Author Archives: hksar gov

     The Chief Executive, Mrs Carrie Lam, today (June 24) signed the instrument of appointment of the Honourable Mr Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung  as the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal with effect from January 11, 2021, and reported the appointment to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) for the record, completing the relevant legal procedures for the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal.

     According to Article 48(6) of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive shall appoint or remove judges of the courts at all levels in accordance with legal procedures. With regard to the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, Mrs Lam, in accordance with Article 88 of the Basic Law, accepted in March this year the recommendation of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission on the appointment of Mr Justice Cheung as the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, and obtained the endorsement of the appointment by the Legislative Council last week. Mrs Lam has also reported the appointment to the NPCSC for the record in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Basic Law.

     “I am pleased to formally appoint Mr Justice Cheung as the next Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to succeed Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, who will be retiring in January next year. The rule of law and judicial independence are core values of Hong Kong. With his exceptional qualities, distinguished leadership and vision, coupled with his reputation in the Judiciary and the legal sector, I have no doubt that Mr Justice Cheung will lead the Judiciary to ensure the continuation of the rule of law and judicial independence under ‘One Country, Two Systems’,” Mrs Lam said. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Luk Chung-hung and a written reply by the Secretary for Development, Mr Michael Wong, in the Legislative Council today (June 24):        Question: &nbsp… read more

     â€‹Hong Kong Customs today (June 24) arrested a renovation contractor suspected of having engaged in a commercial practice involving a misleading omission in the sale of a renovation service, in contravention of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (TDO). 

     Customs earlier received information alleging that a renovation contractor was suspected of engaging in a commercial practice involving a misleading omission. Before the commencement of the renovation works, the contractor had received from the customer $100,000 as the full payment for the renovation works. The contractor then asked for an additional charge of $80,000 for the same renovation works shortly after the renovation started.

     After investigation, Customs officers today arrested a 56-year-old man.  

     An investigation is ongoing and the arrested man has been released on bail pending further investigation. 

     Customs reminds traders to comply with the requirements of the TDO and consumers to procure services at reputable shops.

     Under the TDO, any trader who engages in a commercial practice that provides material information in a manner that is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely and as a result causes, or is likely to cause, an average consumer to make a transactional decision commits an offence. The maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for five years.

     Members of the public may report any suspected violations of the TDO to Customs’ 24-hour hotline 2545 6182 or its dedicated crime-reporting email account (crimereport@customs.gov.hk).  read more

     Following is a question by Hon James To Kun-sun and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr John Lee, in the Legislative Council today (June 24):

Question:
 
     It has been reported that as a result of the closure of a number of land boundary control points since the beginning of the year, smuggling syndicates have switched to smuggling goods to the Mainland by sea. Smuggling syndicates first use trucks to transport goods such as frozen meat to the spots along the seaside (such as the New Yau Ma Tei Public Cargo Working Area, Stonecutters Island Public Cargo Working Area and Cheung Sha Wan’s Yuen Fat Wharf & Godown), and then transport the goods by barges to the waters to the north of the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) for further transport to the Mainland by speedboats. The quantity of contraband smuggled daily exceeds 600 tonnes and the value of such goods is as high as tens of millions dollars. On the other hand, three officers of the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) died on the night of January 21 this year after falling to the sea while discharging duties at the waters near Sha Chau. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the details of the current law enforcement operations conducted by C&ED to combat smuggling activities at (i) the aforesaid seaside spots and (ii) the waters to the north of HKIA, including the manpower, the type and number of vessels used, as well as the time and frequency of patrols;
 
(2) whether C&ED will strengthen its manpower and upgrade its equipment in order to reduce the occurrence of accidents to its officers while discharging duties; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(3) of the details of the law enforcement operations conducted in the past six months by C&ED to combat sea smuggling activities, including the number of vessels intercepted and inspected, the respective numbers of persons arrested and prosecuted, as well as the punishments imposed on those convicted; whether it will consider amending the legislation to increase the penalties so as to enhance the deterrent effect; and
 
(4) whether it will discuss with the General Administration of Customs of the People’s Republic of China on the strategies for jointly combating sea smuggling activities; if so, of the details?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) is the primary enforcement agency responsible for the suppression of smuggling activities in Hong Kong. Common smuggling activities include bringing undeclared dutiable goods (e.g. cigarettes) into Hong Kong, as well as import and export of prohibited/controlled articles (e.g. dangerous drugs, infringing goods, endangered species, firearms, ammunition and weapons, etc.) without licences/certificates required by the law. The enforcement powers for C&ED’s officers are vested in various ordinances, primarily the Customs and Excise Service Ordinance (Cap. 342) and the Import and Export Ordinance (Cap. 60).
 
