The Hong Kong Observatory Almanac 2020 will go on sale tomorrow (December 19).
      
     The Almanac is bilingual and tabulated by month. It contains information including the traditional Chinese calendar, solar terms and moon phases, as well as the times of daily sunrise, sun transit, sunset, moonrise, moon transit, moonset and high and low tides, with the times of meridian passage and the rising and setting of the sun and planets graphically illustrated. The Almanac also includes a detailed Sun Path Diagram and star maps of the four quarters of the year. In addition, information on the duration of twilight, determination of apparent solar time, details of solar and lunar eclipses and observation of meteor showers and planetary phenomena as well as background information on calendars and the 24 solar terms are included.
      
     At $44 a copy, the Hong Kong Observatory Almanac 2020 is available for sale at the Hong Kong Observatory Resource Centre and the Publications Sales Unit of the Information Services Department. The public can also purchase the Almanac through the online Government Bookstore at www.bookstore.gov.hk. A handy Hong Kong Observatory Calendar Card is included with this issue.

     Following is a question by the Hon Chan Hoi-yan and a written reply by the Secretary for Education, Mr Kevin Yeung, in the Legislative Council today (December 18):
 
Question:
 
     In its review report submitted to the Education Bureau last year, the Task Force on Review of Self-financing Post-secondary Education re-affirms the Government policy of supporting the parallel development of the publicly funded and self-financing post-secondary education sectors, which is conducive to the diversified development of higher education in Hong Kong. However, some members of the self-financing post-secondary education sector have pointed out that currently the Government has merely launched the "Study Subsidy Scheme for Designated Professions/Sectors" (SSSDP) and the "Non-means-tested Subsidy Scheme for Self-financing Undergraduate Studies in Hong Kong", which are insufficient to promote the development of self-financing institutions. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the following information about SSSDP:
(i) the number of applications approved and the total amount of subsidy granted, as well as the average, highest and lowest amounts of subsidy granted in respect of the approved applications, in each of the past three academic years;
(ii) whether it has reviewed the effectiveness of SSSDP; if so, of the criteria adopted for the review; if not, whether it will conduct such a review; and
(iii) whether it knows the post-graduation employment situation of the students who received subsidies; if so, of the details; if not, whether it will conduct a relevant survey;
 
(2) as a think tank has suggested that the percentage for non-standard entry to programmes of self-financing post-secondary institutions (i.e. admission of students whose results in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination do not meet the basic entrance requirements of undergraduate programmes), which is currently set at 5 per cent, be relaxed, whether the Government will consider the suggestion; if so, of the details and implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(3) whether it will allocate additional resources to self-financing post-secondary institutions to enable them to strengthen the cooperation with the relevant sectors, thereby ensuring that the programmes that they offer are responsive to market needs; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
 
(4) as the Government will launch an Enhancement and Start-up Grant Scheme for Self-financing Post-secondary Education to provide financial support for self-financing post-secondary institutions which are interested in offering programmes that meet market needs but require high start-up costs, of the specific content of the Scheme (including the expenditure involved, the implementation timetable and the criteria for vetting and approval of the applications)?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The Government has been supporting the sustainable and healthy development of the self-financing post-secondary sector and has introduced various measures to support the self-financing post-secondary institutions and their students. Apart from the Study Subsidy Scheme for Designated Professions/Sectors (SSSDP) implemented in the 2015/16 academic year, the Government has introduced a few new initiatives specifically benefitting the self-financing post-secondary sector, including the Non-means-tested Subsidy Scheme for Self-financing Undergraduate Studies in Hong Kong, which was implemented in the 2017/18 academic year, and the Seventh Round of the Matching Grant Scheme, which was applicable to the self-financing degree-awarding institutions only. At the same time, we have been channelling additional resources to the self-financing post-secondary institutions and their students through various existing measures to assist in the development of new campuses and the promotion of teaching and learning, etc. The major measures supporting the self-financing post-secondary institutions and their students are set out at the Annex.
 
