1

Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the Economy, Development and Planning Committee (EDPC)

Southern District Council (2020-2023) (SDC) Date: 21 May 2020 Time: 2:30 p.m. Venue: SDC Conference Room Present: Mr LO Kin-hei (Chairman of SDC) Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN (Vice-Chairman of SDC and Chairman of EDPC) Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael (Vice-Chairman of EDPC) Mr CHAN Hin-chung Mr CHAN Ping-yeung Ms CHAN Yan-yi Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun Ms LI Shee-lin Mr POON Ping-hong Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus Mr YIM Chun-ho Mr YU Chun-hei, James Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany Secretary: Mr LEE Lok-him, Milton Executive Officer (District Council) 2,

Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department In Attendance: Mr CHENG Kong-chung, Francis, JP District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Miss CHENG Wai-sum, Sum Assistant District Officer (Southern),

Home Affairs Department

2

Ms YIP Wai-see, Priscilla Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

Mr CHEUNG Wai-chun, William Senior Executive Officer (District Management) (Acting), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

Ms CHAN Grace Senior Liaison Officer (1), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

Mr WONG Wai-yin, Vincent Senior Town Planner/HK 1, Planning Department Ms KWAN Yuen-ling Elaine Senior Estate Surveyor/South, Lands Department

Mr. LING Chi-wai, Jimmy Engineer/13 (South), Civil Engineering and Development Department

Ms LO Kit-sheung Housing Manager/HKI7, Housing Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2): Ms. TANG Po-kwan, Anny Senior Manager (Tourism) 21, Tourism Commission Mr. LEUNG Siu-chee Marine Manager/Licensing & Port Formalities (3),

Marine Department Mr. TAM Wai-man Senior Assistant Shipping Master/South,

Marine Department Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 3): Ms. TANG Po-kwan, Anny Senior Manager (Tourism) 21, Tourism Commission Mr. Howard CHUK General Curator, Ocean Park Corporation Ms. Una LAU Public Affairs Director, Ocean Park Corporation Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 4): Mr. KAU Kin-hong, Louis District Planning Officer/HK, Planning Department Mr. WONG Wai-yin, Vincent Senior Town Planner/HK 1, Planning Department

3

Opening Remarks: The Chairman welcomed members and standing government representatives to the meeting, and said the following: (i) in view of the latest situation of the Coronavirus Disease 2019, this

meeting is not open to the public in order to reduce the risk of crowd gathering. EDPC members and media are advised to bring their own masks and water. Before entering the venue, all persons are subject to checking of body temperature with the assistance of the staff of Southern District Office, and are required to complete a health declaration form and declare whether he/she is under the 14-day compulsory quarantine; and

(ii) Each member would be allotted a maximum of two 3-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item. It is estimated that the meeting could finish at around 6:10 p.m. Moreover, members should inform staff of the Secretariat if they had to leave the meeting early.

Items for Discussion Agenda Item 1: Construction of Vehicular Access Connecting Pok Fu Lam

Road and Staff Quarters in Pok Fu Lam by the Dairy Farm Company Limited (EDPC Paper No. 4/2020) (Item raised by Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo)

(Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin and Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus joined the meeting at 2:33 p.m. and 2:36 p.m. respectively.) 2. The Chairman invited Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo to brief members on the agenda item. 3. Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo briefly introduced his agenda item as follows:

(i) On 5 March 2020, the Court of First Instance of the High Court had ruled

against the Lands Department (LandsD) for violating the land grant conditions and ordered the LandsD to approve the application submitted by Dairy Farm Company Limited (Dairy Farm) for constructing a vehicular access connecting its staff quarters on Pok Fu Lam Road to

4

allow access of maintenance or construction vehicles to the staff quarters in future. Currently, the staff quarters were being abandoned and could not be reached by vehicles;

(ii) If the Government did not appeal against the court decision, there were chances that the areas adjacent to the site might be used for constructing carriageway, flyover or a road in any other form in future, which might constitute a need for demolition of certain squatters from Pok Fu Lam Village and removal of the vegetable garden ploughed by the villagers over the years. Some of the villagers might be compelled to leave their home if it ended up being used for low density residential development in future. All the above scenarios served to illustrate the far-reaching implications of the court decision, which were likely to provoke a series of social conflicts. He thus hoped that the relevant departments would address the issue properly;

(iii) At present, there were about 400 households in Pok Fu Lam Village with a population of around 3 000 people. Most of the villagers were living in two-storey squatters with three generations in each of the families. Life in the village was comparable to that of a self-sufficient farmer. With a strong sense of belonging towards Pok Fu Lam Village, the villagers had been organising two guided cultural tours per month and events like Pok Fu Lam Fire Dragon Dance to attract the attention of other people over Pok Fu Lam Village while passing on their culture;

(iv) Many historians and archaeologists had regarded Pok Fu Lam Village as the only traditional village on Hong Kong Island. According to a demographic statistics of 1872, there were already over 300 people dwelling in Pok Fu Lam Village. Later, Dairy Farm set up a pasture in Pok Fu Lam in 1886 to begin its business. In the 19th century, Dairy Farm had an increasing demand for labour. While Pok Fu Lam Village had provided them with an abundance of human resources, the village itself had been growing in magnitude and developed into the earliest livestock-oriented farming community in Hong Kong at that time;

(v) According to the archive of 1966 of the then Legislative Council, the site concerned was originally a piece of private land. As a lot of land registration information was lost during the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong, the Government conducted a fresh land survey and registration with the residents again in the same year. Owing to the complexity of the registration procedure at that time, some of the villagers might not be able

5

to make registration afresh for the site concerned which ended up as a piece of Government land;

(vi) The villagers had grave concern about the future of Pok Fu Lam Village in respect of its planning or even any removal plan. Currently, some of the squatters in Pok Fu Lam Village were dilapidated and rotten by termites, but the villagers still hesitated whether or not they should spend money for carrying out renovation works. If Pok Fu Lam Village was subject to a Government’s plan of removal in future, it would affect the villagers’ willingness to carry out renovation. Therefore, some villagers were hoping to be informed whether or not the Government would conduct a removal exercise, and of the compensation proposal under its removal plan; and

(vii) He asked whether the Government would lodge an appeal against the Court’s ruling.

4. The Chairman invited representatives of the relevant departments to respond. 5. Mr WONG Wai-yin, Vincent said he had nothing to add. 6. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine said that LandsD had provided its reply in the relevant paper. Since LandsD had not received a proposal from Dairy Farm concerning the construction of a vehicular access, the department had nothing to add at this stage. 7. Mr LING Chi-wai, Jimmy said he had nothing to add. 8. The Chairman invited members to raise comments and enquiries. 9. Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo said he understood that without any information from the Dairy Farm, it was difficult for LandsD to provide a solid reply. Yet, he wished to ask again whether the Government would file an appeal against the Court’s ruling. 10. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine said that regarding the question about whether the Government would appeal against the court decision, members could access to the relevant information through official channels. As the case had entered into legal proceedings, LandsD had nothing to add for the time being.

6

11. Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo said that given the appeal period which only lasted for 21 days, it was believed that the Government ought to have made the decision as to whether an appeal should be filed or not. If LandsD could not give a reply for the time being, he would let the villagers know the situation truthfully. 12. Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) There was a saying that “Before Hong Kong was formed, there existed a

Pok Fu Lam Village already”. The existence of Pok Fu Lam Village could be dated back to as early as 1819 with record in literature which served to prove its long-standing history; and

(ii) While she understood that different departments had to act within their own purview, given that the planning issue of Pok Fu Lam Village would lead to widespread concerns over the collective memory of various stakeholders and historical value, etc., she hoped that the relevant departments could take into account the above factors in making their response. Furthermore, she would like to know the stances of various departments on the planning of Pok Fu Lam Village.

13. The Chairman said that according to the Draft Pok Fu Lam Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H10/18 (the Pok Fu Lam OZP), the proposed vehicular access would pass through Pok Fu Lam Village. If the Government chose to demolish Pok Fu Lam Village, it should offer a reasonable compensation package for the villagers; or else, if a decision was made to retain Pok Fu Lam Village, repair works should be carried out to fix the drainage system in the village properly so as to improve the quality of life of the villagers. He opined that the Government should take a clear stance towards the development direction of Pok Fu Lam Village. 14. The Chairman invited representatives of the relevant departments to respond. 15. Mr WONG Wai-yin, Vincent responded that Pok Fu Lam Village was zoned for “village type development” on the Pok Fu Lam OZP, with a planning intention of retaining the land for its existing village use. At the present stage, the Government had no plan to demolish Pok Fu Lam Village or review its long-term development.

7

16. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine responded that as the case had entered into legal proceedings, LandsD was not in a position to disclose the next step to be taken by the Government for the case. Since LandsD had not received any further proposal from the Dairy Farm for the construction of a vehicular access for the time being, no action could be taken to follow up the future planning of the road at the moment. 17. The Chairman asked LandsD about the planning and development intention of the department concerning Pok Fu Lam Village. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine responded that LandsD would implement the land use according to the long-term planning intention as stipulated under the Pok Fu Lam OZP. 18. The Chairman continued to ask if it was the case LandsD had not drawn up any long-term plan for the planning of Pok Fu Lam Village and would simply maintain its status quo. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine responded that land-use planning was not under the purview of LandsD, the existing development of Pok Fu Lam Village should be “village type development” according to the land use stated in the Pok Fu Lam OZP, and LandsD was not aware of any change to the prescribed land use at this stage. 19. The Chairman said that the reply of LandsD had only addressed the part of Pok Fu Lam Village being zoned for “village type development” but the adjacent sites marked as “Government, Institution or Community” (“G/IC”) zone was in fact part of the Pok Fu Lam Village as well. He raised an enquiry to the relevant departments about their long-term planning intention for the whole Pok Fu Lam Village. 20. Mr WONG Wai-yin, Vincent responded that according to the Pok Fu Lam OZP, there was zoning of “G/IC” sites in the vicinity of Pok Fu Lam Village. If the proposal for construction of a vehicular access was to be implemented, the Planning Department (PlanD) would examine the development proposal with reference to the Pok Fu Lam OZP. 21. The Chairman invited members to raise comments and enquiries. 22. Mr YIM Chun-ho said that Dairy Farm was supposed to have submitted a previous application to LandsD for the construction of the vehicular access. He would like to seek information from LandsD for the proposed vehicular access under

8

that particular application in terms of the extent of land and the locations of its coverage involving the Pok Fu Lam Village; and upon receipt of the said application, what fundamental assessment had been made by the LandsD and whether such information could be provided. 23. The Chairman requested LandsD to provide the proposed alignment of the vehicular access submitted under the application in question. 24. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine responded that while Dairy Farm had made a request for constructing a vehicular access at that time, LandsD had not discussed with Dairy Farm on the details such as any concrete proposal and proposed alignment. If such information was available, LandsD would provide it later if appropriate. 25. The Chairman enquired about the proposed alignment of the vehicular access as to whether it was more or less the same route as marked on the Pok Fu Lam OZP. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine responded that according to the understanding of LandsD, Dairy Farm had never made a concrete proposal for the proposed alignment. If such information was available, LandsD would provide it later if appropriate. The Chairman urged LandsD to provide the meeting with the required supplementary information soon. (Post-meeting note: Regarding the proposed alignment, LandsD replied that the

Government had recently lodged an appeal against the Court’s ruling. Since the case had entered into legal proceedings, LandsD was not in a position to disclose relevant information.)

26. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) LandsD had all along been giving the reply concerning the piece of land in

the court case, instead of the entire area of Pok Fu Lam Village being referred to in the Chairman’s comments. If the Government had no intention to do any long-term development planning for Pok Fu Lam Village and its adjacent areas, short-term improvement measures should be put in place for Pok Fu Lam Village, such as carrying out works on infrastructure projects like drainage and road systems, which would be of relevance to the daily life of the villagers. However, whenever short-term improvement measures were in need, there was always a lack of coordination between different departments. He hoped that the

9

departments concerned could make improvement on this aspect and strengthen their coordination; and

(ii) He gave the example of Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village and Kau Wai Village which was still pending confirmation from the Government for its future planning and development. The villagers got stuck with the situation as in the case of Pok Fu Lam Village. He hoped that the departments concerned could clearly inform the Committee of their future planning and development.

27. The Chairman suggested that the planning and development matters about Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village and Kau Wai Village be included into the progress report of EDPC for follow-up purpose. 28. Mr CHAN Hin-chung said that Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo had already requested in his proposed agenda that the department should provide the final alignment plan submitted by the applicant. He queried why LandsD still said that the relevant information was not available. 29. In response, Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine reiterated that there had not been any concrete proposal on the proposed alignment. The Government had all along rejected Dairy Farm’s argument that the land grant conferred a vehicular right-of-way. Until the Government had accepted that Dairy Farm was entitled to a vehicular right-of-way and upon submission of a proposal by Dairy Farm, LandsD would then consult the relevant departments accordingly. At the present stage, she had nothing more to supplement. 30. Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus said that Dairy Farm was supposed to have provided an alignment plan with the initial application it previously made for the construction of a vehicular access, so he wondered why LandsD gave such a reply. In view of the fact that the above application was involving the planning for Pok Fu Lam Village as well as the villagers’ life, he hoped that LandsD could provide the proposed alignment plan submitted by Dairy Farm under its initial application in order to let the villagers have a preview of the possible impacts brought by the construction of the vehicular access.

10

31. In closing, the Chairman made the following conclusion: (i) The Committee would like to have a clear picture of the proposed

alignment plan submitted by the Dairy Farm with its initial application for the construction of a vehicular access and acquire information about the land involved. LandsD was requested to provide the additional information as required after the meeting;

(ii) With regard to the future development of Pok Fu Lam Village as well as the Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village and Kau Wai Village, the Government needed to work out an overall planning and development intention; and

(iii) Relevant departments were advised to make improvement to the drainage system of Pok Fu Lam Village and its adjacent areas with the provision of adequate infrastructure in order to ensure the safety of residents.

(Post-meeting note: Regarding paragraph 31(iii), the Secretariat had relayed the views to the Drainage Services Department on 7 July 2020.)

