Author Archives: hksar gov

     Following is a question by the Hon Jimmy Ng and a written reply by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Mr Frank Chan Fan, in the Legislative Council today (May 6):

Question:

     A survey report published by an international survey organization has pointed out that Hong Kong has been dubbed the world’s most unaffordable city in terms of property prices for 10 consecutive years.  There are comments that high property prices have made it increasingly common that family members spanning a few generations have to crowd together in small flats, and young people continue to live with their parents after getting married.  Besides, with the accommodation area of Hong Kong people becoming smaller, the living standard of Hong Kong people is getting worse.  In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) whether it knows, for every fifth year from 1991 to 2016, the (a) median floor area of accommodation and (b) median per capita floor area of accommodation of the various types of households set out below:
 
(i) households of owner-occupiers in private sector housing,
(ii) rental households in private sector housing,
(iii) households in private sector housing as a whole,
(iv) households in subsidized sale housing,
(v) households in public rental housing,
(vi) households in public sector housing as a whole, and
(vii) households in Hong Kong as a whole (set out in the table below); and
 

Type of households		1991	1996	2001	2006	2011	2016
(i)	(a)
	(b)
(ii)	(a)
	(b)
(iii)	(a)
	(b)
(iv)	(a)
	(b)
(v)	(a)
	(b)
(vi)	(a)
	(b)
(vii)	(a)
	(b)

 
(2) whether it has plans to formulate a minimum standard for per capita floor area of accommodation in respect of various types of residential flats; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:
 
President,
 
     My reply to the question raised by the Hon Jimmy Ng is as follows:
 
(1) According to the results of the 2016 Population By-census conducted by the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD), the median floor area of accommodation (Note) and the median per capita floor area of accommodation of domestic households residing in selected types of housing in 2016 are set out in Annex.
 
     Floor area of accommodation is a newly added data topic of the 2016 Population By-census.  C&SD does not have the relevant statistics before 2016.
 
(2) Setting living space standards alone cannot improve living space and enhance livability.  A more important and fundamental approach is to increase land supply in a sustained manner.  Additional land is required for either the increase in housing production to address needs for accommodation or the increase in average living floor area per person to improve living standard.  In view of the current shortage in land supply and housing and that property prices remain at a level beyond the affordability of the general public, the Government needs to strike a reasonable balance between housing production and average living floor area per person.  The current priority of the Government is to meet the basic accommodation needs of the people through increasing housing production.  The Government considers that when the land shortage situation is notably alleviated, the community will be in a better position to explore whether a standard on average living floor area per person should be set.
 
Note: The floor area of public rental housing is measured in terms of internal floor area while the floor area of other types of accommodation is measured in terms of saleable floor area. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Elizabeth Quat and a written reply by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mr Matthew Cheung Kin-chung, in the Legislative Council today (May 6):
 
Question:
 
     Regarding the two rounds of relief measures rolled out by the Government under the Anti-epidemic Fund, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) given that among the 30 000 time-limited jobs to be created with an allocation of $6 billion by the Government in the coming two years, only some 200 jobs will be offered to fresh graduates, whether the Government will consider increasing the number of the latter; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(2) of the latest implementation status of the “Anti-epidemic Support Scheme for Property Management Sector”, including (i) the respective numbers of applications received, approved and rejected, (ii) the amount of subsidies granted, and (iii) the number of building blocks benefited; if there were rejected applications, of the reasons for that;
 
(3) whether it will introduce a new round of relief measures expeditiously to provide support for the operators and practitioners of the laundry trade, dishwashing companies, intermediaries for foreign domestic helpers and playgroups, who have not benefited from the first two rounds of relief measures; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(4) given that accredited tourist guides/tour escorts must have provided tour services for a specified number of days over the period from July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 for them to be eligible for applying for the subsidy under the Travel Agents and Practitioners Support Scheme, but some practitioners are unable to meet this requirement on the number of days for which tour services were provided because the number of outbound and inbound tour groups dropped substantially in the second half of last year due to social movements, whether the Government will consider relaxing this requirement; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that
 
