Following is a question by the Hon Shiu Ka-fai and a written reply by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mr Edward Yau, in the Legislative Council today (December 5):

Question:

     The Government proposes to establish a statutory Do-not-call Register to enhance the regulation of person-to-person telemarketing calls, and plans to introduce the relevant bill into this Council within the current Legislative Council term. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) whether it has examined if the enactment of the proposed legislation can eradicate (i) telemarketing calls pretended to have come from legitimate financial institutions, and (ii) overseas telemarketing calls; if it has examined and the outcome is in the negative, whether it will review if it is still necessary to enact the legislation;

(2) whether the proposed legislation will require any person or company to obtain the prior consent of each of the persons with whom that person/company has business connections before calling such persons to carry out marketing activities; if so, whether it has assessed if this requirement is practicable;

(3) whether it will stipulate in the proposed legislation that the prior consent of the targets of marketing activities may be obtained through instant messaging applications;

(4) regarding the practice that a person makes calls to new acquaintances, using the contact information on the business cards obtained on social occasions, to introduce products or services to them, whether the Government has plans to bring this practice within the ambit of the proposed legislation;

(5) given that some trades and industries need to contact their clients from time to time (e.g. reminding their clients to renew their service contracts which will expire soon), whether it has assessed if this kind of normal business activities will be impeded after the enactment of the proposed legislation; and

(6) whether it has assessed the changes in Hong Kong's business environment and the daily operation of small and medium enterprises upon the enactment of the proposed legislation; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

President,

     In recent years, person-to-person telemarketing calls (P2P calls) have caused nuisance to many members of the public. There are growing demands on strengthening the regulation of such calls. Based on the views collected in a public consultation conducted by the Government in mid-2017 and further to the discussion at the meeting of the Legislative Council (LegCo) Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting (ITB) on April 9, 2018, we propose to set up a statutory Do-not-call Register to allow phone users who do not wish to receive P2P calls to indicate so by including their phone numbers in the Register. We are working on the content of the framework of the legislative amendments and will consult the relevant LegCo Panel on the legislative proposals.

     Our reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
 
(1) The aim of the proposed statutory Do-not-call Register is to allow phone users who do not wish to receive P2P calls to indicate so by including their phone numbers in the Register.

     Telemarketing calls involving unfair trade practices are regulated by the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362) whereas those involving fraud may violate offences under the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210). The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (Cap. 593) also contains provisions dealing with fraud and other illicit activities related to the transmission of commercial electronic messages. We will make reference to the relevant legislation when drawing up the framework of legislative amendments to ensure that the future regulatory mechanism will be compatible with other legislation.

     Regarding P2P calls from places outside Hong Kong, as we indicated at the meeting of the Panel on ITB in April this year, there may be more difficulties in investigation, evidence gathering and prosecution for cases involving places outside Hong Kong. We will further examine the enforcement details during the stage of formulating the framework of legislative amendments.

(2) to (4) We are mapping out the details of the framework of legislative amendments, including operational details of the proposed Do-not-call Register. Take the existing Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance as an example, regarding the regulation of unsolicited electronic messages, "consent" can be express consent or consent that can reasonably be inferred from the conduct concerned. Reference will be made to the practice of regulating commercial electronic messages under the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance on, for instance, what constitutes consent, how to withdraw consent, etc., so as to ensure that the proposed legislative provisions can strike a balance between public expectations and the practical operational needs of the trades and industries.

(5) Taking the regulation of commercial electronic messages under the existing Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance as a reference, if the concerned person-to-person telemarketing communications do not involve "commercial" marketing purposes (i.e. carrying out matters specified in the Ordinance in the course of or in the furtherance of any business, including offer to supply, advertise or promote goods, services, facilities, land or business opportunity, etc.; and to advertise or promote a supplier of goods, services, facilities, land or a provider of a business opportunity, etc.), or when the persons or organisations making the concerned P2P calls have obtained prior consent of the clients, there should not be violation of the proposed regulatory framework of P2P calls. We therefore consider that our proposal will not affect non-marketing business activities.

     Upon passage of the bill, we will formulate appropriate guidelines and conduct publicity and education activities to ensure that the trades and industries as well as the public understand the legal requirements and could avoid violating the law.

