Tag Archives: China

     Following is a question by the Hon Steven Ho and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr Tang Ping-keung, in the Legislative Council today (October 21):
 
Question:
 
     In recent years, the Correctional Services Department (CSD) has been actively developing Smart Prison by introducing a number of innovative technological equipment such as smart wristbands and video analytic monitoring systems, with a view to enhancing the efficiency of resource management and the security level of prisons. However, concerns have been raised as to whether the development of Smart Prison will have an impact on the security of institutions and the actual effectiveness of technology investment, in the face of an increasing number of persons in custody (PICs) and possible manpower shortages arising from reductions in departmental expenditure. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
      
(1) of the relevant data for various correctional institutions (including prisons, correctional institutions and reception centres) for the past three financial years in accordance with the tables below, and how CSD assesses the current manpower pressure of various institutions:
 
(a) the average daily number of PICs/occupancy rate and the actual supervisory ratio of frontline staff to PICs for various institutions (set out in Table 1);
 
Table 1

Institution	Financial year	Gender of PICs	Average daily number of PICs	Occupancy rate (%)	Crowdedness	Actual supervisory ratio (frontline staff : PICs)
(i) Stanley Prison	2023-2024	Male			Normal/Crowded	1 :
		Female
	2024-2025	Male
		Female
	2025-2026	Male
		Female
(ii)……
(iii)……

(b) whether CSD has deleted or frozen frontline posts (e.g. Assistant Officers and Officers) and back-office administrative posts (set out in Table 2);
 
Table 2

Post	Year	Number of posts deleted or frozen (set out by gender)
(i) Assistant Officer	2023-2024
	2024-2025
	2025-2026
(ii)……
(iii)……

(c) the average monthly overtime hours of frontline staff in various institutions and the reasons for that (set out in Table 3);
 
Table 3

Financial year	Name of institution	Post	Establishment	Average monthly overtime hours per person (hours)	Total overtime hours in the month (hours)	Major reasons for overtime work/ remarks
2023-2024
2024-2025
2025-2026

(d) the number, gender, years of service and reasons for transfer of frontline staff (e.g. Assistant Officers and Officers) to other disciplined services or government departments (set out in Table 4);
 
Table 4

Post	Total number of transfer applications in the past three financial years	Years of service and proportion of headcount		Major reasons for transfer
		Years of service	Proportion (%)
(i) Assistant Officer		Less than 3 years
		3-5 years
		5-10 years
		Over 10 years
(ii)……
(iii)……

(2) whether the pass rates have increased after CSD relaxed the entry physical fitness test requirements and allowed second- and third-year university students to apply for departmental posts (set out figures by post and gender); of the wastage rate of newly recruited staff in the past year;
 
(3) of the types and quantities of technological equipment mainly used in various correctional institutions, the breakdown and repair conditions, as well as the alternative arrangements during repair over the past three financial years (set out in Table 5), and how CSD assesses the effectiveness of technology investment; and
 
Table 5

Financial year	Institution	Type of technological equipment (including, but not limited to, the following equipment)	Quantity of equipment (quantity of backup)	Total number of breakdown/ damage reports	Major cause of breakdown	Average time taken for repair and putting back into service (working days)	Maximum number of days for repair	Repair and maintenance expenditure	Alternative arrangements during breakdown	Additional daily manpower required during breakdown
2023-2024	(a) Stanley Prison	Security screening and scanning equipment (e.g. X-ray machines, metal detectors)
		Staff handheld device system
		Communications and network equipment (e.g. walkie-talkies, radios)
		Closed-circuit television system
		Video analytics system
		Robotic Monitoring System
		Health monitoring wristbands
	(b)……
	(c)……
2024-2025……
2025-2026……

(4) of the average number of days that the Robotic Monitoring System was used for patrolling and guarding in various institutions in each of the past three financial years; whether CSD has assessed the additional security risks and work pressure posed to the existing establishment (including staff working overtime) in the event of a system breakdown requiring manual operation?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The Correctional Services Department (CSD) is committed to providing a secure, safe, humane, decent and healthy custodial environment for persons in custody (PICs). In recent years, the CSD has been proactively developing Smart Prison through the implementation of innovation and technology strategies to modernise, informatise and humanise management modes and process innovation of correctional institutions, with a view to meeting operational needs while enhancing the efficiency of prison operations, management and rehabilitation work. Moreover, the development of Smart Prison also helps optimise the existing working environment and streamline some of the more cumbersome or physically demanding daily work procedures, thereby ensuring a more humanised and safer environment for correctional officers to perform law enforcement duties.
      
