雙學三子覆核刑期案判詞法理不清

「雙學三子」黃之鋒、羅冠聰、周永康,2014年9月26日重奪「公民廣場」案,2016年8月15日裁判法院裁定參與非法集結及煽惑他人參與非法集結等罪名成立,被判社會服務令或緩刑。案件編號 ESCC 2791/2015,http://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/pdf/vetted/other/ch/2015/ESCC002791A_2015.pdf

重點:集結並沒有直接導致有人受傷:

「從錄影片段所見,三位被告一直主張行動必須和平、理性及非暴力,事實上,當晚最可能會受傷的,其實是爬欄的被告及其他的集會參與者,當然法庭沒有忘記事件中有保安人員因阻止示威者進入前地而受傷,法庭亦對此感到難過,但沒有證供顯示三位被告就該些導致受傷的行為有份參與,或有意圖使他人造成該等傷害,亦慶幸保安員所受的只是輕傷而已,三位被告亦一直對此表示歉意。」

律政司司長認為刑罰明顯太輕,申請覆核刑期,要求改判即時監禁。上訴庭副庭長楊振權2017年8月17日改判羅冠聰入獄8個月,周永康入獄7個月、黃之鋒入獄6個月。案件編號:CAAR 4/2016,http://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=110877&currpage=T

重點 1. 判詞對暴力的推論不合邏輯,包括

126. … 當大批示威者聚集時,很大可能會出現情緒高漲甚至激動的情況,而這種情況本身有造成暴力事件的風險。有時,甚至會有以挑起暴力事端為目的之不法之徒在場趁機行事,這方面的風險不容忽視…

即係法庭認為人多聚集,就有造成暴力的風險?!即係人多聚集就足以構成暴力行為?!法官一定是搞錯了混亂和暴力兩詞,人多聚集只會合理地造成混亂的風險,不會推論到暴力的風險,否則,年宵花市、書展、71遊行都一樣多人聚集,豈非全部非法集結?

法官曾在庭上指,重奪公民廣場的奪字就意味使用暴力,簡直是文字獄!

重點 2. 所謂犯法,就是犯了公安惡法,本已在1995年廢除,後經(不知是否合法)的臨時立法會恢復的公安條例,本身可能已經違反香港簽署的聯合國國際人權公約 (ICCPR) 第21條

122. 《公安條例》第「 18. 非法集結 (1) 凡有3人或多於3人集結在一起,作出擾亂秩序的行為或作出帶有威嚇性、侮辱性或挑撥生的行為,意圖導致或相當可能導致任何人合理地害怕如此集結的人會破壞社會安寧,或害怕他們會藉以上的行為激使其他人破壞社會安寧,他們即屬非法集結。

大量超過3人的集結並作出擾亂秩序等行為,警察均沒有拘捕,6月30日晚尖沙咀一批愛國人士侮辱外籍人士,已構成非法集結,但警方沒有執法,卻針對政敵,明顯是政治打壓。

重點 3. 阻嚇歪風

判詞中最具爭議的莫過於第6段:「香港社會近年瀰漫一鼓歪風,有人以追求其心目中的理想或自由行使法律賦予的權力為藉口而肆意作出違法的行為。有人,包括一些有識之仕,鼓吹「違法達義」的口號、鼓勵他人犯法。」

但在判詞中並沒有對歪風作出法律論斷 (STARE DECISIS),包括沒有解釋何謂歪風,義為何解,為什麼達法達義是歪風,為何本案是違法達義,違法達義的論據何來?

引述王慧麟的觀點:「放在香港,官老爺上周的判辭第六段,就顯得十分奇怪了。既然官老爺認為,「違法達義」是一股「歪風」,那麼官老爺就應該有責任就此4個字詳細解說。至少,也應先分析「義」之定義。例如假設官老爺說的是指普通法下之「公義」(justice),就應該指出普通法下的「公義」該如何解釋(至少從學者層面上,引述香港學者常用的Rawls、Dworkin或至少香港法律界殿堂級教授Raymond Wacks關於良法與惡法的道德爭論吧!),以及在香港的環境下,「公義」的正確理解應是什麼。又假如官老爺認為,「義」一詞是指儒家學說的「義」,例如韓愈提過的「博愛之謂仁,行而宜之之謂義」的話,則大可討論,在華人社會之中「義」之定義與社會和諧的關係,以及「義」在華人風俗習慣與實踐等等。然後,官老爺可以就「義」一詞在香港華人社會之穩定民心及和諧之作用,以此批評「違法」就是「違義」、不「守法」何以達義,以至「違法達義」在法理上的不足等等。

