The following is issued on behalf of the Hospital Authority: Regarding an earlier announcement on a cluster of patients confirmed to be carriers of Vancomycin Resistant Enterococci (VRE) in a medical and geriatrics ward, the… read more
The following is issued on behalf of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority:
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) wishes to alert members of the public to a press release issued by China CITIC Bank International Limited relating to a fraudulent website, which has been reported to the HKMA. A hyperlink to the press release is available on the HKMA website.
The HKMA wishes to remind the public that banks will not send SMS or e-mails with embedded hyperlinks which direct them to the banks’ websites to carry out transactions. They will not ask customers for sensitive personal information, such as login passwords or one-time password, by phone, email or SMS (including via embedded hyperlinks).
Anyone who has provided his or her personal information, or who has conducted any financial transactions, through or in response to the website concerned, should contact the bank using the contact information provided in the press release, and report the matter to the Police by contacting the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police Force at 2860 5012. read more
Following is a question by the Hon Elizabeth Quat and a written reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (October 27):
Question:
Under the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 138) and the relevant regulations, pharmaceutical products must meet the standards of safety, efficacy and quality, as well as have been approved for registration with the Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong (the Board) before such products may be sold or distributed in Hong Kong. The Board currently adopts a “secondary evaluation” approach for vetting and approval of applications for registration of pharmaceutical products containing new chemical or biological entities (collectively referred to as “NCEs”), i.e. relying mainly on the registration approvals from competent drug regulatory authorities of designated reference countries (of a total of 32 countries, including Australia, Canada and the United States but excluding China) which have conducted the primary evaluation. Regarding the evaluation, registration and introduction of NCEs, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the Nation started to reform its drug review and approval system in 2015, that the National Medical Products Administration has joined the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) in 2017 and was/has been elected a member of the ICH Management Committee in 2018 and in 2021, and that the alignment of China’s drug registration regulatory regime and standards with the international regulatory regime has accelerated, whether it knows if the Board will, in vetting and approving NCEs, consider afresh accepting the documentary proof of evaluation and registration issued by Mainland drug regulatory authorities; if the Board will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) whether it will take measures to support the development of the departments of pharmacology/pharmacy of the faculties of medicine of two local universities into internationally recognised institutions for evaluation of NCEs, and to promote Hong Kong as Asia’s hub for NCE evaluations; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(3) as it has been reported that some anti-cancer drugs independently developed by Mainland enterprises have been included on the national drug catalogue for basic medical insurance, whether it knows if the Hospital Authority (HA) will consider introducing such drugs; if the HA will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(4) given that the Chief Executive has, in the Policy Address just delivered, put forward vigorous development of life and health technology, and has asked the relevant departments to conduct a review on the complementing areas such as clinical data, clinical trials and drug registration as well as to tie in with the needs, of the details and timetable for the relevant work; and
(5) as it has been reported that the HA intends to procure Molnupiravir, a new drug developed by a pharmaceutical company in the United States for treating coronavirus disease 2019, whether it knows the progress of the relevant work?
Reply:
President,
My reply to the various parts of the question raised by the Hon Elizabeth Quat is as follows:
(1) and (2) According to the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 138) (the Ordinance) and the Pharmacy and Poisons Regulations (Cap. 138A) (the Regulations), pharmaceutical products must satisfy the criteria of safety, efficacy and quality for registration with the Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong (the Board) before they can be sold or supplied in Hong Kong. Applicant of registration of pharmaceutical products is required to submit sufficient information to the Board to substantiate the safety, efficacy and quality of the pharmaceutical product. Applicant of registration of pharmaceutical products containing new chemical or biological entities (NCEs, i.e. contain active ingredients which have not been registered in Hong Kong) is required to provide documents as stated in the “Guidance Notes on Registration of Pharmaceutical Products Containing a New Chemical or Biological Entity” (Note 1) promulgated by the Board, which include the expert evaluation report on the safety, efficacy and quality of the NCEs, and documentary proof of registration of the pharmaceutical products issued by at least two drug regulatory agencies or authorities of recognised countries (Note 2) (e.g. free sale certificate), in order to provide supporting evidence that the product has been rigorously evaluated before placing in market.
