North District Council (2020-2023) Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of

the Committee on Security Date : 17 March 2020

Time : 9:36 a.m.

Venue : North District Council Conference Room

Present: Chairman of the Committee Mr KWOK Long-fung*

Vice Chairman of the Committee Mr YUEN Ho-lun* Members

Ms LAM Tsz-king* Hon LAM Cheuk-ting* Ms LAM Shuk-ching* Mr CHOW Kam-ho Mr CHAN Yuk-ming* Mr CHAN, Vincent Chi-fung* Mr CHAN Wai-tat* Mr CHEUNG Ching-ho, Franco* Mr CHEUNG Chun-wai* Ms WONG Hoi-ying* Mr CHIANG Man-ching* Mr LAW Ting-tak*

(09:48 a.m. – 11:58 a.m.)

Secretary Miss AU Lok-yi, Chloe Executive Officer I (District

Council) 2, North District Office

Action

2

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

In Attendance: Ms KWONG Ting-lok, Maggie

Assistant District Officer (North) 1, Home Affairs Department

Ms CHU Wai-lin, Francoise

Senior Executive Officer (District Council), North District Council

Mr LEUNG Chi-fai District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (North), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Mr CHAN Kam-hung CHAN Kin-chiu

Divisional Commander (Spur Line), Rail and Ferry Command, Boundary and Ports Branch, Customs and Excise Department

Inspector (Administration &

Support) (Spur Line), Customs and Excise Department

Absent: Mr KO Wai-kei Mr LAU Ki-fung Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed Members and departmental representatives to the meeting and welcomed Ms Maggie KWONG, Assistant District Officer (North) of the Home Affairs Department (“HAD”). After introducing those departmental representatives present at the meeting one by one, the Chairman said that apart from the above departments, the Committee had also invited the Immigration Department (“Immd”) and the Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) to send representatives to the meeting. Yet, the two departments replied that they could not send representatives to

Action

3

attend the meeting. The Immd stated that due to operational arrangements, it was not possible to send someone to serve as the standing representative of the Committee. Should there be discussion of local issues which fell within the service scope of the Immd at future meetings, the department would make every effort to arrange suitable personnel to attend the meetings or provide written responses to the issues. The responses from the HKPF had been distributed to Members for reference at the meeting. The HKPF stated that if the Committee had any questions about the Police concerning individual agenda items, the HKPF could furnish written responses. The responses from the HKPF was at Annex I. 2. The Chairman said that all elected Members present were representing the public in monitoring various government departments, especially the HKPF. As the Chairman of the Committee, he emphasised that the Committee was set up in response to serious security issues such as illegal parallel trading, illegal prostitution, gambling, illegal parking to situations of abuse of power and arbitrary arrests by the Police (e.g. the case of police officers torturing a resident of Sheung Shui in North District Hospital), with the hope of improving public order in the district by monitoring the police force through the North District Council (“NDC”). At this meeting, the Committee had received a total of five proposals, namely, “Expressing Concerns about the Deployment of Police Manpower for North District” proposed by Mr Franco CHEUNG, “Request for Explanation from the Police about the Existing Deployment of Manpower for North District”, “Request for Clarification from the Police on the Demarcation of District/Division Boundaries in Rural Areas of North District”, “Request for Review and Improvement of the Quality of the 999 Hotline Service” and “Request for Devising Training Courses on Emotion Management for Frontline Police Officers without Delay” proposed by Mr LAW Ting-tak. He said that the Committee was taking a pragmatic attitude, with a view to understand community policing issues such as police deployment and put forward suggestions to the Police for the improvement of law and order. It was deeply regrettable that the Police only provided an extremely unreasonable written reply and explanation, shying away from their responsibilities and declining to send representatives to listen to public opinion, rejected to answer questions posed by Members and refused to provide explanation to the democratically elected representatives. Members and residents of North District had witnessed worsening public order problems such as gambling, on-street solicitation and illegal parking in the area in recent months. Ironically, the Police claimed in their written reply that they had the ability to maintain law and order. The Police

Action

4

refused to attend this Committee meeting and it was not until 9:23 a.m. today that they provided a written reply to the letter sent by the Committee after the last meeting. This was a manifestation of disrespect to the Committee and the NDC and contempt for the public opinion of North District. He requested Members to allow him to make a provisional motion later to censure the Police for refusing to attend the Committee meetings, and shying away from their responsibilities to listen to public opinion. He hoped Members would make suggestions to hold the Police accountable and collectively oblige the Police to face up to and listen to public opinion of North District. 3. The Chairman continued that two Members had applied for leave from the meeting, namely Mr KO Wai-kei and Mr LAU Ki-fung. Mr KO Wai-kei was unable to attend this meeting as he had to attend a special meeting of the Ta Kwu Ling District Rural Committee. Since his ground for absence conformed to the relevant provisions of the NDC Standing Orders, he proposed approval to his application for absence. Mr LAU Ki-fung was unable to attend this meeting due to indisposition but a medical certificate was yet to be submitted. Since his ground for absence conformed to the relevant provision of the NDC Standing Orders, the Committee would approve his application for leave in principle. His application for leave would be formally approved upon his submission of medical certificate. (Post-meeting note: Mr LAU Ki-fung did not submitted any medical certificate after the meeting, so his application for absence was not approved.) 4. The Chairman stated that he had received a provisional motion which was already distributed to Members. According to Order 13(2) of the NDC Standing Orders, the Chairman, subject to the consent of more than half of the Members present at the meeting, could approve the inclusion of the provisional motion in the agenda. Therefore, the Committee must first decide whether to approve the provisional motion on the agenda. 5. The Chairman asked if any Member opposed to the inclusion of the provisional motion on the agenda. As no Member raised any objection, the Committee approved the inclusion of the provisional motion on the agenda.

Action

5

6. The Chairman said that the provisional motion would be discussed before the discussion items on the agenda. (The Committee had received three more provisional motions during the course of the meeting.) Item 1 - Confirmation of Minutes of the 1st Meeting held on 20

January 2020

7. The Committee confirmed the minutes of the 1st meeting. (Mr CHOW Kam-ho joined the meeting at this juncture.) First Provisional Motion: Condemning the Police for Refusing to Attend the Meetings of the Committee on Security 8. The Chairman said that Members should discuss the provisional motions first before proceed to voting. The first provisional motion was proposed by himself, and seconded by Hon LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr CHAN Yuk-ming, Ms WONG Hoi-ying and Ms LAM Tsz-king. He presented the first provisional motion which was contained at Annex II. 9. Mr Franco CHEUNG expressed support for the motion, but opined that the wording of the motion needed further discussion. He said that the word “condemn” was not strong enough because the Police only provided written responses to the proposals. Besides, there was also a typo of the word “已 (already)” (“己 (own)” was typed instead), a mistake that even primary school students would not make. He opined that the motion “Condemning the Police for Refusing to Attend Meetings of the Committee on Security” should be amended to “Expressing Contempt for the Police’s Timidity for Refusing to Attend the Meetings of the Committee on Security”. By not sending representatives to attend the meetings, the Police was not only ignoring the security issues of North District, but also disregarding the safety of the lives and properties of the local residents. He also held that the Committee had no intention to condemn the Police when raising the proposals. The Police should not take it personally. Hence, he believed that it was necessary for the Committee to express its contempt for the Police’s timidity in order to ridicule the Police’s reluctance to answer the queries of Members.

