In response to rumours on social media on the Internet that the Government plans to construct a police base near San Uk Ling for counter-terrorism, a Government spokesman today (November 27) clarified again that the Government … read more
Following is a question by the Hon Ip Kin-yuen and a reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr John Lee, in the Legislative Council today (November 27):
Question:
The “anti-extradition to China” movement, which was triggered by the Government forcefully pushing the proposals to amend the law concerning surrender of fugitive offenders, has been going on for nearly six months. It has been reported that when the Police deployed specialised crowd management vehicles (commonly known as “water cannon vehicles”) to disperse the crowd by spraying colourless or coloured pepper based solution, there were from time to time innocent people being hit by the sprayed water. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether, when the Police deployed a water cannon vehicle to disperse the crowd in Tsim Sha Tsui on the 20th of last month, the target of attack of the water cannon vehicle was the 10-odd people (comprising a Member of this Council, journalists, members of the ethnic minorities and other members of the public) outside the entrance of the Kowloon Mosque, or the Kowloon Mosque, and the justifications for choosing such target of attack; why coloured pepper based solution was chosen for use on that day; whether the police officers concerned operated the water cannon vehicle on that day in accordance with the relevant guidelines; if they did, why some innocent people were hit by the coloured water; if not, whether the Police will institute disciplinary proceedings against the police officers concerned;
(2) given that on the night of the 11th of this month, a staff member of a pharmacy who had, out of anger about the goods of the pharmacy having been sprayed wet by a water cannon vehicle, thrown goods at that water cannon vehicle, was subsequently attacked with pepper balls and arrested by the Police, of the reasons why the Police sprayed pepper based solution at the pharmacy; whether it knows if the said staff member was injured; if he was, of the injuries he sustained; of the Police’s specific measures to ensure that religious venues, shops, vehicles, journalists, and passers-by not involved in demonstrations will not be endangered when water cannon vehicles are deployed in future; the ways by which members of the public whose bodies or properties have been wrongfully hit by the water sprayed from a water cannon vehicle may claim compensations; and
(3) given that when the Police dispersed the crowd outside The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on the 17th of this month, a water cannon vehicle sprayed water at the direction of some journalists, hitting a journalist who then fell onto the ground, suffered from shock and underwent an operation immediately necessitated by skull fracture and cerebral haemorrhage, of the reasons why the water cannon vehicle sprayed water at the direction of the journalists, as well as the latest condition of that journalist and the work for dealing with the aftermath; whether the Police will institute disciplinary proceedings against the police officers who operated the water cannon vehicle on that day?
Reply:
President,
It is the Police’s statutory duty to maintain public safety and public order. When public safety and public order are severely threatened by situations such as illegal road blockage, paralysed traffic, unlawful assemblies, arson, hurling of petrol bombs and violent charging of police cordon lines, the Police must take appropriate actions to maintain law and order and safeguard public peace.
The Police have strict guidelines on the use of force. Police officers may use appropriate force only when it is necessary. Police officers will give various warnings prior to the use of force as far as circumstances permit, and give the person(s) being warned every opportunity to obey police orders.
The specialised crowd management vehicle (SCMV) is one of the Police’s operational options. It is used by the Police to disperse those engaged in violent charging, stop acts which seriously jeopardise public safety and public order, as well as create a safe distance between protesters and police officers to reduce their chance of injury.
The Police have strict regulations on the use of SCMV’s water spray device. SCMV will be used when the following circumstances may occur or have occurred:
(1) serious injury or loss of life;
(2) widespread destruction of property; or
(3) disruption or illegal blockage of traffic by occupation of major thoroughfares resulting in significant consequences on public order and/or public safety.
The colourant used in SCMVs is non-toxic and will not cause bodily harm or pose risks to public health. The purpose of spraying colourant on the clothes and skin of protesters is to facilitate the Police in determining whether a person was at the scene of the violence or unlawful assembly.
I must point out that the Police use force in response to the prevailing circumstances; the location and extent of the use of force depend on the violent acts and the actual circumstances at the time. If members of the public could conduct public order events in a peaceful, lawful and orderly manner, there would be no need for the Police to use any force.
