The Hong Kong Energy Statistics 2019 Annual Report is published by the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) today (April 29). The report describes the situation of energy supply an… read more
Following is a question by the Hon Ip Kin-yuen and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr John Lee, in the Legislative Council today (April 29):
Question:
During the Police’s operation at the MTR Prince Edward Station on August 31 last year, a number of members of the public were injured and there were even rumours that some persons died. Six months later, on the night of February 29 this year, some members of the public conducted memorial activities outside the ground-level B1 Exit of the Prince Edward Station and repeatedly placed fresh flowers, candles and other items (mourning items) on the nearby railings, and the Police repeatedly removed such mourning items. In mid-March, a representative of the Police told the Traffic and Transport Committee of the Yau Tsim Mong District Council that on that night, the police officers had removed such items in accordance with the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness and Obstruction) Ordinance (Cap 570). Besides, some members of the public complained that when they were conducting memorial activities outside the ground-level B1 Exit of the Prince Edward Station on March 31, some police officers ordered five members of the public who did not know each other to stand close side by side, and then ticketed such persons for contravening the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation (Cap 599 sub leg G) (commonly known as “the order to prohibit group gatherings”). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the aforesaid location where the mourning items were placed is within the management area of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL); if so, whether it has assessed if the removal of such mourning items by police officers without any request for assistance received from MTRCL constituted an infringement on MTRCL’s management authority;
(2) of the details of the aforesaid operations of the Police to remove the mourning items, including (i) the number of such operations, (ii) the quantity of fresh flowers so removed, and (iii) how the flowers removed were disposed of;
(3) whether the police officers issued, under Cap 570, fixed penalty notices (FPNs) to those persons who had placed the mourning items; if so, of the number of FPNs issued;
(4) of the number of FPNs issued by public officers under Cap 570 in each of the past three years and, among such FPNs, the number of those issued by police officers at locations under the management of MTRCL;
(5) given that it has been pointed out in the judgments of some court cases that whether an item should be regarded as “litter” or “waste” depends on whether that item was genuine waste material at the time when the alleged offence was committed, and that some members of the public were conducting memorial activities when the Police removed the mourning items, whether the Government has reviewed if the police officers (i) had the power to remove the mourning items by treating them as litter or waste, and (ii) had unlawfully taken away the private properties of members of the public; and
(6) whether it has reviewed if the aforesaid law enforcement actions taken by the police officers on March 31 contravened the legislative intent of the order to prohibit group gatherings; if it has reviewed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the follow-up actions; if the review outcome is in the negative, the justifications for that?
Reply:
President,
According to section 10 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap 232), it is the statutory duty of the Police to maintain public safety and public order. Therefore, if any illegal acts take place and undermine the public peace, the Police must take appropriate actions in a timely manner to restore public safety and public order.
There were no cases involving death in Prince Edward MTR station on August 31, 2019. Despite repeated clarifications by the Government, some people continue to spread false rumours deliberately and make use of them, appealing to protesters to conduct public order events allegedly in the name of “mourning” outside Prince Edward MTR Station with flowers, joss paper, candles and other items at the end of each month. Many of these events ended up as illegal acts of serious violence, including unlawful assemblies, illegal blockage of roads, paralysing the traffic, wounding and violent charging of police cordon lines, severely threatening public safety and public order.
In the afternoon of February 29, a large group of people, in response to appeals on the Internet, assembled again outside Prince Edward MTR station and Mong Kok Police Station with flowers, candles and other items. Some of them subsequently blocked roads in the vicinity of Nathan Road and Prince Edward Road West, seriously paralysing the traffic. Some rioters even threw petrol bombs and burned barricades at multiple locations in Mong Kok, including Nathan Road, Mong Kok Road and Argyle Street, posing a serious threat to public safety. The Police had to take lawful measures to stop unlawful assemblies and prevent the public peace from being jeopardised, including dispersing people participating in unlawful assemblies, as well as removing articles believed to be likely to incite others to continue or resume unlawful assemblies and commit a breach of the peace. The Police were fulfilling their due responsibilities to restore public safety and order as soon as possible, with a view to preventing the situation at the scene from further deteriorating and people from being injured.
Having consulted the relevant departments, our reply to the various parts of the question raised by Hon Ip Kin-yuen is as follows:
(1) When handling public order events, the Police will conduct a comprehensive risk assessment in order to formulate an overall strategy and measures including deployment of staff and equipment as well as contingency plans. The Police will, taking into account past experience in handling events of similar nature or scale as well as other risk factors, assess the crowd management measures and road traffic arrangements necessary during the event.