問題是,判辭內看不到這些關於「守法」、「違法」、「公義」或「義」之法理討論,反而就跳到一個結論:即「違法達義」是「傲慢」、「自以為是」、「對部分年輕人造成影響」。」

「一地兩檢」評論文章集

一地兩檢署名文章:

  1. 明報

黎廣德 (2017/7/26) 一地兩檢變質 高鐵錯上加錯,明報,

https://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170726/s00022/1501030078554

陳景祥 (2017/7/26) 一地兩檢用「機場模式」,明報,

https://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170726/s00022/1501030158488

郭榮鏗 (2017/7/27) 一地兩檢 開極危險先例,明報,

https://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170727/s00022/1501117371674

盧文端 (2017/7/27) 請泛民主流派理性討論一地兩檢,明報,https://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170727/s00022/1501117297652

田北辰 (2017/7/28) 一地兩檢內地口岸區 應增更多法律例外情况,明報,

https://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170728/s00022/1501203615957

曾志豪 (2017/7/28) 就是害怕大陸的法律,明報,

https://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170728/s00022/1501203526819

林卓廷 (2017/7/28) 一地兩檢令基本法淪為廢紙,明報,

https://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170728/s00022/1501203381146

丘健和 (2017/7/28) 高鐵一地兩檢不可或缺,明報,

https://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170728/s00022/1501203252055

彭皓昕 (2017/7/31) 支持一地兩檢的例子比擬不倫,明報,https://news.mingpao.com/pns/dailynews/web_tc/article/20170731/s00012/1501437006610

呂秉權 (2017/8/21) 自己破壞法治 如何信你一地兩檢?,明報,

https://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170726/s00022/1501029993424

2. 立場新聞

張達明 (2017/7/21) 會否確保一地兩檢內地人員 遵守香港法律?,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E6%9C%83%E5%90%A6%E7%A2%BA%E4%BF%9D%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2%E5%85%A7%E5%9C%B0%E4%BA%BA%E5%93%A1-%E9%81%B5%E5%AE%88%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%B3%95%E5%BE%8B/

林彥邦 (2017/7/21) 老子說是租就是租,說合法就是合法,這叫做中國邏輯!,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E8%80%81%E5%AD%90%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%AF%E7%A7%9F%E5%B0%B1%E6%98%AF%E7%A7%9F-%E8%AA%AA%E5%90%88%E6%B3%95%E5%B0%B1%E6%98%AF%E5%90%88%E6%B3%95-%E9%80%99%E5%8F%AB%E5%81%9A%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E9%82%8F%E8%BC%AF/

劉山青 (2017/7/24) 「一地兩檢」,如何分析?,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2-%E5%A6%82%E4%BD%95%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90/

鍾劍華 (2017/7/25) 「一地兩檢」安排的核心是「信心」問題,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2-%E5%AE%89%E6%8E%92%E7%9A%84%E6%A0%B8%E5%BF%83%E6%98%AF-%E4%BF%A1%E5%BF%83-%E5%95%8F%E9%A1%8C/

黎則奮 (2017//7/25) 「一地兩檢」應用美國模式,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2-%E6%87%89%E7%94%A8%E7%BE%8E%E5%9C%8B%E6%A8%A1%E5%BC%8F/

曾焯文 (2017/7/26) 一地兩檢石敬瑭,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2%E7%9F%B3%E6%95%AC%E7%91%AD/

張達明 (2017/7/27) 為了經濟效益破壞基本法保障, 值得嗎?,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E7%82%BA%E4%BA%86%E7%B6%93%E6%BF%9F%E6%95%88%E7%9B%8A%E7%A0%B4%E5%A3%9E%E5%9F%BA%E6%9C%AC%E6%B3%95%E4%BF%9D%E9%9A%9C-%E5%80%BC%E5%BE%97%E5%97%8E/

黎廣德 (2017/7/27) 一地兩檢變質 高鐵錯上加錯,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2%E8%AE%8A%E8%B3%AA%E9%AB%98%E9%90%B5%E9%8C%AF%E4%B8%8A%E5%8A%A0%E9%8C%AF/

