Author Archives: hksar gov

     Following is a question by the Hon Chan Pui-leung and a written reply by the Secretary for Culture, Sports and Tourism, Miss Rosanna Law, in the Legislative Council today (October 21):
 
Question:
 
     The Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) is responsible for managing 46 public swimming pools, 42 gazetted beaches and five water sports centres across the territory. There are views that the manpower of lifeguards under the LCSD is insufficient, and the vacancy rate has also soared. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the establishment, strength, vacancies and mid-point salaries of seasonal lifeguards, full-year lifeguards on a two-year contract and civil service lifeguards in the past five years respectively (provided in tabulated form);
 
(2) of the respective numbers of summer days and total number of days on which public swimming pools, gazetted beaches and water sports centres had to be temporarily closed due to a shortage of lifeguards in the past five years (provided in tabulated form);
 
(3) of the latest vacancy rate of civil service lifeguards; as there are views pointing out that the continuous increase in the number of local private swimming pools in recent years has led to a growing market demand for lifeguards, what enhancement measures the authorities have in place in respect of lifeguard recruitment to address the aforesaid situation (including narrowing the gap in remuneration packages between the public and private markets); in addition, whether the authorities will reconsider reviewing the grade structure of civil service lifeguards;
 
(4) as the LCSD has launched a two-year programme of outsourcing the lifesaving and first aid services at six public swimming pools on a trial basis (trial programme) since September 2024; of the current progress of the trial programme; whether the authorities have reviewed the effectiveness of the trial programme, and whether they will consider extending the trial programme and expanding it to all public swimming pools across the territory;
 
(5) as there are views pointing out that the cost of full-year outsourcing of lifesaving and first aid services is too high, whether the authorities will consider outsourcing lifesaving and first aid services only during peak periods of the swimming season and public holidays under a seasonal supplementary mode, or using the relevant outsourcing expenditure to subsidise lifeguards undertaking overtime work instead; and
 
(6) given that in recent years, the authorities have put on trial two different sets of artificial intelligence drowning detection systems at Kwun Tong Swimming Pool and Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park Swimming Pool respectively, but it has been reported that the detection system equipment has encountered problems such as cameras being blocked by swimmers and high system maintenance costs, what enhancement and improvement measures the authorities have implemented in response to such problems, and whether they will extend the use of the detection systems to all public swimming pools across the territory?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     My reply to the question raised by the Hon Chan Pui-leung is as follows:
 
(1) Statistics on the strength of non-civil service contract (NCSC) seasonal lifeguards and full-year lifeguards from 2022 to 2026; the establishment, strength and vacancies of civil service lifeguards from 2022 to 2026; and the mid-point salary of civil service lifeguards from 2022-23 to 2026-27 are tabulated in Annexes I, II and III respectively. Since the NCSC lifeguards are not part of the civil service, there are no figures for their establishment and mid-point salary.
 
(2) No public swimming pools or water sports centres were closed due to lifeguard shortages from 2022 to 2026. During the same period, 25 of the 42 gazetted beaches had suspended lifesaving services at some point due to lifeguard shortages (the number dropped to 18 in 2026). The number of days of service suspension is tabulated in Annex IV.
 
(3) In recent years, the number of private swimming pools has continued to rise with the current figure standing at around 1 400, whereas the number of people joining the lifesaving profession has been on the decline, leading to an increasingly acute shortage of lifeguards. 
 
     In view of this, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) has been actively studying and adopting various measures to increase and stabilise the supply of lifeguards with a view to ensuring the public can enjoy public swimming pool facilities.
      
     In addition to hiring NCSC seasonal lifeguards for the swimming season every year, the LCSD has progressively recruited full-year lifeguards on a two-year contract since 2023 to increase lifeguard manpower. To remain competitive on the labour market, the LCSD has enhanced the remuneration package for contract lifeguards, under which the monthly salary plus end-of-contract gratuity can be as high as $26,900.
      
