Tag Archives: China

     Following is a question by the Hon Kenneth Leung and a written reply by the Acting Secretary for Security, Mr Sonny Au, in the Legislative Council today (June 20):
 
Question:
 
     The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has so far signed agreements with 20 jurisdictions on the surrender of fugitive offenders (SFO). On matters relating to SFO, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the respective numbers of SFO requests made pursuant to the relevant agreements which were received, accepted and rejected by the Government in each of the past 10 years; whether it consulted the Central Government in respect of any of such requests; if so, of the number of requests involved and the consultation details, and set out such information one by one by the jurisdictions concerned;
 
(2) of the number of SFO requests made by the Government pursuant to the relevant agreements in each of the past 10 years and, among them, the respective numbers of requests accepted and rejected; whether it consulted the Central Government before making any of such requests; if so, of the number of requests involved and the consultation details, and set out such information one by one by the jurisdictions concerned; and
 
(3) as the Department of State of the United States (US) stated in the Hong Kong Policy Act Report submitted to the Congress last month that the Chief Executive of SAR had rejected in October last year “at the behest of the Central Government” an SFO request made by the US Government, of the reasons of the SAR Government for rejecting the request; whether the SAR Government had consulted the Central Government upon receipt of the request; if so, of the reasons and the legal basis for that; whether the person requested to be surrendered has been arrested, detained and deported from Hong Kong by the SAR Government; if so, of the details?
 
Reply:
 
President,
       
     The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government has been actively taking forward co-operation with other jurisdictions on surrender of fugitive offenders (SFO) and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (MLA). The juridical assistance network has been expanded through signing relevant agreements with more jurisdictions, with a view to combating crimes and upholding the law. According to Article 96 of the Basic Law, “[w]ith the assistance or authorisation of the Central People’s Government, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may make appropriate arrangements with foreign states for reciprocal juridical assistance”. As far, Hong Kong has signed SFO agreements with 20 jurisdictions (Note 1) and MLA agreements with 32 jurisdictions (Note 2).
 
     Having consolidated inputs from the Department of Justice (DoJ), my reply to the Hon Kenneth Leung’s question is as follows:
 
(1) and (2) In the past 10 years, Hong Kong, pursuant to its signed SFO agreements with other jurisdictions, made 24 SFO requests to other jurisdictions; while other jurisdictions, pursuant to their signed SFO agreements with Hong Kong, made 66 SFO requests to Hong Kong. Pursuant to these requests, other jurisdictions surrendered 11 persons to Hong Kong and refused four requests from Hong Kong; while Hong Kong surrendered 23 persons to other jurisdictions and refused five requests from other jurisdictions. For the remaining requests, some are being processed, some cannot be implemented due to failure in locating fugitive offenders or other reasons, and some have been withdrawn due to arrest of the fugitive offenders in another place or the requesting place, or because of other reasons.
 
(3) All SFO requests are processed in strict accordance with the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO) (Chapter 503 of the Laws of Hong Kong) and pursuant to the agreements signed between Hong Kong and the relevant jurisdictions. Regarding SFO requests made by the Government of the United States, the Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of the United States of America for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders has stipulated clearly the circumstances under which surrender requests may be refused. The relevant provisions are extracted at Annex. It is inappropriate to discuss individual surrender cases in public or disclose the information involved. As regards the movement of persons in and out of Hong Kong, they have all along been dealt with by the HKSAR Government in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong.
 
     Under section 6 of the FOO, on receipt of a surrender request from another jurisdiction by the HKSAR Government, the Chief Executive (CE) must first issue an authority to proceed before the request can be processed further. The decision on whether to issue an authority to proceed rests entirely with the CE, who would consult the DoJ in making such a decision. For the purpose of complying with the FOO and the applicable bilateral agreement, the CE would only make a decision after taking into full account the relevant facts and circumstances of each case. It is also stipulated in section 24 of the FOO that the HKSAR Government is required to give notice to the Central People’s Government in relation to surrender requests received and made by Hong Kong.
 
Note 1: Australia, Canada, Czech, France, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom and the United States.
 