     The reply to the questions raised by the Hon Steven Ho is as follows:
 
(1) The number of admissions to correctional institutions (including convicted persons, remands and detainees) has been on the increase in recent years. The CSD has flexibly deployed the capacity and manpower of individual correctional institutions to cope with the ever-changing penal population. The CSD will continuously review and assess the manpower requirement of each institution based on factors such as PIC population and their categories, security level, institution design and actual operational needs. Through internally re-deploying its resources and capitalising on technology solutions, the CSD will ensure that each institution has sufficient staff to maintain safety and order. To meet the demand for manpower resources for providing quality correctional services, the CSD has adopted various measures to attract and retain talent, with the leveraging of technology as one of the key measures.
 
     Since the breakdown of PIC population, occupancy rate and staff number, etc, by correctional institution involves details of the CSD’s operational and security deployment, such information will not be disclosed. The relevant overall figures/information are provided below:
 
(a) The average daily penal populations and overall occupancy rates of the CSD in the past three financial years are as follows:
 

Financial Year	Average Daily Penal Population	Overall Occupancy Rate (%)
2023-24	8 803	78.0
2024-25	9 755	86.4
2025-26	10 521	94.8

     The numbers of disciplined staff of the CSD (including Officers and Rank and File staff of the CSD, excluding Technical Instructors and Instructors) in the past three financial years are as follows:
 

Financial Year	Officer	Rank and File
2023-24 (as at March 31, 2024)	1 121	4 528
2024-25 (as at March 31, 2025)	1 099	4 555
2025-26 (as at March 31, 2026)	1 118	4 309

(b) The staff establishment of the CSD is not disaggregated by gender. The civil service establishments of the CSD in the past three financial years are set out as follows:
 

Financial Year	Civil Service Establishment
2023-24 (as at March 31, 2024)	7 254
2024-25 (as at March 31, 2025)	7 193
2025-26 (as at March 31, 2026)	7 153

     
     The CSD will enhance efficiency through adoption of measures such as re-prioritising and re-deploying work, flexibly deploying manpower, streamlining work processes and capitalising on technology solutions. For example, the CSD plans to install the Automatic Drone Patrol and Monitoring System 2.0 in six maximum security institutions, which is expected to optimise the prevailing work processes and partly reduce the patrol time of correctional staff, thereby enabling the CSD to deploy manpower more flexibly. While meeting the Government’s goal to streamline the civil service, the CSD will continue to deliver high-quality correctional services and ensure that the security and order of institutions are unaffected.
      
(c) In the past three financial years, frontline staff of the CSD were required to work overtime mainly due to the actual management and operational needs of institutions, such as ad hoc deployment of staff to perform medical escort duties and handle emergencies. The CSD does not maintain statistics on the average monthly overtime hours of frontline staff. The CSD will keep in view the workload of frontline staff and enhance efficiency through adoption of measures such as re-prioritising and re-deploying work, flexibly deploying manpower, streamlining work processes and capitalising on technology solutions based on actual circumstances, so as to reduce overtime work by staff.
 
(d) According to the CSD’s observations and assessments, correctional staff wastage (including transfer to other departments) involves various factors, such as personal career preferences, changes in the economic environment, manpower demands of different sectors or departments, and the unique working environment and special job requirements of correctional institutions. The Department has always attached great importance to staff welfare and treatment, and will continue to adopt a multipronged approach to attract and retain talent. The numbers of disciplined staff of the CSD who transferred to other disciplined services or government departments in the past three financial years are listed as follows:
 

Financial Year	No. of Transferred Staff
	Officer	Rank and File	Total
2023-24	3	34	37
2024-25	0	34	34
2025-26	1	21	22

     The CSD does not maintain a breakdown of the aforementioned transferred staff by gender and years of service.
 
(2) The CSD regularly reviews its recruitment policy, including entry requirements, and adopts a proactive recruitment strategy, so as to attract more applicants.
 