The aforementioned approval system is also referred to as “secondary evaluation”. That is, the Board relies on the registration approvals from drug regulatory agencies or authorities of recognised countries which have conducted “primary evaluation” (Note 3) in order to process applications for registration of pharmaceutical products containing NCEs. Currently, the drug regulatory agencies or authorities of the “primary evaluation” countries that the Board makes reference to are members of the Stringent Regulatory Authority (SRA) as designated by the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as members of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). These countries have fully complied with the technical standards and requirements promulgated by the ICH (Note 4). The National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) has been a member of the ICH and is implementing relevant guidelines. It is understood that currently the NMPA has yet to fully comply with the technical standards and requirements promulgated by the ICH. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government is keeping in view of the NMPA’s implementation of the relevant guidelines of the ICH. In the meantime, the Board reviews the relevant registration requirements of drug registration from time to time while upholding the principle of ensuring the relevant standards of safety, efficacy and quality of pharmaceutical products. This includes making reference to registration approvals from drug regulatory agencies or authorities of the Mainland and other countries.
The Government currently has no plan on developing departments of pharmacology/pharmacy of the faculties of medicine of the two local universities into internationally recognised institutions for evaluation of NCEs.
(3) As the major provider of publicly-funded public healthcare services, the Hospital Authority (HA) attaches great importance to providing optimal care for all patients while ensuring patients an equitable access to cost-effective drugs of proven safety and efficacy under the highly subsidised public healthcare system.
On drug management, the HA has an established mechanism for regular evaluation of new drugs and review of its Drug Formulary (HADF) and coverage of the safety net. The process follows the principles of evidence-based practice, rational use of public resources, targeted subsidy, opportunity cost consideration and facilitation of patients’ choice, taking into account the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of drugs and other relevant considerations, including international recommendations and practices as well as views of professionals and patient groups.
The HA has also put in place a mechanism to allow doctors to use non-HADF drugs (whether it is registered or not) under special circumstances in the light of the clinical needs of individual patients so as to meet individual needs and ensure that patients are provided with appropriate clinical care. When the use of drug(s) which has/have not been registered in Hong Kong is considered necessary for an individual patient, the HA hospital concerned should submit applications to the DH and ensure compliance with all statutory requirements.
Evaluation of drugs is an on-going process driven by evolving medical evidence, the latest clinical developments and market dynamics. The HA will continue to keep abreast of the latest development of clinical and scientific evidence of different cancer drugs from Mainland and overseas, listen to the views and suggestions of patient groups, and review the HADF and coverage of the safety net under the principle of rational use of limited public resources while providing adequate medical care to the largest number of patients in need.
(4) The Government and the HA have been facilitating the development of the sector in areas such as clinical data, clinical trials and drug registration.
The HA provided data to over 200 researchers in 28 collaboration projects through the HA Data Collaboration Lab since 2019, and launched the Self Services Platform to facilitate local researchers using healthcare data for further exploration and innovation. On the other hand, from April 2020 to September 2021, the FHB and its Health and Medical Research Fund have approved a total of $513 million to support 67 COVID-19 research studies by local universities from bench to bedside and at the community level through application of new technologies.
The Chief Executive has recently announced in the Policy Address that the Government will further promote life and health technology. To this end, the FHB, the HA and the DH will conduct a comprehensive review of the current practices and provide facilitation. This includes:
(i) To encourage the use of big data and further promote research and development (R&D), the HA will assist more institutions to explore the potential use of healthcare data for R&D collaboration with the HA with a view to elevating the standard of Hong Kong’s medical services and maintaining their competitiveness. Besides, the collaboration between the HA and Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation on the use of HA’s clinical data for R&D will be explored by the FHB.
(ii) The HA will continue to provide support through various aspects including research ethics review governance, stakeholder engagement, as well as provision of study sites in public hospitals with patient involvement. In order to improve the efficiency of application for ethics review, the HA has formed the Central Institutional Review Board in April 2021 and opinions will be given within 60 days upon receiving a valid application to support researchers in conducting clinical trials. The HA will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the procedures in order to support researchers in conducting clinical research.
(iii) The Government will also expedite the legislative process for registration of drugs containing NCEs under the Regulations, with a view to making relevant pharmaceutical products available in the market as early as possible, supporting the development of life and health technology and benefitting more patients in need.
