities and environment. 31. Mr. MOK Kin-wing enquired if CEDD would install elevators or passenger conveyors at the existing Pedestrian Subway SW5 at PERE near Ping Shek Estate and Choi Hung Estate, as well as other footbridges and pedestrian subways without such facilities, so as to facilitate the pedestrian flow between San Po Kong and KTDA. Moreover, he was concerned about the construction of the two footbridges connecting the Latitude and KTDA, and Rhythm Garden and KTDA respectively. He hoped that the department would expedite the works and open the footbridges to the public as soon as possible, so that people could cross PERE to take public transport conveniently. He also enquired about the construction of pedestrian subway connecting a park near Luk Ching House of Choi Hung Estate and KTDA, and urged the department to expedite the works to support the pedestrian traffic of residents, school staff and students brought by the relocation of two primary schools from Wong Tai Sin to KTDA. 32. Mr. WU Chi-wah, MH said during construction of Rhythm Garden, the developer had said the residents would only be exposed to a reasonable level of noise from the surrounding. But this was not true. He enquired if the department would install noise barriers to keep the noise level within the prescribed limit and to reduce its impact on the residents. As PRH would be built on a site at PERE near King Fuk Street, he worried that the PRH residents might suffer from noise nuisance from the trunk road. He thus suggested that a playground be built on the site as noise barrier and the proposed PRH be built on the site of the existing Kai Tak East Playground. 33. Mr. Jason WONG’s response to Members’ views and enquiries were summarised below:

(i) Planting Trees

For the sake of greening, CEDD would plant lots of trees in KTDA. Members’ advice would be incorporated in the detailed design, and space between commercial development in KTDA and PERE would be reserved for planting trees as far as practicable.

(ii) Re-paving PERE with Sound Absorbent

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 22

The Highways Department (HyD) had re-paved the section (of

PERE) in front of Rhythm Garden with sound absorbent, and planned to re-pave Kowloon City-bound of PERE (up to King Fuk Street) in 2016. CEDD would relay Members’ views to HyD.

(iii) Planting Trees at the Central Divider or Both Sides of PERE

Pavement of a section of PERE near Rhythm Garden might be widened. CEDD would study the feasibility of greening the widened pavement. Since planting trees at the central divider of PERE might affect sightline, the department would study the suggestion carefully and plant more trees where practicable.

(iv) Widening Choi Hung Road

According to the traffic impact assessment report, completion of

the KTDA project would not increase traffic volume at Choi Hung Road significantly, and all trunk roads could handle the projected traffic volume in the future. TD would monitor the traffic at Choi Hung Road and consider widening it when necessary.

34. In response to the question about road safety at Tsat Po Street, Mr. TUNG Hiu-kwong said upon widening of the road to accommodate two-way traffic, CEDD would provide green man crossing and other facilities to ensure pedestrian safety. 35. Mr. Jason WONG added that:

(i) The department would install elevators at the proposed pedestrian subways.

(ii) Technical studies on the pedestrian subway connecting a park near Luk Ching House of Choi Hung Estate and KTDA had been completed. An initial alignment was also confirmed. CEDD would incorporate the pedestrian subway into the Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan (OZP), which was being revised according to the Town Planning Ordinance and the revision would be completed in the 3rd quarter of 2012. The department would seek approval from the Chief Executive in Council and then secure resources to proceed with the detailed design and construction stages. The

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 23

existing pedestrian subway near Chi Mei House of Choi Hung Estate would be able to cope with the projected demand of pedestrian traffic.

(iii) The environmental impact assessment report on the KTD project revealed that no direct mitigation measures or noise barriers would be required for Stage 3 infrastructure works.

36 Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH enquired if CEDD would provide a cycling track in the proposed pedestrian subway. 37. Mr. TUNG Hiu-kwong replied that in view of the high utilisation rate of the proposed pedestrian subway, it might not be desirable to provide a cycling track inside, and cyclists going to KTDA via the subway were advised to push their bicycles. CEDD noted Members’ suggestion, and would study its feasibility where applicable. 38. The Chairman added that cycling track would be provided in the pedestrian subway near Billionnaire Royale and Shek Ku Lung Road Playground. 39. Mr. WU Chi-wah, MH added further that WTSDC had proposed the addition of cycling tracks into pedestrian crossing facilities on numerous occasions but CEDD had never responded directly. He urged the department to provide cycling track in at least one of the walkways connecting KTDA, and queried why the department could not provide cycling track in new pedestrian subways. 40. Mr. Anthony LO replied that CEDD would study the feasibility of building a cycling track in the walkway connecting the Lung Tsun Stone Bridge Preservation Corridor and Shek Ku Lung Road Playground. Also, when rebuilding the flyover across PERE, space might be reserved for construction of walkway. CEDD would consult WTSDC on provision of cycling tracks in KTDA and their connectivity with surrounding areas in due course. 41. Ms. CHAN Yuen-han shared Mr. WU Chi-wah, MH’s view, and opined that connectivity with neighbouring districts should be improved. In this connection, she enquired CEDD about the design concerned and the timetable for DC consultation. She urged the department to carry out the consultation exercise as soon as possible, so that DCs could discuss the proposal and advise the Government. She pointed out that the cycling facilities in Po Kong Village Park had been open to the public, thus requested Government departments to listen to the people and plan a cycling network holistically.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 24

42. Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH requested CEDD to examine the widening of Choi Hung Road seriously. Instead of gauging the need on the basis of the current traffic condition, the department should also consider implications resulted from the developments in Kai Tak and the former Tai Hom Village. Also, San Po Kong should be re-planned to meet the new needs arising from change of land use. He suggested Government departments carry out long-term planning and reserve space before implementation of major projects, so that Choi Hung Road could be widened when the traffic volume warranted later. Apart from widening the junctions at Sze Mei Street, the department should also widen the pavement at PERE near the entrance of Rhythm Garden (adjacent to Blocks 5 and 8) so that it could meet the required standard. Tall trees should also be planted to protect residents of Rhythm Garden from the noise emanated from the trunk road. 43. The Chairman said when discussing development of the former Tai Hom Village site, WTSDC had explicitly requested PlanD to reserve space for widening Choi Hung Road and providing an additional traffic lane. 44. Mr. MOK Ying-fan said the Government had been promoting environmental protection but its planning efforts could seldom meet the needs of cyclists. Cycling was an environmental friendly form of transportation. It did not produce any exhaust, and was beneficial to health. He requested CEDD to show its devotion to environmental protection by planning every project carefully and taking into account cyclists’ needs. 45. Mr. Jason WONG replied that CEDD was studying the way forward of cycling track development. It was processing and analysing views collected from cyclist groups, and planned to submit a proposal on cycling track development for DCs’ discussion in 2012. In addition, the department would actively consider widening the pavement at PERE near Rhythm Garden, and relay views on widening of Choi Hung Road to TD. 46. The Chairman concluded that WTSDC supported in principle the Stage 3 infrastructure works to be carried out at the North Apron of Kai Tak Airport, and requested CEDD to note and follow up Members’ advice and consult WTSDC on other development projects in a timely manner. He also drew Members’ attention that CEDD also submitted two papers via the Secretariat for Members’ information, namely “Improvement Works to Kai Tak Nullah” (WTSDC Paper 38/2012) and “Kai Tak Development — Stage 4 Infrastructure Works at North Apron Area of Kai Tak Airport” (WTSDC Paper 39/2012). The Chairman thanked representatives from CEDD and Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd. for attending the meeting.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 25

(Mr. Jason WONG, Mr TUNG Hiu-kwong, Mr. LAM Chun-cheuk and Dr. Victor WONG left the meeting at this juncture.) III(iii) Public Rental Housing at San Po Kong and Adjoining District Open Space

Development (WTSDC Paper 23/2012)

47. The Chairman welcomed Chief Architect Mrs. Rosa HO, Senior Architect Mr. Michael CHOI, Senior Planning Officer Ms. Serena NG and Architect Mr. NG Pak-sheung of the Housing Department (HD), and District Leisure Manager (Wong Tai Sin) Mr. George LAM, Senior Executive Officer (Planning) Ms. Selina LI and Executive Officer (Planning) Ms. Aubrey WONG of LCSD. The Chairman invited Members to note the letter from Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (TWGHs) on table (Annex III) which set out the progress and follow-up actions in connection with the project of its Holistic Centre for Youth Development (HCYD). 48. Mrs. Rosa HO said she was glad to visit WTSDC, then made a PowerPoint presentation on “Public Rental Housing at San Po Kong and Adjoining District Open Space Development”. Her presentation was highlighted as follows:

(i) Background

At a meeting of the third term of WTSDC held on 23 September 2008, PlanD had submitted a paper on “Proposed Amendments to the Approved Tsz Wan Shan, Diamond Hill and San Po Kong Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K11/22” (WTSDC Paper 57/2008) which set out building height restrictions for Tsz Wan Shan, Diamond Hill and San Po Kong, as well as the rezoning of the southern and northern sites of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory from “Industrial” to “Residential” and “Open Space” respectively. After public consultation, the revised outline zoning plan (OZP) had been endorsed by the Town Planning Board (TPB) in 2010.

At the WTSDC meeting, Members had also commented on sustainable development of the sites and the associated PRH project. In the past three years, HD, CEDD and LCSD had been exchanging views on the land uses of the sites, including ways to address traffic problems in San Po Kong, PRH development that would improvement environment and value of the area, etc.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 26

After consulting DC Members, as well as Owners’ Committee and residents of Rhythm Garden, these departments had amended the proposed design. The road improvements introduced by CEDD just now would effectively ease the traffic congestion and the parking problems in San Po Kong. LCSD would improve the open space both qualitatively and quantitatively, and upgrade the outdoor facilities of Kai Tak East Playground. HD would implement the proposed PRH project to shorten the waiting time for PRH to three years as soon as possible, and to build on average 15 000 PRH flats in each of the coming five years. Also, the proposed development would improve local environment for the benefits of shops and residents.

(ii) Design of PRH Block

The design submitted three and a half years ago consisted of three single-aspect buildings. After revision, these buildings were merged together for reduced screen effect and improved building efficiency.

(a) Design of PRH Flats

857 flats would be available, providing homes to 2 470 people. These flats would consist of 1/2-person units, 2/3-person units, 1-bedroom units and 2-bedroom units, strategically positioned to mitigate the impact of noise emanated from PERE. To reduced the nuisances caused by sewage handling facilities, these facilities would be located in a standalone single-storied structure with greening on the rooftop, which would also double as a sitting-out area. Plot ratio of the estate would be about 6, and building height would be capped at 33 stories. A supported hostel comprising about 20 places would be provided on the left portion of 1/F. As a noise mitigation measures, flats on G/F to 8/F facing PERE would be converted into a podium garden and not be used for residential purposes.

(b) Environmental Planning

HD had considered microclimate in San Po Kong and

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 27

commissioned consultancy studies on wind direction, traffic and noise of the area. The building in question would be 120m away from Rhythm Garden, and a 12m wind tunnel would be provided according to the amended OZP. The consultancy studies had revealed that wind in the area was mainly south-westerly in summer and easterly in the rest of the year. The building would not cause significant impact on airflow.

(c) Location

When deciding the land use of the sites, PlanD considered that northern site of the ex- San Po Kong Flatted Factory was surrounded by industrial and commercial buildings at three sides. As the air quality was poor, it was not suitable for residential uses. While the southern site was adjacent to PERE and noisy, its inhabitability was better and therefore zoned as “Residential”, whereas the northern site was zoned as “Open Space”.

(d) Noise

HD and EPD had co-developed the “acoustic window”. The double-glazed “acoustic window” consisted of a swing outer pane and a slide inner pane, so wind could blow into a flat through the space between the two panes. Field test conducted by HD had revealed that “acoustic windows” could effectively lower the noise level by 6-8dB. The 10m separation between PRH in San Po Kong and PERE, noise reduction disposition of flats, and re-paving of PERE by CEDD using noise absorbent could further lower the noise level by 3dB, 2dB and 2dB respectively, adding up to a total reduction of 15dB.

(iii) District Open Space

Open space near the PRH in San Po Kong would be jointly developed by HD and LCSD. Development parameters included greening of the open space near Rhythm Garden, complemented by a children’s play area, a fitness corner for the elderly, a pebble

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 28

walking trails and a jogging track. The PRH would adopt a piazza-like design and be connected with San Po Kong and KTDA via a pedestrian subway to be built by CEDD. Part of King Fuk Street would be converted into a green belt. LCSD would upgrade existing outdoor facilities in Kai Tak East Playground, including the 7-a-side football pitch, basketball courts, toilets, changing rooms and car park.