張達明 (2017/7/31) 創先例濫用20條 基本法保障連根拔,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%89%B5%E5%85%88%E4%BE%8B%E6%BF%AB%E7%94%A820%E6%A2%9D-%E5%9F%BA%E6%9C%AC%E6%B3%95%E4%BF%9D%E9%9A%9C%E9%80%A3%E6%A0%B9%E6%8B%94/

任建峰 (2017/8/3)「阻住做生意」的一地兩檢,立場,https://thestandnews.com/society/%E9%98%BB%E4%BD%8F%E5%81%9A%E7%94%9F%E6%84%8F-%E7%9A%84%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2/

張達明 (2017/8/7) 我們已提建議 政府置若罔聞,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E6%88%91%E5%80%91%E5%B7%B2%E6%8F%90%E5%BB%BA%E8%AD%B0-%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C%E7%BD%AE%E8%8B%A5%E7%BD%94%E8%81%9E/

前線科技人員 (2017/8/11 ) 中式一地兩檢有賺無蝕?凡事要有兩手準備,立場https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%AD%E5%BC%8F%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2%E6%9C%89%E8%B3%BA%E7%84%A1%E8%9D%95-%E5%87%A1%E4%BA%8B%E8%A6%81%E6%9C%89%E5%85%A9%E6%89%8B%E6%BA%96%E5%82%99/

杜耀明 (2017/8/11) 又要割地喪權 又要貞節牌坊,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%8F%88%E8%A6%81%E5%89%B2%E5%9C%B0%E5%96%AA%E6%AC%8A-%E5%8F%88%E8%A6%81%E8%B2%9E%E7%AF%80%E7%89%8C%E5%9D%8A/

陳文敏 (2017/8/18) 一地兩檢:一個替代方案,立場,https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2-%E4%B8%80%E5%80%8B%E6%9B%BF%E4%BB%A3%E6%96%B9%E6%A1%88/

3. 獨媒

劉山青 (2017/7/27) 『一地兩檢』的租界問題,獨媒,http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1051013

郭永健 (2017/8/3) 一國兩制/一地兩檢值幾錢?,獨媒,http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1051150a

 

 

Do Not Mix Up Cost and Price

Wong (2017) contends that regulation tax is the main cause of high property price in Hong Kong. Regulation Tax is a term coined by Edward Glaeser on the cost of assembling land, acquiring planning and building permission, and overcoming political resistance and bureaucratic inertia. (p. 191)

Yes, it is reasonable to argue that all these transaction costs (regulation tax) would contribute to the high cost of housing development, but it is not necessarily contributing to high housing price. It is a common economic knowledge that cost is different from price.

Unfortunately, Wong (2017) mixes up the two with clear evidence as follows:

“The cost of housing can be expressed in the formula:

P = C + L + R

Housing price (P) and construction costs (C) can be found by observing the data.” (p. 191, emphases added)

Its very confusing and self-contradictory in the above 3 lines of a direct quote from his book. Whether he is referring to the cost of housing or to the price of housing, or does he mean the two are the same?

It is quite straightforward to argue that Total Cost of Housing is the sum of all costs, including C, L, R. But it is quite remote to argue that the sum of the costs (C, L, R) equals to the PRICE !?

I prefer to assume that he has just made a rhetoric typo. Let’s continue to discuss his concept of regulation tax separately by replacing P by TC (total cost).

In fact, we normally categorize housing total cost into the following sub-costs:

TC = C + L + R + F + M + P + p

This is based on Residual Valuation of Land Value Method that Total Cost of Housing Development (TC) includes the following components:

C = Construction cost

L = Land cost

R = Regulation Tax

F = Financial cost

M = Marketing cost

P = Professional cost

p = Profit

In other words, Wong’s (2017) hypothesis that “Why has housing supply not increased in response to rising demand? Because in each of the developed countries, a very large array of complex regulations has made development difficult and effectively prevented housing supply from responding to demand.” is likely to be WRONG! Its because he mixes up cost and price, and supply-demand should not be directly related to cost, but only price. He also ignores many important cost factors, some of them can substantially affect the validity of the hypothesis.

Positive price-cost relationship is only valid when the market competition is not keen, so that suppliers can control market price above cost. Yet, there is no empirical evidence of such oligopoly in the housing market in the book, and even if that is the case, then the real cause of high housing price is not regulation tax, but oligopoly of suppliers.

