Author Archives: hksar gov

     Following is the speech (translated from Chinese) by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mr Matthew Cheung Kin-chung, in presenting the Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 70 in the Legislative Council today (January 30):

President,

     Laid on the table today is the Government Minute (GM) responding to Report No. 70A of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

     When presenting Report No. 70A on November 14, 2018 to the Legislative Council (LegCo), the Chairman of PAC offered comments on two chapters in the Director of Audit’s Report No. 70, namely, “Management of restored landfills” and “Sha Tin Section of Route 8”.

     I sincerely welcome PAC’s Report and am grateful for the time and effort that the Chairman and Members of PAC devoted to investigating these subjects. The Government accepts PAC’s various recommendations and sets out in detail the specific responses of the relevant bureaux/departments in the GM. Today, I would like to highlight the key measures that the Government has taken in the two important policy areas and the progress.

Management of restored landfills

     Regarding “Management of restored landfills”, as pointed out by the Chairman of PAC, there are many site constraints in the 13 closed landfills in Hong Kong. Before we could further develop the sites, various technical difficulties such as ground settlement and continuous generation of landfill gas have to be overcome. Nonetheless, the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) would seriously follow up on the recommendations of PAC with a view to developing the closed landfills for recreational or other suitable afteruse under these constraints.

   In 2016, EPD thoroughly reviewed the monitoring system and promptly implemented numerous improvement measures, including stepping up the frequency of irregular inspections, strengthening the training of EPD’s on-site staff to enhance their technical knowledge and alertness, and arranging the installation of additional monitoring equipment to more closely monitor the operation of the waste facilities, etc. As regards the monitoring of the contractors of restored landfills, EPD accepts the recommendations made by PAC and will take appropriate follow-up action, including expediting the progress of installing advanced equipment at various restored landfill sites with leachate treatment plants, with a view to automating the monitoring work and detecting cases of non-compliance in a more timely manner; continuous supervision of the contractors’ operation on restoration facilities and their compliance with relevant statutory and contractual requirements; and reviewing the feasibility of including non-compliance with the relevant statutory environmental requirements under the demerit point system of the design-build-operate contracts for the restoration and management of closed landfills in future, etc.

    For the Restored Landfill Revitalisation Funding Scheme (the Funding Scheme), EPD is working closely with the two organisations selected under Batch 1 of the Funding Scheme with a view to taking forward the revitalisation projects as soon as possible. EPD will also review Batch 1 of the Funding Scheme to formulate necessary improvement measures to enhance the operation of subsequent batches of the Funding Scheme.

    In response to PAC Chairman’s recommendations on Kwai Chung Park, Jordan Valley Park and Wan Po Road Pet Garden, relevant bureaux and departments have promptly followed up on the recommendations. I would like to briefly update the progress as follows.

Kwai Chung Park

     The Kwai Chung Park (the Park) covers a very large area of over 25 hectares surrounded by slopes on restored landfills, which is unique in Hong Kong and much different from other open space projects. Over the past years, progress was mainly impeded by complicated site conditions, technical constraints and competing priorities for comprehensive development.  While there was no shortfall of open space in Kwai Tsing District as a whole according to the recommendations of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) has spared no effort to press ahead with the planning work for the Park to the extent possible under the prevailing mechanism. To show the Government’s commitment to develop the Park, the Kwai Chung Park project was included in the Five-Year Plan for Sports and Recreation Facilities as announced in the 2017 Policy Address. The Home Affairs Bureau issued the revised Project Definition Statement on May 18, 2018. The Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) has taken immediate action afterwards and submitted the Technical Feasibility Statement to the Development Bureau (DEVB) in November 2018 for approval. LCSD and relevant bureaux and departments will make the best efforts to implement the Kwai Chung Park project to meet the Five-Year Plan.  The aim is to finish the preparatory work such as detailed design and consultation with the Kwai Tsing District Council on the design, etc., and seek funding approval from the LegCo in the legislative year 2020-2021 for commencement of works by end-2021.
 
Jordan Valley Park

    ArchSD has shared its experience in the construction of the Jordan Valley Park with relevant organisations with a view to enhancing the management of works projects at restored landfills in future.

Wan Po Road Pet Garden

     Drawing on the experience of Wan Po Road Pet Garden project, if the Home Affairs Department is to take up in future any works project in restored landfills, it will implement appropriate measures to address the potential risk of unusual ground settlement at the sites.