Note 2: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States and Ukraine. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Shiu Ka-chun and a written reply by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, Mr James Lau, in the Legislative Council today (June 20):
 
Question:

     At present, an applicant may not concurrently receive more than one of the various allowances (including Old Age Allowance (OAA), Disability Allowance (DA) and Old Age Living Allowance (OALA)) under the Social Security Allowance Scheme. As such, the Social Welfare Department (SWD) will not arrange medical assessment for those elderly persons who are receiving OALA to ascertain if they are eligible for DA. On the other hand, where a taxpayer claims Disabled Dependent Allowance (the tax allowance) for maintaining a dependent who is not a DA recipient, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) may demand the taxpayer to submit a Medical Assessment Report issued by the Director of Health or the Chief Executive of the Hospital Authority (medical authorities), certifying that the dependent’s disabling condition meets the eligibility requirements for DA in the relevant year of assessment. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the maximum number of years that may be covered by the aforesaid Medical Assessment Reports issued by the medical authorities based on medical records; whether IRD will refuse a claim for the tax allowance on the grounds that a taxpayer has failed to provide a Medical Assessment Report covering the relevant year of assessment; whether the authorities will review the arrangements for claiming the tax allowance;
 
(2) whether at present, persons with disabilities may request, on their own and without being arranged by SWD, the medical authorities to issue the above Medical Assessment Reports; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
 
(3) given that elderly persons with disabilities in general have more financial needs than those who are old but without disabilities or those who are not old but with disabilities, whether the authorities will consider afresh disbursing both DA and OAA to elderly persons with disabilities?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     In consultation with the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Food and Health Bureau, my reply to the Hon Shiu’s question is as follows:
 
     At present, a taxpayer can claim the Disabled Dependant Allowance (DDA) if he/she maintains a dependant who is eligible to claim an allowance under the Government’s Disability Allowance Scheme in any year of assessment. The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) will process the claim for DDA by the taxpayer in respect of the eligible dependant even if the dependant who is eligible for the Disability Allowance (DA) does not claim such an allowance or has opted for the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA).
 
     Taxpayers need not submit any proof when claiming the DDA. The IRD may require individual taxpayers to submit evidence of the dependant’s eligibility for the DA in reviewing the applications. If the dependant has applied to the Social Welfare Department (SWD) for the DA, the taxpayer can provide the file number of the dependant’s application as proof. If the dependant has not claimed an allowance under the Government’s Disability Allowance Scheme (including those eligible for the DA but have opted for the OALA), the IRD will send a review letter to the taxpayer and request the taxpayer to submit a medical assessment issued by a registered medical practitioner certifying that the disability condition is assessed in accordance with the definition of such a condition under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme or the Social Security Allowance Scheme, so as to substantiate that the disability condition of the dependant warrants the DA in the relevant year. To facilitate the taxpayer to submit a proper Medical Assessment Report to substantiate the DDA claim, the IRD will send a medical assessment form issued by the SWD for the purpose of assessing the DA application together with the review letter. The taxpayer is not required to request the SWD to arrange for his/her dependant to convert to DA or issue the medical assessment form afresh. The medical assessment form completed and signed by the registered medical practitioner can already satisfy the IRD’s requirement as evidence for the purpose of claiming the DDA.
 
     For questions (1) and (2), the IRD must ensure that the deduction of the DDA complies with section 31A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. If a taxpayer fails to provide a Medical Assessment Report covering the year of assessment concerned in respect of the dependant during the review, the IRD cannot accept the claim for DDA in respect of the dependant in that year of assessment. Based on the IRD’s past experience, taxpayers were in general able to provide the required Medical Assessment Reports during the review of DDA claims. In fact, the Medical Assessment Reports for review cases are acceptable by the IRD so long as the Reports can indicate that the year of assessment concerned is covered by the disability duration. While the existing review procedures are operating smoothly, the IRD will review the arrangements with relevant bureaux and departments when necessary.
 
     For question (3), DA and Old Age Allowance (OAA) under the Social Security Allowance Scheme are non-contributory and non-means-tested. These two schemes are addressing the special needs of the respective target groups of beneficiaries, and a person should not receive both allowances concurrently. For instance, persons with severe disabilities, regardless of age, generally require more assistance and care from others when compared to elderly persons without disabilities, and hence the rate of DA (monthly payments of Normal DA and Higher DA are $1,720 and $3,440 respectively) is higher than that of OAA ($1,345 per month). Moreover, this arrangement is in line with the “no double benefits” rule, which ensures the sustainability of the social security system. The Government has no plan to change this rule.
 