     Having invited a sports medicine expert to review, the CSD has formulated new physical fitness test standards that better meet the daily operational needs of correctional officers nowadays, and has adopted new entry physical fitness test standards since September 16, 2023. Since the adoption of the new entry physical fitness test standards, the overall passing rates of applicants for Officer and Assistant Officer II have increased by approximately 16 percentage points and 30 percentage points respectively.
 
     In addition, regarding the recruitment of Officer this year, students pursuing a bachelor’s degree and graduating by 2028 may receive a conditional offer of employment if they pass the assessment. The recruitment exercise is still in progress, and the CSD will closely monitor the effectiveness of the relevant arrangement.
 
     Among disciplined staff who were recruited between October 1, 2025 and September 30, 2026, the wastage rate (as at September 30, 2026) was 5.8 per cent.
 
(3) In recent years, the CSD has gradually introduced a range of technological equipment into institutions, such as the Video Analytic Monitoring System, Smart Wristbands and the Robotic Monitoring System, to assist frontline staff in their supervision and security duties. As the types and quantities of technological equipment used in various institutions involve details of the institutional security deployment, such information will not be disclosed.
 
     Technological equipment in various institutions occasionally break down due to aging, wear and tear or other reasons. The time required for repairing different equipment is affected by multiple factors, including the specific cause of breakdown or damage as well as whether procurement of related equipment or parts is necessary. Since expenses on repair and maintenance of technological equipment are part of the daily operating expenditures of institutions, no breakdown of such expenses is maintained. During equipment breakdown, contingency arrangements will be implemented based on the specific circumstances, which generally include using backup equipment or assigning duty staff to temporarily perform the relevant tasks, normally without the need for additional manpower.
      
     The CSD will assess the effectiveness of its use of technology by regularly reviewing system operation data, gathering feedback from frontline staff and comparing work processes and efficiency before and after the introduction of the relevant technology. In general, the use of technology helps correctional staff identify abnormal behaviours or physical conditions among PICs at an early stage, enabling prompt intervention. At the same time, it reduces repetitive and physically demanding manual procedures, allowing frontline staff to focus more on supervision and rehabilitation tasks that require professional judgement, thereby enhancing security standards and resource efficiency within institutions. The CSD will continue to review the application of various technologies, as well as optimise and implement relevant technologies in accordance with actual needs.
      
(4) The CSD has set up the Robotic Monitoring System in two correctional institutions. The patrol robots of the system are equipped with multiple cameras and intercommunication functions to assist correctional officers in carrying out night patrol duty and to enhance the monitoring of PICs. Correctional officers can observe prison cells in real time via a tablet computer or a monitor at staff workstations.
 
     The CSD has assessed the relevant impact of possible system breakdown and formulated contingency arrangements. As the system is auxiliary in nature and correctional officers are all along on duty at relevant posts in accordance with established procedures, if a patrol robot breaks down, correctional officers on duty will immediately perform on-site patrol duties in person to maintain institutional security. This generally does not involve extra manpower or overtime work. The CSD does not maintain records of the average number of days per year on which the system was in operation in the past three financial years. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Ginny Man and a reply by the Secretary for Health, Professor Lo Chung-mau, in the Legislative Council today (October 21):
 
Question:
 
     It is learnt that many members of the public would purchase over-the-counter medicines while travelling abroad for personal use in Hong Kong. Some of these medicines are controlled drugs, such as poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List under the Pharmacy and Poisons Regulations, and taking them without the guidance of a healthcare professional may pose a risk to health. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) given that, according to the website of the Drug Office of the Department of Health, pharmaceutical products imported in the accompanied personal baggage of a person entering Hong Kong for his or her personal use and in reasonable quantity may be exempted from licensing requirement, of the definition of “reasonable quantity”;
 
(2) of the number of prosecutions instituted by the Government over the past three years in respect of the illegal sale of unregistered pharmaceutical products; and
 
(3) given that the Poisons Committee will advise the Hong Kong Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong on the review of the classification of regulated pharmaceutical products, of the specific details of the review (including the mechanism for substances and drugs to be added to or removed from the Poisons List, as well as the review cycle for the Poisons List)?
 
