The following is issued on behalf of the Hospital Authority:

     As at noon today (March 18), public hospitals had reported to the Department of Health the admission of 173 patients (81 male and 92 female, aged 22 months to 90 years) in the past 24 hours who met the reporting criteria of COVID-19. Appropriate tests have been arranged for the patients.
 
     There are 239 patients under isolation currently. So far, 95 patients who had COVID-19 confirmed or probable infections have been discharged upon recovery.
 
     The Hospital Authority will maintain close contact with the Centre for Health Protection to monitor the latest developments and to inform the public and healthcare workers on the latest information in a timely manner.
 

     Following is a question by the Hon Wong Ting-kwong and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr John Lee, in the Legislative Council today (March 18): 
     
Question:

     It is learnt that some people have been spreading rumours on the Internet recently, claiming that there might be a shortage of essential livelihood commodities due to the novel coronavirus epidemic. As a result, some members of the public snapped up and stockpiled commodities such as rice and toilet paper, making the rumours come true. On the other hand, the Court of Final Appeal handed down a judgment on an appeal case in April 2019, ruling that as the acts of the respondents had not involved access to another person's computer, the respondents had not committed the offence under section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200) (i.e. the offence of obtaining access to a computer with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another). Some members of the legal sector have pointed out that as a result of the said judgment, the authorities might no longer be able to prosecute rumour-mongers by invoking the said provision. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council: 

(1) whether any legislation is currently in place to prosecute persons who wilfully spread false information which is likely to give rise to panic among members of the public; if so, of the details, as well as the number of prosecutions instituted in the past five years and the penalties imposed on the convicted persons; and 

(2) whether it will, on the premise of safeguarding freedom of speech, study the enactment of dedicated legislation to combat acts of wilful spread of such information; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that? 

Reply: 

President, 
     
     Hong Kong residents enjoy the freedom of speech and communication, but these freedoms are not absolute. According to Article 30 of the Basic Law, the relevant authorities may inspect communication in accordance with legal procedures to meet the needs of public security or of investigation into criminal offences; while according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383), the exercise by anyone of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions as provided by law as necessary for (1) respect of the rights or reputations of others, or (2) the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. 

     Even though there is currently no specified criminal offence in Hong Kong targeting the deliberate dissemination of false information, the Internet is not an unreal world that is beyond the law. As far as the existing legislation in Hong Kong is concerned, most of the crime-prevention laws in the real world are applicable to the online world. Any acts inciting others to break the law, as long as they involve criminal offences, are regulated by the relevant laws regardless of whether they were committed online. According to Section 89 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221), any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission by another person of any offence shall be guilty of the like offence. Under common law, inciting others to commit any substantive offence is also itself an offence. In short, any act of inciting others to commit an offence is already an offence. 

     As for "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" under section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200), it covers any person who obtains access to a computer (a) with intent to commit an offence; (b) with a dishonest intent to deceive; (c) with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another; or (d) with a dishonest intent to cause loss to another. Given that the facts of each case are different, there is no hard-and-fast rule on how to handle the relevant cases. When handling Internet-related cases, Police would determine the charge(s) to be laid with regard to the evidence of individual cases, and, where necessary, the Department of Justice (DoJ)'s advice would also be sought before prosecution. In considering each case, DoJ would make relevant prosecutorial decisions based on the actual facts, evidence, the Prosecution Code, and the applicable laws and cases. 

     In view of the potential for information technology, the computer and the Internet to be exploited for carrying out criminal activities, the Law Reform Commission has established in January 2019 a sub-committee to study the topic of cybercrime. In the course of its study, the sub-committee will identify the challenges arising from such rapid developments, review existing legislation and other relevant measures, examine relevant developments in other jurisdictions, and recommend possible law reforms (if any). We will pay close attention to the progress of the sub-committee's review. 

     As mentioned above, should any remarks published involve illegal acts, regardless of whether such acts occur online, as long as they involve criminal offences, they would be regulated by the relevant legislation. As messages could be disseminated rapidly through the Internet, and especially via social networks and communications software, this presents unique challenges to law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the proposal to introduce specific legislation targeting deliberate dissemination of rumours would involve many complicated and controversial issues, such as human rights protection, how to define certain speech as rumours, how to define a rumour's impact on the community and ascertain its degree of impact, how to prove that the persons who disseminated the false information did so deliberately with the intent to disrupt public order, and whether the introduction of a specified criminal offence would be the most effective measure in tackling the issue, etc. These questions must be considered and thoroughly discussed by the community. 

