Following is a question by the Hon Wu Chi-wai and a written reply by the Secretary for Development, Mr Michael Wong, in the Legislative Council today (March 27): Question: It is learnt that … read more
Following is a question by the Hon Hui Chi-fung and a written reply by the Secretary for Development, Mr Michael Wong, in the Legislative Council today (March 27):
Question:
The Government plans to relocate the Hongkong Post’s Headquarters, which is currently housed in the General Post Office Building in Central (GPO Building) situated in Site 3 of the new Central harbourfront, to a postal complex to be built in Kowloon Bay. The vacated GPO Building will be demolished to allow Site 3 to be used for commercial development. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the timetable for the demolition works of the GPO Building;
(2) of the planned timing for including Site 3 in the Land Sale Programme;
(3) as some community groups have requested that the GPO Building be preserved in-situ in view of its conservation value, whether the Government has invited the Antiquities Advisory Board to conduct a historical building grading exercise for the building; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(4) given that Docomomo International, an international conservation body, included the GPO Building in the list of “Heritage in Danger” in 2015, and wrote to the Chief Executive in 2018 urging the Government to preserve the building, whether the Government has made a response; and
(5) whether it will consider afresh preserving in-situ and revitalising the GPO Building?
Reply:
President,
The General Post Office Building (GPO Building) is at the south-western corner of Site 3 of the new Central harbourfront. The design concept of Site 3 was formulated under the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront (UDS) completed in 2011 following two stages of public engagement (PE) exercises. The relevant urban design requirements were subsequently incorporated into the planning brief for the site endorsed by the Town Planning Board (TPB) in December 2016 after counsultation with the Central and Western District Council (DC) and the Harbourfront Commission. When taking forward the development of Site 3 in future, the developer should deliver and comply with the requirements laid down in the planning brief.
According to the design concept recommended by the UDS and the requirements of the planning brief, implementing the development of Site 3 requires demolition of the GPO building. The development of the site will not only provide additional supply of Grade A office in the Central Business District, its prime harbourfront location will also be conducive to providing quality public open space for public enjoyment. The design for the site has to incorporate a low-density commerical development with building height significantly lower than surrounding office blocks; a quality and green public open space occupying more than half of the site area (i.e. at least 2.5 hectares); and a continuous landscaped deck, stretching across the site in a north-south direction and bringing people from the hinterland of Central to the new harbourfront, which will enhance the accessibility of the new Central harbourfront.
My reply to Hon Hui Chi-fung’s question is as follows:
(1) The GPO Building will be demolished by the developer of Site 3 upon completion of the following two reprovisioning works:
(a) reprovisioning of the Hongkong Post Headquarters to a government site near the Central Mail Centre in Kowloon Bay. The Finance Committee (FC) of the Legislative Council (LegCo) approved the related funding in October 2018 and the new building is expected to commence operation in 2023; and
(b) reprovisioning the district-tied postal facilities (viz. GPO Delivery Office, Speedpost Section, GPO Post Office Counters and Post Office Box Section) in the part of Site 3 to the north of Lung Wo Road. The facilities will be holistically designed and constructed by the developer in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Government.
(2) Site 3 has yet been included in the 2019-20 Land Sale Programme. As similar to other commercial sites disposed of by the Government, the Government will make necessary announcement in the annual and quarterly land sale programmes following the established practice.
(3), (4) and (5) A concern group requested the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) to carry out grading assessment on the GPO Building in October 2018. In December 2018, the AAB, on the basis of its decision in September 2013 (i.e. grading assessment on buildings built in 1970 or later would not be carried out for the time being), decided not to carry out grading assessment on the GPO Building, which commenced operation in 1976.
