(This motion jointly signed by Hon Mrs Regina IP, Dr Hon Priscilla LEUNG and Hon Holden CHOW)
3rd debate
(covering the following 2 motions on the incident of assaults which occurred in Yuen Long Station of West Rail Line of the MTR Corporation Limited on 21 July 2019 ("the 721 incident"))
(Standing over from the meeting of 23 October 2019)
3.
Motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to appoint a select committee to conduct an inquiry
Motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to appoint a select committee to conduct an inquiry (This motion concerns both the 721 incident and the 831 incident)
(covering the following 3 motions on the incident of assaults which occurred in Prince Edward Station of the MTR Corporation Limited on 31 August 2019 ("the 831 incident") as well as the part concerning the 831 incident in Hon Claudia MO's motion in item 4)
(Standing over from the meeting of 23 October 2019)
5.
Motion under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law to summon the Commissioner of Police, Director of Fire Services, Chairman of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") and Operations Director of MTRCL to produce papers and testify
Motion under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law to summon the Commissioner of Police, Director of Fire Services, Assistant Director (Ambulance) of the Fire Services Department, Chief Executive of the Hospital Authority, Hospital Chief Executive of Kwong Wah Hospital and Hospital Chief Executive of Princess Margaret Hospital to produce papers and testify
Secretary for Security Secretary for Transport and Housing Secretary for Food and Health
Under Secretary for Security Under Secretary for Food and Health Under Secretary for Transport and Housing
(covering the following 7 motions on the Police's handling of protesters and persons performing duties in the protests during the "anti-extradition to China" movement)
(Items 8 to 12 standing over from the meeting of 23 October 2019)
8 and 9.
Motions under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to appoint select committees to conduct inquiries
Motion under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law to summon the Secretary for Security and Secretary for Labour and Welfare to produce papers and testify
(covering the following 2 motions on the causes and consequences of the social conflicts or disturbances arising from the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 503) and related matters)
(Item 15 standing over from the meeting of 13 November 2019)
15.
Motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to appoint a select committee to conduct an inquiry
Secretary for Security Under Secretary for Security
18.
Motion under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law to summon the Secretary for Security and Secretary for Transport and Housing to produce papers and testify
Secretary for Security
Secretary for Transport and Housing
Under Secretary for Security
Under Secretary for Transport and Housing
(Items 19 and 20 standing over from the meeting of 20 May 2020)
19.
Motion under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law to summon the Chief Secretary for Administration and Secretary for Food and Health to produce papers and testify
Four (instead of six) oral questions and 15 (instead of 16) written questions are scheduled for this meeting as:
(a)
the President has ruled that two oral questions submitted by Hon HUI Chi-fung and Hon James TO are out of order and may not be asked; and
(b)
a vacant written question slot was not taken up by Members by the deadline for giving question notice.
Question 1
(For oral reply)
(Translation)
Environmental issues in Lung Kwu Tan
Hon Kenneth LAU to ask:
Some Lung Kwu Tan residents have relayed that quite a number of obnoxious facilities and heavy industries (including two power plants, a landfill, a columbarium, sludge incinerators, a steel mill and a cement plant) are located in the vicinity of their residences, causing serious air and noise pollution, as well as odour and traffic congestion problems. They are worried that the Government's plan for reclamation at Lung Kwu Tan may aggravate such problems. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether it has regularly monitored the air quality of Lung Kwu Tan and its vicinity, including the concentrations of various types of air pollutants (i.e. respirable suspended particulates, fine suspended particulates, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and ozone) and if such concentrations have exceeded the limits of the Air Quality Objectives, as well as the sources of the pollutants; whether it has assessed if the health of the local residents has been affected as a result; if it has assessed, of the details, and whether it will publish the assessment outcome; if it has not assessed, the reasons for that;
(2)
of the current average daily quantity of municipal solid waste received by the West New Territories Landfill, as well as the quantity and percentage of such quantity delivered by land transport; the average daily vehicular traffic flow of Lung Kwu Tan Road and, out of such figure, the respective numbers of trips made by heavy vehicles and refuse collection vehicles; the details of the daily cleaning work carried out at Lung Kwu Tan Road, including the frequency, schedule, methods and effectiveness; and
(3)
as the Government has indicated that when selecting reclamation sites, it will attach importance to the impacts on the community and fully consider the views of residents, whether the Government will undertake not to take forward the Lung Kwu Tan reclamation plan before it has formulated effective solutions for tackling the aforesaid problems, so as to allay the concerns of the residents?