     As for the malicious act of spreading rumours when the city was fighting against the epidemic, leading to panic buying of goods such as rice and toilet paper, the Government had issued a press release at once to condemn those rumour mongers. The Government had stressed that the measures in disease prevention and control would not affect the freight services between the Mainland and Hong Kong, and that the supply of food products remained normal and there was no shortage of food. There was no need for the public to worry. In fighting of the virus, we appeal to members of the public to be vigilant against rumours and pay attention to information released by the Government, so as to avoid being misled by rumours. 

The following is issued on behalf of the Legislative Council Secretariat:

     The Legislative Council (LegCo) House Committee (HC) will hold a special meeting on Friday (March 20) at 2.30pm in Conference Room 1 of the LegCo Complex to continue the proceedings of the election of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of HC for the 2019-2020 session.

     The meeting of the LegCo Finance Committee (FC) originally scheduled for Friday at 3pm in Conference Room 1 of the LegCo Complex will be held at 3.15pm, whereas the FC meeting on Friday at 8.45am will be held as scheduled.

     Following is a question by the Hon Charles Mok and a reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (March 18):
 
Question:
 
     The novel coronavirus epidemic has now spread to more than 110 countries and territories around the world and has been described as a pandemic by the World Health Organization. In recent days, a number of persons from the Mainland, who had been confirmed to have been infected with the virus, withheld the information of having visited the Mainland when seeking medical treatment, withheld the relevant circumstances when making health declarations, or refused to cooperate with the authorities. Some members of the public have relayed to me that they are gravely worried that the Government's failure to "completely close all boundary control points" will lead to a rise in locally infected cases, thereby imposing an unbearable burden on Hong Kong's public healthcare system. Regarding the impacts of the epidemic on Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) among the non-local persons who had entered Hong Kong from the Mainland and had been confirmed in Hong Kong to have been infected with the virus, of the number of those who successfully gained entry into Hong Kong as they had not been identified as suspected cases, as well as the respective average duration of their stay in Hong Kong at the time they showed the relevant symptoms and they were confirmed to have been infected; whether it will immediately suspend granting entry permission to all non-local persons who have recently visited any Mainland cities or come to Hong Kong via the Mainland, and temporarily forbid Hong Kong residents from travelling to the Mainland, until the epidemic is under control; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(2) given that there are countries (including Italy and Kuwait), one after another, banning flights to and from Hong Kong or entry of Hong Kong residents, how the Government convinces the international community that the epidemic will not be spread to other places by people coming from Hong Kong or by Hong Kong residents; and
 
(3) given that some elderly persons, grass-roots families and the disadvantaged groups are unable to acquire face masks at a reasonable price, whether the Government will allocate funding from the Community Care Fund for purchasing face masks, and sell those face masks to Hong Kong residents in need at a low price at designated locations; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The World Health Organization (WHO) declared on March 11 that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak can be described as a pandemic.  Faced with the outbreak situation rapidly evolving and a continuous surge in the number of affected countries/regions and confirmed cases, the Government is closely monitoring the situation around the world and implementing relevant response measures.
      
     After consulting and consolidating information provided by the Security Bureau, Transport and Housing Bureau, Labour and Welfare Bureau, Home Affairs Bureau, Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau and Information Services Department (ISD), my reply to the various parts of the question raised by the Hon Charles Mok is as follows:
 
(1) The Government has been closely monitoring the development of the COVID-19 outbreak in the Mainland.  As at March 16, among the 157 confirmed cases and one suspected case received by the Department of Health's (DH) Centre for Health Protection (CHP), seven are non-Hong Kong residents entering Hong Kong via the Mainland, six of whom had stayed in Hong Kong for one to six days before the onset of fever symptoms.  Since February 7, there has been no imported case from the Mainland.
 
     Having regard to the seriousness of the outbreak, starting from January 27, all non-Hong Kong residents who had visited Hubei Province in the past 14 days prior to arrival to Hong Kong are not permitted to enter into Hong Kong.  Starting from February 8, in accordance with the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation (Cap 599C) (the Regulation), DH requires all persons who have been to the Mainland in the past 14 days preceding arrival in Hong Kong (save for exempted persons), regardless of their nationality and travel documents, to stay at designated places (quarantine centre, home or other accommodation) for a 14-day compulsory quarantine.  A breach of the above quarantine requirement is an offence.  Offenders are liable to a penalty of a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment for six months.  Also, providing false or misleading information to health officers or medical practitioners concerned would be liable to a penalty of a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for six months.  As of now, no person who underwent compulsory quarantine had become confirmed cases during the quarantine period.
      