Foundation works of the proposed project were expected to commence in early 2013. The entire project, including the open space development, would complete in 2016. 49. Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH said the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory had been left vacant for more than a decade. He always objected to the development of PRH on the site and he had received objections from many residents of Rhythm Garden against PRH development. He remarked that residents would not object to HD’s plan as strongly as they currently did if the department built Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats on the site instead. On the other hand, the community had huge demand for PRH at this moment, and some of the applicants for PRH flats might have to wait for more than three years. Many residents living in sub-divided flats in San Po Kong had even been waiting for 4-5 years for PRH flats. To meet the needs of various people in the society, he supported PRH be built. However, residents of Rhythm Garden were dissatisfied that there would be too many PRH blocks in the vicinity, including six in KTDA and one in San Po Kong. On the other hand, HD had pointed out that the change in approved land uses of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory sites had been endorsed and no further change could be made. Therefore, land uses of the southern (Residential) and the northern (Open Space) sites could not be swapped. He expressed regret over that. Moreover, he was concerned about the noise-reduction measures to be taken at the PRH in San Po Kong. He remarked that no attention had been paid to noise problem during the design stage of Rhythm Garden, thus nothing could be done after completion albeit residents’ complaints. He hoped that HD could address the noise problem properly and make the PRH in San Po Kong an ideal place to live in. Also, he urged the department to put itself into residents’ shoes and endeavour to help them rest soundly in a not-so-noisy environment. He also stated that he would discuss with, and seek support from the Owners’ Committee of Rhythm Garden on the proposed PRH development in San Po Kong. He believed that the open space, which was part of the PRH project, was appealing to residents of Rhythm Garden and thus suggested HD provide a new access to connect Rhythm Garden and the open space direct. Also, WTSDC had endorsed the construction of TWGHs HCYD on a vacant site in San Po Kong previously managed by LCSD. He asked LCSD to report on the use of the site. 50. Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH said when HD had first consulted WTSDC on this

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 29

matter, the PRH development plan comprised two to three buildings, but only one was proposed in the latest submission. Regarding the discrepancy, he commented that the public would be dissatisfied that only about 800 PRH flats would be built on the factory site that had taken years to resume. Moreover, HD had not consulted WTSDC before revising its plan. He emphasised that significant revision was involved, and it was unreasonable that only 800 PRH flats would be built on the site, which had housed a number of Flatted Factory buildings previously. Regarding HD’s claim that noise problem relating to the PRH in San Po Kong had already been solved, he pointed out that HD had also said Rhythm Garden also facing PERE should be fine. Residents might close the windows to keep the noise down. However, WTSDC received noise complaints from residents of the Garden from time to time. He questioned about the authenticity of HD’s data, and commented that the department had not considered occasions that residents might not close the windows. Hence, he opined that asking residents to close their windows was not a practical noise mitigation measures. He was dissatisfied, and thought it unacceptable that HD had not consulted WTSDC before revising the plan and concealed the fact that only about 800 flats would be provided on such a big PRH site. He worried that the PRH completed in the future would be different from the one endorsed by WTSDC. On the other hand, he said it was acceptable that HOS flats be built instead of PRH flats, but building only 800 PRH flats was ridiculous in terms of cost-effectiveness. 51. The Chairman said HD had consulted WTSDC on the revised San Po Kong PRH proposal, and he had suggested the HCYD site be used for PRH development. 52. Mr. HO Hon-man said WTSDC had all along objected to constructing PRH on the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory. On top of the noise problem, the site was isolated and deprived of community facilities. For instance, the nearest market from the proposed PRH was Tai Shing Street Market at the other side of the industrial area; and this was the only supporting facility available. Therefore, it was not desirable to build PRH on the site as it would primarily comprise 1/2-person flats, of which the residents were mainly elderly people. He opined that there were many alternative PRH sites in San Po Kong. HD should not insist to build PRH on the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory site. He requested HD to think twice and answer his question about community facilities. 53. Ms. CHAN Yuen-han said Rhythm Garden suffered much from noise and LegCo had also received a lot of noise complaints. She was puzzled why HD insisted to build PRH on a site next to PERE and turn a blind eye on other sites available. She pointed out that Upper Wong Tai Sin Estate suffered from the same problem. The flats facing the trunk road were very noisy and she could feel the residents’ suffering during

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 30

home visits. She queried why HD insisted to build PRH beside trunk roads even though the noise problem upset many estates in Wong Tai Sin. She suggested HD consider the Kai Tak East Playground site, which was larger and thus more PRH flats could be built. Furthermore, she queried why the Government insisted to choose the noisiest one among the three potential PRH sites for residential development. 54. Ms. TAM Heung-man said for the sake of noise reduction, Plaza Hollywood and a podium garden were built in front of Galaxia as acoustic screens and to separate the housing development from the noisy Lung Cheung Road. Flats were equipped with double-glazed windows, too. However, even if the windows were shut, indoor noise level could still hit 70dB, implying that these noise-reduction measures were unable to eradicate the noise problem. She emphasised that even with the acoustic screens, noise-reducing building features and double-glazed windows in place, noise was still a nuisance to Galaxia, so the PRH in San Po Kong was deemed to suffer more as it would not be protected by acoustic screen. She was puzzled why HD had not considered swapping the intended uses of the southern and northern sites of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory to mitigate the noise impact on the upcoming PRH. Instead, the department only insisted to build PRH beside PERE. Moreover, regarding the foundation works to be taken by HD in 2013-14, she asked what mitigation measures would be taken to cushion the impacts of works on neighbouring housing estates. 55. Mr. HO Yin-fai said WTSDC and departments concerned had conducted a site visit to PERE to investigate Rhythm Garden’s noise problem. During the visit, HD had pointed out that no improvement could be made to the completed Rhythm Garden, except the existing special noise reduction features. WTSDC had also enquired if other improvements could be made, but HD had responded negatively. He worried that the PRH in San Po Kong would become another Rhythm Garden, and thus urged HD to solve the noise problem. He opined that it was impractical to ask residents to keep their windows tightly shut as it could affect ventilation. Also, he pointed out that on top of noise, air pollution caused by the heavy traffic volume at PERE was also a serious problem. He supported that locations of the proposed PRH and the open space be swapped, and commented that leisure venues were less sensitive to noise. On the other hand, moving PRH away from the highway could significantly lower the impact of noise and pollution. Land was a precious resource in Hong Kong, so he shared Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH’s view and raised no objection to the PRH development project, but commented that HD should plan the project holistically. 56. Mr. MOK Kin-wing said WTSDC had discussed the San Po Kong PRH project many times and had concerned on aspects such as noise and site suitability. He pointed out that other DCs had suggested that sites not suitable for PRH development be

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 31

used for other housing purposes. For instance, the Yuen Long District Council had suggested using a proposed PRH site for development of “flats with limited floor areas”. He remarked that HD might swap the land uses of the two sites of ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory so that more PRH flats could be built. Also, he enquired if HD would plan the project afresh, and commented that if HD could not swap the intended land uses, more noise-reduction measures – other than double-glazed windows – should be adopted, such as moving the PRH away from the highway, installing acoustic screens, planting trees around the PRH estate, etc. As the PRH in San Po Kong would consist of a non-standard block, reference could be made to the design of The Latitude. He enquired about the noise level in The Latitude, given the presence of the noise-reduction measures including double-glazed windows, podium and glass acoustic screens; and suggested podium garden be provided to the PRH for the sake of noise reduction. 57. Ms. CHAN Yuen-han added that Members in general objected to the San Po Kong PRH project, and thus suggested WTSDC submit its views to the Transport and Housing Bureau (THB) in writing and request departments concerned to swap the land uses of the two sites of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory. She also pointed out that residents in various constituencies were affected by noise, thus questioned that the Government had attached little importance to the grassroots’ living environment. 58. Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH added that apart from writing to THB, WTSDC might even apply to LandsD for swapping of land uses. He commented that the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory site was large and thus it was unacceptable that only about 800 PRH flats would be built. Apart from urging HD to scale up the project, he also enquired if the recreational facilities to be provided in the open space would be available to the public anytime, or by advance booking only. 59. Mrs. Rosa HO thanked Members for their comments. Her response was summarised below:

(i) PRH Development

Land was a precious resource in Hong Kong and there was an eminent need to develop PRH. HD would only use the site to develop PRH, not HOS flats.

(ii) Swapping of Land Uses

The Government had made holistic assessment before determining

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 32

land uses of the sites in question. The northern site of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory was surrounded by commercial and industrial buildings at three sides and thus not suitable for residential uses compared with the southern site. Given that it was time-consuming to apply for swapping of land uses and the fact that inhabitability of the southern site was better, HD suggested the development plan be proceeded with as proposed.

Noise

When determining the land uses, PlanD and EPD had drawn up certain guidelines that HD should adhere to when implementing the San Po Kong PRH project. To meet the indoor noise level requirement, HD had to leave G/F-8/F vacant and only build residential flats on and above 9/F. “Noise-reduction windows” co-developed by HD and EPD would also be installed. These windows, with acoustic wool sandwiched between panes and limited size, had been proven compliant with EPD’s noise requirements in field tests conducted at the San Po Kong Flatted Factory. These endeavours had been validated by EPD. Under EPD’s request, HD would measure the noise level in the PRH flats before they were available for occupation, to ensure that the noise level was below 70dB. Various regulatory measures would also be taken to protect the residents from noise nuisance.

60. Ms. CHAN Yuen-han commented that a noise level of 70dB was not desirable, nor would it make a place suitable to live in. 61. Mrs. Rosa HO continued:

(i) New Entrance of Rhythm Garden

HD would hold a workshop to discuss this matter with residents of Rhythm Garden.

(ii) PRH Development Plan

The original design comprised three single-aspect buildings that would provide about 600 flats, whereas only one 800-flat building was proposed in the current proposal.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 33

(iii) Community Facilities

Community facilities such as market, retail shops were available within 500m of the proposed PRH in San Po Kong. HD would also provide shops in the PRH to be used as restaurant and convenience store.

62. Ms. Selina LI’s response on open space development was summarised below:

(i) Use of Recreational Facilities

The conditions for use of recreational facilities would remain unchanged. These facilities, if not reserved by individuals or organisations in advance, would be available to the public free of charge by registration.

(ii) Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (TWGHs) Holistic Centre for Youth

Development (HCYD)

LCSD had noted that WTSDC supported the development of TWGHs HCYD at the northern site of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory and would identify an alternative football pitch site.

(iii) Planning for Open Space Development

The open space would be used as a wind channel in San Po Kong and to support the development of KTDA. The development plan in question was underpinned by extensive discussion and consultation. Also, HD would adopt a PRH design that was compatible with the surrounding. LCSD would implement development projects jointly with HD in a bid to improve the quality of open space in the district.