Question 2
(For oral reply)
(Translation)
Employment Support Scheme
Hon SHIU Ka-fai to ask:
Last month, the Government announced the extension of the coverage of the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") to include, among others, those mature employees (i.e. aged 65 or above) for whom their employers have made voluntary Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") contributions. However, those self-employed persons (except persons in particular trades) and those mature employees who do not have an MPF account, as well as those mature employees with an MPF account but their employers have not made voluntary contributions for them, are all not covered by the Scheme. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the respective numbers of self-employed persons and mature employees who currently do not have an MPF account, and the number of mature employees with an MPF account for whom their employers have not made voluntary contributions; whether it has assessed the impacts of ESS not covering such self-employed persons and mature employees on their employment outlook and on the employers of such mature employees;
(2)
whether it will roll out other measures, such as providing allowances for the employers of those mature employees who are not covered by ESS through relaxing the eligibility requirements of the Employment Programme for the Elderly and Middle-aged, or accepting certificates issued by certified public accountants (practising) as proof of employment of mature employees to replace the requirement for such employees to hold an MPF account, so as to facilitate the employers concerned to apply for the wage subsidies under ESS; and
(3)
whether it has studied launching other relief measures to help those self-employed persons who do not have an MPF account; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Question 3
(For oral reply)
(Translation)
Taking out insurance for taxis
Hon Frankie YICK to ask:
Some taxi owners have relayed that recently, the comprehensive insurance premiums and third party risks insurance premiums for taxis have increased by 35% and 20% respectively when compared with the same period last year. Besides, insurance companies have charged additional premiums of 15% to 25% for taxis with high vehicle age and those driven by elderly drivers, and have substantially increased the amounts specified in insurance contracts to be paid by insured persons for contributing towards insurance compensation (commonly known as "insurance excess"). In addition, some insurance companies have refused to underwrite insurance for taxis reaching the vehicle age of 20, and some insurance companies have recently ceased to underwrite insurance for taxis, thereby lessening competition in the market. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the number of taxis in Hong Kong as at 31 December last year; the number of taxis which received annual examination last year, with a tabulated breakdown by results and vehicle age (i.e. 13 years and below, each of the years from 14 to 19, and 20 years and above); if there were taxis which failed to pass the annual examination, of the reasons for that;
(2)
whether insurance companies have breached any law or regulation by refusing to underwrite insurance for taxis reaching the vehicle age of 20; of the measures in place to ensure that there will be insurance companies that are willing to underwrite insurance for such taxis; and
(3)
as some insurance companies have pointed out that the increase in the number of traffic accidents involving taxis is one of the causes for the soaring insurance premiums, whether the Government will encourage (e.g. through subsidizing taxi owners to install alarm system and equipment for preventing collision) the taxi trade to make good use of technology to reduce traffic accidents; if so, of the details; if not, the measures in place to reduce traffic accidents involving taxis?
Question 4
(For oral reply)
(Translation)
A concrete batching plant in Yau Tong
Hon Wilson OR to ask:
In 1998, the Government changed the planned uses of the sites in the Yau Tong Industrial Area ("YTIA") from "Industrial" to "Comprehensive Development Area", "Residential" and "Commercial" zones. With the completion of and intake of residents for a number of residential projects in that area in recent years, its population has been increasing incessantly. Some residents have relayed that currently a concrete batching plant is still in operation in the area, causing environmental pollution and affecting the daily living and health of the residents in the vicinity. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether it has assessed the impacts caused by the aforesaid concrete batching plant to the environment and the residents in the vicinity; of the number of complaints received by the Government in the past three years about the air, noise or other environmental pollution caused by the concrete batching plant;
(2)
whether the Government had forecast the timing for the concrete batching plant to move out of the area when it changed the planned uses of the sites in YTIA; whether the Government has in recent years discussed with the person-in-charge of the plant the plan and timetable for relocating the plant; and
(3)
of the measures in place to resolve the conflicts between the operation of the concrete batching plant and the development projects implemented according to the new planned uses?