My reply to various parts of the question is as follows.
(1) On October 20, there were violent protests and vandalistic acts in various districts of Kowloon. In the afternoon, some people, in defiance of the law, illegally appealed to the public to participate in an assembly in Tsim Sha Tsui district which has not been authorised by the Police. A large number of protesters occupied roads in the vicinity of Tsim Sha Tsui. Some rioters hurled numerous petrol bombs at Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station, as well as set up roadblocks with miscellaneous objects and burnt objects in Mong Kok and Yau Ma Tei. The rioters’ acts of arson seriously threatened the personal safety of people at the scene, ignoring the risk of spreading fire to residences nearby. In light of the needs of the circumstances, the Police deployed an SCMV to disperse the crowd in the vicinity of Nathan Road.
During the dispersal operation, the SCMV issued warnings and sounded the siren. The gathering crowd should leave upon such warnings. As the water to be sprayed covered a considerable area, anyone staying in the area would likely be sprayed. The main entrance and gate of the Kowloon Mosque as well as some people nearby were sprayed by the coloured water during the dispersal on that day.
Subsequently, the Chief Executive and the Commissioner of Police met a number of representatives of the Incorporated Trustees of the Islamic Community Fund of Hong Kong and other leaders of the local Muslim community to explain the Police’s operation and offered apologies for the impact arising from the operation. The Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) has received two complaints regarding the incident and will handle the cases properly in accordance with the established mechanism. Earlier, the Police have also offered apologies for the impacts on other premises, tenants and residences along the route arising from the use of coloured water in the law enforcement operation on that day.
I would like to reiterate that the Police respect religious freedom and have no intention whatsoever to offend any religious organisations. The Police will, as always, spare no effort in protecting religious premises.
(2) and (3) On November 11, some netizens initiated an “all-in strike” movement on that day. Starting from early morning, a large number of people engaged in violent acts like blocking roads, arson and wanton destruction in multiple locations across the territories. In the evening, some rioters gathered, seriously blocking roads and went on a rampage around Mong Kok. On November 17, a large number of rioters occupied the roads outside the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, blocking roads illegally and hurling petrol bombs, thereby causing severe damage to public peace and posing serious threat to the personal safety of all those at the scene. In the operations on those two days, the Police had deployed SCMVs to disperse the crowds with a view to handling the violent situations.
Regarding the incident on November 11 as mentioned in Member’s question, since the criminal case involved is still under investigation, it is not appropriate for me to make further comments on the details of the case. As for the incident on November 17 mentioned in the question, I note that although the media have made relevant reports, the Police have not yet received any complaint in relation to the incident and have no relevant information in hand. In any case, any people who are unsatisfied with the operations of the Police may file relevant complaints and claims with the Police. CAPO has set up a designated team to handle the complaints relating to the major public order events that took place since June 9 this year. To ensure that the complaints are handled properly, members of the designated team did not participate in relevant operations of the public order events concerned. Those individuals who are injured as a result of a crime of violence or law enforcement actions may consider if they are eligible under the Criminal and Law Enforcement Injuries Compensation Scheme to apply for compensation.
As mentioned above, when using SCMVs, the Police will alert the people to disperse by issuing warnings and sounding the siren. Since the water to be sprayed will cover a considerable area, crowds remaining in the area are likely to be sprayed. The Police will learn from the experience of each operation, so that they could meet the enforcement or operation needs while reducing any possible inconvenience caused.