For the public order events allegedly conducted in the name of “mourning” over the past months, the Mong Kok Police District has been maintaining close liaison with the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited (MTRCL), monitoring the relevant situation and conducting risk assessments in order to implement appropriate measures to protect the safety of members of the public, passengers, MTRCL staff and the railway. During public order events, the Police’s field commanders and other personnel will monitor and assess the situation at the scene continuously and adopt necessary response measures in light of the actual circumstances.
If illegal acts take place and undermine the public peace, regardless of whether they take place in private premises or managed by private body, it is the responsibility of the Police to take appropriate actions to restore the public peace, with a view to ensuring public safety and public order.
(2) and (5) It is the Police’s statutory duty to maintain public safety and public order. Hence, if any illegal acts take place and severely undermine the public peace, police officers must take appropriate actions in a timely manner, with a view to preserving the public peace, preventing crime or protecting properties from criminal injury.
Section 50(6) of the Police Force Ordinance also stipulates that where any person is apprehended by a police officer, it shall be lawful for such officer to search for and take possession of any newspaper, book or other document or any portion or extract therefrom and any other article or chattel which may be found on his person or in or about the place at which he has been apprehended and which the said officer may reasonably suspect to be of value (whether by itself or together with anything else) to the investigation of any offence that the person has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed.
As for other articles not related to the offence allegedly committed and abandoned in a public place, they will be handled by the departments concerned in accordance with the established procedures.
The Police do not maintain the statistics requested in the question.
(3) and (4) According to the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness and Obstruction) Ordinance (Cap 570), the departments being authorised to issue fixed penalty tickets (FPTs) include the Housing Department (HD), the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), the Marine Department (MD), the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) and the Hong Kong Police (HKPF). In the past three years, the numbers of FPTs issued by authorised departments in accordance with Cap 570 are tabulated as follows:
|
Following is a question by the Dr Hon Kwok Ka-ki and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr John Lee, in the Legislative Council today (April 29):
Question:
Under section 18 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap 486), any individual is entitled to make a data access request to a data user (e.g. a government department), i.e. to be informed whether the data user holds the personal data of which the individual is the data subject, and (if the data user holds such data) be provided with a copy of such data. Under sections 19 and 28 of the Ordinance, a data user must comply with such a request within a specified period, and may charge, for complying with the request, a fee that is not excessive. Regarding the Police’s handling of data access requests made by members of the public, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of (i) the respective numbers of requests received and approved by the Police for providing copies of their video footages, and (ii) the highest, lowest, average and total amounts of fees charged by the Police to the applicants, in each of the past three years; how the Police determine the amount of fees to be charged; if the Police do not possess the above information, whether they will compile such statistics immediately; and
(2) of the procedure under which the Police provide copies of their video footages to data subjects; whether such procedure involves the step of using software to blur or redact the personal data (such as the facial images) of persons other than the applicants who are captured in the footages, and whether fees are charged for this step; if so, of the details; if such step is not involved, how the Police ensure that they will not, in providing copies of their video footages, disclose the personal data of other persons without such persons’ consent?
Reply:
President,
The Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO) (Cap 486) is applicable to public and private organisations as well as government departments. All organisations/departments are required to comply with PDPO and its relevant Data Protection Principles when collecting and using personal data, including the requirements about the purpose of data collection, data security and data use.
Section 10 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap 232) stipulates that the statutory duties of the Police force include taking lawful measures for preserving public peace, preventing and detecting crimes and offences, as well as preventing injuries to life and property, etc. Personal data collected by the Police in the course of case investigation will only be used for the purposes of crime detection and prevention. The Police have clear and strict guidelines and procedures for handling video clips captured by body-worn video cameras and digital camcorders. Video clips with investigative or evidential value will be classified as evidence and be retained until the relevant investigation or judicial procedures are completed. Video clips carrying no investigative or evidential value, or constituting no other legitimate purpose, will be deleted after 31 days from the date of recording.
A consolidated reply to various parts of Dr Hon Kwok Ka-ki’s question is as follows:
The Police will handle data access requests (DAR) in accordance with PDPO. Section 18 of PDPO enables an individual to be informed by a data user whether the data user holds personal data of which the individual is the data subject and if so, be supplied with a copy of such data. Normally, except where a DAR falls within the circumstances in which the request can be refused under section 20 of PDPO, or that the data user has relied on the exemption provisions in Part VIII of PDPO to refuse the DAR, the data user will usually supply a copy of the requested data to the requestor within 40 calendar days after receiving the request.
If the Police decide to comply with a DAR, they will supply a copy of the personal data to the data subject as far as practicable. PDPO enables a data user to impose a fee for complying with a DAR which should not be considered “excessive”. A data user is allowed to charge the requestor only for the costs which are directly related to and necessary for complying with a DAR, and the fee imposed will depend on the scope and complexity of the request concerned.