(6) We understand that setting up a Do-not-call Register may increase the operation cost of the trades and industries. However, the call from the public for early introduction of the legislation has been clear, and they consider that the self-regulatory mechanism of P2P is not effective. As such, we will be, as mentioned above, cautious in handling the various definitions and details when we draft the bill and will introduce the bill into LegCo for scrutiny and discussion. We will endeavour to ensure that a balance can be struck between satisfying public expectations and reducing the compliance cost of the trades and industries.

     Following is a question by the Hon Kenneth Leung and a written reply by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mr Edward Yau, in the Legislative Council today (December 5):

Question:

     The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, created by the United States (US) Congress, has alleged in a report published last month that the Central Authorities' encroachment on Hong Kong's autonomy has brought an ongoing decline of the rule of law and freedom of speech. The Commission has also recommended that the Congress direct the Department of Commerce and other relevant government agencies to prepare a report to examine and assess the adequacy of US export control policy for dual-use technology as it relates to the treatment of Hong Kong and China as two customs areas. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it will review if the Government made mistakes in its decisions and in the decision making process regarding the incidents in Hong Kong referred to in the aforesaid report, with a view to providing reference for implementing policies in future, thereby demonstrating to the international community the Government's determination to uphold the core values such as the rule of law and freedom of speech; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether it knows the specific contents of the dual-use technology mentioned in the report and whether it can provide a relevant list; and

(3) whether it has plans to commence lobbying efforts targeting the US authorities and representatives of the various sectors to persuade the US authorities not to tighten the control policy for exporting dual-use technology to Hong Kong; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

President,

     Since the return to the Motherland, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) has been exercising "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy in strict accordance with the Basic Law. The "one country, two systems" principle has been fully and successfully implemented. Through actively making good use of the opportunities in the international arena conferred to the HKSAR by Articles 116 and 151 of the Basic Law, adherence to the relevant laws and systems and international co-operation, we consolidate our status in international trade and economic arena. Hong Kong's unique status and advantages under the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" allow Hong Kong to establish mutually beneficial collaboration relationship with economies around the world at bilateral and multilateral international trade and economic levels, demonstrating the successful implementation of "one country, two systems".

     Through officials' overseas visits and participation in international conferences, the HKSAR Government has been explaining to countries around the world the successful implementation of "one country, two systems" since our return to the Motherland, and promoting Hong Kong's unique status under the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" as well as our own various advantages, and exploring room for mutually beneficial collaboration. For example, I led a delegation to visit Washington DC, the United States (US) this September, during which I met with the US government officials, members of the Congress, think tanks as well as the business community, and explained clearly Hong Kong's unique status under the Basic Law, as well as Hong Kong's important role in helping our global trading partners in developing markets.

     In addition, the three Economic and Trade Offices (ETOs) in the US, together with the other nine overseas ETOs, have been maintaining close liaison with relevant government officials, the political and business community, in order to reflect the actual situation of Hong Kong and to promote the unique status of Hong Kong under "one country, two systems" and our own various advantages.

     The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) mentioned in the question is appointed by the bipartisan leaders of the US Congress and currently does not comprise members of the US Congress. The USCC report published last month is not a report by the Congress or the US Administration. Its contents do not reflect the position of the US Congress or the US Administration but the views of the USCC members who are not members of the Congress.

     In addition to comments on US-China relations, the USCC report published last month also mentions the situation in Hong Kong. In respect of the paragraph on trade control, the Commission points out that Hong Kong is an important partner of the US in ensuring robust protection against unauthorised shipments of controlled US items to the Mainland. Indeed, Hong Kong has always been enforcing import and export trade controls according to the laws of Hong Kong, and such efforts have been recognised and respected by our trading partners. Hong Kong will continue to maintain our robust trade control system in accordance with the law and continue to work closely with the US and other trading partners.

     Hong Kong's trade and economic relationship with the US is mutually beneficial. Since Hong Kong's return to the Motherland, the US has continued to maintain and expand economic and trade ties with Hong Kong based on our unique status. It is in the US and Hong Kong's mutual interest to maintain and promote our bilateral relations. The HKSAR Government will continue to enhance Hong Kong's economic and trade ties with the US.