63. Mr. George LAM said under the open space development plan, improvements would be made to the Kai Tak East Playground. He knew that WTSDC supported the TWGHs HCYD project, so LCSD would work in tandem and keep an eye

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 34

on the development. In addition to shelving the standard football pitch project previously planned, the department would also provide a direct access to the playground from Rhythm Garden. 64. The Chairman said Members requested that land uses of northern and southern sites of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory (viz. locations of the proposed PRH and open space) be swapped. WTSDC had previously commented on the development of PRH in San Po Kong and suggested the TWGHs HCYD site be used for PRH development. However, HD had rejected the idea, saying that the site had failed the environmental impact assessment (EIA). According to HD’s plan, King Fuk Street would be converted into an open space. Members suggested that the PRH block be moved backwards and the open space be moved towards PERE. 65. Mr. George LAM responded that swapping of land uses involved overall planning of the area. According to the Open Space Development Plan for San Po Kong, the Indoor Games Hall in the Kai Tak East Playground, which had just been refurbished, would be preserved but swapping of land uses required demolition of it. As it was a waste of resources, further negotiation with HAB would be required. 66. Mrs. Rosa HO added that PlanD had made thorough consideration before deciding the land uses. The department had also requested HD not to build PRH or other structure on the 12m wind channel. On the other hand, EIA revealed that the northern site of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory was not suitable for residential uses. Hence, PRH development on the site was not recommended. 67. The Chairman said the northern site, which would be used as an open space, was larger in size and HD might therefore consider building PRH on that site with more flats. At this meeting, Members had pointed out that the southern site was noisy and thus no PRH should be built. He shared Ms. CHAN Yuen-han’s view and commented that even though the noise level did not exceed the statutory requirement of 70dB, (the site) might still not be suitable for residential development. He noted LCSD’s view on Kai Tak East Playground but opined that the playground had been used for many years and thus redevelopment might be considered. He also pointed out that he had previously supported that PRH be built on the TWGHs HCYD site, rather than the northern site of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory that would be turned into an open space. But he had done so because he had no idea that HD would consider and make an overall planning for both northern and southern sites of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory, as well as the significant revision in land uses. Hence, he now suggested that entire planning work be done from the scratch to preserve the wind

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 35

channel, even though this might involve quite a few departments and have resource implications. 68. Ms. Maggie CHAN commented that it was necessary to compare inhabitability of the two sites. PlanD, when consulting WTSDC on the Wang Tau Hom and Tung Tau Outline Zoning Plan, had revealed that there were three major wind channels in Wong Tai Sin, including the one to be provided at the PRH in San Po Kong. She enquired about the possible impact on ventilation if land uses of the northern and southern sites were swapped, as this might involve deletion of a wind channel. She also pointed out that PlanD had previously explained that the three wind channels in Wong Tai Sin would direct air flow into San Po Kong, Diamond Hill and Tsz Wan Shan. 69. Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH said Members in general supported that more PRH be built to shorten the waiting time for PRH flats. He pointed out that many Members had objected to the construction of PRH in San Po Kong, and was concerned that they would still object to it even if the Government swapped the land uses and build PRH on the northern site of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory. Hence, WTSDC should consider this matter thoroughly. He supported that more PRH be built but had no confidence in HD’s noise reduction measures. He opined that WTSDC should look into this matter and should not support shortening the waiting time for PRH on one hand but object to the construction of PRH by HD on the other. 70. Ms. CHAN Yuen-han shared the Chairman’s view and requested HD to consider the development plan again. She said HD should endeavour not to block the wind channel with the upcoming PRH, as Wong Tai Sin was already the hottest district in the territory. That said, HD could trim the design and change the location of PRH in San Po Kong as the environment warranted. 71. Ms. TAM Heung-man said the noise level of less than 70dB was measured in PRH flats in San Po Kong with windows shut. She commented that residents might have to turn on the air-conditioners for a longer period of time if they had to shut the windows to keep noise down. It was not green to do so. 72. Mrs. Rosa HO responded that a wind channel should be provided in San Po Kong. To this end PlanD had reserved space between industrial and commercial buildings in San Po Kong, and all buildings in the area were appropriately separated from each other. If the PRH block was built on the northern site it would be too close to the industrial and commercial buildings, and thus the living condition would be adversely affected. 73. The Chairman pointed out that there was an industrial/commercial building at the southeast side of the proposed PRH site.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 36

74. Mrs. Rosa HO explained that the building had a curtain wall and had less impact on the PRH. Also, inhabitability of the site was guaranteed by HD’s air quality assessment. She pointed out that the PRH project might be delayed for four years if land uses were swapped as the planning and foundation works would take about two years, and reprovisioning of the just renovated Kai Tak East Indoor Games Hall would take some time too. She also explained that the “noise reduction window” comprised a swing outer glass pane and a sliding inner glass pane. When the outer pane and the inner pane were swing-opened and slide-opened concurrently, a 150mm space would be formed through which air could be introduced into the flat, as proven in HD’s test. She emphasised that the design conformed to the Buildings Ordinance and the Noise Control Ordinance, and due consideration on wind direction had already been made in the overall design. When necessary, residents might install air-conditioners at the side windows. 75. Ms. Selina LI said discussion on PRH development in San Po Kong had been started in 2008. Having considered the utilisation rate of, and services provided by the Kai Tak East Indoor Games Hall (IGH), LCSD had concluded that further improvements could be made to the IGH. Improvements such as replacement of floor tiles, retrofitting of handrails and air-conditioning system, repair of interior and exterior walls, provision of safety matting, etc., had been made to the IGH during the renovation carried out in 2009-10. As the renovation had been completed less than one year ago, LCSD would not consider rebuilding the IGH to avoid waste of resources. She stressed that it took time to rebuild the IGH and would affect the development plan for PRH in San Po Kong. 76. Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH was regretted about the Government representatives’ insistence on the planned land uses, their refusal to relocate the leisure facilities or make any amendment to the plan, and their failure to consult WTSDC on the plan in advance. In view of the present problems facing Rhythm Garden, he questioned about the effectiveness of the noise reduction measures proposed by Government departments. Given that the current plan involved partial closure of King Fuk Street, he suggested the PRH block be moved backward and built at the portion of King Fuk Street to be closed. The site in front could then be used as an open space for the sake of noise reduction. 77. Mrs. Rosa HO thanked Members for their advice, and said HD would work in tandem with CEDD’s KTD project and would not close King Fuk Street until CEDD’s road improvement works and the San Po Kong PRH project were both completed. The PRH project would be delayed if it was implemented after closure of King Fuk Street. Moreover, underground facilities at King Fuk Street should be

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 37

relocated before the construction of PRH. She said the PRH in San Po Kong was located as close to King Fuk Street and as far away from PERE as possible. With other noise reduction design in place, the PRH should conform to all standards. 78. Given that only 9/F and above of PRH in San Po Kong would be used to provide residential flats, Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH enquired about the use of G/F to 8/F. 79. Mrs. Rosa HO responded that a podium garden would be built on G/F to 8/F. 80. The Chairman said Members had already expressed their views clearly. He also invited the meeting to study the paper submitted by him and Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH on table (Annex II). Currently, there was not any building in KTDA. However, height of certain commercial buildings to be built opposite to the Rhythm Garden and the proposed PRH in San Po Kong would exceed 100m. He worried that the noise problem would be worsened after completion of these commercial buildings. If the noise level measured in the PRH flats in San Po Kong exceeded 70dB, it would not be compliant with the standard prescribed by EPD, making these flats uninhabitable. He pointed out that HD had said noise-reduction windows were used in Rhythm Garden, but the effective was questionable, and even HD had admitted that it could not do anything to improve or solve the problem. He said the noise level could be higher than expected after the completion of PRH in San Po Kong and the commercial buildings facing them. Also, he worried that noise would be amplified when being bounced back and fro between buildings. Doors of the flats in Upper Wong Tai Sin Estate were designed to face the highway and the windows opened to the other side. Even so, residents were still not able to talk to each other when they stood near the door. Lower Wong Tai Sin Estate had similar problem too. There was not any building opposite the PRH site in San Po Kong now, but upon completion of these buildings they could cause unexpectedly huge implications. According to HD’s design, no space would be available for installation of acoustic screen, so no remedial measures could be taken if the noise level exceeded the prescribed standard. He asked departments concerned to assess the problem and consider building the PRH in other places. He also suggested that HD might consider reprovisioning other facilities when designing the PRH, or design the PRH to match Kai Tak East Playground. He worried that if WTSDC endorsed the development plan for PRH in San Po Kong, it had to bear the responsibility if any problem arose in future. 81. Ms. CHAN Yuen-han said WTSDC had lodged a number of complaints to the LegCo regarding the noise problem at Rhythm Garden but to no avail. It was foreseeable that PRH in San Po Kong would suffer from noise, so she worried that the mishap in Rhythm Garden would repeat. She was also dissatisfied that the

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 38

departments insisted to settle the grassroots in places that were not suitable to live in. 82. Mr. LI Tat-yan, MH said there were a lot of sub-divided flats in San Po Kong, and residents of these flats had told him that they were disappointed with WTSDC’s opposition to construction of PRH, making them wait forever for a PRH flat. He remarked that it was necessary to meet the needs of the grassroots. If the proposed San Po Kong PRH project was banned, applicants for PRH flats had to wait longer. He also pointed out that Members in general objected to the construction of PRH at the southern site of the ex-San Po Kong Flatted Factory, hence HD should consider swapping the land uses. 83. The Chairman said he understood the departments’ standpoint, but commented that they should respect Members’ advice. Generally speaking, Members agreed that more PRH should be built, and hoped that such PRH would not be troubled by anything upon completion. He opined that completion of the buildings in KTDA would alter the noise level in PRH in San Po Kong, thus requested HD and LCSD to consider and follow up Members’ views. He reiterated that Members supported building more PRH. Even though the design for PRH in San Po Kong submitted by HD was better than that of The Latitude, he worried that it would not be accepted by the residents. Most Members thought that the PRH in San Po Kong was located too close to highway, and were concerned about the unknown effect of acoustic wall to be formed by the upcoming large-scale buildings in KTDA. Therefore, he hoped that departments concerned would conduct research and provide data to ensure the compliance of noise requirements upon completion of PRH in San Po Kong. WTSDC also supported reprovisioning of Kai Tak East Playground, subject to availability of resources. He suggested HD consider reprovisioning the 7-a-side football pitch and the basketball courts. Also, as a non-standard design would be adopted for the proposed PRH, HD might change the design to avoid blocking the wind channel. He asked HD and LCSD to note and follow up Members’ advice. 84. Ms. Rosa HO thanked Members for their advice, and emphasised that HD’s plan had incorporated views from various parties. Noise impact had been factored in the design for PRH in San Po Kong. The consultant had checked its compliance with environmental protection requirements, and consideration had been made to the traffic volume at PERE in future. HD had designed the PRH according to the consultant’s assessment. She commented that swapping of land uses might postpone the completion date of PRH in San Po Kong by at least four years as application had to be made to TPB, thus asked for Members’ understanding to avoid the postponement. Moreover, renovation of Kai Tak East Playground IGH had already been completed, so demolition of it would be a waste of resources.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 39

85. In consideration that HD representatives had refused to amend the plan, Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH requested WTSDC to reject the proposal. 86. The Chairman concluded that WTSDC did not accept the proposed design for PRH in San Po Kong. WTSDC was concerned about the noise impact on PRH and worried that such PRH would not be suitable to live in. He thus suggested departments swap the land uses and consult WTSDC again on the improved plan. He thanked representatives from HD and LCSD for attending the meeting. (Mrs. Rosa HO, Mr. Michael CHOI, Ms. Serena NG, Mr. NG Pak-sheung, Ms. Selina LI and Ms. Aubrey WONG left the meeting at this juncture.) III.(iv) Connecting Kowloon East - Environmentally Friendly Linkage System

(WTSDC Paper 24/2012)

87. The Chairman welcomed CEDD’s Mrs. Sorais LEE, Head (Kai Tak Office) and Chief Engineer Ms. YING Fun-fong, PlanD’s Senior Town Planner, Pre-Kowloon East Development Office Ms. Vivian LAI and AECOM’s Director Mr. W.L. HO who attended the meeting for this agenda item. 88. Mrs. Sorais LEE introduced herself as the new Head (Kai Tak Office) replacing Mr. Stephen TANG, JP, and asked Ms. YING Fun-fong to introduce the paper. 89. Ms. YING Fun-fong introduced the paper. Highlights were as follows:

(i) Background The National 12th Five-Year Plan emphasised the Central Government’s support for consolidating and enhancing Hong Kong’s position as an international financial, trade and shipping centre, and Hong Kong’s development into an offshore RMB business centre. In this connection, sustainable and stable supply of prime offices should be ensured. In the past decade, there was an undersupply of prime offices. As recommended under the “Hong Kong 2030 Study”, an alternative central business district (CBD) should be planned. The Chief Executive announced in his 2011-12 Policy Address about the transformation of Kowloon East into another CBD.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 40

The planning concept of Kowloon East was more forward-looking than all of the previous ones. The area was planned under four principles: (a) enhanced connectivity through the provision of an environmentally friendly linkage system (EFLS) linking KTDA, Kowloon Bay and Kwun Tong; (b) building up of the prestige that might attract international enterprises to set up offices in Hong Kong. The proposed monorail system, which was the first of its kind in Hong Kong, might also serve as a landmark with tourism appeal; and (c) excellent city planning; and (d) diversified development.