Reply:
 
President,

     The Government has in place a stringent regulatory regime for medicines with a view to safeguarding public health. Any product which falls within the definition of “medicine” under the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 138) (i.e. “pharmaceutical product”) must be approved for registration by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong (the Board) before it can be sold in Hong Kong.
 
     The term “poisons” mentioned in the question is a term used under Cap. 138, which refers to the regulated western medicine chemical ingredients contained in pharmaceutical products with potential side effects and is different from the general public’s everyday understanding of “poisons” or “drugs” as substances that cause harm to people. Under the statutory framework, substances defined as poisons are specified in Schedule 10 to the Pharmacy and Poisons Regulations (Cap. 138A) (the “Poisons List”) and are classified under different parts of the Poisons List and other Schedules to Cap. 138A according to their efficacy and potential side effects. The extent of control over individual pharmaceutical products depends on the classes of poisons they contain, and such products can mainly be divided into five major categories.
 
     The first category is “prescription drugs”. Such pharmaceutical products (e.g. antihypertensive drugs) require a prescription from a registered medical practitioner, registered dentist or registered veterinary surgeon, and may only be dispensed in accordance with the prescription at authorised sellers of poisons (commonly known as pharmacies) under the supervision of registered pharmacists.
 
     The second category covers pharmaceutical products which may be sold without a prescription but only at pharmacies under the supervision of registered pharmacists (e.g. cough syrups containing less than 0.2 per cent codeine). Registered pharmacies and pharmacists are required to keep, for each sale, a sales record in the specified format for inspection by the Department of Health (DH).
 
     The third category is similar to the second category in that such products must also be sold at pharmacies under the supervision of registered pharmacists, but there is no requirement to keep sales records in the specified format. Examples include anti-inflammatory and analgesic medicines such as ibuprofen.
 
     The fourth and fifth categories are collectively known as “over-the-counter medicines”. The fourth category refers to pharmaceutical products containing Part 2 poisons of the Poisons List (e.g. analgesic and antipyretic medicines such as paracetamol, and chlorpheniramine contained in common cold and flu medicines), which may be sold not only at pharmacies but also at listed sellers of poisons (commonly known as drug stores, such as the common convenience stores); whereas the fifth category covers pharmaceutical products whose ingredients do not include any substance on the Poisons List (e.g. certain mucolytics), which may be sold at general retail outlets.
 
     Having consulted the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) and the DH, our consolidated reply to the various parts of the question raised by the Hon Ginny Man is as follows:
 
(1) and (2) Under Cap. 138, any person who illegally sells or possesses unregistered pharmaceutical products or Part 1 poisons of the Poisons List in Hong Kong commits an offence and shall be liable, upon conviction, to a maximum penalty of a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for two years. The import and export of pharmaceutical products are also regulated under the Import and Export Ordinance (Cap. 60), under which every importation must be covered by a licence issued by the DH under the authority of the Director-General of Trade and Industry. Any person who imports or exports pharmaceutical products without a licence commits an offence and shall be liable, upon conviction, to a maximum penalty of a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for two years.
 
     Having regard to the practical needs of members of the public and travellers to use pharmaceutical products for their own health conditions, the Import and Export (General) Regulations (Cap. 60A) provide for the relevant exemption. An inbound traveller is exempted from applying for an import licence for carrying in his or her accompanied baggage a reasonable quantity of pharmaceutical products for personal use. C&ED officers will make an overall assessment, on a case-by-case basis, of whether the quantity is reasonable for personal use, taking into account the individual circumstances, the relevant information provided and the product packaging, and will consult DH where necessary. If the pharmaceutical products concerned are classified as dangerous drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 134), antibiotics under the Antibiotics Ordinance (Cap. 137) or Part 1 poisons under Cap. 138, a doctor’s prescription is required for carrying them across the boundary.
      
     The Government has all along been rigorously combating the illegal importation or sale of unregistered pharmaceutical products. Over the past three years, C&ED has detected 1 043 cases involving suspected illegally imported pharmaceutical products, with the articles seized valued at about $364 million, and prosecution has been instituted in respect of 140 of these cases.

     DH has also been monitoring pharmaceutical products sold online and in the market and taking active enforcement action. From January 2023 to September 2026, a period of over three years, DH handled 108 conviction cases involving the sale and/or possession of unregistered pharmaceutical products, with the maximum penalty imposed being 10 months’ imprisonment or a fine of $242,000.
 