Thank you President. read more
Following is a question by the Hon Dennis Kwok and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr John Lee, in the Legislative Council today (November 27):
Question:
It has been reported that since June this year, during a number of public meetings and processions relating to the “anti-extradition to China” movement, a large number of demonstrators, bystanders and passers-by were arrested, and quite a number of persons were taken to police stations to assist in investigations. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of persons arrested in each month since June this year, and set out the following figures by reason for arrest (other than the offences under the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (Cap 241K)): (i) the number of persons arrested, (ii) the number of persons released unconditionally subsequent to the arrests, (iii) the number of persons allowed to be released on bail pending further investigations subsequent to the arrests, (iv) the number of persons prosecuted, (v) the number of persons allowed to be released on bail after being brought before the court, and (vi) the number of persons prosecuted for other offences concurrently (set out in tables of the same format as Table 1);
Table 1
Month:
| Reason for arrest |
(i) | (ii) | (iii) | (iv) | (v) | (vi) |
| … | ||||||
| Total | (not applicable) |
| Date of arrest | Offence | (i) | (ii) | (iii) | (iv) | (v) |
| (a) | ||||||
| (b) | ||||||
| … | ||||||
| Total | ||||||
| Date | (i) | (ii) | Total |
| June 9 to June 15 | |||
| … | |||
| Total |
| Date | (i) | (ii) | (iii) | Total |
| June 9 to June 15 | ||||
| … | ||||
| Total |
| Department | Purpose | (i) | (ii) | (iii) |
| (a) | ||||
| (b) | ||||
| ⋯ | ||||
| Total | (not applicable) | (not applicable) |
| Month of arrest | Number of people arrested | Number of people whose cases are still under investigation (including those released on bail pending further investigation/ released pending further investigation after refusing to be bailed) | Number of people who already entered into or in the course of legal proceedings (including those who have been charged / summonsed/ directly bound over) | Number of people released unconditionally |
| June (from June 9) | 73 | 34 | 9 | 30 |
| July | 224 | 119 | 80 | 25 |
| August | 750 | 603 | 127 | 20 |
| September | 765 | 576 | 171 | 18 |
| October | 1 189 | 991 | 141 | 57 |
| November (as at November 14) | 1 318 | 1 185 | 116 | 17 |
| Total | 4 319 | 3 508 | 644 | 167 |
| Respective offences under the Regulation | Number of people arrested | Number of people whose cases are still under investigation (including those released on bail pending further investigation/ released pending further investigation after refusing to be bailed) | Number of people already entered into or in the course of legal proceeding (including those who have been charged/ summonsed/ directly bound over) (Note) |
Number of people released unconditionally |
| Section 3 | 627 | 529 | 95 | 3 |
| Section 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Following is a question by the Hon Kenneth Lau and a written reply by the Secretary for the Environment, Mr Wong Kam-sing, in the Legislative Council today (November 27): Question: Aquilari… read more
Following is a question by the Hon Chiang Lai-wan and a written reply by the Secretary for Development, Mr Michael Wong, in the Legislative Council today (November 27):
Question:
The Government has indicated that there are more than 30 000 leases for lands in the New Territories (including New Kowloon) which were made for terms expiring in mid-2047. Regarding the extension of such land leases and related matters, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the following information on the lands, which are under the aforesaid land leases at present and in multiple ownerships, for residential use or for both commercial and residential uses: (i) the total land area, (ii) the number of lots and (iii) the total number of residential units involved (including units for both commercial and residential uses); if the Lands Department (LandsD) has not kept such information, when LandsD will finish the work to keep the information;
(2) as LandsD indicated in March 2017 that (i) the compilation of the reference materials on the specific procedures and workflow involved in the processing of lease extension was expected to complete by mid-2017, and (ii) the possibility of further streamlining and shortening the workflow involved would be explored, whether the two tasks have been completed and whether the reference materials have been made public at present; if the tasks have not been completed or the materials have not been made public, of the reasons for that;
(3) given that a large number of land leases will be expiring in mid-2047, whether LandsD has assessed the additional manpower and financial resources needed for coping with the relevant work, such as collating and compiling information on land leases and extending land leases; if LandsD has, of the additional manpower and estimated expenditure needed;
(4) whether it will expeditiously make public the terms and procedures for extension of the aforesaid land leases; if not, when it will do so;
(5) whether financial institutions relayed to the authorities in the past three years that the uncertainty about whether and for how long those land leases could be extended in 2047 had affected their decisions on the applications for mortgage loans related to the properties concerned; if so, of the details; and
(6) whether it knows if there were cases in the past three years in which financial institutions refused to grant mortgage loans with a term beyond mid-2047 for the properties on a particular land on the grounds that the land lease concerned will expire in that year; if so, of the details?