Kwun Tong and Kowloon Bay were chosen as the alternative CBD because a number of prime commercial buildings and shopping centres had been built and these two old industrial areas had potential to be developed into good commercial area. Also, the 1 million m2 of non-residential area, as well as the large open space and the Cruise Terminal to be provided in KTDA would also facilitate the development of Kowloon East. In addition to the existing MTR Kwan Tong Line, the upcoming Shatin to Central Link (SCL) and Central Kowloon Route would also enhance inter- and intra-district connectivity of Kowloon East; whereas the proposed EFLS would enhance inter-district connectivity.

According to the Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan published in 2007 after extensive public consultation in 2004-06, space had been reserved in KTDA for development of EFLS featuring elevated railway. CEDD had commissioned a consultancy study on the feasibility of the EFLS in 2009, and also reviewed the system’s alignment and functions with a view to facilitating the transformation of Kowloon East into a prime CBD through development of railway systems.

(ii) Proposal

(a) Alignment, System and Function The EFLS would comprise a simple 12-station line. To complement the development of KTDA, the EFLS would be commissioned in 2023 and the forecast daily patronage in

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 41

2031 would be about 0.2 million. Elevated monorail would be adopted as the EFLS, which was not only a form of transportation, but something conducive to the transformation of Kowloon East into a CBD. The EFLS would link up all major features including Metro Park, Multi-purpose Stadium Complex, Kai Tak Station of SCL, Cruise Terminal, etc. It would also be connected to MTR Kwun Tong Station and the proposed SCL, so as to tighten the linkage between the new and the existing CBD, and Shenzhen and other Mainland places via the existing railway system. Two alignments were proposed for Kwun Tong,. The routing along Hoi Yuen Road could provide direct linkage with the MTR Kwun Tong Line but would result in closure of an existing traffic lane. The routing along King Yip Street had less environmental and traffic impact but its connection with the MTR Kwun Tong Line would be in direct.

(b) Kwun Tong Transportation Link (KTTL) To achieve a more direct connection between KTDA and Kwun Tong, a bridge called KTTL would be built at the entrance to the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter (KTTS). Although KTTL could be elevated to provide a vertical clearance of 40-50m to maintain the normal operation of KTTS, a huge structure that deprived the development potential of Action Area 2 would be used. Moreover, such a bridge would be risky to pedestrians and cyclists when it was windy. Therefore, the consultant proposed a KTTL with vertical clearance of 21m only, even though this would affect the operation of KTTS, in particular, high-mast dumb steel lighters would not be able to enter KTTS.

(c) Financial and Economic Returns The capital cost of EFLS was estimated to be $12 billion (in 2010 prices), among which $6 billion would be used to build infrastructures and stations, $3 billion for railway-related electrical and mechanical works and procurement of trains, $1 billion for construction of depot and $2 billion for

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 42

construction of KTTL. The anticipated revenue was unable to meet its capital cost as well as operating and maintenance expenses, so the Government might have to bear the capital cost and subsidise the operator for operating and maintaining the EFLS. Based on the quantifiable economic benefits, the economic internal rate of return of the EFLS would be around +1%, which was lower than that of a typical transport infrastructure project. However, the EFLS was not entirely a transport project, but a tool to facilitate the transformation of Kowloon East into a CBD and thus would general unquantifiable economic benefits.

(iii) Road-based Green Public Transport

The EFLS would be completed in 2023. Given that the population intake in KTDA would start from 2013 upon completion of Cruise Terminal Phase I and public housing development at North Apron, the department suggested that some form of road-based green public transport services should be provided to the residents. Ultra-low-sulphur diesel bus already in use in Hong Kong was rather environmentally friendly. The Government had planned to subsidise the franchised bus companies to conduct trial runs in road-based green public transport including supercapacitor bus, battery-electric bus and hybrid bus in order to ascertain the suitability for use in Hong Kong, which was hot, humid and hilly.

. Road-based green transport vehicles would offer an advantage of lower capital cost and running cost and higher flexibility for route planning, but would occupy road space thus adding pressure to the already busy road network in the hinterland, especially when there was traffic congestion. Besides, the road-based green vehicles were inferior to the rail-based EFLS in terms of carrying capacity, tourism appeal, interchange convenience, prominence as a landmark, synergy effects for developments and ability to enhance the visionary image of Kowloon East CBD.

(iv) Comparison between Different Railway Systems

Although the consultancy study suggested adopting monorail as

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 43

the EFLS, the department had also considered other types of rail, such as rubber-tyred automatic people mover (APM), when carrying out the feasibility study. Capital costs of the two systems were of similar order, but monorail had an edge over its counterpart in terms of aesthetic value, blockage to daylight and visual impact.

(v) System Coverage

Kowloon City District Council, WTSDC and Kwun Tong District Council had suggested that EFLS be connected to different areas in To Kwa Wan, Kowloon City and Kwun Tong. Some of these suggestions were acceptable, such as changing the alignment of the Kwun Tong end to cover the end of the airport runway, and extending the alignment to include Richland Gardens and the CBD in Kowloon Bay. However, the alignment would not be extended to cover To Kwa Wan and San Po Kong due to the possible visual, noise and privacy impacts on the two long-established residential areas. Even so, new pedestrian crossing facilities would be enhanced to the two districts, and public transport would be adjusted too.

A two-stage public consultation would be conducted. Stage 1 public consultation to be conducted between February and June 2012 would include consultations with relevant DCs, the Task Force on Kai Tak Harbourfront Development and the Alliance of Maritime Trade. The result would be reported to LegCo’s Panel of Development in April 2012. Public engagement workshops would be provided in May and June to gauge more extensive public views. We would establish a website to disseminate information to the public. The public could understand the details and progress of the development. Views collected at Stage 1 public consultation would be consolidated for further discussion at Stage 2 public consultation at the end of this year. The department then played a movie to introduce the alignment of EFLS, and invited Members to comment on the system in terms of the coverage, alignment in Kwun Tong, KTTL, locations and number of stations, road-based green public transport and implementation programme. (Ms. CHAN Yuen-han left the meeting at 5:55 p.m.) 90. Ms. TAM Mei-po expressed her appreciation to the EFLS. As the system

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 44

would not be commissioned until 2023 and the quantifiable economic benefits would only be about 1%, she commented that the department should consider building the system in a more densely populated district such as Choi Wan which provided dwellings to 40 000 people. Doing so might not only provide residents with better transportation services, but also increased quantifiable economic benefits. She opined that as a linkage system could be provided in Tsz Wan Shan, the PRH in Choi Wan should not be ignored too. Therefore, she requested the department to consider building a linkage system in Choi Wan. 91. Mr. MOK Kin-wing thanked the department for the introduction. As WTSDC had long been involved in the development of the EFLS, he was glad to see the system would come into being, as well as the Central Government’s support for consolidating Hong Kong’s position a global financial centre as highlighted in the National 12th Five-Year Plan. In addition, he opined that development of another CBD would balance the distribution of the working population and facilitate district-based development. However, he was of the view that too much emphasis on commercial and property development was put on the EFLS and the system was located far away from the grassroots. Hence, he asked the department to consider residents’ needs and extend the reach of the system to older districts. Not only could this improve inter-district connectivity, it would also increase utilisation rate and rate of return of the system. Besides building footbridges and pedestrian subways, the department should also consider connecting older districts and uplands with elevators and travelators. Moreover, he wondered why there was a distance between the SCL Kai Tak Square Station and the EFLS station. 92. Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH was glad to know that alignment of the EFLS was based on the Democratic Party’s submission on development of the former airport in 2005. The proposed project involved a huge amount of investment and clear objectives. It would contribute to the development of Kowloon East and create jobs. As the factories in Ngau Tau Kok and Kowloon Bay were transforming, he hoped that the EFLS could improve employment opportunities. He appreciated much about the concept of diversified life embodied in the proposed project, as the two industrial areas could be quiet on Saturdays and Sundays. Also, the department should endeavour not to remove small art groups from the two industrial areas when vitalising Kowloon East. Regarding conservation, and the availability of open space near the Kwun Tong Ferry Pier and the Kowloon Bay industrial area, he suggested the industrial area be preserved as activity venues for the small art groups, so as to dovetail the concept of diversified life. He concurred with Mr. MOK Kin-wing on the need to provide seamless connection between the EFLS and other transport systems. (Ms. Maggie CHAN left the meeting at 6:10 p.m.)

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 45

93. The Chairman disagreed to calculate the quantifiable benefit separately because of the huge intangible benefit to the area. Members had commented on the EFLS, but the department should consult the Kwun Tong District Council instead on the development of KTDA and Kwun Tong. He also disagreed that the EFLS did not cover Wong Tai Sin, in particular San Po Kong. San Po Kong had already transformed from an industrial area to one comprised both industrial and commercial activities, and many buildings in the area could be used for commercial purposes. He opined that consideration should be given to the needs of San Po Kong when developing Kowloon East. Information from TPB revealed that there were applications for converting factory buildings into hotels or commercial buildings. 94. Mrs. Sorais LEE thanked Members for their comments, and concluded that Members supported the EFLS. She concurred with the Chairman’s view that one should not compare economic benefits of the EFLS with those of other transport infrastructures, as EFLS’ benefits to the district would lean towards the non-quantifiable side. In response to Mr. MOK Kin-wing’s comments on enhancing the connectivity between the EFLS and its peripheral, she said the department would make reference to, and incorporate the views collected in this stage of consultation. Regarding the distance between the SCL Kai Tak Square Station and the EFLS station, she explained that the detailed design stage of the SCL project was currently underway and the construction works would be commenced soon, but the EFLS project had yet to be confirmed. Hence, it was not desirable to include in the SCL project. The department noted Members’ comments and would study on the possible connection between the EFLS and SCL. She also concurred with Mr. WU Chi-wai’s view on the preservation of Action Area 2 in Kowloon Bay. The Kowloon East Development Office would consult DCs in due course and Members’ advice was welcomed. One of the major tasks of the said office was to identify ways to add diversity and green elements into the Kowloon East development project. In response to the Chairman’s request for extending the EFLS to San Po Kong, she said the Government had rezoned the area from industrial to commercial in 2002, but only two commercial buildings had been completed since then. Among the ten applications for change in land use for hotel development, only one hotel was actually being built. However, transformation of Kowloon Bay was underway in a much faster pace, and that was why the EFLS would cover Kowloon Bay and Kwun Tong. Finally, she invited Members to the workshops to be held in May / June 2012 and deliberate on the EFLS. Local residents were also welcomed to attend these workshops to voice their opinions on various district-based requirements. The department would also be pleased to attend local meetings to introduce the EFLS. (Ms. TAM Heung-man left the meeting at 6:20 p.m.)