     Elderly persons with disabilities who have financial needs may consider applying for the means-tested OALA (monthly payments of Normal OALA and Higher OALA are $2,600 and $3,485 respectively) or the CSSA Scheme having regard to their circumstances and wishes. At present, the average CSSA monthly payment for an elderly singleton is $6,394. In general, elderly persons with disabilities are provided with higher payment rates than able-bodied elderly persons. read more

     Japan-based SABAR Ltd today (June 20) opened a joint venture restaurant with its business partner in Causeway Bay to gain a foothold in Hong Kong and introduce authentic saba-tuna fusion dishes for discerning diners.   &n… read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Gary Fan and a reply by the Acting Secretary for Innovation and Technology, Dr David Chung, in the Legislative Council today (June 20):
 
Question:
 
     The Government announced last month the rolling out of a three-year Technology Talent Admission Scheme (TechTAS) to implement a fast-track arrangement for the admission of overseas and Mainland technology talents. Regarding the acquisition of the right of abode in Hong Kong by persons who came to Hong Kong under various admission schemes, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the respective numbers of persons who applied for and were granted entry into Hong Kong in each of the past three years under the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, the Capital Investment Entrant Scheme, the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals, and the Immigration Arrangements for Non-local Graduates, as well as the number of persons, who had come to Hong Kong under the various schemes, acquiring the right of abode in Hong Kong in the past three years (with a breakdown of the figures and their percentages by Mainland resident and resident of other regions);
 
(2) given that the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation and the Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited will be responsible for examining the TechTAS applications submitted by their tenants, incubatees, grantees or occupants, as well as making recommendations to the Innovation and Technology Commission (ITC) on the applications concerned, of the criteria adopted and the mechanisms based upon by these two companies and the ITC when considering the relevant applications; and
 
(3) given that under the TechTAS, the ITC will consider admission applications from technology talents who do not meet the relevant academic requirements but possess good technical skills in specialty areas, proven professional abilities or relevant experience and achievements, of the criteria adopted and mechanism based upon by the ITC when considering such types of applications; the specific measures to be put in place to ensure that the TechTAS will recruit the technology talents needed by Hong Kong without becoming nothing more than a shortcut for Mainland residents to acquire the right of abode in Hong Kong?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     My reply to the question raised by the Hon Gary Fan is as follows:

(1) According to the information provided by the Immigration Department, the statistics on applications received and approved under the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals, the Immigration Arrangements for Non-local Graduates and the Capital Investment Entrant Scheme for the past three years are set out at Annex 1.
 
     The statistics on persons approved for admission to Hong Kong under the immigration schemes mentioned in the question who have acquired right of abode in the past three years, in accordance with applicants’ status in Hong Kong at the time of application for the right of abode, are set out at Annex 2.
 
     The Immigration Department does not maintain statistical breakdowns by region of applicants who have acquired right of abode.

(2) and (3) Persons admitted under the Technology Talent Admission Scheme (TechTAS) must be employed by the applicant technology company/institute, and be engaged principally in conducting research and development (R&D) in Hong Kong in the seven technology areas of biotechnology, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, robotics, data analytics, financial technologies and material science. On academic requirements, persons admitted should be degree-holders in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) from a well-recognised university. “Well-recognised universities” refers to the top 100 universities in the latest publications of STEM-related ranking tables of the QS World University Rankings, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings and the Academic Ranking of World Universities. Those with a bachelor’s degree only should possess a minimum of one year of work experience in the relevant technology area, while those with a master’s or doctoral degree are not subject to a work experience requirement.
 
     Persons not meeting the academic requirements as mentioned above but possessing good technical skills in speciality areas, proven professional abilities and/or relevant experience and achievements supported by documentary evidence can be considered on a case-by-case basis under exceptional circumstances.
 
     Upon receiving quota applications from its tenants or incubatees, the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation (HKSTPC) and the Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited (Cyberport) will examine the materials submitted, and make recommendations to the Innovation and Technology Commission (ITC). The ITC will take into consideration the HKSTPC’s and the Cyberport’s recommendation before deciding whether or not to approve the quota.

     Each quota application will be assessed on its own merits having regard to the following considerations:
 
(i) the knowledge or skillsets of the required technology talent must align with the applicant company or institute’s technology activities;
(ii) the number of quotas requested is justified for the applicant company or institute (e.g. having regard to considerations such as business volume, venue and expansion plans of the applicant company or institute);
(iii) the applicant company or institute has demonstrated genuine difficulties in recruiting local talent in the technology areas concerned; and
(iv) the academic qualifications or other expertise as well as the remuneration packages of the required non-local talent are suitable.
 
     One of the key requirements of the TechTAS is that, at the stage of quota application, the applicant technology company or institute should demonstrate that talent with the relevant skills, knowledge or experience is short in supply or not readily available in Hong Kong. This is to ensure that the TechTAS can effectively assist technology companies or institutes in attracting technology talent in shortage in Hong Kong from around the world to conduct R&D in Hong Kong.
 