(5) given that while the Government will provide a subsidy for eligible printing and publishing companies participating in the next Hong Kong Book Fair, the date of the event has become uncertain due to the persistence of the epidemic, whether the Government will consider first providing such companies with financial assistance for the time being; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
 
(6) given that construction workers who are subsidised under the first round of relief measures will be automatically included in the second round and do not need to submit separate applications, whether the Government will likewise streamline the application procedure for the relief measures introduced for other industries, with a view to disbursing subsidies to practitioners of the various industries as soon as possible; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     In light of the development of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Government has been taking vigilant anti-epidemic measures to contain the public health risk. Having regard to the impact of these measures on the livelihood of individuals and business operation, the Government secured the approval of the Legislative Council Finance Committee (FC) on February 21, 2020 for a commitment of $30 billion to set up the Anti-epidemic Fund (AEF). The purposes of the AEF are to enhance Hong Kong’s overall capability in combating the pandemic, and to provide assistance or relief to enterprises and members of the public hard hit by the pandemic or affected by anti-epidemic measures. Taking into account the development of the pandemic and the overall situation, the Chief Executive announced on April 8, 2020 a comprehensive package of measures of over $130 billion to support eligible individuals and businesses. The Government secured FC’s funding approval on April 18, 2020, including a $120.5 billion injection to the AEF to implement second-round relief measures. 
 
     The Government’s reply to different parts of the Member’s question is as follows:
 
(1) To ease the worsening unemployment situation owing to the pandemic, the Government will allocate about $6 billion to create around 30 000 time-limited jobs in both the public and private sectors in the coming two years for people of different skill sets and academic qualifications.
 
     The around 10 000 jobs mentioned in relation to the measure in the enclosure of the paper submitted earlier to FC (FCR(2020-21)2) for funding approval are just examples. It is expected that more jobs suitable for tertiary graduates and fresh graduates will be available for application among the time-limited jobs to be created by bureaux and departments (B/Ds).
 
     In addition, taking into account the overall staff wastage (mainly owing to retirement) and the expected creation of new posts in the civil service (it was announced in the 2020-21 Budget that about 6 000 civil service posts would be created), the Government estimates that at least 10 000 civil servants will have to be recruited in 2020-21. B/Ds will conduct recruitment exercises in a timely manner according to their regular manpower resources planning and select the most suitable candidates from the qualified applicants to fill job vacancies to meet operational needs and support long-term succession planning.  A number of these vacancies will be suitable for tertiary graduates. 
 
(2) To support the anti-epidemic work of the property management (PM) sector, the “Anti-epidemic Support Scheme for Property Management Sector” (ASPM) under the first round of the AEF started to accept the first phase of applications on February 24, 2020. Subsidy is provided to frontline workers providing cleansing and security services in private residential and composite (i.e. commercial-cum-residential) buildings. In view of the development of the pandemic, the Government has launched the second phase of the ASPM under the AEF on April 24, 2020. The coverage has been extended to industrial and commercial buildings (including shopping malls). 
 
     The implementation of the ASPM is assisted by the Property Management Services Authority (PMSA). The disbursement of the subsidies has started since March 13, 2020. As of May 4, 2020, the PMSA has received about 8 200 applications, around 3 100 applications of which have been approved. The applications approved involves subsidy of more than $113 million, benefiting more than 28 400 PM workers and around 18 700 building blocks. On the other hand, around 30 applications have not been accepted, as the applicants have not engaged any frontline PM workers to provide cleansing and security services in the relevant buildings. The PMSA is expediting the processing of around 5 100 remaining applications.
 
(3) With a wide coverage, the measures under the second-round AEF aims to preserve employment and assist the self-employed irrespective of the sectors to which they belong, provide extra relief to those sectors hard hit by the pandemic and pave the way for post-pandemic economic recovery. The measures include the $81 billion-Employment Support Scheme (ESS) as well as sector-specific initiatives totalling $21 billion. The ESS provides wage subsidy to eligible employers through the Mandatory Provident Fund system such that job retention can be achieved and redundancy can be avoided within the shortest timeframe. Under the ESS, around 215 000 self-employed persons who have made contributions to the Mandatory Provident Fund from January 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020 will also be granted a one-off lump sum subsidy of $7,500.
 