As mentioned above, the UDS recommendations are made after extensive PE exercises. Different public and advisory bodies, including the LegCo Panel on Home Affairs and Panel on Development, AAB, former Harbour-front Enhancement Committee, TPB and the 18 DCs, had been consulted during the process. It is worth mentioning that respecting cultural heritage was one of the urban design themes in Stage 2 PE of the UDS. To this end, the relevant consultation digest had listed a range of cultural heritage sites in Central, and the GPO Building was not amongst such sites. Retaining the GPO Building will contravene the design concept of Site 3 and requirements stipulated in the planning brief, undermining the overall development potential of Site 3 and preventing the vision of creating a more attractive, vibrant and accessible new Central harbourfront from being brought into fruition.
As we have responded at the meetings of the LegCo Public Works Subcommittee and FC, the Government will continue to take forward the development of Site 3 according to the original design concept and the planning brief of the site. read more
​Hong Kong Customs seized about 2 kilograms of suspected cannabis buds with an estimated market value of about $510,000 at Hong Kong International Airport on March 18.
Customs officers inspected a parcel arriving in Hong Kong from Canada on March 18 and seized the batch of suspected cannabis buds inside the parcel.
After follow-up investigation, Customs officers yesterday (March 26) arrested a 28-year-old man suspected to be connected to the case in Sheung Shui.
Investigation is ongoing and the arrested man has been released on bail pending further investigation.
Customs will maintain close contact with Hong Kong Post and the logistics industries to step up action against drug trafficking through postal parcel or express courier channels.
Under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence. The maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine of $5 million and life imprisonment.
Customs also issued a reminder that cannabis and tetrahydro-cannabinol (THC) are classified as dangerous drugs under the Ordinance. Importation of products (including food and drinks) containing cannabis or THC into Hong Kong is prohibited unless the relevant provisions in the Ordinance are complied with. In order to avoid breaching the law inadvertently, special attention should be paid to the packaging labels of food and drinks.
Members of the public may report any suspected drug trafficking activities to Customs’ 24-hour hotline 2545 6182 or its dedicated crime-reporting email account (crimereport@customs.gov.hk).
Following is a question by the Hon Lau Kwok-fan and a written reply by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mr Edward Yau, in the Legislative Council today (March 27):
Question:
It has been reported that the Hongkong Post (HKP) has recently implemented a new measure: when postmen make door delivery of mail items requiring signature by recipients (such as registered, Speedpost and Local CourierPost letters/packets), or when post office counter staff deliver mail items requiring signature to persons holding mail delivery notification cards, they are no longer required to request the recipients of these mail items to produce identity documents for identity verification. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether HKP had consulted the public before implementing the new measure; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) whether HKP has so far received any complaint lodged by members of the public concerning the new measure; if so, of the details;
(3) as some members of the public have pointed out that mail items requiring signature, the charges for which are higher than those for surface mail items, originally have an important advantage of ensuring that the recipients are either the designated recipients of mail items or persons whose identities are traceable, whether HKP has assessed if the new measure has rendered mail items requiring signature losing this advantage and thus made such items no different from surface mail items; if HKP has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the remedial measures; if the assessment outcome is in the negative, the justifications for that; and
(4) as some members of the public have pointed out that people post mail items requiring signature for the purpose of preventing recipients, after receiving such mail items, from denying receipt of them, but under the new measure, when the designated recipients of mail items requiring signature claim that they have never received the items, HKP can hardly verify such claims as there is no way to confirm the identities of the recipients of the items, thus defeating the purpose of posting such items, whether HKP has any solution?
Reply:
President,
With regard to the question raised by the Hon Lau Kwok-fan, our reply is as follows:
It is the established principle of various postal administrations and courier sector that mail items are delivered according to the address (i.e. delivery to the address) but not to the designated addressee as given on the mail item (i.e. delivery to the addressee). This is also the practice adopted by Hongkong Post. Under this principle, mail delivery is mainly classified into two categories, namely, “signature for the receipt not required” and “signature for the receipt required”.
