Tag Archives: China

     Following is a question by the Hon Chu Kwok-keung and a reply by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mr Algernon Yau, in the Legislative Council today (December 6):
 
Question:
 
     It has been reported that recently, some schools have discovered that during non-school hours, their students play with “carrot knives” or “nasal snorting energy bars” which are popular on the Mainland. Although these toys are packaged as “emerging stress relieving toys”, they in fact carry hidden dangers. For instance, wielding “carrot knives” easily causes injuries to others, and some packages even bear violence-inciting expressions such as “stab whoever you dislike”. As for “nasal snorting energy bars”, they attract consumers with the fragrance of essential oils with unknown composition, and their twin-tube design easily causes children to mistakenly stick the tubes into their nostrils, damaging their nasal mucosa and nervous system. These toys have already been imported to Hong Kong and are even available for sale at individual stationery shops. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) how it will regulate the import, sale and possession of toys with potential dangers, and how it will strengthen the work on aspects such as law enforcement, inspection, investigation and publicity;
 
(2) whether it will consider reviewing the Toys and Children’s Products Safety Ordinance as well as updating the relevant definitions and provisions therein in the light of the presence of emerging toys with potential dangers; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
 
(3) how the Education Bureau will step up parent education to remind parents to pay attention to the safety of emerging toys, and whether it will provide schools with guidelines on prohibiting the circulation on campuses of the toys which claim to relieve stress but carry hidden dangers?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     Having consulted the Education Bureau (EDB), our consolidated reply to various parts of the question is as follows:
 
     The Government attaches great importance to ensuring the safety of toys and children’s products and has enacted the Toys and Children’s Products Safety Ordinance (the Ordinance) (Cap. 424) to regulate the manufacture, import or supply of toys and children’s products for local consumption.
 
     The Ordinance sets out the statutory safety standards of toys and children’s products and stipulates that a person must not manufacture, import or supply a toy unless the toy complies with all the applicable requirements contained in one of the toy standards specified in Schedule 1 to the Ordinance. A person who contravenes the above provision is liable to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for one year and a fine of $100,000 on first conviction and is liable to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years and a fine of $500,000 on subsequent conviction. 
 
     The safety standards set out in the Ordinance are international standards or standards adopted by major economies. The Government keeps in view any updates or amendments to the safety standards so as to amend the schedules to the Ordinance annually to update the safety standards applicable to the toys and children’s products supplied in Hong Kong, ensuring that the standards are up-to-date and operative versions. The last update of safety standards came into operation on August 1 this year. As regards the amendments for next year, we also just launched the public consultation on December 1 to propose updates of the safety standards applicable to toys and six classes of children’s products; and the relevant amendment notice will be laid on the table of the Legislative Council in the first quarter of next year.
 
     Moreover, the Toys and Children’s Products Safety (Additional Safety Standards or Requirements) Regulation (the Regulation) stipulates that a toy supplied in Hong Kong must comply with the additional safety standards or requirements for toys supplied in Hong Kong, including the carrying of identification markings, i.e. the full name and address of the manufacturer, importer or supplier, and the bilingual warnings or cautions (with respect to the safe keeping, use, consumption or disposal) applicable to the toy; and the compliance with the requirements on concentration of phthalates contained in a toy.
 
     As the enforcement agency of the Ordinance, the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) proactively conducts surveillance in the market and online shopping platforms. Having conducted risk assessment, the C&ED will test-purchase different types of toys and children’s products and pass them to the Government Laboratory for safety tests. Besides, the C&ED will conduct investigations into the complaints received and the cases referred from relevant government departments or organisations and take appropriate enforcement actions based on facts and evidence. In addition, the C&ED will actively follow up information about suspected unsafe toys and children’s products obtained from different sources such as media coverage and measures taken by the Mainland or other overseas places against certain toys and children’s products; and the news about product safety issued by law enforcement agencies and institutions of product safety outside Hong Kong.
 