Action

6

10. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting said that when he communicated with the Chairman earlier, he was shocked to learn that the Police would not attend the meeting. He believed that the Police, as the most important law enforcement department, should send representatives to attend the committee meetings. He thanked the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) and the Customs and Excise Department (“C&ED”) for sending representatives to attend the meeting. He believed that attending District Council (“DC”) meetings was a duty that civil servants should fulfil. The DCs were important organs that relayed public opinion to the Government and assumed an advisory role in the constitutional system of Hong Kong. Unless the Government held that it was needless to listen to public opinion which was relayed by the DCs, otherwise government representatives should not refuse to attend the DC meetings. The Government often said that they wanted to listen to public opinion and seek social reconciliation, yet they declined attendance at DC meetings. Moreover, when he communicated with the Chairman yesterday, he learnt that the Secretariat, at the very beginning, refused to write to the HKPF to demand an explanation for not attending the meeting. He hoped that the Secretariat would clarify whether it was true and why the Secretariat, even upon the Chairman’s request, could refuse to write to the government department to ask for the reason for its non-attendance at the meeting. 11. The Secretary responded that there might be some misunderstanding in communication. The Secretariat had not refused to write to the HKPF to request them to explain the reasons for not attending the meeting. It did email the HKPF right away to request written responses. 12. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting said he learnt from the Chairman that the Secretariat would only send the letter with the consent of more than half of the Members. He asked whether the dialogue between the Chairman and the Secretariat was a pure imagination by the Chairman himself. 13. The Secretary responded that she had not told the Chairman that she would only send the letter with the consent of more than half of the members. 14. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting asked the Chairman to provide a response. 15. The Chairman responded that he had requested the Secretariat to assist in finding out why the HKPF was not sending representatives to

Action

7

attend this committee meeting. He received a written reply from the HKPF yesterday explaining why no representative was sent to attend this committee meeting. 16. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting asked the Chairman again whether the Secretariat had indicated that it would only send the letter with the consent of more than half of the members. 17. The Chairman responded that the Secretary expressed at that moment that there should be discussion at the meeting before she could provide a response. 18. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting cautioned the Secretariat to maintain a neutral role. The Chairman of the Committee had a role to play both inside and outside the meeting in order to facilitate the smooth running of the meeting. It was the Chairman’s duty to demand reasons from any government departments which did not attend the committee meetings. He asked rhetorically whether it was necessary for the Chairman to solicit the views of all Members every time before asking a department to give a written explanation. He straightly pointed out that this was extremely absurd. He believed that the NDO should caution the secretaries of the full council and all committees that this must not happen. He continued that he recently heard that the staff of the NDO had called Members to instruct them to vote for instead of voting against a paper in circulation. He hoped that similar incidents would not happen again. The staff of the Secretariat should know their roles and must never overstep its authority. That was a serious mistake. The Secretariat only played an administrative role, and the relevant decisions should be made by district councillors themselves. 19. Ms Francoise CHU responded by saying that the Secretary and the Chairman told different stories regarding the communication problem between them. She was not sure whether there was any misunderstanding involved. After learning that the HKPF would not send representatives to attend the Committee meetings without giving any reason, she had immediately instructed the Secretary to ask the HKPF to provide a written explanation. The written response provided by the HKPF, which was on the table, was the outcome of the Secretariat’s initiative. As for the circulated paper, it had nothing to do with this meeting. The paper asked Members to consider approving a DC funding application. Due to the short timeframe, the Secretariat wanted Members to reply within three days.

Action

8

Yet, the Secretariat had only received replies from two to three Members by noon on the due date. Therefore, the Secretariat reached Members on the phone to request a reply. Since some Members had not gone through the details of the paper and did not quite understand the content, the staff of the Secretariat explained the content to them. The voting preference of Members was their own decision. The Secretariat was just doing its duty by explaining the content of the paper to them. 20. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting considered that Ms CHU’s remarks had implied the meaning of lobbying Members, which was very dangerous. Even if a Member had taken a decision without going through the paper in detail, he would be the one responsible for it. The Secretariat should not overstep its authority, not to mention to call and request Members to change from casting a negative vote to an affirmative vote. As for the different stories held by the Chairman and the Secretary of the Committee, he had no intention to pursue. He hoped that everyone would handle the matter properly in future. He continued by saying that the reply from the HKPF was really nonsense. In its response, the HKPF stated that the complaint mechanism had been effective. It also mentioned that the DCs were the advisory bodies on district administration which were committed to addressing the pressing need of the people. Yet, the Police now refused to attend DC meetings. The reply also called on Members to condemn violence in a united effort and support the Police in fighting crimes. In his view, public money was used to pay the police officers and it was their responsibilities to answer the questions posed by the representatives of public opinion. Nonetheless, the HKPF refused to send representatives to attend DC meetings and the written response was only provided after repeated pursuit from the Chairman. Still the reason for not attending the meeting was not mentioned in the reply. The proposals of this meeting were about the deployment of police manpower and the emotion management of police officers, which were problems that concerned the police force a lot. The reaction of the HKPF showed no respect to the DCs and that was totally unacceptable. District councillors were just carrying out their duties as representatives of public opinion, and there was no way the Police could insult them. The Police would only humiliate themselves as decent civil servants and the force itself. The Committee must not allow the Police to treat district councillors, who duly performed their duties, like the way they shied away from their responsibilities. He hoped that the Committee would discuss ways to hold the Police accountable to passing the buck. He also held that the Police should not be allowed to adopt the same attitude in dealing with enquiries and questions of Members of the NDC in

Action

9

the full council and various committees. He said that the Democratic Party strongly condemned the Police who shied away from its responsibilities. If the Police had their arguments, it should show up at the meetings and debate with Members. 21. Mr LAW Ting-tak was in support of the motion and the proposed amendment of Mr Franco CHEUNG. He believed that the Committee had three functions. The first was to discuss policies with government departments, the second was to relay public opinion, and the third was to monitor the work of the executive authorities. When the HKPF refused to send representatives to the meetings, Members could not discuss with them its policies implemented in the district and relay public opinion to the department, nor could Members monitor its work. The fact that the HKPF was not sending representatives to attend meetings had broken the usual practice of the DCs. Government departments were supposed to send representatives to attend DC meetings and respond to Members’ questions. The HKPF was setting a bad precedent which might be followed by other government departments. According to his understanding, the Secretariat or the HKPF had communicated with the Democratic Party earlier on because he learned from Mr CHAN Yuk-ming that the HKPF might not send any representatives to attend the Committee meetings and the proposals would be submitted to the full council for discussion. He opined that Members had the responsibility to deal with and follow up community issues in accordance with the terms of reference of the Committee. The proposals of the Committee should not be submitted to the full council for discussion simply because the HKPF refused to send representatives to the Committee meetings. Attendance at DC meetings was the responsibility of representatives from government departments, and the Committee should not back down on this point. If the Police would only attend the full council meetings of the NDC, he asked why the representative of the HKPF would attend the meeting of the Committee on Traffic and Transport which was held last week. If the HKPF was not sending representatives to the newly established committees, he enquired whether other government departments could follow suit. He emphasised that if the precedent was set, other government departments could also ignore the monitoring function of the DCs. He continued that the North Link had submitted five proposals for discussion at the meeting, but the HKPF only replied in writing. In his opinion, written replies could not solve the problem. He said that in the face of totalitarianism, the solidarity of the “anti-extradition to China” bloc could exert its maximum power. He believed that the veteran Hon LAM Cheuk-ting who was a “Member with dual membership”