For a mail item where signature for the receipt is not required, delivery is deemed successful when such an item is delivered to the address (such as in the case of putting the mail item into the letter box of its corresponding address). For a mail item where signature for the receipt is required (including registered mail, Speedpost item, parcel and Local CourierPost item, etc.), delivery is deemed successful only when such an item is delivered to the address and signature for the receipt is obtained from the recipient who does not necessarily have to be the addressee.
In the past, for a mail item where signature for the receipt was required, Hongkong Post would require the person who received the item at the address at the time of delivery to produce his/her identification document if it could not be ascertained whether such person was entitled to receiving it. The name of the recipient and the first four alphanumeric characters of his/her identification document would be recorded. In case of unsuccessful door delivery (such as no one was present to receive the item), a notification card would be left at the address concerned or in its letter box, notifying the addressee to collect the item from a designated post office. At the time of collection, the card holder would be required to produce his/her identification document, so as to prove that he/she is the addressee of the mail item. If the card holder was not the addressee of the item, he/she would be required to produce a copy of the identification document of the addressee and the original identification document of his/her own. If the identification document of the addressee or the card holder did not show the name as given on the mail item, he/she would be required to provide supporting documents to show that the addressee was living with the card holder or to prove their relationship (such as certificate of marriage, residential proof showing that the card holder lived at the delivery address, etc). Staff at the post office would examine the above documents and record the name of the card holder and the first four alphanumeric characters of his/her identification document when the mail item was delivered.
With the rapid development of e-commerce, the number of online purchases delivered through the postal system has been increasing. Some of the online shopping platforms allow online shoppers to post their orders without using their real names. Hongkong Post received quite a number of complaints directly from members of the public or referred by the Office of the Ombudsman, questioning the reason for requiring the person receiving or collecting the mail item to produce his/her identification document or other information, adding that it would be difficult for some of them to produce proof of address (such as housewives and minors who would not be holders of household accounts). It was considered that the above measures had caused great nuisances to the public and failed to keep up with social development.
Hongkong Post conducted a review in this connection, and considered that its past practice had deviated from the principle of “delivery to the address” and would be easily mistaken that mail delivery service was based on a principle of “delivery to the addressee”. The past experience also showed that information about the names and the first four alphanumeric characters of the identification documents of the recipients collected at time of delivering the mail item did not help much in tracking down the missing mail items. As such, Hongkong Post has since March 4 made the following adjustments to the delivery arrangement for mail items where signature for the receipt is required:
(a) if someone is present at the delivery address, he/she is allowed to receive the mail item and sign to acknowledge its receipt, without the need to produce his/her identification document or his/her information be recorded; and
(b) if no one is present at the delivery address to receive the mail item, the postman will leave a notification card at the address or in its letter box. At the time of collecting the item and signing to acknowledge its receipt, the card holder will not be required to produce his/her identification document, or proof showing that he/she is living with the addressee or his/her relationship with the addressee. The post office will file the notification card and the process will be taped by the closed-circuit television at the counter as in the normal circumstances.
The new delivery arrangement above has been operating smoothly since its implementation.
According to Hongkong Post, there are enquiries and complaints concerning the new delivery arrangements (a total of 15 as at March 13). The main concern is whether it is safe to deliver mail items which require signature for the receipt without checking the identification documents (e.g., a person would be able to collect another’s mail item if the notification card is stolen), and that it would be difficult to track an item in the event of a dispute over its delivery.
Hongkong Post understands the worries of individual members of the public and notes that letter boxes of tenement buildings in some old districts and the rural areas are less secure. Starting from March 20, Hongkong Post has fine-tuned the new arrangements. When door delivery of a mail item which requires signature for the receipt is unsuccessful and a notification card is to be issued, the card holder when making collection from the designated post office will be required to produce his/her identification document and his/her name will be recorded before signing to acknowledge its receipt.
