Author Archives: hksar gov

Attention TV/radio announcers:

Please broadcast the following as soon as possible:

     Here is an item of interest to swimmers.

     The Leisure and Cultural Services Department announced today (May 8) that the Environmental Protection Department has classified the water quality at Clear Water Bay First Beach in Sai Kung District and Anglers’ Beach and Hoi Mei Wan Beach in Tsuen Wan District as Grade 4, which means the beaches are not suitable for swimming. The red flags have been hoisted. Beach-goers are advised not to swim at the beaches until further notice.

     The red flag was hoisted at Clear Water Bay First Beach earlier due to big waves. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Cheung Kwok-kwan and a written reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (May 8):   Question:        Last… read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Holden Chow and a written reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (May 8):   Question:        Patients … read more

     Following is a question by the Dr Hon Priscilla Leung and a written reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (May 8):
 
Question:
 
     Some members of the public have relayed to me that although the Hospital Authority (HA) recorded operating deficits for two consecutive years, its senior executives were still given pay rises. Also, there has been a case of “fattening the top and slimming the bottom”. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) whether it knows the number of senior executives in HA, with a breakdown by the group (in bands of $500,000 apart) to which their annual salary belonged, and the average annual pay increment of such executives, in each of the past three years;
 
(2) whether it knows the criteria and factors based on which HA determines the pay level and the magnitude of pay adjustment for its senior executives; whether those criteria and factors include the financial position, staff wastage rate and service quality of HA; if they are not included, whether HA will take into account such factors in future; if they are included, of the overall wastage rate of HA’s full-time staff and the wastage rate of full-time staff in each healthcare grade, and whether there were cases in which HA ran an operating deficit with its staff wastage rate standing high and patients’ waiting time for services being long and yet its senior executives were given a pay rise, in each of the past three years; and
 
(3) whether it will allocate additional resources to HA so that the cash allowance for staff appointed in or after April 1998 can be linked to their basic salary to align with the entitlements of those staff appointed prior to such time, with a view to reducing the wastage of healthcare workers?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     My reply to the various parts of the question raised by the Dr Hon Priscilla Leung is as follows:
 
(1) The manpower situation and remuneration of the key management personnel of the Hospital Authority (HA) in 2016-17 and 2017-18 are set out in the table below:
 

Rank	2016-17		2017-18		Increase (per cent)
	No. of personnel	Remuneration	No. of personnel	Remuneration
Chief Executive	1	$6.00 million	1	$6.02 million	0.3 per cent
Directors, Heads and Cluster Chief Executives	14	$64.84 million	14	$66.98 million	3.3 per cent

 
Note:
(i) Remuneration includes basic salaries, other short-term employee benefits and post-employment benefits.
(ii) The actual expenditure for 2018-19 will only be available after completion of the Annual Financial Statements
 
(2) In general, the HA will take factors such as internal relativities, pay level in the market and affordability of the organisation into account in determining the remuneration of its senior executives.  Their remuneration is also subject to annual adjustments in accordance with prevailing human resources policy on salary increment.
 
(3) The differences in the terms of appointment and remuneration packages of staff members joining the HA at different times are due to organisational development and other background factors. The Government and the HA strive to attract, develop and retain healthcare manpower to ensure the quality of public healthcare services. In the 2019-20 Budget, the Government announced the provision of additional recurrent funding of $721 million for the HA to implement enhancement measures to boost staff morale and retain talent. With the dedicated resources, the HA is working out the details of the enhancement measures, with a view to striving for their early implementation in 2019-20 to benefit frontline staff. The measures include:
 
(1) continuation of the Special Retired and Rehire Scheme for doctors, nurses and allied health staff;
(2) enhancement of the Fixed Rate Honorarium for doctors;
(3) enhancement of promotion prospects for nurses (increasing the number of Advanced Practice Nurse posts to enhance senior coverage and nursing supervision in wards at night);
(4) implementation of Specialty Nurse Increment for registered nurses with the required qualifications;
(5) enhancement of promotion prospects for allied health professionals and pharmacists;
(6) measures to attract and retain supporting staff (pay enhancement for supporting staff and recruitment of additional Executive Assistants in wards); and
(7) measures for alleviating service demand during winter surges (further uplift of the rate of the Special Honorarium Scheme allowance so as to encourage staff participation).
 
     The HA will also continue to formulate and implement other human resources measures, including hiring full-time and part-time healthcare professionals and agency nurses, rehiring suitable retired healthcare staff and increasing the number of training places for Resident Trainees. The Government will continue to provide the HA with appropriate resources to attract and retain staff. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Kwok Wai-keung and a writren reply by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Mr Frank Chan Fan, in the Legislative Council today (May 8):
 
Question :
 
     In considering whether or not to redevelop individual aged public rental housing (PRH) estates, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) will, based on the directions set out in the Long Term Housing Strategy and with reference to the four basic principles under the “Refined Policy on Redevelopment of Aged PRH Estates” (i.e. structural conditions of buildings, cost-effectiveness of repair works, availability of suitable rehousing resources in the vicinity of the estates to be redeveloped, and build-back potential upon redevelopment), prudently consider the matter in accordance with the actual circumstances.  Although HA completed in 2013 a review of the redevelopment potential of 22 non-divested aged estates, it has so far announced the redevelopment directions of only three estates.  In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the proposals and timetables for redevelopment of the 22 estates, and the timing for announcing the relevant details; the respective weightings of the aforesaid four principles when HA considers whether or not to redevelop an individual estate;
 