Reply:
President,
The Government has clear and unequivocal policy for handling matters related to the extension of expiring land leases all along.
According to the policy statement promulgated by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government in July 1997, leases not containing a right of renewal (excluding short term tenancies and special purpose leases) may, upon expiry and at the sole discretion of the Government, be extended for a term of 50 years without payment of an additional premium, but an annual rent shall be charged equivalent to three per cent of the rateable value of the property, adjusted in step with any changes in rateable value thereafter. Under this policy, generally the lease terms of land leases granted since the establishment of the HKSAR Government have been for 50 years and extending beyond 2047.
Depending on the date of grant and the term of the lease, currently effective land leases will expire on different dates, including on, before, or after June 30, 2047.
Since the establishment of the HKSAR, the Lands Department (LandsD) has been dealing with matters related to the extension of expiring land leases in accordance with the aforementioned policy. Factors to be taken into account when considering lease extension include whether serious breaches are found under the original lease and whether such breaches were purged before the specified period; and if the original lease was granted on certain policy considerations (e.g. promoting the development of an individual industry), whether such policy considerations remain valid.
As regards specific procedures, under the existing arrangements where the land lease is approved for extension, for land under single ownership, or multiple ownership with all owners unanimously agreeing to the lease extension arrangement, the lease will generally be extended through the execution of a lease extension document between the LandsD and all owners. For land under multiple ownership but owners not unanimously agreeing on or having difficulties in unanimously agreeing on the arrangement for lease extension (e.g. residential buildings with alienated units), after the expiry of the current lease, the Government will grant a new lease to the Financial Secretary Incorporated, which will then assign the undivided shares of the individual premises to their registered owners. This arrangement ensures that even if individual owners do not agree with or cannot execute the lease extension arrangement, the interests of other owners who are ready to accept the lease extension and complete the assignment procedures will not be affected. Generally speaking, the LandsD will begin processing extension of a lease three years before its expiry. For more complicated cases or those with a large number of owners, the department may commence relevant work earlier.
My answer to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) A large number of land leases will expire on June 30, 2047. The LandsD is collating the information on the number of lots involved, their user categorisation, and the number of interests, etc. The compilation exercise will be completed by phases from 2021 onwards.
For land leases expiring on or before June 29, 2047, according to the statistics compiled by LandsD based on information from the Land Registry, currently effective land leases for general commercial/residential/ industrial purposes will expire in 2025 the earliest. From 2025 to June 29, 2047, land leases of a total of about 2 400 lots (on sub-divided lot basis) for general commercial/residential/industrial purposes will be expiring. Statistics of number of interests involved is being collated.
(2) to (4) As aforementioned, the Government has a policy and a set of mechanism in place to handle matters related to the extension of expiring land leases. To assist the understanding of the public, the website of LandsD has a dedicated page to provide relevant policy information, regularly updated lease extension statistics and relevant releases.
As regards the procedures of lease extension, we are exploring whether there are other suitable arrangements under which the extension could be effected through streamlined procedures and more convenient means. We will announce the specific arrangements at a suitable juncture.
(5) and (6) The Government has particularly explained to relevant professional sectors matters related to lease extension, including communicating with the banking sector via the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) in October 2016, making clear that the Government has unequivocal policy to deal with extension of land leases, including reaffirming its authority to grant land leases with terms extending beyond June 30, 2047; as well as meeting with the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors in May 2017 to explain the specifics in the execution of land lease extension. The professions considered the Government’s policy as clear and unequivocal.
The HKMA considers that the Government’s explanation has properly and comprehensively addressed the concerns of the banking industry. It does not see the need for the banks to alter their mortgage policies. In fact, currently there are banks arranging mortgage loans with terms longer than those of the leases of the relevant premises. The HKMA has not received any complaint in this respect. read more