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 46

95. The Chairman pointed out that Government should be responsible for initialising and assisting in the transformation of districts, and not to relate the progress of such transformation to determine the further development of a district – that was to put the cart before the horse. In addition, it should not be concluded that WTSDC supported the EFLS. While Members did not object to the construction of EFLS, they had reservation about the exclusion of Wong Tai Sin from the coverage of the system. The Chairman thanked Mrs. LEE, Ms. YING and representatives from PlanD, and asked CEDD to note and follow up Members’ views. Furthermore, he reminded Members to voice their opinions when attending the workshops. (Mrs. Sorais LEE, Ms. YING Fun-fong, Ms. Vivian LAI and Mr. W.L. HO left the meeting at this juncture.) III(v) To Block Non-local Mothers Giving Births in Hong Kong

(WTSDC Paper 25/2012)

96. The Chairman said a paper had been submitted jointly by Mr. MOK Ying-fan and Mr. HUI Kam-shing. He then invited Mr. MOK to introduce the paper. 97. Mr. MOK Yin-fan said there was no need for him to read the paper again. He expressed regret over the fact that the Security Bureau (SD) and the Immigration Department (ImmD) had only provided a written reply (Annex IV) instead of sending any representative to the meeting. He also thought it regrettable that the written reply had nothing new, and failed to respond to the points he and Mr. HUI Kam-shing had made in their joint submission even though the Government possessed the information concerned. The Hong Kong Government should be responsible for addressing the problem of pregnant mainland women who spouses were not permanent residents of Hong Kong (doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women) giving birth in Hong Kong, but what it was doing could only showcase its laissez-faire attitude. The CHONG Fung-yuen case had caused a number of problems in the society. On top of the impacts on the local healthcare system, the case also affected all Hong Kong citizens in terms of education, housing, healthcare, social welfare, employment, etc. because such birth meant increase in population. Although the Government was aware of the problems, it turned a blind eye to them. Whatever could go wrong would go wrong – interpretation of the Basic Law by the Central Government or the judgement of Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal (CFA) could go wrong too. They might have done something wrong in the past, or what they had done might have room for improvement. If they erred, they should rectify the error as continuation of the error could have huge

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 47

social implications. Now the problem had just reared its head, and it would be followed by a number of other problems. Why he had made the submission was not because of the heated debate in the society, but the belief that the Government should deal with the problem in a forward-looking manner. Otherwise, the generations to come would suffer. Even though no SB representative attended this meeting, he would like to urge the Government to admit that it had failed to deal with the problem holistically, and then take remedial actions, instead of ignoring the problem. In response to Secretary for Justice Mr. WONG Yan-lung, SC, JP’s comment, viz. “one should not act hastily”, Mr. MOK opined that it was necessary to take a pragmatic approach and solve the problem. 98. The Chairman said the Secretariat had invited the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, the Food and Health Bureau and SB to attend the meeting and provide information, but none of them were unable to do so. On table were SB’s written reply (Annex IV) and DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch’s submission (Annex V). He invited Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH to introduce the latter. 99. Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH supported that the agenda item be added to allow Members to discuss the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women giving birth in Hong Kong, even though in the absence of any bureau representatives. He shared Mr. MOK Ying-fan’s view that SB had not answered any question in its written reply. In 2001, CFA had only explained part of the Basic Law provisions interpreted by the National People’s Congress (NPC) in 1999 – this was an error that required rectification. The Government should accord priority to serving local pregnant women. At present, private hospitals might admit an infinite number of pregnant mainland women, and draw manpower from public hospitals when there was inadequate staff. Hence, the Government should inject more resources into public hospitals to retain frontline healthcare workers. Public hospitals could hardly compete with private ones for manpower - the current salary of a public hospital doctor was about $100,000, but his private sector counterpart earned as much as $200,000 a month. DAB hence suggested that administrative measures be taken to mitigate the problem temporarily. He was glad to know that the Governor of Guangdong Province Mr. ZHU Xiaodan had said the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women giving birth in Hong Kong would be addressed by combating the agents. As reported by Sing Pao, only 118 doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women had rushed to A&E departments of Government hospitals for delivery in February, representing a 60% drop as compared to January. He did not think the said problem could be solved administratively, and commented that the long-term solution was to have the Basic Law interpreted by NPC. In response to the problem of doubly non-permanent resident women giving birth in Hong Kong, a number of Hong Kong deputies to NPC had prepared a joint submission a few days ago to request NPC to interpret the Basic Law.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 48

They had also pointed out that it would be better to ask NPC to reinterpret the Basic Law provisions interpreted in 1999, as it was not an appropriate time to amend the Basic Law. While the definition of Hong Kong Permanent Resident was clearly set out in Section 24(2) of the Basic Law, CFA’s judgement on the CHONG Fung-yuen case did not conform to NPC’s interpretation made in 1999. 100. The Chairman said doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women giving birth in Hong Kong had caused adverse effect to the local healthcare system. In addition, their children would compete for various social resources when they grew up. As shown in the annex of DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch’s submission, the number of babies born by doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women had increased from 620 in 2001 to 32 653 in 2010. In other words, 100 babies were born by doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women everyday, and the above figures did not include babies born by pregnant mainland women whose husbands’ identity was unknown. 101. Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH said Hong Kong had been suffering from the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women for many years. About 33 000 - or a total of about 330 000 in ten years - of such women came to Hong Kong to give birth annually. The situation would only get worse and create more adverse effects in the community if the loophole was not plugged. He did not agree to solve the problem administratively. As the saying went, “when rogues go in procession, the devil holds the cross”. The agents could manage to have the doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women sneaked into Hong Kong – after all they had to do this to make profit. Moreover, as lots of mainlanders came to Hong Kong everyday, there must be fugitives if we relied solely on ImmD staff to intercept pregnant mainland women through random checks. Doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women and the agents considered that Hong Kong was a humane society, so the former knew that they would not be rejected by healthcare workers of public hospital even if they rushed to A&E departments for delivery. As mentioned by the former Secretary for Justice Ms. Elsie LEUNG, legal problems should be solved by legal means. As it was infeasible to amend the Basic Law, the only solution was to ask NPC to interpret the Basic Law. He agreed that a report should be submitted to the State Affairs Council by the Chief Executive (CE), and the State Affairs Council would then request NPC to interpret the Basic Law. This would be the most appropriate solution, as well as the least controversial one. Someone had suggested the Government not to issue birth certificates to babies of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women, so that someone would file a judiciary review and force the court to take action. However, he thought the suggestion was impractical. As doing so involved a large number of uncertainties, Hong Kong might have to pay a much higher price, and the court’s reputation might be damaged too. Instead, DCs should guide district-level discussion

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 49

on whether the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women could be solved by seeking NPC’s interpretation of the Basic Law. If the community agreed that NPC should be asked to interpret the Basic Law, CE would certainly raise no objection to make such a request through the Government, in order to eradicate the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women. If the community thought otherwise, everyone should pay the price too. 102. Mr. Joe LAI said Members were much concerned about, and had thorough understanding of the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women. Also, Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH had also clearly stated his views. The problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women was rooted from the judgement on the CHONG Fung-yuen case, and everybody knew CHONG’s legal representative. As doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women had become a very serious problem, the community had to look for an immediate solution. The community hoped that the Government would take measures to solve the problem permanently, such as asking NPC to interpret the Basic Law, or asking CFA to pass judgement again, to prevent the problem from getting worse. The Government should not try to comfort the people by implementing short-term administrative measures. Instead, it should step up efforts in intercepting doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women who wanted to give birth in Hong Kong. He had no intention to press the Government. Rather, he hoped that the Government could do more and better in this regard. Since there were already a lot of doubly non-permanent resident children in Hong Kong, study on long-term issues in population, education, healthcare, social welfare, etc., should be carried out. Moreover, suitable channels and platforms should be provided to facilitate district-level discussions on the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women. 103. WU Chi-wai, MH said the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women had caused considerable impacts on the society. More than 160 000 children of these women had obtained the right of abode in Hong Kong in the past ten years. What worried the public was that the Government had no idea about when and how many of these people would come to Hong Kong. Their worries had been producing more and more grievances in the society. Currently, more than 30 000 doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women gave birth in Hong Kong, implying that more and more non-local children would obtain right of abode in Hong Kong. This was a big time bomb that could not be ignored. Before passing judgement on the CHONG Fung-yuen case, CFA had discussed Section 24(2) of the Basic Law, but not section 24(1) that caused the problems associated with the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women. This straight-forward provision set out clearly that all Chinese citizens born in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) before and after 1997 were permanent residents of HKSAR. Therefore, it could be controversial if the section was reinterpreted, and people might even question

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 50

that other provisions in the Basic Law would be misinterpreted in the future. As section 24(1) of the Basic Law set out clearly that all Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong were permanent residents of HKSAR, the Secretary for Justice Mr. WONG Yan-lung had to reiterate that any administrative measures to be taken should not breach the Basic Law. Although some people had suggested CFA reinterpret the judgement on the CHONG Fung-yuen case, the Basic Law set out that common law in force in Hong Kong and the existing interpretation to law would be maintained. The Basic Law was clearly written, so the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women could only be solved by amending the Basic Law. The amendment exercise would take time, but he believed that Members of different political parties at this meeting would not argue about the need to do so in a bid to redefine “permanent resident”. Although certain political parties worried that the amendment exercise could be a Pandora’s Box and might trigger other problems, we had to trust the wisdom of the public, the LegCo Members and the Government in solving problem, viz. the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women in this case. Through the amendment exercise, the definition of permanent residents could be deleted from the Basic Law and redefined by the Government by legislation, and hence the problem in question could be solved permanently. Otherwise, lots of legal proceedings regarding sections 24(1)-(6) of the Basic Law would arise, including cases about foreign domestic helpers’ right of abode in Hong Kong. The definition of permanent residents should be determined legislatively, but the topic was also a constitutional one, triggering endless legal proceedings that had yet to be settled. He agreed that short-term administrative measures could be taken to deter doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women from giving birth in Hong Kong. However, the problem could never be eradicated without first working on the root cause. He concurred with Mr. HUI Kam-shing on the proposed amendment to the Basic Law, which would enable the Government to retake full control of its population policy.

104. Mr. WONG Kwok-yan said legal problems should be solved by legal means. The Basic Law was a constitutional law of the country and should contain no mistake. A constitution would only set out major principle, instead of microscopic details. Hong Kong was part of China, so Chinese born in Hong Kong should enjoy the right of abode. This was the most basic principle that needed no explanation. The Preparatory Committee of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under NPC had discussed the right of abode in 1996, and concluded that one whose parent(s) was/were permanent resident(s) of Hong Kong should have the right of abode. This was also in line with the established practice in Hong Kong before 1997. The interpretation of section 24(2) of the Basic Law by NPC in 1999 had confirmed the Preparatory Committee’s explanation. When hearing the CHONG Fung-yuen case, CFA and lawyers of both sides had discussed the above provision but judges of CFA had opined that NPC’s interpretation of the Basic made in 1999 was not important and thus they

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 51

had not made reference to it. The independence of Hong Kong’ judiciary system had to be respected, and every judge would study a case and pass judgement independently. Although the Government had submitted lots of information and data for CFA’s consideration, the latter had opined that granting the right of abode to a few hundred babies would have minimal impact on Hong Kong. More than a decade later, the community discovered that the number of doubly non-permanent resident babies had growth geometrically, and the impact once considered minimal by CFA had grown to an enormous one. Under such circumstances, common law country, including UK and USA, would have the law amended by their respective CFAs. Law was lively and might be changed to meet the development needs of a society. What had been trivial in the past could become significant now. If there were similar cases in the future, CFA should review its past judgement according to the prevailing situation of Hong Kong. He commented that the Government should amend the existing Immigration Ordinance on the basis of NPC’s interpretation of the Basic Law in 1999, so that doubly non-permanent resident babies could not enjoy the right of abode in Hong Kong. Even if doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women applied for judicial review and challenged the amended legislation, the court should have the responsibility and reason to review the judgement on the CHONG Fung-yuen case, and clearly stated that a baby might enjoy the right of abode if at least one of its parents was permanent resident of Hong Kong. 105. Mr. HUI Kam-shing said all Members agreed that administrative measures had only short-term effects and something else had to be done to eradicate the problem. Some Members had suggested that the problem be solved by Hong Kong through legislation or by reinterpreting the Basic Law, among others. While he suggested that the Basic Law be amended, he urged the Government to take prompt actions to deal with problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women as soon as possible. He reckoned that what attracted these women to give birth in Hong Kong was the permanent resident status, which entitled one to enjoy a package of social welfare amounting to more than $10M. Although many mainland pregnant women were rich and did not need any social welfare, they might give birth in Hong Kong to secure social welfare protection for their babies. Therefore, the Government should identify a permanent solution to the problem. Mr. HUI said he was highly disappointed by the Bureau’s written reply, commenting that it had failed to provide a direct response to the queries set out in the paper, and even the submission prepared by DAB contained more information than it. The figures set out in the annex of DAB’s submission reflected that the Government had failed to tackle the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women properly. Despite the number of them giving birth in Hong Kong had been rising rapidly during the period between 2001 (only 620) and 2006, and continuing to grow afterwards, the Government had turned a blind eye to it and had not responded directly to DAB’s submission. He expressed regret about that.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 52