     Apart from the relief measures under the second-round AEF, the Government will also roll out a host of other measures. They include providing further concessions for the rent of government properties and fees, enhancing the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme and allowing deferral of tax payment to support various businesses. In particular, the further enhancements of the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme include a higher maximum loan, concessionary interest rate and an extended application period to provide enterprises with the much needed financial support to ease cash flow problems. Together with the relief measures under the first-round AEF costing $30 billion and the relief measures in the 2020-21 Budget costing $120 billion, the Government has committed a total of $287.5 billion to tackle the unprecedented challenges caused by the pandemic and to support enterprises and safeguard jobs. The amount committed represents about 10 per cent of Hong Kong’s GDP.
 
     In formulating the specific plans under the two rounds of AEF and the Budget initiatives, the Government has strived to balance the interests of various sectors and the general public as far as possible. We hope that these measures can help address the imminent needs of enterprises and people in need. The Government will continue to closely monitor the pandemic and social situation, and consider further support measures as necessary.
 
(4) The Government has launched the Travel Agents and Practitioners Support Scheme under the second-round AEF, which includes providing each freelance accredited tourist guide/tour escort whose main occupation is being tourist guide/tour escort with a monthly subsidy of $5,000 for six months. When formulating the details of the Scheme, the Government has taken into account the fact that the livelihood of tourist guides and tour escorts has been severely impacted by the social incidents last year and the current COVID-19 outbreak. Having discussed with the trade, the Government has designed the Scheme such that relevant freelance practitioners can apply for subsidy based on their working days in serving outbound and/or inbound tours within a longer period, i.e. July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019. The Government will continue to liaise with the trade to ensure the smooth implementation of the Scheme.
 
(5) Various measures under the second-round AEF to provide relief to businesses are applicable to the printing and publishing sector, including the $81 billion-ESS and the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme. In addition, the Government announced other measures including reducing profits tax, rates for non-domestic properties and business registration fee, etc. These measures should help reduce the operating cost of printing and publishing enterprises.
 
     The objective of subsidising printing and publishing enterprises to participate in the coming Hong Kong Book Fair is to help the trade recover as soon as possible once the pandemic is under control. The Hong Kong Book Fair is one of the largest book fairs in Asia. The 2020 Fair is scheduled to take place from July 15 to 21. The Hong Kong Trade Development Council has spared no efforts in its preparatory work so that exhibitors may push ahead with their publicity work once the dates of the Book Fair are confirmed.
 
(6) The Government understands the importance of allowing eligible enterprises and members of the public benefit from AEF measures as soon as possible. In drawing up the application procedures for the various measures, B/Ds will strike a balance between facilitating applications and properly administering fund deployment, with a view to disbursing the subsidies at the earliest opportunity. For example, the Retail Sector Subsidy Scheme under the first-round AEF has adopted a fully self-serviced online application system to expedite the application process and increase vetting efficiency. During the application period, retailers could submit application and relevant documentary proof through their personal computers or smart phones anywhere and anytime without the need to queue up. This avoids crowd gathering and helps combat the COVID-19 outbreak. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Tony Tse and a written reply by the Secretary for the Environment, Mr Wong Kam-sing, in the Legislative Council today (May 6):
 
Question:
 
     As the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic has led to a decline in the demand for fuels, international crude oil prices have dropped continuously since early this year. Up to mid-April, a decrease of over 60 per cent from the peak last year was registered, hitting a record low in 18 years. However, the local retail prices of auto-fuels have only fallen by about 10 per cent to 20 per cent in the same period. Some members of the public have queried that the aforesaid situation reflects that the phenomenon of “quick going up, slow coming down” and “more going up, less coming down” in respect of local oil prices has all along remained unchanged. On easing the financial pressure on the transport trades and the public brought about by fuel expenditure, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the respective (i) average prices of international crude oil, (ii) average prices of imported refined oil products and (iii) average local retail prices of auto-fuels, in each of the past 12 months (set out in a table);
 