     C&ED has all along been proactively combating various smuggling activities, including those on the sea. The overall smuggling situation in Hong Kong has been under effective control. My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
 
(1) C&ED adopts an intelligence-driven and risk management approach in preventing and combating smuggling activities of various kinds. At present, C&ED’s Marine Enforcement Group has an establishment of more than 320 officers who are dedicated to combating sea smuggling. There are more than 20 vessels of different types in C&ED’s fleet for carrying out round-the-clock enforcement duties in Hong Kong’s waters. Based on risk assessments, C&ED flexibly deploys its fleet and manpower for the rummaging of vessels, cargo examination, coastal patrol and corresponding surveillance operations in different waters. As the relevant operational details concern enforcement deployment, it is inappropriate to disclose them.
 
(2) C&ED attaches great importance to the safety of its officers in their execution of duties. C&ED maintains close liaison with the Marine Department in respect of law enforcement on the sea, and reviews from time to time the establishment and equipment of its fleet, command facilities and manpower arrangements, etc., with a view to protecting the safety of officers whilst strengthening the effectiveness of law enforcement. For example, the Command Centre at Customs Marine Base, Stonecutters Island, equipped with a new Customs Radar Monitoring System, came into operation in November 2018. It has strengthened the ability of officers to grasp the situation on the sea and make operational planning and deployment, thereby enhancing marine enforcement effectiveness and safety. In addition, C&ED procured four new High Speed Pursuit Craft in 2019 to replace old vessels of the same type. The new vessels, with improvements to speed and maneuverability, are equipped with night vision systems to enhance the safety of C&ED’s officers who take part in surveillance and tracking operations at night.
 
     On the other hand, C&ED arranges suitable training and drills for officers deployed for marine operations on a regular basis in order to enhance the safety factors of sea operations and meet the relevant legal requirements. Such training and drills include personal survival technique courses, drills of personnel overboard, firefighting, etc.
 
(3) From December 2019 to May this year, C&ED intercepted a total of 1 964 vessels during its marine operations. Among the interceptions, 31 sea smuggling cases were detected, and 147 persons arrested. After investigation, 72 persons had been prosecuted, among whom 48 are pending mention hearing, four are being remanded pending advice from the Department of Justice, and 20 were convicted and sentenced, with imprisonment ranging from two to 14 months. In some of the cases, the goods concerned were confiscated.
 
     Smuggling is a serious offence. Under Section 18 of the Import and Export Ordinance, i.e. offence of importing or exporting unmanifested cargo, which applies to all goods, the maximum penalty for conviction on indictment is a fine of $2 million and imprisonment for seven years. The maximum penalty for conviction on indictment of the most serious smuggling offence is life imprisonment and an unlimited fine. To enhance the deterrent effect, C&ED will, subject to the circumstances of individual cases, appeal to the court for enhancing the sentence and confiscating crime proceeds of the smuggling offence in accordance with the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455). In handing down the sentence, the court will consider all matters related to the case, including the gravity of the offence, whether the convicted person is a repeated offender, etc.
 
(4) To effectively combat sea smuggling activities, C&ED has been maintaining close liaison with relevant law enforcement agencies, such as the Hong Kong Marine Police, the Mainland Customs and the China Coast Guard, to enhance intelligence exchange. Joint operations with the Hong Kong Marine Police are carried out as appropriate. C&ED also reviews from time to time, together with the Mainland Customs and relevant agencies, the effectiveness of various enforcement measures to combat smuggling activities between the two places; and will actively explore other viable strategies that can effectively suppress such activities. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Luk Chung-hung and a reply by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Mr Frank Chan Fan, in the Legislative Council today (June 24):
 
Question:
 
     Under the prevailing rent adjustment mechanism for public rental housing (PRH), PRH rent is reviewed once every two years and adjusted according to changes in tenants’ household income. It has been reported that the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) is currently conducting such a review and, based on the calculation using the data obtained therefrom, PRH rent has to be increased by 9 per cent this year. There are comments that as the review takes into account the income data up to the end of last year only, the review outcome cannot reflect the situation that tenants’ income has dwindled due to the economic downturn in recent months. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) whether it has assessed the impacts on the tenants and the consumption sentiments in society which will be brought about by the HA’s increasing PRH rent pursuant to the mechanism, albeit the economic downturn; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(2) whether the HA will consider offsetting the increase in PRH rent for the current year by granting additional rent waiver, so as to alleviate the financial burden on tenants; and
 
(3) whether the HA will review afresh the PRH rent adjustment mechanism to rectify the deficiency of the mechanism that time-lagged data is used?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     It has been a long-established policy for the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) to set the rent of public rental housing (PRH) at reasonable and affordable levels.
 