Sha Tin Section of Route 8

     Regarding “Sha Tin Section of Route 8”, Works departments have all along carried out monitoring and management of consultants’ performance in strict compliance with the relevant government circulars and handbooks including the Engineering and Associated Consultants Selection Board Handbook and the Architectural and Associated Consultants Selection Board Handbook.  Works departments will continue to regularly evaluate the consultants’ performance and report to the bureaux in accordance with the relevant requirements. If the performance of a consultant is found to be unsatisfactory, the Government will take appropriate regulatory action including suspension from tendering for consultancy agreements for public works projects. The Government will also review the relevant circulars and handbooks in a timely manner to facilitate effective administration, and continue to discharge its duties, ensuring that the professional services provided by the consultants are up to the standards.

     As regards the Sha Tin Section of Route 8 works project, there is certainly room for improvement on the part of the Government in the vetting and monitoring of the consultants’ performance. After learning a lesson from this experience, the Government updated the Project Administration Handbook for Civil Engineering Works in August 2018, requiring the consultants of all works departments to consult the works department concerned before issuing official replies to tenderers. At the same time, Highways Department has also updated internal guidelines to improve the process of checking of contract clauses and drawings, in order to increase the accuracy of checking.  Apart from checking the tender documents, works departments have to conduct careful checking and pre-tender cross-checking procedures in the preparation of Bills of Quantities, and to use the Building Information Modelling technology for checking where appropriate.

     We understand that the Audit Commission and PAC have expressed serious concern over contract negotiation process involved in Contract A. Currently, the Government has put in place a comprehensive monitoring mechanism for vetting and approving works departments’ solutions to contractual settlements, including extra-contractual settlements. Even if the Approved Project Estimates are not exceeded in the solutions, works departments are required to follow the prevailing government guidelines/requirements and seek approval from the relevant delegated authorities. Furthermore, works departments should provide copies of approved settlements to the Audit Commission for reference. If the situation warrants, the Audit Commission will conduct audits and, where necessary, report the cases to PAC. DEVB considers that the aforesaid monitoring and reporting mechanism has been working well, and will continue to monitor its operation in order to conduct a review in a timely manner. 

     President, I would like to sincerely thank the Chairman and all Members of PAC again for their efforts and guidance. Relevant bureaux and departments will strictly follow their responses in the GM and implement the improvement measures as soon as possible to ensure the proper use of public funds. 

     Thank you, President. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Dennis Kwok and a written reply by the Secretary for Justice, Ms Teresa Cheng, SC, in the Legislative Council today (January 30): 

Question:

     The Government announced by a notice published in the Gazette on December 29, 2017 that the Chief Executive (CE) had, on the same date, appointed a Principal Government Counsel of the Department of Justice (DoJ) as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (with the following remark in the notice: Acting as Law Officer).  Later on, the Government announced by a notice published in the Gazette on January 11, 2019 that CE had appointed the said person as DPP on June 29, 2018.  Regarding the appointment of DPP, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the criteria and procedure for the selection of DPP by DoJ;

(2) as the aforesaid person was officially promoted to DPP on June 29, 2018, of the reasons why not until more than half a year later (i.e. January 11, 2019) did the Government publish the appointment concerned in the Gazette; and

(3) of the respective durations of the acting appointments (if any) in respect of the successive DPPs since July 1, 1997?

Reply:

President,

     In consultation with the Civil Service Bureau (CSB), the consolidated reply is set out as follows:

(1) The selection criteria for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) included professional competence, integrity, knowledge and experience in criminal law and prosecution work, judgement, leadership, communication skills and vision, etc.  Following the established appointment procedures for civil servants, the selection procedures comprised setting up a selection board and formulating the selection criteria, etc.  Moreover, the Public Service Commission (PSC) was consulted on the recommendations put forward by the selection board as required.

(2) Mr David Leung, SC, was appointed as DPP after the conduct of a promotion-cum-open recruitment exercise in late 2017.  The appointment was announced and gazetted on December 29, 2017, and Mr Leung commenced acting as DPP for six months from the same date.  Following the completion of the acting period and relevant administrative procedures on appointments in the civil service, the CSB approved in late December 2018 Mr Leung’s promotion to Law Officer (Directorate (Legal) Pay Scale 6) with effect from June 29, 2018 (i.e. completing an acting period of six months).  The arrangement was subsequently gazetted on January 11, 2019.

