Tag Archives: China

     Following is a question by the Hon Kwok Wai-keung and a written reply by the Secretary for Housing, Ms Winnie Ho, in the Legislative Council today (June 18):
 
Question:
 
     I have contacted a group of grass-roots households in recent months, several of whom are young people who have been waiting for public rental housing (PRH) under the Harmonious Families Priority Scheme for years. Unfortunately, their family members passed away before they were allocated PRH, leaving them to continue waiting for PRH as “non-elderly one-person applicants”. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of, in each year between 2022 and 2024, (i) the number of score points that non-elderly one-person applicants needed to obtain to be arranged for detailed vetting (commonly known as “being interviewed by an officer”), (ii) the respective ages of the oldest and the youngest non-elderly one-person applicants at the time when they were allocated PRH, and (iii) the quota of PRH units for allocation to non-elderly one-person applicants and its share in the total number of PRH units supplied for that year;
 
(2) as the 2024 Policy Address has proposed that the total public housing supply from 2025-2026 to 2029-2030 will reach 189 000 units, which is about 80 per cent higher than that of the first five-year period since the current-term Government took office (i.e. 2022-2023 to 2026-2027), and in the past two years, the average waiting time for PRH dropped from the peak of 6.1 years to the current 5.5 years, whether the Government has plans to increase the quota of PRH units reserved for non-elderly one-person applicants; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
 
(3) to enable non-elderly one-person applicants to consider whether they should continue waiting for PRH, whether the Government can provide them with more information on the Points System in a timely manner, such as by dividing the non-elderly one-person applicants into 10 groups evenly according to their score points and publishing the highest and lowest score points of applicants in each group, so that the applicants will know which group they are in and their waiting status, thereby helping them to assess their waiting time?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The objective of the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) is to provide public rental housing (PRH) to people who cannot afford private rental accommodation. It is the policy of the HA to accord priority to general applicants (i.e. family applicants and elderly-one person applicants) over non-elderly one-person applicants in the allocation of PRH flats. The reply to the Hon Kwok Wai-keung’s question is as follows:
 
(1) From 2022/23 to 2024/25, the points for non-elderly one person applicants arranged for detailed vetting, the highest and lowest ages of non-elderly one-person applicants that were housed to PRH flats and the ratio of actual allocation for non-elderly one-person applicants to the actual annual allocation are set out in Tables 1 to 3 of the Annex respectively.
 
(2) In order to rationalise and prioritise the allocation of PRH to non-elderly one-person applicants, the HA implemented the Quota and Points System (QPS) since September 2005. Unlike general applicants, the priority of flat allocation to non-elderly one-person applicants is not determined by the time when the individual applicant joined the queue, but the total points accumulated by an individual applicant under QPS. The points are calculated based on the applicants’ age, their waiting time and whether they are already residing in PRH.
 
     The HA endorsed refining QPS in October 2014. Such refinements included increasing the scale of age points from three to nine points per year of age increase at the time of application to reduce the incentive for early registration; and awarding a one-off bonus of 60 points to non-elderly one-person applicants aged 45 or above so as to accord them with higher priority over other younger applicants. In addition, starting from 2015/16, the HA has also increased the annual allocation quota for non-elderly one-person applicants under QPS from 8 per cent to 10 per cent of the total number of units to be allocated to PRH applicants, subject to a cap which was increased from 2 000 to 2 200 units. Generally speaking, elder applicants will be allocated flats faster under the refined QPS. The above arrangement of increasing the cap of allocation quota has struck an appropriate balance between the needs of non-elderly one-person applicants and that of general applicants. Considering that the demand for PRH in the society remains strong currently, we have no plan to further increase the annual allocation quota for QPS at this stage.
 
     We do not encourage young people to apply for PRH early. Young people should seize their time and work hard to move up the housing ladder in accordance with their abilities. In fact, the number of non-elderly one-person applicants reduced significantly by about 40 per cent from the highest level of 143 700 as at end-December 2015 to 86 300 as at end-March 2025. During the same period, the number of non-elderly one-person applicants aged below 30 recorded a sharper decline of 57 per cent, from 74 500 to 31 700.
 
