The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), the Civil Aviation Department of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (CAD) and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Macao Special Administrative Region (AACM) today (May 23) signed a Co-operative Arrangement on Operational Evaluation of C919 Aircraft and a Memorandum of Understanding on Closer Co-operation on Type Certification (MoU) in Hong Kong.

     Witnessed by the Deputy Administrator of the CAAC, Mr Li Jian, and the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Mr Frank Chan Fan, the Arrangement and the MoU were signed by the Director General of the CAAC's Department of Aircraft Airworthiness Certification, Mr Xu Chaoqun; the Director General of the CAAC's Department of Flight Standard, Mr Hu Zhenjiang; the Director-General of the CAD, Mr Simon Li; and the President of the AACM, Mr Chan Weng-hong.

     Under the Arrangement, the CAD and the AACM will send representatives to join the CAAC's evaluation boards and participate in the following four areas of operational evaluation of the C919 aircraft, China's homegrown large passenger plane:

(1) Flight crew qualification specification;
(2) Master minimum equipment list (i.e. all allowable defects of the aircraft and the corresponding procedures to uphold flight safety);
(3) Maintenance requirements; and
(4) Passenger cabin emergency evacuation demonstration.

     As for the MoU, building upon the Co-operation Arrangements on Mutual Acceptance of Certificates of Airworthiness, Approvals of Design Change and Repair Design, and Parts Manufacturer Approvals signed by the three sides in 2009, it fosters further co-operation and enhances efficiency through reducing airlines' repetitive technical evaluations, tests and inspections in relation to certification application and the use of aircraft parts. Through strengthening information exchange and communication, the MoU will also enhance aviation safety and environmental protection.

     Mr Chan said at the ceremony that the development of large civil aviation aircraft is a major decision and strategy of the country. As early as 2004, it had been listed as a significant project in the national long- and medium-term science and technology planning to promote economic, science and technology development in the country. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government is deeply honoured to be invited by the CAAC to participate in this project and sincerely hopes that the three parties will, on the basis of a solid foundation for co-operation, achieve more fruitful results in the future and jointly contribute to the development of the civil aviation industry of the country.

     Mr Li Jian noted that the Arrangement and the MoU are important measures to expand the scope of co-operation and deepen the level of co-operation on the basis of existing achievements. It is hoped that the CAD and the AACM could deepen exchanges with the Mainland, complement each other and develop together by bringing into full play their experience in participating in international exchanges, modern industry management, and adoption and practice of international standards. In the future, Hong Kong and Macao are welcome to continue to participate in the development of national civil aviation, and to promote Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao civil aviation efforts to achieve higher quality development through win-win co-operation, playing a more active role in the development of civil aviation in the country.

     The CAD has extensive expertise and international experience in operational evaluation of aircraft. By participating in the C919 aircraft evaluation group, the CAD can, on the one hand, contribute to the development of the national aviation manufacturing industry. On the other hand, it can have a better understanding of the laws, procedures and standards governing China-made aircraft, so as to prepare for processing applications by airlines in future for the approval of using C919 aircraft in Hong Kong in accordance with the laws and regulations of Hong Kong.

     On the same day, Mr Chan met with Mr Li Jian to exchange views on issues including the progress of the Three-runway System (3RS) at the Hong Kong International Airport and Pearl River Delta airspace. Mr Li Jian said that the CAAC will fully support the 3RS.

The following is issued on behalf of the Independent Review Committee on Hong Kong’s Franchised Bus Service:
 
     The Independent Review Committee on Hong Kong's Franchised Bus Service will hold a hearing to receive oral evidence from nominated representatives of New World First Bus Services Limited and Citybus Limited next Tuesday (May 29) (to be continued on May 30, if necessary) from 10am to 4.30pm (with a break between 1pm and 2.30pm) at the Auditorium of the Central Government Offices, 2 Tim Mei Avenue, Tamar. The Committee's rules of procedure for the receipt of oral evidence and notice to the public attending the hearing to receive oral evidence are available on the Committee's website (www.irc-bus.gov.hk/eng/press.html).
 