     During the approximately three-year period from 2021 to the end of November 2023, the C&ED received 67 complaints in relation to toys or children’s products, conducted more than 5 200 surveillance visits or spot checks and investigated 88 cases. During the above period, the C&ED prosecuted individuals or companies involved in 12 cases. All defendants, including nine persons and three companies, were convicted and fined by the court, with the amount ranging from $3,000 to $32,000. The toys involved in these cases were lanterns, toy guns, wooden letter puzzles, plastic beads, squeeze toys, magnetic toy beads, joint mats and toy gun sets, etc. Furthermore, the C&ED issued 20 prohibition notices to prohibit related persons from supplying products that were believed to be unsafe for a specified period of time; and issued 97 warning letters. Meanwhile, C&ED also conducted 24 blitz checks at boundary control points to combat the import of unsafe toys and children’s products into Hong Kong.
 
     In addition to law enforcement actions, the C&ED strives to carry out compliance promotion for traders to assist the traders in understanding the relevant requirements of the Ordinance. Regarding publicity and education, the C&ED has been organising toys and children’s products safety talks and distributing pamphlets about the Ordinance to students and parents, introducing and sharing safety information of toys and children’s products to ensure children’s safety.
 
     Regarding school education, the EDB has all along been actively supporting home-school co-operation and promoting parent education through schools. During the growth of children, parents have the responsibility to protect and nurture their children properly, cultivate their proper values and foster their whole-person development. To enable parents to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills for nurturing their children in a systematic manner, the EDB has launched the Curriculum Frameworks on Parent Education (Curriculum Frameworks) for kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools in phases since 2021. The Curriculum Frameworks point out that parents should provide a safe and supportive family environment for their children, cultivate their children’s self-management competence, good character and positive attitudes and encourage them to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Besides, the EDB disseminates important messages on supporting the physical and psychological development of students through the one-stop parent education website “Smart Parent Net”, its Facebook and Instagram pages and the YouTube channel. We will continue to provide parents with more diverse education resources and support so that they can master the knowledge and skills of parenting for promoting children’s whole-person development.
 
     Meanwhile, the EDB has been providing schools with guidelines and reminding them of cultivating a safe and orderly learning environment for students. With reference to the School Administration Guide for aided schools provided by the EDB, school rules should elaborate the basic requirements for students’ behaviours around the school with a view to developing self-discipline in students, teaching, guiding and protecting them in order to prevent behavioural problems. Schools and parents have to work closely together to nurture the next generation who is able to uphold positive values and attitudes. read more

     A man who went missing in Sheung Shui has been located.      Fok Sze-ying, aged 99, went missing after he left his residence in Cheung Lung Wai Estate on December 4 afternoon. His family made a report to … read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Lam San-keung and a reply by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Mr Chris Sun, in the Legislative Council today (December 6):
 
Question:

     The Children Proceedings (Parental Responsibility) Bill (the Bill) seeks to reform the law relating to responsibilities of parents for children and to provide that, in determining certain questions in the children proceedings, a court must regard the best interests of a child as the paramount consideration. The Government conducted a public consultation on the Bill in 2015, and explained the reasons for not introducing the proposed legislation at this stage in its reply letter to the Panel on Welfare Services (the Panel) of this Council dated July 5 this year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that, as mentioned in the aforesaid letter, the opposing views that the Bill “could not help divorced parents in resolving conflicts” were received during the aforesaid public consultation, whereas there are views that the legislative intent of the Bill is to clarify parents’ due responsibilities for children and to protect children’s interests, which has nothing to do with helping divorced parents in resolving conflicts, of the Government’s justifications for using such opposing views as a reason for not introducing the proposed legislation at this stage; and

(2) as there are views pointing out that, as also mentioned in the aforesaid letter, the Panel passed motions in February 2016 and May 2017 requesting the Government to postpone the introduction of the Bill pending the provision of more support measures for the families concerned, whereas the letter also mentioned that the Government had already implemented many support measures, indicating that the Panel’s concerns had been allayed, of the Government’s justifications for still not introducing the proposed legislation at this stage?