Agenda Item 2: Issues Relating to Employment Opportunities in the Southern District (EDPC Paper No. 5/2020) (Include agenda items on “District-led Job Creation Programme for Southern District” raised by Mr LO Kin-hei and “Creating Employment Opportunities by Developing Cultural and Creative Industries in the Southern District” raised by Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael)

32. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael had proposed to discuss “District-led Job Creation Programme for Southern District” and “Creating Employment Opportunities by Developing Cultural and Creative Industries in the Southern District” respectively, with details given at Annexes 1 and 2 to EDPC Paper No. 5/2020. As the two items were similar in nature, they were combined under one agenda item for discussion.

11

33. The Chairman welcomed the following departmental representatives to the meeting: Tourism Commission (TC)

(a) Ms Anny TANG, Senior Manager (Tourism) 21; Marine Department (MD)

(b) Mr LEUNG Siu-chee, Marine Manager/Licensing & Port Formalities (3); and (c) Mr TAM Wai-man, Senior Assistant Shipping Master/South.

34. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, he had consolidated the latest data of employment in the Southern District based on the information provided in the written response from the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD). The data were tabled for members’ reference. 35. The Chairman invited Mr LO Kin-hei to briefly introduce the agenda item. 36. Mr LO Kin-hei briefed members on the agenda item as follows: (i) District Councils (DCs) had been seen as organisations responsible for

holding activities and providing assistance in handling district livelihood issues such as illegal parking, district cleanliness, etc. With the establishment of this Committee under the new term of SDC, it was hoped that there would be changes in the public’s perception of the functions and roles of DCs. It was also hoped that the relevant departments would step up cooperation with SDC in job creation. The political circles, governments and parliaments of foreign countries attached great importance to job creation and employment promotion. But in Hong Kong job creation was mainly undertaken by the business sector. He was of the view that SDC and the relevant departments should play a certain role in this respect;

(ii) cooperation between DCs and the business sector would easily be seen as examples of collusion between the public and business sectors in the past. But as DCs were part of the local political structure, it was hoped that they could help create more job opportunities in the district and provide more room for the development of local business enterprises. This initiative

12

was not proposed for the sake of DC members’ personal interests, but was to create an economic opportunity and job opportunities for the entire community. Provided that there were clear delineation of the roles and procedures, DCs could play a leading role in job creation and promotion of community economic development; and

(iii) he thanked the relevant department for providing the data of employment in the Southern District and considered that the data could help SDC have a better understanding of the community and residents and make appropriate decisions for the residents. He also thanked the Committee Chairman for jointly drawing up the agenda item.

37. The Chairman invited Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael to briefly introduce the agenda item. 38. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael briefed members on the agenda item as follows: (i) the purpose of the agenda item was to discuss how to make proper use of

the unique geographical advantage of Stanley Main Street and the beach to promote long-term local economic development;

(ii) the main difference between the “Haeundae Sand Festival” in Busan, South Korea and activities like “Hong Kong Beach Festival” and “Kite Flying Carnival” organised by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) every year was that the former was not solely organised by the Government but was jointly organised by the business sector, community organisations, community stakeholders, etc. Although dragon boat activities sponsored by business enterprises had been held in Stanley, he considered that the one-off activities could not benefit Stanley residents in the long run; and

(iii) he enquired whether the relevant department had any idea about the current vacancy rate of business premises in Stanley. He doubted whether the relevant department was aware of and understood the current status of Stanley.

39. The Chairman said that according to the information provided by C&SD, the industries with the largest number of persons engaged in the Southern District included import/export, wholesale and retail trades (17 335), social and personal services (17 313), import/export trade and wholesale (11 723), education (6 388), arts,

13

entertainment and recreation (5 275), etc. He asked fellow members to note the current distribution of employment in the Southern District. The Chairman further said that the Committee had invited the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (CEDB) to attend the meeting. But CEDB failed to send a representative to the meeting. Tourism was only a part of the various industries in the Southern District. Apart from tourism, there would also be unemployment in other industries which were hit by the epidemic and economic downturn. The Chairman suggested issuing a letter to CEDB inviting the latter to send representatives to discuss the job opportunities in the Southern District at subsequent meetings. 40. The Chairman invited the TC representative to respond. 41. Ms Anny TANG said that as she was a representative of TC, she could not respond to enquiries on employment. She also said that Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) had been providing tourists with information about the related tourism attractions and promoting the attractions. TC was also willing to promote tourism in the Southern District so as to drive the economic development of the Southern District and the areas in vicinity. 42. The Chairman invited the representative of PlanD to respond. 43. Mr Vincent WONG said that the consolidated response from the Development Bureau (DEVB) and PlanD was given in the paper and he had nothing to add. 44. The Chairman invited the representative of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) to respond. 45. Mr Jimmy LING said that the response from CEDD was given in the paper and he had nothing to add. 46. Quoting from the agenda item raised by Mr LO Kin-hei, the Chairman pointed out that the proposal of expanding Aberdeen Harbour could increase the number of vessels which could use the typhoon shelter. This would increase the number of jobs available in ship building, cleaning and ship repair services, operating private and commercial vessels, fishing, diving, leisure and other tours, fish trading, fish restaurants, and others. He enquired how MD could support this proposal.

14

47. Mr TAM Wai-man said that MD was committed to identifying sufficient sheltered space within Hong Kong waters for local vessels to ensure the safety of vessels and their personnel during inclement weather especially typhoon. According to MD’s latest sheltered space assessment, the overall territory-wide supply of sheltered space was sufficient for use till 2030. MD was responsible for traffic safety, marine pollution and orderly berthing of vessels in the typhoon shelter. The proposal of expanding Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter did not fall within the purview of MD. MD would provide assistance within the scope under its purview. 48. The Chairman said that according to the response, MD would not take the initiative to implement the proposal of expanding Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter. The Chairman further said that the overall territory-wide supply of sheltered space was sufficient for use by all vessels in Hong Kong mainly because there was a typhoon shelter providing a large number of sheltered spaces in Hei Ling Chau. But since Hei Ling Chau was far away from Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter, it could not help provide job opportunities in the Southern District. He also said that the proposal of expanding Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter was not mainly based on consideration of marine safety, but was to create more marine-related job opportunities. He hoped that MD would not oppose the proposal. Besides, he enquired why 400 vessels were damaged in Hong Kong during the onslaught of typhoon Mangkhut, while only one vessel berthed in Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter was damaged. 49. Mr TAM Wai-man said that the information of vessels damaged during the course of typhoon Mangkhut was not available yet. But he considered that being a safe typhoon shelter, Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter could provide protection for vessels against the typhoon. It was supposed that some vessels berthed in the unofficial typhoon shelters in the vicinity of Sai Kung were more susceptible to damage by typhoons. 50. The Chairman further enquired why the 400 damaged vessels were berthed at locations that were more susceptible to damage by typhoons instead of in official typhoon shelters. 51. Mr LEUNG Siu-chee said that MD had been closely monitoring the demand and supply of typhoon shelter facilities in Hong Kong waters and would conduct regular assessments. According to the assessment conducted in 2017, the overall territory-wide supply of sheltered space was sufficient for use till 2030. But the conditions of typhoon shelters in individual places in Hong Kong might vary. He

15

further said that typhoon Mangkhut had caused very serious damages. The effects of the typhoon in the northeastern waters of Hong Kong were particularly remarkable. Moreover, since some vessels were not berthed in typhoon shelters, which explained the reason that less damages were sustained by vessels berthed in Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter. 52. The Chairman invited members to raise comments and enquiries. 53. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) he was disappointed at TC’s replies. To promote economic development

and job creation in the Southern District, it was very important to have a correct positioning and to ensure optimal use of the human resources, physical resources and geographical advantages as well as smooth logistic services. He considered that the Government had not made optimal use of the picturesque coastal views of the Southern District to promote economic development and employment;

(ii) currently the whole world was faced with economic downturn. It was no longer an effective way to rely on incoming tourists to promote economic development of the Southern District. Under the prevailing concept of developing local economy, the Government should make use of the fishing port characteristics in various parts of the Southern District, including Stanley, Shek O, Bays Area, Ap Lei Chau, etc., to develop marine economy; and

(iii) according to the information provided by C&SD, import/export, wholesale and retail trades accounted for the largest proportion of employees in the Southern District. The relevant department should consider the possibility of structural transformation of the economy in tandem with the trend of local economic development and give full play to the coastal features of the Southern District under the principle of making optimal use of the geographical advantages.

54. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) he considered that TC was duty-bound to promote tourism by giving full

play to the unique characteristics of the Southern District. But TC had not done its best to perform its functions;

16

(ii) Jumbo Floating Restaurant had suspended operation earlier on and was faced with the crisis of permanent closure. But since Jumbo Floating Restaurant was a private organisation, TC only said that HKTB would delete the relevant information from its website. He understood that the Government could not take over the business of Jumbo Floating Restaurant, which was a private enterprise. But TC could consider providing assistance in its operation in an indirect way, such as collaborating with SDC, non-governmental organisations or other private enterprises. The Government’s indifferent attitude would make it impossible to promote local economy and job creation effectively. Neither did he see the Government take collaborative actions with local stakeholders proactively to resolve the financial problems of Ocean Park; and

(iii) citing the successful example of Beach Music Festivals in Taiwan, he suggested that SDC consider assuming a leading role and making good use of the beaches in the Southern District for holding different activities such as Southern District Music Festival. This could help promote local tourism and enhance the status of Hong Kong tourism.

55. Mr CHAN Hin-chung said some people outside Southern District told him that Southern District was a boring place where the designs of shopping malls and shops were similar to each other. Citing the example of Samcheong-dong in Seoul, South Korea, he said that the area was full of cafes, handicraft stores, garment shops, etc., which had created a strong humanistic atmosphere and attracted a large number of local and foreign hipster visitors, including Hong Kong tourists. In recent years, Tai Nan Street in Sham Shui Po had also been transformed gradually from a place mainly selling fabrics to one full of cafes, handicraft stores, book stores and record stores where hipsters gathered. Many members of the public would visit Tai Nan Street on holidays. He commented that the Government could consider developing Stanley in a similar manner by making full use of its coastal feature and adding the hipster element to attract visitors. This could help promote sustainable local economy and job creation in the long run. 56. Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) he was disappointed that CEDD and the Office of the Government

Economist had failed to send representatives to the meeting and hoped that they could be invited to subsequent meetings;

17

(ii) the labour market and employment situation were in bad shape in recent months since the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019. The unemployment rate had risen to an unprecedented high level of 5.2% in April 2020. It was expected that the unemployment rate would be even more serious than those during the Asian Financial Crisis in 1990s, the September 11th Incident, the SARS epidemic in 2003 and the Financial Tsunami in 2008. While he supported the idea of District-led Job Creation Programme proposed by Mr LO Kin-hei, in view of the soaring unemployment rate which was destroying the economy of Hong Kong, he was of the view that the District-led Job Creation Programme could not help alleviate the economic downturn and satisfy the pressing demand for employment in the short term. He thus urged the Government to take immediate actions to improve the economy and job market;

(iii) although the District-led Job Creation Programme could not resolve the unemployment problem in the short term, the Programme was in the correct direction. There was a need for long-term structural transformation of the economy of Hong Kong. Moreover, diversification of Hong Kong’s economy was not restricted to enhancing the variety of industries and job types. It was equally important to diversify the income sources. It was particularly important to reduce over-reliance on the demands from the Mainland. Although it would take a very long time to complete the process of reorientation and Hong Kong’s economy would also be hit in the short term, it was a necessary process; and

(iv) he had reservation about the proposal of expanding Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter. In the past few years, his office had received complaints from a large number of residents of South Horizons about the noise generated by vessels. It was believed that the noise was related to the economic activities of the vessels in Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter. The Committee needed to take note of the problem.

57. Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) he pointed out that small shops in Old Main Street, Aberdeen being

replaced gradually by large chain stores, and suggested that TC consider promoting local economy by promoting and liaising with the small shops with unique characteristics in the district; and

(ii) regarding the proposal of expanding Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter, he pointed out that the management of berth places in the typhoon shelter

18

was messy and without planning. It was often the case that vessels for pleasure purpose were berthed between fishing boats, causing inconvenience to genuine fishing operators in the typhoon shelter. Some people even had to berth their vessels at remote places. Moreover, as there were quite a number of shipyards in the vicinity of Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau, increasing the number of berthing places could facilitate the vessel repair works carried out by people of the marine-related trades. He hoped that SDC and the relevant department could pay more attention to the issue and provide assistance.

58. Mr CHAN Ping-yeung declared interests that he was the owner of a ship leasing company. The Chairman said that Mr CHAN Ping-yeung could continue to participate in the discussion and speak in respect of the agenda item, but could not participate in making decisions or voting. 59. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) she supported the initiative of creating more job opportunities in the

Southern District and considered it very important for Government departments to promote employment in collaboration with the relevant stakeholders;

(ii) with picturesque beaches and a deeply rooted fishing port culture, the Southern District had an advantage in developing tourism and creating job opportunities. She hoped that HKTB would step up promotion of these features;

(iii) SDC had discussed the proposal of expanding Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter to create job opportunities in the past. She commented that apart from increasing the number of vessel berthing places, how to promote employment of the relevant trades should also be considered;

(iv) SDC had organised activities such as Southern District Tourism and Culture Festival, Beach Festival, Beer Festival, in which local residents had participated. She hoped that TC would study the orientation of tourism in the Southern District so as to provide the related job opportunities; and

(v) the unemployment problem of Hong Kong started to arise in mid-2019. The job market of Hong Kong had been dealt with a heavier blow with the outbreak of the epidemic. Social stability was of utmost importance to the employment situation of Hong Kong.