(5) Regarding the testing and treatment of COVID-19, the HA, the FHB, and the DH have been maintaining close liaison to keep in view the epidemic situation, the latest development of clinical treatment and scientific evidence, and updated data from global drug regulatory authorities as well as pharmaceutical companies. The HA is closely communicating with the drug manufacturers concerned with a view to procure and stockpile suitable COVID-19 drugs timely. In addition, the HA experts will continue to ensure access by COVID-19 patients to new drugs of proven safety and efficacy through evaluation under the established mechanism.
Note 1: Please see the full text of the Guidance Notes at:
www.drugoffice.gov.hk/eps/do/en/doc/guidelines_forms/Guidance_on_Reg_of_Pharm_Prod_Containing_New_Chem_or_Bio_Entity_en.pdf
Note 2: There are 32 recognised countries. The drug regulatory authorities of the countries concerned are members of the SRA as designated by the WHO, and are also members of the ICH that have implemented all relevant ICH guidance.
Note 3: “Primary evaluation” is generally conducted by highly developed and large scale drug regulatory authorities (e.g. SRAs as designated by the WHO). It involves the assessment of primary data and information of all pre-clinical studies (i.e. animal testing), clinical studies, manufacturing and quality control in order to fully evaluate the safety, efficacy and quality of a medicine. By making reference to the “primary evaluation” conducted in other countries, it requires multidisciplinary assessment including the professional assessment and evaluation from chemistry, microbiology, toxicology, pathology, statistics and different clinical specialities, which involves a vast amount of human and hardware resources (e.g. independent and accredited laboratories).
Note 4: The ICH plays a unique role in bringing together the regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical industry to discuss scientific and technical aspects of drug registration. ICH regulators are required to implement the final Guidelines to ensure that the medicines that were developed and registered are safe, effective and of high quality. read more
Following is the speech by the Secretary for Justice, Ms Teresa Cheng, SC, at the ADR in Asia Conference: Tomorrow’s Disputes Today hosted by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) under the 10th Hong Kong Arbitration Week today (October 27):
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
It’s a great pleasure for me to speak in the ADR in Asia Conference. This year’s Conference covers important topics of arbitration, starting with those that are in place and fundamental to arbitration, to a look into the future trend.
For parties to arbitration, the availability of interim measures is of paramount importance. The grant or refusal of interim measures may sometimes be determinative of the dispute between the parties. Interim measures such as evidence and property preservation measures will not only provide parties with an avenue to obtain access to justice in a timely manner but will also secure the fruits of dispute resolution.
As a result of the groundbreaking interim measures arrangement signed with the Mainland in 2019, parties to arbitral proceedings seated in Hong Kong and administered by one of the six arbitral institutions would be able to apply to the Mainland courts for interim measures. Such measures include property preservation, evidence preservation and conduct preservation. Hong Kong is the first and only jurisdiction in the world outside of the Mainland where this is possible. This arrangement no doubt increases Hong Kong’s attractiveness as a seat of arbitration, and also showcases our unique strengths under “one country, two systems”.
To familiarise Hong Kong and Mainland legal practitioners with the arrangement, the Department of Justice and the Supreme People’s Court jointly organised a training session on October 19, 2019. Thanks to the support of the Supreme People’s Court, the session was very well-received and provided the arbitration community with practical insights on both the procedural and substantive issues in interim measures applications. On August 17 this year, the Department also co-organised with CIETAC (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission) Hong Kong Arbitration Center a webinar on the practical implementation of the arrangement in which a judge from the Supreme People’s Court and Hong Kong practitioners shared their updated views and knowledge on the topic. This event was again a great success. It attracted approximately 800 online viewers, comprising legal and dispute resolution practitioners, as well as participants from the academic and business sectors.
Two years have passed since the arrangement came into operation on October 1, 2019. I am glad to hear that many practitioners have regarded the arrangement as a game-changer and the number of interim measures applications made to Mainland courts under the arrangement keep increasing. As at September 14, 2021, the designated institutions have processed over 50 interim measures applications made to 23 Mainland courts for the preservation of evidence, conduct or assets worth RMB14.6 billion in total. From the information made available by the HKIAC, 32 of those decisions have been issued by the Intermediate People’s Courts, amongst which 30 granted the applications for preservation of assets upon the applicant’s provision of security and two rejected the applications. The total value of assets preserved by those 30 decisions amounted to RMB10.9 billion.