     Moreover, the LCSD has launched the Combined Seasonal Lifeguard Training Scheme since 2023, which adopts a hire-and-train approach to provide full-time training and work placement. Under this scheme, people with no lifesaving qualifications may obtain the Pool Lifeguard Award and/or Beach Lifeguard Award, while existing Pool Lifeguard Award holders may further obtain the Beach Lifeguard Award and become LCSD seasonal lifeguards. To further expand the supply of lifeguard, the LCSD has, since 2025, been collaborating with the Employees Retraining Board to organise dedicated lifesaving training programmes with employment arrangements. So far, about 40 trainees have been appointed as full-year lifeguards on a two-year contract upon completion of the programme.
      
     The LCSD has also produced a series of recruitment videos to demonstrate the items and the relevant requirements of the trade tests for lifeguards, with a view to enhancing recruitment effectiveness by helping people interested in applying for the lifeguard positions of the LCSD to fully prepare for the trade tests.

     In addition, the LCSD continues to step up its publicity efforts, including disseminating recruitment information on the websites of various government departments, conducting publicity work targeting secondary schools, post-secondary institutions and non-governmental organisations, and placing recruitment advertisements in public transport, newspapers, electronic media and the department’s website etc, to reach out to more people interested in working as lifeguards. The LCSD continues to actively participate in career fairs hosted by tertiary institutions, and disseminate recruitment information via the relevant email networks and messaging groups of the institutions to promote a career in lifesaving and encourage young people to join the profession.
      
     Under the prevailing policy, when a specific civil service grade has proven and persistent recruitment and retention difficulties, or fundamental changes in the job nature, job complexity and responsibilities, the Government will consider conducting a grade structure review for the grade concerned.
      
(4) and (5) To address lifeguard shortages, the LCSD has outsourced lifesaving and first-aid services at six public swimming pools of smaller scale on a trial basis since September 2024 to stabilise the supply of lifeguards and maintain swimming pool services by leveraging the greater flexibility of private service contractors in lifeguard recruitment. Having reviewed the effectiveness of the trial programme, the LCSD considers that this arrangement has been generally satisfactory. As a result of the flexible manpower deployment by the service contractor and the rigorous supervision of the LCSD, all facilities at the six swimming pools have remained open for public use, and none has been closed due to lifeguard shortages. The LCSD will continue to implement the programme in the six swimming pools. Following a re-tendering exercise, a new three-year contract vetted and approved by the Central Tender Board came into effect on August 1, 2026, with an annual expenditure comparable to that of employing civil service and contract lifeguards. Outsourcing is one of the practicable measures adopted by the LCSD to ease the lifeguard shortages. In fact, as swimming pools differ in scale, types of facilities, and manpower requirements, the LCSD will carefully consider the feasibility of further extending the outsourcing of lifesaving and first-aid services to other public swimming pools having regard to factors such as the financial situation, complexity of operation, and availability of manpower in the market. The LCSD will continue to closely monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the outsourced services while maintaining close communication with stakeholders, with a view to continuously optimising staffing arrangements for swimming pools.
 
     The LCSD has been striving to maintain aquatic venue services by adopting a multi-pronged strategy to flexibly deploy serving lifeguards. Specifically, the LCSD arranges sufficient lifeguards to be on duty at aquatic venue facilities that are open and makes special arrangements according to actual needs, including providing allowances to lifeguards working overtime during the peak swimming season (i.e. June to August every year). For occupational safety and health reasons, overtime work is voluntary to avoid fatigue at work. Therefore, there is still a need to engage outsourced lifesaving and first-aid services. Furthermore, as the contractor was able to provide a stable supply of lifeguards throughout the past two-year contract period, enabling the swimming pools facilities to remain fully open for public use, the existing mode of operation will be maintained under the new contract. Taking into account factors such as the operational effectiveness of the new contract and the availability of manpower in the market, the LCSD will carefully consider whether to adopt a seasonal supplementary mode for outsourcing lifesaving and first-aid services in the next tender exercise.
 