19

60. Mr YU Chun-hei, James raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) he was dissatisfied with TC’s response; (ii) HKTB’s advertisements for promoting Hong Kong tourism were

meaningless. He doubted how many tourists would watch the advertisements. Besides, HKTB had all along been adopting a passive attitude. It would carry out promotion only when there was a new tourist attraction in Hong Kong, rather than actively studying or planning tourism development according to the unique characteristics of each district. He commented that some suggestions put forth in Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael’s agenda item warranted active consideration by the relevant department;

(iii) in recent years, the youth had a negative perception of the word “development” because the Government adopted a top-down approach when drawing up district development projects and failed to be aware of the local advantages. If the Government implemented the development projects without understanding the local residents’ needs, the projects would go against the expectation and needs of the public. He thus supported district-led development projects. Moreover, he pointed out that being the people’s representatives, District Councillors were able to clearly reflect the residents’ needs and help address their concerns and could thus take remedial measures in advance so as to minimise the negative impacts on the residents; and

(iv) he shared the concern over the noise generated by vessels as mentioned by Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin. He emphasised that district-led development projects could ensure that the relevant policies suited the residents’ needs and avoid the situation that the finalised policies neglected the residents’ needs and affected the people’s livelihood.

61. The Chairman invited the MD representatives to respond the issues raised by members on vessel noise, light pollution and management of the typhoon shelter. Besides, he said that as proper landing facilities were lacking in the waterfront area of Ap Lei Chau, some people used materials such as wooden planks to build informal landing facilities in the waterfront area themselves. He hoped that the relevant department could address the needs by adding landing facilities such as ladders in the waterfront area of Ap Lei Chau.

20

62. Mr TAM Wai-man responded that vessel noise, light pollution and addition of landing facilities did not fall within MD’s purview. If there is any proposal to add landing facilities, MD would give advice within the scope of its responsibilities. 63. The Chairman said that when conducting the “Planning and Development Study of the Waterfront Area of Ap Lei Chau and Other Related Areas”, the last term of SDC had suggested addition of ladders in the waterfront area of Ap Lei Chau. Since the suggestion involved the traffic safety within the typhoon shelter and the issue did fall within MD’s purview, he requested MD to replace the wooden ladders made by local residents with formal ladders as soon as possible. The Chairman continued that since a number of members had mentioned the fantastic tourism assets in the Southern District, which included beaches, hiking trails, cultural heritages, markets, restaurants with local characteristics, he enquired how TC would enhance the attractiveness of the Southern District to visitors in collaboration with SDC. 64. Ms Anny TANG gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) the number of incoming tourists was currently affected by the epidemic

and tourism control measures. It was believed that tourism would comprise mainly local visitors in the near future. After the epidemic, TC would cooperate with HKTB in promoting the attractions in the Southern District, including tourist spots such as Jumbo Floating Restaurant and Ocean Park. TC had submitted a funding proposal of HK$5.4 billion to the Finance Committee (FC) of the Legislative Council (LegCo) for Ocean Park, which was affected by the epidemic and in financial dire straits, so as to preserve a tourist facility which was of utmost importance to the Southern District. It was also hoped that Ocean Park could complement the future development of the Southern District so as to achieve synergy and drive the tourism development of the entire district; and

(ii) HKTB had been promoting district tourism projects in Central and Sham Shui Po in recent years, which had driven a number of small shops and attracted many visitors, and successfully fostered local economic development and job creation. HKTB had also attended a SDC meeting in 2019 to discuss the promotion of tourism in the Southern District, where members commented that tourism in the Southern District should not be excessively developed before improvement of the traffic ancillary

21

facilities. TC would continue the communication on the relevant issues with SDC.

65. The Chairman enquired whether TC had any plan concerning Jumbo Floating Restaurant, which had suspended operation, and Stanley Market, which was declining, and whether TC supported the proposal of expanding Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter. 66. Ms Anny TANG gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) Jumbo Floating Restaurant was a private organisation, and its operation

arrangements were commercial decisions. If it resumed operation in future, HKTB would promote this tourist spot with unique characteristics as was done previously; and

(ii) TC kept an open mind on the proposal of creating more job opportunities through promotion of tourism. However, whether the proposals would eventually be taken forward might require thorough assessment on the tourism potential, technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, etc.

67. The Chairman enquired about the role played by the Southern District Office (SDO) in promoting tourism development in the Southern District and how it would cooperate with TC. 68. Mr Francis CHENG, JP responded that this was the first meeting of EDPC. He understood that members were gravely concerned about the issue of local economy and tourism. SDO had taken note of members’ comments. Depending on the specific details of individual suggestions for developing local economy, the roles played by different departments would differ. For example, in activities like the Beach Festival as mentioned by members, LCSD would play a very important role. Where necessary, SDO would study how to coordinate the follow-up actions of the relevant departments. 69. The Chairman considered SDO’s response positive and suggested giving consideration to including Jumbo Floating Restaurant, Stanley Market, expansion of Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter and Ocean Park into the progress report of this Committee or the relevant committee. 70. The Chairman invited members to raise comments and enquiries.

22

71. Mr CHAN Ping-yeung raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) Ap Lei Chau North was a densely populated residential area. But very

often large groups of visitors joining tours visited the restaurants there at the same time, causing much nuisance, noise pollution and environmental hygiene problems to the residents nearby. In this connection, he enquired whether TC would aim at attracting tours or encouraging visitors to explore the local characteristics personally or in small groups when promoting tourism; and

(ii) he understood that Hong Kong people should show hospitality when receiving incoming tourists. But the tourists should also be taught to respect the local custom and avoid causing nuisance to the local community. He hoped that TC could be mindful about this and study how to educate the tourists and alleviate the nuisance caused by tourists to the community.

72. Mr LO Kin-hei raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) using TC’s response as to the suspension of operation of Jumbo Floating

Restaurant as an example, he commented that TC had no forward looking programmes to handle district problems and opportunities. He hoped that the Committee could undertake forward looking programmes that no Government departments were willing to undertake in future to facilitate early participation and follow-up by the relevant departments; and

(ii) the last term of SDC had discussed issues such as the expansion of Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter, improvement of waterborne transport and addition of landing facilities for several times, the relevant problems were obvious. He criticised that MD’s response that the issue did not fall within MD’s purview was irresponsible. He hoped that Government departments would refrain from shirking responsibilities and hoped that SDC would take the initiative to handle these problems in future.

73. Ms LI Shee-lin raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) the Southern District should make good use of its advantages such as its

rich historical cultural heritage to develop local economy. She was of the view that the Southern District Literary Trail and other cultural activities

23

funded by SDC could enable local people and people from abroad to know more about the Southern District;

(ii) the relevant department should also consider the traffic of the district, including the development of waterborne traffic and South Island Line (West) (SIL(W)) when studying local economic development; and

(iii) arts activities would be held in Wong Chuk Hang and Tin Wan of the Southern District every year. But industries related to arts seldom attracted the attention of tourists and so warranted promotion. From the successful example in Sham Shui Po as mentioned by TC, it could be seen that the youth in Hong Kong were creative. The relevant authority should draw reference from foreign countries and produce a map to promote small shops with unique characteristics in the Southern District so as to showcase the uniqueness of the entire district.

74. The Chairman supported the idea of producing a map showing places and shops with unique characteristics in the Southern District. 75. Ms CHAN Yan-yi raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) TC did not send representatives to the 3rd SDC meeting to discuss the

agenda item on Jumbo Floating Restaurant. She was glad to see that TC attended this meeting; and

(ii) TC would never take the initiative to determine the orientation of local tourism development. It only said that it would help promote products, activities and programmes with tourism features. For example, a Christmas fair which attracted many tourists and even local people to Stanley would be held in Stanley Market during Christmas every year. But the activity had always been organised by the relevant enterprise and shopping arcade on their own. Both TC and HKTB would not take the initiative to organise such activities. She hoped that HKTB would step up collaboration with local stakeholders. It should also allocate more resources and actively liaise with DCs with a view to organising such activities instead of just waiting for the local enterprises to organise activities on their own and then promoting the activities.

24

76. Mr CHAN Hin-chung raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) TC had successfully promoted Sham Shui Po as a tourist attraction. He

was glad to hear that TC had planned to implement a similar programme in the Southern District;

(ii) there were quite a number of restaurants with unique characteristics in the Southern District. For example, there were traditional Shanghaiese cuisine restaurants, Hong Kong style tea restaurants and restaurants selling fruit jam and floral tea in Aberdeen. He suggested that TC use restaurants with unique characteristics as a theme for promoting tourism so as to attract tourists and encourage more business operators to operate restaurants with unique characteristics in the Southern District; and

(iii) after refurbishment of the soccer pitches in the Southern District, he suggested organising soccer match watching tours so as to attract non-local soccer fans to the Southern District for visiting and consumption.

77. Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo suggested giving consideration to promoting water sports in the Southern District. Among the five water sports centres under LCSD, two were located in the Southern District, while the remaining three were located in remote areas in Sai Kung and Tai Mei Tuk. For this reason, about half of water sports enthusiasts opted to participate in water sports activities in the Southern District, including canoeing, dinghy sailing, windsurfing, etc. These activities could also create jobs in the district, such as water sports coaches and tutors. To his knowledge, the water sports coaching sessions organised by LCSD were conducted only once every half-year on average. Promoting water sports in the Southern District could create a lot of job opportunities related to water sports in addition to promoting tourism in the Southern District. 78. Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) Tin Wan was a rather barren community. A restaurant which mainly

received Mainland tours in the area had closed recently. As a result, the problems caused by a large number of tours had temporarily been alleviated. Local residents were pleased to see this outcome. She emphasised that local residents did not oppose tourism development.

25

What they did not hope for was over-development and business operation that only aimed at attracting large groups of tours;

(ii) Tin Wan Shopping Centre had been left vacant for a long time. The current economic downturn had made it difficult to lease out the premises. She suggested that the Government deliberate with the owner of the shopping centre to set up pop-up stores or temporary street stalls, which not only provided convenience for consumers but could also create job opportunities. If the programme was well received, the Government could consider preserving the stores / stalls and developing the area into a tourist spot with unique characteristics; and

(iii) she suggested organising music festivals in beaches in the Southern District and inviting foreign bands to perform so as to make good use of the advantages of the Southern District.

79. Mr YU Chun-hei, James raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) a suitable orientation should be determined before the development of

tourism in the Southern District. He emphasised that the main cause of concern over the development of tourism among local residents was the operation mode of some tours under which a large number of tourists went to restaurants exclusively providing “tour meals” in the Southern District to have meals by coaches. Except for the restaurants, nobody in the community benefitted from the tours; and

(ii) to develop tourism in the Southern District, there was no need to add and create designs with Hong Kong features so as to replicate Hong Kong’s image in the eyes of the foreigners. Instead, various channels, such as online platforms, should be used to promote the original characteristics of the Southern District so that visitors would value and appreciate these characteristics. This could also attract visitors with higher quality.

80. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) thanks to the development of tourism, the local economy of other areas in

the Southern District had thrived and the business operators of these areas enjoyed the benefits. In contrast, not only did business operators in the Bays Area fail to benefit from the development of tourism, but the beaches in the area were occupied by the tourists and there were also the problem

26

of traffic congestion caused by the appearance of a large number of coaches;

(ii) the example of Sham Shui Po mentioned above was not an example of successful promotion resulting in the development of an area with tourism characteristics. Instead, it was because of the low rent that the small shops and restaurants with unique characteristics chose to start operation in the area and outside visitors were then attracted to the area;

(iii) sharing Mr YU Chun-hei, James’ comments, he said that when developing tourism in the Southern District, the relevant authority should be aware of the impacts on the local residents and the traffic. Even though the number of coaches entering Stanley had been greatly reduced at present, the traffic of the Bays Area was still not very smooth. If a large number of tourists went to Stanley via the Bays Area, the occurrence of traffic paralysis would be inevitable. He thus stressed that before the development of local tourism or job creation, local traffic facilities must be improved first. Moreover, there was no need to resort to any local tourism programmes or promotion schemes. The original characteristics of the Southern District alone sufficed to attract outside visitors; and

(iv) Ocean Park had provided around 2 000 posts. Fellow members should consider how to handle the employment issue in case of closure of Ocean Park.

81. The Chairman raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) it was necessary to point out the traffic problems and restrictions that one

would have to face when developing local economy and tourism in the Bays Area and Stanley. A number of members had indicated that a proper balance should be struck between economic development and the quality of tourists;

(ii) he enquired how TC planned to cooperate with SDC in taking forward the issues relating to local economy and tourism, and whether it would consider allocating funds to handle the problems and proposals mentioned by members, such as Jumbo Floating Restaurant, Stanley Market, expansion of Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter, promotion of water sports and setting up of temporary stores in Tin Wan Shopping Centre, etc.; and

(iii) he enquired whether the relevant department would consider organising the various festive activities in the Southern District and producing a map

27

showing the places and shops with unique characteristics in the Southern District as proposed by members.

82. The Chairman invited the MD representatives to respond as to the problem of pollution caused by vessels. 83. Mr LEUNG Siu-chee responded as follows: (i) given the long history and unique geographical environment of Aberdeen

Typhoon Shelter, users of the typhoon shelter varied in types and included people of different trades. MD had endeavoured to coordinate the use of the typhoon shelter by different users and made efforts to ensure marine safety and effective use of the limited resources. If there was any district development programme for the area within Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter in future, MD would respond actively to the programme and provide assistance and advice from the marine perspective;

(ii) SDC had discussed the provision of ladders in the waterfront area of Ap Lei Chau in the past. At that time MD had already pointed out that as ladders were not standard public landing facilities, it was difficult for MD to regulate the berthing of vessels at these ladders. Moreover, due to consideration of safety, it was difficult for the elderly and kids to use ladders, and so there was a limitation on the use of these ladders. He suggested that in the course of discussion on provision of landing facilities, it was reasonable to take into consideration whether the facilities were suitable for use by the general public; and

(iii) members of the public who found vessels emitting black smoke could report to MD, and MD officers would be deployed to investigate. Subsequent prosecution actions could be taken when deemed necessary.

84. The Chairman further enquired how MD would handle the light pollution and noise pollution caused by vessels. Besides, the Chairman asked MD to identify the locations of the informal landing facilities installed by local residents along the shore of Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter and the cause of their existence. He was of the view that if MD helped install ladders there, it could lessen the potential risk incurred by residents using these informal facilities.