Looking forward, we will continue to listen to the views of the international arbitration community and see what we can do to further enhance the existing arrangement.
I now turn to discuss the role of the Hong Kong Judiciary in arbitration. An arbitration-friendly judiciary is one of the key factors that parties would consider when choosing the seat of arbitration, and Hong Kong’s Judiciary has all along been very supportive of the use of arbitration. Hong Kong courts have always strived to ensure that party autonomy is respected in line with procedural propriety. The pro-arbitration stance of Hong Kong courts has been consistently reflected in its case law.
In a recent decision of C v D (Note 1), an issue arose as to whether failure to comply with the pre-condition to arbitration, i.e. the requirement to attempt negotiations before arbitration, excludes the tribunal’s jurisdiction or merely goes to admissibility of the claim.
In that case, the contract in issue stipulated that, if a dispute arose between the parties, “the parties should attempt in good faith promptly to resolve such dispute by negotiation”. The contract went on to say that “Either Party may, by written notice to the other, have such dispute referred to the Chief Executive Officers of the Parties for resolution”, and that if any dispute could not be resolved amicably within 60 business days of the date of a party’s request in writing for such negotiation, such dispute should be referred to arbitration.
The plaintiff in that case contended that due to the failure by either party to give written notice to have the dispute referred to the CEOs of the parties for resolution, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The defendant, on the contrary, argued that the condition to arbitration was satisfied as it had given written request to negotiate by a letter to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff, and in any event the question of whether the condition precedent had been fulfilled was a question of admissibility rather than jurisdiction.
The Court of First Instance held that the non-compliance with the pre-condition to arbitration merely goes to admissibility of the claim. On the facts of the case, there was no indication that the parties intended compliance with the relevant provisions to be a matter of jurisdiction. Notably, having gone through all the international authorities which suggested that non-compliance with procedural pre-conditions to arbitration merely goes to the admissibility as opposed to jurisdiction, the judge concluded that this approach was “entirely consistent with the policy in Hong Kong law which respects the parties’ autonomy in choosing arbitration as the means to resolve their disputes with its incident of speed and finality as well as privacy”. Having said that, I must point out that this case is now under appeal and we will no doubt revisit the issue when the appeal judgment is handed down.
In today’s Conference, an interesting topic on cryptocurrency will be covered. In recent years, trading in cryptocurrencies in the virtual world has flourished. Disputes arising from these cryptocurrency transactions have created some novel and unique legal issues. In the context of resolving these crypto-related disputes in arbitration, two questions immediately come to mind: (1) if trading and circulation of the relevant cryptocurrency is prohibited in the relevant jurisdiction under its national law, can we still arbitrate crypto-related disputes in that jurisdiction? (2) if the relevant cryptocurrency exchange has failed to comply with the local regulations, will it affect the legality or arbitrability of those transactions conducted over the exchange?
In some jurisdictions such as Mainland China, where redemption, trading and circulation of virtual currencies are prohibited, there may be challenges to a crypto-related arbitral award. In 2018, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court in a civil ruling (Note 2) set aside an arbitral award compensating the claimant the US dollar equivalent of Bitcoin which was then converted into Renminbi on the ground that awarding damages in US dollars in lieu of Bitcoin was against the public interest.
The reasoning of the Shenzhen Court is that according to a certain Circular (Note 3) and Announcement (Note 4) of the PRC (People’s Republic of China), Bitcoin does not have the same legal status as a fiat currency, and cannot and should not be circulated in the market as a currency. Any so-called token financing and trading platform shall not, among other things, engage in exchange business between fiat currencies and tokens or between “virtual currencies”. As such, the arbitral award which ordered damages in US dollars in lieu of the Bitcoin amounted to redemption and trading between Bitcoin and fiat currency in a disguised form, which violated the public interest in the PRC, namely order and stability of the financial market.
In Hong Kong, arbitrability of these crypto-related disputes probably would not be an issue. Trading in cryptocurrencies and other virtual assets is not prohibited here in Hong Kong. Under Article 112 of the Basic Law, the free flow of capital is protected. Article 115 of the Basic Law further provides that Hong Kong shall pursue the policy of free trade and safeguard the free movement of goods, intangible assets and capital. In addition, Hong Kong has a sophisticated and internationalised financial market, internationally aligned regulatory regimes and strong rule of law. It is home to a large pool of financial and legal talents who are well-equipped to handle complicated issues arising from the ever evolving currency and financial market.