     The Government has accepted in full the review report published by the Task Force on Review of Self-financing Post-secondary Education (the Task Force) in December 2018, and will continue to promote the parallel development of the publicly-funded sector and the quality self-financing post-secondary sector in higher education, so as to better meet the community's needs. The Committee on Self-financing Post-secondary Education (CSPE) was revamped in November 2019 to enhance its role in facilitating the regulation, support, and co-ordination of the self-financing post-secondary education sector. The CSPE has commenced work on amending the Post Secondary Colleges Ordinance (Cap. 320). It will work with the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ) to explore how to enhance the academic accreditation standards and practices, with a view to raising the standards of self-financing post-secondary education. Furthermore, the Government will introduce an Enhancement and Start-up Grant Scheme for Self-financing Post-secondary Education to provide financial support for self-financing institutions which are interested in offering designated sub-degree or undergraduate programmes that meet market needs but require high start-up costs, so as to help such programmes take off and to alleviate the financial burden of students in terms of tuition. The Legislative Council (LegCo) Panel on Education will be consulted on the details of the scheme.
 
     Our reply to the question raised by the Hon Chan Hoi-yan is as follows:
 
(1) The SSSDP has been implemented as a pilot scheme since the 2015/16 academic year. It aims to increase the supply of subsidised undergraduate places by leveraging the supply of the self-financing post-secondary education sector, and to nurture talent in support of specific industries with keen demand for human resources. Given the positive response from various stakeholders to the SSSDP, the Government has regularised it since the 2018/19 academic year and increased the number of subsidised places from about 1 000 per cohort to about 3 000 per cohort. The designated programmes under the SSSDP fall into ten disciplines, including health care, architecture and engineering, testing and certification, creative industries, logistics, tourism and hospitality, computer science, financial technology, insurance, and sports and recreation. Moreover, starting from the 2019/20 academic year, the Government has further expanded the coverage of the SSSDP to subsidise about 2 000 students per cohort enrolling in the designated sub-degree programmes in the selected disciplines.

     The numbers of programmes, the numbers of subsidised places, the numbers of actual intakes, the subsidy amounts, and the total amounts of subsidies, etc of the designated undergraduate programmes under the SSSDP in the past three years are as follows:
 

 
Note: Starting from the 2017/18 academic year, the Government has been providing non-means-tested subsidies for students pursuing self-financing undergraduate programmes other than those designated undergraduate programmes under the SSSDP. In addition, the number of subsidised places under the SSSDP was significantly increased in the 2018/19 academic year. Although the number of students attracted to pursue programmes under the SSSDP almost doubled, the enrolment rate was affected because of competition from other degree programmes.
 
     In the 2018/19 academic year, students on designated laboratory-based undergraduate programmes were each provided with an annual subsidy of an amount up to $71,700; and those on other designated undergraduate programmes were each provided with an annual subsidy of an amount up to $41,000.

     The Education Bureau (EDB) has been reviewing the implementation of the SSSDP, including the supply of places and admissions, etc, in the light of Hong Kong's social and economic development needs as well as the views of stakeholders (including students, institutions, and industries). In consultation with the relevant bureaux/departments, we will adjust the arrangements, including the selected disciplines of the SSSDP, the relevant subsidised programmes, and the number of subsidised places. The first cohort of students who received a subsidy to pursue the designated undergraduate programmes graduated in 2019. The participating institutions will submit the employment figures of these graduates in the second quarter of 2020. The statistics will help us understand the situation of graduates joining the relevant industries.
 
(2) At present, when the HKCAAVQ conducts programme accreditation exercises for the bachelor's degree programmes offered by the non-self-accrediting institutions, it normally allows the institutions to give special consideration to admitting applicants not complying with the minimum entrance requirements or other acceptable equivalent qualifications, subject to an admission ceiling of 5 per cent of the total student intake of the programmes. From the quality assurance perspective, imposing restrictions on the admission of students not complying with the minimum entrance requirements can ensure that there is minimal variation in the learning abilities among students, so as not to affect the quality of teaching and learning. This can also avoid, as far as possible, admitting students who fail to complete their studies because of their learning abilities, which will be a waste of their family's and society's resources, and their own precious time.
 
     The EDB has set up the Sub-committee on Quality Assurance under the revamped CSPE to explore how to enhance the quality of the self-financing post-secondary sector, including the enhancement of the accreditation standards and practices for the self-financing sector. The EDB and the CSPE will continue to work closely with the HKCAAVQ, with a view to striking a balance between providing flexibility in the admission requirements of the self-financing institutions and ensuring the quality of programmes offered by the institutions.
 