     Following is a question by the Dr Hon Cheng Chung-tai and a reply by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mr Edward Yau, in the Legislative Council today (December 5):
 
Question:
 
     The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, created by the United States (US) Congress, published a report last month, alleging that Beijing's encroachment on the rule of law and freedom of speech in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has brought an ongoing decline in the territory's rule of law. The Commission therefore called for examining and assessing the adequacy of US export control policy for dual-use technology as it relates to the treatment of Hong Kong and China as two customs areas. In response, the Chief Executive criticised that the report had made unfounded accusations and applied a double standard, and had even put on "tinted glasses" when scrutinising the relationship between Hong Kong and the Central Authorities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) given that the Sino-US trade conflicts persist, whether it has assessed if the Chief Executive's response to the aforesaid report will deepen the suspicions of the US authorities about Hong Kong;
 
(2) whether it will withhold the legislative work for implementing the National Anthem Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 23 of the Basic Law, so as to avoid the US authorities' cessation to treat Hong Kong as a separate customs area from Mainland China on account of Hong Kong having lost its unique characteristics; and
 
(3) whether it has assessed if substantial economic losses will be brought to Hong Kong in the event that the US Congress repeals the Hong Kong Policy Act; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the counter-measures of the Government?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     My reply to the question by the Hon Wu Chi-wai has also responded to most part of the question raised by the Dr Hon Cheng Chung-tai. I am not going to repeat such response in detail here.
 
     In brief, since the return to the Motherland, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) has been exercising "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy in strict accordance with the Basic Law. The "one country, two systems" principle has been fully and successfully implemented. Through actively making good use of the opportunities in the international arena conferred to the HKSAR by Articles 116 and 151 of the Basic Law, adherence to the relevant laws and systems and international co-operation, we consolidate our status in international trade and economic arena. Hong Kong's unique status under the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" and our own various advantages allow Hong Kong to establish mutually beneficial collaboration relationship with countries around the world at bilateral and multilateral international trade and economic levels, demonstrating the successful implementation of "one country, two systems". Moreover, the continual strengthening of Hong Kong's trade and economic links with the region and the world reflects the acceptance of and respect for Hong Kong's unique advantages.
 
     When any institution of other countries, regardless of whether it represents its government, has made biased or unfounded remarks on the situation of Hong Kong, the HKSAR Government will make clarifications in accordance with facts.
 
     Hong Kong's trade and economic relationship with the United States (US) is mutually beneficial. Since Hong Kong's return to the Motherland, the US has continued to maintain and expand economic and trade ties with Hong Kong based on our unique status. It is in the US and Hong Kong's mutual interest to maintain and promote our bilateral relations. The HKSAR Government will continue to maintain and consolidate Hong Kong's trade and economic ties with the US, and continue to develop bilateral trade and economic relations on the basis of mutual respect and co-operation.
 
     Regarding the local legislation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem (National Anthem Law) mentioned in the question, the National Anthem Law has come into force nationwide since October 1, 2017. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress adopted the decision to add the National Anthem Law to Annex III to the Basic Law in November 2017. According to Article 18(2) of the Basic Law, the national laws listed in Annex III to the Basic Law shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the HKSAR. It is thus the responsibility of the HKSAR Government to implement the National Anthem Law locally. The HKSAR will implement the National Anthem Law by local legislation. This approach is consistent with the "one country, two systems" principle, and is also consistent with the implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Flag and the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Emblem, both of which have been adapted and implemented in Hong Kong by the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance. The HKSAR Government is now working on the local legislation to implement the National Anthem Law, and will submit the National Anthem Bill to the Legislative Council for scrutiny as soon as possible after the drafting has been completed. Our legislative principle is to maintain the purpose and intent of the National Anthem Law to fully reflect its spirit and to preserve the dignity of the national anthem, so that our citizens would respect the national anthem, whilst taking into account our common law system and the actual circumstances in Hong Kong.
 
     As for the legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law, the HKSAR Government has the constitutional responsibility to legislate for Article 23 of the Basic Law in order to safeguard national security. The Chief Executive has stated publicly for a number of times that the Government will carefully consider all relevant factors, act prudently and continue its efforts to create a favourable social environment for the legislative work. The Government will listen to public views earnestly and explore ways to enable the Hong Kong society to respond positively to this constitutional requirement on the HKSAR.
 
