Tag Archives: China

     Following is a question by the Hon Ho Kai-ming and a reply by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, Mr James Lau, in the Legislative Council today (June 20):
 
Question:
 
     It has been reported that last month, a company was placed into voluntary liquidation and made more than 100 employees redundant. Among them, more than 40 were members of an occupational retirement scheme (commonly known as “ORSO scheme”). However, since the liquidator has all along not furnished the employees’ information to the trustee of the ORSO scheme, the employees concerned have so far been unable to withdraw the benefits totalling $40 million under the ORSO scheme. As the ORSO scheme has been granted Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) exemption, the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) is unable to provide assistance, and the trustee has only advised them to request the liquidator to furnish the relevant information expeditiously. Regarding the regulation of ORSO schemes, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the current number of ORSO schemes that have been granted MPF exemption; whether it knows the respective current numbers of employers and employees who have joined such schemes, and the total accrued benefits under such schemes;
 
(2) whether a liquidator is required under the existing legislation to furnish, within a certain timeframe, the account information of the ORSO scheme of the company in liquidation to the trustee of the scheme; if not, whether the Government will enact legislation in this regard with a view to expediting the relevant procedure; and
 
(3) whether it will study the enactment of legislation to include ORSO schemes in the regulatory scope of the MPFA?
 
Reply:
 
Acting President,
 
     The objective of the Occupational Retirement Schemes Ordinance (Cap. 426) (the Ordinance) is to establish a registration system for occupational retirement schemes (ORSO schemes) voluntarily established by employers to ensure that such schemes are properly regulated, and to provide greater certainty that retirement scheme benefits of these schemes promised to employees will be paid when they fall due. Employers who operate ORSO schemes that fall under the ambit of the Ordinance are required to apply to the Registrar of Occupational Retirement Schemes, i.e. the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA), for registration or exemption of their schemes.
 
     When the MPF System was launched on December 1, 2000, registered schemes and exempted schemes under the Ordinance may apply to the MPFA for MPF exemption pursuant to the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes (Exemption) Regulation (Cap. 485B).
 
     With regard to the case of voluntary winding up of a company as mentioned in the question, after receiving enquiries from affected scheme members since May 17 about contributions held in the relevant ORSO scheme, the MPFA has in fact immediately contacted the trustee, the third party administrator and the liquidator, urging them to handle enquiries from affected scheme members and arrange for payment of benefits as soon as possible. The MPFA has requested the trustee concerned to provide dedicated hotline service for account enquiries by affected scheme members and arrange a meeting with affected scheme members together with the MPFA and the liquidator for providing one-stop services to the scheme members.
 
     In response to LegCo (Legislative Council) members, the MPFA met with around 40 affected scheme members on May 31 to understand their concerns and explain to them follow-up actions of the MPFA. The trustee also met with scheme members on June 13 together with the MPFA and the liquidator, to explain the procedures for withdrawal of benefits and process relevant applications.
 
     My replies to the questions raised by the Hon Ho Kai-ming are as follows:
 
(1) As at March 31, 2018, there were 3 358 MPF exempted ORSO schemes, of which 3 149 were ORSO registered schemes and 209 were exempted schemes. The 3 149 ORSO registered schemes covered 4 955 employers and 327 911 members with assets totalling about HK$302.9 billion. As for the 209 exempted schemes, they were generally offshore schemes registered or approved by overseas authorities or ORSO schemes where the majority of members were not Hong Kong employees. Exempted schemes are not required to provide such information to the MPFA.
 
(2) The Ordinance does not require a liquidator to send account information of an insolvent company’s provident fund schemes to a trustee within a prescribed period. Under the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32), the main duty of a liquidator is to complete the winding-up procedures of the company as soon as possible, including realisation of the company’s assets, payment of the company’s debts, and adjustment of the rights of the contributories (i.e. every person liable to contribute to the assets of a company in the event of its being wound up) among themselves, etc.
 