(3) Pharmaceutical products are classified in accordance with risk level based on professional assessment. The Poisons Committee (the Committee) under the Board, with experts taking part in the assessment, keeps under continuous review the classification and distribution of various poisons on the Poisons List and provides professional advice to the Board. If the review results indicate the need to adjust the classification of substances on the Poisons List, the Government will amend Cap. 138A through the negative vetting procedure to ensure that regulation keeps pace with the times. From 2025 to September 2026, new substances were added to the Poisons List and the relevant Schedules in respect of 68 new drug registration applications, and the classification of one drug on the Poisons List and the relevant Schedules was revised by the Committee in the light of its safety information.
 
     Thank you, President. read more

     ​Hongkong Post announced today (October 21) that, as advised by the postal administration of North Macedonia, mail delivery services to North Macedonia are subject to delays due to a power cut at the mail processing centre. read more

     Following is a question by Professor the Hon Lau Chi-pang and a written reply by the Acting Secretary for Education, Dr Sze Chun-fai, in the Legislative Council today (October 21):
 
Question:
 
     Among the self-financing institutions in Hong Kong at present, apart from Hong Kong Metropolitan University which possesses self-accrediting status, all other self-financing institutions registered under the Post Secondary Colleges Ordinance (Cap. 320) are required to undergo Programme Area Accreditation conducted by the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ), and the post-secondary programmes offered by them must also pass the HKCAAVQ’s external quality assurance mechanism. There are views pointing out that against the backdrop of the Government’s active efforts in developing Hong Kong into an international education hub and developing the Northern Metropolis University Town, the authorities should review the relevant mechanism to promote and facilitate university development. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the average annual number of programmes offered by self-financing institutions approved by the HKCAAVQ from 2021 to the present; the average time taken by the HKCAAVQ to process accreditation applications from self-financing institutions (from the submission of applications by the institutions to the completion of accreditation and announcement of results by the HKCAAVQ), with a breakdown by stage of the quality assurance process (i.e. Learning Programme Accreditation, Programme Area Accreditation and Periodic Institutional Review);
 
(2) of the total number of self-financing institutions registered under Cap. 320 which have applied to the HKCAAVQ for Programme Area Accreditation status from 2021 to the present; among them, the number of institutions whose applications have been successfully approved and the number of institutions currently awaiting accreditation;
 
(3) of the total number of institutions which have submitted applications to the Education Bureau to become universities of applied sciences since the publication of the Manual for Institutional Review for University of Applied Sciences in February 2024, and the respective numbers of such applications which have been approved and are being processed; and
 
(4) whether the Government will consider devising shortlisting criteria (such as years of operation in education, institutional scale and institutional rankings) to grant a greater degree of accrediting powers to more eligible self-financing institutions registered under Cap. 320 (particularly those which have been retitled as universities), so that they may accredit their programmes on their own without being subject to external accreditation?
 
Reply:
 
President,

     Under the Post Secondary Colleges Ordinance (Cap. 320), post-secondary colleges (i.e. institutions that provide self-financing degree or sub-degree education) must pass the Institutional Review (IR)
 conducted by the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ), and maintain their status through cyclical IR or Periodic Institutional Review (PIR) (Note 1), so as to demonstrate that the institution maintains the capability to provide post-secondary education.
 
     In addition, the Ordinance also stipulates that degree or sub-degree programmes offered by institutions must pass the accreditation of the HKCAAVQ, confirming that the programmes have attained the corresponding qualification level of the Hong Kong Qualifications Framework (QF). On one hand, the HKCAAVQ conducts Learning Programme Accreditation (LPA) or Learning Programme Re-accreditation (Re-LPA) (Note 2) for individual programmes; on the other hand, it also confers Programme Area Accreditation (PAA) based on the institution’s track record. Institutions that have obtained PAA status can handle their own quality assurance matters for programmes in approved programme areas at approved QF levels, without the need for separate accreditation by the HKCAAVQ.
 