     The bilateral trade and economic relationship between Hong Kong and the US is based on mutual benefits and mutual respect. Hong Kong's relation with the US and the global trade and economic system is also based on the unique trade and economic status conferred to the HKSAR under the Basic Law, but not on the unilateral trade and economic policy of any trading partner. The HKSAR Government will, as always, strive to make good use of the afore-mentioned advantages and conditions to establish Hong Kong's position in the global trade and economic environment. Thank you.

     Following is a question by the Hon Mrs Regina Ip and a reply by the Secretary for Education, Mr Kevin Yeung, in the Legislative Council today (December 5):
Question:

     The Liberal Studies (LS) subject, which has been offered since 2009 under the senior secondary curriculum, is one of the four core subjects (compulsory subjects) in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSEE). There have all along been controversies on issues of the LS subject such as curriculum, mode of assessment and its retention or otherwise. Moreover, it is learnt that in the admission of students, universities do not give priority consideration or extra credits to the results of the LS subject, and that a number of universities have announced that from the next academic year onwards, they will no longer set the "3322 results" (which include attaining level 2 or above in the LS subject in HKDSEE) as the minimum entrance requirements. It has been reported that the Bachelor's degree and Diploma in Education programmes which tie in with the LS subject will cease operation in the next academic year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it will consider changing the LS subject from a compulsory subject to an elective one, so that students may freely choose whether or not to take the subject; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and whether it will change the grading of this subject from the current seven-level scale to a two-level scale of "pass" and "fail" so as to reduce students' pressure in preparing for the examination; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether it will reform the curriculum of the LS subject, including the incorporation of more modules on classic literature and theories of natural sciences, so as to nurture students' critical thinking skills; and

(3) whether it will reform the mode of assessment for the LS subject so as to avoid unduly focusing on assessing students' language proficiency; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:

President,

     Liberal Studies, which is designed as a cross-curricular subject, aims to broaden students' knowledge base and horizons through the study of a wide range of issues, so as to enable them to make connections with and integrate the knowledge across different disciplines. Liberal Studies also helps students develop positive values and attitudes towards life, so that students can become informed and responsible citizens of society, our country and the world. Since 2009, Liberal Studies has become one of the four core subjects of the Senior Secondary Curriculum.

     The general entrance requirements of bachelor degree programmes of tertiary institutions are set at the level of 3322 in the four core subjects, including Level 3 in Chinese Language and English Language and Level 2 in Mathematics and Liberal Studies, plus Level 2 or 3 in one or two specified/unspecified elective subject(s) (depending on the requirements of individual academic departments or programmes). The general entrance requirements have been endorsed by the sector before adoption. The relevant requirements have not been changed up till now. The special admission arrangements mentioned by various universities recently are in line with the flexibilities provided under the merit-based admission principle to cater for individual exceptional cases, and should not be seen as an alteration of the general entrance requirements. Besides, some programmes offered by local universities, such as those related to social sciences, do give extra weighting to Liberal Studies.  

     As for teacher education, there is sufficient provision of Liberal Studies teachers in the school sector at present and this will continue be the case in the foreseeable future. The Education Bureau (EDB) has been keeping in view the changes in the number of training places of relevant teacher education programmes. After taking into account various factors such as the school-aged population trend as well as the supply and demand of teachers, the EDB will propose, to the Universities Grants Committee, different programmes to universities offering teacher education to ensure that the manpower training for various subjects (including Liberal Studies) will closely align with the learning needs of students and the development needs of schools.

     Regarding the question of the Hon Mrs Regina Ip, our consolidated reply is as follows:

     At the time of planning the senior secondary curriculum under the New Academic Structure, Liberal Studies had been adopted as a core subject, as it can play a unique role in the new senior secondary curriculum. Liberal Studies enables students to make connections with and integrate the concepts and knowledge across different disciplines; and see things in multiple perspectives. It also enables students to investigate issues that cannot be covered by single discipline subjects, such as personal development and Chinese culture, so as to address the bias towards discipline subjects in the previous senior secondary curriculum, and to provide students with cross-curricular learning opportunities. Liberal Studies becoming a core subject under the Senior Secondary Academic Structure was the result of extensive discussion, and gained the public support before its implementation.