Reply:
 
President,

     The Labour and Welfare Bureau (LWB) prepared the draft Children Proceedings (Parental Responsibility) Bill (the legislative proposal) in 2015, to reform and consolidate the law relating to responsibilities and rights of parents for children; provide for the appointment and powers of guardians, etc. The legislative proposal introduce a statutory list covering parental responsibility (encompassing both responsibilities and rights) and providing for major decisions concerning the child’s upbringing to be made upon express consent of or notification to the other parent, etc.
 
     The LWB conducted a public consultation in November 2015 on the legislative proposal. The proportion of stakeholders in support of and in opposition to the legislative proposal at that time was about the same (i.e. 34.5 per cent on each side), while another 20 per cent considered the proposal worthy of support in principle but requested additional resources and support measures as a prerequisite. Subsequently, the Legislative Council Panel on Welfare Services (the Welfare Panel) unanimously passed two motions in February 2016 and May 2017 respectively, urging the Government not to introduce the Bill into the Legislative Council at that stage, pending the provision of more support measures for separated/divorcing/divorced families, including setting up of a “maintenance board”, assistance to single-parent families in seeking financial support, enhancement of the prevention of divorce and support to divorced families, and setting up “visitation centres” in various districts.
 
     The reply to the Member’s question, in consultation with the Home and Youth Affairs Bureau, is as follows:

(1) According to the result of the public consultation conducted by the LWB in November 2015, the proportion of stakeholders in support of and in opposition to the legislative proposal was about the same (i.e. more than 30 per cent on each side). Those in support considered that the legislative proposal could protect children’s best interests. Those in opposition considered that the legislative proposal not only cannot help divorced parents in resolving conflicts, but might cause more family problems for families with domestic violence background. Single-parent groups were also concerned that the new requirement for obtaining the other party’s consent or giving notification on major decisions would be taken advantaged by the troublemaking party with malicious intent to obstruct and harass their spouse, causing distress to the child, and hence undermining the interests of the child. Afterwards, some representatives of groups from the social welfare sector, maintenance concern groups, single-parent groups, and women groups requested the Government to first deal with issues of support services for separated/divorced families and default in maintenance payment, before proceeding with legislation.

     The LWB has always considered that enhancing the law relating to the parental responsibilities and rights on the upbringing of children would help safeguard the interests of children. Considering the views of the stakeholders and the Welfare Panel’s position, the LWB considers that priority should be accorded to promoting the concept of continuing parental responsibility towards children even after divorce, strengthening co-parenting counselling and parenting co-ordination service, as well as providing children contact service, and that the legislative proposal should only be put forward again when the society has a clearer consensus.

(2) Considering the views of the stakeholders and the Welfare Panel’s position, the Social Welfare Department (SWD) has implemented a series of support measures in recent years. To strengthen co-parenting support services for separated/divorced families, including separated/divorcing/divorced parents and their children, the Government increased resources to set up five Specialised Co-parenting Support Centres (SCSCs) in 2019, providing one-stop specialised services for them, including co-parenting counselling, parenting co-ordination service, parenting groups or programmes and child contact service, etc., to assist separated/divorced parents in carrying out parental responsibilities under the child-focused principles, strengthening parent-child connection and providing support to children affected by parental separation/divorce and family change to promote their healthy development physically and mentally. The 65 Integrated Family Service Centres (IFSCs) and two Integrated Services Centres also provide a spectrum of preventive, supportive and remedial services for needy families (including separated/divorced families).

     In addition, to foster community awareness of the well-being of children of separated/divorced families and promote the message of co-parenting, the SWD has adopted a multi-pronged approach and enhanced public education and publicity at various platforms, including the dedicated website of “Parenthood Goes On”, the publication of reference materials on joint parental responsibility and dissemination of latest information on relevant groups and programmes for separated/divorced parents and their children in various districts.