(2) of the new measures put in place to monitor the local retail prices of auto-fuels, and prompt the oil companies to reduce, in response to falling international and import oil prices, the relevant prices in a timely manner and suitably;
 
(3) as the Government and the oil companies have indicated that other than import prices of refined oil products, the cost components which determine local oil prices also include Government duty and operating costs such as land prices, salaries of employees, local transportation costs, marketing costs and operating costs of oil terminals, whether the Government has collected the relevant data from the oil companies and analysed the weightings of such cost components; if so, whether it can make public the relevant information in an appropriate manner so as to enhance the transparency of local oil prices to facilitate public monitoring; if it has not, of the reasons for that, and whether it will commence such data collection work;
 
(4) given that the Government is offering fuel subsidies to several types of public transport services through the fuel subsidy scheme under the first round of relief measures, of the implementation progress of the scheme and the amount of subsidies disbursed so far; and
 
(5) whether it will consider expanding the scope of the fuel subsidy scheme to benefit other professional drivers (e.g. goods vehicle drivers) and private car owners; if not, of the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The consolidated reply of the Environment Bureau and the Transport and Housing Bureau to the question raised by the Hon Tony Tse is as follows:
 
(1) Over the past 12 months, the monthly average (i) international crude oil prices, (ii) imported prices of refined oil products; and (iii) local auto-fuel retail prices are as follows:
 

	Average International Crude Oil Price   (Note 1) (HK$/litre)	Average Import Price (Note 2) (HK$/litre)		Average Retail Price (HK$/litre)
		Unleaded Petrol	Euro V Diesel	Unleaded Petrol (Note 3)	Euro V Diesel
2019
May	3.44	4.30	4.24	17.36	14.37
June	3.10	3.94	3.84	17.15	14.20
July	3.16	4.10	3.92	17.34	14.40
August	2.92	4.00	3.87	17.32	14.38
September	3.08	4.21	3.99	17.52	14.56
October	2.92	4.41	3.98	17.83	14.61
November	3.07	4.15	3.82	17.85	14.60
December	3.19	4.14	3.96	17.91	14.69
2020
January	3.15	3.88	3.86	17.95	14.81
February	2.72	3.89	3.50	17.64	14.50
March	1.65	2.71	2.67	17.22	14.11
April	1.32	Not yet available	Not yet available	16.67	13.52

Note 1: Based on the average closing price of Brent Crude Oil for that month and converted to the price per litre in Hong Kong dollars.
Note 2: According to the import values of major oil products from May 2019 to March 2020 as provided by the Census and Statistics Department. The relevant import value data for April 2020 is still being collected.
Note 3: Including duty of $6.06 per litre.
 
     When referring to the above data, it should be noted that crude oil and refined oil (such as unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel) are different products, hence changes in international crude oil price are not necessarily the same as changes in the prices of unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel.
 
(2) Hong Kong being a free market economy, the retail prices of auto-fuels have all along been determined by the market itself. We do not consider that the Government should set a so-called appropriate retail price for the fuel industry. The role of the Government is to make its best effort to ensure a stable fuel supply, enhance transparency of the prices of auto-fuel products, and remove barriers to market entry thereby promoting competition. Nonetheless, the Government appreciates the impact of auto-fuel prices on the public, and hence has been monitoring the changes in local retail prices of auto-fuels and comparing them with the trend movements of international oil prices (benchmarked against the Singapore free-on-board prices, i.e. Means of Platts Singapore (MOPS), for unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel). The Government has also been in close contact with the oil companies, urging them to reduce prices promptly when international oil prices drop, in order to lessen the burden on the public. In fact, since January 2020, the oil companies have already lowered their prices 12 times. For unleaded petrol and diesel, the cumulative reductions were $1.5 per litre and $1.6 per litre respectively, while the average retail prices on April 30, 2020 were $16.54 per litre and $13.3 per litre respectively. The Government has also observed that, with the significant fluctuations in international oil prices, the oil companies have made adjustments nine times since March 2020, which are more frequent than before.
 