Action

10

could bring this matter to the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) for discussion, as the Basic Law also set out that the LegCo could raise questions about the work of the Government. He continued by saying that if the NDC became a gaping hole, the dignity of all DCs in Hong Kong would be trampled by the Police. 22. Mr CHIANG Man-ching considered that the practice of the Police had demonstrated its self-centeredness and perfunctory attitude. He questioned whether the two written replies of the Police could be regarded as official documents because there was no salutation nor complimentary close. The documents were not even affixed with any chop and the content was totally unacceptable. He pointed out that there was a typo of “已(already)” in Chinese (“己 (own)” was typed instead) in the sentence “at present, the Police had already......through various organisations now”. He opined this mistake showed that the Police was used to generalising everything with their own mindset. Even there was no typo in the sentence “at present, the Police had already collected public opinion about matters on security and public safety in the district through various organisations and channels”, it showed that the Police held that it was sufficient to collect the views of their preferred “blue-ribbon” organisations and treat them as public opinion. Each district councillor had received a minimum of more than 1 000 votes, so he opined that DCs were the most impartial bodies that could relay opinions about public safety. He also quoted from the response the sentence “if anyone was dissatisfied with the enforcement actions taken by the Police, he could lodge a complaint to the Complaints Against Police Office (“CAPO”)”, and said that the identity of district councillors was minimised to the level of “anyone”. For him, district councillors were certainly there to help the public lodge complaints to the CAPO, but then DCs was at the level of district administration. The Police’s response was totally irrelevant. He also pointed out that it was the Police’s subjective wish that, to quote the reply, “the DCs, as the advisory bodies on district administration, are committed to addressing the pressing need of the people. We believe that the instant wish of the general public is to restore calmness in the society”. District councillors were authorised agents with public votes, and their opinions were the most objective. He also pointed out that the wording used at the end of the two written responses provided by the Police were exactly the same. He believed they were just perfunctorily copying and pasting each other. He expressed support for the provisional motion proposed by the Chairman. The Police’s disregard for the DCs was really outrageous.

Action

11

23. Mr CHOW Kam-ho expressed support for the provisional motion and believed that the written responses of the HKPF implied that they would never attend meetings of the Committee meetings in future. This was disrespect to NDC Members who were empowered by more than one to two hundred thousand voters, and broke the promise of police officers to protect the lives, property and safety of the public. He considered that the proposals of this Committee meeting were of a general nature and only focused on the daily operation of the HKPF. There were no personal accusations against anyone. The HKPF should deploy staff to the meeting to respond to the questions of Hong Kong people, rather than just providing written responses. If all government departments treated the DCs this way, it would hamper the continued operation of the DCs. He believed that the current practice of the HKPF had completely crushed the expectations of all voters in North District on government departments, which was absolutely unacceptable. He hoped that the Chairman would lead all Members to take further actions to safeguard the dignity of the NDC. 24. Being the Chairman of the Committee, the Chairman said that he was open to any action to hold the police accountable. He would also provide Members with sufficient time and room for discussion to see how to pursue the Police for not deploying staff to the meetings of the Committee. 25. Mr Vincent CHAN was in support of the provisional motion and pointed out that in the written responses of the Police, the explanation for its absence from the meetings of the Committee was “it’s not enough to rely on the Police alone. The DCs, as the advisory bodies on district administration......” When he browsed the website of the HKPF, he found that the Police had its common purpose and values. One of the common purposes was to working in partnership with the community and other organisations, and one of the values was to have effective communication both within and outwith the Force. He considered that the written responses had no practical purpose. The objective of having DC meetings was to clarify issues face to face and then discuss them. In response to Mr LAW Ting-tak’s reply that the Police had deployed representatives to attend the meeting of the Committee on Traffic and Transport which was held last week, he queried whether the Police could take enforcement actions selectively and attend meetings of their own volition. The Committee focused on the functions of the Police, yet the Police was not deploying

Action

12

representatives to attend the meetings. He agreed with the suggestion of Mr CHOW Kam-ho that the Committee should take further actions. 26. Mr CHEUNG Chun-wai believed that the Police was setting a bad precedent, which was a total disrespect for public opinion. The DC was minimised in the eyes of the Police to a body that was good enough to exchange by correspondence. If that was the case, why not free up the workplace of the DCs for other government departments and just ask Members to focus on Government-preferred issues like rodent control and lengthening the pedestrian green time by two seconds. He considered that the issues raised by the North Link were long-standing problems in the district, especially the problem of illegal parking. He hoped to visit the black spots with the representatives of the Police. The Police kept saying the motto “Honour, Duty and Loyalty”, there should not be any skeleton in the closet. He was concerned that the Police would not even attend the next full council meeting. 27. Mr CHAN Yuk-ming understood Members were indignant about the Police’s absence from the meetings of the Committee. In the Police’s written responses to the matters on the security of North District, it was stated that the police exercises at the Police Tactical Unit (“PTU”) Headquarters had been conducted for 30 years. Residents of the neighbourhood had been very supportive. There were only a few complaints and it was hoped that the public could be considerate. In his opinion, the response from the Police was shameless. He asked why residents sought assistance from DC Members when there was tear gas during the recent exercise if no one had ever complained. All citizens in Hong Kong knew that it was useless to lodge complaints to the Police because it was the Police investigating itself. The last paragraph of the Police’s written response mentioned that the general public wanted the society to return to peace and the role of district councillors was very important. They must join hands with the Government and all sectors of the society to fight against violence. To him, urging the Police to enforce the law was one of the key duties of district councillors. Apart from the so-called rioters, there were many other law and order problems in North District. Illegal parking was rampant but no law enforcement action was taken. Over one hundred people still gathered together for gambling amid the raging situation of the pneumonia and no one was taking any enforcement action. There was no enforcement against sex workers who were soliciting on the streets of the old market. District councillors were playing the important role as described by the Police by means of referring

Action

13

the black spots of law and order problems. In the written responses, the Police only mentioned about the social incidents occurring since June; while other social issues were not taken seriously. On top of that, he wanted to know whether the Police was still a standing representative of the Committee. The Police had not indicated that its representatives were non-standing, but they chose to communicate with the NDC in writing. He stated that he did not want to become a “pen pal” with the Police. He also maintained that it was obligatory that the Police should deploy standing representatives to the Committee and no ambiguity in their role should be allowed. Mr LAW Ting-tak just mentioned that the Police had indicated to the Democratic Party that they would not attend the meetings of the Committee. To him, that was logical because the Chairman of the Committee was a member of the Democratic Party. He asked the Chairman to confirm whether the information on the absence of the Police from the meeting came from the Secretariat. He had no objection to the further actions suggested by Members and Members could have joint discussion to reach a consensus. He continued that if the Committee’s proposals could not be discussed at the meeting of the Committee, it was not a back-down to submit the proposals to the full council for discussion, but a move to force the Police to face up to them. Full council meetings were attended by commanders of the HKPF, and Members could raise questions with the Police at the Full Council meetings. If the Police continued to attend meetings selectively, he would still raise questions with the representatives of the Police on issues of law and order even at the meetings of the Committee on Traffic and Transport. He held that this was a proactive approach at a higher level. 28. Mr YUEN Ho-lun expressed his support for the provisional motion and the amendment proposed by Mr Franco CHEUNG. He continued by saying that the HKPF’s absence from the meetings of the Committee implied that security matters were none of their business. In that case, the Committee could simply disband. He wondered if the Police were duly educated as the written responses provided by the Police had no salutation or complimentary close, nor did it conform to the official letter format. He quoted the Police as saying that the mechanism of the Independent Police Complaints Council (“IPCC”) had been effective, fair and just. If the Police could really handle matters fairly and impartially, he held that there would not be negative news like police officers “setting free” their colleagues. The Police also mentioned in the written responses that district councillors were expected to take substantive actions to support the Police in crime fighting. He said that Members hoped to refer security issues in