     We note that there have been extensive discussions in the community on the PRH rent review this year. We have just issued an information paper to the Legislative Council (LegCo)’s Panel on Housing yesterday on the outcome of the 2020 PRH rent review and will further brief the LegCo’s Panel on Housing and listen to Members’ views at its meeting on July 6.
 
     The existing PRH rent adjustment mechanism is stipulated under section 16A of the Housing Ordinance which came into effect on January 1, 2008, and the HA shall adjust the PRH rent in strict accordance with the relevant mechanism. According to the above provision, the HA shall conduct a rent review every two years and adjust the PRH rent as soon as practicable. The HA shall adjust the rent based on the change in the income index between the first and second periods covered by the review. The income index is compiled by the Commissioner for Census and Statistics. Depending on the change in the income index between the first and second periods, the rent can be increased or reduced: there is a 10 per cent cap in the case of rent increase, while there is no lower limit in the case of rent reduction.
 
     The current PRH rent adjustment mechanism is the outcome of the HA’s extensive discussions and public consultation over five years (from 2001 to 2006), and was established through legislation. The mechanism provides an objective basis for the HA to determine when PRH rent should be adjusted and by how much, taking into account tenants’ affordability. It also helps promote the long-term sustainability of the PRH programme. In fact, owing to the 10 per cent cap on rent increase under the existing rent adjustment mechanism, the cumulative increase in household income of PRH tenants has far exceeded the cumulative increase in PRH rent. The income of PRH tenants has increased by 106.2 per cent over the 12-year period from 2007 to 2019; but the PRH rent has increased by 68.1 per cent cumulatively over the same period. Currently, the ratio of average PRH rent to the average household income of PRH tenants is about 9 per cent.
 
     While the HA must adjust PRH rent in accordance with the said established mechanism, the legislation also allows room for HA to provide rent waiver to PRH tenants when necessary. According to section 17 of the Housing Ordinance, the HA may remit tenants’ rent for such period as it thinks fit. In fact, for the PRH rent reviews conducted according to the existing PRH rent adjustment mechanism since 2010, the HA’s Subsidised Housing Committee granted one-month rent waiver to PRH tenants in the 2010 and 2012 rent reviews respectively to alleviate tenants’ financial burden due to the rent adjustment in view of the prevailing economic environment.
 
     In view of the tough economic environment, the Government has allocated funding to the HA twice to pay rent for lower income PRH tenants for a total of two months. One payment was granted in January 2020 as one of the Financial Secretary’s helping measures announced in 2019; and the other payment is to be granted in July 2020 as a relief measure under the 2020-21 Budget. This shows that in addition to the rent waiver provided by the HA under section 17 of the Housing Ordinance, the Government also provides rent assistance to PRH tenants from time to time in view of special social circumstances. 
 
     Besides, the HA has further put in place a short-term relief measure in May 2020. Upon receiving applications from tenants who cannot settle their rent payments on time due to financial hardship, the HA will consider withholding the issuance of Notice-to-Quit (NTQ) to such tenants from May to October 2020. The HA has also put in place an established mechanism to provide rent assistance to tenants with temporary financial difficulties.
 
     According to the PRH rent adjustment mechanism, the rent adjustment for the 2020 rent review is +9.66 per cent. The global and local economic environment is worsening and the economic outlook is becoming more uncertain amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Under the current economic situation, we understand that there have been calls for the HA to consider shelving the current rent review, freezing the rent, or providing rent waiver to PRH tenants so as to ease their financial burden.
 
    At the later stage of the PRH rent review, when we were aware of the review outcome which shows that the PRH rent will have to be adjusted upwards according to the mechanism, my team and I have been considering appropriate measures to alleviate the financial burden of the rent adjustment on PRH tenants. Upon repeated deliberations, to strike a balance between the PRH tenants’ affordability and the healthy and sustainable development of the HA’s finance, we have decided to recommend the HA’s Subsidised Housing Committee to provide a rent waiver of two months, so as to offset the financial burden of rent adjustment on PRH tenants. This arrangement will result in a total deficit of about $2,500 million for the HA in the current and the next financial years.
 
     President, in view of the impact of the pandemic on the overall socio-economic environment and PRH tenants, the above arrangement is a carefully considered special measure to assist PRH tenants in alleviating their financial difficulties in a timely manner. I will personally invite Subsidised Housing Committee members to actively consider and accept the above arrangement and formulate relevant implementation details.
 
     Thank you, President. read more