     In general, the liquidator will first collect the relevant documents and member information and then process and verify such information as soon as practicable. After agreeing with members on the amount of their severance payment, the liquidator will pass the information to the relevant trustees for arrangement of offsetting and payment of members’ assets. The winding-up procedures will be carried out in accordance with the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32). The time required to complete an individual task depends on the actual circumstances.
 
(3) As mentioned above, all ORSO schemes operating in or from Hong Kong are governed by the Ordinance and fall under the regulatory ambit of the MPFA. Under the Ordinance, registered schemes must comply with the statutory requirements in relation to assets, trusteeship, investment, funding, and other requirements related to audit and actuarial review and disclosure of information to employees. Assets of a registered scheme must be separated from assets of the relevant employer. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon James To and a reply by the Acting Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Dr Bernard Chan, in the Legislative Council today (June 20):

Question:

     It has been reported that in the year before last, the Police found in a props company a large number of replica banknotes which were claimed to be used as film props. The owner of the company was convicted last month of possessing counterfeit currency notes and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. Angered and shocked by the judgment, some members of the film industry pointed out that the authorities had never issued clear guidelines on the legal requirements for reproduction of banknotes, nor had they carried out publicity in this respect, resulting in members of the industry breaching the law inadvertently. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has plans to draw up for the film industry a more flexible and simpler application procedure for reproducing banknotes, including making the application form and detailed requirements available on the website of the Film Services Office (FSO), so as to encourage members of the industry to file applications in accordance with the law; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) given that representatives of the FSO, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Police discussed the relevant issues with members of the film industry yesterday, of the views and suggestions put forward at the meeting, as well as the outcome; and

(3) whether it will consider establishing a regime to regulate the film props industry, under which only those props companies approved by the Government may design, produce and rent out props of a high degree of resemblance to the genuine ones, such as replicas of banknotes, guns, Police Warrant Cards, government documents, so as to strike a balance between supporting the production of high-quality films and prevention of the illicit activities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

President,

     According to section 103 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200 of the Laws of Hong Kong), a person who reproduces on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not to the correct scale, any Hong Kong currency note or any part of a Hong Kong currency note, must first obtain the consent in writing of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA).

     My reply to Hon James To’s question is as follows:

(1) & (2) In view of the concerns raised recently by the film and television sectors in relation to the application for reproducing Hong Kong currency notes for filming purposes, the Film Services Office of Create Hong Kong (FSO) under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau has actively followed up on the case by liaising with different industry associations and listened to their views. The FSO acted as a facilitator and lined up a meeting yesterday (June 19) for industry representatives to exchange views direct with the HKMA and the Police. Industry participants included representatives of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, the Hong Kong Televisions Association, the Hong Kong Film Directors’ Guild, the Hong Kong Film Assistant Directors’ Association, the Hong Kong Film Arts Association and the Hong Kong Movie Production Executives Association.

     At the meeting, to ease the concerns of the trade, detailed explanations were given on the existing application procedures and compliance requirements for using prop currency notes for filming; the Police also elaborated on their established follow-up arrangements, including the requirements for storage and destruction of the prop currency notes.

     Parties at the meeting also discussed ways to enhance the trade’s understanding of the relevant guidelines, with a view to achieving a suitable balance between meeting the trade’s expectations and effective crime prevention.

     In particular, to further facilitate the trade’s understanding of the requirements under the guidelines, the HKMA would provide the application guidelines in Chinese, which has now been uploaded to HKMA’s website for easy reference. A link to the guidelines has also been provided on FSO’s website. The HKMA will in slower time attach to the guidelines a set of samples demonstrating the required size of the prop currency notes and distinguishing designs and features that would set the prop notes apart from genuine banknotes. An application form will also be attached to the guidelines to facilitate the applicants’ filling out of the required information.

(3) Making props is a professional segment of the film and television sectors. As per FSO’s understanding, while there are a number of prop companies providing different props for the industry, most of the props used for film productions are specifically procured or produced by art directors of individual films to suit the specific filming needs of that particular film concerned. Given the tremendous variety and types of props and the different requirements of and for props peculiar to different productions, it would not be cost-effective for the Government to standardise the regulation of the making of different props, a move which would also dampen the creativity of the industry.