(3) Regarding the fuel market, the data that the Government has in hand are the import prices of local auto-fuels, retail prices and the trend movements of MOPS prices for unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel. The Environment Bureau’s website publishes these data on a weekly basis and also provides web links to the statistical information on the import and retail prices of major oil products. As regards the operating costs of oil companies, similar to the commercially sensitive information of other private companies, the Government cannot compel the oil companies to provide or disclose them.
 
(4) With a view to providing comprehensive and continuous financial support to the various trades hard hit by COVID-19, the Government announced in February 2020 that it would increase the fuel subsidy or one-off subsidy for the transport trades under the Anti-epidemic Fund. This includes offering a $1 discount per litre of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for 12 months for LPG taxis and public light buses (PLBs) and reimbursing one-third of the actual fuel / electricity charges for 12 months for petrol taxis, diesel PLBs, franchised bus companies, local ferry operators and the Hong Kong Tramways Limited.
 
     Regarding the fuel subsidy to taxis and PLBs, the Transport Department (TD) is actively liaising with the oil companies on the implementation details. Depending on the system readiness of the oil companies and the progress of the relevant preparation work, the measure is expected to be rolled out in mid-2020.
 
     As regards the fuel subsidy to franchised bus companies, local ferry operators and the Hong Kong Tramways Limited, the TD has started accepting applications since late-February 2020. As of April 30, the TD has disbursed subsidy of over $66 million in total to three franchised bus companies, four local ferry operators and the Hong Kong Tramways Limited.
 
(5) In addition to the fuel subsidy mentioned above, the Government has also announced that it would provide a one-off, non-accountable subsidy to the owners of each taxi, red minibus, non-franchised bus, school private light bus, hire car and goods vehicle, as well as the operators of each green minibus pursuant to the measures in the two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund. The total amount of one-off subsidy involved is about $2.39 billion, benefiting the owners of about 150 000 commercial vehicles and operators of 3 340 green minibuses. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Chan Chun-ying and a written reply by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, Mr Christopher Hui, in the Legislative Council today (May 6):

Question:
 
     In March this year, the Z/Yen Partners in the United Kingdom and the China Development Institute in Shenzhen jointly published the latest Global Financial Centres Index Report. The global ranking of Hong Kong’s overall competitiveness dropped from the third in September last year to the sixth. It is also the first time since 2017 that Hong Kong fell out of the top three places. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) given that in responding to why Hong Kong’s ranking plunged within half a year, the Government indicated that “…the unprecedented challenges arising from the social incidents in Hong Kong in the past year, and how these were perceived overseas, might have affected Hong Kong’s score in the online questionnaire survey and the overall ranking”, whether the Government has investigated and identified other causes for the drop of Hong Kong’s ranking; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(2) whether it has made the necessary preparation for driving Hong Kong back to the top three places and whether concrete measures are in place to promote to the international community Hong Kong’s edge in financial services; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
 
(3) as the aforesaid report has shown that among Hong Kong’s rankings in the five areas of competitiveness, its ranking in “Financial Sector Development” is the lowest (ranked only sixth), lagging behind those of Singapore, Zurich and Frankfurt, whether the Government has countermeasures to enhance Hong Kong’s performance in financial sector development and to strive for a rise in ranking; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     Our consolidated reply to the three parts of the question is as follows.
 
     There are many ranking reports compiled by various organisations, with different scopes, methodologies, focuses, etc., which are under constant reviews and changes from time to time. Ranking indexes could be reference for us to better understand our performance and identify areas that require improvement, in which we will continue our efforts. The Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI) Report jointly published by the Z/Yen and the China Development Institute from Shenzhen is one of these ranking reports. In the GFCI 27 Report published in March this year, Hong Kong ranked number six globally and remained one of the top ten leading international financial centres in the world.
 