In terms of the regulatory regime for the cryptocurrency industry, the Government has proposed a new licensing regime under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance for platforms which trade any type of crypto-assets, even if none are classified as securities. Under the new proposal, if these trading platforms are registered in Hong Kong under the Companies Ordinance, they will be required to comply with the SFC (Securities and Futures Commission) licence. Given the risks associated with cryptocurrencies, in Hong Kong it is proposed that these platforms can only provide services to professional investors. The new regime aims to ensure that the general public is well protected and at the same time, ensure the healthy and orderly development of the crypto market, thus maintaining the stability of the financial market.
It is also noteworthy that Hong Kong has an online dispute resolution and deal making platform, as we have seen HKIAC has launched and there are other places which are providing such one-stop shop platform for commercial parties by which disputes can be resolved from all over the world. With these new developments and the inherent strengths of Hong Kong as an international financial and dispute resolution centre, we believe that Hong Kong is well-placed to resolve these crypto-related disputes as an arbitration venue. I am sure the experts at the Conference today will share more on the unique strengths of Hong Kong’s dispute resolution services in this particular area.
I note that the Honourable Charles Brower will offer his views on tomorrow’s arbitrator in this Conference. I am very excited to hear from such an experienced arbitrator. Apart from the core qualities of an arbitrator, we should always keep an open mind about the choice of arbitrators. Diversity and inclusion in terms of gender and ethnicity of arbitrators should be encouraged and promoted. This is indeed echoed by the EU (European Union) Diversity Charters which encourage organisations to promote diversity and equal opportunities in the workplace, regardless of age, disability, gender, race or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation.
Today’s Conference entitled “Tomorrow’s Disputes Today” is very apt. Hong Kong is no doubt well-equipped to resolve any future disputes, including those arising from the growth of digitalisation or financial technology. On this note, I wish to conclude and say happy anniversary to the Hong Kong Arbitration Week and I wish this Conference a great success. Thank you very much.
Note 1: C v D [2021] HKCFI 1474; C v D [2021] 3 HKLRD 1
Note 2: Or (2018) 粵03民特719號
Note 3: Circular of the People’s Bank of China, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission on Preventing Risks from Bitcoin (Yin Fa [2013] No. 289)
Note 4: Announcement on Preventing Risks relating to Fundraising through Token Offerings, which also provides that any so-called “token” financing and trading platform shall not engage in exchange business between fiat currencies and tokens or between “virtual currencies”; trade tokens or “virtual currencies” or act as a central counterparty; or provide pricing, information agency or other services for tokens or “virtual currencies”
Following is a question by the Hon Vincent Cheng and a reply by the Secretary for Home Affairs, Mr Caspar Tsui, in the Legislative Council today (October 27):
Question:
Hong Kong athletes achieved brilliant results in both the Tokyo Summer Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games, rousing a craze for sports among the people of Hong Kong. It is reported that some members of the sports community, academics and Members of this Council have proposed that the Government should sustain such craze and improve the sports policy and facilities. In addition, the State Council has decided that Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao will host the 15th National Games in 2025 (the National Games), and required the governments of the three places to fully utilise the existing venues and facilities as well as contain the costs for hosting the competition events. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective current shortfalls of venues for various sports across the territory, as calculated on the basis of the relevant standards stipulated in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines; the current number of those sports facilities that are below the relevant international standards;
(2) given that the Five-Year Plan for Sports and Recreation Facilities put forward in 2017 included conducting technical feasibility studies on 15 sports and recreation facility projects, of the study outcome of the 11 sports facility projects among them as well as the respective anticipated commencement and completion dates of the works concerned; whether it will consider rolling out a second five-year plan for sports and recreation facilities; if so, of the details; and
(3) of the National Games’ competition events that the Government plans to strive for hosting, and whether it will strive for the opening ceremony or closing ceremony of the National Games to be held in Hong Kong, as well as the sports facilities that it intends to use?