(6) The LCSD is putting on trial two artificial intelligence (AI) drowning detection systems at Kwun Tong Swimming Pool and Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park Swimming Pool respectively. Generally speaking, the two systems are effective in assisting lifeguards in monitoring the real-time condition of swimmers and promptly locating drowning victims.
 
     With the rapid development of AI technology in recent years, the LCSD has continuously reviewed the performance and reliability of the relevant systems during the trial period. Drawing on the experience gained so far at the two aforementioned swimming pools, the LCSD is currently working with the Digital Policy Office and the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department to study other intelligent drowning detection solutions suitable for use at its public swimming pools, and is planning a trial run of the new system at the main pools of Morse Park Swimming Pool and Ma On Shan Swimming Pool. The relevant procurement exercise commenced in September 2026 in accordance with the Government’s procurement procedures, and the installation works are expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2027. Subject to its outcome, the LCSD will consider whether to extend the use of AI drowning detection systems to more public swimming pools in a progressive manner. Nevertheless, the LCSD has always accorded top priority to the safety of swimmers. With current technology, AI drowning detection systems primarily serve to expedite rescue operations by assisting lifeguards in monitoring the real-time condition of swimmers and promptly locating drowning victims. They will not replace the professional judgement and lifesaving duties of lifeguards. read more

     ​Hongkong Post announced today (October 21) that, as advised by the postal administration of North Macedonia, mail delivery services to North Macedonia are subject to delays due to a power cut at the mail processing centre. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Ginny Man and a reply by the Secretary for Health, Professor Lo Chung-mau, in the Legislative Council today (October 21):
 
Question:
 
     It is learnt that many members of the public would purchase over-the-counter medicines while travelling abroad for personal use in Hong Kong. Some of these medicines are controlled drugs, such as poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List under the Pharmacy and Poisons Regulations, and taking them without the guidance of a healthcare professional may pose a risk to health. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) given that, according to the website of the Drug Office of the Department of Health, pharmaceutical products imported in the accompanied personal baggage of a person entering Hong Kong for his or her personal use and in reasonable quantity may be exempted from licensing requirement, of the definition of “reasonable quantity”;
 
(2) of the number of prosecutions instituted by the Government over the past three years in respect of the illegal sale of unregistered pharmaceutical products; and
 
(3) given that the Poisons Committee will advise the Hong Kong Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong on the review of the classification of regulated pharmaceutical products, of the specific details of the review (including the mechanism for substances and drugs to be added to or removed from the Poisons List, as well as the review cycle for the Poisons List)?
 
Reply:
 
President,

     The Government has in place a stringent regulatory regime for medicines with a view to safeguarding public health. Any product which falls within the definition of “medicine” under the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 138) (i.e. “pharmaceutical product”) must be approved for registration by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong (the Board) before it can be sold in Hong Kong.
 
     The term “poisons” mentioned in the question is a term used under Cap. 138, which refers to the regulated western medicine chemical ingredients contained in pharmaceutical products with potential side effects and is different from the general public’s everyday understanding of “poisons” or “drugs” as substances that cause harm to people. Under the statutory framework, substances defined as poisons are specified in Schedule 10 to the Pharmacy and Poisons Regulations (Cap. 138A) (the “Poisons List”) and are classified under different parts of the Poisons List and other Schedules to Cap. 138A according to their efficacy and potential side effects. The extent of control over individual pharmaceutical products depends on the classes of poisons they contain, and such products can mainly be divided into five major categories.
 
     The first category is “prescription drugs”. Such pharmaceutical products (e.g. antihypertensive drugs) require a prescription from a registered medical practitioner, registered dentist or registered veterinary surgeon, and may only be dispensed in accordance with the prescription at authorised sellers of poisons (commonly known as pharmacies) under the supervision of registered pharmacists.
 