     We note that the GFCI 27 Report noted a high level of volatility in the ranking of the financial centres when compared with previous reports, probably reflecting the uncertainty around international trade and the impact of geopolitical and local unrest. The overall ratings of financial centres ranked number two to six were very close. Among the five areas of competitiveness (namely Business Environment, Human Capital, Infrastructure, Financial Sector Development, and Reputational and General) as mentioned in the Report, Hong Kong ranked above some of these centres with a higher overall ranking in four or more areas.
 
     However, in the index’s online questionnaire, which gauged views from respondents based on perceptions, Hong Kong’s score has dropped more significantly compared with the top five financial centres. The unprecedented challenges arising from local social incidents in Hong Kong in the past year, and how these were perceived overseas, might have affected Hong Kong’s score in the online questionnaire and the overall ranking.
 
     Notwithstanding the above, Hong Kong’s institutional strengths and underlying fundamentals remain intact and strong. The core competitiveness of Hong Kong remains unchanged. We will continue to enhance Hong Kong’s position as a major international financial centre, make good use of Hong Kong’s connectivity with the Mainland and international market and leverage the opportunities presented by the Guangdong Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (Greater Bay Area) and the Belt and Road Initiative, with a view to developing the city into a broader and deeper fundraising platform, further enhancing Hong Kong’s position as a centre for offshore Renminbi business, asset and wealth management, insurance and risk management as well as green finance, and promoting the development of financial technology (Fintech). Among others, our major measures this year include:

Asset and Wealth Management
 
     To consolidate Hong Kong’s position as an international asset and wealth management centre, we have been putting in efforts in a multi-pronged approach, including the establishment of a limited partnership regime that meets the operational needs of investment funds, so as to encourage the setting up of private equity funds in Hong Kong. We published the bill in the Gazette in March 2020, and hope that the Legislative Council (LegCo) will complete scrutiny and pass the bill as soon as possible for the implementation of the proposal. Furthermore, we plan to provide tax concession for carried interest issued by private equity funds operating in Hong Kong subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, with a view to attracting more private equity funds to domicile and operate in Hong Kong. We will consult the industry on the proposal, and the relevant arrangement will be applicable starting from 2020/21 year of assessment upon completion of the legislative exercise.
 
Broadening and Deepening the Securities Market
 
     To further develop the securities market, we will enhance the attractiveness of Hong Kong as an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) listing platform. We will expand the scope of the existing waiver of stamp duty on stock transfers relating to ETFs. This will provide incentives for ETF issuers to launch ETFs tracking Hong Kong stocks in Hong Kong, and hence drive the depth, breadth and liquidity of our securities market. We plan to table the relevant subsidiary legislation before LegCo in the first half of 2020 to give effect to the proposal. Separately, building on the success of the new listing regime implemented since April 2018, the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) is conducting a consultation on whether corporate entities should be allowed to possess weighted voting rights. Upon the end of the consultation period, HKEX will carefully consider the views collected and decide on the way forward.

Risk Management Centre
 
     We introduced an amendment bill into LegCo in December 2019 to provide tax concessions to promote the development of marine insurance and underwriting of specialty risks. We also published in the Gazette in March 2020 two amendment bills. Among the legislative amendments involved in these two amendment bills, those related to insurance-linked securities and captive insurance aim to facilitate the issuance of insurance-linked securities in Hong Kong and expand the scope of insurable risks by captive insurers set up in Hong Kong. The other legislative amendments related to group supervision aim to enhance the regulatory framework for the regulation and supervision of insurance groups where a holding company for the group is incorporated in Hong Kong, so as to establish Hong Kong as a preferred base for large insurance groups in Asia Pacific. We hope that LegCo will complete scrutiny and pass the bills as soon as possible for the implementation of the proposals. Furthermore, there is consensus with the Mainland authorities to allow a lower capital requirement for the Mainland insurer when it cedes business to a qualified Hong Kong professional reinsurer. The Insurance Authority has also launched the Belt and Road Insurance Exchange Facilitation platform, which brings together a cluster of key stakeholders and provides a platform for exchanging intelligence on risk management and insurance, facilitating networking and looking for solutions. All these measures will enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong insurance industry to develop its risk management businesses, and help the industry to seize opportunities arising from the Belt and Road Initiative and the Greater Bay Area development.
 