(3) Officers recommended for promotion to Head of Department (HoD) ranks through internal promotion are normally required to go through an acting process before substantive promotion, so as to ensure that they are fully competent of discharging the duties and responsibilities at HoD level.  Recommendations on promotion to HoD ranks including acting arrangements are made by promotion boards having regard to all relevant factors and approved by the CSB as the appointment authority taking into account the advice tendered by the PSC.

     Apart from promotion, open recruitment exercises were also conducted concurrently in the past to identify suitable candidates for the post of DPP.  Where a person is recommended through an open recruitment exercise, acting arrangement does not apply.

     Since July 1, 1997, a total of three DPPs, namely Mr Ian Charles McWalters, SC, Mr Kevin Paul Zervos, SC, and Mr David Leung, SC, were substantively promoted after acting for three or six months.  Besides, Mr Grenville Cross, SC, was directly and substantively promoted when succeeding as DPP in October 1997.  Moreover, Mr Keith Yeung, SC, was appointed as DPP in September 2013 after an open recruitment exercise, in which case the acting arrangement did not apply.

     As recruitment and promotion involve different arrangements and procedures, it is inappropriate to compare the respective durations of the acting appointments in respect of the DPPs. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Andrew Wan and a written reply by the Secretary for Home Affairs, Mr Lau Kong-wah, in the Legislative Council today (January 30):
 
Question:
 
      The period for the public consultation conducted by the Property Management Services Authority on proposals regarding the licensing regime for property management companies and property management practitioners under the Property Management Services Ordinance (Cap. 626) ended on the 18th of this month. Regarding the licensing regime, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as it is provided in section 7(5) and (8) of Cap. 626 that where a property contains 1 500 or more than 1 500 flats as defined by section 2 of the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344), and the property is managed by an owners’ organisation of the property on its own (i.e. without engaging any property management company or property management practitioner), the owners’ organisation concerned is required to obtain a licence under Cap. 626, whether the Government knows the current number of this type of properties, with a breakdown by type of owners’ organisations (i.e. owners’ corporations (OCs), owners’ committees and other forms of organisations) managing the property;

(2) whether those contractors currently providing cleansing and horticultural services for properties will be required to obtain a licence upon implementation of the licensing regime;

(3) whether it will, by making reference to the Contractors’ Performance Rating scheme for registered lift and escalator contractors implemented by the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, introduce a similar performance rating scheme for licensed property management companies/practitioners; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) whether it will consult the property management services sector, OCs and the Panel on Home Affairs of this Council on the proposed subsidiary legislation on the licencing regime before commencing the relevant legislative procedure?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
      The Property Management Services Ordinance (Cap. 626) (PMSO) was enacted by the Legislative Council (LegCo) on May 26, 2016. It aims to establish the Property Management Services Authority (PMSA), which regulates and controls the provision of property management services by licensing property management companies (PMCs) and property management practitioners (PMPs) and sets the professional requirements respectively for PMCs and PMPs, with a view to enhancing the professionalism and service quality. According to section 6 of the PMSO, no person may, without a PMC licence, act as a PMC, and no person may, without a PMP licence, act as a PMP.
 
      According to the PMSO, the PMSA is responsible for the implementation of the licensing regime. In this regard, the PMSA conducted in November 2018 a two-month public consultation to collect public views on the proposed licensing regime.
 
      With regard to the four parts of Hon Wan’s question, my reply is as follows:

(1) The PMSO aims to regulate companies providing property management services, and the practitioners assuming a managerial or supervisory role in such companies in relation to the property management services provided by the companies. Performing the duties under the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344) (BMO) and the Codes of Practices under the BMO, etc. by owners’ corporations (OCs) does not equate to carrying on the business of providing property management services. Therefore, OCs (and the management committees of the OCs) are not PMCs, and the members of the management committees are not PMPs. They are not the target of regulation of the PMSO and are not required to be licensed. 

     As regards owners’ organisations, the only exception is “self-managed” properties which contain 1 500 or more flats (i.e. the owners’ organisations of the properties have not engaged any licensed PMCs and are providing property management services on their own). These owners’ organisations will not be exempted (i.e. section 7(8) of the PMSO). Such arrangement is to respond to the concern raised by some members of the Bills Committee during the scrutiny of the PMSO, i.e. the management standard of the “self-managed” properties may not be satisfactory if the number of flats in such properties is very large, and there would be a need for certain level of regulation. On the basis of the preliminary understanding of the Home Affairs Department, there may only be very few such cases in Hong Kong.