28

85. Mr TAM Wai-man responded as follows: (i) MD was authorised by the relevant legislation to take enforcement actions

against vessels emitting black smoke. But there was as yet no legislation authorising MD to take enforcement actions against the noise and light pollution caused by vessels; and

(ii) public landing facilities did not fall within MD’s purview. If there was any development programme or detailed design on public landing facilities, MD would give advice from the marine perspective.

86. The Chairman was dissatisfied with MD’s response and commented that MD had not considered the safety of the users of Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter. The Committee would issue a letter to the Transport and Housing Bureau (THB) requesting the latter to follow up on the issue. (Post-meeting note: The Secretariat issued a letter to THB on 3 July 2020, with

details set out at Annex 1.) 87. The Chairman invited the TC representative to respond. 88. Ms Anny TANG gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) agreed that there were rich tourism assets and potential for developing

tourism in the Southern District. However, the development of tourism would require support of sufficient ancillary facilities, such as traffic facilities. There might also be a need for carrying out technical feasibility studies in collaboration with other departments; and

(ii) regarding the production of a map showing the places and shops with unique characteristics in the Southern District, it would require members’ assistance in providing relevant information for future studies if the proposal is to be implemented. TC wished to continue cooperating with SDC.

89. The Chairman considered TC’s response positive and advised TC to allocate resources for designing the map. The Committee would then give advice on the details.

29

90. Mr LO Kin-hei was dissatisfied with MD’s claim that ladders should not be installed because they were not suitable for use by some people. He commented that the mindset of some Government departments had hampered the process of resolving district problems. Citing the examples of requesting the Transport Department (TD) to widen the footpaths in the Bays Area, Stanley and Shek O and SDO to open the 2nd floor of Lei Tung Community Hall for the purpose of study room, he said that both requests were not addressed to, as TD said that the width of the road would fall short of the standard 1.5 m after widening, whereas SDO said that there were no barrier-free facilities in the venue. He pointed out that Government departments often stepped back from taking forward an initiative on the grounds that the initiative failed to fully comply with the relevant standard and requirement and a small group of people could not benefit from the initiative. As a result, nobody was benefitted. He hoped that the Government would introspect about the said situation. 91. The Chairman concluded that there were around 63 000 job positions in the Southern District. Assuming an unemployment rate of 5%, this meant that around 3 150 positions had been diminished. It was expected that the figure would continue to rise. He would invite CEDB to send representatives to attend the next Committee meeting and discuss the issue. The Chairman further suggested including issues such as expansion of Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter, Jumbo Floating Restaurant and Stanley Market in the progress report for follow-up and enquired whether TC had contacted the operator of Jumbo Floating Restaurant to discuss the issue. (Post-meeting note: The Secretariat issued a letter to CEDB on 24 June 2020, with

details set out at Annex 2.) 92. Ms Anny TANG said that she was not responsible for the project, and was unsure if relevant colleague had contacted the operator of Jumbo Floating Restaurant. The Chairman said that he and Mr TSUI Yuen-wa would contact and coordinate with the operator of Jumbo Floating Restaurant about the issue. 93. The Chairman further said that the Committee would continue to follow up on the proposals of producing a map showing the places and shops with unique characteristics in the Southern District, adding ladders in Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter and expanding Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter.

30

Agenda Item 3: Concerns over the Government’s Financial Support for the Ocean Park and its Long-term Development (EDPC Paper No. 6/2020) (Item raised by Mr. TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr YIM Chun-ho)

94. The Chairman said that Ms TANG Po-kwan, Anny, Senior Manager (Tourism) 21 of TC would stay behind to join the discussion of this agenda item, and welcomed Mr Howard CHUK, General Curator, and Ms Una LAU, Public Affairs Director, of Ocean Park Corporation (OPC) to the meeting.

95. The Chairman invited Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr YIM Chun-ho to briefly introduce the agenda item.

96. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa briefed members on the agenda item as follows:

(i) this agenda item was closely related to the content of the “Strategic

Repositioning Plan of Ocean Park” (SRP) discussed at the SDC meeting in early 2020. However, the situation was even more acute than ever before. SDC and members of the public were caught in a dilemma over whether support should be given to salvaging Ocean Park. If OPC became insolvent, some 2 000 jobs would be vanished in the Southern District, and the lives and welfare of the animals residing in Ocean Park could hardly be protected. Moreover, members of the public would be deprived of their collective memory. However, as a District Council member, he had to take into account public interest and proper use of public money. Under the current situation, it was impossible to convince members to support the current funding proposal;

(ii) Mr LAU Ming-wai, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors of OPC, had indicated that the present mode of operation of Ocean Park would be modified. During SDC’s previous discussion on the SRP, quite many members had stressed that an excessive number of visitors had already affected tourist experience of Ocean Park in recent years, and that OPC had to constantly inject resources to sustain its present mode of operation in order to attract even more visitors. Therefore, they had objected to the positioning of Ocean Park as a commercialised theme park. Consideration might be given to supporting the proposed reforms promised by the repositioning of Ocean Park; nonetheless, unfortunately, there was still no sign of change at this stage;

31

(iii) with a seeming intent to bring order out of chaos, OPC had suggested a possibility of amending Ocean Park Corporation Ordinance (Cap. 388) (the Ordinance) and development of the neighbourhood community was one of the future directions. At a relevant meeting of the FC of LegCo, Hon Mrs Regina IP LAU Suk-yee had enquired whether OPC had any plan to release part of the site for housing construction. This reminded him of the eventual emergence of a major residential development in the neighbourhood areas of Cyberport intended as a hub for information technology industry more than 10 years ago. If the Ordinance was amended without pre-conditions, it would arouse public concern on whether OPC would become another Link Real Estate Investment Trust;

(iv) in view of the possibility of implementing housing construction projects on the Ocean Park site and its neighbourhood areas, with complete absence of any specific proposal for the reference of SDC and members of the public, it would be difficult to enlist public support for the funding application concerned at this stage. He enquired whether there were any plans on implementing housing construction projects on sites outside the Park, e.g. the nearby shipyards or Hong Kong Police College in Wong Chuk Hang;

(v) notwithstanding that OPC had stressed that the focus of its mode of operation would shift from profitability to tourist experience with a view to balancing conservation and education needs, it remained a tourism project rather than a public recreational and educational park as specified in the Ordinance. Mr LAU Ming-wai had once said that the original intention of establishing Ocean Park should not be forgotten, but on the other hand, emphasis had been placed on the tourism element in the development of Ocean Park. Yet, overtourism was precisely one of the reasons why OPC had been gradually caught in turmoil. OPC should attach even greater importance to the tourist experience of local patrons as well as local conservation and education programmes; and

(vi) given that the future development of Ocean Park and its periphery was a matter of concern, consideration might be given to engaging Jumbo Floating Restaurant as well as marine stakeholders operating in the vicinity of Repulse Bay and Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter, with a view to stimulating economic activities and employment in the Southern District.

32

97. Mr YIM Chun-ho briefly introduced the content of the agenda item as follows:

(i) there were quite many voices in society expressing opposition against

Government’s financial support for Ocean Park and the preference for closing down the Park instead. Among people holding such views, there were quite a number of elder members of the public apart from young ones. Their response was out of expectation. This reflected that members of the public had lost their confidence in the management of Ocean Park. Furthermore, they had lost their sense of belonging to and support for it;

(ii) TC and OPC had yet proactively strike a proper balance between tourism development and its impact on the district. Many considered that too much emphasis was placed on tourism elements of Ocean Park. TC should therefore properly handle the local issues arisen from the promotion of tourism, such as transport and ancillary commercial facilities; and

(iii) only two options, either for or against, were available for the Government’s funding proposal. If the proposal was supported, $5.4 billion would be allocated, otherwise Ocean Park would be closed down. The Ocean Park Review Unit (OPR Unit) as proposed by the Government would be put under the charge of TC, which had consistently failed to achieve proper district coordination. Given the lack of confidence in the Government and OPC, it was difficult for the Government to gain the public’s support for the funding proposal. He suggested inviting an independent body to conduct the review, instead of letting government departments to conduct reviews that might carry pre-conditions.

98. The Chairman invited the representative of TC to respond.

99. Ms TANG Po-kwan, Anny responded that Ocean Park in future should make use of its rich experience to focus more on education and conservation. As one of the important infrastructure and tourism projects in Aberdeen, Ocean Park should be further developed into a major resort and leisure destination through synergising with nearby tourist attractions in the Southern District such as the Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter, thereby bringing economic impetus to the Southern District and Hong Kong.

33

100. The Chairman asked whether the OPR Unit would study the construction of housing units in Ocean Park.

101. Ms TANG Po-kwan, Anny responded that the OPR Unit did not have any pre-conditions, and did not include the option of housing development within Ocean Park. Any development proposals within Ocean Park would be subject to the restrictions of the outline zoning plan concerned and it was specified in the lease that only oceanarium and park uses could be developed in the Park. As such, housing development was not permitted within Ocean Park at present.

102. The Chairman invited the representatives of OPC to respond.

103. Ms Una LAU gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) the Government had proposed a provision of $5.4 billion to OPC for

subsidising its operational expenses for one year and repayment of commercial loans, in a bid to alleviate the financial pressure and maintain the basic operation of the Park in co-operation with the Government in seeking suitable plans. This would help prevent staff layoffs and ensure the welfare of the Park’s animals being unaffected. She hoped that the Park would re-open for normal operation at the earliest possible time;

(ii) the Government had proposed to the FC on 20 January 2020 a provision of $10.6 billion to OPC for the implementation of the SRP, on which SDC had been briefed. However, Ocean Park had been closed for over four months since 26 January 2020 due to the epidemic, during which OPC had to pay a fixed monthly operational expense of around $140 million while losing its source of revenue. The resultant financial distress was unprecedented;

(iii) Ocean Park had undertaken a lot of work in conservation and education. Despite that it had not received any recurrent subvention from the Government in the past 43 years, it had spared no effort in the fields of public affairs, corporate responsibilities, education and conservation, animal rescue, etc., and performed its major functions. Since 1994, Ocean Park had received over a million students and offered them out-of-classroom learning activities. Ocean Park had also made tremendous contributions in conservation work, with an accumulated donation of around $156 million to the Ocean Park Conservation

34

Foundation Hong Kong (OPCFHK) in support of the research work on over 500 species since 1995;

(iv) Ocean Park had been supporting the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department in dealing with cetacean stranding cases since 2006. Over 120 white dolphin stranding cases had been handled in the past 13 years ending 2019, and the causes of stranding had been studied for rescuing other wild white dolphins;

(v) about 7 500 animals of some 400 valuable species were kept by the Park. With their conservation and educational values, these animals enabled children and the next generation to learn about the natural environment as well as the knowledge of animal care and conservation. If these animals could not be kept, it would be a tremendous loss to the conservation and education development in Hong Kong;

(vi) over the years, Ocean Park had been making contributions to the community through various social services. For example, free admission was granted for persons aged 65 or above and under three, recipients of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme, persons with disabilities, and Hong Kong residents who visited the Park on their birthdays. The number of beneficiaries had reached 640 000 in 2018-19, representing an aggregate value of over $300 million;

(vii) over the past few years, more than two million Hong Kong residents had visited Ocean Park per year on average, accounting for around 40%, and even reaching 45% in 2018-19, of the overall attendance. Overseas individual visitors accounted for around 20% of the overall attendance. Ocean Park also strived to attract high-spending and quality individual visitors; and

(viii) as an important pillar of Hong Kong’s tourism industry, Ocean Park had all along made considerable contributions to Hong Kong in various ways. The closure of Ocean Park would deal a heavy blow to the economy, tourism, education and conservation of the city. As such, she hoped that members would support the funding proposal, and said that OPC would continue to maintain close co-operation with SDC.

104. The Chairman queried why Mr Matthias LI, Chief Executive of OPC, and other senior staff members had failed to attend this meeting to discuss the ultimate survival of Ocean Park.

35

105. In response, Ms Una LAU apologised that OPC’s senior staff members had been unable to attend this meeting due to scheduling conflicts. The Chairman expressed regret at this.

106. The Chairman invited members to raise comments and enquiries.

107. Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) during the briefing on the funding application at the FC meeting, Mr YAU

Tang-wah, Edward, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development (SCED), had pointed out that Ocean Park would close down if funding approval for the $5.4 billion was not granted. Despite that the funding was intended to keep the Park running for the next 12 months and to pay off $3.1 billion worth of commercial loans, both the LegCo and the public had no idea of such details as the identity of creditors, the conditions of the loans, collaterals, repayment periods and whether the Government had provided implicit guarantees for such loans. She enquired about the identity of the creditors providing commercial loans to OPC and the existence of implicit guarantees agreed between the Government and the lending banks;

(ii) OPC wished to sustain the operation of the Park with Government’s funding, so as to avoid affecting the about 7 500 animals in the Park. However, 3 983 animals in Ocean Park had died over the past five years, with mortality rates ranging from 7% to 10%. For instance, red panda Li Zi had been found dead when eating in June 2013; six hammerhead sharks with brain injury had died in November 2013; 61 fishes had died from hypoxia due to excessively low oxygen level in the aquarium in July 2014; and a one-year old spotted seal had died after being trapped in an outlet in June 2015. She objected to Hon MAK Mei-kuen, Alice’s suggestion that children should be allowed to touch animals in the Park, and considered that excessive physical contact would impose undue stress on the animals, increasing the risk of death. She did not hope that OPC would adopt the suggestion concerned for the sake of pleasing pro-establishment LegCo Councillors. Carrying out the suggestion would also give children the misconception that all animals were touchable, amounting to promotion of false conservation awareness. The

36

death of captive animals would necessitated the procurement of more animals, posing a serious threat to the wildlife ecosystem; and

(iii) she did not deny the contributions made by Ocean Park in rescuing wild animals, nor did she query the love and care for animals displayed by its staff as well as the existence of human-animal bond. The mismanagement of the Park was a matter for which its management team should be held accountable, and it had nothing to do with the animal carers.

108. Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) the financial crisis faced by OPC primarily stemmed from the undue

development of an operation mode oriented to mainland visitors, imprudent management and budgeting, as well as poor marketing strategies. If OPC was to obtain public funding, it was imperative for its management to undertake to switch from its previous strategy targeting predominantly at mainland visitors to a global visitors-oriented strategy, so as to rebuild brand image and improve public impression on Ocean Park at the local level. Besides, the Government should consider amending the Ordinance, requiring that a portion of OPC’s profits must go to marine and nature conservation initiatives, and in case of profit shortfalls, the Government would provide subsidies;

(ii) as one of the pillars of economic activities in the Southern District, Ocean Park employed about 4 000 full-time and part-time staff members. If operated successfully, the Park could support both the local supply chains and business development. Otherwise, it would close down and undermine the livelihoods of numerous people, including quite many residents in the Southern District who worked in Ocean Park. Should funding be approved by the LegCo, OPC should consider according priority to residents in the Southern District when recruiting employees, so as to build a stronger connection with the community in the Southern District and enable residents in the neighbourhood areas to benefit from the diversification of Ocean Park’s customer base; and

(iii) if Ocean Park succeeded in shifting away from its mainland visitors-oriented strategy, and was able to maintain smooth operation, it would prove to other private enterprises in Hong Kong that there was no need to rely on the mainland market, and that the agreement on the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement

37

(CEPA) concluded by Hong Kong and the Mainland as well as the introduction of the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) were short-sighted and defective.

109. Mr CHAN Hin-chung raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) back then land was granted free of charge by the Government for the

construction of Ocean Park, and the Park should operate on a self-financing basis. If Ocean Park failed to maintain its operation, financial support should not be granted, and instead, it should consider applying for loans. Otherwise, the Government might need to provide funding endlessly;

(ii) Mr LAU Ming-wai had said that winding up Ocean Park might incur $10 billion for carrying out the relevant procedures, thus a provision of $5.4 billion would be the best practice for now. However, he believed that after the repayment of $3.1 billion debt, the remaining provision could only maintain the operation of Ocean Park for 12 months. If Ocean Park failed to add in new elements after resuming operation, more funding might be needed 12 months later;

(iii) Ocean Park had proposed earlier the SRP which needed a provision of $10.6 billion to build seven new theme zones to attract more tourists and gain more profit through the increase in investments. However, now that the plan had been set aside, the new theme zones would not be completed in the short term. Thus the public lacked confidence in whether the Park could resolve operation problems;

(iv) he believed that Ocean Park’s change from flourish to decline was due to changes in the management structure, including the replacement of Dr. Allan Zeman with Mr Leo KUNG Lin-cheng as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of OPC, which had resulted in the lack of innovations and market competitiveness of Ocean Park. If there was no great change in the management structure, it would not be possible to boost the confidence of the public and ensure that Ocean Park could continue to operate after receiving the provision;

(v) he agreed that Ocean Park had made contributions to environmental protection, education, conservation and other public affairs, and its achievements were prominent and commendable. Yet he disagreed with linking these achievements with the considerations on whether financial support should be given; and

38

(vi) Mr Matthias LI had said that due to the epidemic, it would be difficult to find organisations to take in the captive animals if Ocean Park had to be closed down. He proposed that provisions should be allocated only to maintain the lives of animals in the Park until the search for alternative accommodation for the animals could begin after the epidemic situation had eased.

110. Mr CHAN Ping-yeung raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) of the proposed $5.4 billion financial support for Ocean Park, some $3

billion would be used for debt repayment, showing that the current financial difficulties of Ocean Park was the result of constant over-draft and over-development without taking into account its ability to repay;

(ii) if Ocean Park was to be closed down, more than 2 000 job positions would be diminished. As Ocean Park was geographically more convenient for residents of the Southern District to go to work, it was estimated that half of its employees were residents of the Southern District;

(iii) according to overseas experience, once a zoo was closed down, the animals would be left uncared for and ultimately died of different causes. If Ocean Park closed down, it was estimated that only around 2 000 out of some 7 000 animals in the Park would continue to survive. He expressed concern about the survival of the giant pandas in the Park;

(iv) he criticised Ocean Park for its duplicity in regard to promotion. One of the slogans of the Park was completely unrelated to animal conservation, yet earlier on the representative of the Park kept emphasising its contributions to conserving animals. He asked how much of the debts of Ocean Park were related to animal conservation; and

(v) he asked how Ocean Park would convince the public that its funding would be properly used and that there would not be endless requests for Government’s financial support.

111. Mr CHAN Yan-yi raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) she believed that Ocean Park was the collective memory of every Hong

Kong people, but the Park had undergone substantial changes in recent years mainly due to its positioning. Ocean Park had once been a family attraction in the past, but it had been swamped by a large number of

39

mainland visitors under the IVS in recent years, and hence the locals would avoid visiting the Park on weekends. Regardless of whether or not the funding proposal would be endorsed, she still wished the management of OPC would accord top priority to Hong Kong residents;

(ii) according to the data, OPC had made profits or at least achieved breakeven before the implementation of the IVS, and Ocean Park was still a desirable destination with certain appeal to Hong Kong residents at that time;

(iii) she hoped that OPC would not forget its original intention of establishing a theme park which attached importance primarily to education and conservation, and that it would, for example, open some facilities to Hong Kong residents for free visits. As for conservation work, she opined that the dolphin show must be scrapped to show respect for animal lives. Noting that Ocean Park had organised Animal Conservation Day in the past, she hoped that the event could be regularised and open for children’s participation; and

(iv) as the Ocean Park Water World would be the only waterpark in Hong Kong upon completion, it was believed to have certain appeal to visitors and the construction of such facilities would increase job opportunities for the residents in the Southern District. She reinstated that if OPC succeeded in securing the financial support, it should accord top priority to Hong Kong residents, otherwise its Water World would gradually degenerate into a tourism product without public support.

112. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH raised the following comments and enquires:

(i) the attendance of Ocean Park was 5.87 million in 2018-19, but it had

dropped to 1.9 million during the period from July to December 2019. She believed members would understand the reason for such a significant fall in attendance;

(ii) given that the Jumbo Floating Restaurant had temporarily suspended operation and OPC had been caught up in financial difficulties, she did not wish to see Ocean Park cease operation as a result of the economic recession in Hong Kong. She supported the provision of $5.4 billion for maintaining the operation of Ocean Park, but the management should take up the responsibility of mapping out long-term plans that would facilitate business operation;

40

(iii) Ocean Park had made considerable contributions towards education and conservation. The some 7 000 animals residing in the Park brought many memories to Hong Kong residents and should not be abandoned. In addition, Ocean Park was very important to the tourism industry of Hong Kong, and was the workplace for quite many residents in the Southern District, including Ap Lei Chau. The closure of Ocean Park would deal a heavy blow to the tourism industry of Hong Kong as well as the employment situation in the Southern District; and

(iv) the Water World and hotel development of Ocean Park had yet to complete. As the construction works were still in progress, it was expected that such works would definitely incur cost overruns. In this regard, she enquired of OPC on how to address the relevant financial issues.

113. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) some members were worried that apart from studying the current

operations and future developments of Ocean Park, the OPR Unit might have other unannounced purposes and work, such as studying housing projects in the neighbourhood areas of Ocean Park. Mr YAU Tang-wah, Edward, SCED, announced the revised funding scheme and the withdrawal of $13 million requirement for the establishment of the OPR Unit, but going ahead with the review. He welcomed the above revisions and believed that some of the members’ doubts could be allayed;

(ii) repositioning of Ocean Park was the key to whether it could meet the expectations of Hong Kong citizens, but for the time being the CEDB had not yet made any proposed revisions, such as shifting its focus from tourism to themes on serving the public, recreation and education. If Ocean Park continued to focus on tourism, it would have to rely on a large number of incoming tourists, especially mainland tourists, to support its operations, and ultimately the Park would again face the current difficulties. He stressed again that Ocean Park should focus on education and conservation, but the resources invested by the Park were still insufficient;

(iii) many citizens praised the former Chairman of the Board of Directors of OPC, Dr Allan Zeman, but he believed that he had changed Ocean Park’s mode of development at that time and transformed it into a commercialised theme park, which had led Ocean Park into the huge

41

burden of debts that necessitated public money for salvaging. He agreed that Dr Allan Zeman contributed to Ocean Park, but disagreed that he saved Ocean Park. In addition, the senior staff of OPC must bear responsibility for the current plight. Both the Board of Directors and management team of the former term did not conduct a review on the current commercialised theme park mode. It was until the Park had reached a crisis that a review was called for; and

(iv) he welcomed the Government’s review on the room for development for Ocean Park and its neighbourhood areas, including Wong Chuk Hang and Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter. Yet future developments would involve many problems, such as whether the financing and land restrictions would be relaxed, and whether housing would be built. He was also concerned that the developments would change the nature of Ocean Park.

114. Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) members of the public were caught in a dilemma about whether or not to

support the financial provision for Ocean Park. In fact, the current plight of Ocean Park was the result of the structural problems with its positioning and management;

(ii) Ocean Park would be shelving the SRP, leading to a halt in the development of the seven new theme zones. He expressed doubts on how Ocean Park would maintain its business and operation in the future;

(iii) if the funding proposal of Ocean Park was endorsed, only around $2 billion of the provision would remain upon repayment of loans. He was pessimistic towards whether the Park could maintain operation for 12 months, and foresaw that funding might have to be sought again from the LegCo and public opinions would be aroused again. SDC would also have to discuss this issue repeatedly. He hoped that the revised funding scheme to be announced could solve the structural problems of Ocean Park and allay the concerns and doubts of citizens; and

(iv) members of the public had lost confidence in Ocean Park due to the Park’s inability to connect with the identity of Hong Kong people. Members had proposed establishing connection between Ocean Park and Aberdeen Waterfront area via marine transport when developing the Ocean Park Water World, but in the end the proposal was not adopted by the Park. In doing so, Ocean Park had lost the opportunity to connect with the local economy. He hoped Ocean Park could respond.

42

115. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he recognised that Ocean Park was the collective memory of Hong Kong

people and residents of the Southern District. However, this collective memory had already disappeared as Ocean Park had focused its positioning efforts on mainland visitors in the wake of the atypical pneumonia epidemic and the conclusion of the CEPA with the Mainland in 2003. When presenting details of the SRP at the 2nd SDC meeting, the representatives of OPC had failed to demonstrate that the relevant new facilities and the expansion project embodied the values of Hong Kong people;

(ii) owing to public distrust in the Government and Ocean Park, the funding proposal had serious repercussions for the community. While he recognised that community programmes run by OPC had been benefiting the public at large, it had not been indicated in the paper tabled that if the funding proposal was approved, Ocean Park would embody the values of Hong Kong people while ensuring that members of the public could continue to be benefited in the future; and

(iii) he expressed regret at Mr Matthias LI’s absence from this meeting, and reiterated his disapproval of the Government’s financial support to Ocean Park which in itself was mismanaged and wrongly positioned.

116. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) the development of Ocean Park bore close relevance to residents in Bays

Area. If the funding proposal was rejected, he worried that the land lot would be used for housing development. He raised objection to this idea;

(ii) if OPC made no change after it was granted $5.4 billion funding, money would be wasted for nothing, and the current problems faced by the Park would remain unsolved for some time. He was of the view that to change the current conditions of Ocean Park, there were only two options. The first option was to give up the original intention and amend the Ordinance for adopting a profit-oriented approach to doing business through vigorous development of amusement rides. However, he did not support this option. The second option was to concentrate efforts on

43

conservation and education, enabling the Park to emerge as one of the leading conservation and educational theme parks in the world. In doing so, the public would pledge their continued support even if operating losses were met with in the future; and

(iii) Ocean Park began to incur losses four years ago, indicating that there were already problems with its mode of operation. To restore Hong Kong people’s confidence in OPC, it was necessary to reshuffle the management team, by analogy with making managerial changes by a football club seeking financial support from its owner.

117. Mr YU Chun-hei, James raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he shared Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun’s view that the development

direction of Ocean Park should focus on conservation and education; (ii) he considered that OPC was attempting to blackmail Hong Kong people.

The various commitments, e.g. stepping up efforts in promoting conservation and ecological values, scaling down the amusement park operations, etc., were made solely for the sake of securing the funding. However, he did not find them very convincing; and

(iii) OPC had yet to put in place a plan to change the development direction. When OPC put forward the $10.6 billion SRP in early 2020, he had already questioned whether the expansion project was part of the hidden agenda to make up for the losses incurred over time. OPC now used the epidemic as an excuse for seeking a $5.4 billion bailout in an attempt to solve its deep-seated financial problems arising from operational inefficiency in one go. Without a concrete bailout plan, it was undesirable to approve funding to keep Ocean Park running for another year. Unless OPC put forward a proposal on operational sustainability, the funding proposal should be rejected.

118. Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) while the Government had been stressing that Ocean Park was “the

collective memory of Hong Kong people” and “Hong Kong People’s Park”, he considered that the public could hardly be convinced into supporting the funding proposal;

(ii) no matter how many glorious achievements had been made by OPC in the past, the management team should be replaced in view of the present

44

situation. There had been various management issues in OPC. For instance, the share of salaries in expenditure had been increasing despite losses incurred for the Park for four consecutive years. In this regard, he hoped that OPC would give an explanation;

(iii) while acknowledging OPC’s achievements on conservation and education, he queried whether it was necessary for Hong Kong to have two theme parks both featuring amusement rides as their major attractions, given that the enormous operational expenses incurred by the amusement rides in the Park constituted the second largest expenditure item after salaries. The above expenditure ratio would also give an impression that it was difficult for OPC to focus on conservation and educational work in terms of positioning and resource allocation; and

(iv) he had visited Ocean Park with free admission on his birthday before, but the annoying behaviour of the mainland visitors had left him with unpleasant memory. He believed that many Hong Kong residents who had visited Ocean Park would share similar feelings. As such, he hoped that OPC would face squarely the problem of over-reliance on mainland visitors.