Reply:
Acting President,
Attaching great importance to sports development, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has been promoting sports development in Hong Kong through a three-pronged strategic approach, namely promoting sports in the community, supporting elite sports and maintaining Hong Kong as a centre for major international sports events. We will also increase and enhance sports and recreation facilities as well as encourage collaboration among communities in fostering a strong sports culture in Hong Kong.
In the Policy Address in January 2017, the Government announced the Five-Year Plan for Sports and Recreation Facilities (the Five-Year Plan) to launch 26 projects and conduct technical feasibility studies for 15 sports and recreation facilities, involving an amount of $20 billion. This is to develop new and improve existing sports and recreation facilities with a view to meeting the demand of the public and promoting greater sports participation in the community. While building new sports facilities, we also make good use of and upgrade existing facilities. Therefore, the Government announced in the 2021-22 Budget to earmark $318 million to implement a five-year plan for upgrading over 70 football pitches in order to provide more football pitches meeting the standards of Fédération Internationale de Football Association, thereby contributing to the development of football in Hong Kong.
My reply to the questions raised by the Hon Vincent Cheng is as follows:
(1) Apart from the sports and recreation facilities provided by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), other organisations including schools, private sports clubs, public housing estates and private residential estates also provide different sports and recreation facilities in order to optimise land use in Hong Kong.
With regard to the major fee-charging sports and recreation facilities provided by the LCSD, there is a shortfall of 11.8 sports centres, a shortfall of 12.9 11-a-side football pitches, a shortfall of 4.6 sports ground and a surplus of 16.2 swimming pool complexes as compared to the provision recommended by the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. The LCSD does not keep the record on the number of sports facilities not meeting the international standards concerned.
The Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) reported to the Panel on Home Affairs of the Legislative Council (LegCo) on September 27, 2021 on the Consultancy Study on Provision of Sports Facilities in Hong Kong conducted by the Consultants. The Consultants conducted a telephone survey to collect the latest population preferences for sports activities and provided recommendations on the planning of community sports facilities for the general public. Besides, the consultants made reference to other jurisdictions and surveyed the need of various stakeholders such as the national sports associations on their demand and usage of the current sports facilities, thereby worked out the number of additional territorial and regional sports facilities required in five and 10 years to cater for athletes’ training and competition needs so identified. The Consultants recommended formulating a facility hierarchy, devising new population-based provision standards for core sports facilities for community usage as well as introducing a new methodology to assess provision levels for sports facilities, etc. The Consultants will engage various stakeholders on the study recommendations. Taking into account their feedback, the methodology to assess the demand and supply of sports facilities as well as the existing provision standard of sports facilities might need to be changed with a view to better addressing the evolving needs for sports facilities arising from an ever-changing sports behaviour and pattern.
(2) With regard to the Five-Year Plan as mentioned above, among the 26 projects, 21 of them have obtained funding approval from the LegCo, involving around $7.7 billion in total. Facilities in seven of these approved projects have been opened or scheduled for opening this year for public use while the pre-construction activities/construction works for another nine projects have commenced. Construction/design works for the remaining five projects will commence within this year. Projects with approved funding from the LegCo will provide three heated swimming pools and 15 open spaces (including two 7-a-side football pitches, two 5-a-side football pitches, four tennis courts, eight basketball courts, two lawn bowling greens and two cycling grounds) for public use as well as implement the pre-construction activities for the redevelopment of one sports ground and one amenity complex (comprising sports centre and swimming pool).
As to the 15 projects for conducting technical feasibility studies, construction works for one project have commenced and the studies for four projects have completed with the remaining 10 ongoing. Subject to the technical feasibilities being ascertained, HAB will apply for funding for these projects in due course.
(3) The Hong Kong SAR Government is grateful for the trust and support of the Central Government in announcing on August 26 this year its agreement for Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao to host the 15th National Games (NG) in 2025. We will spare no effort to work closely with the relevant ministries of the Central Government, the Guangdong Province and the Macao SAR Government to carry out the preparatory work for the “simple, safe and wonderful” 15th NG in 2025.
The Kai Tak Sports Park will be commissioned in 2023. Together with the Hong Kong Velodrome, where many international competitions have been held, and other sports facilities, the good foundation is in place for Hong Kong to take part in the hosting of the 15th NG. The General Administration of Sport of China will later convene a meeting with Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao on event preparation of the 15th NG, including division of work, financial arrangements and other details. read more