     Having received and considered written submissions from various interested parties, and in order to obtain further information, the Committee is in the process of inviting specific interested parties to give oral evidence to the Committee through nominated representatives. The first two hearings were held on May 7 and 8 to receive oral evidence from representatives of the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Transport Department on the policy, regulatory and monitoring requirements pertaining to the safety of franchised bus services. A transcript of that evidence (and a translation in Chinese) is available on the Committee's website (www.irc-bus.gov.hk/eng/transcripts.html).
 
     The Committee wishes to invite family members of the victims and passengers on board the bus involved in the fatal incident on Tai Po Road, and other recent serious incidents involving franchised bus services, to attend the hearing, and invites them to contact the Secretariat in advance of the hearing if they wish to attend. Except for seats reserved for such persons as well as the media and specifically identified interested parties, all available seats in the Auditorium of the Central Government Offices will be open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. A Registration counter will open at 9.30am on May 29 (and May 30, if required).
 
     Enquiries regarding the hearings may be directed to the Secretariat of the Committee at 2867 5324.

     Police today (May 23) appealed to the public for information on a woman who went missing in Ngau Tau Kok.
 
     Cheung Sau-ying, aged 53, went missing after she left her residence in Tak Long Estate yesterday (May 22) morning. Her family made a report to Police on the same day.
 
     She is about 1.5 metres tall, 50 kilograms in weight and of thin build. She has a pointed face with yellow complexion, short straight black and white hair. She was last seen wearing a purple long-sleeved T-shirt, purple shorts with floral pattern, pink slippers and carrying a black shoulder bag.
 
     Anyone who knows the whereabouts of the missing woman or may have seen her is urged to contact the Regional Missing Person Unit of Kowloon East on 3661 0316, 9886 0060 or email to rmpu-ke-2@police.gov.hk, or contact any police station.

  

     Following is a question by the Hon Ip Kin-yuen and a written reply by the Secretary for Education, Mr Kevin Yeung, in the Legislative Council today (May 23):
 
Question:
 
     Regarding the employment of academic staff by three types of institutions, namely universities funded by the University Grants Committee (UGC), departments of self-financing programmes under UGC-funded universities and self-financing post-secondary institutions, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) whether it knows the number and percentage of part-time academic staff among the academic staff employed by each type of the institutions in each of the past five academic years, as well as a breakdown of such number and percentage of part-time academic staff by their duties (i.e. (i) research and teaching, (ii) research duty only and (iii) teaching duty only); set out in a table the aforesaid figures by name of institution and rank of staff;
 
(2) whether it knows a breakdown by employment mode (i.e. temporary contracts, fixed-term contracts of three years or less, long-term employment contracts and employment on tenure) of the number and percentage of academic staff employed by each type of the institutions in each of the past five academic years, as well as a breakdown of the number and percentage of the staff employed under each employment mode by their duties (i.e. (i) research and teaching, (ii) research duty only and (iii) teaching duty only); set out in a table the aforesaid figures by name of institution and rank of staff;
 
(3) whether it knows the respective mechanisms adopted by each type of the institutions under which the academic staff on fixed-term contracts may be promoted to become/converted to staff on long-term employment contracts and employment on tenure, and set out the details by name of institution;
 
(4) whether it knows the respective numbers of academic staff on (i) fixed-term contracts and (ii) long-term employment contracts of each type of the institutions who were promoted to become staff on tenure employment in each of the past five academic years, with a tabulated breakdown by name of institution and rank of staff;
 
(5) whether it knows the number of academic staff of each type of the institutions who departed in each of the past five academic years, with a tabulated breakdown by name of institution and rank of staff;
 
(6) whether it knows if each type of the institutions have established their salary scales for academic staff, as well as the median and average monthly salary of academic staff of each type of the institutions in the past five academic years, with a tabulated breakdown by name of institution and rank of staff;
 
(7) whether it knows, among the academic staff currently employed by each type of the institutions, the median and average monthly salary and fringe benefits of those staff who have served in their respective positions on various ranks (i.e. Chair Professor, Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Principal Lecturer/Instructor, Senior Lecturer/Instructor, Lecturer/Instructor I and Lecturer/Instructor II) for five years or more, with a tabulated breakdown of the figures and information by name of institution and rank of staff;
 