     In fact, in view of the outbreak situation, the Government has taken a number of measures proactively since late January to further reduce the flow of people between the Mainland and Hong Kong.  These initiatives have been very effective.  During the period from February 8 (i.e. when quarantine order to all people entering Hong Kong from the Mainland or have visited the Mainland in the past 14 days came into effect) to March 15, compared to the figure before the measures to strictly manage control points and reduce the cross-boundary flow of people came into effect, the daily average passenger trips arriving in Hong Kong had dropped significantly by over 90 per cent, with Hong Kong residents making up over 80 per cent of the total passenger trips and Mainland residents five per cent.  Compared to the figure before the measures came into effect, daily average passengers trips arriving in Hong Kong via the two land border control points had dropped over 95 per cent, with Hong Kong residents making up nearly 85 per cent of the total passenger trips and Mainland residents three per cent.  However, due to the close economic, social and livelihood ties between Hong Kong and the Mainland and the heavy visitor traffic, a complete closure of the boundary control points is not practicable and may also affect the supply of daily necessities and food to Hong Kong.  Starting from February 4, the Government has only maintained services at the two land boundary control points of Shenzhen Bay Port and Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Port.  With this measure coupled with the implementation of mandatory quarantine under the Regulation since February 8, it is believed that the flow of people can be minimised and the risk of disease transmission reduced.
      
     The Government has conducted detailed risk assessments for formulating prevention and control measures in response to disease outbreak in other countries/regions.  Other than considering the number, distribution and rate of increase of infected persons, the Government would also take into account the surveillance and control measures implemented by the authorities of that particular country/region, as well as the frequency of travels between Hong Kong and that particular country/region.  The Government would suitably review and rationalise the relevant measures having regard to the latest development of the outbreak.  Furthermore, the Government has also urged members of the public planning to travel outside Hong Kong to adjust travel plans and avoid non-essential travel.  As the outbreak situation around the world is evolving rapidly, members of the public are strongly urged to avoid non-essential travel outside Hong Kong.
 
(2) The Government is aware that some countries/regions have decided to suspend air services to/from Hong Kong or prohibit the entry of travellers from Hong Kong or those who have visited Hong Kong recently in view of the development of COVID-19.  After learning of the decisions of the relevant countries/regions, the Government has been actively following up with the civil aviation authorities and relevant units of the countries/regions concerned and explaining in detail the prevention measures implemented by the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA).  For instance, when Italy announced the suspension of air services between Italy and Hong Kong on January 31, the Government immediately followed up with the Italian Civil Aviation Authority.  We were informed by the Italian authority in the early morning of February 2 (Hong Kong time) that the relevant suspension of cargo flights had been lifted.  In addition, when Vietnam announced the immediate suspension of air services between Vietnam and Hong Kong on February 1, the Government actively liaised with the Vietnamese Civil Aviation Authority.  The Vietnamese Civil Aviation Authority lifted the relevant suspension with immediate effect at night on the same day.  The Government will continue actively follow up with other relevant countries/regions, so as to minimise the impact of COVID-19 on Hong Kong's aviation services.
 
     Also, the Government has earlier written to Consuls General of various countries in Hong Kong and held briefings to explain in detail the overall strategy and measures put in place by the Government to combat the outbreak, and to reiterate that extreme measures such as the suspension of air services to/from Hong Kong or restricting the entry of travellers from Hong Kong would be unnecessary at this stage.  The Airport Authority Hong Kong also arranged on February 7 a briefing-cum-visit to HKIA for Consuls General in Hong Kong to explain in detail the robust anti-epidemic measures at HKIA.  Furthermore, ISD issues press releases to local and overseas media on a daily basis to explain the latest situation in Hong Kong and our anti-epidemic measures.  The ISD has also been providing daily reports to Consular Corps, international chambers of commerce and other organisations with international connections since January 26.
      
(3) As regards mask supply, the Government understands that some members of the public have difficulty in procuring masks.  We are also very concerned about the demand for masks by the elderly, grassroots families and the underprivileged.  In view that the supply of masks and personal protection equipment is tight globally and the announcement by WHO that the outbreak is a pandemic, panic buying happens in many places.  The Government has been adopting a multi-pronged approach to procure masks globally through different channels and means.  These include the Government Logistics Department reaching out to suppliers directly and through referrals from Overseas Economic and Trade Offices and individuals to source supplies for direct procurement of masks and anti-epidemic items without undergoing any tendering procedures.  The aim is to secure the delivery of these resources to Hong Kong in the shortest time possible.
 