     To enhance students' understanding of themselves, their society, their nation, the natural and human world from multiple perspectives, the Liberal Studies curriculum comprises three Areas of Study, namely "Self and Personal Development", "Society and Culture" and "Science, Technology and the Environment". The topics selected for each module under these three Areas of Study are important issues to the students and society and suitable for students at senior secondary level to study. For instance, the topic on the "impact of globalisation" has great significance for students to understand themselves, their society and the world as well as make connections across different fields of knowledge and broaden their horizons.

     Regarding public assessment, the public examination for Liberal Studies was designed in accordance with the Curriculum and Assessment Guide. The whole examination consists of two papers: the data-response questions in Paper 1 mainly assess candidates' abilities such as identification, application and analysis of given data; the extended-response questions in Paper 2 assess various higher-order thinking skills through source materials which may arouse discussion. Candidates are required to substantiate arguments from multiple perspectives and draw logical inferences when exploring the questions raised, in order to demonstrate various higher-order thinking skills such as critical thinking, creativity, comparison, synthesis, evaluation, problem solving and communicating in a systematic manner. Same as the assessment requirements of the public examinations for other non-language subjects, those for Liberal Studies mainly concern application of the relevant knowledge, concepts and thinking skills acquired from the subject, instead of language and writing skills. From the perspective of assessment, Liberal Studies is not different from other core subjects, therefore the 5-level reporting of results has been adopted.

     Implemented in 2009, the Senior Secondary Academic Structure has been in operation for nearly ten years. To keep pace with rapid social and global changes, the whole school curriculum, including but not limited to Liberal Studies, has to be renewed timely in order to equip our students with the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes necessary for them to take on future opportunities and challenges, and achieve the goal of promoting whole-person development and life-long learning.

     In this connection, the EDB set up the Task Force on Review of School Curriculum (Task Force), which comprises experienced educators, academics, professionals and representatives of the business sector. Under the principle of "Led by Professionals", the Task Force is responsible for holistically reviewing the primary and secondary curricula, so that the school curricula at the primary and secondary levels can be rigorous and forward-looking in enhancing students' capacity to learn and fostering the values and qualities desired for students of the 21st century to meet future challenges as well as the needs of society. The Task Force hopes to, through refining the curriculum design, create space and opportunities for students' whole-person development, so as to better cater for students' diverse abilities, interests, needs and aspirations.

     The Task Force is conducting a review on the school curriculum framework and assessment as a whole, without any pre-determined position on individual or overall curriculum arrangements. In the course of the review, it will approach different stakeholders where necessary and collect views extensively in an open-minded manner. The Task Force is expected to make directional recommendations to the Government by end-2019.

     Upon receiving the report of the Task Force, the EDB will study the recommendations in detail. By then, if there are any recommendations from the Task Force on the curricula or assessment of individual subjects, the EDB will conduct detailed discussions and take follow-up actions with the sector in accordance with the established mechanism through the existing advisory structure/bodies such as the Curriculum Development Council and the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.   
 
     Thank you, President.

     Following is a question by the Hon Wu Chi-wai and a reply by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mr Edward Yau, in the Legislative Council today (December 5):
 
Question:
 
     The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, created by the United States (US) Congress, has alleged in a report published last month that the Central Authorities have been running counter to the promise of implementing "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy" in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). The Commission has therefore recommended that the Congress direct the Department of Commerce and other relevant government agencies to prepare a report to examine and assess the adequacy of the US export control policy for dual-use technology as it relates to the treatment of Hong Kong and China as two customs areas. Moreover, it has been reported that the Mainland authorities are building a nationwide video surveillance network called "Skynet", and some countries in Europe and America have recently ceased issuing licences for exporting components critical for the network to Hong Kong for re-export to the Mainland. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) whether it has gained an understanding if the coverage of the aforesaid dual-use technology includes the items listed in the two lists as set out in Schedule 1 to the Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations, components related to Skynet, as well as the software and data necessary for the development of a smart city;
 
(2) whether it has assessed, in the event that the US authorities tighten the control on export to Hong Kong, cease to treat Hong Kong as a separate customs area or repeal the Hong Kong Policy Act, the impacts of these three changes of different levels on Hong Kong in those aspects such as its development of innovation and technology as well as into a smart city, and the immigration treatments for Hong Kong residents when entering the US for visits or studies; of the Government's measures to mitigate such impacts; and
 