     Currently, there are established procedures for and guidelines on using prop banknotes or modified firearms for filming purposes. The relevant authorities would take into account of considerations relevant to the project concerned in granting permissions. It is therefore difficult to standardise the handling of props across the board. For production of certain props, such as identity or warrant cards of government officers or logos of government departments, the FSO would assist in obtaining consent from the relevant departments to ensure no infringement of copyrights. The FSO will also continue to provide appropriate assistance to the trade in handling other filming issues. read more

     Following is the transcript of remarks by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Mr Frank Chan Fan, at a media session after attending the Legislative Council meeting today (June 20):

Reporter: Is the Government going to report the two new incidents to the Police like they did for the incident in Hung Hom? Also, do you think the MTRC management should bear some responsibility over the recent scandals instead of disciplining the lower ranking staff?

Secretary for Transport and Housing: In respect of those incidents arising from the Exhibition (Centre) Station and To Kwa Wan Station, if there is any suspected criminal act, then we will certainly report to the law enforcement agency to follow up. This is for sure. In respect of the responsibility of the MTRC (MTR Corporation Limited), I do think that they do have a duty of care to ensure all projects are being carried out in a professional and safe manner. With due respect, I’d expect them to exercise their due diligence to ensure safety and quality of the works under their supervision and management.

(Please also refer to the Chinese portion of the transcript.) read more

Attention TV/radio announcers: Please broadcast the following as soon as possible: Here is an item of interest to swimmers.      The Leisure and Cultural Services Department announced today (June 20) that due to big wa… read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Tony Tse and a reply by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Mr Frank Chan Fan, in the Legislative Council today (June 20):
 
Question:
 
     Following press reports last month that the Hung Hom Station extension works of the Shatin to Central Link (SCL) project had works quality problem, the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) admitted that its staff members had detected, on five occasions during their inspections between August and December 2015, non-compliant works, which included steel bars having been cut short and not screwed into couplers to the required depth. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1)    as the aforesaid works quality problem was detected on as many as five occasions within five months, whether it knows why MTRCL still maintained that its frontline staff members were not required to notify its Board of Directors and the Government of such problems on the grounds that they were not “persistent”;
 
(2)    as the Government undertook in 2015, in response to an expert panel’s report on the works delays and cost overruns of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link project, that it would improve the monitoring and reporting work of railway projects, of the details of the monitoring and reporting mechanism; whether the Government has deployed staff to conduct regular inspections on the SCL project and perform random checks at the “hold points”; if so, of the reasons why the aforesaid works quality problem still occurred; if not, the reasons for that; and
 
(3)    apart from holding MTRCL accountable for the aforesaid works quality problem, whether the Government will also pursue the responsibilities of the main contractor and its sub-contractors concerned, and impose penalties on them?
 
President,
 
     My consolidated reply to the various parts of the Hon Tony Tse’s question is as follows:
 
     We are very concerned about the reported incident of the cutting of steel reinforcement bars at the platform of Hung Hom Station under the Shatin to Central Link (SCL) project. We received the report submitted by the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) on June 15. The report states that the statements given by one of the sub-contractors of Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited (Leighton) are not consistent with those given to the MTRCL by Leighton, who has strenuously denied the allegations. The MTRCL did not express any opinion on this matter. According to the information provided by the MTRCL separately to the HyD, the HyD considers that the matter may involve criminality and the HyD has therefore referred the matter to the Police for follow-up action. The Government has no comment on this matter at this stage. As regards other contents and technical information in the report, the HyD will thoroughly examine and request the MTRCL to make clarifications or provide supplementary information if necessary.
 
     The HyD has already required the MTRCL to employ an independent third-party expert to carry out load tests. At the same time, the Chief Executive announced on June 12 the decision on the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry under the “Commission of Inquiry Ordinance” (Cap. 86), to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, in order to allay the concerns of the public.
 