     Similar to persons admitted under the other admission schemes as mentioned above, persons admitted under the TechTAS who have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years may apply for the right of abode in Hong Kong in accordance with the law.  The TechTAS will not become a shortcut in applying for right of abode in Hong Kong. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Ho Kai-ming and a written reply by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, Mr James Lau, in the Legislative Council today (June 20):
 
Question:
 
     Electronic payment services have become popular in recent years, bringing considerable convenience in consumption to members of the public. However, as some third-party payment platforms fail to properly verify payers’ identities when processing online transactions (for instance, payers are only required to input credit card/debit card numbers and security codes, as well as cardholders’ names), unauthorised transactions are prone to occur. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the number of complaints involving third-party payment platforms received by the authorities in the past three years, with a breakdown by type of complaints;
 
(2) of the measures taken by the authorities in the past three years to step up the regulation of the operation of third-party payment platforms (including collection of users’ personal data and charging of handling fees or other fees);
 
(3) whether the authorities will consider making it a mandatory requirement for third-party payment platforms to adopt, when processing online transactions, two-factor authentication for verifying payers’ identities, such as by requiring payers to input a one-time password either sent via short message service or generated by security tokens, in addition to credit card/debit card numbers and cardholders’ names; and
 
(4) whether it has plans to promote the acceptance of payment for all government bills and payment notices through third-party payment platforms; if so, of the details and timetable?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The Payment Systems and Stored Value Facilities Ordinance (PSSVFO) (Cap 584) prescribing the licensing and regulatory regime of stored value facilities (SVFs) came into operation in 2015. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) considers licence applications and supervises SVF licensees to ensure their safe and sound operation and to foster the development of a secure, efficient, and diversified electronic payment industry.
 
     My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
 
(1) Since the granting of the first batch of SVF licences in August 2016 under the PSSVFO, the HKMA has received around 140 SVF-related complaints. Two cases were related to unauthorised transactions and the remaining were related to SVF licensees’ service qualities, commercial arrangements, etc.
 
(2) The HKMA has issued regulatory guidelines requiring SVF licensees to implement relevant control measures in their operations. The HKMA also monitors and reviews licensees’ implementation of the guidelines through ongoing supervisory work. On personal data and privacy protection, the HKMA’s guidelines require SVF licensees to put in place robust information security measures and to comply with the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO) (Cap 486) as well as relevant guidelines issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) to ensure that their users’ personal data are properly handled and safeguarded. The HKMA also maintains regular liaison with the PCPD and has reminded SVF licensees to contact the PCPD on issues relating to the implementation of the PDPO and relevant guidelines. On fees and charges, SVF licensees are required to set out and explain clearly the applicable fees and charges relating to the use of their services and products, and ensure that such details are effectively communicated and made available to users.
 
(3) The HKMA’s guidelines require SVF licensees to implement adequate payment security controls to ensure the authenticity and traceability of transactions and to institute mechanism for preventing and detecting unauthorised transactions that may arise from fraud. Where needed, SVF licensees should implement additional controls to detect unauthorised transactions, such as introducing two-factor authentication to verify users’ identity and issuing transaction notifications to users. The HKMA also requires banks to implement appropriate measures to confirm the authenticity of credit card transactions and protect customers’ interest.
 
     SVF licensees are required to implement appropriate payment security measures having regard to individual circumstances. However, the adoption of two-factor authentication or other payment security technology (e.g. biometric authentication) depends on various factors, such as the risk of the relevant SVF, the security level of the authentication technology, the convenience of the payment method, transaction patterns of users, etc. As the design of relevant security measures needs to be balanced against the nature of an SVF’s operation, it may not be appropriate for the HKMA to require all SVF licensees to adopt the same measures. Some SVF licensees have already adopted two-factor authentication in processing payment transactions. With regard to online credit card transactions, some banks verify the identity of their customers by using two-factor authentication such as SMS one-time password, whereas some other banks send SMS notifications to their customers after the transactions. In general, if a cardholder did not act fraudulently or with gross negligence, he or she will not be held liable for unauthorised transactions.
 
(4) The Government currently accepts a wide range of electronic payment means, including Internet banking, phone banking, PPS, autopay, automated teller machine, etc., for the public’s convenience. We note that the e-wallets offered by some SVF operators provide bill payment service as well. Users can scan the barcodes on their bills (such as phone bills and Towngas bills) and make payments through the e-wallets on their mobile phones. To facilitate the development of the SVF market, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau is exploring with relevant Government departments on a pilot scheme under which members of the public can settle government bills in the same manner. read more