106. Mr. SO Sik-kin shared other Members’ views, in particular what put forth by Mr. WONG Kwok-yan. He also agreed that various measures, including interpretation of the Basic Law by NPC, amending the Basic Law or the Immigration Ordinance, etc. should be taken to solve the problem. The entire community, as well as all Members, agreed that doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women should be deterred from giving birth in Hong Kong. Without the encouragement of agents, the problem would be less serious. Agents were culprits of the problem, so he suggested the Government combat these agents more proactively. Also, a permanent solution, such as asking NPC to interpret the Basic Law, should be taken as soon as practicable. If the right of abode of doubly non-permanent resident babies could be taken away by amending the Immigration Ordinance or the Basic Law, we might even encourage doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women to give birth in Hong Kong to facilitate the development of local healthcare industry. The state-of-the-art healthcare technologies of Hong Kong should be attractive to pregnant mainland women, but no right of abode in Hong Kong should be granted to doubly non-permanent resident babies. 107. Mr. CHAN ON-tai said the intent of law was to protect the interest of the country and her citizens. The law should be amended if it failed to serve this purpose. Democracy was about protecting the interest of the majority. WANG Anshi, a prime minister of the Northern Sung Dynasty had attempted to reform the law to protect the people. However, his efforts were in vain due to the bad timing. As revealed by the statistics, among seven babies born in Hong Kong in the past decent two were born by doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women. Mr. CHAN queried whether Hong Kong could handle such a large population and the associated need for healthcare services. The problem could only be worsened if the present loophole was not plugged. It was difficult for the Government to bar pregnant mainland women from coming to Hong Kong administratively, as this would involve multiple departments. The most effective way to tackle the problem was to stop granting the right of abode to these babies. If the pregnant women in question lodge an appeal and the Government was defeated, the latter could ask NPC to interpret the Basic Law. Besides clarifying doubly non-permanent resident babies’ right of abode in Hong Kong, NPC should also interpret the provisions in respect of foreign domestic helpers’ right of abode, as both of the problems were resulted from vagueness of the Basic Law. He understood that a constitutional document should not go into minute details, as mentioned by Mr. WONG Kwok-yan, so interpretation was needed to clarify the legislative intent when necessary. 108. Mr. HO Yin-fai said there were always people attracted by benefits. In view of the low birth rate in Hong Kong, the Government had encouraged local people to have three children. Also, it had welcomed doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women to give birth in Hong Kong without contravention, in an attempt to alleviate the problem of ageing population, until the problem of doubly non-permanent

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 53

resident pregnant women had arouse the awareness of local people. Once a doubly non-permanent resident pregnant woman had taken her baby to his office and asked how to apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, and how to have her baby taken care by the Government. He believed that this was only a tip of the iceberg and more similar incidents would happen. The Government had to rectify the problem and revise its policy by interpreting/amending the Basic Law or by amending the Immigration Ordinance. 109. Mr. Andie CHAN said his views had been covered by other Members already. He concurred with Mr. HO Yin-fai on his comments. Mr. CHAN also pointed out that his constituency was full of public housing too, and many doubly non-permanent resident parents had come to his office for information about application for welfare and resources. They had no intention to earn his own living. According to the Bureau’s written reply, a doubly non-permanent resident pregnant woman who intended to come to Hong Kong to give birth but failed to produce a certificate of reservation issued by a local hospital might be refused from entering Hong Kong. In this connection, he doubted that not all of these women would be barred. Also, Mr. CHAN commented that any legislative intent should be based on the interests of Hong Kong people, and thus suggested the Basic Law be interpreted as soon as possible to plug the loophole used by doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women. As mentioned by Mr. SO Sik-kin, if the right of abode in Hong Kong was not granted to children of these women, the problem would be dissociated from the question of right of abode and become solely healthcare-related. 110. Mr. MOK Kin-wing agreed that Hong Kong people were suffering badly from the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women. He opined that it was not right to solve the problem by amending the Basic Law, as the Basic Law was an important legislation of the country and the constitution of Hong Kong. Given its constitutional status, the Basic Law should not cover in details. In fact, the existing Basic Law could convey the legislative intent, even though different judges might interpret it differently. The NPC had interpreted section 24(2) of the Basic Law in 1999, and explained the right of abode according to the legislative intent. Due to the CHONG Fung-yuen case, there had been calls for interpreting the Basic Law by NPC, even though NPC had already done so previously. The crux of the problem was that the judge in question had failed to handle the case according to NPC’s interpretation – and that was why Qiao Xiaoyang had pointed out that the incorrect judgement would best be corrected by CFA itself. However, judiciary system in Hong Kong was independent and the judges were highly respected, so it was very unlikely that the court would amend it own mistakes in previous judgement. Some people now suggested that amendments to the existing legislations be proposed by LegCo Members. Also, it was suggested that a new case regarding doubly non-permanent resident babies right of

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 54

abode in Hong Kong be brought to CFA, so that the court could consider the current situation of Hong Kong and judge the case according to NPC’s interpretation, viz. to state clearly that doubly non-permanent resident babies could not enjoy the right of abode in Hong Kong. He thought this was practicable. In the near future, the Government should launch administrative measures to block doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women from coming to Hong Kong. Mr. MOK commented that these measures would only have short-term effects, and reiterated that he objected to solve the problem by amending the Basic Law, because there was nothing wrong with it. NPC had interpreted the Basic Law in 1999, but CFA had not judged the case in question according to the interpretation. Therefore, it was unreasonable to ask NPC to interpret the Basic Law again. 111. Mr. Roy TING said as an elected member, he regretted that no representative from bureau attended the meeting. He believed that even without a signature campaign, the Government and Members should know that every one in the community was concerned about the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women. As a new father, he knew it well that the provision of healthcare services in Hong Kong, a market-driven city, was inadequate. As a result, the consumers, i.e. the parents, had to shoulder the cost of giving birth and bringing up their babies. When he pondered the core values and interests of Hong Kong in the capacity of a young father, he had to express regret about the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women. He shared Mr. WONG Kwok-yan’s view on the need for evolution of law. The revolutionary “One Country, Two Systems” had been implemented in Hong Kong more than a decade ago, and most Chinese were keen believers of Confucianism. Due to the ever tightening economic and political ties between Hong Kong and the Mainland, some phenomena, such as non-local pregnant women rushing to Hong Kong or smuggling of iPhones and milk power to the Mainland, were certainly occurred. He hoped the new CE and the SAR Government would pay more efforts in addressing the problem. As a young man, he expressed regret over the absence of any solution to the problem to date. 112. Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH added that on the basis of the interpretation of the Basic Law made by the Preparatory Committee of HKSAR in 1996, NPC interpreted the Basic Law in 1999. However, as the Basic Law had been enacted on 4 April 1990, Members should consider whether information available after the enactment of the Basic Law should be used to interpret the law enacted in 1990. As to the amendment of the Basic Law, Mr. WU said it was no big deal to amend the Basic Law, in consideration that the constitution of the People’s Republic of China had been amended more than five times after the establishment. What really mattered was to secure

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 55

community consensus and solve the problem of doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women legitimately as soon as practicable. This would also reinforce Hong Kong’s status as a common law jurisdiction under “One Country, Two Systems”. Also, the community should ponder how to preserve the uniqueness of Hong Kong. He did not want to see Hong Kong giving up its own values. 113. The Chairman thanked Mr. MOK Ying-fan and Mr. HUI Kam-shing for their submission on doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women which enabled Members to discuss thoroughly. He believed that there was always a specific intent behind legislation, and the Basic Law and the laws of Hong Kong were no exception. Different laws might be adopted in different states of a country in view of the actual circumstances. All Members of WTSDC agreed that the Government should solve the problem promptly, even though they had suggested different solutions on different grounds. Since there was no bureau representative at this meeting, he asked the Secretariat to forward the minutes of this meeting to the CMAB, FHB and SB for reference. Also, he hoped that bureaux/departments in question would attend future WTSDC meetings and answer Members’ questions when the same topic was discussed. III(vi) Wong Tai Sin District Annual Policing Plan 2011 — Half Yearly Progress

Report (July – December 2011) (WTSDC Paper 26/2012)

114. The Chairman invited Ms. Clara NG to introduce the paper. 115. Ms. Clara NG said in the second half of 2011, there had been a drop in overall crime in Wong Tai Sin. The crime rate of Wong Tai Sin had dropped in the past five years from 4 117 cases in 2006 to 3 078 cases in 2011, representing an overall reduction of 25.2%. There were fewer violent crime cases now than in 2006 too. The encouraging result should be attributed to the support and concerted efforts of WTSDC, Wong Tai Sin District Fight Crime Committee (WTSDFCC), Area Committees, local organisations, social workers and other Government departments. Follow-up actions towards domestic burglary, juvenile crime and other cases were taken very smoothly, as a result of inter-departmental co-operation. On crime prevention, HKPF had held activities on prevention and curbing of juvenile crime jointly with WTSDC and WTSDFCC. These activities had been generally fruitful. On behalf of District Commander of HKPF Wong Tai Sin District, she thanked WTSDC for its support, and looked forward to continuing the mutual operation that had made Wong Tai Sin a safe and harmonious community. 116. Mr. Joe LAI thanked Ms. NG for her report on the Annual Policing Plan for the second half of 2011. He expressed his appreciation to HKPF’s outstanding

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 56

performance in Wong Tai Sin. Recently, the community was much concerned about abduction of children, and he and a number of citizens had gone to the HKPF Headquarters and submitted a petition the day before. Given the community-wide attention, he reminded HKPF Wong Tai Sin District to pay more attention to such cases, even though their authenticity had yet to be proven. Legend had it that “none should be missing”, so Mr. LAI urged HKPF to try its best to protect the public. 117. On behalf of WTSDC, the Chairman thanked HKPF Wong Tai Sin District, the District Commander and police officers for their efforts that were indispensable for the very encouraging fight crime result. He shared Ms. NG’s view that support from WTSDC, local organisations, the general public and other Government departments was needed to achieve the result. He hoped that HKPF would go from strength to strength, and step up its efforts against new crime such as abduction of children. III(vii) Nominees for the Co-opted Members of the Committees under the Wong

Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC Paper 27/2012)

118. The Secretary introduced the paper. At the 2nd WTSDC meeting held on 17 January 2012 Members had agreed that co-opted members be appointed into committees under WTSDC. The Secretariat had received 28 nominations as detailed below:

Committee

Number of DC Members

Number of Nominees

Total

CB&SSC 19 6 25 DFMC 29 5 34 T&TC 26 5 31 FG&EAC 17 3 20 HC 23 5 28 FEHC 19 4 23

Total: 28 119. The Chairman said at the 2nd WTSDC meeting held on 17 January 2012, Members had decided the number of co-opted members in individual committees. The decision was recorded in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the minutes of the 2nd meeting. He suggested that there was no need to hold another round of nomination to fill the vacancy in co-opted membership in FG&EAC and FEHC. Six nominations of co-opted members in CB&SSC had been received by the Secretariat, showcasing Members’ concern about the committee’s work. As the number of nomination exceeded the vacancies by one, the Secretariat has asked the six Members who made the nominations

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 57

before the meeting, and all of them considered that the nominees were fit and proper co-opted members for CB&SSC. As WTSDC had decided at the previous meeting that only five co-opted members might be appointed into CB&SSC, and for the sake of Members’ privacy and fairness, he suggested a written voting be conducted and asked Members to comment on the arrangement. 120. Mr. WONG Kam-chi, MH, JP said there were 19 members in CB&SSC so it was not excessive to have six co-opted members. Members should have reason to make nominations, and some co-opted members of committees under the 3rd term of WTSDC had quitted prematurely. Even if six co-opted members were appointed into CB&SSC, the ratio between co-opted members and DC Members in the committee would only be 1:3. Hence, he suggested all nominees be appointed as co-opted members. 121. Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH said at the 2nd WTSDC meeting Members had already agreed on the number of co-opted members in each committee. If six co-opted members were appointed, the total number of CB&SSC members would become 25, and thus the quorum of meetings would be 13. So there was chance that co-opted members attending a meeting outnumbered DC Members.

122. The Chairman said he noted Mr. WONG Kam-chi, MH, JP’s view. He also pointed out that before the meeting the Secretariat had explained to the nominators that no more than five co-opted members could be appointed into a committee, and stated that there were still vacancies in FG&EAC and FEHC. However, all DC Members concerned had insisted that the one they had nominated should be appointed into CB&SSC. He opined that WTSDC’s decision on the number of co-opted members in each committee should be respected, and thus suggested a written voting be conducted according to the Standing Order.

123. Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH enquired whether a nominee not appointed as co-opted members of CB&SSC could join another committee.