Furthermore, land cost may be equally important as regulation tax in affecting the total cost, as shown in the formula. However, Wong (2017) opines that the government does not have any incentive to jet up land price (lets discuss separately).

Lastly, Wong’s (2017) conclusion must be wrong as he concludes that “Property prices will continue to rise as long as the regulatory regime continues to be complex and the regulation tax stays high.” (p. 193) There have been many downward turns of property prices in the past decades, including 1997 and 2008, when regulation tax has not decreased. In addition, there have also been many upward turns of property prices before WWII, when regulation tax was relatively low. I think at least an empirical test controlling all other factors has to be done before jumping to such a drastic conclusion.

Reference

Wong, Richard (2017) Fixing Inequality in Hong Kong, A Friedman Lecture Fund Monograph, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Origin of Building Code for Light Angle

Wong (2017) elaborates the legal origins of HK building codes on setting back the top stories of buildings (light angle or tapered buildings) from the UK:

“The English Public Health Act of 1875 regulated building heights to allow the sun light to reach the streets by aiming for a maximum diagonal of 45 degrees between the building line (at ground level) on one side of a new street and the skyline formed by the edge of the roof on the other side. The angle is not explicitly mentioned but implied in a set of bylaws stating:

If the height of such building be 15 feet, he shall cause such distance (width of open space) to be 15 feet at the least.

If the height of such building be 25 feet, he shall cause such distance to be 20 feet at the lease.

If the height of such building be 35 feet, or exceed 35 feet, he shall cause such distance to be 25 feet at the least.

In these cases, the implied angle varied from 45 degrees to 54.5 degrees.

The light-angle terminology in degrees was employed in the English Housing Act of 1890 and the London Building Act of 1894. They mention the use of a 63.5-degree angle for backyards, and the calculation to be decided from the center line of the open space between two rows of buildings.” (p. 196)


Hong Kong started enforcing light-angle since the Buildings Ordinance of 1903, after a series of epidemic outbreaks in the city. “It specified the same 63.5-degree rule for regulating building heights.” (p. 196)

Even though it specified light-angle, but normally it regulated building height, rather than a set-back of the top stories of buildings. For example, “land leased from the Crown after 1903 “the respective height of the building could not exceed 1.25 or 1.0 times the width of the street… Buildings constructed under these limitations reached an average height of 3.6 stories with a low standard deviation of 0.8 stories” (p. 197)

“In 1955, the situation was altered radically with a new ordinance permitting considerably higher structures. The height of the main wall facing the street was not to exceed 76 degrees from the horizontal, greater heights permitted for corner and ‘island’ lots. The average height of buildings constructed in the period 1960-1962 rose to 9.39 stories.” (p. 197-198)

Finally, it is the first Building (Planning) Regulation introducing plot ratio control in 1962 that triggered set back of the top stories of buildings. As we have discussed in ecyY blog before, because of the objections of landlord, the government finally granted a grace period to implement the new regulations of plot ratio control until Jan 1, 1966. “Landlords used all means to submit building plans ahead of the deadline. The plans submitted during this period also introduced the practice of set-back profusely – which was the best proof of the rush to build. Under the ruling of a 76-degree angle from the horizontal, a landlord was able to increase floor space if he or she chose to set back the top stories in steps while observing that angle for the hypotenuse.

For the set-back, the cost of construction is exceptionally high because of the irregular structural framing and the decreasing area for each of the set-back floors. But it was worth doing for the landlord because this was a now-or-never decision.” (p. 199)

In other words, Wong (2017) opined that it is the last chance of volume control of development intensity that triggered the set-back of the top stories of buildings, because if the landlords did not build, the benefits would be forfeited.

Yet, interestingly, due to the economic recession and the housing bust from mid-1965 to late 1969 deterred from building more tapered buildings. Ironically, he suspects the rush of construction might have triggered the bank runs and the economic recession, and perhaps even contributed to the riots as the living conditions of the people evicted from their homes worsened.” (p.199)

Reference2e1

Wong, Richard (2017) Fixing Inequality in Hong Kong, A Friedman Lecture Fund Monograph, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Wong, Richard (2015) Building Codes and Postwar Reconstruction in Hong Kong, http://wangyujian.hku.hk/?p=6100&lang=en

2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Hong Kong

U.S. Department of State (2012) has released a report on Human Rights Practices – Hong Kong on May 24, 2012, and is included in Rollins and Branch’s (2012) book.