(3) and (4) The EDB has been encouraging the self-financing post-secondary sector to operate programmes that meet community and industry needs. In fact, the self-financing post-secondary sector has sufficient flexibility in launching programmes to provide additional and complementary choices for post-secondary education in Hong Kong and enhance the diversity of our higher education sector as a whole.
 
      The SSSDP not only encourages students to pursue self-financing programmes that nurture talent for designated industries with keen human resources needs, but also incentivises the self-financing institutions to respond to society's development needs swiftly by operating programmes that complement the manpower needs of the relevant industries. For instance, for allied health programmes at the degree level alone, the self-financing institutions have increased training places over the past few years to provide over 1 300 undergraduate places per year under the SSSDP to meet the needs of the sector. Apart from the allied health disciplines, some self-financing institutions have designed new and specialised programmes to groom talent to meet the needs of the community and emerging industries. Examples of such programmes are testing and certification, horticulture and landscape management, and culinary arts and management. Furthermore, the EDB and the CSPE will conduct suitable strategic coordination for the self-financing post-secondary sector to facilitate the provision of quality programmes by the self-financing institutions, with a view to enriching higher education in Hong Kong and better responding to our manpower needs.
 
     Having considered the recommendations by the Task Force, the Government proposes to earmark $1.26 billion to set up the Enhancement and Start-up Grant Scheme for Self-financing Post-secondary Education to step up our support for the self-financing post-secondary institutions. This Scheme aims to increase the non-recurrent financial support for the self-financing institutions by offering one-off grants to support the self-financing institutions in offering post-secondary programmes that meet Hong Kong's human resources needs but require high start-up costs, so as to help such programmes take off to nurture the talent needed by the community urgently. We also propose that the additional grants be utilised for enhancement measures (such as facilitating programme and faculty development) or campus facilities improvements, so as to enhance teaching and learning, thereby encouraging the self-financing post-secondary institutions to explore and establish their specialised and niche areas, or undertake projects that are conducive to the sustainable development of the higher education sector as a whole. The EDB will consult the LegCo Panel on Education in early 2020 on the scheme and seek the LegCo's funding approval.
 
     On the other hand, the Task Force on Promotion of Vocational and Professional Education and Training (VPET) set up in 2018 has been reviewing the promotion of VPET in Hong Kong. One of the tasks of this Task Force is to review how to foster closer collaboration between the industry and institutions to respond to Hong Kong's manpower needs. After considering the views collected during the public consultation period, the Task Force on Promotion of VPET is expected to complete the review and make specific recommendations to the Government in the first quarter of 2020.

     Following is the transcript of remarks by the Secretary for Security, Mr John Lee, at a media session at the Legislative Council Complex this morning (December 18):
 
Reporter: Mr Lee, why did the Government fail to tell the people that there would be temporary checkpoints in the middle of the bridge and as a result the Hong Konger who was supposed to go to Macao was sent to Mainland China?
                                                
Secretary for Security: First of all, I think everybody should understand what a jurisdiction really encompasses. In a jurisdiction which belongs to a particular place that means the law enforcement agencies can enforce the law within its jurisdiction according to the need and according to the actual circumstances. For security operations, it would be up to the responsible jurisdiction to make the operational plan and also the other arrangements which include letting people know how they would operate. In that principle, it would be up to the Zhuhai law enforcement agencies to make that announcement.
 
     I think it is important for people to understand once you leave the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, then you will be subject to the law of the other jurisdiction. That is a lesson, that is a message, that is an important legal concept that I think people of Hong Kong must know, so that they will understand at what point they may be subject to which jurisdiction and what laws.
      
(Please also refer to the Chinese portion of the transcript.)