Question 5
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Internal review conducted by the Equal Opportunities Commission
Hon James TO to ask:
A Review Panel under the Equal Opportunities Commission ("EOC") conducted, between 2017 and 2019, a process review to examine EOC's governance, management structure and complaint handling process, with a view to improving the services of EOC. In parallel, a retired High Court Judge conducted, upon EOC's invitation, an independent review of EOC's complaint handling process and submitted an independent report thereon. The Review Panel subsequently submitted to EOC the Report on Review of the Equal Opportunities Commission Governance, Management Structure and Complaint Handling Process ("the Report"), setting out its responses to the various recommendations put forth in the independent report. The Report was endorsed and then published by EOC in December 2019. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether it knows, among those recommendations set out in the Report in respect of which the Review Panel has indicated that it "agrees", it "agrees that this can be considered" and "EOC will study",
(i)
the up-to-date number of recommendations that have been implemented;
(ii)
the up-to-date number of recommendations that will be implemented and the implementation timetables; and
(iii)
the up-to-date number of recommendations that EOC decided not to implement, and the reasons for that;
(2)
whether it knows if EOC has implemented the following recommendations as set out in the Report; if EOC has not, when EOC will do so and the estimated amounts of resources involved:
(i)
the victims of a discrimination case be given the opportunity early on in the complaint handling process to meet with a legal professional;
(ii)
EOC officers should regularly take part in capacity-building workshops and seminars;
(iii)
serious consideration be given to the possibility of officers of the Legal Service Division of EOC providing specific legal advice to the complainants during the conciliation stage;
(iv)
the Legal and Complaints Committee of EOC should be cautious that it is not appropriate to refuse granting legal assistance for court proceedings merely because a case has less than a 50% chance of success;
(v)
a review be conducted on whether it is appropriate for a Complaint Services Division of EOC officer to be responsible for enquiry handling and conciliation work in the same case;
(vi)
greater use be made of Rule 7, including the payment by EOC of taxi fares, to enable complainants and respondents to attend at EOC's premises for face-to-face conferences at mutually convenient times;
(vii)
EOC's case management system should be upgraded and made more user-friendly;
(viii)
the Legal and Complaints Committee of EOC should, in deciding whether to grant full legal assistance, bear in mind the financial situation of the respondent and the potential for moral hazards;
(ix)
where conciliation has failed, the task of providing initial limited legal assistance may be undertaken by a team of officers drawn from the Complaint Services Division and the Legal Service Division of EOC;
(x)
it should be ensured that Chinese walls are in place to prevent an officer of the Complaint Services Division of EOC who has acted as a conciliator on a complaint from later conducting the detailed investigation and legal assessment of that same complaint;
(xi)
it should be a normal expectation that the Legal and Complaints Committee of EOC decides whether to grant full legal assistance within nine to 12 months of a complaint being made or of a specific enquiry being classified as a complaint; and
(xii)
consideration be given to increasing the head count of EOC; and
(3)
of the resources provided to EOC in the current financial year for implementing the aforesaid recommendations?
Question 6
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Setting and moderating questions for
the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination
Hon Vincent CHENG to ask:
One of the questions in Paper 1 of the History subject of the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education ("HKDSE") Examination this year was about the Sino-Japanese relations in the first half of the 20th century. The question provided two pieces of information and requested candidates to answer the following: "Japan did more good than harm to China in the period 1900-45. Do you agree?" There are comments that the question was silent on the fact that the invasive war waged by Japan on China back then had resulted in the death of tens of millions of compatriots. As the information attached to the question was grossly one-sided and carried a leading sense, as much as 38% of the candidates reached a "more good than harm" conclusion. The Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") has advised that as in the case of other HKDSE subject examinations, a moderation committee ("MC") is responsible for setting questions and drafting marking guidelines for the History subject. The MC of the History subject comprises a chief examiner, a setter or co-setters, moderators and an assessment development manager of HKEAA. It has been reported that the manager concerned has repeatedly made biased remarks on social media. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether HKEAA and the Education Bureau ("EDB") have currently put in place a mechanism for preventing MC members from presenting their political stances or instilling biased thoughts into candidates through examination questions; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2)
whether HKEAA and EDB received, in the past three years, complaints about inappropriate contents of the questions in the examination papers of the History subject of the HKDSE Examination; if so, of the contents of the complaints and the follow-up actions taken;
(3)
whether it knows if HKEAA will conduct a comprehensive review on the mechanism for setting and moderating questions for the History subject of the HKDSE Examination, as well as the division of work among MC members;
(4)
whether it knows if HKEAA will examine the mechanism for appointing MC members, so as to ensure that the members will act in an objective, impartial and a professional manner; and
(5)
as EDB has indicated that it will review the current mechanism with a view to fulfilling its role of monitoring the HKDSE Examination, thereby ensuring the sustained quality of the HKDSE Examination and the examination questions, of the details and the timetable of the review?