(3) whether it will request the Central People's Government to once again instruct the offices set up in Hong Kong by the Central Authorities to strictly comply with the stipulation that they may not interfere in the affairs which SAR administers on its own as provided under Article 22 of the Basic Law, with a view to making the US authorities believe that the Central Authorities have all along honoured its promise of implementing "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy" in SAR, and thus continue to treat Hong Kong as a separate customs area, such that Hong Kong can leverage its distinctive edge in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area which has a condition of "one country, two systems and three customs areas"?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     Thank you for the question raised by the Hon Wu Chi-wai. Since the return to the Motherland, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) has been exercising "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy in strict accordance with the Basic Law. The "one country, two systems" principle has been fully and successfully implemented.
 
     Article 116 of the Basic Law provides that the HKSAR is a separate customs territory. Pursuant to Article 151 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong may, using the name "Hong Kong, China", participate in international organisations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, as a separate member and maintain economic and trade relationships with the other 163 members of the WTO. Hong Kong's unique status and advantages under the "one country, two systems", a right conferred to the SAR by the Motherland through the Basic Law, have all along been widely recognised and respected by the international community, allowing Hong Kong to establish mutually beneficial collaboration relationship with economies around the world at bilateral and multilateral international trade and economic levels. Following the forging of a free trade agreement (FTA) and an investment agreement between Hong Kong and the 10 Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations last November, the recent conclusion of our negotiations on an FTA and an investment agreement with Australia on November 15 this year is another testimony of the successful implementation of "one country, two systems".
 
     Through substantive bilateral relations, officials' mutual visits and participation in international conferences, as well as the efforts of the overseas Economic and Trade Offices, the HKSAR Government has been explaining to countries around the world the successful implementation of the "one country, two systems" since our return to the Motherland, promoting Hong Kong's unique status under the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" as well as our own various advantages, and exploring room for mutual collaboration. For example, I led a delegation to visit Washington DC, the United States (US) this September, during which I met with the US government officials, members of the Congress, think tanks as well as the business community, and explained clearly Hong Kong's unique status under the Basic Law, as well as Hong Kong's important role in helping our global trading partners in developing markets.
 
     The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) mentioned in the Hon Wu's question is appointed by the bipartisan leaders of the US Congress and does not comprise members of the US Congress. As its name suggests, the aim of the USCC is to monitor and investigate on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the US and China. The USCC has been submitting annual reports to the US Congress since 2000. As I understand, the USCC report is not a report by the Congress or the US Administration. Its contents do not reflect the position of the US Congress or the US Administration but the views of the USCC members who are not members of the Congress.
 
     In addition to comments on US-China relations, the USCC report published last month also mentions the situation in Hong Kong. In respect of the paragraph on trade control, the Commission points out that Hong Kong is an important partner of the US in ensuring robust protection against unauthorised shipments of controlled US items to the Mainland. Indeed, Hong Kong has always been enforcing import and export trade controls according to the laws of Hong Kong, and such efforts have been recognised and respected by our trading partners. Hong Kong will continue to maintain our robust trade control system in accordance with the law and continue to work closely with the US and other trading partners.
 
     Hong Kong's trade and economic relationship with the US is mutually beneficial. Since Hong Kong's return to the Motherland, the US has continued to maintain and expand economic and trade ties with Hong Kong based on our unique status. 
 
     Counting on the basis of individual economies, in 2017 the US was Hong Kong's second largest merchandise trading partner in the world, while Hong Kong was the US' ninth largest export market. According to US statistics, the US has been enjoying the highest trade surplus with Hong Kong among its global trading partners, valued at US$34.5 billion in 2017. I firmly believe that it is in the US and Hong Kong's mutual interest to maintain and promote our bilateral relations. The HKSAR Government will continue to enhance Hong Kong's economic and trade ties with the US.
 
     President, I must stress that Hong Kong implements "one country, two systems" in accordance with the Basic Law in order to safeguard the rights of our country and the SAR. It is also the important cornerstone of the successful economic and trade development in the SAR since our return to the Motherland. The HKSAR Government will, as always, respect, abide by and uphold "one country, two systems".
 
     Thank you President.