Tag Archives: China

     Following is a question by the Hon Chan Yuet-ming and a written reply by the Secretary for Development, Ms Bernadette Linn, in the Legislative Council today (June 19):

Question:

     It has been reported that according to the information of the Lands Department (LandsD), 34 407 cases of unlawful occupation of government land were substantiated by the LandsD in the past three years, and among them, the LandsD instituted prosecution for a total of 54 cases which resulted in conviction, representing a conviction rate of only 0.15 per cent. Moreover, there was no downward trend in cases of unlawful occupation of land in the past three years. There are views that the Government should increase the penalties for unlawful occupation of government land to enhance the deterrent effect, particularly for acts involving unlawful occupation of government land of relatively large area for brownfield operations or erection of domestic structures for profit‍-‍making purposes. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the following information on cases of unlawful occupation of government land in each of the past three years: (i) the number of suspected cases, (ii) the number of substantiated cases, and (iii) the number of cases for various purposes of unlawful occupation, with a tabulated breakdown by the 18 districts in Hong Kong;
 
(2) given that in reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council on January 10 this year, the Government indicated that the existing framework of the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28) gave allowance for the occupiers to first cease the unlawful occupation of government land themselves, and prosecution would only be invoked if the occupiers did not cease the occupation before the expiry date stipulated in the Government’s statutory notice, and such “self-rectification” arrangement was believed to be one of the reasons accounting for the small number of prosecution cases at present, whether the Government will make adjustments to the framework of the Ordinance focusing on cases of unlawful occupation of government land of relatively large area; if not, of the reasons for that;
 
(3) as there are views that the fines imposed on the convicted under the ordinances related to unlawful occupation of government land are too low, whether the Government will consider, by amending the legislation, linking the fines for unlawful occupation of government land of relatively large area for brownfield operations with the illicit proceeds made; if not, of the reasons for that; and
 
(4) in order to step up efforts in combating unlawful occupation of government land of relatively large area for brownfield operations, whether the Government will deploy manpower to strengthen the relevant law enforcement work and consider intervening by other administrative means (e.g. suspending water supply to the occupiers of the land concerned); if not, of the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     As stated in the Government’s reply to a question raised by a Member of the Legislative Council on January 10 this year, the Lands Department (LandsD) handles over 10 000 cases of unlawful occupation of government land pursuant to the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance every year. The form and nature of these cases vary significantly. Most of them are small-scale and minor cases of disposal of sundry items and street obstruction (e.g. piling of waste/construction wastes, bamboo scaffolds, skips, abandoned vehicles, illegal bicycle parking, shop front extensions, etc.), while the rest are more serious cases which involve the erection of structures and fencing off of government land for brownfield operations or domestic use. To optimise the use of limited manpower resources for best enforcement effectiveness, the LandsD has to adopt a pragmatic “risk-based” approach to prioritise its enforcement actions, with priority given to cases of larger scale, more serious contraventions, or cases involving safety or environmental hygiene risks.
 
     When taking land control actions, the LandsD will post a statutory notice in accordance with the law requiring the occupier to cease occupation before a specified deadline. If the situation does not improve upon the expiry of the deadline, the LandsD will take further actions, including taking possession of and clearing the property or structures remaining on the land, as well as considering instituting prosecutions against the occupier (if the identity of the occupier can be ascertained with evidence).
      
     The Government has always been very concerned about cases involving unlawful occupation of a large area of government land for brownfield operations or domestic structures, which are classified by the LandsD as high-priority enforcement cases. In recent years, the LandsD has also introduced a number of enhancement measures to strengthen the efficiency of its enforcement on this type of cases, and has been reviewing the effectiveness of the measures and making adjustments where necessary, with details explained in the ensuing paragraphs.
 
     The reply to various parts of the Hon Chan’s questions is as follows:
 
(1) The relevant figures on cases of unlawful occupation of government land received and enforcement actions taken by the LandsD in the past three years (i.e. from 2021 to 2023) are set out in the Annex.
 
(2) The existing Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance indeed allows an occupier to first cease unlawful occupation of government land himself, and the occupier must bear the responsibility for and expenses of demolition and clearance. If the occupier fails to cease occupation of government land before the expiry date stipulated in the statutory notice posted by the LandsD, the Government may initiate prosecution under section 6(4) of the Ordinance. Nevertheless, one of the main reasons for the low prosecution figures in the past is that the majority of cases are minor in nature. The strategy of the LandsD is to focus its resources on putting an end to such land occupation, with less focus on instigating prosecution. Instigating prosecutions on a large scale is not an optimal use of public resources, because even if the prosecution is successful, the manpower and resources devoted by the Government in investigation, evidence collection and prosecution are not proportional to the court sentences (mainly fines). Unsuccessful gathering of evidence or inadequate evidence to ascertain the identity of the occupier for instituting prosecutions is also one of the reasons for the low prosecution figures. 
 