Question 7
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Support provided for street sleepers
Hon CHAN Hoi-yan to ask:
With subventions provided by the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"), three non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") currently operate an Integrated Services Team for Street Sleepers each to provide integrated services for street sleepers. In addition, the Integrated Family Service Centres and Integrated Services Centres run by SWD or NGOs provide relevant support for street sleepers. The economic downturn that occurred over the past six months has rendered quite a number of people homeless, and the number of street sleepers has been on the rise. I have learnt, however, that owing to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the support received by street sleepers has been reduced rather than increased. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the number of street sleepers as registered in SWD's Street Sleepers Registry in each of the past five years, with a breakdown by the District Council district where the street sleeping points were located;
(2)
of the method(s) currently adopted for compiling statistics on the number of street sleepers; whether it has projected the number of street sleepers in the coming three years for the purpose of assessing service demand;
(3)
of the number of hostel places for street sleepers provided by NGOs in each of the past five years, with a breakdown by whether they were subvented or self-financed places;
(4)
whether it has set a target number of hostel places for street sleepers; if so, of the details (including the criteria adopted); if not, the reasons for that;
(5)
whether it has taken measures during the epidemic to assist the various relevant organizations in continuing to provide support for street sleepers; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(6)
whether it has formulated measures or guidelines to ensure that street sleepers will still receive the various kinds of support under special circumstances (e.g. inclement weather and an epidemic); if so, of the details; if not, whether it will consider formulating the relevant measures or guidelines?
Question 8
(For written reply)
(Translation)
N95 respirator fit tests
Prof Hon Joseph LEE to ask:
According to the guidelines of the Hospital Authority ("HA"), healthcare personnel should undergo a facial contour fit test ("fit test") before using an N95 respirator ("respirator"), in order to ensure that they are given appropriate respirators. Healthcare personnel with a significant change in facial contour should take the fit test afresh. Earlier on, some nurses working in public hospitals have relayed to me that after the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") epidemic, HA had, without conducting the fit tests for them, given them respirators of the models concerned on the basis of the results of the fit tests they underwent in as early as 2003. HA had not conducted the fit tests for them until the time when HA had to check whether respirators of another model were suitable for use by them because the respirators of the models concerned had become out of stock. As the fit test results have revealed that they had all along been using respirators that did not fit their facial contour, they consider that such a situation had unnecessarily increased their risks of infection at work. Regarding the conduct of fit tests by HA for its healthcare personnel, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:
(1)
the criteria adopted by HA for determining the healthcare personnel for whom the fit tests are to be arranged, and the arrangements for the fit tests;
(2)
the number of healthcare personnel for whom HA conducted the fit tests in the past three years;
(3)
whether, after the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic, healthcare personnel have all been arranged to take the fit tests prior to being deployed to work in high-risk areas or perform high-risk medical procedures; if not, of the reasons for that;
(4)
the current number of healthcare personnel who need to wear respirators at work, with a breakdown by the cluster, hospital, department and grade to which they belong; whether all such personnel took the fit tests within the past six months; if not, of the reasons for that; and
(5)
the current number of staff members responsible for conducting the fit tests for healthcare personnel, with a breakdown by the cluster, hospital, department and grade to which they belong; the justifications for arranging such staff members to take charge of such work; whether HA has provided them with training on conducting the fit tests; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Question 9
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Installation of electric vehicle charging facilities
in private residential buildings
Hon Wilson OR to ask:
Some suppliers of electric vehicle ("EV") charging facilities ("suppliers") install for private residential buildings EV charging-enabling infrastructure ("the infrastructure") in their common parts, as well as install chargers at the public parking spaces and private parking spaces of interested owners of such buildings. Such suppliers charge the owners' corporations ("OCs") concerned a fee for installation of the infrastructure and enter into a five-year service contract with the owner of each of such private parking spaces. Under such contracts, the owners of the parking spaces concerned, after making a lump-sum payment and a monthly fee, may charge their EVs for unlimited number of times. Given that the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344) provides that any goods or services the value of which exceeds or is likely to exceed the sum of $200,000, or a sum which is equivalent to 20% of the annual budget of the OC concerned, must be procured by the corporation by way of invitation to tender, such suppliers pass on part of the installation cost of the infrastructure to the owners of private parking spaces when such cost exceeds the said sum, so as to avoid the situation that OC is obliged to invite tenders. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