     The Government has been encouraging young people to buy their own homes through the provision of various types of subsidised sale flats (SSF). In fact, young people aged below 40 have always accounted for a large proportion of buyers of different types of SSF. For example, nearly half of the successful applicants for first-hand Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats are young people under the age of 40; meanwhile, around 80 per cent of the buyers of White Form Secondary Market Scheme (WSM) are under the age of 40.
 
     In the next five years (i.e. from 2025/26 to 2029/30), apart from PRH/ Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme flats, the HA and the Hong Kong Housing Society will have a supply of about 56 500 SSF. To increase the chances of young people in purchasing SSF successfully, the HA will allocate an extra ballot number to young family applicants and one-person applicants aged below 40 with white form status for the purchase of HOS flats starting from the next HOS sale exercise onwards; for the secondary market, starting from WSM 2024, the HA has also increased the quota by 1 500 to 6 000, all of which will be allocated to young family applicants and one-person applicants aged below 40.
 
(3) The priority under QPS is determined by the total points accumulated by an non-elderly one-person applicant. To enhance the transparency of information, the Housing Department (HD) publishes the latest PRH allocation status in different districts in newspapers on a monthly basis, including the lowest point for non-elderly one person applicants being arranged for detailed vetting and the lowest point for non-elderly one person applicants having accepted public housing offers in individual application district. Such information is also uploaded to the HA/HD website (www.housingauthority.gov.hk/en/flat-application/allocation-status/index.html) for applicants’ reference.
 
     In addition, “e-Services for PRH Application” (eservices.housingauthority.gov.hk/eprhas) also provides 24-hour online services for PRH applicants. Through “iAM Smart+”, applicants can submit their PRH applications, enquire about their application status, amend the application information, and change the date and time of the detailed vetting interview, etc. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Nixie Lam and a reply by the Acting Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, Mr Joseph Chan, in the Legislative Council today (June 18):
 
Question:
 
     Under the Inland Revenue Ordinance, all eligible child allowances for married couples residing together can only be claimed by one of them, and they must decide on their own who should make the claims. There are views that such arrangement may give rise to disputes within the family. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) given that modern married couples usually share the responsibility of taking care of their children (both financially and in terms of care), of the reasons why child allowances can only be claimed by one of them at present;
 
(2) whether it has studied amending the legislation to stipulate that married couples with children may allocate child allowances equally or claim child allowances separately; if so, of the specific plan and timetable, including whether it will consider introducing a default allocation mechanism (such as allowing a choice of equal allocation of allowances or automatic allocation of allowances according to the ratio of the married couples’ incomes, empowering the Inland Revenue Department to make rulings or setting clear criteria on the priority of making claims); if it has not studied amending the legislation, of the reasons for that; and
 
(3) whether, in the absence of legislative amendments at present, the Government will consider drawing up a set of reference guidelines on child allowances, e.g. the order of claims may be handled according to the ratio of family incomes, major child-rearing roles or previous claiming practices, etc, as well as stepping up public education, so as to assist families in making proper arrangements for claiming allowances; if so, of the specific plan and timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     According to Section 31 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) (Ordinance), a taxpayer for salaries tax may claim child allowance for a year of assessment if he/she maintains an unmarried child who is under 18 years old; of or over 18 but under 25 years old and receiving full time education at an educational institution; or of or over 18 years old and is, because of physical or mental disability, unable to work in that year of assessment. A taxpayer may claim child allowance for up to nine children. Starting from the year of assessment 2023/24, the allowance for each child is $130,000. An additional allowance of $130,000 is granted for a newborn child during the year of assessment of the child’s birth.
 