     Following is a question by the Dr Hon Pierre Chan and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr John Lee, in the Legislative Council today (December 18):
     
Question:
 
     The Secretary for Security has indicated recently that most police officers have received first aid and basic healthcare training. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) among the serving police officers belonging to the ranks listed in the table below, of the respective numbers and percentages of those who have completed first aid certificate courses recognised by the Government, and set out in the table below a breakdown of the number of persons by training organisation (i.e. (i) Hong Kong St. John Ambulance, (ii) Hong Kong Red Cross, (iii) Occupational Safety & Health Council, (iv) The Auxiliary Medical Service and (v) other organisations (please specify));
 

 
(2) of the number of police officers who completed, in each of the past five years, the first aid certificate courses provided respectively by the aforesaid organisations, and the total number of hours of the relevant training received by them; and
 
(3) whether the Police will, when some persons at the scene of confrontations between the Police and members of the public have been injured and need treatment, administer first aid treatment for the injured persons on their own, or refer them to the healthcare professionals (including ambulance personnel, nurses and doctors) at the scene for treatment in the first instance; of the criteria adopted by the Police for making such a decision?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The Police always attach importance to the professional training and development of police officers, including the provision of appropriate first aid and basic medical training so that police officers may, under different operational circumstances, administer preliminary treatment for injured persons in need. At present, all newly recruited regular police officers have to undergo 40 hours of basic first aid training when they are trained at the Hong Kong Police College. Upon completing such first aid training and passing relevant assessments, they will be awarded first aid certificates. In addition, the Police also arrange the basic first aid training mentioned above or 16 hours of refresher first aid training for serving regular police officers who need to extend the validity period of their first aid certificates. The relevant training programmes are provided by the Auxiliary Medical Service and Hong Kong St. John Ambulance. Police officers may also enrol in other first aid certificate courses on their own initiative.
 
     My reply to Hon Chan's question is as follows:
 
(1) and (2) As at November 30 this year, about 25 000 serving regular police officers had completed the aforementioned basic or refresher first aid training, or other first aid certificate courses. The details are set out below:  
 

      
     The Police do not maintain the breakdown of the number of officers by training organisation.
 
     From 2014/15 to 2018/19, the average numbers of regular police officers who received basic and refresher first aid training arranged by the Police per year are as follows:
 

 
(3) There are safety risks in large-scale public order events. The Police always uphold the principle that injured persons should be sent to hospitals for treatment as soon as possible. Depending on the actual circumstances, police officers will administer preliminary treatment for injured persons before ambulance personnel arrive and, where necessary, will not rule out arranging other healthcare professionals at the scene to help the injured persons. If an injured person is an arrestee, the Police will, while administering treatment for the person, take into account his or her safety as well as security considerations. In any event, the Police will facilitate ambulance service in their best endeavours and assist in relief efforts as far as practicable, so that injured persons can receive the needed medical services.

     Following is a question by the Hon Cheng Chung-tai and a reply by the Secretary for the Civil Service, Mr Joshua Law, in the Legislative Council today (December 18):

Question:

     It has been reported that since June this year, a certain number of civil servants have been arrested in public events. In an open letter issued to all civil servants on the 15th of last month, the Secretary for the Civil Service stated that civil servants arrested for suspected involvement in unlawful public events would all be interdicted from duty. However, the Government said in the past that it would not resort to interdiction lightly; before making a decision in respect of interdiction, it would take into account certain factors, including the nature and gravity of the alleged offence or misconduct, and the possibility of the offence or misconduct being committed again. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of civil servants arrested in public events since June this year; among them, the respective numbers of those who have been interdicted from duty and/or are currently under internal investigation; and

(2) whether there is any difference between the current interdiction arrangement and that in the past; if so, whether, before the arrangement was amended, civil servants' associations had been consulted and amendment of the relevant regulations was required, and whether it has assessed if such an arrangement will give rise to the effect of "punishment before conviction", which violates the common law principle of presumption of innocence?