given that the aforesaid works on installation of the infrastructure are not approved at a general meeting of an OC, but the OC (i.e. all owners) concerned need to bear the costs for such infrastructure's repair and maintenance as well as insurance premiums in future, whether the Government has assessed if the aforesaid arrangements are fair to the various types of owners (especially those owners who own parking spaces but do not intend to use the charging facilities or those who do not have a parking space);
(2)
as the Government has not regulated the contents of the contracts on charging services signed between the suppliers and the owners of private parking spaces, whether the Government received any relevant complaints in the past three years and whether it will regulate such contracts, so as to prevent the occurrence of a situation similar to the proliferation of telecommunication services-related complaints in the past; and
(3)
whether it has assessed if the practice of the suppliers to pass on part of the cost for installation of the infrastructure to the owners of private parking spaces in order to avoid competition has violated the principle of fair competition, and how it will follow up the matter?
Question 10
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Public facilities being vandalized
Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask:
Since June last year, some demonstrators have wantonly vandalized public facilities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the number of sets of traffic lights which were vandalized in the past 12 months; whether the Government will enhance the design of traffic lights to prevent them from being vandalized (e.g. installing them at a higher position);
(2)
of the number of roadside railings which were removed by lawbreakers in the past 12 months; as the authorities have indicated that they have enhanced the design of railings to make them more secure, of the details of the new design;
(3)
of the number of cameras of the closed-circuit television systems installed in government facilities and public places which were vandalized in the past 12 months; the measures in place to prevent lawbreakers from vandalizing such facilities and thereby destroying evidence of crime;
(4)
of the area of paving blocks on footpaths which were dug up by demonstrators in the past 12 months; whether the Government will switch to other methods for paving footpaths;
(5)
of the number of litter containers and recyclables collection bins managed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department which were sabotaged or used for blocking roads in the past 12 months; the measures in place to prevent such unlawful acts while taking into account, at the same time, the need of the members of the public to dispose of litter;
(6)
of the cost of the damaged public facilities as mentioned in (1) to (5), and the repair or reprovisioning cost concerned;
(7)
given that a number of major trunk roads were once blocked by objects which had been thrown from a height, what measures the Government has taken to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents; and
(8)
of the measures in place to step up efforts in combating the aforesaid unlawful acts and promoting law-abiding awareness among members of the public?
Question 11
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Special allowances for staff members of the Hospital Authority
Prof Hon Joseph LEE to ask:
To cope with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, Emergency Response Level was activated in public hospitals on 25 January this year. The Hospital Authority ("HA") subsequently announced that staff members engaging in high risk duties in response to the epidemic might be granted Special Emergency Response Allowance (with retrospective effect from 25 January), and that those staff members performing duties in high risk areas who needed to rent hotel rooms or temporary accommodation might be granted Special Rental Allowance. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether it knows the eligibility criteria for receiving the aforesaid two allowances;
(2)
whether it knows (a) the respective numbers of applications received, approved and rejected and (b) the respective amounts of expenses incurred, by HA in respect of the aforesaid two allowances in each month from January to May this year, with a tabulated breakdown by (i) hospital cluster, (ii) hospital, (iii) clinical department and (iv) grade;
(3)
whether it knows if there is any channel for staff members whose applications for such allowances have been rejected to lodge an appeal; if there is, of the details; and
(4)
as some HA staff members, who have retained their civil service status while working in HA, have indicated that they have not been disbursed such allowances so far, whether the Government knows the reasons for that and when they will be disbursed such allowances?