Green Finance
 
     The inaugural green bond of US$1 billion issued under the Government Green Bond Programme last year was well received by investors worldwide and set an important new benchmark for potential issuers in Hong Kong and the region. We plan to issue green bonds totalling $66 billion in the five years from 2020-21, having regard to the market situation. We will also work with the regulators and industry to strengthen policy support and market infrastructure and enhance Hong Kong’s international visibility in promoting green and sustainable finance, with a view to further consolidating and developing Hong Kong’s position as a premier green finance hub in the region.
 
Fintech
 
     The Government attaches great importance to the development of Fintech. In recent years, the Fintech ecosystem in Hong Kong has become increasingly mature, and we have made progress on a number of important Fintech infrastructure and initiatives, including the introduction of the Faster Payment System and the issuance of virtual bank and virtual insurer licences. On the regulatory front, the financial regulators have set up regulatory sandboxes for the development of innovative services in the Fintech industry. The Securities and Futures Commission has also established a new licensing framework for virtual assets trading platforms. In addition, we introduced two Fintech initiatives in the 2019 Policy Address, namely, to strengthen Fintech talent training for in-service financial practitioners and to establish a new Fintech event space in Wan Chai in collaboration with Cyberport to allow Fintech stakeholders to exchange ideas and drive Fintech demand and business opportunities. The Government will continue to adopt a multi-pronged approach in promoting and facilitating Fintech development so as to enhance the overall competitiveness of the financial services industry and consolidate Hong Kong’s status as a leading international financial centre.
 
     Looking ahead, we will strive to address the perception issues and clarify doubts. We will step up our promotional efforts and put across the message that Hong Kong remains a leading international financial centre and the gateway to the Mainland market. For example, in the coming year, we would enhance publicity support for the “Asian Financial Forum”, “Hong Kong FinTech Week” and other relevant signature events. We would also promote Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a major international financial centre through media events or events in partnership with relevant industry associations and reputable organisations. read more

     Following is a question by Dr the Hon Pierre Chan and a written reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (May 6):
 
Question:
 
     To curb the spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hong Kong, the Government has issued the relevant persons with quarantine orders under the Prevention and Control of Disease Regulation (Cap. 599A), the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation (Cap. 599C) and the Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at Hong Kong from Foreign Places Regulation (Cap. 599E) respectively. In addition, the Prevention and Control of Disease (Disclosure of Information) Regulation (Cap. 599D) empowers a health officer to require a person to disclose or furnish any information relevant to the handling of a state of the public health emergency, such as travel history. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the respective numbers, since the outbreak of the epidemic, of persons placed under compulsory quarantine upon their arrival at Hong Kong from the Mainland and other places; among such persons, the number of those who were suspected to have breached the quarantine orders, with a breakdown by the type of premises specified in the quarantine orders (i.e. home, quarantine centres, and others); the government department(s) responsible for taking follow-up actions against those persons suspected to have breached the quarantine orders, and set out a breakdown of the number of such persons by the actions (including making verbal warnings, issuing written warnings, requiring the wearing of a wristband, arranging the admission to quarantine centres, instituting prosecutions (and the number of convictions), and others (please specify)) taken against them;
 
(2) of the number of persons found, since Cap. 599D has come into operation, to have failed to truthfully declare their health conditions when arriving at Hong Kong; the government department(s) responsible for taking follow-up actions and set out a breakdown of the number of such persons by the actions taken against them; and
 