(2) Pursuant to section 3 of the PMSO, the PMSA may, by regulation, prescribe a service falling within a category of services set out in Schedule 1 to the PMSO as a “property management service”. Whether an individual company is required to apply for a licence after the implementation of the licensing regime depends to a large extent on the specific definition and coverage of “property management service” under the subsidiary legislation for the licensing regime to be formulated by the PMSA.
 
      According to section 7(2) of the PMSO, if a company carries on the business of providing “property management service”, and such service falls neither within more than one category of services nor one type of services under a category of services, then such company will not be subject to the licensing regime. The practitioners providing the relevant service(s) in such company will also not be subject to the licensing regime. Moreover, practitioners in a company which carries on the business of providing more than one category of services (i.e. a PMC which is required to be licensed) will not be subject to the licensing regime, unless they assume a managerial or supervisory role in relation to the “property management services” provided by such company.
 
      The PMSA conducted a public consultation early on regarding the details of the licensing regime (including how, pursuant to section 3 of the PMSO, to prescribe a service as a “property management service” that should be regulated). Among the different views collected during the consultation period, some opined that companies and practitioners providing cleaning and gardening services, etc. to a property at the same time should not be subject to the licensing regime, and, following the above, the PMSA should not put cleaning service and gardening service under two different categories of “property management services” or as two different types of services under the same category when prescribing “property management services”.
 
      The PMSA will take the relevant views and the actual circumstances of the industry operation into account when prescribing “property management services”, with a view to balancing the development and regulatory needs of the industry.
 
(3) The PMSO provides for a single-tier licensing regime for PMCs and a two-tier licensing regime for PMPs. In order to ensure the quality of property management services, both PMCs and PMPs have to fulfil a set of criteria before they are granted a licence.
 
      The licensing criteria of a PMC include the minimum number of directors and employees holding PMP licences and whether the company is suitable for holding a PMC licence (e.g. whether the company is in liquidation or subject to a winding-up order, whether there are past conviction records of relevant offences, the suitability of its directors, etc.).
 
      As regards PMPs, the licensing criteria include academic qualifications, professional qualifications, years of working experience and the suitability of the person in holding a PMP licence (e.g. whether the individual is a mentally disordered person, whether there are conviction records for relevant offences, etc.). The professional requirements to be complied by a licensed PMP (Tier 1) are more stringent than those by a licensed PMP (Tier 2). The former may describe himself/herself as a “registered professional property manager” whereas the latter a “licensed property management officer”. Such a two-tier licensing regime encourages PMPs to pursue professional development in order to move to a higher tier, while continues to allow those with a lower level of qualifications to have access to the job market.
 
      The PMSO empowers the PMSA to monitor the performance of licensed PMCs/PMPs through different means, including investigating complaints involving disciplinary offences, and conducting disciplinary actions against PMCs/PMPs which/who are in breach of the requirements under the PMSO and/or the codes of conduct drawn up by the PMSA, such as revocation or suspension of licences and other sanctions such as reprimands, warnings, fines, etc. In addition, to ensure consumers are fully informed in selecting PMCs, licensed PMCs are required to provide the PMSA with certain essential information (e.g. the property management portfolio, the number of licensed PMPs employed, etc.) so that the PMSA can upload the information to its website for public inspection.

      As to whether the PMSA will introduce other administrative measures, such as the introduction of a performance rating system for licensed PMCs and/or PMPs, we have relayed such views to the PMSA for its consideration. We will urge the PMSA to take full consideration of such views when formulating the implementation details of the licensing regime.
 
(4) The PMSA is studying in detail the views collected during the public consultation with a view to refining the licensing regime, such that the regime can balance the development and regulatory needs of the industry. We will closely monitor the process of drafting the subsidiary legislation and implementation details by the PMSA. Together with the PMSA, we will fully communicate with stakeholders (i.e. the property management industry, OCs, LegCo, etc.) to explain and clarify the specific details so as to eliminate any misunderstanding. We look forward to the early implementation of the licensing regime so as to regulate the provision of property management services and enhance professionalism and service quality. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Claudia Mo and a written reply by the Secretary for Home Affairs, Mr Lau Kong-wah, in the Legislative Council today (January 30):

Question:
       