     My reply to parts 1-3 of the Hon Nixie Lam’s question is as follows:
 
(1) and (2) According to Section 31(3) of the Ordinance, unless a taxpayer and his/her spouse are living apart, all child allowances must be claimed en bloc by either the taxpayer or his/her spouse. Taxpayers and their spouse should jointly decide who will claim all the child allowances. This requirement was included in the Ordinance in 1989, when married persons started to be allowed to elect separate taxation or joint assessment with their spouse, and has been in force until today. The main considerations are as follows:
 
     Before the year of assessment 2003/04, the amount of child allowance was determined by the number of children claimed on a regressive basis. Starting from the year of assessment 2003/04, the 1st to the 9th child are granted with a uniform allowance. Nevertheless, the prevailing mechanism already provides sufficient options and flexibility to reduce the tax burden on married persons, and more than 60 per cent of taxpayers claiming child allowances claim for only one child. We therefore consider that there is no need to abolish the requirement that only a taxpayer or his/her spouse can claim child allowance. Currently, married persons may elect separate taxation or joint assessment with their spouse for tax savings. Having all child allowances claimed by one party or allowing both parties to separately claim allowances for individual child or children does not affect the total amount of tax payable under joint assessment. Under the current arrangement, even if married persons and their spouse do not elect joint assessment on their own initiative, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) would still compare their tax payable under separate taxation and joint assessment. If joint assessment is found to be more beneficial to them, the IRD would invite them to elect joint assessment. In addition, the Ordinance does not require that the allowance in respect of the same child must always be claimed by the same claimant. If taxpayers and their spouse choose separate taxation, they may discuss in advance on how to claim the child allowance and flexibly arrange to claim the child allowance for different years of assessment, such as taking turns to claim in different years, to meet the needs of individual families.
 
     We find the current mechanism effective in reducing the tax burden on married persons and providing taxpayers with a flexible and convenient tax filing process, allowing them to make appropriate tax arrangements according to their family situations. There is no need to allow taxpayers and their spouse to separately claim child allowances. Currently, the IRD only apportions the child allowance based on actual circumstances for living apart or divorced cases. This arrangement helps reduce the compliance burden on taxpayers and ensure the IRD’s efficiency of tax assessment.
 
     On the other hand, as the specific circumstances and needs of each family vary, taxpayers and their spouse may have different financial and tax arrangements. We have no plans to change the current practice of the IRD generally not intervening in family matters to introduce a default allocation mechanism, as it is unlikely to meet the needs of all families.
 
     The Government will continue to review the claim arrangements and levels of various allowances from time to time, and consider whether there is room for enhancement based on various factors such as the number of beneficiaries, the Government’s financial situation, and administrative efficiency.
 
(3) The IRD currently provides frequently asked questions and guidelines on child allowances on its website. Generally speaking, it is more beneficial for the party with higher income to claim child allowance. However, if one party is assessed at standard rates, it would be more beneficial for the other party who is not assessed at standard rates to claim the allowance. The website also features a tax calculator, allowing taxpayers and their spouses to input their respective income amounts, deductions, and different allowance distribution scenarios to make the most appropriate claim arrangements. Besides, after issuing individual tax returns in May of each year, the IRD will extend the service hours of telephone enquiry to answer questions from taxpayers about completing their tax returns.
 
     Thank you, Mr President. read more

     Following is a question by Dr the Hon Tik Chi-yuen and a reply by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Mr Chris Sun, in the Legislative Council today (June 18):
 
Question:

     Regarding the prevention of elderly suicide, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has compiled detailed statistics on elderly suicide over the past five years, including but not limited to the annual number of suicide cases, the comparison of suicide rates between persons aged above 60 and other age groups, the gender, age and geographical distribution of elderly suicide victims, and the proportion of cases involving mental health issues; whether it has conducted in-depth study on the issue of elderly suicide in Hong Kong; if so, of the main triggering factors for suicide and their respective proportions, as well as the characteristics of high-risk groups; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) what specific measures are currently in place to address the mental health of the elderly and prevent suicide, particularly tailor-made support measures for high-risk elderly persons, and the allocation of resources concerned; whether it has assessed the effectiveness of such measures; if so, of the details; and

(3) given that some members of the social welfare sector have suggested that the Government should establish a “register of high-risk singleton and doubleton elderly households”, whether the Government will consider the suggestion; if so, of the details, including the frequency of updating the register, the support provided to the elderly on the register, and whether the Government will share data with, among others, the Hospital Authority and non-governmental organisations to collaborate in supporting the elderly persons concerned?