119. Mr LO Kin-hei raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) he expressed grave dissatisfaction that OPC was blackmailing the

Government, the LegCo, the public and SDC into supporting the funding proposal with 2 000 job positions and the animals residing in the Park as a bargaining chip;

(ii) there had been severe financial disciplinary problems in OPC. The previous cost overruns and works delay of the waterpark development and hotel construction had illustrated the poor financial discipline and works management of OPC. Works delay was one of the factors that gave rise to the current financial crisis. If works projects had been completed and commissioned as scheduled, the magnitude of cost overruns might be reduced and the financial situation would not be so acute. The above problem was largely related to the management team; and

(iii) given that Mr Leo KUNG Lin-cheng, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of OPC, had started his career as a banker, while Mr Matthias LI had been working in the financial sector, he opined that this combination was doomed to failure. He anticipated that Mr Leo KUNG Lin-cheng would leave office at the end of his term in June 2020, and he hoped that

45

the Government would appoint a suitable person as the new Chairman based on merits, with a view to bringing positive impact to Ocean Park.

120. Ms LI Shee-lin raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) in regard to the recent announcement made by CEDB that Ocean Park

would be positioned as a resort and leisure destination, she believed that the plan would fail in creating the sense of “Hong Kong People’s Park”, and that the existing facilities and cutting edge of the Southern District should be optimised to promote economic development of the Southern District in a bid to preventing the district from degenerating into an unlivable district;

(ii) she did not wish to see the Southern District being over-developed, and even worse, the site of Ocean Park being used to construct high-density housing; and

(iii) she opined that Ocean Park should establish stronger ties with the communities of the Southern District, as well as strengthen the promotion on its conservation work.

121. The Chairman raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) Ocean Park had become a “parasite” of the Southern District. The

construction of hotel inside the park had affected the business of the hotels in the locality. When members required OPC to assist in handling the transport and environmental issues arisen from the coaches, OPC claimed that it was not in a position to control the coach operators and travel agents;

(ii) he was once a holder of the annual pass of Ocean Park in the 90’s and often brought his children to the park for leisure and dining. However, when he brought his daughter to Ocean Park again six years ago, he had an uneasy experience as lots of visitors were running around, jostling and shoving in the Park, instead of really enjoying the facilities in the Park. In addition, the food provided by the restaurants was of poor quality;

(iii) as a statutory body, OPC had been enjoying various special treatments, including low interest loan granted by the Government. Nevertheless, OPC failed to meet the expenditure, which reflected that OPC was poorly managed. Thus, it deserved bankruptcy and termination of operation;

46

(iv) at this stage, he opposed the funding proposal and considered that Ocean Park should only be provided with an amount equivalent to about six months’ operating expenses. In the absence of proper plans, the Government, as the creditor of OPC, should not continue to provide financial support for it. At the current stage, thorough reorganisation and reshuffling of management should be carried out for the Park. He hoped that with the above proposals, Ocean Park could re-emerged as a theme park that Hong Kong people love to visit and be able to make contributions to the community; and

(v) although OPC emphasised the role it played in contributing to conservation and the contributions made to OPCFHK, he had never heard about OPC’s objections against reclamation projects and works that might damage the marine ecology, etc. implemented by the Government. In his opinion, OPC was not really supporting conservation.

122. The Chairman invited the representatives of TC and OPC to respond.

123. Ms TANG Po-kwan, Anny gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) Ocean Park in future would reorient its development focus back to

education and conservation and significant investment in amusement rides would be avoided, while integrating into the future development of the Southern District so as to achieve synergy and drive economic growth of Hong Kong and the Southern District. Nevertheless, whether Ocean Park could operate education and conservation work on a self-financing basis and the future land use in the surrounding areas were subject to study;

(ii) due to the epidemic, Ocean Park had been closed since January 2020, which had further aggravated its already dismal financial situation. If Ocean Park went bust, the liquidation process would be very time-consuming, and it might take a few years to complete; and

(iii) the Ocean Park had never received any recurrent subvention from the Government since its establishment in 1977. Besides, OPC was not empowered to issue shares or opt for equity financing under the Ordinance. In addition, all of the profits of OPC should be allocated for promoting its statutory functions. Hence, borrowing had become the only way for Ocean Park to raise large sum of money for extension so as to enhance its attractiveness and competitiveness. Ocean Park was

47

therefore bearing heavy financial pressure due to the principal and interest derived from borrowing loans in the past.

124. Ms Una LAU gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) the working capital for Ocean Park’s first ten years of establishment was

provided by the Hong Kong Jockey Club. Ocean Park officially became a non-profit making organisation after the enactment of the Ordinance in 1987 and could only operate its business within the area of Ocean Park. Its major sources of income were from admission tickets and other revenues within the Park, such as catering services;

(ii) when Ocean Park carried out its Master Redevelopment Plan in 2005, despite the profits were not high, relatively cheaper admission tickets were offered and diversified activities were organised to attract more local tourists to enter the Park for fun and learning conservation knowledge. It showed that Ocean Park attached great importance to Hong Kong citizens. When the Master Redevelopment Plan was completed in 2012, the number of visitors had increased. In 2013-2014, the Park’s attendance reached its peak, which included a large number of mainland tourists;

(iii) since 2010, Ocean Park had introduced many new attractions, and even though the number of visitors in 2014-2015 stood high, the price of admission tickets was not raised. This reflected that Ocean Park would conform to its nature as a non-profit making organisation without attempting to seek more profits so long as it could earn sufficient income to maintain its daily operations and development;

(iv) in 2015, changes in the global economic environment had led to a change in the mix of travellers visiting Hong Kong. With the increase in individual travellers and decrease in tour groups, the attendance of the Park decreased from 7.8 million to around 7.3 million in the following year, and further decreased to some six32 million thereafter. Ocean Park had since then actively stepped up the promotion work which targeted at both individual travellers and overseas tourists, and built hotels to attract foreign tourists and extend the stay of local visitors;

(v) in 2018-2019, the attendance of local visitors increased by 14% compared with 2017-2018 and the attendance of IVS travellers increased by 30%. But as the number of tour groups had decreased, the overall attendance was similar to the past. In that year, the amount of per capita spending of

48

visitors in the Park increased, and the catering profit also witnessed double-digit growth;

(vi) since the beginning of the epidemic in 2020, Ocean Park had suspended business for three months, during which no income was generated. Of the recurrent expenditure, which accounted for 80% of the total operation costs, over 60% were staff salaries and the rest were costs for maintenance, repairs, water, electricity and town gas;

(vii) Ocean Park’s education team, comprising more than 300 full-time and part-time staff members, was the largest in scale compared to other similar theme parks in the neighbourhood areas. Although losses had been recorded in the past four years, the Park’s expenditure on conservation work and concessions exclusively for Hong Kong people, which amounted to around $100 million and over $300 million respectively, were not cut down;

(viii) discounting interests and depreciation, there was actually a growth in the profit of Ocean Park. Yet, as a social enterprise and non-profit making organisation, it would not set profit-making its primary objective. From 2012 to 2014 and from 2014 until now, Ocean Park had respectively repaid around $1 billion and $2 billion debts and interests, and was at the same time responsible for implementing conservation and education work;

(ix) comprehensive plans were on hand when Ocean Park presented the SRP at the LegCo on 20 January 2020. At that time it was hoped that the SRP could become a sustainable development project. Under the impact of the subsequent pandemic, the original estimate of attendance and conditions of global tourism industry and aviation industry had changed. It was predicted that the global economy would be greatly affected in the coming year. Therefore, the 10.6 billion SRP would not become a sustainable development project in the short term. Ocean Park then put forward a $5.4 billion funding proposal after discussing with the Government. This was the minimum amount needed for debt repayment, of which $3.1 billion would be used to repay debts in the coming 12 months. If the Park failed to repay debts as scheduled, any creditor could apply for liquidation of OPC;

(x) limited by the Ordinance and its self-financing mode of operation, the current income of Ocean Park completely depended on the number of visitors and in-Park business. It meant that any future development plans and sources of capital for the daily operations in Ocean Park were also restricted by the above limitations. The Government proposed that the

49

study on reviewing the above limitations through amending the Ordinance could be conducted, so as to identify more sources of funding for Ocean Park, for example, funding through financing, sponsorships and commercial co-operation. If the public agreed that Ocean Park should focus more on the development of conservation and education, consideration should be given to how the necessary capital was to be raised. Ocean Park held an open attitude towards this. If the restrictions imposed by the Ordinance was lifted, it was believed that there would be more room to think about how a sustainable development mode expected by Hong Kong people could be drawn up; and

(xi) she hoped that members and the public could give Ocean Park a chance to align its positioning, and said that OPC would make good use of the following six months to review the development mode of Ocean Park.

125. The Chairman invited members to raise comments and enquiries.

126. Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) Mr YAU Tang-wah, Edward had just announced amendments to the

funding proposal, with the requirement of $13 million for setting up the OPR Unit withdrawn. She asked whether there was still room for adjusting downwards the funding sought;

(ii) Mr YAU Tang-wah, Edward had also indicated that the amusement rides in Ocean Park would be downscaled, and that amendments be made to the Ordinance with a view to raising capital and changing the use of Ocean Park site. Moreover, proposals on five development areas, including collaboration with the neighbourhood areas such as Wong Chuk Hang, Repulse Bay and Jumbo Floating Restaurant, etc. were made. However, she expressed doubt about the possibility of implementing the proposal as scheduled; and

(iii) earlier on, SDC members had been invited to join a site visit to Ocean Park. At that time, she had suggested that OPC should focus its development directions on education, conservation and animal rights. A number of animal welfare concern groups had all along reflected relevant issues to OPC, but there was no response from OPC. Yet, when OPC needed funding to sustain operation, it stressed its wish for the survival of the animals in the Park in the hope of enlisting public support for the

50

funding proposal. She expressed discontent at such a practice, and opined that the problem with OPC’s management team was the real cause of the present predicament.

127. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) he considered the Government self-contradictory in saying on the one

hand that Ocean Park had proven to be operating successfully without the need for government funding over the past four decades, while on the other hand expressing concern about possible losses if Ocean Park put emphasis on recreational and conservation themes. He pointed out that the conservation and education-focused mode of operation adopted by Ocean Park before 2003 not only helped it achieve breakeven but also evoke fond memories for Hong Kong people;

(ii) the Government’s proposal to explore amendments to the Ordinance would draw public concerns that there would be housing development on the Ocean Park site due to future funding needs. The long-standing practice for Hong Kong to solve financial problems by leveraging land resources had attracted constant criticism. Therefore, he was sceptical about the necessity of introducing legislative amendments, and considered that it would be difficult to solicit support before a concrete proposal was available; and

(iii) subject to the endorsement of funding proposal for Ocean Park, he suggested that part of the provision be used for fostering economic growth of the neighbourhood areas and other local projects with the consent of SDC. He considered that this arrangement could help secure SDC’s support and enhance its participation, thereby contributing to the effective promotion of district development.

128. Mr POON Ping-hong raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) Mr YAU Tang-wah, Edward indicated that to unleash the development

potential of Ocean Park, the Aberdeen Marina Club, Jumble Floating Restaurant, Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter, Deep Water Bay and Repulse Bay, etc. would be integrated into the development plan of Wong Chuk Hang and even the entire Southern District. However, during the briefing on the $5.5 billion funding sought for implementing the Ocean Park Redevelopment Plans at the SDC meeting on 23 June 2005, Ms Eva

51

CHENG, the then Commissioner for Tourism, had indicated that the plans concerned were conducive to promoting economic development of the Southern District and speeding up the development of Aberdeen as a key tourism area. Yet, the economic development in the vicinities of Ocean Park and Aberdeen had fallen short of the synergy targets so far. Hence, he was sceptical about the viability of the development plan proposed by Mr YAU Tang-wah, Edward;

(ii) OPC had hailed its contribution to conservation with the donation of about $156 million to OPCFHK. However, when comparing with the Government’s previous funding proposal on the SRP for a provision of $10.6 billion and the current one for a provision of $5.4 billion, he considered that OPC had not put sufficient resources in conservation work;

(iii) as an independent organisation, OPCFHK had been maintaining its operation by identifying sources of funding on its own. In view that OPCFHK had potential to spearhead the development of Ocean Park, he enquired about the relationship between OPC and OPCFHK, and the kind of support OPC provided to OPCFHK; and

(iv) no animals and employees of Ocean Park should be held accountable for the mistakes made by the management team. According to the minutes of the SDC meeting on 23 June 2005, Mr Matthias LI, the then Executive Director of OPC, had indicated that the $5.5 billion funding sought at that time was sufficient to repay the loans in full within 10 to 12 years. However, there were still over $3 billion worth of outstanding loans at present. He reiterated that the OPC management team should be held responsible for the financial problems of the Park, and its responsibility should not be shared out among Hong Kong people.

129. The Chairman invited the Ocean Park representatives to respond on the issues of OPCFHK.

130. Ms Una LAU gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) OPCFHK was an individual organisation which adopted a very prudent

approach in its operation. The annual contribution OPC made comprises three parts: (a) one dollar from each admission ticket sold, regardless of having profit or deficit; (b) a certain percentage of revenue generated from catering, retail and designated charged items in the Park; and (c) part of

52

the revenue of activities including animal-related activities and the annual Conservation Day;

(ii) Ocean Park had been working closely with OPCFHK and providing appropriate assistance to it including (a) for manpower resources, staff members of Ocean Park would be deployed to OPCFHK if necessary for providing operational assistance; (b) during the fund-raising activities organised by OPCFHK, the Park would provide admission tickets for volunteers and participants; and (c) during the promotional campaigns (such as straws reduction) organised by OPCFHK, the Park would actively provide assistance in finding business partners;

(iii) she clarified that the funding of $13 million for setting up the OPR Unit was not granted to Ocean Park;

(iv) she emphasised that conservation and education had been the core values of Ocean Park since its establishment in 1977. It had set up a large educational team, OPCFHK, Ocean Park Academy Hong Kong, the largest veterinary centre in the district, etc. These were all the efforts made by Ocean Park on conservation throughout the years. The Park did not emphasise conservation and education all of a sudden for gaining public support for the funding;

(v) before 2003, Ocean Park experienced difficult times with ups and downs until Mr Phillip CHEN Nan-lok was appointed as the then chairman of the Board of Directors of OPC. He succeeded in turning the Park’s loss into profit. In view of the competition brought about by the opening of the Disneyland in Hong Kong in 2005, the Government provided funding for Ocean Park to carry out Master Redevelopment Plan in order to enhance its attractiveness. Ocean Park won the prestigious Applause Award in 2012, and its attendance had been increasing, proving that the Master Redevelopment Plan was a great success; and

(vi) in regard to Mr Matthias LI’s statement in 2005 that the funding of $5.5 billion at that time was enough for Ocean Park to repay the debt, she clarified that it was based on the assumption that the price of admission tickets would increase on an annual basis. However, as the attendance continued to increase, the price of admission tickets had remained unchanged. Since Ocean Park did not keep sufficient capital reserve, the drastic decrease in attendance for the meantime had led it into financial and operational difficulties.