Question 12
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Using the unoccupied Chun Yeung Estate as quarantine facilities
Hon Michael TIEN to ask:
To tackle the epidemic, the Government has, since February this year, requisitioned the unoccupied Chun Yeung Estate in Fo Tan as quarantine facilities. Some prospective tenants who have accepted advance allocation of the units in the said estate have relayed to me that the deferral of the intake date has seriously upset their plans, and the prolonged delay in specifying a handover date for the units concerned has rendered them unable to make appropriate living arrangements. Some prospective tenants have suffered a drop in income as a result of the economic downturn, and yet they still have to continue to pay exorbitant rents for private housing. Also, quite a number of prospective tenants who have arranged their children to change schools even need to make arrangements for their children to travel to other districts to attend schools. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the conditions to be met for Chun Yeung Estate ceasing to be used as quarantine facilities, and the expected time for such conditions to be met;
(2)
of the disinfection procedures to be adopted for Chun Yeung Estate upon cessation of its use as quarantine facilities as well as the time needed; and
(3)
whether the Government will, apart from disbursing a one-off ex-gratia allowance of $6,000 per household to the prospective tenants of Chun Yeung Estate, provide other support for them; if so, of the details?
Question 13
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Development of an electronic disbursement platform and fintech
Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask:
The Financial Secretary announced in this financial year's Budget that a Cash Payout Scheme would be launched to disburse $10,000 to each Hong Kong permanent resident ("resident") aged 18 or over. However, the lead time for the Scheme is rather long, as registration by residents is not expected to commence until the end of this month and disbursements to the majority of residents is not expected to be made until the end of August this year. Some members of the information technology sector have pointed out that the Government should, in the long run, establish an e-payment platform and make good use of e-payment means (e.g. stored value facilities, prepaid cards and debit cards), so as to facilitate the expeditious disbursements of various types of subsidies and allowances to residents, as well as to promote the development of fintech. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether it has assessed the cost effectiveness of efforts in stimulating local consumption and boosting the economy by using means other than cash (e.g. e-payment);
(2)
whether it will study issuing, through electronic means, to residents local consumption vouchers with time limits and specified uses, so as to boost the economy and promote consumption;
(3)
whether it will collaborate with the information technology sector to conduct the research and development of a platform that supports the use of various e-payment means in disbursing subsidies and allowances, with a view to enhancing the efficiency of the Government's work of disbursing funds to residents in future, as well as promoting fintech development; and
(4)
given that the Government will provide an "iAM Smart" account for residents free of charge in order to facilitate the use of a single digital identity by residents to conduct online transactions with the Government and commercial organizations, and it has implemented a pilot sandbox programme for commercial organizations (confined to financial institutions for the time being) to conduct tests, of the to-date number of financial institutions which have taken part in the tests, as well as the details of the test items (e.g. authentication, form filling and digital signing) and the progress made; the expected time when iAM Smart will be available for use by commercial and public organizations, as well as the relevant timetable?
Question 14
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Facilitating the development of
the fifth generation mobile communications and technology
Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask:
On facilitating the development of the fifth generation ("5G") mobile communications and technology, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
given that the Office of the Communications Authority ("OFCA") launched the "Subsidy Scheme for Encouraging Early Deployment of 5G" under the Anti-epidemic Fund last month to encourage the various sectors to deploy 5G technology to foster innovation and smart city applications, of the respective to-date numbers of applications from enterprises received, approved and rejected by OFCA; a breakdown of the number of enterprises whose applications were approved by type of business or mode of operation, as well as a breakdown of the rejected cases (if any) by reason for the rejection;
(2)
given that OFCA launched a pilot scheme in March last year to proactively open up more than 1 000 suitable government premises for the installation of radio base stations by mobile network operators ("MNOs"), supplemented by streamlined application processes, to facilitate MNOs in laying 5G networks, of the respective to-date numbers of applications received and approved by OFCA, and set out, by name of MNOs, (i) the number of applications approved, and (ii) the number of radio base stations involved and their locations; the average time taken for vetting and approval of each approved application;
(3)
of the current coverage and coverage rate of the local 5G mobile networks; the Government's plans in the next two years to increase the coverage rate; and
(4)
given that the Government is proactively exploring with satellite operators the feasibility of relocating the satellite earth stations from Tai Po to Chung Hom Kok Teleport, and that the relocation plan involves land allocation as well as complex engineering and technical issues which will take years to handle, of the costs involved in the relocation plan as envisaged by the Government?