     The report submitted by the MTRCL on June 15 does not elaborate the rationale for not reporting to its board and the Government when the frontline staff of the MTRCL discovered the problem in quality of the works. The HyD has reminded the MTRCL that, being the project manager of the SCL project, the MTRCL has to strictly comply with the responsibility under the Entrustment Agreement, including verification of the facts of all related issues, and ensure the quality of works of the SCL.
 
     The MTRCL was entrusted by the government to design, construction and commissioning of the SCL project. According to the Entrustment Agreement signed between the MTRCL and the Government, the MTRCL warrants that the Entrustment Activities shall be carried out with the skill and care reasonably to be expected of a professional, including the assurance of quality of works up to the standards required. The HyD, with the assistance of its Monitoring and Verification (M&V) Consultant, is responsible for verifying whether the MTRCL has complied with its responsibility as the project manager under the Entrustment Agreement. The HyD and the M&V Consultant visit the sites of SCL regularly. In general, about six to eight works contracts are visited in a month and the works contract of Hung Hom Station is visited about once in every three months. However, as the above monitoring and verification role that HyD is assuming is to check the checker, that is, verifying whether the MTRCL has implemented the relevant procedures according to its specified requirements; the HyD generally does not check at the “hold point” on site and the MTRCL is responsible for such checking.
 
     On structural safety, depending on whether the project is located within unleased land or leased land, the design and construction of the SCL project is governed by different mechanisms. Regardless of the type of mechanism, structural safety requirements of the project also have to be on par with the requirements of works supervision under the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123).
 
     Tapping the experiences learnt from the incident of the XRL project, the HyD has implemented the following measures since mid-2014 progressively to strengthen the monitoring of expenditure, financial position and progress of the SCL project:
 
(i)     deployed additional staff since mid-2014 of the SCL project team of the Railways Development Office of the HyD to strengthen monitoring works;
(ii)    submitted monthly progress reports of the SCL project to the Transport and Housing Bureau and adopted a “traffic signal” system to express precisely and concisely the progress and the financial status of the project;
(iii)   the MTRCL should give a briefing on the change in financial reserve under the works contract, particularly where substantial sum is involved. The MTRCL shall brief the Deputy Director or above of the HyD for changes involving large sums;
(iv)   arranged the M&V consultant appointed by the HyD to attend monthly Project Steering Committee meetings under the chairmanship of the Director of Highways; and
(v)    established a working group with the HyD, the M&V consultant and the MTRCL to review regularly the programme and progress of the SCL in detail, with focus on critical works procedures.
 
     Since June 2014, the Government and the MTRCL have submitted quarterly reports on the works progress to the Subcommittee on Matters relating to Railways (RSC) of the Legislative Council, and attended the RSC meetings in response to queries from the members.
 
     The SCL project is still in progress. When the project is completed, the MTRCL shall submit the required documents and the completion report (including the test report and inspection records) to the Government for examination and confirmation. In addition, the HyD, in collaboration with the M&V consultant and relevant government departments, participates the pre-handing over inspection of the MTRCL before the relevant works are handed over to the Government.
 
     The expansion works of Hung Hom Station under the SCL project is carried out under Works Contract No. 1112 signed by the MTRCL and Leighton. In accordance with the Entrustment Agreement, the MTRCL is required to ensure that the contractors and subcontractors employed are of a level of qualification which is consistent with those required by the MTRCL for implementing ordinary railway projects. The MTRCL, as the project manager, shall ensure all the design requirements are reflected in the works contracts signed with the contractors and sub-contractors in order to ensure the quality of works comply with the requirements of the Entrustment Agreement and the works carried out by the contractors and subcontractors are in compliance with the standards during construction.
 
     In addition, if any serious violation involving safety and quality is found, the Building Department may consider taking legal or disciplinary actions against the relevant persons according to the Building Ordinance. read more