     In response to the four parts of the question, our reply is as follows:

(1) In the five years from 2021/22 to 2025/26, the HKCAAVQ conducted about 65 accreditation exercises each year for post-secondary colleges, including LPA, Re-LPA, PAA and PIR, covering a total of about 360 local self-financing degree or sub-degree programmes.
 
     Generally speaking, from the submission of accreditation documents by institutions to the issuance of the accreditation report by the HKCAAVQ, LPA or Re-LPA takes about 16 to 20 weeks; PAA takes about 24 weeks; and IR or PIR takes about 24 to 30 weeks.
 
(2) From 2021 to date (as at September 30, 2026), a total of four institutions registered under the Ordinance applied for PAA status; all four applications were approved, securing self-accrediting status in a total of 10 programme areas. Currently, the HKCAAVQ is processing the PAA applications of another two institutions.
 
(3) In February 2024, the Education Bureau (EDB) promulgated the criteria for qualifying as Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS), including the requirement to pass the HKCAAVQ’s accreditation confirming that the relevant requirements are met, i.e. the institution must possess the vision, commitment, capabilities and experience to operate an institution that embodies the key features of UAS; have obtained a university title; and have recognition and support from industries and professions. The relevant criteria are set out in detail in the Manual for Institutional Review for UAS issued by the HKCAAVQ.
 
     Hong Kong Metropolitan University and Saint Francis University became UAS in February and November 2024 respectively.
 
     The EDB has also received an application from one institution to become a UAS, and the relevant accreditation work is currently in progress.
 
(4) As mentioned above, the PAA mechanism provides institutions that have obtained PAA status (including post-secondary colleges that have acquired university title) appropriate accreditation authority, enabling them to self-accredit and handle the quality assurance matters of programmes within approved programme areas at approved QF levels, without the need for programme-by-programme accreditation by the HKCAAVQ. This allows institutions to respond more quickly to market needs and to launch new programmes flexibly.
 
     To continuously safeguard the quality of post-secondary education, institutions that have obtained PAA status must undergo PIR by the HKCAAVQ regularly to confirm that their internal quality assurance mechanisms remain effective, thereby maintaining their PAA status in related programmes. Depending on the factors such as the institution’s track record, the HKCAAVQ may, upon application by the institution, expand the coverage of the self-accreditation status after the institution has passed the accreditation.
 
     The existing mechanism effectively balances the flexibility of institutions in offering programmes and programme quality assurance. We have no plan to further relax the accreditation authority of institutions.
 
Note1: Institutions that have passed IR must undergo periodic review by the HKCAAVQ to confirm that their institutional governance, operational effectiveness and internal quality assurance mechanisms remain effective.
 
Note 2: The validity period of LPA is determined according to the programme duration, accreditation outcome, risk assessment and institutional track record. Before the expiry of the validity period, institutions wishing to continue offering the programme must undergo Re-LPA. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Dominic Lee and a reply by the Acting Secretary for Education, Dr Sze Chun-fai, in the Legislative Council today (October 21):
 
Question:
 
     At present, a number of universities funded by the University Grants Committee (UGC) have implemented campus access control and reservation systems and have not fully opened their campuses to public use. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has compiled statistics on and grasped the specific arrangements made by various universities for opening their campuses and public facilities to the public and the relevant restrictions over the past five years; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether it has assessed the impact of universities’ prolonged implementation of campus access control on community integration, the promotion of campus culture and maximising the effectiveness of public resources, and whether it has drawn on the experience of Chinese Mainland or overseas universities in opening their campuses to the public (such as the reservation and registration systems implemented by Peking University and Tsinghua University) to formulate measures for fostering connections between local universities and the community; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it will consider co-ordinating various universities through the UGC or the relevant policy bureaux in formulating uniform and flexible guidelines on opening their campuses to the public on the premise of balancing campus security, the orderly conduct of teaching activities and the sharing of public resources, with a view to enabling members of the public and community groups to use the relevant facilities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are the cornerstones of the success of Hong Kong’s higher education sector. All eight University Grants Committee (UGC)-funded universities are statutory bodies governed by their respective ordinances and statutes setting out their objectives, functions and governance structures. The ordinances empower the universities to exercise powers and freedoms necessary to fulfil their objectives and functions. At the same time, the universities are responsible to maintain transparency, public accountability and good governance in their operations, so as to ensure that public money is put to appropriate use.
 