Reply:

President,

     The civil service has always been committed to serve the community and strive to maintain stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. Hong Kong has undergone unprecedented impact over the past few months. At this difficult time, civil servants should stand in solidarity and their priority task is to work together to end violence and chaos. To this end, I issued a letter to all civil servants in August this year, encouraging them to cherish the core values of the civil service and discharge their duties wholeheartedly. The Chief Executive also issued a letter to all civil servants in September, expressing her appreciation to colleagues for steadfastly attending to their duties and contributing their best to maintain social order. She encouraged the civil service to stand united to uphold those core values, remain calm in responding to the crisis and continue their efforts to serve the public with integrity and impartiality so as to help Hong Kong overcome the difficult situation. In another letter issued in November, I reminded civil servants to work in concert to support the Government's efforts to end violence and chaos. I also conveyed my sincere gratitude to civil servant colleagues who have been steadfastly discharging their duties and working hard to maintain public order during the difficult times over the past few months. At the same time, I reminded civil servants to continue to do their part and strive to help Hong Kong restore order as soon as possible, and that they must not support or participate in any activity that will disrupt peace in society and the normal operation of public services.

     The Government adopts a zero-tolerance attitude towards civil servants who violate the law. We are extremely concerned about the arrest of individual civil servants for their suspected involvement in unlawful public activities. It would be difficult for the community to accept if a civil servant arrested for his suspected participation in illegal activities could still return to work as normal and continue to exercise the powers and functions of his office. In this regard, we would interdict the civil servant concerned in the public interest when he is under inquiry or investigation after arrest.

     My consolidated reply to the Hon Cheng Chung-tai's question is as follows:

     The Government has always attached great importance to the conduct of civil servants. Civil servants must be law-abiding, dedicated, impartial and politically neutral. These values are also what the general public expects of the civil service. The Government also has an established mechanism for handling interdiction and disciplinary matters of the civil service. We have all along been handling civil service disciplinary matters in accordance with rules and regulations of the civil service under the established mechanism, with due regard to the principle of fairness and impartiality. Generally speaking, in accordance with the relevant established mechanism, the Government will, having regard to public interest, interdict a civil servant who is under inquiry or investigation for serious misconduct or criminal offence or that judicial or disciplinary proceedings have been or are to be taken against him. In considering whether the civil servant concerned should be interdicted, the relevant authority will consider various factors, including the nature and gravity of the alleged misconduct or criminal offence, possible conflict between the civil servant's misconduct and his official duties, likely harm or risk posed to the general public, public reaction and perception to the officer remaining in office to continue to exercise the powers and functions of his office, etc.

     Interdiction is not a disciplinary punishment and there is no presumption of guilt in interdiction. An officer may be interdicted when the relevant authority, having regard to public interest, considers it inappropriate for him to continue to exercise the powers and functions of his public office temporarily. The existing interdiction arrangement for civil servants does not violate the principle of presumption of innocence. A decision to interdict an officer does not imply that there is any prejudgment of his guilt or any prejudice to his fair trial based on the principle of presumption of innocence. Whether an interdicted officer is guilty of an alleged criminal offence or misconduct, it is a matter to be determined by the court or disciplinary authority respectively. Whether an individual officer should be interdicted, the relevant authority will consider the specific circumstances of each individual case. My letter issued to all civil servants in November 2019 aims at reminding civil servant colleagues that under the existing established mechanism, in considering whether a civil servant who has been arrested for his suspected involvement in unlawful activities and under inquiry should be interdicted, the relevant authority will take into account the public reaction and perception to the officer remaining in office to continue to exercise the powers and functions of his office as a consideration factor. Out of the 180 000-strong civil service, there are currently only an extremely small number of civil servants being arrested for their suspected involvement in unlawful activities in the past few months of social events. Overall, the civil service remains to be committed to the rule of law and dedicated. I hope the community would not focus on an extremely small number of civil servants being arrested and a few negative incidents and ignore the longstanding hard work and effort of the 180 000-strong civil service.

     Civil servants convicted of criminal offence would not only be penalised under the law, the Government would also take disciplinary action against them in accordance with the established mechanism without toleration. For civil servants convicted of criminal offence, disciplinary action will be taken against the civil servants concerned upon conclusion of the relevant criminal proceedings. The disciplinary punishment to be imposed could include verbal warning, written warning, reprimand, severe reprimand, reduction in rank, compulsory retirement or dismissal, etc. In determining the level of punishment, the relevant authority will examine the judgement and sentence of the criminal offence and take into account factors including the nature and gravity of the misconduct or criminal offence, the level of punishment for similar misconduct or criminal offence, any mitigating factors, and the rank, service and disciplinary records of the civil servant concerned, etc.

     Thank you, President.