     The second category covers pharmaceutical products which may be sold without a prescription but only at pharmacies under the supervision of registered pharmacists (e.g. cough syrups containing less than 0.2 per cent codeine). Registered pharmacies and pharmacists are required to keep, for each sale, a sales record in the specified format for inspection by the Department of Health (DH).
 
     The third category is similar to the second category in that such products must also be sold at pharmacies under the supervision of registered pharmacists, but there is no requirement to keep sales records in the specified format. Examples include anti-inflammatory and analgesic medicines such as ibuprofen.
 
     The fourth and fifth categories are collectively known as “over-the-counter medicines”. The fourth category refers to pharmaceutical products containing Part 2 poisons of the Poisons List (e.g. analgesic and antipyretic medicines such as paracetamol, and chlorpheniramine contained in common cold and flu medicines), which may be sold not only at pharmacies but also at listed sellers of poisons (commonly known as drug stores, such as the common convenience stores); whereas the fifth category covers pharmaceutical products whose ingredients do not include any substance on the Poisons List (e.g. certain mucolytics), which may be sold at general retail outlets.
 
     Having consulted the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) and the DH, our consolidated reply to the various parts of the question raised by the Hon Ginny Man is as follows:
 
(1) and (2) Under Cap. 138, any person who illegally sells or possesses unregistered pharmaceutical products or Part 1 poisons of the Poisons List in Hong Kong commits an offence and shall be liable, upon conviction, to a maximum penalty of a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for two years. The import and export of pharmaceutical products are also regulated under the Import and Export Ordinance (Cap. 60), under which every importation must be covered by a licence issued by the DH under the authority of the Director-General of Trade and Industry. Any person who imports or exports pharmaceutical products without a licence commits an offence and shall be liable, upon conviction, to a maximum penalty of a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for two years.
 
     Having regard to the practical needs of members of the public and travellers to use pharmaceutical products for their own health conditions, the Import and Export (General) Regulations (Cap. 60A) provide for the relevant exemption. An inbound traveller is exempted from applying for an import licence for carrying in his or her accompanied baggage a reasonable quantity of pharmaceutical products for personal use. C&ED officers will make an overall assessment, on a case-by-case basis, of whether the quantity is reasonable for personal use, taking into account the individual circumstances, the relevant information provided and the product packaging, and will consult DH where necessary. If the pharmaceutical products concerned are classified as dangerous drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 134), antibiotics under the Antibiotics Ordinance (Cap. 137) or Part 1 poisons under Cap. 138, a doctor’s prescription is required for carrying them across the boundary.
      
     The Government has all along been rigorously combating the illegal importation or sale of unregistered pharmaceutical products. Over the past three years, C&ED has detected 1 043 cases involving suspected illegally imported pharmaceutical products, with the articles seized valued at about $364 million, and prosecution has been instituted in respect of 140 of these cases.

     DH has also been monitoring pharmaceutical products sold online and in the market and taking active enforcement action. From January 2023 to September 2026, a period of over three years, DH handled 108 conviction cases involving the sale and/or possession of unregistered pharmaceutical products, with the maximum penalty imposed being 10 months’ imprisonment or a fine of $242,000.
 
(3) Pharmaceutical products are classified in accordance with risk level based on professional assessment. The Poisons Committee (the Committee) under the Board, with experts taking part in the assessment, keeps under continuous review the classification and distribution of various poisons on the Poisons List and provides professional advice to the Board. If the review results indicate the need to adjust the classification of substances on the Poisons List, the Government will amend Cap. 138A through the negative vetting procedure to ensure that regulation keeps pace with the times. From 2025 to September 2026, new substances were added to the Poisons List and the relevant Schedules in respect of 68 new drug registration applications, and the classification of one drug on the Poisons List and the relevant Schedules was revised by the Committee in the light of its safety information.
 