(3) as the Centre for Health Protection has admitted that the failure of some confirmed patients of COVID-19 to declare, truthfully in the health declaration form when entering Hong Kong earlier, their having developed symptoms has reflected that there is a loophole in the surveillance system, whether the Government will consider amending the legislation to plug the loophole; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     According to the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation (Cap. 599C), starting from February 8, 2020, except for exempted persons, all persons having stayed in the Mainland for any period during the 14 days preceding arrival in Hong Kong will be subject to compulsory quarantine for 14 days, regardless of nationality and travel documents used. Since March 25, 2020, the compulsory 14-day quarantine arrangement has been extended to all persons arriving from or having stayed in Macao and Taiwan in the past 14 days prior to arrival in Hong Kong, in addition to those arriving from the Mainland. Furthermore, according to the Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at Hong Kong from Foreign Places Regulation (Cap. 599E), starting from March 19, 2020, except for exempted persons, all persons arriving at Hong Kong from places outside China will be subject to compulsory quarantine for 14 days.
 
     To facilitate the implementation of Cap. 599C and Cap. 599E, the Prevention and Control of Disease (Disclosure of Information) Regulation (Cap. 599D) empowers a health officer to require any person to disclose or furnish information relevant to the handling of a state of public health emergency. The relevant power is extended to other medical practitioners who may encounter a person involved in such public health emergency.
 
     My consolidated reply to the various parts of the question raised by Dr the Hon Pierre Chan is as follows:
 
     As at May 4, 2020, in accordance with Cap. 599C and Cap. 599E, the Department of Health (DH) had respectively issued 103 543 quarantine orders to persons arriving at Hong Kong from the Mainland, Taiwan and Macao, and 69 685 quarantine orders to persons arriving at Hong Kong from overseas.
 
     In accordance with the requirements under Section 8 of Cap. 599C and Cap. 599E, a person placed under quarantine in accordance with Section 3 must not leave the place of quarantine if the relevant person has not been given permission by an authorised officer. The Government has implemented various measures to monitor whether persons placed under quarantine abide by the law, including conducting surprise checks, placing calls to the relevant persons, sharing of real-time location via communication software and using electronic wristbands/ monitoring wristbands paired with mobile app, with a view to ensuring that the persons placed under quarantine are staying at their dwelling places.
 
     Implementing compulsory quarantine arrangement is a crucial element of the measures for the prevention and control of the epidemic. The relevant departments have strengthened monitoring and inspections. As at May 4, 2020, officers from disciplinary forces had conducted surprise visits on over 14 000 persons under quarantine. The call centre of DH had placed over 200 000 telephone calls to persons under quarantine to conduct surprise checks. Relevant departments had also distributed over 82 000 electronic wristbands/ monitoring wristbands, shared real-time location via communication software with over 80 000 persons under compulsory quarantine, and made about 190 000 calls (including video calls) to ensure that persons under quarantine are staying at their dwelling places.
 
     During the monitoring process, if abnormal situations are observed or persons who have breached the quarantine order are found, relevant departments will suitably follow up. The Government adopts a “zero tolerance” policy towards those who violate the quarantine order, and they are subject to immediate prosecution without warning starting from March 22, 2020. Offenders are subject to a maximum fine of $25,000 and imprisonment for six months. As at May 4, 2020, four individuals who violated quarantine orders were respectively sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 10 days to three months by magistrates’ courts. Besides, a total of 56 individuals left their dwelling places before expiry of the quarantine orders without reasonable explanation and permission given by an authorised officer, and were stopped by staff of the Immigration Department at border control points. The DH and Police will continue investigations on the cases concerned and gather more evidence for consideration by the Department of Justice (DoJ) for making prosecutions.
 
     Furthermore, in accordance with Cap. 599D, it is a criminal offence for any person to provide false or misleading information to a health officer or medical practitioner concerned. The maximum penalty for failure to comply is a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for six months. The Government will take stringent follow-up actions on any suspected case of provision of false or misleading information. As at May 4, 2020, relevant enforcement departments had received 8 reports concerning cases of suspected violation of Cap. 599D. Enforcement departments consider there are sufficient grounds for further investigation on four of the cases, and will gather more evidence for consideration by DoJ for making prosecutions. read more