Action

14

the community to the Police at the meeting. For example, he wanted to refer to the Police the recent incidents of stealing motor bikes in Tai Ping Estate; the problem of noise nuisance during late hours and the illegal parking problem that lasted for several months in Ching Ho Estate. Nonetheless, he was unable to do so because the Police had not sent any representatives to the meeting. He had referred the problem of noise nuisance during late hours in Ching Ho Estate to the Police Community Relations Office in private, but the Police only distributed related leaflets in the Estate. For him, this could not solve the problem. He continued that if the Police considered that security matters were none of their business, it would be better to engage security companies to tackle the issues. As for the HKPF’s written response to the matter on the PTU exercise in Fanling, no direct response was made to the PTU’s shooting exercise and unknown gas leakage and even said that there was rarely any complaint against those exercises. He pointed out that Members had referred the case to the Police, so their claim of no complaint was not true. He asked in return that whether the Police expected to receive complaints from every resident. He continued that the written response had not clarified the composition of the unidentified coloured gas at all. He believed that the Police was hiding something and doubted that they had failed to live up to the so-called motto of “Honour, Duty and Loyalty”. The Government was ignoring public opinion and overlooking community issues. It could be seen that “listening to public opinion” was just a slogan. The Committee was discussing community issues such as illegal parking, illegal parallel goods, noise nuisance and theft, but the Police was not taking any enforcement actions. He found that the Government had been using the wrong approach to tackle problems all along and it was high time for their reorganisation. 29. The Chairman stated that nine Members had spoken until now. He understood the views and frustration of Members. Today’s proposals were all about problems of community policing and law and order issues in the district, yet representatives of the Police did not show up at the meeting to answer Members’ questions. From Members’ speeches, he had deduced the proposal made by Mr CHAN Yuk-ming, i.e. to forward the Committee’s proposals to the full council for discussion. 30. Ms WONG Hoi-ying said it was mentioned in the Police’s written responses that the department would collect opinions from various channels. She believed that attending DC meetings was the most straightforward way, where district councillors who represented various constituencies could

Action

15

refer local problems directly to the Police and the Police could respond right away. Nonetheless, the Police did not send representatives to attend the meetings. Their pretext was that any complaint of dissatisfaction could be lodged to the CAPO or IPCC. She did not find that relevant as it was not the intention of Members to complain against the Police. The proposals of this Committee meeting were all about social issues, but not the Police. She did not understand why the Police put themselves in this place. The Police were actually shying away from their responsibilities. The purpose of setting up the Committee was to follow up on law and order problems and law enforcement issues in North District, but not to target the Police. Moreover, the Police should accept criticism to make improvements. Hence, she supported the provisional motion. 31. Ms LAM Shuk-ching, who was in support of the provisional motion, opined that the attendance of the representatives of the Police at the meetings of the Committee was obligatory so that Members could communicate directly with them. She pointed out that many law and order issues such as illegal parking and illegal parallel trading had been bothering residents of North District. In the written responses, the Police had played down the incident concerning the exercise conducted at the PTU Headquarters. Yet, residents of North District were not as carefree as the Police, they were actually very frightened. She quoted the HKPF’s written response that residents had been supportive of the exercises for more than 30 years, complaints were rare and it was hoped that the public could be considerate. She considered that the Police was making an understatement. If, as the Police said, similar exercises had been conducted for 30 years, she would like the Police to provide relevant records. She said that she used to witness the exercises conducted at the PTU Headquarters, where only imitation firearms were used. There were no gun shots or cries for help like those heard in the recent exercise, which caused panic among the public. She considered that the Police’s written response was far from enough. Should the Police have sent representatives to the meeting, she would ask them to provide records of the exercises. As an NDC Member, she was pragmatic and wanted to have earnest communication with the Police. It was a pity that the Police was not making response in person. The Police’s dismissive attitude towards the NDC was unacceptable and should be censured. 32. Ms LAM Tsz-king quoted the Police’s written responses to the recent social incident (i.e. the march on 5 January), saying that the marching crowd reached the destination at 2:50 p.m. and the organiser announced end

Action

16

of the march then. Yet, the reality was not like that. She pointed out that there were more than 10 000 participants on that day, and it was impossible for all of them to reach the destination at the same time as said by the Police. She continued to point out that from new year to the present time, no law enforcement action against sex workers were taken in the area. She also pointed out that the problem of street gambling in the vicinity of Shek Wu Hui was getting worse. There were even triad members to act as lookout. She had tried to seek help from the Police, but the Police did not come to the scene to handle it. This situation also existed in Ka Fuk Estate. Regarding the Police calling on Members to help fight crimes with substantive actions, she believed Members had already taken substantive actions, only that the Police was not willing to send representatives to the meetings. Members actually had no intention to discuss with the Police the social incidents mentioned in the written responses, they just wanted to attend to the law and order issues in North District. 33. The Chairman stated that he was aware of the growing law and order problems in North District, including the problem of street gambling in the vicinity of Shek Wu Hui Market and in Ting Ping Estate. He had written to the District Commander last week, requesting that the relevant issues be resolved as soon as possible. In the end, only the Police Community Relations Officer contacted him and accompanied him to distribute leaflets to advise local residents not to gamble. Over the last weekend, he noticed that the Police had deployed strong manpower to assist in maintaining order at the “Sign up for Article 23 Legislation” street counters. In contrast, the Police turned a blind eye to the law and order of North District as it was not willing to send representatives to attend the meetings of the Committee and respond to the questions raised by Members. 34. Mr CHAN Wai-tat expressed support for the provisional motion. The Police responded by saying that he hoped Members would be pragmatic. He said that he was probably the most pragmatic Member. As early as January, he had already asked the Police to deal with the problem of street gambling, and requested to distribute leaflets together with them. He had also repeatedly referred the issue of illegal parking to the Police. Quoting the statement made in the written response, the number of fixed penalty tickets issued for illegal parking in 2018 was over 80 000, but only some 40 000 were issued in 2019. He considered it obligatory for the Police to explain the reasons for the decline in numbers and describe the law enforcement situation to Members. When the Police was afraid to attend the meetings of the committee, we knew what was in its mind. However,

Action

17

there were many practical matters that the Committee had to communicate and address with the Police. There were many joint operations between the Police and the FEHD. He also wanted to know whether the Police would evade cooperation with the FEHD same as they avoided attendance at the meetings of the DCs, which could affect the relevant law enforcement work. 35. Mr LAW Ting-tak believed that even if the proposals of the Committee were submitted to the full council for discussion, it did not mean that the Police would send representatives to attend the full council meetings. If representatives of the Police were willing to attend the meetings of the full council, then the dignity of the Chairman of the Committee and the Committee itself would be gone. He expressed his full support for safeguarding the dignity of the Chairman. He held that the NDC was a single entity. If a bad precedent was set, the operation of the entire Council would be affected. Members should unite and he proposed that the Chairman should call the Police right away. He considered that the Police should send representatives to attend committee meetings, regardless of their rank. This was about the dignity of the Council. He continued that he originally intended to ask the Police about the “gate jumping” incident of a citizen on 19 January. On that day, the Police had deployed nearly 30 anti-riot police officers. He questioned whether the “21 July” incident was even more serious if “gate jumping” was considered a serious crime. He also enquired about the criteria adopted by the Police when determining the number of police officers to be deployed. He reiterated that he gave his wholehearted support to the Chairman to safeguard the dignity of the Committee and said that “there is no severance of ties even here comes the nuclear bomb”. 36. The Chairman said that as the Chairman of the Committee, he was totally willing to listen to the opinions and suggestions of Members. Yet, he hoped that Members would also be open-minded enough to listen to the opinions of other Members. In his opinion, cooperation between the Committee and the full council in obliging the Police to respond to public opinion should be the issue the Committee should discuss and deal with right now. 37. Mr CHOW Kam-ho said that it was stated in the Police’s written responses that the number of fixed penalty tickets issued for illegal parking in 2019 was nearly 50% less than that in 2018. Yet, the problem of illegal