     Thank you, President. read more

     Following is a question by Professor the Hon Lau Chi-pang and a written reply by the Acting Secretary for Education, Dr Sze Chun-fai, in the Legislative Council today (October 21):
 
Question:
 
     Among the self-financing institutions in Hong Kong at present, apart from Hong Kong Metropolitan University which possesses self-accrediting status, all other self-financing institutions registered under the Post Secondary Colleges Ordinance (Cap. 320) are required to undergo Programme Area Accreditation conducted by the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ), and the post-secondary programmes offered by them must also pass the HKCAAVQ’s external quality assurance mechanism. There are views pointing out that against the backdrop of the Government’s active efforts in developing Hong Kong into an international education hub and developing the Northern Metropolis University Town, the authorities should review the relevant mechanism to promote and facilitate university development. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the average annual number of programmes offered by self-financing institutions approved by the HKCAAVQ from 2021 to the present; the average time taken by the HKCAAVQ to process accreditation applications from self-financing institutions (from the submission of applications by the institutions to the completion of accreditation and announcement of results by the HKCAAVQ), with a breakdown by stage of the quality assurance process (i.e. Learning Programme Accreditation, Programme Area Accreditation and Periodic Institutional Review);
 
(2) of the total number of self-financing institutions registered under Cap. 320 which have applied to the HKCAAVQ for Programme Area Accreditation status from 2021 to the present; among them, the number of institutions whose applications have been successfully approved and the number of institutions currently awaiting accreditation;
 
(3) of the total number of institutions which have submitted applications to the Education Bureau to become universities of applied sciences since the publication of the Manual for Institutional Review for University of Applied Sciences in February 2024, and the respective numbers of such applications which have been approved and are being processed; and
 
(4) whether the Government will consider devising shortlisting criteria (such as years of operation in education, institutional scale and institutional rankings) to grant a greater degree of accrediting powers to more eligible self-financing institutions registered under Cap. 320 (particularly those which have been retitled as universities), so that they may accredit their programmes on their own without being subject to external accreditation?
 
Reply:
 
President,

     Under the Post Secondary Colleges Ordinance (Cap. 320), post-secondary colleges (i.e. institutions that provide self-financing degree or sub-degree education) must pass the Institutional Review (IR)
 conducted by the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ), and maintain their status through cyclical IR or Periodic Institutional Review (PIR) (Note 1), so as to demonstrate that the institution maintains the capability to provide post-secondary education.
 
     In addition, the Ordinance also stipulates that degree or sub-degree programmes offered by institutions must pass the accreditation of the HKCAAVQ, confirming that the programmes have attained the corresponding qualification level of the Hong Kong Qualifications Framework (QF). On one hand, the HKCAAVQ conducts Learning Programme Accreditation (LPA) or Learning Programme Re-accreditation (Re-LPA) (Note 2) for individual programmes; on the other hand, it also confers Programme Area Accreditation (PAA) based on the institution’s track record. Institutions that have obtained PAA status can handle their own quality assurance matters for programmes in approved programme areas at approved QF levels, without the need for separate accreditation by the HKCAAVQ.
 
     In response to the four parts of the question, our reply is as follows:

(1) In the five years from 2021/22 to 2025/26, the HKCAAVQ conducted about 65 accreditation exercises each year for post-secondary colleges, including LPA, Re-LPA, PAA and PIR, covering a total of about 360 local self-financing degree or sub-degree programmes.
 
     Generally speaking, from the submission of accreditation documents by institutions to the issuance of the accreditation report by the HKCAAVQ, LPA or Re-LPA takes about 16 to 20 weeks; PAA takes about 24 weeks; and IR or PIR takes about 24 to 30 weeks.
 
(2) From 2021 to date (as at September 30, 2026), a total of four institutions registered under the Ordinance applied for PAA status; all four applications were approved, securing self-accrediting status in a total of 10 programme areas. Currently, the HKCAAVQ is processing the PAA applications of another two institutions.
 