     Our consolidated reply to the questions raised by the Hon Dominic Lee is set out below:
 
     Campus management and the use of facilities fall within the purview of institutional autonomy. Each university formulates and adjusts its own arrangements having regard to its campus location, size, layout, security risks and teaching and research needs. Over the years, university campuses have by and large followed an open campus policy. After 2019, the universities enhanced their on-campus security arrangements in the light of actual needs and employed additional security staff. Some institutions also implemented access control measures for entering and leaving the campus. These include, for example, requiring staff members, students and invited visitors to present their identity documents or register before entering the campus. Individual institutions had also engaged professional security consultants to review their security facilities, manpower and arrangements.
 
     With Hong Kong moving from stability to prosperity and getting back on track, each UGC-funded university may consider for itself whether to open some of its on-campus facilities to the public, and ensure such arrangements do not affect its teaching and related activities and comply with relevant legislation. The universities are also responsible for taking appropriate security measures in the light of actual circumstances to ensure that their campuses remain safe and conducive to teaching and research activities, while striving to minimise the impact of these measures on the normal operations of the universities.
 
     The Education Bureau (EDB) and the UGC do not keep regular statistics on how the UGC-funded universities open their campuses and public facilities. However, the UGC has maintained close contact with the UGC-funded universities to keep abreast of their latest developments. According to the information provided by the universities, they have gradually relaxed their campus entry arrangements in recent years in view of the social situation. Campuses of Hong Kong Baptist University, Lingnan University and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology are now opened to the public. City University of Hong Kong, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the Education University of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the University of Hong Kong have implemented access control measures to varying degrees, such as installing automatic turnstiles for students and staff, and requiring visitors to register online in advance, in order to meet their operational needs.
 
     Universities are closely connected with society. Maintaining good ties with the community helps promote campus culture, facilitate knowledge transfer and foster community integration, and forms part of the universities’ social responsibility. Indeed, the universities have all along been actively strengthening their engagement with the community through various means, including organising a range of activities and opening up selected campus facilities and resources. Specific examples include:
 
1. allowing members of the public to apply for library reader cards or visitor passes;
2. opening museums, art galleries and exhibition halls free of charge;
3. organising public lectures, cultural and arts performances, information days and guided tours;
4. leasing sports facilities, lecture theatres, etc, to community groups and schools, provided this does not affect the use by staff and students;
5. implementing various knowledge transfer and community service schemes; and
6. collaborating with primary and secondary schools and other organisations to organise a range of activities, such as experience camps, public education events, etc.
 
     We note that universities in the Chinese Mainland and overseas also adopt different models of campus opening arrangements in the light of their respective campus environments, regulatory frameworks and social circumstances. In the Chinese Mainland, for example, institutions such as Peking University and Tsinghua University have in recent years introduced online advance booking systems, allowing members of the public to book visits during designated time slots and opening their campuses under orderly management. Some overseas universities decide their campus opening arrangements as circumstances require. For instance, colleges of the University of Oxford and University of Cambridge set their own opening hours; and may not be opened during the examination season. This illustrates that, with suitable registration and management arrangements, universities can strike a balance between campus security and openness to the public.
 
     Given the considerable differences among the universities in terms of campus location, size, number of students and staff, layout and security needs, the imposition of uniform campus opening guidelines could undermine the flexibility of institutions to manage their campuses in the light of actual circumstances. The universities are responsible for ensuring campus safety and the proper order of teaching and research, so that staff and students can study and work in a safe and orderly environment. We believe that, in formulating and reviewing the relevant measures, each university will take into account various factors and strike an appropriate balance between campus security, the order of teaching and research, and the opening up of public resources according to its own circumstances.
 
     On the premise of ensuring safety, the EDB and the UGC expect the universities to make good use of publicly funded facilities, to keep under review their campus opening and facility hiring arrangements and, where feasible, to further facilitate the use of the relevant facilities by members of the public and community groups; and to enhance the transparency of their arrangements, for example, by clearly publishing on their websites the campus entry arrangements, opening hours, booking procedures and the facilities available for hire. We will continue to maintain communication with the universities to exchange good practices on these arrangements, to ensure that they operate in the best interests of students and society as a whole.
 
     Thank you, President. read more