Hongkong Post will continue to monitor the operation of the new arrangements, and from time to time assess the impact of the arrangements and adjust the operational details taking into account the factors of social changes, public needs and mail security. Hongkong Post will also continue to promote the correct way of writing addresses; remind senders to provide return addresses and affix sufficient postage, and the need for households or commercial tenants to install secure and proper letterboxes etc., in order to facilitate safe and smooth delivery of mails. read more
Following is a question by the Hon Claudia Mo and a written reply by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mr Edward Yau, in the Legislative Council today (March 27):
Question:
At present, Hong Kong is the world’s third largest fur clothing exporter, and one of the world’s major sources of fur garments and accessories. Some animal welfare concern groups are concerned that Hong Kong’s fur industry is contributing to the inhumane killing of some one billion rabbits and 50 million other animals in fur farms and in the wild each year for the worldwide fur trade. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the Mainland is Hong Kong’s largest export market of furskins (of which a large proportion are re-exports from overseas countries for fur clothing production on the Mainland) and some concern groups are worried about Mainland’s ineffective regulation of her fur industry, whether the Government will consider discussing with the Mainland authorities the removal of leather and furskin articles from the list of tariff-free types of products under phase three of the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, as Hong Kong’s first step towards a ban on fur trade; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) as it is learnt that there is currently little or no regulation of fur trade on the Mainland, which is the world’s largest fur importer, whether the Government will consider banning fur trade with the Mainland until her fur trade regulations have been tightened to a level on a par with those of the European Union; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) as there is now an international trend of tightened regulation of or imposition of a ban on fur trade and fur farming (e.g. San Francisco has banned fur trade and Japan has phased out fur farming), and many international fashion brands have implemented fur-free policies for fashion design, whether the Government will consider introducing a ban on the import, export and re-export of fur products; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply
President,
Hong Kong is a free port. We pursue a free trade policy and do not maintain barriers on trade. No tariff is charged on import or export of goods. Nonetheless, certain goods are subject to import/export control in Hong Kong under certain specified circumstances, for example, to fulfill obligations undertaken by Hong Kong to trading partners or international conventions, or out of public health, safety or internal security considerations, etc. Examples of goods that are subject to import/export control are live food poultry, game and prohibited meat, endangered animals and plants species, Chinese herbal medicines and proprietary Chinese medicines, plants, plant pests and soil, as well as controlled chemicals, etc. Also, the United Nations from time to time passes resolutions to impose sanctions on certain countries, and Hong Kong will impose restrictions on concerned trade and other activities according to the sanctions.
In consultation with the Food and Health Bureau (FHB), the Environment Bureau (ENB) and the Trade and Industry Department, our reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
According to ENB, to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was signed by governments of a number of countries in 1973 to regulate the import and export of endangered animals and plants through a licensing system, so as to protect wild animals and plants from being affected by international trade, and to ensure their sustainable use. At present, there are 183 Parties to the Convention, and Hong Kong has implemented the requirements of CITES since 1976. CITES requires that the import, introduction from the sea, export or re-export of the species listed in its three Appendices be subject to licensing control. In accordance with the criteria and requirements of CITES, Hong Kong enacted the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) (the Ordinance) to regulate the import, export and possession of endangered species. For animal species listed under CITES, their international trade including skin and fur trade is regulated under the Ordinance. The import, export, re-export and possession of the concerned endangered species, including their skin and fur, are regulated under a licensing system and the specimens must be inspected by an authorised officer at the time of entering or leaving Hong Kong.
According to FHB’s understanding, there is no animal fur farming in Hong Kong and there is also no internationally harmonised control on the import and export of fur products of non-endangered animals. Currently, the Government has no plan to ban the import and export of the trading of animal fur products by legislative means. Nevertheless, FHB will closely monitor the international trend and the related developments.
As regards the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA), it is a free trade agreement consistent with the provisions of the World Trade Organization. In 2018, exports of furskin products of Hong Kong origin under zero tariff preference of CEPA to the Mainland accounted for only less than 0.01 per cent of the total exports of those products from Hong Kong to the Mainland. read more