     That said, we agree with the Hon Chan’s views that with regard to more serious cases, including large-scale occupation of government land or cases involving high safety risks, we should adopt a resolute and stringent enforcement approach. In response to the unauthorised building works and unlawful occupation of government land by some standalone houses on seafront slopes of the Redhill Peninsula which were revealed by the heavy rainstorms last September and October, the LandsD initiated prosecutions against three cases of erection of structures on government land directly by invoking section 6(4A) of the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance for the first time in recent years. The offence stipulated in section 6(4A) is a separate offence from that in section 6(4) focusing on the erection of a structure on government land. The provision empowers the Government to initiate prosecution directly against any person who is engaged, arranges or directs the erection of a structure on government land, without the pre-requisite that the occupier has not ceased occupation in accordance with the statutory notice pursuant to section 6(4) as mentioned above before prosecution can be initiated. Relevant provisions also stipulate a higher sentence for gainful situations (see part (3) below). At the moment, legal proceedings of these cases are ongoing. Depending on the outcomes of the cases, the LandsD will consider extending it to other severe cases, as well as review whether the Government’s prosecution power should be enhanced under the Ordinance in the future where necessary. 
 
(3) To enhance the deterrent effect against unlawful occupation of government land, the Government amended the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28) in 2015 to significantly increase the penalties under section 6(4) for those who did not cease occupation of government land in accordance with the statutory notice, and introduced a progressive system of maximum fines for repeated offenders as well as a system of daily fines for combating such unlawful act. Upon conviction, an offender is liable to a maximum penalty of a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for six months on the first occasion (the maximum penalty was a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for six months before the amendment), and to a further daily fine of $50,000 for non-compliance with the statutory notice (new penalty). The offender, if convicted on each subsequent occasion, is liable to a fine of up to $1,000,000 (new penalty) and imprisonment for six months (new penalty), and to a further daily fine of $100,000 for non-compliance with the statutory notice (new penalty).
 
     After the legislative amendment came into effect in 2015, the penalties imposed by the court increased accordingly. Among the 54 convicted cases in the past three years, 23 cases had the offenders fined over $10,000 (a fine of $137,000 in one case) while three cases had the offenders sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment.
      
     Further, targeting the offence of the erection of structure on government land under section 6(4A), the provisions adopt fivefold fines in a gainful situation as compared with a general situation. After the 2015 amendment, for cases involving gainful situation, an offender on the first conviction is liable to a maximum penalty of a fine of $2,500,000 and imprisonment for one year (the maximum penalty was a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for one year before the amendment) and on each subsequent conviction a maximum fine of $5,000,000 and imprisonment for one year (new penalties); whereas in other situations (i.e. not involving gainful situation), an offender on the first conviction is liable to a maximum penalty of a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for six months (the maximum penalty was a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for six months before the amendment) and on each subsequent conviction a maximum fine of $1,000,000 and imprisonment for six months (new penalties). As stated above, the LandsD has invoked section 6(4A) for prosecution on erection of structures on government land for the first time in recent years and is awaiting the court’s ruling.
      
     The Development Bureau and the LandsD will continue to monitor the implementation of the Ordinance and whether unlawful occupation of government land has deteriorated. Depending on the effectiveness of the work above, we may consider measures to enhance deterrence of the Ordinance where necessary.
 
(4) The LandsD attaches great importance to handling cases involving unlawful occupation of a large area of government land and has implemented various measures to enhance enforcement work in recent years. 
 
     On the policy front, the LandsD has tightened regularisation application arrangements for unlawful occupation of government land since March 2017, meaning that the department no longer accepts regularisation applications for cases of unlawful occupation of government land commencing on or after March 28, 2017 and the occupiers can no longer avoid ceasing occupation of the land pursuant to the statutory notice through regularisation applications. 
      
     On enforcement manpower, the LandsD set up the Special Duties Task Force (Task Force) in 2019 to focus manpower resources in a targeted manner against cases of unlawful occupation of relatively large areas of government land or serious lease breaches involving private agricultural land. Up to the end of May 2024, the Task Force completed a cumulative total of over 1 620 cases, with the clearance of more than 45 hectares of unlawfully occupied government land and demolition of over 2 600 unlawful or lease-breaching structures in total. Quite a number of sites in these cases involve brownfield operations. In addition, to enhance the overall operational efficiency and achieve synergy, with effect from April 2023, the LandsD has consolidated the enforcement manpower at various District Lands Offices (DLOs), including merging the Land Control Teams, Lease Enforcement Teams and Squatter Control Teams in the New Territories DLOs into a new Land Enforcement Team, such that cases of land irregularities in the same district are handled by one single team in an integrated manner. The LandsD also leverages on technologies (e.g. using drones and personal digital assistants) to increase the enforcement effectiveness and overall efficiency of its daily land enforcement work.
      