Section 3 is about Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government

The 2nd paragraph of Section 3 is about Elections and Political Participation

It addresses about the election in 2008 and the bi-election in 2010 as follows:

“In 2008 voters in five GCs elected 30 legislators, half of the total Legco, in elections that were generally free and fair. A record number of candidates, both party-affiliated and independent, contested the elections. Of the 30 FC seats, 14 incumbents returned uncontested.”

“In January 2010,  five legislators resigned to force a by-election they declared to be a “referendum” on political reform, particularly on achieving universal suffrage. …The by-election itself, which saw a turnout of approximately 17 percent, was generally free and fair, and the five “incumbents” were reelected.”

In other words, the elections in 2008 and 2010 were basically regarded as free and fair. It may pave a good comparison for the elections in 2016. The election in 2016 is twisted by (1) non-acceptance of candidature if an administrative declaration stating Hong Kong is part of China is not signed; and (2) the oath taking requirements were re-interpreted after the oaths were taken.

However, even without these new challenges, the Report has highlighted the institutional challenges of pan-democratic parties as follows:

“Pan-democratic parties faced a number of institutional challenges preventing them from holding a majority of the seats in the Legco or having one of their members become chief executive. The unique nature of voting for Legco members ensures pro-business representatives and Beijing’s allies control a majority. Additionally, the Central Government and its business supporters provided generous financial resources to parties that support Beijing’s political agenda in Hong Kong, ensuring these organizations will control the levers of government and all senior positions.”

References

U.S. Department of State (2012) Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor report, May 24, 2012

Rollins, Seth and Branch, Kirk M. (2012) Human Rights: Background and Issues – China, Tiber, Hong Kong, Macau – Human Rights Reports, New York: nova publishers.

Hong Kong’s Political Rights at Stake

August 16, 2017

Hong Kong’s Political Rights at Stake

Last September, I ran the Legislative Council election under the functional constituency of Architecture, Surveying, Planning and Landscape, I won the election with over 40% of the votes among 3 candidates.

Then my oath has been accepted by the President of the Council after 3 attempts (as I have added “uphold justice, pursue universal suffrage, serve sustainable development” in my first 2 attempts), and I have carried out my official duties as a legislator in the Council for months. However, The National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), issued a document in November to interpret article 104 of the the Basic Law, which is a defacto amendment of the article. Then the Secretary of Justice and the Chief Executive of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) raised a judicial review on the President’s acceptance of my oath. The President’s decisions on 4 cases including mine were quashed by the High Court on July 14, 2017 largely based on the Interpretation.

In other words, the interpretation is of retroactive power, as the Interpretation was made after the oath was taken. The political rights of my voters and myself are deprived by administrative reasons. The courts of HKSAR are forced to become tools of political suppression.

If I may quote from an article written by the Foreign Policy on 26 July 2017,  “By leaning on a political order, the ruling sullied common law and allowed Beijing to use Hong Kong’s judiciary to control the city.” [1] this can sum up the current erosion of the human rights situation in Hong Kong.

Dr. Edward Chung-yim Yiu

Reference:

[1] Foreign Policy (July 26, 2017) Beijing Deals Another Blow to Hong Kong’s Autonomy,  http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/26/beijing-deals-another-blow-to-hong-kongs-autonomy/

廚餘機的財務利弊分析

環保局推出廚餘機資助計劃:屋苑廚餘循環再造項目http://www.ecf.gov.hk/doc/fwr_guide_c.pdf

由於廚餘機耗電量不少,因此分析廚餘機的整體支出需要計算電費:

1. 假設某一屋苑每日收集120KG廚餘 (約300戶,剛好一筒),廚餘機全日運作。

2. 每日約用電38度,每日電費支出約42元。

3. 每日廚餘可轉化為18KG肥料,每日可節省110元肥料費。

4. 每日可減少一筒(120KG)垃圾,若垃圾徵費以每公斤1.1元,每日可節省132元垃圾費。

換言之,廚餘機的淨利益為每日200元 (未計人工和水費)。

若果計及人工,假設需要請兩名清潔工,每日開支已經超過1150元,不能平衡。當然,如果政府資助,財務上仍有可為,但資助不會長久,長遠收支仍需考慮。

因此,廚餘回收必須依靠社區義工參與,自己垃圾自己推肥才有可為。

請問有沒有朋友可以幫手計一計碳排放?