     Meanwhile, the Government is committed to improving the effectiveness of the system for collecting maintenance payments and enforcing maintenance orders. Over the years, the Government has implemented a series of improvement measures to facilitate divorcees recovering maintenance payments as well as publicity and education programmes on maintenance-related issues. The Government also keeps exploring feasible measures to assist people in society who are in arrears with maintenance payments. In this regard, the Government will launch through the Community Care Fund a maintenance mediation pilot scheme to assist the parties concerned to resolve disputes through mediation. In addition, the Government will continue to collect statistics concerning maintenance so as to better consider the future work direction.

     To keep abreast of the latest views of stakeholders, in particular the aforementioned stakeholders who had concerns about the legislative proposal at that time, the SWD would collect the views of service users through SCSCs and IFSCs, for the Government to consider whether there is sufficient consensus to put forward the legislative proposal again and, if so, the appropriate timing. read more

     Following is a question by Dr the Hon Wendy Hong and a written reply by the Secretary for Education, Dr Choi Yuk-lin, in the Legislative Council today (December 6):
 
Question:
 
     The Chief Executive’s 2023 Policy Address has stated that the Government will build Hong Kong into an international hub for post-secondary education, with measures including doubling the non‑local student quota for the taught undergraduate (UG) programmes of various University Grants Committee (UGC)‍-‍funded institutions to 40 per cent starting from the 2024/25 academic year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the respective average total costs (including the expenses involved in teaching facilities and equipment, teachers and student hostels, as well as other capital expenditure) and marginal costs per student of the UGC‍-‍funded taught UG programmes in each of the past three academic years;
 
(2) whether it has compiled statistics on the respective differences between the tuition fees charged by various UGC-funded institutions from non-local students enrolled in their taught UG programmes and the average total costs and the marginal costs mentioned in (1) in each of the past three academic years;
 
(3) whether it has assessed if the capacity of the UGC-funded institutions (including the manpower of teachers, teaching equipment and other supporting facilities) is sufficient to meet the demand of the additional students after the increase in the aforesaid non-local student quota, and whether it has estimated the amount of money required by the Government to raise such capacity in the future;
 
(4) whether it will consider adjusting the tuition fees for the aforesaid non-local students by adopting the recovery of the average total costs rather than the marginal costs as the basic principle, so as to relieve the financial burden on the Government; and
 
(5) as there are views that following the increase in the aforesaid non‍-‍local student quota, the supply of places of UGC-funded institutions’ student hostels, which has already fallen short of the demand, will be even tighter and the opportunity for local students to reside in such hostels will be affected as a result, whether the authorities will consider setting a ratio of local students residing in such hostels, so as to safeguard local university students’ university life experience?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The Chief Executive proposed in the 2023 Policy Address the development of Hong Kong into an international post-secondary education hub to attract more talents to study in Hong Kong. He announced various initiatives, including the doubling of the non-local student ceiling of taught programmes (i.e. undergraduate, sub-degree and taught postgraduate programmes) of University Grants Committee (UGC)-funded universities from the current 20 per cent of local student places to 40 per cent from the 2024/25 academic year onwards. The universities may, having regard to their own conditions, progressively admit more non-local students, in particular those from Belt and Road countries and the Mainland to study in Hong Kong. With high quality teaching and supporting facilities, they can expand their capacity and enhance their quality. At the same time, this will create a diversified and inclusive international learning environment on university campuses, thereby broadening students’ horizons and enriching their learning experience even when they are staying on the local university campuses during their studies.
 
     It should be noted that all non-local students of the UGC-funded taught programmes do not receive public funding support from the UGC. Under the existing policy, the UGC-funded universities should charge the non-local students of the UGC-funded undergraduate programmes tuition fees at a level which is at least sufficient to recover all additional direct costs, and such tuition fees should in no circumstances be lower than the fees applicable to local students (i.e. currently at $42,100 per annum). Non-local students of taught programmes must also be admitted as over-enrolment and accounted for separately from local student places. The above arrangements ensure that the target beneficiaries of the Government’s recurrent expenditure on higher education are local students, and the study opportunities for local students will not be affected.
 