Action

18

parking in North District was still serious, this reflected the need for the Police to attend the meetings of the Committee to answer Members’ questions. It was not enough for the Police to give only a bunch of numbers because Members could not make enquiries right away. This would also greatly increase the administrative workload for the Police. He pointed out that the Police often stated that they had to focus on maintaining law and order and protecting the lives and properties of Hong Kong citizens, but they continued to waste time on correspondence. He believed that the DCs were there to assist the Police in carrying out their duties, referring to them social issues that required follow-up. The Police’s attitude was undesirable. He added that about the “gate jumping” incident on 19 January mentioned by Mr LAW Ting-tak, he believed that all the Police needed to do was to bring the persons involved to the office of the station master for handling. It was unnecessary to arrange a large number of police officers to station there to create panic. He recalled that he was also frightened by the scene when he passed by the scene on that day, and the commander on-site also failed to give a clear explanation. He opined that the Police should consider the public’s feelings when deploying police officers. He continued that the Police’s attitude towards meetings of the Committee was the same as that dealing with the “gate jumping” incident on that day, which was totally unacceptable. 38. Mr CHAN Yuk-ming quoted Mr LAW Ting-tak that “there is no cutting of ties even here comes the nuclear bomb” and said that it would be the only way. Otherwise, Members would fail to live up to the expectations of the residents of North District. From an objective point of view, if the Police still insisted their attitude towards the Committee, the Chairman of the full council had the power to decide whether the proposals could be discussed at the meetings of the full council. If proposals on the security issues in North District could not be discussed at the meetings of the Committee and the Chairman of the full council also rejected the discussion of the proposals at the full council meetings, it was against the political ethics. From an objective point of view, it was abetting the Police to evade the problems so that discussion of the proposals could never be realised. He continued by saying that no doubt Members of the Committee should oblige the Police to attend the meetings of the Committee meetings. They were submitting the proposals to the full council for discussion now simply because the Police did not attend the meetings of the Committee. He held that both actions were necessary. Many Members had expressed the hope that the Chairman should take the lead in taking further actions.

Action

19

He believed Members should make specific suggestions before further discussions could proceed. 39. The Chairman stated that he was listening to the opinions of Members of different segments. He asked Members to remain silent while other Members were speaking, so that the speaker could stay focused. After more than ten Members had spoken for multiple times, he had deduced two points. The first was the amended provisional motion proposed by Mr Franco CHEUNG. He would later ask the Secretariat to brief on the procedures for amendment of the provisional motion. Apart from this, he could only deduce one proposition, i.e. the proposition made by Mr CHAN Yuk-ming that the proposals related to law and order would be submitted to the meeting of the full council for discussion. He stressed that the Committee should cooperate and communicate with the full council and make full use of the functions and structure of the NDC to oblige the Police to face up to public opinion. That should be the ultimate goal of Members in the pan-democratic camp. 40. Mr CHAN Yuk-ming added that the request made by Mr LAW Ting-tak that the Chairman should call the Police right away was also one of the propositions. 41. The Chairman stated that he would listen to all propositions, and allow Members to have sufficient time to discuss before reaching a consensus. 42. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting said that the Committee should discuss its future direction. The same scenario may occur in the coming four years, be it at the Committee or the full council. That was to say, the Police may refuse to attend meetings or leave halfway. He disagreed with Mr LAW Ting-tak’s view that submitting the Committee’s proposals to the Full Council for discussion was a gesture of backing down. The Committee was set up under the resolution of the full council. The power of the Committee came from the full council, which had a standing higher than that of the Committee. The representatives of the Police at the full council were chief superintendents who assumed the posts of the commander of Tai Po Police District and the commander of Border District. In contrast, the representatives of the Police at the Committee were superintendents. As far as political ethics was concerned, the most important issues should be referred to the government representatives of the highest ranking. If the

Action

20

Chairman of the Committee did not allow the Committee’s proposals to be submitted to the full council for discussion, the representatives of the Police at the full council would have nothing to do. The argument that the Committee should not refer its business to the full council was often put forth by Mr SO Sai-chi, who was the DC Chairman of the last DC. This logic was “extremely wrong”. He hoped that Mr LAW Ting-tak would not wrongly believe this “pseudo truth”. Based on this logic, no discussion on issues such as transportation, law and order, education, health affairs, environmental planning and local economy would be unnecessary at the full council because they were already covered under the terms of reference of individual committees. It would be unnecessary for the full council to convene any meetings. He hoped that Mr LAW Ting-tak, as the spokesperson of the largest segment of the NDC, would lead Members at full council meetings to hold the Police accountable for not attending the meetings of the Committee. Besides, he opined that the Commissioner of Police (“CP”) should be invited to attend the meetings. Since the CP was willing to attend the meeting of the Central and Western District Council, he should also attend the meetings of the NDC. Hence, we could have a glimpse of the majestic appearance of the CP and he could also exchange views with Members. He opined that protesting at the police station and asking the Police to attend full council meetings were not mutually exclusive. Questioning the representatives of the Police at full council meetings would not hurt the dignity of the NDC Chairman......(Hon LAM Cheuk-ting’s speech was interrupted by Mr LAW Ting-tak.) 43. Mr LAW Ting-tak responded that he was referring to the dignity of the Chairman of the Committee, and what he was doing was a gesture of support towards the Democratic Party. 44. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting said that there were rules of meeting and Mr LAW Ting-tak should speak after he had finished his speech. He requested Mr LAW Ting-tak, who was the NDC Chairman, to allow all proposals relating to the HKPF be discussed at the full council meeting, and said that he would also follow up on relevant security matters in the LegCo. Earlier on, he had followed up on matters on police manpower at the Panel on Public Service under the LegCo and would pursue the problem of police brutality as well. Nonetheless, he said that all Committees of the LegCo were chaired by members of the pro-establishment camp who were controlling the agenda and schedule of the meetings. On the contrary, the NDO was dominated by the anti-Government camp. He hoped that Chairmen of the Full Council and all committees would not self-impose

Action

21

rules to limit the room for Members to discuss politics. This logic was “extremely wrong”. He also stressed that meetings of the full council should discuss issues considered of utmost importance by all Members, whether or not they fell within the scope of individual Committee. 45. The Chairman reminded Members once again not to interrupt other Members’ speeches. He would allow Members to have sufficient time for discussion. 46. Mr CHOW Kam-ho said that as far as he understood, Mr LAW Ting-tak did not oppose submitting the Committee’s proposals to the full council for discussion, he was only concerned about the safeguarding of the dignity of the NDC. He believed that the Police should respect the councils of all levels and respond to their questions. The absence of the representatives of the HKPF from the NDC meetings was a manifestation of dereliction of duty and disregard for public opinion. He went on to say that submitting the Committee’s proposals to the full council meetings for discussion was not a problem, but in case the representatives of the HKPF would not even attend the full council meetings, he enquired whether it would imply that Members could allow the scenario to loop. Members should safeguard the dignity of the NDC and should not allow the Police be absent from the meetings. Otherwise, it would not make sense to continue to hold meetings. He opined that Members had different focuses that resulted in some misunderstandings. 47. The Chairman said that the discussion on the provisional motion had lasted for over an hour, and 14 members had spoken for a total of 19 times so far......(Mr LAW Ting-tak wanted to make a response at this juncture.) 48. The Chairman said that Mr LAW Ting-tak would be given time to speak later. He understood Members’ frustration at the fact that the HKPF was not sending representatives to attend the meeting. He had given ample time for Members to discuss feasible options, but after more than an hour’s discussion, he could deduce only three propositions which he was not going to repeat here. He reminded Members not to interrupt other Members’ speeches again. He continued that the power of the Committee came from the full council. Members should embrace an open-minded attitude and allow the DC to perform its best. He hoped that Members could make specific propositions.