Question 15
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Professional conduct of members
of Moderation Committees
Hon Holden CHOW to ask:
One of the questions in Paper 1 of the History subject of this year's Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education ("HKDSE") Examination requested candidates to make reference to the information provided in the question and then answer whether they agreed to the following statement: "Japan did more good than harm to China in the period 1900-45". There have been public comments that since the invasion of China and atrocities committed by Japan in that period were too numerous to list, causing indelible pain to the country and nation, the statement obviously confounds right and wrong. The Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") has responded that, as in the case of other HKDSE subject examinations, a moderation committee ("MC") is responsible for setting questions and drafting marking guidelines for the History subject. The MC of the History subject comprises a chief examiner, a setter or co-setters, moderators and an assessment development manager of HKEAA. It has been reported that the manager concerned has repeatedly made biased remarks on social media. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether it knows if HKEAA will initiate an investigation into the aforesaid incident, including whether any MC member has, having been affected by his or her personal political stance, set questions which confound right and wrong; if HKEAA will, of the relevant mechanisms for investigation and penalty;
(2)
of the measures put in place by the Education Bureau ("EDB") to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents, and whether EDB will make improvement recommendations on the composition and operation of MCs; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3)
whether it knows the number of MC members punished in the past five years for having violated the established mechanism or codes of professional conduct, and the details of the punishments; whether HKEAA will never appoint such persons as MC members again?
Question 16
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Moderation committees of
the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority
Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask:
A question in Paper 1 of the History subject of this year's Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education ("HKDSE") Examination requested candidates to make reference to two pieces of information and then answer the following question: "Japan did more good than harm to China in the period 1900-45. Do you agree?" There are comments that the question was inappropriate in the selection of topic and was ill-intended, downplaying the painful historical facts of Japan's invasion of China, thereby leading candidates to reach a conclusion which turns the truth upside down. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
given that a moderation committee ("MC") has been set up separately for Category A subjects of HKDSE Examination, which is responsible for setting examination questions and drafting marking schemes, and that the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") appoints members to MCs through various channels (e.g. nominations from schools and subject committees), whether it knows the relevant selection criteria and the weightings attached to the various criteria;
(2)
given that the work nature of MC is highly confidential, and that a staff member who had been nominated by the Education Bureau ("EDB") in 2019 was eventually not invited to join the MC of the History subject of HKEAA, whether EDB will request HKEAA to review the composition of MCs and require that each MC should comprise a member appointed by EDB in order to strengthen EDB's monitoring role on the HKDSE Examination;
(3)
whether EDB will explore taking part in the work of setting and moderating questions for the HKDSE Examination in order to ensure that examination questions are objective and neutral; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(4)
as it has been reported that a member of the MC relating to the aforesaid incident has repeatedly made biased remarks on social media, whether it knows if HKEAA has assessed the effectiveness of the monitoring mechanism established to ensure that the acts of MC members meet the codes of professional conduct, and the mechanism put in place by HKEAA for imposing punishments on those members who have breached the codes of professional conduct; and
(5)
given that HKEAA publishes, every year after the HKDSE Examination, question papers for the various Category A subjects, in which information such as marking schemes are set out for the reference of the relevant parties, whether it knows if HKEAA will, in view of the grave public concerns aroused by and the invalidation of the aforesaid question, immediately make public the marking scheme of the question, so as to facilitate the public to have a better understanding of the process of setting the question; if HKEAA will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Question 17
(For written reply)
(Translation)
The United States authorities revoking the special treatment for Hong Kong
Hon WU Chi-wai to ask:
On the 28th of last month, the National People's Congress decided that its Standing Committee be entrusted to formulate laws relating to establishing and improving the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") to safeguard national security. The Department of State of the United States ("US") forthwith submitted a report to the US Congress stating that as HKSAR had failed to maintain a high degree of autonomy, it did not warrant special treatment. The US President then announced the commencement of the process for revoking the special treatment for Hong Kong, e.g. statuses as a separate customs territory and as a separate travel territory, and exemptions from the US export controls on dual-use technologies. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the quantities and values of those high technology products which were exempted from the US export controls and imported from US to HKSAR in each of the past three years, with a tabulated breakdown by type of product; whether it has assessed, among such products, which types of products will require export licences in future before they may be imported into HKSAR;