     The above principle is also reflected in the arrangement in respect of capital grants for campus development projects. Under the existing mechanism, the UGC assesses the academic space requirements of the universities in considering whether individual works projects are justified for capital grants from the Government. The academic space requirements of non-local students of taught programmes are not eligible for funding support and they shall be borne by the universities. The funding provided by the Government for university hostel developments is also capped at 75 per cent of the project costs, with the remainder borne by the universities. Moreover, student hostels are operated on a self-financing basis without additional recurrent grants from the Government.
 
     My reply to the various parts of the question raised by Dr the Hon Wendy Hong is as follows:
 
(1) and (2) The average teaching expenditure per undergraduate student of the UGC-funded universities and the level of tuition fees charged by the universities on non-local students in the past three academic years are set out at Annex. The average teaching expenditure per student covers various recurrent expenditure, such as academic staff remuneration, centralised services for teaching and learning (e.g. libraries, experiential learning activities outside classrooms and student support services) and expenses on the procurement of teaching equipment, etc. Taking the 2021/22 academic year as an example, the average teaching expenditure per undergraduate student was about $154,000 while the tuition fee for non-local students ranged from $140,000 to $171,000 per annum during the same period.
 
(3) It is proposed in the Chief Executive’s 2023 Policy Address that the universities may progressively admit more non-local students, having regard to their own conditions. Unlike the concept of local student places, the non-local student ceiling is not meant to be a target. The purpose is to establish a maximum limit and provide room for the universities to admit additional non-local students at their own discretion. The Government maintains close communication with the UGC-funded universities on the increase in the non-local student ceiling. While welcoming the relaxation, the universities have indicated that they will, in line with the past practice, adopt a prudent and responsible approach in the progressive implementation of their internationalisation strategy. They will admit more non-local students in a gradual and orderly manner where conditions permit.
 
     In the course of exploring the increase in the non-local student ceiling, the UGC has conducted assessments on the universities’ teaching resources. It was observed that the universities have been increasing their numbers of academic staff members at a rate faster than the growth in overall student enrolment. During the 2018/19 to 2022/23 academic years, the number of students (including both local and non-local students) enrolled in the UGC-funded taught programmes of the eight universities increased by about 1 per cent from 92 955 to 93 660, while the number of academic staff members increased by 7 per cent from 4 786 to 5 120. In addition, the Financial Secretary set aside $16 billion in the 2019-20 Budget for the UGC-funded universities to enhance or refurbish campus facilities. Taking into account all government-funded projects with approved funding and underway, it is estimated that upon completion, the additional academic space will increase by about 56 000 square metres in net operational floor area. Along with a number of their self-financed projects, the universities will provide better learning environments for all students.
 
     As mentioned above, non-local students enrolled in the UGC-funded undergraduate programmes do not involve public funding. If the universities decide to increase the intake of non-local students, they will assume the responsibility for utilising non-UGC funding (such as tuition fees charged on non-local students and other incomes) to enhance relevant support facilities and ensure teaching quality.
 
(4) As mentioned above, the UGC-funded universities should charge non-local students enrolled in the UGC-funded undergraduate programmes at a level which is at least sufficient to recover all additional direct costs. On the premise that the above condition is met and with non-local students being non-UGC funded, the existing policy allows the universities to determine the appropriate level of tuition fees for non-local students, having regard to their own circumstances.
 
     We must stress that higher education environment is highly internationalised. While having five of our universities ranked among the top 100 universities in the world, our universities face increasing global competition in attracting outstanding overseas and Mainland students to study in Hong Kong, and the level of tuition fees should be set at an internationally competitive level. For example, the tuition fees charged by universities in Hong Kong and Singapore on overseas students are currently very similar. Moreover, under the existing mechanism for determining the funding for the UGC-funded universities, the Government does not reduce the amount of recurrent funding for the universities because of an increase in their income from non-UGC-funded activities, and vice versa. The Government has no intention to change the existing policy on tuition fees for non-local students.
 
 
(5) It is proposed in the Chief Executive’s 2023 Policy Address that the UGC-funded universities will continue to take forward various hostel projects, with the target of providing a total of about 13 500 additional hostel places by 2027, to cater for, among others, the needs of the additional students.
 