Action

22

49. Mr LAW Ting-tak said that the Committee’s proposals could be submitted to the full council meetings for discussion, but this was not the point because this would not change the fact that the HKPF was not sending representatives to the meetings of the Committee. He expressed his support for the Chairman and hoped that members of the Democratic Party could recognise this fact. He opined that the issue pending solution now was the HKPF not sending representatives to the meetings of the Committee......(Mr LAW Ting-tak’s speech was interrupted by the Chairman.) 50. The Chairman hoped that Members would conduct the discussion in a friendly manner. 51. Mr LAW Ting-tak said that if the problem of the HKPF not sending representatives to the meetings of the Committee was not resolved, it was pointless for the Committee to conduct meetings. He believed that safeguarding the dignity of each and every chairman of the Committee was obligatory and he would fully support any actions taken by the Chairman. 52. The Chairman stated that he had repeatedly emphasised that Members could provide propositions, but until now, he could only make three deductions. He asked the Secretariat to explain the procedures in connection with the amended motion proposed by Mr Franco CHEUNG. 53. Ms Francoise CHU said that amendments to a motion had to be submitted in writing. According to the NDC Standing Orders, any Member could propose amendments to a motion. The simple way was to make amendment to the original motion, and let the Secretariat distribute the amended motion to Members. 54. Mr YUEN Ho-lun said it was innocuous to submit the Committee’s proposals to the full council for discussion. Yet, as the Chairman had said, the power of the Committee came from the full council, so the Committee also had the authority to demand the HKPF to send representatives to the Committee. It did not sound logic to him that the HKPF could send representatives to attend full council meetings only but not meetings of the Committee. He further suggested that Members should go to the police stations to protest. The fact that the Police was absent from the meetings of the Committee had made the NDC fail to perform its functions. He worried that other government departments might also think that there was

Action

23

no need for them to send representatives to attend NDC meetings. He criticised that the practice of the Police was unacceptable, or else the NDC would not be able to play its role. He asked what should be done if HKPF representatives would not even show up at full council meetings. 55. The Chairman said he understood the necessity for the Committee to hold the HKPF accountable for not sending representatives to the meetings of the Committee. He had already provided Members with sufficient time to discuss the matter and hoped that the Committee could reach a consensus on the propositions. 56. Mr Franco CHEUNG said that the debate on political ethics was meaningless. He gave an example. A class teacher requested to meet the parents of a student who engaged in fighting, but the parents embarrassed the class teacher by expressing that they were only willing to meet the principal. He held that the HKPF was wrong in not sending representatives to attend the meetings of the Committee, and he agreed that the Committee could win back its dignity at the full council. Regarding the amended motion, he proposed to change the wording to “Expressing Contempt for the Police’s Timidity and Evasion of Responsibilities”. After making the amendments, it would be handed over to the Secretariat for photocopying and distribution to Members. He also held that the use of vulgar language would depend on the recipient. The Police was not ordinary people, and it was unnecessary to show courtesy to those humiliating the Committee. 57. Mr CHIANG Man-ching held that by not sending representatives to attend the meetings of the Committee, the HKPF was not just against the Chairman, but also humiliated all Members. He understood that Mr LAW Ting-tak’s intention was not to stop the Committee from submitting proposals to the full council for discussion. Citing the example that funding approval by the Committee had to be endorsed by the full council, he said, logically speaking, it was not hardly acceptable that proposals of the Committee be discussed at the Full Council. He suggested that Members should request the Police to apologise to the Chairman or the Committee by jointly put forward a proposal to the full council. He hoped that Members could stand in unity to solve problems. 58. The Chairman said that the absence of the representatives of the HKPF from the meeting was not only a humiliation to him, but also a

Action

24

humiliation to all Members and even elected members of all DCs. He hoped that Members would discuss how to hold the Police accountable and make suggestions in a friendly manner, so as to reach a consensus. 59. Mr CHAN Yuk-ming said that all Members felt frustrated with the practice of the Police. He clarified that his proposition to submit the proposals to the full council meetings for discussion did not mean that he would not hold the Police accountable for not sending representatives to the Committee. He said that the two were not mutually exclusive. He said that he had asked Mr LAW Ting-tak in private in the chat group of NDC Members in the pan-democracy camp that if he agreed to submit the Committee’s proposals to the full council meetings for discussion. Mr LAW Ting-tak twice expressed opposition, which resulted in today’s discussion. 60. Mr CHOW Kam-ho opined that the Government owed them an explanation as to why government departments were allowed to answer Members’ questions in writing. He requested the Chief Executive, the Secretary for Security and the Secretary for the Civil Service to attend meetings of the Committee to explain why the HKPF was allowed to refuse to attend the meetings of the Committee, and hoped to propose a provisional motion on the matter. 61. Mr CHAN Wai-tat said that in any case, the ultimate goal was to hope that the Police would take a pragmatic attitude and respond to the law and order problems in North District. Undue arguments were unnecessary. He said that in the past, many heads of departments would visit the NDC to meet Members, but the CP had not paid any visits to the last NDC during the past four years. He suggested inviting the CP to attend the next full council meeting and exchange ideas with Members on how to deal with community issues. Regarding the fact that the HKPF did not send any representatives to attend the meetings of the Committee, he proposed to check with the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau or the Security Bureau to confirm whether government departments could refuse to attend DC meetings and their related constitutional responsibilities. Neither did the HKPF nor the Immd send any representatives to attend the meeting, making it impossible for the Committee to discuss the problem of parallel trading in the district. He wondered if government departments could selectively attend DC meetings after the DCs had undergone an “upheaval”.

Action

25

62. The Chairman said that Members had adequately discussed the provisional motion. He summed up Members’ propositions. The first proposition was to submit the Committee’s proposals to the full council meetings for discussion. The second proposition, which was raised by Mr CHAN Wai-tat, was to enquire relevant government departments whether government departments could refuse to send representatives to attend DC meetings. The third proposition, which was raised by Mr LAW Ting-tak, was to call the Police to express their opposition. He said that as there were still other proposals to be discussed at the meeting, he would discuss with Mr LAW Ting-tak about ways to deal with the propositions after the meeting. He said that he had just received Mr Franco CHEUNG’s amended motion and he proposed to put the amended motion to vote. 63. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting asked Mr Franco CHEUNG to clarify the meaning of the last two sentences of his amended motion. While the original motion was “the Police refuses to attend meetings of this Committee, ignores the law and order issues in the district, and rejects supervision by the Council”, Mr Franco CHEUNG added “and evades its due responsibilities, which necessitates our expression of contempt for its timidity”. He wanted to understand the meaning. 64. Mr Franco CHEUNG said that the sentences were added to humiliate the Police and mock its timidity for not attending the meetings of the Committee. There may be mistakes due to time constraints. Members were welcome to propose alternatives. 65. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting held that the dignity of the Committee would not be trampled by the wrongdoings of the Police. As the saying went, “a man must first despise himself, and then others will despise him”. Members should not resort to the same means in fighting back against the Police. He hoped that Mr Franco CHEUNG would consider using other more appropriate wording, such as “strongly condemn” and “severely criticise”. 66. Mr Franco CHEUNG said that the word “contempt” could be replaced with “rebuke”. 67. The Chairman asked Members if there were other provisional motions to be submitted. If yes, please submit them now for processing