Reply:

President,

     Elderly suicide is a multi-factorial issue with no single main cause, such as emotional problems, personal health and family relationships. In consultation with the Health Bureau, the Hospital Authority (HA), the Department of Health (DH) and the Social Welfare Department (SWD), the consolidated reply to the Member’s question as follows:

     The Coroners Ordinance (Cap. 504) sets out 20 categories of deaths which should be reported to the Coroner, including suicide cases. Relevant statistics related to elderly suicide cases from 2020 to 2024 are at the Annex. Figures show that the number of suicide deaths of persons aged 60 or above has remained by and large steady in recent years, with a slight decrease in the proportion of all cases.

     While the Government has not conducted any specific study on the subject of elderly suicide in recent years, the Government all along attaches great importance to the mental health of elderly persons, and has rolled out various measures to improve the psychological health of elderly persons and prevent elderly suicide. For instance, the DH’s Elderly Health Centres (EHCs) provide health assessment for their elderly members, including early detection and prevention of elderly suicide through the use of an internationally recognised screening tool for local elderly people that targets the symptoms of depression (including suicidal ideation). Healthcare professionals of the EHCs will refer cases with depression and suicidal risk to the accident and emergency departments for immediate handling.

     Apart from the DH, the HA has implemented the Elderly Suicide Prevention Programme (ESPP) since 2002 to provide timely and appropriate psychiatric diagnosis and treatments for elderly people suspected to have suicidal tendency, with a view to reducing the suicidal risk of the elderly concerned. Under the ESPP, an elderly person assessed to have suicidal risk by doctors or social workers will be referred to the HA’s psychiatric services for early further follow-up, diagnosis and suitable treatment.

     In addition, the HA and the SWD, through medical-social collaboration of seven HA clusters and 41 District Elderly Community Centres, implement the Dementia Community Support Scheme to enhance healthcare support at the community level. Elderly persons with mild or moderate dementia are provided with suitable support services in the community so as to stabilise their conditions and alleviate their distress in going in and out of the hospitals, and their carers also receive relevant support. The Government’s “18111 – Mental Health Support Hotline” offers one-stop, round-the-clock support, including immediate mental health support and referral services, for people with mental health needs (including the elderly).

     On the other hand, the SWD identifies and supports elderly persons with emotional distress and/or suicidal risks through a wide range of services. On mainstream services, there are 214 subvented elderly centres in Hong Kong providing services such as care visits, emotional support and counselling for elderly persons and their carers. The 65 Integrated Family Service Centres and two Integrated Services Centres across the territory provide preventive, supportive and remedial services to families in need. The 58 Medical Social Services Units in hospitals and clinics also offer counselling and support services, where social workers will assess the suicide risk of the service recipients when handling the cases. Besides, the SWD provides subvention to commission non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to operate 24 Integrated Community Centres for Mental Wellness territory-wide with one-stop, district-based community support services ranging from prevention to crisis management. In terms of specialised services, the SWD has been subventing the Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong to operate the Suicide Crisis Intervention Centre, providing outreaching, crisis intervention and intensive counselling services for people with moderate or high suicide risk. Apart from the SWD’s services, the NGO Suicide Prevention Services, with funding support from the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, has launched the Outreach Befriending Service for the Suicidal Elderly since 2006 to early identify elderly persons suffering from emotional disturbances or with suicide risk through outreaching. Furthermore, dedicated hotline services are operated by the SWD and subvented NGOs to help persons in emotional distress (including those with suicidal tendency). Such hotline services encourage and refer the clients to relevant service units to receive in-depth counselling services that suit their needs. Among them, professional social workers of the round-the-clock Designated Hotline for Carer Support 182 183 provide immediate consultation and counselling, outreaching, emergency support and referral services, etc, for carers in need (including aged carers). 