     University hostel places are allocated by the universities in accordance with their respective mechanisms. They should optimise resources by continuously reviewing the priorities of different student groups for hostel allocation. At the same time, they should maintain flexibility while having due regard to practical needs and educational benefits in hostel allocation. For example, research postgraduate students are relatively independent and mature, while undergraduate students (including local, non-local and exchange students) can benefit from the active social and group activities in student hostels, fostering their whole-person development and broadening their horizons. In addition, similar to other cities with a cluster of top universities, the development of Hong Kong into an international post-secondary education hub will attract more students from different geographical regions to study in Hong Kong. The resultant demand for student accommodation often attracts the private sector’s participation, providing a wide range of options, such as universities collaborating with the private sector to provide hostel places or in providing advisory services to non-local students who wish to seek accommodation from the private residential rental market. The Government and the UGC will reiterate to the universities that a multi-pronged approach should be adopted to broaden students’ accommodation options by making reference to the development of other major education hubs and combining efficient market forces to widen students’ accommodation choices. The universities should balance and support the accommodation needs of different student groups in a pragmatic and appropriate manner. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Stanley Li and a written reply by the Acting Secretary for Transport and Logistics, Mr Liu Chun-san, in the Legislative Council today (December 6):
 
Question:
 
     The Transport Department launched the Low-floor wheelchair accessible public light bus trial scheme (the Scheme) in January 2018. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) since the launch of the Scheme, of the total number of low-floor wheelchair accessible public light buses (low-floor PLBs) introduced and, among them, the number of those still in service, together with a breakdown by public light bus (PLB) route;
 
(2) as some green minibus (GMB) operators have pointed out that the operating costs of low-floor PLBs (e.g. the costs for buying new vehicles and repair) are high, whether the Government has put in place policies or measures to create a sustainable business environment, so as to promote the popularisation of low-‍floor PLBs; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(3) since the launch of the Scheme, whether new PLB operators have joined the Scheme; whether existing participating PLB operators in the Scheme have reflected their operating difficulties; whether the Government has formulated a review proposal for the Scheme; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(4) whether it has studied the introduction of across-the-board requirements for GMBs to provide services with low-floor PLBs and for each route to provide services by at least one low-floor PLB, so as to improve the “Transport for All” policy; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(5) as it has been reported that while there are a number of social welfare organizations providing services primarily to the elderly, as well as underprivileged groups with impaired mobility and care service needs at A Kung Kok Shan Road in Shatin, no low-floor PLB has been put in service for the only GMB route operating in the road section, whether the Government will consider introducing low-floor PLBs for that route to ensure the effective implementation of the “Transport for All” policy; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     My reply to the question raised by the Hon Stanley Li is as follows:

(1) and (3) To promote the concept of “Transport for All”, the Government introduced the Low-floor Wheelchair Accessible Public Light Bus Trial Scheme (the Trial Scheme) in January 2018, and has since reviewed the effectiveness of the Trial Scheme and performance of the low-floor wheelchair accessible public light buses (PLBs). Under the Trial Scheme, two green minibus (GMB) hospital routes (i.e. Hong Kong Island Route No. 54M (Kennedy Town – Queen Mary Hospital) and New Territories Route No. 808 (Kam Ying Court – Prince of Wales Hospital)) have each put one low-floor wheelchair accessible PLB into service. The operators concerned also provided phone reservation service to allow easier access to such PLBs for those in need.
 