Action

26

and distribution by the Secretariat. He asked Mr Franco CHEUNG to introduce the amended motion first. 68. Mr Franco CHEUNG introduced the amended motion which was contained at Annex III. 69. The Chairman stated that according to Order 31(1) of the NDC Standing Orders, a motion would be passed if it was supported by an absolute majority of votes (i.e. more than half of the valid votes cast excluding abstentions. Besides, according to Order 20 of the NDC Standing Orders, voting on an amended motion should be conducted first. 70. With regard to the first provisional motion, the Committee would first put the amended motion to vote. The voting result was: 14 affirmative votes (Ms LAM Tsz-king, Hon LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms LAM Shuk-ching, Mr CHOW Kam-ho, Mr YUEN Ho-lun, Mr CHAN Yuk-ming, Mr Vincent CHAN, Mr CHAN Wai-tat, Mr KWOK Long-fung, Mr Franco CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Chun-wai, Ms WONG Hoi-ying, Mr CHIANG Man-ching and Mr LAW Ting-tak), 0 negative vote and 0 abstention vote. The amended motion was passed. Second Provisional Motion: This Council Requires the Commissioner of Police to Attend North District Council meetings to Answer the Queries of Members and Listen to Their Opinions on Issues of Community Policing and Law and Order. 71. The Chairman said that the second provisional motion was proposed by Hon LAM Cheuk-ting and seconded by Ms LAM Tsz-king, Mr CHAN Yuk-ming and Ms WONG Hoi-ying. 72. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting introduced the second provisional motion which was contained at Annex IV. 73. The Chairman said that Members had fully expressed their views on the provisional motion and it was time to vote. 74. With regard to the second provisional motion, the voting result was: 14 affirmative votes (Ms LAM Tsz-king, Hon LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms LAM Shuk-ching, Mr CHOW Kam-ho, Mr YUEN Ho-lun, Mr CHAN Yuk-ming,

Action

27

Mr Vincent CHAN, Mr CHAN Wai-tat, Mr KWOK Long-fung, Mr Franco CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Chun-wai, Ms WONG Hoi-ying, Mr CHIANG Man-ching and Mr LAW Ting-tak), 0 negative vote and 0 abstention vote. The second provisional motion was passed. Third Provisional Motion: Given that the Police Broke with the Administrative Convention, Refused to be Monitored by Representatives of Public Opinion, and Even Stated Clearly that It Would Not Attend the Meetings of the Committee, I Request to Summon Mr LEE Ka-chiu, John, the Secretary for Security, Mr TANG Ping-keung, the Commissioner of Police, and Mrs Carrie LAM, the Chief Executive, to the Committee on Security of the NDC to Explain the Matter. 75. The Chairman stated that the third provisional motion was proposed by Mr CHOW Kam-ho and seconded by Mr Vincent CHAN and Mr Franco CHEUNG. 76. Mr CHOW Kam-ho introduced the third provisional motion which was contained at Annex V. 77. The Chairman stated that if Members had no other comments, the meeting would now proceed to vote on the third provisional motion. 78. With regard to the third provisional motion, the voting result was: 14 affirmative votes (Ms LAM Tsz-king, Hon LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms LAM Shuk-ching, Mr CHOW Kam-ho, Mr YUEN Ho-lun, Mr CHAN Yuk-ming, Mr Vincent CHAN, Mr CHAN Wai-tat, Mr KWOK Long-fung, Mr Franco CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Chun-wai, Ms WONG Hoi-ying, Mr CHIANG Man-ching and Mr LAW Ting-tak), 0 negative vote and 0 abstention vote. The third provisional motion was passed. The Fourth Provisional Motion: As the Police Refuses to Attend Meetings of the Committee on Security, It Is Requested that Matters Proposed on This Meeting Be Submitted to the Next Full Council Meeting for Detailed Discussion, And Proposals Involving the Police Be Referred to the Full Council, With a View to Following Up on the Matter and Exerting Pressure. 79. The Chairman stated that the Fourth Provisional motion was proposed by Ms WONG Hoi-ying and seconded by Hon LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms LAM Tsz-king and Mr CHAN Yuk-ming.

Action

28

80. Ms WONG Hoi-ying introduced the fourth provisional motion which was contained at Annex VI. 81. Mr Vincent CHAN expressed support for the motion, but considered that the proposals could not be submitted to the full council meeting for discussion each time when the Police did not attend the meetings of the Committee. This approach was not sustainable in the long run. 82. Mr LAW Ting-tak noted that the Chinese character “會 (meeting)” in the last sentence of the provisional motion was a “maimed Chinese character” and hoped that correction could be made. 83. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting agreed to use traditional Chinese for the Chinese character “會 (meeting)” . 84. The Chairman reiterated that, given that the HKPF had not sent representatives to attend the meetings of the Committee, he hoped Members would propose feasible ways to hold the Police accountable. He continued that they would now proceed to vote on the fourth provisional motion. 85. With regard to the fourth provisional motion, the voting result was: 14 affirmative votes (Ms LAM Tsz-king, Hon LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms LAM Shuk-ching, Mr CHOW Kam-ho, Mr YUEN Ho-lun, Mr CHAN Yuk-ming, Mr Vincent CHAN, Mr CHAN Wai-tat, Mr KWOK Long-fung, Mr Franco CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Chun-wai, Ms WONG Hoi-ying, Mr CHIANG Man-ching and Mr LAW Ting-tak), 0 negative vote and 0 abstention vote. The fourth provisional motion was passed. Item 7 - Any Other Business

86. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting said that the agenda items of the meeting were all related to the HKPF and had little to do with the C&ED and the FEHD. Subject to the consent of Members, representatives of the C&ED and the FEHD could leave the meeting first. 87. Mr YUEN Ho-lun agreed with Hon LAM Cheuk-ting’s proposal, but he had originally planned to express his views under the agenda item of

Action

29

“Any Other Business”. He asked if the Chairman could accord priority to him. 88. The Chairman stated that if Members were going to raise issues under the agenda item “Any Other Business”, various departmental representatives would have to stay. He invited Mr YUEN Ho-lun to bring up the questions to the department representatives first. 89. Mr YUEN Ho-lun said that many residents relayed to him about the shortage of masks. Some pharmacies in Sheung Shui sold suspected fake masks with flimsy materials. The actual products were different from the picture shown on the box. In his impression, the C&ED had carried out law enforcement operations against counterfeit masks. He wanted to know the current law enforcement situation. 90. Mr CHAN Kam-hung responded that the relevant work was taken up by the Trade Controls Branch of the C&ED. Recently, there had been many news coverages on inspection of pharmacies by the Trade Controls Branch. The personnel in charge had already taken samples of the masks for testing. As far as he understood, some samples had a total bacterial count exceeding the limit and the public was advised not to use them. The C&ED was following up on the matter. He continued that the control points at Lok Ma Chau and Lo Wu were currently closed, and the masks on the market were imported by freight or air. If a complaint was received from the public, customs officers would immediately follow up and take samples for testing to ensure that the masks met the hygiene standards. 91. Mr CHOW Kam-ho said that he had received many public complaints recently, saying that the masks sold in pharmacies in the district came with false description on the packaging. He would like to know the specific number of complaints against the sale of masks and cases of violation of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance. 92. Mr CHAN Kam-hung responded that the work was taken up by his colleagues from other sections of the C&ED. He would follow up after the meeting and report to the Committee in writing. (Post-meeting note: The relevant law enforcement work was taken up by the Trade Descriptions Investigation Bureau under the Trade Controls Branch of the C&ED. In response to the inquiry of Mr CHOW Kam-ho, the