(2) of the total amount of expenditure incurred by HA for carrying out repair and maintenance as well as improvement works for its estates in each of the past five years, and the amount of which incurred for the 22 estates;

(3) of the number of PRH tenants affected by the redevelopment projects in each of the past five years, with a breakdown by their accommodation situation after moving out (including being accommodated in another PRH flat allocated to them, in a unit acquired under the various subsidized home ownership schemes, and in self-arranged accommodation);
 
(4) as some PRH tenants currently affected by the redevelopment projects have relayed that while they may acquire a subsidised sale flat in the capacity of clearees, HA conducted only one round of sale activity per year under the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme (GSH) and the Home Ownership Scheme respectively in recent years, rendering them unable to acquire a housing unit in time, whether HA will review the relevant arrangements;
 
(5) given that the pre-sale periods for two GSH projects planned to be launched for sale by HA by the end of this year will be as long as three to four years, whether “seamless removal” arrangements will be made for PRH tenants who are affected by redevelopment projects and have acquired a GSH flat concerned, i.e. they will be requested to move out and surrender their PRH flat only when their GSH flat is ready for intake; and
 
(6) whether HA will expeditiously set up a committee which is tasked to study and coordinate the redevelopment of estates, including following up the progress of redevelopment projects, as well as reviewing the redevelopment potential of aged estates other than the 22 estates; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:
 
President,
 
     The consolidated reply to the Hon Kwok Wai-keung’s question is as follows:
      
     The Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) has all along been conducting various technical studies with a view to exploring how to make better use of new and existing housing resources.  The list of 22 aged public rental housing (PRH) estates mentioned in the question originated from a technical review conducted in 2013.  While the review has certain reference value, in considering whether to redevelop individual aged PRH estates, HA will, in a prudent manner, take into account the actual circumstances according to the four basic principles (namely, structural conditions of buildings, cost-effectiveness of repair works, availability of suitable rehousing resources in the vicinity of the estates to be redeveloped and build-back potential upon redevelopment) under HA’s “Refined Policy on Redevelopment of Aged Public Rental Housing Estates” formulated in 2011.
      
     The Long Term Housing Strategy (LTHS) published by the Government in December 2014 has analysed the issue of redevelopment of aged PRH estates.  It has pointed out that while redevelopment may increase PRH supply over the long term, it will, in the short term, reduce PRH stock available for allocation.  This will inevitably add further pressure on HA’s target in maintaining the average waiting time (AWT) at about three years.  The net gain in flat supply from redevelopment will take a long time to realise, very often towards the latter if not the last phase of the redevelopment.  Therefore, redevelopment of aged PRH estates can only play a subsidiary role in increasing PRH supply.  With the persistently strong demand for PRH, a massive redevelopment programme will freeze a large number of PRH units that may otherwise be allocated to households in need, causing an instant adverse effect on the AWT.  Hence, it is not a desirable option.
      
     HA will continue to implement various programmes and measures to maintain and improve the building conditions of the aged PRH estates so as to provide residents with a safe and comfortable living environment.  HA launched the Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme (CSIP) in 2005 to ascertain the structural safety of PRH estates with building age at about 40 or above, and assess the repair works needed for sustaining such estates for at least 15 years and their cost-effectiveness.  The 22 non-divested aged PRH estates were among the 42 PRH estates under the first cycle of CSIP completed in 2018.  The investigation results reveal that these estates are structurally safe and the required repair works are cost-effective.  HA will, once every 15 years, investigate again the structural conditions of PRH estates that have undergone structural investigation and been decided to be retained so as to ensure that the buildings are structurally safe and financially sustainable.
      
     There are many factors affecting the maintenance expenditure of PRH estates, including building age, design, structural condition, location, maintenance status, etc., hence it is not appropriate to make direct comparison on the expenditure solely among individual PRH estates or based on the building age.  The total expenditure for maintenance and improvement works in the past five years (i.e. 2013/14 to 2017/18) for all HA’s PRH properties was about $15.3 billion, of which $1.75 billion was for the 22 PRH estates mentioned in the question. 
      
     As regards the rehousing of the households affected by redevelopment/ estate clearance, in the past five years (i.e. 2013/14 to 2017/18), HA rehoused a total of 912 households affected by completed clearance projects, of which 904 households accepted allocation at PRH units, two households opted for cash allowance in lieu of rehousing, three households moved out from their units voluntarily, three households were not eligible for rehousing since they breached the tenancy agreements and had their tenancies terminated and PRH units recovered.  As regards the on-going redevelopment/ estate clearance projects (including Blocks 9, 10, 11 and 13 of Pak Tin Estate and Mei Tung House and Mei Po House of Mei Tung Estate), there are 2 914 households needed to be rehoused.
      
     In general, HA announces the redevelopment project officially three years prior to the commencement of the clearance operation.  Rehousing of households affected by the clearance of estate will commence 30 months before the final evacuation.  Before the target clearance date, affected households will have opportunities to participate in the sale exercises of subsidised sale flats (SSFs) (including Home Ownership Scheme and Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme) with green form and priority in flat selection.  All eligible households will be allocated PRH units if they have not accepted other rehousing arrangements, including the purchase of SSF before the final relocation deadline.  The HA believe that the above arrangements have allowed the households sufficient time to arrange for relocation.
      
     In addition, if the occupation date of a pre-sold SSF is later than the final relocation deadline of the project, the affected households will be required to move out of their PRH units and arrange accommodation on their own.  HA will grant Domestic Removal Allowance to these households.  The HA trust that the above arrangement is appropriate. read more