Besides, if the data requested by a data subject comprises data of a third party, the Police will remove personal data of a third party in the requested copy unless they are satisfied that the third party has consented to the disclosure. According to the Guidance Note of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong, a data user may charge the costs for technical assistance in duplicating and editing a tape to remove images of other individuals.
The Police do not maintain the other statistics requested in the question. read more
The following is issued on behalf of the Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency:
In light of the Government’s announcement on the phased resumption of public services, the service counters of the Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency (WFSFAA) will resume normal service in phases starting from May 4.
The service counters of the Student Finance Office (SFO) at Cheung Sha Wan Government Offices as well as Trade and Industry Tower will be open from Monday to Friday from 8.45am to 1pm and from 2pm to 5.45pm. Under the first phase of public service resumption, services would be provided only to applicants for student financial assistance who have made prior bookings through the online system of the SFO.
The service counters of the Working Family Allowance Office (WFAO) at Hoi Bun Road, Kwun Tong, will be open from Monday to Friday from 9am to 6pm.
Members of the public are encouraged to submit their applications by post, online or through the drop-in boxes at the SFO and the WFAO.
For enquiries, please contact the WFSFAA through the following channels:
1. Student Finance Office: Email (wg_sfo@wfsfaa.gov.hk); general hotline (2802 2345); cheque payment collection hotline (2150 6220); and
2. Working Family Allowance Office:
– Working Family Allowance Scheme and Individual-based Work Incentive Transport Subsidy Scheme: Email (enquiry_wfao@wfsfaa.gov.hk); hotline (2558 3000); and
– Caring and Sharing Scheme: Email (careandshare@wfsfaa.gov.hk); hotline (3897 1088). read more
Following is a question by the Hon Kenneth Leung and a written reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (April 29):
Question:
To tackle the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, persons arriving in Hong Kong on all flights are currently required to provide their deep throat saliva samples to the authorities for conducting tests for coronavirus, and then undergo a 14-day compulsory quarantine at a designated place (home or other accommodation) pursuant to the requirements of the quarantine orders. Some members of the public have pointed out that while such persons are forbidden to go out during home quarantine, those living with them are not subject to this restriction, giving rise to the possibility of the virus spreading to the community through the latter. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the four members of the expert advisory panel (panel) commissioned by the Chief Executive unanimously agreed to the arrangement that persons living with those under home quarantine are not required to subject to compulsory quarantine; if so, of the panel’s justifications, and whether the panel had pointed out the inadequacies of this arrangement; if so, of the details and the remedial measures; and
(2) given that as at March 24, this year, the Department of Health issued a total of 408 warning letters to persons who had violated the quarantine orders, whether the Government will consider stepping up law enforcement efforts to enhance the deterrent effect; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons and the alternative options for that?
Reply:
President,
With the Government putting in place and continuing to implement a series of stringent prevention and control measures, as well as the dedication of healthcare staff and frontline workers and co-operation of members of the public, there are preliminary signs that the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak situation in Hong Kong is stabilising. That said, in view that the situation of the outbreak is still dire around the globe, the Government will continue to put in efforts to prevent the virus from being imported from outside Hong Kong and imported cases from spreading locally. The Government continues to adopt the “containment” strategy, including strengthening virus surveillance for travellers arriving at Hong Kong, mandating all inbound travellers (except for a small number of exempted persons) to be subject to compulsory quarantine, as well as enhancing monitoring and enforcement for people placed under quarantine. Also, using a science-based approach and built on advice from the expert advisory panel, the Government plans and coordinates efforts on prevention and control of the epidemic and formulates suitable strategies and response measures.
My reply to the various parts of the question raised by the Hon Kenneth Leung is as follows:
(1) The Government reports various prevention and control measures to the expert advisory panel regularly and seek their opinions, including on the compulsory quarantine requirement for Hong Kong residents arriving at Hong Kong who have been to any overseas countries or areas in the past 14 days. The expert advisory panel agreed with the arrangement that asymptomatic inbound travellers should be subject to compulsory quarantine at designated places (home or other accommodation). It considered that people living with these persons under quarantine should be required to follow a series of prevention measures, such as maintaining good personal hygiene, wearing a surgical mask, checking body temperature and maintaining social distance with the persons under quarantine, but did not bring up the requirement for the people living with these persons under quarantine to undergo compulsory quarantine.
(2) 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.
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 April 27, 2020, officers from disciplinary forces had conducted surprise visits on over 14 000 persons under quarantine. The call centre of the DH had placed over 190 000 telephone calls to persons under quarantine to conduct surprise checks. The relevant departments had also distributed over 75 000 electronic wristbands/ monitoring wristbands, shared real-time location via communication software with over 80 000 persons under compulsory quarantine, and made about 180 000 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, the 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 April 27, 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 for making prosecutions. read more