(2)
whether the Government and the relevant public organizations (including the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation and Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited) have assessed the impacts of the US authorities' revocation of the exemptions granted to HKSAR regarding technologies export controls on the development of the local innovation and technology industry, and what corresponding measures will be put in place;
(3)
whether it has assessed the impacts of the US authorities' revocation of HKSAR's statuses as a separate customs territory and as a separate travel territory on (i) the import, export and re-export trade of HKSAR, and (ii) HKSAR residents' application for US visas;
(4)
whether it has assessed the impacts of the US authorities' revocation of the special treatment for HKSAR on Hong Kong's overall economy, and what corresponding measures the Government will put in place; and
(5)
as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has indicated earlier that if countries such as US and the United Kingdom impose sanctions or other measures on HKSAR, China will take all necessary countermeasures, whether the HKSAR Government (i) knows the details of such countermeasures, (ii) has to take actions to dovetail with the implementation of such countermeasures, and (iii) has assessed the impacts of such countermeasures on Hong Kong?
Question 18
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Open and fair trials
Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask:
Since the eruption of the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments in June last year, incessant violence and unlawful acts have hard hit the economy and people's livelihood. Although the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal pointed out in his statement issued on 25 May this year that judges had a responsibility, owed to the community, to adjudicate on cases fairly and impartially, many members of the public have complained to me that some judges misconducted themselves (e.g. signing a joint public petition in opposition to the proposed legislative amendments) and the sentences they imposed in relation to some of the cases involving the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments were inappropriate. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether it knows the number of complaints about the conduct of judges received by the Judiciary since June last year; the number of cases handled and followed up by the Court Leaders and, among such cases, the respective numbers of those which were (i) substantiated and (ii) unsubstantiated, and the reasons for them to be found unsubstantiated;
(2)
whether it knows if the Judiciary will make reference to the practices in overseas jurisdictions and set up an independent judiciary monitoring committee to subject the conduct of judges to public scrutiny, so as to enhance the credibility of the judicial system; if the Judiciary will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3)
as there are comments that the sentences imposed by courts in recent years seemed to lack consistency, e.g. significant variance in the sentences imposed on defendants convicted of the same offence, and substantial fluctuations in the sentences imposed on a defendant in the same case by the courts at various levels (i.e. the sentence imposed being light at first instance, heavier on appeal, and yet being reduced to the initial sentence or even a lighter sentence on final appeal), whether it knows the number of sets of sentencing guidelines promulgated by the courts at various levels to the courts below in the past three years; whether the Judiciary will make reference to the practices of the United States or the United Kingdom and set up a sentencing commission or council to issue binding sentencing tariffs on all criminal offences; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Question 19
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Convalescent plasma treatment
Dr Hon CHIANG Lai-wan to ask:
It has been reported that the treatment method which makes use of the convalescent plasma ("convalescent plasma treatment") donated by people recovered from Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") has certain curative effect on treating COVID-19 patients. The conditions of two patients of serious cases were substantially improved after they had received such treatment. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether it knows the current stock of convalescent plasma in public hospitals and the estimated number of patients who may be treated with such stock; whether the Hospital Authority has set a target for the stock of convalescent plasma, so as to tackle the eventuality in which the COVID-19 epidemic rages on again in winter this year;
(2)
if it knows the criteria adopted by doctors of public hospitals for deciding whether or not to apply convalescent plasma treatment in treating COVID-19 patients; how such treatment compares with other treatments in terms of efficacy in treating COVID-19 patients; and
(3)
given that only eight out of the 1 000-odd people recovered from COVID-19 in Hong Kong have donated their convalescent plasma, whether such proportion meets the Government's expectation; if so, of the reasons for that; if not, the measures in place to boost the number of donors; whether it knows the reasons why people who have recovered from that disease refuse to donate their plasma?