(3) In February 2024, the Education Bureau (EDB) promulgated the criteria for qualifying as Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS), including the requirement to pass the HKCAAVQ’s accreditation confirming that the relevant requirements are met, i.e. the institution must possess the vision, commitment, capabilities and experience to operate an institution that embodies the key features of UAS; have obtained a university title; and have recognition and support from industries and professions. The relevant criteria are set out in detail in the Manual for Institutional Review for UAS issued by the HKCAAVQ.
 
     Hong Kong Metropolitan University and Saint Francis University became UAS in February and November 2024 respectively.
 
     The EDB has also received an application from one institution to become a UAS, and the relevant accreditation work is currently in progress.
 
(4) As mentioned above, the PAA mechanism provides institutions that have obtained PAA status (including post-secondary colleges that have acquired university title) appropriate accreditation authority, enabling them to self-accredit and handle the quality assurance matters of programmes within approved programme areas at approved QF levels, without the need for programme-by-programme accreditation by the HKCAAVQ. This allows institutions to respond more quickly to market needs and to launch new programmes flexibly.
 
     To continuously safeguard the quality of post-secondary education, institutions that have obtained PAA status must undergo PIR by the HKCAAVQ regularly to confirm that their internal quality assurance mechanisms remain effective, thereby maintaining their PAA status in related programmes. Depending on the factors such as the institution’s track record, the HKCAAVQ may, upon application by the institution, expand the coverage of the self-accreditation status after the institution has passed the accreditation.
 
     The existing mechanism effectively balances the flexibility of institutions in offering programmes and programme quality assurance. We have no plan to further relax the accreditation authority of institutions.
 
Note1: Institutions that have passed IR must undergo periodic review by the HKCAAVQ to confirm that their institutional governance, operational effectiveness and internal quality assurance mechanisms remain effective.
 
Note 2: The validity period of LPA is determined according to the programme duration, accreditation outcome, risk assessment and institutional track record. Before the expiry of the validity period, institutions wishing to continue offering the programme must undergo Re-LPA. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Dominic Lee and a reply by the Acting Secretary for Education, Dr Sze Chun-fai, in the Legislative Council today (October 21):
 
Question:
 
     At present, a number of universities funded by the University Grants Committee (UGC) have implemented campus access control and reservation systems and have not fully opened their campuses to public use. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has compiled statistics on and grasped the specific arrangements made by various universities for opening their campuses and public facilities to the public and the relevant restrictions over the past five years; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether it has assessed the impact of universities’ prolonged implementation of campus access control on community integration, the promotion of campus culture and maximising the effectiveness of public resources, and whether it has drawn on the experience of Chinese Mainland or overseas universities in opening their campuses to the public (such as the reservation and registration systems implemented by Peking University and Tsinghua University) to formulate measures for fostering connections between local universities and the community; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it will consider co-ordinating various universities through the UGC or the relevant policy bureaux in formulating uniform and flexible guidelines on opening their campuses to the public on the premise of balancing campus security, the orderly conduct of teaching activities and the sharing of public resources, with a view to enabling members of the public and community groups to use the relevant facilities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are the cornerstones of the success of Hong Kong’s higher education sector. All eight University Grants Committee (UGC)-funded universities are statutory bodies governed by their respective ordinances and statutes setting out their objectives, functions and governance structures. The ordinances empower the universities to exercise powers and freedoms necessary to fulfil their objectives and functions. At the same time, the universities are responsible to maintain transparency, public accountability and good governance in their operations, so as to ensure that public money is put to appropriate use.
 