53

131. Mr CHAN Hin-chung raised the following enquiries and comments:

(i) if Ocean Park wished to get the funding support, it should prove and properly complete the followings, otherwise public concerns could hardly be allayed: its existence was in the public interest; the Government’s assistance in the form of funding was essential; assurance that the provision of $5.4 billion could completely solve the Park’s long-standing deficit problem and that it could continue to operate on a self-financing basis; the impacts such as traffic and environmental hygiene on the neighbourhood community would be dealt with; and explanation on how Ocean Park would reposition itself as a park for Hong Kong people;

(ii) without other available options, Ocean Park might have to be transformed into a marine conservation and maintenance park serving mainly educational purposes. If so, at least the funding would be properly used and its budget would be relatively steady; and

(iii) he was dissatisfied with the Government for failing to provide alternatives. Relevant officials avoided answering the questions concerned, showing that the Government had not considered the matter thoroughly.

132. Mr YIM Chun-ho raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) according to the latest information, the Government had indicated that

Ocean Park would refocus on education and conservation work. Under the Ordinance, the statutory purposes of the Park were for recreation and education. But he opined that these purposes had not been fulfilled. When OPC presented the SRP at the SDC meeting in early 2020, he had already pointed out the positioning issues of Ocean Park. As the Park had failed to integrate educational and recreational development, it was merely a park with amusement rides to the public. Meanwhile, parks in Australia, Europe and the United States, etc. had shown good results in merging conservation and education;

(ii) residents disapproved of the tourism development which only focused on serving package tours. To strike a balance between tourism development and the nuisance caused to residents, he suggested OPC should step up publicity efforts to attract more quality individual travellers who wished to experience the culture of Hong Kong, thereby facilitating the economic development in the Southern District and creation of job opportunities.

54

He stressed that it was necessary for TC to set out clear objectives for tourism development; and

(iii) he agreed that the approval of SDC must be obtained before implementation of any future development plans for Ocean Park, otherwise conflicts between Ocean Park and the locality would be deepened.

133. Mr YU Chun-hei, James said that it was obvious that OPC had failed to strike a balance between conservation work and the commercial approach in operating amusement park business. Mr YAU Tang Wah, Edward had indicated that amusement rides would be scaled down by OPC to cut the relevant expenses, yet no specific proposals had been tabled. As such, he expressed doubts over OPC’s capabilities in performing conservation work as well as sustaining effective operation. He opined that OPC had not allayed public concern on the funding proposal, and was worried that OPC would rely on the Government to sustain its operation with endless public funding in the future.

134. Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) given that the Government and OPC had yet to elaborate how the $5.4

funding proposal would help Ocean Park operate in a sustainable manner, it would be difficult to instil public confidence in the funding proposal;

(ii) although OPC viewed that the amendments to the Ordinance would provide greater room for development and facilitate its self-financing operation in the future, he was concerned about the possible changes in the operating mode of Ocean Park. He worried that profit-making would become its main objective while its social responsibilities and the work on conservation and education would be neglected; and

(iii) he hoped that Ocean Park would effectively tie in with the local economic development of the Southern District in the future. Despite that DCs were merely district advisory bodies, he hoped that the views of SDC would be sought and valued by OPC regarding any future development decisions.

135. Mr LO Kin-hei raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) the funding proposal reflected how the Government treated SDC. The

Government seldom took the initiative to consult SDC, and failed to

55

provide as appropriate the assistance sought by SDC with regard to local issues. Taking SDC’s proposal for the construction of a pedestrian walkway at the Sham Wan promenade as an example, the government departments concerned had been procrastinating by making various excuses, which made it hard for the public to trust the Government;

(ii) by only contributing 1% of their annual income, Ocean Park would be able to help boost the economic development of the Southern District, and publicise and promote conservation in the community. It would be a great start if OPC committed to the above arrangement;

(iii) Regarding the positioning of Ocean Park in the future, Mr LAU Ming-wai pointed out that since the operation mode of the theme park in the past was no longer practicable, education and conservation would be the focus of development in the future. However, OPC should first put forward practical proposals to regain the confidence of the public; and

(iv) when the Government appointed Mr Leo KUNG Lin-cheng to replace Mr Allan Zeman as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of OPC, the then Chief Executive was suspected of cronyism, so it was difficult to draw a line between Ocean Park and the Government. Due to the extremely low degree of public trust in the current Government, Ocean Park was inevitably affected as well.

136. The Chairman concluded as follows:

(i) as Ocean Park was an important landmark of the Southern District, the

Committee was very concerned about Ocean Park and all of its staff members. No members wanted Ocean Park to close down. Nonetheless, OPC’s response regarding the funding proposal on different occasions failed to give the public confidence to support the proposal concerned;

(ii) OPC said that it might open up more sources of income by amending the Ordinance. He considered that this was to shift people’s attention. Although OPC was not allowed to carry out financing of business, it had been granted low interest loans. Other members also expressed reasonable concern about the issues that might arise from the amendment of the Ordinance;

(iii) it was hoped that CEDB could submit a comprehensive district development proposal instead of just a funding proposal for Ocean Park. He requested CEDB to put forward enhancement proposals for connecting

56

Ocean Park to the neighbourhood areas, and also detailed suggestions on how Ocean Park could cooperate with the neighbourhood areas;

(iv) while OPC said that it would focus more on conservation and education, its waterpark, which served mainly entertainment purposes and had nothing to do with conservation and education, would be completed soon. He considered that OPC should be honest when presenting its development proposals in the future to build public confidence in Ocean Park; and

(v) he reiterated that, in his opinion, the Government should provide Ocean Park with funding support for its operating expenses for six months only, so as to let them formulate restructuring plan and consult SDC again. SDC did not want to lose Ocean Park but the Government and OPC had to put forward a convincing proposal.

Agenda Item 4: Proposed Amendments to the Approved Stanley Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H19/12 (Item raised by Planning Department) (EDPC Paper No. 7/2020)

137. The Chairman welcomed Mr KAU Kin-hong, Louis, District Planning Officer/HK of PlanD to the meeting. 138. The Chairman invited the representative of PlanD to briefly introduce the content of the paper. 139. With the aid of PowerPoint presentation, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Vincent briefed members on the proposed amendments to the approved Stanley Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H19/12 (OZP), which covered the Maryknoll House site (Amendment Item A), the north-eastern portion of Stanley Ma Hang Park (Amendment Item B1), the eastern portion of Blake Pier (Amendment Item B2) and a strip of sea to the west of Blake Pier (Amendment Item B3), as well as some corresponding amendments to the Notes and the Explanatory Statement (ES) of the OZP. The Metro Planning Committee (MPC) of the Town Planning Board (TPB) agreed that the draft Stanley OZP in connection with the proposed amendments would be exhibited for public inspection for two months from 5 June 2020 under section 5 of the Town Planning Ordinance (TPO).

57

140. The Chairman asked members to raise comments and enquiries. 141. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) as a Grade 1 historic building, the Maryknoll House should be preserved

without any damage or alteration; however, it was shown in the application that the purpose of rezoning was to develop domestic storeys at the site while retaining the history and uniqueness of the Maryknoll House. Since the land use was no longer appropriate after the moving out of Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, who were the original users of the site, the application for rezoning would help preserve the original structures as well as accommodate the new ones. He and the residents were concerned that the site would be developed into luxurious apartments through this proposed amendment, and hoped that PlanD would clarify the development parameters of the site and whether appropriate actions had been taken to prevent the development of the site for private residential purposes, so as to allay their concern;

(ii) as regards the proposed amendments to the north-eastern portion of Stanley Ma Hang Park, he enquired about the type of open space to be provided by the site. At present, there was a butterfly garden at Ma Hang Park and some residents reflected that it had attracted a large number of butterflies and other insects, causing nuisance to them. In this connection, he enquired how the future development of the open space could counteract the impact caused to the residents; and

(iii) as regards the proposed amendments to the eastern portion of Blake Pier and a strip of sea thereto, he and Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus, SDC member of the Aberdeen constituency, would propose to study the feasibility of developing a new route plying between Blake Pier and Aberdeen. There had all along been structural safety problems at Blake Pier, while the restoration of the pier was still underway and some damaged lighting had yet to be repaired. Moreover, he had witnessed that a vessel had caused damage to the fender of Blake Pier during berthing. As such, he had written to the department concerned to follow up the repair status.

142. The Chairman invited the representative of PlanD to respond.

58

143. Mr KAU Kin-hong, Louis gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) the proposed amendments to OZP put forward by the department were

based on the planning application made to TPB by the owner of the Maryknoll House in early 2019 in accordance under section 12A of TPO. During the period, the owner had been exploring the conservation approaches of the site with the Commissioner for Heritage’s Office (CHO) under the DEVB. Since the subject site was a piece of private land, under the existing mechanism of historic building conservation policy, historic buildings of this kind must be preserved by the owner voluntarily. After discussions with the CHO, the owner agreed to adopt a preservation-cum-development proposal to develop the private site by preserving the original structures at the Maryknoll House site as well as development of two three-storey houses in the surroundings of the site. TPB partially agreed with the rezoning application in early 2019, and required the owner to submit a planning application to TPB to prove that the proposed development could meet the purpose of preserving the historic building if the owner intended to develop the site for residential use in the future. The arrangement is a “win-win” situation;

(ii) regarding the rezoning of Stanley Ma Hang Park and Blake Pier, the purpose of the proposed amendments was to reflect the current as-built conditions of the developed Stanley Ma Hang Park and Blake Pier;

(iii) the north-eastern portion of Stanley Ma Hang Park was originally zoned “G/IC” on the OZP. As the site had already been developed as part of the Ma Hang Park, it was proposed to rezone the site as “Open Space” to reflect the as-built condition. Regarding a member’s concern that the butterfly garden would attract a large number of butterflies and insects and cause nuisance to residents, the department would relay the comments to the Housing Department (HD); and

(iv) the rezoning of Blake Pier was to reflect its as-built location. However, the member’s concerns about safety and provision of a new route at Blake Pier did not fall within the purview of PlanD.

(Post-meeting note: PlanD had reflected to HD the nuisance caused to residents by

butterflies and insects of the butterfly garden on 11 June 2020.) 144. The Chairman invited members to raise comments or enquiries.

59

145. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael said that he was worried that in case the owner was approved by TPB to develop luxurious apartments on the Maryknoll House site, the development would be different from the historic building in terms of architectural style. He considered that such “incompatibility” was prevalent in Hong Kong. Quoting the example of Murray House in Stanley, he said that after the Government had handed over Murray House to the Link Asset Management Limited for development, the opening of fashion stores there was incompatible with the architectural design of Murray House itself. He considered that development of this kind had ruined the buildings of historic significance and he felt pity. He hoped that the department could relay the comments of the committee to the relevant policy bureau. 146. The Chairman invited the representative of PlanD to respond. 147. Mr KAU Kin-hong, Louis responded that the department would relay the comments of the committee to the relevant government departments. In case there were any planning applications for the Maryknoll House site in future, the department would submit public comments to TPB for consideration. 148. The Chairman asked whether the stipulation of the maximum building heights of 75mPD (northern portion) and 64mPD (southern portion) for the Maryknoll House site was based on the actual height of the existing building or whether there was still room to construct buildings of more storeys in future. 149. Mr KAU Kin-hong, Louis responded that the actual building height of the Maryknoll House is 75mPD; and the height of the southern vegetation cover at the Maryknoll House is 64mPD. According to the rezoning application submitted by the owner, two residential buildings with maximum height of 64mPD would be developed to the aforesaid southern vegetation cover of Maryknoll House. In view of this, TPB stipulated the maximum building height restriction of 64mPD at the site to avoid the views of the Maryknoll House’s major facade being blocked by future buildings. 150. The Chairman asked whether the owner’s application for developing two residential buildings had already been approved by TPB. Mr KAU Kin-hong, Louis responded that TPB only partially agreed to the rezoning application, and proposed amendments to the OZP, including stipulation of the above maximum building height restriction. If the owner had any specific residential development plans in future, planning permission from TPB would still be required.

60

151. Mr CHAN Ping-yeung considered that the historic building preservation policy in Hong Kong simply aimed at preserving the building itself without preservation of its ancillary facilities in the surroundings. In his view, although TPB had not yet approved the residential development project, the site might have been turned into a cluster of luxurious apartments and commercial buildings after a few years, the historic building preserved would otherwise look out of place. He considered that it was a blunder of the Government’s preservation policy. It would be a great pity if another historic building would be lost within the current-term SDC. 152. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael quoted the example of Old Stanley Police Station, which had become a supermarket at present, to reiterate that he did not wish to see the incompatible use of other historic buildings anymore, and hoped that the relevant policy bureau would listen to the views of the committee and avoid the recurrence of similar incidents. 153. The Chairman used the examples of severe economic blow to Stanley Market and the planning issues of the carparking location in Stanley to express his hope that PlanD would cooperate with SDC and proactively review the overall land use planning in Stanley. 154. Mr LO Kin-hei raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) The department had put forward proposed amendments to Blake Pier, but

it did not mean that ferry services would be provided at the pier in future. Quoting a previous case, he had requested the provision of ferry services in the Southern District, but the relevant government departments such as MD and the TD shifted their responsibilities on the provision of ferry services, which made people feel helpless; and

(ii) he asked whether DEVB or PlanD had reviewed the preservation-cum-development policy. He used the examples of 1881 Heritage in Tsim Sha Tsui, Tai O Heritage Hotel and Kowloon City’s Magistrates’ Courts to illustrate that the relevant departments did not seem to have reviewed the effectiveness of this development model.