(8) whether it knows, among the academic staff employed by each type of the institutions in the past five academic years, the number and percentage of those for whom the institutions provided quarters or housing allowances, with a tabulated breakdown by name of institution and rank of staff;
 
(9) whether it knows if the academic staff of each type of the institutions may, when they are not offered contract renewal, lodge a complaint through any mechanism other than the internal mechanism of the institution concerned; if they may, of the details; and
 
(10) whether the authorities have issued guidelines to the institutions on the remuneration packages for the academic staff employed by each type of the institutions?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The eight University Grants Committee (UGC)-funded universities (including their self-financing arms) are independent autonomous bodies established pursuant to their respective ordinances and each has a council to serve as the supreme governing body. The respective ordinances and statutes of the universities set out their objectives, functions and governance structure, and provide the universities with the power to carry out their objectives and functions. 
 
     The UGC Notes on Procedures clearly state that UGC-funded universities enjoy autonomy in the development of curricula and academic standards, selection of staff and students, initiation and conduct of research, internal allocation of resources, etc., and they are accountable for their decisions in these matters. The UGC has all along supported and safeguarded academic freedom and institutional autonomy in accordance with the Notes on Procedures, in the context of appropriate financial and public accountability. Appointment, promotion and remuneration of academic staff is a matter within the autonomy of the UGC-funded universities, and the Government and the UGC are not involved. In fact, the Government has deregulated the salary scales of UGC-funded universities in 2003.
 
     Based on their individual circumstances, all UGC-funded universities have their personnel policies and mechanisms for handling the appointment and promotion of academic staff taking into account the merits of the cases and teaching needs, with an appeal mechanism to ensure fairness and impartiality in the conduct of such matter. The mechanism and procedures are clear and also made known to the staff through suitable channels, e.g. publication of internal circulars or the universities' intranets, etc. All universities will review and enhance in a timely manner the relevant arrangements as necessary. Academic staff may convey their views to the universities and relevant committees through different channels.
 
     Similarly, self-financing post-secondary institutions enjoy academic freedom and are highly autonomous in internal management. The Education Bureau does not have a mechanism for collecting information requested in this question regularly, and does not issue guidelines to these institutions on the remuneration packages for their academic staff. Besides, the Committee on Self-financing Post-secondary Education published the "Code of Good Practices on Governance and Quality Assurance" in June 2015 for self-financing institutions' voluntary compliance. The Code contains the following two provisions, among others –
 
"3.1.1 Institutions should have a fair and transparent human resources system which includes policies such as, but not limited to, recruitment and appointment, appraisal, complaint / grievances, promotion and termination, as well as policies and measures to facilitate staff development and to encourage and recognise good performance.
 
3.2.2 Institutions should publish annually information on staffing (including academic staff profiles) and learning and teaching facilities available to support programme delivery and student admission targets."
 
     In view of the question raised by the Hon Ip Kin-yuen, the Education Bureau has invited UGC-funded universities and self-financing post-secondary institutions to respond to the relevant parts of the question. Information provided by those responding institutions is at Annex 1 to Annex 17. It should be noted that the information originates from individual statistical systems of institutions. Since individual systems may adopt different basis for data collection, the figures reported by different institutions are not directly comparable.

     Hong Kong Customs today (May 23) arrested a male proprietor of a gold and jewellery shop suspected of operating a money service without a licence, in contravention of the Anti-money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (AMLO).

     Officers of the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) earlier on patrol discovered a shop in Sha Tin suspected of operating a money service without a licence. 

     Officers today disguised as customers and conducted a test-exchange operation at the gold and jewellery shop inside a shopping arcade, which was found operating money service business without a licence from the Commissioner of Customs and Excise in addition to its gold and jewellery retailing business.

     Investigation is ongoing.

     Under the AMLO, a person who wishes to operate a remittance and/or money changing service is required to apply for a licence from the C&ED. Any person who operates a money service without a valid licence commits an offence. The maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for six months.

     Members of the public may report any suspected unlicensed money service operation to the Customs 24-hour hotline 2545 6182 or crime-reporting email account (crimereport@customs.gov.hk).