     Our consolidated reply to the questions raised by the Hon Dominic Lee is set out below:
 
     Campus management and the use of facilities fall within the purview of institutional autonomy. Each university formulates and adjusts its own arrangements having regard to its campus location, size, layout, security risks and teaching and research needs. Over the years, university campuses have by and large followed an open campus policy. After 2019, the universities enhanced their on-campus security arrangements in the light of actual needs and employed additional security staff. Some institutions also implemented access control measures for entering and leaving the campus. These include, for example, requiring staff members, students and invited visitors to present their identity documents or register before entering the campus. Individual institutions had also engaged professional security consultants to review their security facilities, manpower and arrangements.
 
     With Hong Kong moving from stability to prosperity and getting back on track, each UGC-funded university may consider for itself whether to open some of its on-campus facilities to the public, and ensure such arrangements do not affect its teaching and related activities and comply with relevant legislation. The universities are also responsible for taking appropriate security measures in the light of actual circumstances to ensure that their campuses remain safe and conducive to teaching and research activities, while striving to minimise the impact of these measures on the normal operations of the universities.
 
     The Education Bureau (EDB) and the UGC do not keep regular statistics on how the UGC-funded universities open their campuses and public facilities. However, the UGC has maintained close contact with the UGC-funded universities to keep abreast of their latest developments. According to the information provided by the universities, they have gradually relaxed their campus entry arrangements in recent years in view of the social situation. Campuses of Hong Kong Baptist University, Lingnan University and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology are now opened to the public. City University of Hong Kong, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the Education University of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the University of Hong Kong have implemented access control measures to varying degrees, such as installing automatic turnstiles for students and staff, and requiring visitors to register online in advance, in order to meet their operational needs.
 
     Universities are closely connected with society. Maintaining good ties with the community helps promote campus culture, facilitate knowledge transfer and foster community integration, and forms part of the universities’ social responsibility. Indeed, the universities have all along been actively strengthening their engagement with the community through various means, including organising a range of activities and opening up selected campus facilities and resources. Specific examples include:
 
1. allowing members of the public to apply for library reader cards or visitor passes;
2. opening museums, art galleries and exhibition halls free of charge;
3. organising public lectures, cultural and arts performances, information days and guided tours;
4. leasing sports facilities, lecture theatres, etc, to community groups and schools, provided this does not affect the use by staff and students;
5. implementing various knowledge transfer and community service schemes; and
6. collaborating with primary and secondary schools and other organisations to organise a range of activities, such as experience camps, public education events, etc.
 
     We note that universities in the Chinese Mainland and overseas also adopt different models of campus opening arrangements in the light of their respective campus environments, regulatory frameworks and social circumstances. In the Chinese Mainland, for example, institutions such as Peking University and Tsinghua University have in recent years introduced online advance booking systems, allowing members of the public to book visits during designated time slots and opening their campuses under orderly management. Some overseas universities decide their campus opening arrangements as circumstances require. For instance, colleges of the University of Oxford and University of Cambridge set their own opening hours; and may not be opened during the examination season. This illustrates that, with suitable registration and management arrangements, universities can strike a balance between campus security and openness to the public.
 
     Given the considerable differences among the universities in terms of campus location, size, number of students and staff, layout and security needs, the imposition of uniform campus opening guidelines could undermine the flexibility of institutions to manage their campuses in the light of actual circumstances. The universities are responsible for ensuring campus safety and the proper order of teaching and research, so that staff and students can study and work in a safe and orderly environment. We believe that, in formulating and reviewing the relevant measures, each university will take into account various factors and strike an appropriate balance between campus security, the order of teaching and research, and the opening up of public resources according to its own circumstances.
 
     On the premise of ensuring safety, the EDB and the UGC expect the universities to make good use of publicly funded facilities, to keep under review their campus opening and facility hiring arrangements and, where feasible, to further facilitate the use of the relevant facilities by members of the public and community groups; and to enhance the transparency of their arrangements, for example, by clearly publishing on their websites the campus entry arrangements, opening hours, booking procedures and the facilities available for hire. We will continue to maintain communication with the universities to exchange good practices on these arrangements, to ensure that they operate in the best interests of students and society as a whole.
 
     Thank you, President. read more