155. The Chairman agreed with Mr LO Kin-hei’s views and pointed out that one of the key factors of the preservation-cum-development policy was whether members of the public could benefit from this development model.

61

156. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) the preservation-cum-development model was a less preferable option,

given that under the existing mechanism, historic buildings must be preserved by owners voluntarily, who on the other hand had the right to demolish the buildings. To provide incentives for owners to preserve historic buildings, they were allowed to take forward other development projects in the surrounding area of the buildings. Without any legislative amendments, it was only possible to maintain this development model for the time being. Nevertheless, he shared Mr LO Kin-hei’s views that a review should be conducted on this model; and

(ii) he asked whether owners were required by the law or advised to open the historic buildings for public visit under the preservation-cum-development model. He said that without the above requirement, owners would only need to preserve the exterior of the building while the interior thereof would possibly be redeveloped into luxurious apartments, which basically would not benefit members of the public. If the departments concerned did not have the relevant requirement, it was hoped that improvement would be made as soon as possible so that members of the public could visit the heritage in person to gain first-hand experience.

157. The Chairman agreed that these historic buildings should be open for public use. Citing the Jessville at Pok Fu Lam as an example, he said that the building was similar to a private clubhouse at present as it was difficult for members of the public to access the building and use its facilities. It ended up that the developer had become the only beneficiary. 158. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) he opined that the Government’s efforts on the integration of preservation

and development were inadequate. Heritage preservation policy should not be limited to preserving the exterior of historic buildings without any requirement on the preservation of the interior thereof. In this regard, he agreed that it was necessary to review the relevant policy; and

(ii) public understanding of historic buildings should be enhanced in the course of their development. To avoid giving the public an overall feeling of disharmony towards the development of the ancillary facilities

62

in the surrounding area would be a win-win solution to both the public and the developer. He reiterated that the existing preservation model should be reviewed and improved.

159. The Chairman invited the representative of PlanD to respond. 160. Mr KAU Kin-hong, Louis gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) in considering the proposed amendments to the OZP, TPB had expressed

concerns on whether members of the public could access the Maryknoll House. In this regard, the ES of the OZP had been revised to clearly state that should a developer submit a planning application in the future which include a proposal in explaining how could the Maryknoll House be opened for public visit and appreciation, as well as relevant details such as opening hours. It should be noted that TPB is highly concerned about this case, and will seek comments from other concerned departments including the CHO and the Antiquities and Monuments Office during the consideration of relevant planning applications; and

(ii) PlanD would relay members’ views on the preservation-cum-development policy to DEVB.

(Post-meeting note: PlanD relayed members’ views on the

preservation-cum-development policy to DEVB on 27 May 2020.)

161. In closing, the Chairman said that the committee was very concerned about the preservation and development of historic buildings, e.g. the Maryknoll House, the Jessville and the Tai Tam Tuk Raw Water Pumping Station Staff Quarters Compound in the Southern District, etc. He said that the committee could invite representatives from the CHO to the meeting in the future, and requested PlanD to relay the committee’s views on preservation to the above office. (Post-meeting note: PlanD relayed the committee’s views on preservation to the

CHO on 27 May 2020.)

63

Agenda Item 5: Progress Report (EDPC Paper No. 8/2020)

(I) Progress of Development Projects Ex-Shek O Quarry (Annex 1 – page 2 of the discussion paper) 162. The Chairman said that the Government received an application for Short Term Tenancy (STT) from Hong Kong Sailing Federation (HKSF) for the purposes of aquatics facilities. He enquired of LandsD the latest progress of the above application. 163. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine responded that LandsD was seeking comments from relevant government departments regarding the proposal for STT application from HKSF. Comments received from relevant departments were referred to HKSF, and requests for supplementary information from HKSF were made. HKSF had provided some of the supplementary information as requested. LandsD was processing the application. 164. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that the District Development and Housing Committee of the last term had indicated its intention to use the site as public water sports centre, and emphasised that public participation should be enhanced. He also worried that the water sports centre would become “a club for the rich” which would not be available for members of the general public. It would run contrary to the development intention SDC expected. 165. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH said that the use of the site had been discussed for a long period of time. She worried that the proposed water sports centre would become a centre for private activities or a club. She hoped that LandsD would provide more details of the STT application such as the opening details of the water sports centre and the number of people that would benefit from it. 166. The Chairman asked LandsD to express the concerns of EDPC to the STT applicant. He also invited the applicant to brief EDPC on the application. 167. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine responded that LandsD would reflect the views of EDPC to the applicant for consideration.

64

(Post-meeting note: After discussion with DEVB and Home Affairs Bureau, LandsD had informed the applicant that the STT cannot not be processed further as the site would be reserved for uses in relation to forthcoming public works projects.)

Public Housing Developments in Pokfulam South (Annex 1 – page 5 of the

discussion paper) 168. Mr YIM Chun-ho said that LandsD had started resuming five government lands, including the one near Wah Lok Path, in recent months whereas the land in the locality of Kai Lung Wan North and Kai Lung Wan South would be returned to the Government in late July 2020. Hence, he asked whether LandsD could assist the occupiers of the land concerned in identifying sites for relocation to avoid hindering the progress of public housing developments at Pok Fu Lam South. 169. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine said that the commencement of site formation and infrastructure works for the five pieces of land in Pok Fu Lam South had been delayed. Thus, LandsD had arranged extension of STT to July 2020 for an affected tenant to facilitate delivery of vacant possession. LandsD noted some SDC members had reflected that the affected tenant wished to apply for relocation in the vicinity of the original sites. Upon LandsD’s review, the alternative site previously proposed by the tenant was considered unsuitable for STT use as it was designated for carrying out Pokfulam public housing project. Nevertheless, STT applications for commercial use were, in general, subject to open tendering procedure unless support was given by relevant policy bureau. Should suitable site was identified for any STT, LandsD would consider each case on its own merits in accordance with the existing policy. 170. The Chairman enquired Mr YIM Chun-ho whether the STT site concerned was currently used as temporary car park. Mr YIM Chun-ho said that the temporary car park site had already been returned to LandsD. The site at Wah Lok Path he referred to was currently used as a garden. He would continue to follow up the matter with the relevant government departments. He continued to enquire about the delay in public housing developments at Pok Fu Lam South. 171. Mr LING Chi-wai, Jimmy said that CEDD would commence the site formation and infrastructure works as soon as practicable after obtaining the funding approval from the LegCo. The proposal was still pending consideration by the

65

Public Works Sub-committee under the FC of LegCo. It was hoped that it could be passed to LegCo’s FC for consideration and secure funding approval as soon as possible. 172. Ms LO Kit-sheung said that according to the current progress, the HD aimed at completing the construction of the first batch of reception units before 2026, but the actual completion date was subject to whether CEDD could obtain funding for commencing site formation and infrastructure works in 2020-21. HD would review the completion timetable of the first batch of reception units according to the actual funding position, CEDD’s timetable of site formation and infrastructure works and schedule of site handover to HD. 173. The Chairman asked CEDD to report the latest planning and funding position of the site formation and infrastructure works concerned to EDPC in due course. In addition, as SDC had all along been paying attention to public housing developments at Pok Fu Lam South, he urged the departments concerned to report to EDPC should there be any programme updates in the future.

(Post-meeting note: The funding proposal for site formation and infrastructure works for public housing developments at Pok Fu Lam South had been approved by the Public Works Sub-committee of LegCo’s FC on 10 June 2020 and would be passed to FC for consideration.)

174. Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus pointed out that public housing developments at Pok Fu Lam South and the development of the SIL(W) were closely related, and in 2019, the Government had invited the MTR Corporation Limited to submit a proposal for SIL(W). Thus, he enquired about the progress of the project. The Chairman said that the Traffic and Transport Committee (TTC) would continue to follow up the progress of SIL(W) development, and asked TTC’s chairman to take note of this. Cyberport Expansion Project (Annex 1 – page 7 of the discussion paper) 175. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that he had proposed at the meeting of the District Development and Housing Committee of the previous term the construction of a lookout tower at the rooftop of Cyberport 5 and a footbridge connecting Cyberport 5 and Cyberport Arcade or other phases. The management of the Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited present at the meeting responded

66

positively to the above proposal. He asked whether the proposed draft Pok Fu Lam OZP No. S/H10/18 had considered the above suggestions. 176. Mr WONG Wai-yin, Vincent said that Annex 2 to the Progress Report already listed the number of representations and comments received by the TPB in connection with the draft Pok Fu Lam OZP No. S/H10/18. The relevant representations and comments on representations would be considered by TPB at the meeting on 5 June 2020. Detailed information and papers would be uploaded to the relevant webpage for public reference before the meeting. 177. The Chairman expressed concern about the connectivity between Cyberport and neighbouring areas, such as Telegraph Bay and Sandy Bay. He hoped that TPB would take relevant matters into account when considering the representations and comments. Relevant matters would be kept followed up on the Progress Report. (III) Civil Engineering and Development Department－Progress Report on

Landslip Prevention and Mitigation Works in Southern District PWP No.: Head 705 Subhead 5001BX/D (Landslip Prevention and

Mitigation Programme (LPMitP)) 178. The Chairman said that some roads in the area, in particular Island Road, Stanley Gap Road, Repulse Bay Road, Tai Tam Road and Mount Davis Road were narrow. He had pointed out all along that carriageway widening works should be carried out in conjunction with slope works, but there was no active response from the CEDD. 179. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael said residents complained that debris and other wastes left over from local slope works had generated extra workload for the cleansing workers. He requested that CEDD should require the contractors to handle the relevant issues properly. 180. Mr LING Chi-wai, Jimmy noted the opinions of the Chairman and members, and said that he would follow up with and reflect the matter to the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) and require the contractors to make improvements.

67

181. The Chairman said that CEDD should ask the contractors to formulate waste collection and disposal mechanisms for carrying out the works, and provide waste collection bins on the site. He hoped that CEDD would respond on the above matters at the next meeting and indicate on the Progress Report which slope works had been carried out in conjunction with carriageway widening works. 182. Mr LING Chi-wai, Jimmy stated that he would reflect the views and issues to GEO, and would also request that the above issues be dealt with seriously. 183. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael said that Stanley and Shek O Area and Bays Area had been distressed by problems of works waste for a long time. He suggested that contracts CEDD drawn up should include terms and conditions specifying, inter alia, that the contractors must take photos to prove that the waste on the site had been properly disposed of by the works staff. When making assessments, CEDD should also check whether the contractors had complied with the relevant requirements. 184. Mr LING Chi-wai, Jimmy said that he would reflect the relevant views to GEO and hope that the waste problem could be alleviated. The Chairman reiterated that he would like CEDD to provide a written response in this regard. (Post-meeting note: Regarding inclusion of road widening and issue of waste

disposal under the LPMitP, CEDD reviews the feasibility of inclusion of road widening and addition of footpaths for each newly selected roadside slope located in the Southern District in the course of detailed studies under the LPMitP. CEDD will continue to provide EDPC with the above reviews in the Progress Report. With regard to waste disposal, CEDD notes the concern of the SDC on the site hygiene problem, and has requested consultants’ resident site staff and contractors to step up their effort in maintaining the site clean and tidy, and to take prompt action where necessary. If unsatisfactory site hygiene conditions is found, this will be reflected in consultants’ and contractor’s performance reports.)

68

(IV) Others 185. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that previously SDC had endorsed a motion for rezoning the site of the Hong Kong Police College at Wong Chuk Hang for residential use. He suggested including this item in the Progress Report of EDPC for regular follow-up. Mr LO Kin-hei also wished to add this item in the Progress Report and would like to know whether the “Development Projects” as in “Annex 1 – Progress of Development Projects” meant “developed projects”, “planned development projects” or “intended development projects yet to be planned”. 186. The Chairman said that if members hoped to include any local development projects in the Progress Report for follow-up, they were welcomed to make proposals for his consideration. 187. After consolidating the views of members, the Secretariat would include items (i) to (x) of the following in the Progress Report for regular follow-up by EDPC, while items (xi) to (xiii) would be followed up by other committees: To be followed up by EDPC: (i) Aberdeen harbour expansion; (ii) development of Ocean Park and areas in vicinity (including Stanley Market

and Jumbo Floating Restaurant); (iii) development of the University of Hong Kong; (iv) development of Hong Kong Police College at Wong Chuk Hang; (v) revitalisation of Tai Tam Tuk Raw Water Pumping Station Staff Quarters

Compound; (vi) protection and improvement measures against typhoons in the Southern

District; (vii) proposed school development in Sandy Bay; (viii) development of former Tin Wan Concrete Batching Plant; (ix) development of former St. Peter’s Secondary School; and (x) planning and development of Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village and Kau Wai

Village.

69

To be followed up by other committees: (xi) redevelopment of Queen Mary Hospital (Environment, Hygiene and

Healthcare Committee); (xii) planning and development of the Waterfront Area of Ap Lei Chau (Recreation

and District Facilities Committee); and (xiii) progress of SIL(W) (TTC). (Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun left the meeting at 7:28 p.m.) Agenda Item 6: Any Other Business Nomination of a Person for the Secretary for Development to Consider for Appointment to the Disciplinary Boards under Sections 5(3A) and 11(4A) of the Buildings Ordinance (Cap.123) 188. The Chairman said that DEVB had invited SDC to nominate a suitable member in his/her personal capacity as a “lay person” for the appointment, and the nominee should meet the relevant criteria, details of which could be found in reference material 1. 189. Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus nominated Mr YU Chun-hei, James. 190. Mr. YU Chun-hei, James said that he meets the relevant criteria as stated in reference material 1. The Committee endorsed the nomination of Mr YU Chun-hei, James as “lay person” for the Secretary for Development’s consideration for appointment to the disciplinary boards.

Part 2 - Date of the Next Meeting 191. The Chairman advised the meeting that the 2nd EDPC meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 16 July 2020 (Thursday). 192. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council July 2020

70

Annex 1

71

72

73

Annex 2

74

75

76

Annex 3