 

Last EYS at Legco 2017: Jul 14 Speech on DQ

video at: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=462509354123586&id=231691230538734

姚松炎回應判決:
「首先要多謝投我票嘅選民,要多謝九個月嚟一直支持我嘅市民、守護公義基金,以及廿多位泛民議員。更重要嘅係專業議政,同我一齊用專業嘅角度,過去九個月大家有目共睹,我哋透過用專業分析,同埋我哋深入抽絲剝繭,揭發政府暪騙市民,意圖胡混過關,甚至隱瞞失實嘅行為。我和朱凱迪議員破天荒用《財委會會議程序》21條,相信大家會同意,我們在立法會開啟新一頁。
所以,政府千方百計要褫奪我哋議員嘅資格。林鄭甚至曾向我的選民公開咁講,話我係一個極度難以合作嘅人,企圖去改變選民對我嘅睇法。
我希望今日呢個消息,可以作為民主運動向前踏出嘅能量;因為政府越邪惡,市民越需要努力,民主運動需要大家嘅支持。多謝大家!」

(有線新聞片段)

華富非原址重建方案

政府正式向區議會提交華富非原址重建方案[1],雖然政府放棄發展近置富道的用地,只改劃其餘五幅土地[2],因而縮減發展規模 [3],但

(1) 新方案其實未完成諮詢,因為第四號通告5月尾才寄到居民處,置富居協現已收到1017份反對方案回覆,陸續有來。但政府只統計至6月30日,而且把四次通告的所有回覆一併統計,實情是每份通告都有所變更,根本不可合計贊成或反對[4]。而且政府文件聲稱至今只有1750份反對意見,但置富居協收集及遞交的反對信至今已超過3500份,政府文件有失實之嫌。

(2) 再者,南區區議會主席及新民黨主席明確表示反對新方案,並已提交反建議的替代方案,政府仍未就替代方案回覆其可行性,不宜急急通過。

(3) 政府並未考慮有關原址重建的優點和可行性,令華富邨的居民無法原址安置,亦不能享有未來港鐵南港島線延線的交通便捷。

(4) 我提出要求把項目的討論延遲3個月,先完成第四號通告的諮詢結果及研究各種替代方案後,並讓城規會完成審議民間申請改劃置富山谷為生態及古蹟保育公園後,才一併提交區議會。

 

[1] 重建方案:http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/…/DDHC_2017_12_TC_Annex_…
[2] 改劃用地圖:http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/…/DDHC_2017_12_TC_Plan_3…
[3] 發展概念圖:http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/…/DDHC_2017_12_TC_Plan_2…
[4] 諮詢結果:http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/south/doc/2016_2019/tc/committee_meetings_doc/DDHC/11890/DDHC_2017_12_TC_Appendix_2.pdf

[5] 發展參數表:http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/…/DDHC_2017_12_TC_Append…
[6] 可行性研究報告摘要:http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/…/DDHC_2017_12_TC_Append…


Wah Fu Non-insitu Redevelopment Project

The Government has formally submitted to the District Councils the non-insitu redevelopment proposal of Wah Fu [1]. Although the Government has abandoned the development of the site near the Chi Fu road (Chi Fu Valley), only the remaining five sites [2] would be used, but the total number of housing units to be developed would not be reduced. [3] However, the documents do not reflect correctly the current situation and the consultation results.

(1) the consultation has not yet been completed, because the fourth notice was sent to residents only at the end of May, Chi Fu Resident Association has already received 1017 against the proposal, but the government’s statistics is only upto June 30, and combined all the responses from the four notices. In fact, the details and design proposals in each notice are different, their responses can not be combined [4]. The government documents claim that there are only 1750 objections so far, but according to Chi Fu Resident Association’s information, there must be more than 3,500 objections and so the data provided by the government documents are suspected to be false.

(2) Furthermore, the Chairman of the Southern District Council has opposed the proposal and had submitted an alternative scheme for consideration. The Government has not yet responded to the feasibility of the alternative scheme.

(3) The Government has not considered the merits and feasibility of in-situ redevelopment so that the residents of the village can be rehoused at the same site to enjoy the convenience of the future MTR extension of the South Island Line.

(4) There is also an application of rezoning for the Near Chi Fu Road site from Residential (B) to OU (ecology and heritage Park). Thus,  I request to defer the discussion of the proposal for three months, so as to complete the consultation of the fourth notice, to study the various alternatives and to allow the TPB to complete the consideration of the application of the park.

 

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