     In addition to imports, the Government has taken steps to follow up on the recommendation to increase local production.  Under the Anti-epidemic Fund, the Local Mask Production Subsidy Scheme will provide financial assistance to facilitate the establishment of mask production lines in Hong Kong.  The Correctional Services Department has also increased its mask production volume.  As for retail, the Government has been in liaison with retailers and suppliers at all levels.  It is hoped that when stock is available, it can be handled without causing too much inconvenience to members of the public.
      
     Lastly, the Government has provided one million masks for the staff of subvented, contract, self-financing and private residential service units, including residential care homes for the elderly and residential care homes for persons with disabilities licensed by Social Welfare Department, so as to assist them to continue to provide services.  The Government has also received donations of masks and sanitising items from some groups and individuals for distribution to those in need.  We will help the donors distribute the donated items in accordance with their wishes, including providing masks to high-risk patients and medical workers through the Hospital Authority, as well as to the elderly and needy households through major charities and non-government organisations.  At the same time, the Government encourages private and charitable organisations to donate masks to the underprivileged, and stands ready to play a facilitation role with financial resources and co-ordination.
      
     Thank you, Mr President.

     Following is a question by Dr the Hon Pierre Chan and a written reply by the Secretary for Home Affairs, Mr Lau Kong-wah, in the Legislative Council today (March 18):

Question:
 
     Regarding the hard-surface soccer pitches under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the respective current numbers of the three types of soccer pitches, i.e. (a) 5-a-side hard-surface soccer pitches, (b) 7-a-side hard-surface soccer pitches and (c) 11-a-side hard-surface soccer pitches, and set out the following information on each soccer pitch by type of soccer pitch in separate tables of the same format:

(i) the District Council district in which it is located,
(ii) name (for venues with more than one soccer pitch, provide also the relevant names (e.g. Soccer Pitch No. 1)),
(iiii) whether it is located indoors or outdoors,
(iv) size (length and width) (metres),
(v) utilisation rate in 2018,
(vi) utilisation rate in 2019,
(vii) whether or not the design is in compliance with the standards of the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) for international matches, and
(viii) whether or not the design is in compliance with the standards of FIFA for non-international matches;
 
(2) of the method for calculating the utilisation rates of hard-surface soccer pitches;
 
(3) of (a) the average number and percentage of cases in which hirers failed to take up booking sessions in respect of each of the aforesaid three types of hard-surface soccer pitches, and (b) the number of complaints received by the LCSD about suspected transfer of user permits or approval letters by hirers of hard-surface soccer pitches, in each of the past three years, together with statistics on (i) the default notice issued and (ii) the temporary suspension of the eligibility of the bodies concerned for priority venue booking, in respect of such cases by the LCSD; and
 
(4) whether there are on-site staff on duty in all hard-surface soccer pitches at present; if not, of the number of occasions, in each of the past three years, on which the LCSD deployed officers to those venues without on-site staff on duty for the purpose of verifying the identity of hirers?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The reply to the question raised by Dr the Hon Pierre Chan is as follows:
 
(1) and (2) There are 234 outdoor hard-surface soccer pitches managed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), including 55 5-a-side soccer pitches and 165 7-a-side soccer pitches as well as 14 7-a-side cum 5-a-side soccer pitches. There are only 11-a-side natural turf and artificial turf soccer pitches. No 11-a-side hard-surface soccer pitches are provided. Hard-surface soccer pitches are open to public use when they are not taken up by booking and therefore the usage rate of such facilities is not available. Information about each hard-surface soccer pitch is set out at Annex. Besides, the multi-purpose arenas of the sports centres managed by the LCSD, including Ma On Shan Sports Centre, Shek Kip Mei Park Sports Centre, Tseung Kwan O Sports Centre, Kowloon Park Sports Centre and Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park Sports Centre are available for block booking by organisations for futsal.
     
(3) and (4) The LCSD received nine complaints about touting activities involving hard-surface soccer pitches in the past three years. Since on-site staff is not available at all the hard-surface soccer pitches, the LCSD verifies the identity of hirers/hirer organisations of hard-surface soccer pitches mainly through venue inspections. Besides, the LCSD does not require its venue staff to keep record in relation to no-show of all outdoor hard-surface soccer pitches. Hence, the average no-show rate of these facilities is not available. LCSD staff inspected hard-surface soccer pitches (including venues without regular on-site staff) at least 1 600 times in the past three years. No unauthorised transfer of user permit/letter of approval was found during the inspections. Hence, the LCSD had neither served default notice to any hirer organisation nor suspended priority booking status of any organisation accordingly.