124. The Chairman replied that before the meeting the Secretariat had informed nominators concerned that there were still vacancies in FG&EAC and FEHC, and asked them to change their nominations so that not more than five co-opted members were appointed into CB&SSC, but all of the six nominators had insisted that their nominees should be appointed. Currently, there were still vacancies in FG&EAC and FEHC. For the sake of fairness, another round of nomination should be conducted to fill the vacancies, resulting in keen competition. As the nomination period for co-opted members had ended, he disapproved that another round of nomination be held. As Members made no other comments, the Chairman announced the commencement of voting. He pointed out that there were six nominees competing for co-opted

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 58

membership of CB&SSC. Each Member might vote for a maximum of five nominees or cast an abstention vote. Any vote with all of the nominees chosen would be invalidated. (The Secretariat received 22 ballot papers among the 24 distributed.) (Ms. TAM Mei-po and Mr. HUI Kam-shing left the meeting at 7:15 p.m.) 125. After the voting, the Chairman invited Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH to count the votes under the scrutiny of Ms. KWOK Sau-ying and Mr. Joe LAI. Below is the result of the voting:

Name of Nominees Number of Votes Ms. WONG Kit-ling, Katherine 19 Mr. YIU Kam-pui 18 Mr. WAT Kei-on 3 Mr. WONG Wai-shing, Vincent 16 Mr. WONG Hong 18 Ms. CHENG Lai-hing 16

The Chairman then announced that Ms. Katherine WONG, Mr. YIU Kam-pui, Mr. Vincent WONG, Mr. WONG Hong and Ms. CHENG Lai-hing were elected as co-opted members of CB&SSC. 126. Members endorsed that the five nominees be appointed as co-opted members of CB&SSC, as well as the lists of co-opted members nominated for other committees. The Chairman then asked the Secretariat to notify co-opted members of the appointment. III(viii) Changes in the Membership of the Committees under the Wong Tai Sin

District Council (WTSDC Paper 28/2012)

127. The Secretary introduced the paper. Mr. WONG Kit-hin applied for joining CB&SSC and SCLTF with effect from 14 March 2012. 128. Members endorsed the paper.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 59

III(ix) Three-day Duty Visit to Eastern Guangdong Province by Wong Tai Sin District Council

129. The Chairman proposed a three-day duty visit to Eastern Guangdong Province by WTSDC be held on 10-12 May, during which Members would visit the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station or the Shanwei Wind Farm, meet officials of the Shantou Municipal Government, sightsee the Shantou City, meet officials of the Chaozhou Municipal Government, sightsee the ancient city wall of Chaozhou and the Chaozhou City, meet officials of the Jieyang Municipal Government and sightsee the Jieyang City. Members agreed that the three-day duty visit to Eastern Guangdong be held. 130. The Chairman said the duty visit was a WTSDC event, and cordially invited the participation of DO(WTS) Mr. William SHIU and other government representatives attending WTSDC meetings. He asked FGEAC to arrange for the duty visit.

IV Progress Reports

(i) Progress Report of the 2nd Meeting of the Finance, General and Economic

Affairs Committee Held on 3 February 2012

(WTSDC Paper 29/2012)

131. Members noted the paper.

(ii) Progress Report of the 2nd Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee held on 7 February 2012

(WTSDC Paper 30/2012)

132. Members noted the paper.

(iii) Progress Reports of the 2nd Meeting of the Community Building and Social Services Committee Held on 14 February 2012

(WTSDC Paper 31/2012)

133. Members noted the paper.

(iv) Progress Report of the 2nd Meeting of the Traffic and Transport

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 60

Committee Held on 21 February 2012

(WTSDC Paper 32/2012)

134. Members noted the paper.

(v) Progress Report of the 2nd Meeting of the Housing Committee Held on 28 February 2012

(WTSDC Paper 33/2012)

135. Members noted the paper.

(vi) Progress Report of the 2nd Meeting of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Committee Held on 6 March 2012

(WTSDC Paper 34/2012)

136. Members noted the paper.

(vii) Progress Report of the Wong Tai Sin District Management Committee Meeting Held on 17 February 2012 (WTSDC Paper 35/2012)

137. Members noted the paper.

(viii) Progress Report of the 2nd Meeting of the Working Group on Government and Public Utilities Works Projects Held on 28 February 2012 (WTSDC Paper 36/2012)

138. The Chairman said people who concerned about works projects in Wong Tai Sin would be invited to serve the Working Group as consultants, and the Working Group had agreed that Dr. James LAU Chi-wang, BBS, JP be appointed as a consultant. V

Date of the Next Meeting

139. The 4th WTSDC meeting would be held on 15 May 2012 (Tuesday) at 2:30 p.m.

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 61

[4](1)20120502-4_DC[M3](13.3.12)-e.doc 62

140. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Wong Tai Sin District Council Secretariat Ref.:WTSDC 13-5/5/53 April 2012

[4](1)20120321-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex I}(letter from DAB re waste management)-e.doc 1

(Letterhead: DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch)

Our Ref.: L/WTSDC/20120312/TLF

12 March 2012 To: Chairman and Members of Wong Tai Sin District Council

Views about Public Consultation on “Sustainable Waste Management – Strengthening Waste Reduction: Is Waste Charging an Option?”

Hong Kong is tiny but densely-populated. Currently, landfilling is the primary disposal method for the tens of thousand tonnes of waste produced every day. The Government estimates that the three strategic landfills will be filled up in 2014-18. For sustainability in waste management, the Environment Bureau (ENB) launched a public consultation exercise on “Sustainable Waste Management – Strengthening Waste Reduction: Is Waste Charging an Option?” (the consultation exercise) on 10 January 2012 to gauge public views on introduction of waste charging, an initiative intended to reduce the amount of municipal waste (MSW). Four approaches of charging are proposed in the paper, namely Quantity-based System, Proxy System, Fixed Charge and Partial Charging. We have the following concerns about the contents set out in the consultation paper:

1. Although waste charging has been introduced in many countries and jurisdictions with proven effectiveness in waste reduction, it is all new to Hong Kong. Hence, the Government should not decide on the introduction of waste charging solely on the basis of the outcome of the three-month consultation. Instead, sufficient time should be given so that consensus in the community can be built through thorough discussion;

2. Supporting measures are indispensable to sustainable and effective waste

disposal. Consensus in the community should be reached before the introduction of waste charging. Also, a transparent and objective charge determination mechanism should be in place so that the charge is affordable to the general public. Moreover, consideration should be made to exempt financially vulnerable elderly people and CSSA households from waste charging. A reasonably long transition period should also be provided too.

Annex I

[4](1)20120321-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex I}(letter from DAB re waste management)-e.doc 2

3. Not only economic means (e.g. waste charging) can reduce the amount and control the generation of waste. In fact, the Government’s data reveal that its waste recovery initiatives, in particular separation of domestic waste, are very effective. This showcases that the public has fallen into a habit to separate and recover waste. Many people even point out that the recovery scheme can be further extended to cover glass, food waste, batteries, etc.;

4. A complete waste recovery mechanism should be in place. Waste charging,

even if introduced, can do little to reduce the generation of waste; 5. Apart from encouraging people to recovery waste, the Government has to do

more to promote the development of green industries in Hong Kong, including recovery and recycle industries;

6. International experiences reveal that advanced facilities may be used to

process waste. The Government should keep an eye on the trend and make reference to it; and

7. A thorough and sustainable waste management policy should be supported

by a basket of measures, including expansion of landfills, construction of incinerators, introduction of producer responsibility scheme, etc., rather than relying on one or two waste reduction / waste generation control initiatives.

Waste management is a global problem. Consensus in community and support

from various parties are indispensable for waste reduction, control of waste generation and successful introduction of waste charging. We hope that the Government would study and consider our concerns seriously. DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch Members of Wong Tai Sin District Council Mr KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH Mr LI Tak-hong, MH, JP Mr HO Yin-fai Ms CHAN Man-ki, Maggie Mr LAI Wing-ho, Joe Mr HO Hon-man Mr YUEN Kwok-keung Mr MOK Kin-wing Mr WONG Kwok-yan Ms. TAM Mei-po

[4](1)20120320-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex II}(submission from LI Tak-hong and LEE Tat-yan)-e.doc

Annex II Our Ref.: L/WTS/DC/20120312

12 March 2012 To: Chairman and Members of the Wong Tai Sin District Council

Request for Re-paving Prince Edward Road East with Sound Absorbent

As a trunk road with massive traffic flow, Prince Edward Road East (PERE) produces noise and other nuisance, adversely affecting residents nearby. Since the Kai Tak Development has been commenced, a lot of commercial buildings will be built in Kai Tak Development Area along PERE, further increasing the traffic volume and noise level of this trunk road. Before relocation of the Kai Tak Airport, noise from PERE could be dispersed to the airport and seashore. However, the upcoming commercial development in Kai Tak will form an acoustic wall with buildings in Tung Wui Estate, the Latitude, Rhythm Garden and commercial premises in San Po Kong, intensifying the noise impact on buildings along PERE. To reduce the noise nuisance to the residents, we suggest that:

(1) space between commercial buildings in Kai Tak and PERE be reserved for planting tall, sound-absorbing trees;

(2) the section of PERE between Tung Wui Estate and Rhythm Garden be

re-paved with state-of-the-art sound absorbent; and (3) trees be planted at the central divider or both sides of PERE.

It is foreseeable that develop of Kai Tak will intensify the noise pollution at PERE.

The Government should be responsible for taking measures to reduce noise impact to the environment and the residents, so that people can live comfortably.

LEE Tat-yan, MH and LI Tak-hong, MH, JP, Members of Wong Tai Sin District Council

[4](1)20120320-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex III}(Letter from TWGHs)-e.doc 1

(Letterhead: Tung Wah Group of Hospitals) Tel.: 2859 7616 Fax: 2859 7618 Our Ref.: Com S/21/YF

9 March 2012 Mr. LI Tak-hong, MH, JP Chairman of Wong Tai Sin District Council 6/F Lung Cheung Office Block, 138 Lung Cheung Road, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon Dear Mr. LI,

Progress and Follow-up of Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Holistic Centre for Youth Development (HCYD) Project

Further to our presentation on the HCYD project at a meeting of the 3rd term of the Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC) held on 5 July 2011, we attended a meeting of the Working Group on Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Holistic Centre for Youth Development (WGHCYD) on 15 August 2011 and consulted Members and Government representatives on HCYD. In this connection, we are writing to report on the latest progress of the HCYD project for WTSDC Members’ information. The HCYD project had obtained the initial support from the Home Affairs Bureau. We introduced the project to and consulted the executive members of the Wong Tai Sin District School Liaison Committee, the Wong Tai Sin South West Area Committee, and local youth organisations such as the East Kowloon Youth Society, the Wong Tai Sin District Outstanding Students’ Association and the Wong Tai Sin Youth Development Association, etc. as well as representatives of the Buddhist Hung Sean Chau Memorial School on 7 September, 8 September and 7 October 2011 as advised by WTSDC and its WGHCYD. These organisations support the project unanimously and provided valuable advice.

Annex III

[4](1)20120320-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex III}(Letter from TWGHs)-e.doc 2

The site to be used for HCYD should be rezoned from Open Space to Government, Institution or Community. To apply to the Town Planning Board (TPB) for amending the Approved Tsz Wan Shan, Diamond Hill and San Po Kong Outline Zoning Plan (OZP), TWGHs has appointed the following consultants to carry out the necessary environmental and traffic impact assessments and prepare the documents required: Area of Specialisation Consultant Appointed Project Coordination UrbanAge International Ltd., Architects Planning Planner Ms. PONG Yuen-yee Landscaping 環博有限公司. Environmental (including drainage) impact assessment

Allied Environmental Consultants Ltd.

Traffic impact assessment Ove Arup & Partners (HK) Ltd. The above assessments and consultancy services have already been commenced. It is anticipated that the application in question can be submitted to TPB in May or June 2012. TWGHs will proactively follow up the above assessment and the application for change of land uses, and continue to consult local stakeholders, such as briefing sessions for residents of San Po Kong. To broaden the coverage of the consultation, Members are welcomed to suggest suitable local organisations to be consulted. Below is the schedule for follow-up work: Date Task Present – May 2012 To follow up the assessments and preparation of documents

to be submitted to TPB regarding the application for OZP amendment

March – April 2012 To hold briefing sessions for residents of San Po Kong May – June 2012 To submit the application for OZP amendment to TPB

Please note the progress of the project. Should you have any comments or enquiries, please contact me at 2859 7616.