     Some media workers have relayed that in recent years, the Government’s approach for disseminating press information and arranging media coverage, and even the performance of government officials in responding to the public, have all fallen short of public expectations and have time and again aroused criticisms, causing a far-reaching impact on the freedom of the press as the “fourth estate”. The examples given by them include that: (a) the Government did not invite the media to report the handover of the Mainland Port Area of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link on September 3 last year, (b) the Government, on several occasions, did not release until late at night the coupler inspection results obtained after opening up the platform slabs and diaphragm walls of the Hung Hom Station Extension under the Shatin to Central Link project, and (c) the Secretary for Justice displayed a poor attitude when responding to media enquiries about the case concerning the allegations of corruption and misconduct in public office against the Chief Executive of the last term. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the current policies on and strategies for disseminating press information, liaising with the media, gauging public sentiments and measuring the pulse of society;
 
(2) of the specific measures in place to improve the immediacy of disseminating press information, media coverage arrangements, and the attitude of government officials in responding to the public; and
 
(3) whether it will, on an annual basis, conduct reviews of and make improvements to the Government’s work on public relations and dissemination of press information, and submit the relevant reports to this Council, so as to manifest an open and transparent style of governance; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     In its pursuit of “people-based” governance, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government formulates various policy initiatives that are aimed to be known, understood, supported and monitored by the public. We therefore attach great importance to information dissemination strategies and their implementation.
 
     The reply to Hon Claudia Mo’s question is as follows:
 
(1) The Government has all along been adopting a proactive and positive approach and adhering to the principles of openness and transparency. Policy bureaux and departments are required to disseminate information promptly when announcing major policies and measures.  Appreciating the importance of allowing the media to have thorough understanding of government policies and measures, the Government actively arranges for the convenient and effective dissemination of information.
 
     In this regard, the Government disseminates information to the public through a variety of channels via the media, which include the issue of press releases, photos and videos; handling enquiries from the media and the public; organising media interviews; arranging government officials to attend radio and television public affairs programmes; and offering live broadcast of press conferences and briefings on government website and establishing a webcast archive for public access, etc.
 
     The Information Services Department (ISD), together with the press officers at bureaux and departments, will pay close attention to feedback as reflected by the media so that officers responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies and measures can learn about the public opinions on their work as soon as possible.
 
(2) The Government attaches great importance to media feedback on our work of information dissemination. As the Chief Executive earlier pointed out in public, there was room for improvement in the dissemination of information of certain recent individual cases. The Chief Executive has instructed all bureaux and departments to be more proactive in facilitating the media in covering the announcement of major issues.
 
     The Chief Executive had pointed out that in realising its pledge to accord importance to media work, the Government has to provide facilitation. To this end, the current-term Government has enhanced measures to assist the work of the media, including the admission of online media to government events and allowing more time for the media to raise questions by extending press conference durations. In addition, the ISD will continue to make use of the internet in disseminating government information. Through releasing government news on multi-media platforms under “news.gov.hk”, the public can access the website via mobile phones and other mobile devices. The “news.gov.hk” website fully utilises social media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Sina Weibo and WeChat, etc., in disseminating updated information, features, photos and videos to all sectors of the community.   
(3) The Government disseminates information to the public through the media and has maintained close and frequent contact with members of the media. The Government exchanges with professional news organisations from time to time to listen to their views on the overall public relations and information dissemination work of the Government. As for individual dissemination arrangements, members of the media will reflect their views to relevant bureaux and departments immediately. The Government will continue to strive to enhance the accuracy, transparency and timeliness of information dissemination under public and media scrutiny. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Leung Yiu-chung and a written reply by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Dr Law Chi-kwong, in the Legislative Council today (January 30):
 
Question:
 
     Under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282), if injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his/her employment (injury at work), his/her employer shall pay the medical expenses for the medical treatment in respect of such injury, subject to a ceiling of $300 per day (where an employee is given medical treatment as an in-patient in a hospital or where an employee is given medical treatment other than as an in-patient in a hospital) or $370 per day (where an employee is given medical treatment on the same day both as an in-patient in a hospital and other than as an in-patient in a hospital). Some employees have relayed that as the charges for private medical services are generally higher than such ceilings, employees injured at work usually choose to receive public medical services. However, due to the long waiting time for public medical services (especially for specialist outpatient and rehabilitation treatment services), the injured employees may miss the prime time for receiving treatment and cannot return to work as early as possible. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the number of cases in which employees were temporarily incapacitated by work injuries for three months or longer and, among such cases, the number of those in which the employees were hospitalised for one month or less, in each of the past five years;
 