C&ED

Action

30

C&ED had provided a written response to the Secretariat on 29 April. The relevant response was contained at Annex VII.) 93. Ms LAM Shuk-ching said she noticed that the packaging descriptions of some masks on the market were written in foreign languages. There were no instructions in Chinese or English. She wanted to know whether the sale of such masks had violated the Trade Descriptions Ordinance. Besides, she learned from online photos that some people collected discarded masks and repackaging them for sale. As far as she knew, the C&ED mainly inspected masks sold in pharmacies. Yet, some informal sales outlets (such as hawker stalls in Sham Shui Po) also had masks for sale. In her opinion, it was also necessary to inspect these sales outlets. Besides, she wanted to know whether the C&ED would monitor the price of masks. She said that the epidemic situation in western countries was getting serious, which affected the supply of masks. While the Government said that free market economy prevailed in Hong Kong, the public felt that they were “at the mercy of the vendors”. A resident had once told her that even masks which were sold at $400 were not up to standards. She hoped that the C&ED would make a response to such matter. 94. Mr CHAN Kam-hung responded that if the C&ED received complaints from the public, it would conduct investigation proactively. Samples of the masks would be taken for testing to confirm whether they met the standards and the source of the masks would also be traced. As the price regulation was part of the Government’s overall policy, the C&ED did not have relevant controls, but he would relay the opinions of Ms LAM Shuk-ching to the relevant departments. 95. The Chairman hoped that the C&ED could strengthen the inspection of pharmacies in the district and prevent them from selling substandard masks. 96. Ms LAM Shuk-ching enquired if selling masks without Chinese or English descriptions on the packaging would violate the Trade Descriptions Ordinance. 97. Mr CHAN Kam-hung responded that the Trade Descriptions Ordinance regulated the sources of imported masks. The C&ED would trace whether the information provided by the mask suppliers had been officially declared. Generally speaking, the masks sold in pharmacies were

Action

31

from proper sources. The C&ED also urged the public to buy masks at reputable shops. 98. The Chairman said that if there were no other questions for the representatives of the C&ED to make responses, he would invite them to leave the meeting first. (Mr CHAN Kam-hung and Mr CHAN Kin-chiu left the meeting at this juncture.) 99. The Chairman continued that if Members had issues that need the FEHD representative to give responses, they could bring them up now. 100. Mr CHAN Wai-tat said that as far as he knew, the FEHD had carried out joint operations with the Lands Department and the HKPF in the past to tackle the problem of illegal parking of bicycles. He would like to know whether such joint operations were conducted in the past six months. 101. Ms Maggie KWONG said that the NDO had been removing bicycles with the FEHD, the Transport Department and other departments in the past six months. Although the operation hours were occasionally adjusted in response to social activities, the work was still ongoing. 102. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting said that the problem of gambling outside Shek Wu Hui Market was serious. The market was under the purview of the FEHD. He wanted to know if the FEHD had invited the Police to assist in law enforcement to combat the problem of gambling. 103. Mr LEUNG Chi-fai said that in face of the problem of gambling outside Shek Wu Hui Market, the FEHD was preparing a crackdown operation with the HKPF recently, but he could not disclose the details now. 104. Ms LAM Shuk-ching said that the problem of leaving sundry items (including bicycles, trolleys, suitcases, etc.) along roadsides was serious in her constituency. Amongst them, the situation along Fai Ming Road was particularly serious. Some building materials were even placed on the road. However, she heard that bicycles could not be removed as long as they did not touch the ground. It was also said that removal of suitcases was not allowed as they were personal items. She asked Mr LEUNG Chi-fai whether these claims were valid and how the department would deal

Action

32

with the relevant issues. She worried that the continual accumulation of sundry items along roadsides would undermine public health. 105. The Chairman said that the issue mentioned by Ms LAM Shuk-ching was beyond the scope of the Committee. He asked Mr LEUNG Chi-fai to note it down first and communicate with Ms LAM Shuk-ching after the meeting. 106. Mr CHOW Kam-ho said that some shops in Luen Wo Hui would dump garbage such as polyfoam boxes on the road. He would like to know whether the FEHD had taken related prosecution actions. 107. Mr LEUNG Chi-fai responded that according to the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness and Obstruction) Ordinance, if an item was hindering FEHD staff from cleaning the street, the owner would be asked to remove the object within four hours, otherwise the owner would be prosecuted. If the owner could not be located, the item would be confiscated. As for Luen Wo Hui...... (Mr LEUNG Chi-fai’s speech was interrupted by the Chairman.) 108. The Chairman said that since the relevant issues did not fall within the scope of the Committee, it was better for Mr LEUNG Chi-fai to respond directly to the Member concerned after the meeting. He continued that if there were no other questions for the FEHD representative, Mr LEUNG Chi-fai could leave first. (Mr LEUNG Chi-fai left the meeting at this juncture.) Item 2 - Proposal: Expressing Concerns about the Deployment of

Police Manpower for North District (Paper No. 1/2020) 109. Mr CHAN Yuk-ming said that since Members had passed the fourth provisional motion, which proposed submitting the Committee’s proposals to the full council meetings for discussion, he asked Members to express their views on the necessity to continue discussion of the proposal. It was hoped that consensus could be reached.

110. Regarding the question raised by Mr CHAN Yuk-ming, the Chairman held that it was really up to the proposer. If the proposer wished

Action

33

to discuss the proposal at the Committee first and then submit it to the full council for follow-up, he would welcome the idea.

111. Mr Law Ting-tak agreed with the Chairman’s proposal.

112. The Chairman invited the proposer, Mr Franco CHEUNG, to present Paper No. 1/2020.

113. Mr Franco CHEUNG present the Paper. He continued by saying that he agreed to submit the proposal to the full council for discussion and continue exerting pressure on the Police. He pointed out that the HKPF’s failure to send representatives to attend the meetings of the Committee had duly reflected the problem of deployment of police manpower. Item 3 - Proposal: Request for Explanation from the Police about the

Existing Deployment of Manpower for North District (Paper No. 2/2020)

114. Mr Law Ting-tak presented Paper No. 2/2020. He said that he was not interested in discussing the proposal without the presence of departmental representatives.

115. The Chairman suggested merging the above two proposals before submitting to the full council for discussion and follow-up. Item 4 - Proposal: Request for Clarification from the Police on the

Demarcation of District/Division Boundaries in Rural Areas of North District

(Paper No. 3/2020)

116. Mr Law Ting-tak presented the Paper.

117. The Chairman asked Mr Law Ting-tak whether it was necessary to submit the proposal to the full council for discussion.

118. Mr Law Ting-tak expressed the need to submit the proposal to the full council for discussion.

Action

34

Item 5 - Proposal: Request for Review and Improvement of the

Quality of the 999 Hotline Service (Paper No. 4/2020)

119. Mr Law Ting-tak presented the Paper.

120. The Chairman said that the practice of the HKPF was outrageous. Whether the informants were district councillors or members of the public, the Police had the responsibility to deal with the requests for help. The Committee should write to the HKPF again to request a response to the incident within two weeks.

(Post-meeting note: The Chairman of the Committee had written to the CP on 26 March 2020.) Item 6 - Proposal: Request for Devising Training Courses on Emotion

Management for Frontline Police Officers without Delay (Paper No. 5/2020) 121. Mr Law Ting-tak presented the Paper. He continued to say that the proposal had to be submitted to the full council for discussion. 122. In conclusion, the Chairman said that the above five proposals would be referred to the full council for discussion and follow-up. Item 8 - Date of Next Meeting 123. The Chairman announced that the next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 19 May 2020 (Tuesday) in the NDC Conference Room. 124. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting suggested that if the HKPF made unsatisfactory responses and its attitude remained the same, consideration should be given to convening the next meeting earlier to hold the Police accountable for its evasion of responsibilities and acts of timidity. 125. Mr Franco CHEUNG said that if the HKPF insisted on not sending representatives to attend the meetings of the Committee, Members might also stop attending the meetings.

Secretariat

Action

35

126. The Chairman said that if the responses from the HKPF were unsatisfactory, he would consider other ways to deal with the matter. 127. The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

North District Council Secretariat May 2020