     The 2024 Policy Address announced that the Government is exploring the setting up of an inter-disciplinary and inter-organisation database on carers of elderly persons and persons with disabilities. The Government is studying the integration of data related to social welfare services scattered across different departments and organisations, with a view to building a data platform to promote inter-departmental collaboration as well as service innovation, and enhance service efficiency through sharing and analysis of data. The aim is to identify and encourage high-risk cases to receive support, intervene immediately for cases with sudden increase in risks under automatic monitoring (e.g. carers admitted to hospitals), strengthen the mechanism for medical-social collaboration, develop tailor-made support programmes, optimise allocation of resources and services, etc. The database on carers will initially include information on carers of elderly persons and low-income carers from the SWD, Care Teams and the Housing Department. As the purposes for which data are collected by different organisations may not necessarily include providing social welfare support services for the persons concerned, the Government is discussing with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data and relevant departments how to design data-sharing solutions, with a view to launching a pilot scheme in compliance with the requirements of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Edmund Wong and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr Tang Ping-keung, in the Legislative Council today (June 18):
 
Question:
 
     It has been reported that various law enforcement agencies have recently discovered illegal workers using online car hailing or delivery platforms to work as drivers or food delivery workers, and have taken enforcement actions against them. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the numbers of illegal workers and employers of illegal workers who were prosecuted in the past three years, together with a quarterly breakdown of such figures;
 
(2) as it is learnt that engaging in work through digital platforms does not involve employment procedures such as job interviews, whether the authorities have assessed if the activities on such platforms are more susceptible to involving illegal workers; whether it has found any criminal syndicate specialising in acquiring the personal data of some Hong Kong residents for the purpose of registering work accounts on such platforms and subsequently making profits by employing illegal workers to provide services with these accounts; if so, of the details;
 
(3) whether the authorities have contacted such digital platforms to ascertain if there are loopholes in their operations from which criminal syndicates and illegal workers may benefit; if so, of the details; and
 
(4) whether it has studied enacting legislation to step up the crackdown on illegal workers using such digital platforms to work for reward?

Reply:
 
President,
 
     The Government is committed to combatting illegal employment, with a view to protecting job opportunities for the local workforce. It is a serious offence to engage in illegal employment. Employers, illegal workers as well as aiders and abettors of illegal employment will be liable to prosecution in accordance with the Immigration Ordinance (IO). The IO has different provisions targeting relevant offences committed by different groups of persons. Visitors, illegal immigrants and non-refoulement claimants, etc, are prohibited from taking any employment, whether paid or unpaid, or establishing or joining in any business. Aiders and abettors as well as illegal workers are liable to the same penalties. In addition, the Government amended the IO in 2021 by increasing the penalty of employers of illegal workers, with the maximum penalty significantly increased from a fine of $350,000 and three years’ imprisonment to a fine of $500,000 and 10 years’ imprisonment with a view to reflecting the gravity of such offences. The directors, managers, secretaries, partners, etc, of the company concerned may also bear criminal liability. The High Court has laid down sentencing guidelines that employers of illegal workers should be given an immediate custodial sentence.
 
     Regarding the question raised by the Hon Edmund Wong, having consulted the Labour and Welfare Bureau/Labour Department (LD), the Hong Kong Police Force (the Police) and the Immigration Department (ImmD), our reply is as follows:
 
(1) According to ImmD’s record, the number of illegal workers prosecuted and the number of employers of illegal workers prosecuted over the past three years are tabulated below:
 

Year / quarter		Number of illegal workers prosecuted	Number of employers of illegal workers prosecuted
2022	1st quarter	50	23
	2nd quarter	148	41
	3rd quarter	175	39
	4th quarter	166	35
	Total in 2022	539	138
2023	1st quarter	167	26
	2nd quarter	221	29
	3rd quarter	269	34
	4th quarter	286	20
	Total in 2023	943	109
2024	1st quarter	220	50
	2nd quarter	268	33
	3rd quarter	300	33
	4th quarter	225	53
	Total in 2024	1 013	169
2025	1st quarter	262	39

(2) Illegal employment is not limited to individual industries. The Government has all along combatted illegal employment and enforced the law vigorously. With an increased demand for the services provided by online platforms (including online food delivery and online car hailing) in recent years, the relevant law enforcement agencies have taken respective actions in combatting illegal employment and will conduct joint operations when necessary. Regarding the online food delivery platforms, the ImmD and the Police arrested 180 persons in relevant enforcement operations from 2024 to May 2025, 98 were non-ethnic Chinese persons suspected of working illegally as food delivery couriers, 54 were local residents suspected of selling or renting their food delivery courier accounts to the illegal workers, four were suspected of employing illegal workers and the remaining were arrested because of engaging in other illegal works or using false instruments, etc. Regarding online car hailing, four persons who were suspected of breach of condition of stay were arrested by the Police during the same period. 
 