(2) of the measures put in place to expedite the recovery of employees injured at work, and the details of such measures; whether it will allocate additional resources to the Labour Department (LD), so that LD’s Occupational Health Clinics can provide employees injured at work with medical treatment and occupational health counselling more comprehensively; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(3) whether it will (i) subsidise community groups to establish rehabilitation centres for employees injured at work, and (ii) set up a rehabilitation fund for work injuries and occupational diseases to be administered by LD, with a view to enabling employees injured at work and those suffering from occupational diseases to expeditiously receive the medical treatment and rehabilitation services they need; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
 
(4) as the Chief Executive mentioned in last year’s Policy Address that the Government was studying the provision of timely treatment and rehabilitation services for injured employees in need through private medical services, of the progress of the study, as well as the specific direction of the proposed measures and the implementation timetable?
 
Reply：
 
President,
 
     My reply to the question raised by the Member is as follows:
 
(1) From 2014 to 2018, the number of compensation claims settled in each year involving temporary incapacity of employees for more than three days as a result of work injuries (including compensation claims reported to the Labour Department (LD) under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (ECO) in or before the respective settlement year) with a breakdown by the number of working days lost is provided below:
 

Number of working days lost	Number of settled compensation claims
	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Below 90 days	28 107	27 824	26 686	25 251	25 909
90 days or above	6 746	7 034	7 110	6 840	7 218
Total	34 853	34 858	33 796	32 091	33 127

 
     If the work injury sick leave of an employee does not exceed three days and no permanent incapacity is involved, the employer should make direct payment of compensation to the employee in accordance with ECO. LD does not keep statistics on the number of working days lost for this type of cases. Moreover, LD does not keep statistics on compensation claims with a breakdown by the hospitalisation condition of the employees.
 
(2) to (4) LD recognises that rehabilitation services are very important to facilitate the recovery and early return to work of employees injured at work.
 
     At present, for employees who sustain work injuries or suffer from occupational diseases prescribed by ECO, hospitals and clinics under the Hospital Authority (HA) provide integrated treatment and rehabilitation services which include, among other things, specialist treatment, physiotherapy and occupational therapy.
 
     The Occupational Health Clinics of LD provide medical treatment and occupational health counselling to employees who have sustained injuries at work or contracted occupational diseases. Besides, subject to the patients’ clinical conditions and needs, the occupational health doctors in the clinics will refer the patients to hospitals and clinics under HA for rehabilitation treatment to facilitate their early recovery from the injury. Depending on the patients’ rehabilitation progress, the occupational health doctors will also give advice to the patients on resumption of work and provide recommendations to the employers on relevant work adjustments as necessary to facilitate the patients’ gradual return to work.
 
     In addition, the insurance industry has launched the Voluntary Rehabilitation Programme (VRP) since March in 2003 to provide injured employees with an additional channel to receive free rehabilitation services in the private sector through the insurers’ arrangements to facilitate their speedy recovery and early return to work under safe circumstances. Under VRP, the participating insurers identify appropriate cases, initiate contacts with the injured employees and invite them to participate in the programme on a voluntary basis. Injured employees can decide on their own whether to accept the insurers’ invitation or not and participation in VRP will not affect their rights and benefits under ECO.
 
     The Government understands that injured employees using public medical services, like other members of the public, are facing a relatively long waiting time for certain specialty services, thus preventing them from receiving early treatment and rehabilitation for their injury. Furthermore, the public healthcare system may not be able to provide sufficiently coordinated treatment and rehabilitation services geared towards helping the injured employees to return to work early. In light of this, LD is actively looking into a feasible way forward, with a view to providing timely and coordinated treatment and rehabilitation services to injured employees in need as well as speeding up and enhancing the effectiveness of rehabilitation, thus facilitating their early recovery and return to work.
 
     The scope of LD’s study includes the design and operation of a feasible scheme, content of the services, the necessary expenditure and financial arrangements, the legislative work that may be required, etc. Preliminary ideas include pairing an independent case manager with each participating injured employee to follow up on the case, coordinate the communication amongst relevant stakeholders (including medical professionals, injured employees, insurance companies and employers) and assist the injured workers to return to work. Engaging the private sector in the provision of relevant medical and rehabilitation services is also being considered. The purpose is to provide timely and highly-coordinated treatment and rehabilitation services for injured employees. LD will complete the study and come up with recommendations as soon as possible. The views of different stakeholders will be sought in the process. read more