Ivan YIU Tsz-leung, Community Services Secretary, TWGHs

c.c.: Mr. William SHIU, JP, Wong Tai Sin District Officer

[4](1)20120320-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex IV}(reply to LI Tak-hong)-e.doc 1

Annex IV

Reply to Mr. LI Tak-hong, Chairman of Wong Tai Sin District Counil

(Response From Security Bureau / Immigration Department)

Question

How gestation of pregnant mainland women who had not made any antenatal and

delivery booking is determined at border control points? Professional judgement of

gynaecologists deployed to the control points? What claimed by the pregnant women

themselves? Result of body temperature check conducted by on-site nurses? Or any

other methods?

Response

In connection with the Government’s obstetric services arrangements in respect of

pregnant non-local women, the Immigration Department (ImmD) has stepped up its

efforts to intercept non-local pregnant women at immigration control points. Pregnant

women who are suspected to come to Hong Kong to have deliveries but fail to produce

“Certificates on Confirmed Antenatal and Delivery Booking” may be rejected from

entering Hong Kong. The Department of Health is also taking measures to enhance

assistance to ImmD’s enforcement staff by providing additional healthcare manpower

(including doctors, nurses and Health Surveillance Assistants) at major boundary

control points.

When questioning pregnant women who fail to produce “Certificates on Confirmed

Antenatal and Delivery Booking” issued by local hospitals, ImmD will enquire about

their gestation and seek professional advice in case of doubt. According to prevailing

legislation, ImmD may reject anyone from entering Hong Kong if it has doubt over his

or her purposes of entry.

[4](1)20120320-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex IV}(reply to LI Tak-hong)-e.doc 2

The ImmD also maintains close liaison with the Mainland authorities to deter non-local

pregnant women from seeking entry shortly before lab has also deployed healthcare

staff (including doctors and nurses) to major land crossing points and

We have gradually implemented various measures put forward in the middle of last year.

Non-local pregnant women who intend to have deliveries in private hospitals in Hong

Kong are required to undergo antenatal checkups by obstetricians in Hong Kong at an

appropriate stage to assess if they are suitable to give birth in the territory so that the

pregnant women and their fetuses are not subject to risks associated with travels or

other factors. In this connection, the Hong Kong College of Obstetricians and

Gynaecologists has issued professional guidelines on the projection of high-risk

pregnancy in September 2011. DH has also standardised the "Certificate on confirmed

antenatal and delivery booking" for issuance by hospitals to pregnant women who are

suitable to give birth in Hong Kong. The Certificate also enables the Administration to

monitor the utilisation of deli

[4](1)20120322-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex V}(letter from DAB (pregnant women))-e.doc 1

(Letterhead: DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch)

Our Ref.: L/WTSDC/20120312/TLF 12 March 2012

To: Chairman and Members of Wong Tai Sin District Council

Dear Sir/Madam,

Requesting Government to Solve Problems Relating to “Doubly Non-permanent Resident Pregnant Women” Delivering in Hong Kong

In recent years, more and more pregnant mainland women (PMW) give birth in Hong Kong, including those married Hongkongers (i.e. “singly non-permanent resident pregnant women”) and those married non-Hongkongers (i.e. “doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women”). As the latter and their husbands are not Hongkongers and have little linkage with Hong Kong, it is questionable whether their children will settle in Hong Kong, creating huge uncertainty in facility and service planning. Therefore, this has become a very controversial issue. Statistics on the number of babies born in Hong Kong in the past decade (i.e. 2001-2010) (Annex I) reveal that starting from 2006, the proportion of babies born to “doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women” has been rising. This has triggered some very serious social problems. A case in point is the enormous pressure on the local obstetrics and gynaecology services, especially those provided by the public sector. The brain-drain to the expanding private sector in recent years has increased the workload of frontline professionals in the public healthcare system, adversely affecting the quality of service. Moreover, some PMW rush directly to the accident and emergency (A&E) departments for delivery, taxing further the already inadequate A&E , obstetrics and gynaecology services, and depriving Hongkongers’ right to use such services. Compared with local expecting mothers, PMW tend not to receive antenatal check-up as frequently and thoroughly. Therefore, they and their babies are more vulnerable to health risks, and the latter will more likely require intensive care. As a result of the above, pregnant local women’s need for services cannot be met, causing considerable public dissatisfaction.

Annex V

[4](1)20120322-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex V}(letter from DAB (pregnant women))-e.doc 2

To meet the needs of pregnant local women and minimise the uncertainty in planning relating to children of “doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women”, the Government should take immediate actions to solve problems concerning these women’s delivery of babies in Hong Kong. Our main suggestions are:

I) Short-term Measures 1) Private Healthcare System

1.1 Obstetrics and gynaecology services in public hospitals should be reviewed against a reasonable yardstick in a timely manner. Priority should continue to be given to pregnant local women and no more booking by “doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women” should be accepted from now on, so as to alleviate the pressure on public healthcare system;

1.2 Setting a Territory-wide Quota for Obstetric Service The Government should assess as soon as possible the service capacity of

obstetric, gynaecology and neonatal intensive care departments. The figure will then be used as the annual quota for local obstetric and gynaecology services. After meeting pregnant local women’s need for such services, private hospitals may serve non-local residents with the remaining service quota, taking into account of their facilities and manpower status. Also, the Department of Health (DH) should keep track of obstetric, gynaecology and related services (e.g. neonatal intensive care) provided by private hospitals, to make sure that the number of pregnant women admitted to private hospitals does not exceed the quota concerned;

1.3 Only PMW whose husbands are Hong Kong citizens may use the quota

reserved for PMW; 1.4 More resources should be provided to retain healthcare staff in obstetric,

gynaecology and neonatal departments of public hospitals. Also, more training places should be provided to alleviate the pressure on frontline healthcare staff;

1.5 A permanent mechanism comprising the Government and representatives of

private and public healthcare providers should be established for regular exchange of views in respect of the need for obstetric and gynaecology services, quota-related matters and the “Certificates on Confirmed Antenatal and Delivery Booking” system.

[4](1)20120322-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex V}(letter from DAB (pregnant women))-e.doc 3

2) Review on “Certificates on Confirmed Antenatal and Delivery Booking” System

2.1 As some PMW give birth in Hong Kong using forged or tampered Certificates on Confirmed Antenatal and Delivery Booking, DH should review and improve the existing arrangement. For example, applicants of the certificate should be examined by local obstetricians and gynaecologists according to guidelines formulated jointly by the Government, private and public healthcare providers and the Hong Kong Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and certificates would only be issued to those who do not belong to high-risk group, so as to protect the safety of these pregnant women. Moreover, private hospitals should reach an agreement with in-house medical personnel or private practitioners who provide services in these hospitals, requiring them not to accept cases referred by agents. Mechanism should also be formulated to curb transfer of certificates;

2.2 Both the Central and Hong Kong Governments should formulate clear

guidelines to bar PMW who reach a certain gestational age from entering Hong Kong unless they possess a Certificate on Confirmed Antenatal, except cases that admission is granted for humanitarian, non-childbirth-related reasons.

3) Combat the Agents and Enforce against Pregnant Women’s Hostels

3.1 To a very large extent, activities of agents encourage PMW to give birth in Hong Kong. These agents operate in grey areas of existing law, and some of them even operate illegally. Therefore, DAB opines that the Government should cooperate with its mainland counterpart more closely and investigate/enforce against illegal agents, to prevent them from arranging PMW to give birth in Hong Kong regardless of the possible risks;

3.2 Regulatory and inspection efforts against agents should be stepped up, in

particular those providing medical consultancy services without a licence, assisting PMW without a Certificate on Confirmed Antenatal and Delivery Booking in seeking emergency deliveries in Hong Kong, claiming to be partners of local obstetricians and gynaecologists, clinics and private hospitals, arranging accommodation of PMW in illegal “pregnant women’s hostels” operated by them or other parties, etc. The Administration should take a hard line stance to these and impose penalty to offenders;

[4](1)20120322-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex V}(letter from DAB (pregnant women))-e.doc 4

3.3 In addition to combating agents operating in Hong Kong and the Mainland, the Government should also look into the problem of “pregnant women’s hostels” and take prosecution action more stringently;

3.4 Enhance Publicity and Information Management The Government should work with the Mainland more closely and

disseminate the correct messages, including relevant policy in Hong Kong, possible risks to PMW and their babies when the former come to Hong Kong for delivery, possible financial loss one may suffer from as a result of the agents’ illegal operations, etc., as a warning to PMW. Moreover, extra control should be imposed to agents advertising in the Mainland to ban them from using incorrect information to encourage PMW to give birth in Hong Kong.

4. Toughen Border Control

4.1 The Immigration Department is requested to enforce stringently the policy on rejecting PMW without a Certificate on Confirmed Antenatal and Delivery Booking from entering Hong Kong, so that no more PMW can sneak into Hong Kong and rush to A&E departments of Government hospitals for delivery;

4.2 PMW should declare to border control officers in the Mainland that they are

not coming to Hong Kong for childbirth. Failure to do so may result in a penalty being imposed. Information declared by these women may be forwarded to Immigration Department of Hong Kong;

4.3 Immigration control authorities of both sides of the border should exercise

visual inspection and deploy on-site doctors to identify PMW of a certain gestational age and those who are about to give birth. If so, they should be barred from crossing the border unless they can produce a Certificate on Confirmed Antenatal and Delivery Booking, or obtain permission of entry on humanitarian grounds;

4.4 Upon issue of Permit for Travelling to and from Hong Kong and Macao or

other endorsements, immigration control authority in the Mainland should remind applicants that PMW reaching a certain gestational age will not be permitted to leave the Mainland and go to Hong Kong unless they possess a Certificate on Confirmed Antenatal and Delivery Booking;

[4](1)20120322-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex V}(letter from DAB (pregnant women))-e.doc 5

4.5 Both sides’ immigration control authorities may exchange information on PMW giving childbirth in Hong Kong without a Certificate on Confirmed Antenatal and Delivery Booking and impose punishment on them, including fine and one-year suspension from obtaining the said permit or endorsement.

II) Long-term Policy 5) Ultimately, the Government should assess impact of PMW’s babies on demand of

various services, such as various implications if they return to Hong Kong to live and study. To cushion the impact, a proposal on ways to minimise the uncertainties regarding facility and service planning should be prepared;

6) Effectiveness of various administrative measures should be reviewed on the basis

of actual circumstances. Other measures should also be devised, including seeking interpretation of – instead of amending - Article 24(2) of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress, so that the legislative intent of it [i.e. Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong are those born in Hong Kong of their parents (father or mother, or both) during their legal residence in Hong Kong. Therefore, children of illegal immigrants, overstayers and temporary residents are excluded] could be upheld again in Hong Kong, tackling the problem from the root.

We request the Government to consider our suggestions seriously, and adapt them

and solve the problems concerning PMW giving birth in Hong Kong holistically, in order to protect the interest of pregnant local women. DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch Members of Wong Tai Sin District Council Mr KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH Mr LI Tak-hong, MH, JP Mr HO Yin-fai Mr LAI Wing-ho, Joe Ms CHAN Man-ki, Maggie Mr HO Hon-man Mr YUEN Kwok-keung Mr MOK Kin-wing Mr WONG Kwok-yan Ms. TAM Mei-po

[4](1)20120322-4_DC[M3](13.3.12){Annex V}(letter from DAB (pregnant women))-e.doc 6

(Annex I)

Number of Babies Born to Women in Hong Kong in 2001-20101

Year

Local

Women

Mainland Women Whose Husbands Are Hong Kong

Residents

Mainland Women Whose Husbands

Are Not Hong Kong Residents

Mainland Women Whose Husbands’

Identity Is Unknown

Sub-total2

Total

2001 40 409 7 190 620 - 7 810 48 219

2002 39 703 7 256 1 250 - 8 506 48 209

2003 36 837 7 962 2 070 96 10 128 46 965

2004 36 587 8 896 4 102 21 13 019 49 606

2005 37 560 9 879 9 273 386 19 538 57 098

2006 39 494 9 438 16 044 650 26 132 65 626

2007 43 301 7 989 18 816 769 27 574 70 875

2008 45 257 7 228 25 269 1 068 33 565 78 822

2009 44 842 6 213 29 766 1 274 37 253 82 095

2010 47 936 6 169 32 653 1 826 40 648 88 584

Total 411 926 78 220 139 863 6 090 224 173 636 099

1 Figures for 2001-2010 are provided by the Census and Statistics Department 2 Total number of babies born to mainland women in Hong Kong