     In the above operations, the ImmD and the Police did not identify any syndicate specialising in acquiring the personal data of Hong Kong residents for the purpose of registering work accounts on such platforms to make profits through employing illegal workers to provide services with those accounts. The law enforcement agencies will continue to closely monitor the situation and will not take this lightly. 
 
(3) Regarding online food delivery platforms, the ImmD and the Police maintain communications with platform companies from time to time, and have already requested them to strengthen the security measures on account registration and logging in, including adding authentication steps, requesting authentication of true identity, etc, in order to prevent the account holders from renting their accounts to others for food delivery. The LD has also established a Liaison Group comprising representatives of platform companies, labour organisations and the Government to explore suitable proposals to enhance the protection for platform workers, including stepping up on prevention of illegal workers in food delivery services. Regarding online car hailing, the Government has all along emphasised through various channels that any business shall be operated in accordance with the law.
 
(4) As aforementioned, the IO was amended in 2021 by increasing the penalty of employers of illegal workers, with the maximum penalty significantly increased from a fine of $350,000 and three years’ imprisonment to a fine of $500,000 and 10 years’ imprisonment. Regardless of whether online working platform or other working mode is involved, employers share the same legal responsibility to ensure employees are lawfully employable persons. The Government will continue to actively combat illegal employment on various fronts, including stepping up inspections and “cyber patrols”, taking rigourous law enforcement, and will also strengthen publicity and education, in order to raise the public’s law-abiding awareness.
 
Stepping up inspections and rigourous law enforcement
 
     To deter employers from employing illegal workers, labour inspectors of the LD will, through regular workplace inspections, check employees’ proof of identity and employees records kept by employers under the power conferred by the Part IVB of the IO. Suspected illegal employment cases detected will be referred to relevant law enforcement agencies for follow-up.
 
     The Cybercrime and Forensics Investigation Group (The Group) of the ImmD is dedicated to assisting frontline investigators in collecting digital evidence so as to strengthen the ability in case investigation and evidence collection, with a view to coping with criminals who may use well-developed technologies to commit immigration-related offences and some potential complicated crimes in the future. The Group has been proactively combatting cybercrimes related to illegal employment by conducting constant “cyber patrols”. It will take resolute enforcement actions against any person who is found using social media or instant messaging software to organise, arrange or incite the public to commit serious crimes, such as illegal employment etc.
 
     The ImmD and the Police will continue to combat illegal employment related crimes rigourously, and will, depending on operational needs, risk assessment and other considerations, flexibly arrange sufficient manpower to conduct intelligence-led enforcement operations against illegal employment related crimes.
 
Publicity and education to raise law-abiding awareness
 
     In order to raise the public’s law-abiding awareness and let the employers understand the serious consequences of employing illegal workers, the ImmD has deployed officers and promotional vehicles to black spots of illegal employment from time to time to distribute “Don’t Employ Illegal Workers” leaflets to employers and remind them to inspect the original Hong Kong Identity Cards of job seekers to ascertain whether they are lawfully employable. At the same time, the ImmD has also actively published information on the effectiveness of the latest operations against illegal employment and disseminated the message of “Employing Illegal Workers is an Offence” through its official accounts on different social media platforms. In addition, the ImmD has provided information of identifying lawfully employable persons to the public through various channels including ImmD’s website, leaflets and seminars, etc. read more

     In accordance with the Medical Registration Ordinance (MRO), the Registrar of Medical Practitioners (i.e. the Director of Health) announced today (June 18) the sixth batch of 22 medical qualifications (see Annex 1) recognised by the… read more