     The result of the review showed that the participating GMB operators encountered various operational issues, including increase in operating expenditure, higher repair and maintenance cost, as well as longer waiting time for maintenance parts for the new PLB models. Also, the services of such GMB routes often became less stable due to longer and uncertain journey time spent on accommodating wheelchair-bound passengers compared with other GMBs operating along similar routes. Nonetheless, from August 2018, the Transport Department (TD) has required the operators of new hospital routes to deploy at least one low-floor wheelchair accessible PLB, including the followings:
 

Route Number	Origin – Destination	Date of Service Commencement
New Territories Route No. 413	Tsing Yi Ferry Terminus – Princess Margaret Hospital	February 2021
Kowloon Route No. 90A	Yau Tong (Yau Lai Estate) – Hong Kong Children’s Hospital	April 2023
New Territories Route No. 503	Queens Hill Estate – North District Hospital	May 2023

 
     At present, except for the low-floor wheelchair accessible PLB deployed to New Territories Route No. 413, those deployed to the other four routes are under maintenance.

(2) and (4) The TD has been in discussion with GMB operators and vehicle manufacturers to explore other more suitable vehicle models to operate as low-floor wheelchair accessible PLB, and continue to encourage operators to adopt low-floor PLBs. To promote the adoption of low-floor PLBs, applications of operators who undertake to use low-floor PLB (Note 1) will be given higher marks in GMB Operators Selection Exercises for new GMB route packages.
 
     In addition to the five hospital routes with low-floor wheelchair accessible PLBs in service, low-floor PLBs will also be deployed gradually to the following ten GMB routes:
 

Route Number	Origin – Destination
Kowloon Route No. CX1 (Note 2)	Austin Station – Hong Kong Palace Museum (Circular route)
New Territories Route No. 505	Sheung Shui (San Fat Street) – Sha Tin (Yuen Chau Kok)
Kowloon Route No. 2/ 2A	Whampoa Garden – Festival Walk Public Transport Interchange
New Territories Route No. 116	Pak Shing Kok – Tsueng Kwan O Station (Circular route)
New Territories Route No. 506/507	Chi Fuk Circuit – Luen Wo Hui (Circular route) Ma Sik Road – Fanling Station (Circular route)
New Territories Route No. 117A/ 117B (Note 3)	Anderson Road Quarry Development Area – Sheung Tak Public Transport Interchange/ Anderson Road Quarry Road Development Area – Yau Tong (Circular route)
New Territories Route No. 24 (Note 3)	Tai Po (Fu Tip Estate) – Tai Po (Kwong Fuk Road) (Circular route)

Note 1: In the GMB Operators Selection Exercise conducted between 2020 and 2022, operators generally undertook to provide low-floor PLB services (using either low-floor wheelchair accessible PLBs or low-floor PLBs) within one to three years of operating the new routes concerned.

Note 2: Kowloon Route No. CX1 began providing low-floor wheelchair accessible PLB services in October 2023.

Note 3: New Territories Routes No. 117A, 117B and 24 have yet to commence operation.
 
     The TD will continue to monitor the operation of new low-floor PLBs, and maintain close communication with the PLB trade. If a GMB operator applies for fare adjustment due to increase in operating cost, the TD will consider such application taking into account the operational and financial conditions of the specific route.
      
     Having regard to the current operating situation of GMBs, the TD has no plan to impose across-the-board requirement on GMBs to adopt low-floor PLBs or arrange at least one low-floor PLB for every route. Aside from GMB services, wheelchair-bound passengers who need to commute to hospitals and clinics could also consider using other modes of public transport equipped with barrier-free facilities or the Rehabus.

(5) At present, GMB operators purchase low-floor wheelchair accessible PLBs at their own cost. The operator of GMB Route No. 67K (A Kung Kok – Sha Tin Station) indicated that it did not have additional resources available for adopting low-floor wheelchair accessible PLB after considering its operational and financial conditions.
 
     Passengers with mobility impairments who need to commute to and from the A Kung Kok Shan Road area in Sha Tin may use the Rehabus Scheduled Route Service or Dial-a-Ride Service provided by the Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation, of which four scheduled routes pass through the said area. In addition, Rehabus services (Sha Tin and Tai Wai routes) provided by Kwoon Chung Inclusive and Accessible Transport Services Company Limited also pass through A Kung Kok Shan Road. The said Rehabus services are generally sufficient for meeting the needs of the passengers. The TD will continue to monitor the demand for the said Rehabus services and review the arrangement as appropriate. read more