     On departmental collaboration, with regard to Member’s suggestion to suspend water supply to the occupiers of the land concerned, legal advice had been sought in the past. According to the legal advice, the Water Authority does not have the authority to refuse to grant permission to install a water meter or supply water on grounds related to the illegal status of the premises (e.g. unlawful status due to occupation of government land). Nevertheless, if the LandsD discovers unlawful taking of water when handling cases of unlawful occupation of government land, the LandsD will refer the cases to the Water Supplies Department for corresponding enforcement action. Further, the LandsD has strengthened the communication and co-operation mechanism with the Buildings Department and the Planning Department and carried out joint operations regularly targeting serious breaches, including cases of unlawful occupation of government land and breaches of land leases involving unauthorised development in the New Territories and unauthorised building works of standalone houses. 
      
     Based on our experience, after taking large-scale enforcement actions, quite a number of occupiers will rectify the irregularities themselves through demolition of the unlawful structures or ceasing the unlawful occupation of government land. The LandsD will continue to review how to utilise the powers under the existing legislative framework and its manpower, and will determine the enforcement priority and optimise the mode of enforcement, with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement as well as enhancing the enforcement and prosecution efforts. read more

The following is issued on behalf of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority:

     The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) announced today (June 19) the composite interest rate at the end of May 2024 (Note 1). 
      
     The composite interest rate, which is a measure of the average cost of funds of banks, decreased by 4 basis points to 2.61 per cent at the end of May 2024, from 2.65 per cent at the end of April 2024 (see Chart 1 in the Annex). The decrease in composite interest rate mainly reflected the decrease in the weighted funding cost for deposits during the month (see Chart 2 in the Annex) (Note 2).
      
     The historical data of the composite interest rate from the end of the fourth quarter of 2003 to the end of May 2024 are available in the Monthly Statistical Bulletin on the HKMA website (www.hkma.gov.hk).

Note 1: The composite interest rate is a weighted average interest rate of all Hong Kong dollar interest-rate-sensitive liabilities, which include deposits from customers, amounts due to banks, negotiable certificates of deposit and other debt instruments, and all other liabilities that do not involve any formal payment of interest but the values of which are sensitive to interest rate movements (such as Hong Kong dollar non-interest bearing demand deposits) on the books of banks. Data from retail banks, which account for about 90 per cent of the total customers’ deposits in the banking sector, are used in the calculation. It should be noted that the composite interest rate represents only average interest expenses. There are various other costs involved in the making of a loan, such as operating costs (e.g. staff and rental expenses), credit cost and hedging cost, which are not covered by the composite interest rate.

Note 2: Since June 2019, the composite interest rate and weighted deposit rate have been calculated based on the new local “Interest rate risk in the banking book” (IRRBB) framework. As such, these figures are not strictly comparable with those of previous months. read more

     Following is a question by Professor the Hon Chan Wing-kwong and a written reply by the Secretary for Health, Professor Lo Chung-mau, in the Legislative Council today (June 19):

Question:

     Regarding the Chinese medicine (CM) services provided to members of the public by District Health Centres (DHCs) and DHC Expresses (DHCEs), will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective details about the provision of CM services by various DHCs and DHCEs in the past three years;

(2) of the respective numbers of CM practitioners involved in and members of the public who have benefited from the CM services mentioned in (1);

(3) of the details of the CM services (including the estimated number of members of the public to be benefited) that various DHCs and DHCEs plan to provide this year; and

(4) whether it plans to further enhance the CM services provided by various DHCs and DHCEs in the future; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

President,

     The consolidated reply to the respective parts of the question raised by Professor the Hon Chan Wing-kwong is as follows:

     Multi-disciplinary care is one of the focuses in delivering primary healthcare services and management of chronic disease, Chinese Medicine (CM) plays an important role in primary healthcare. In line with the recommendations of the Primary Healthcare Blueprint (Blueprint), the Government will further develop a community-based, family-centric, coherent and comprehensive community healthcare system based on the service model of District Health Centers (DHC). In this regard, the Government actively promotes the enhancement of CM service elements in DHCs, including encouraging CM practitioners to join as part of the community network service providers.

     Currently, DHCs (including DHC Expresses) provide members with stroke rehabilitation programme and management programmes on osteoarthritic knee pain and low back pain. The operators of DHCs will establish a service network with CM practitioners and healthcare professionals as well as formulate subsidy arrangements, whereby participants in the programmes can receive personalised CM and other healthcare services on a co-payment basis. As at the first quarter of 2024, nearly 400 CM practitioners have been engaged by DHCs as network service providers. Members with stroke, osteoarthritic knee pain and low back pain may opt for these subsidised CM services which include acupuncture and acupressure treatment according to their needs. Network CM practitioners will also provide disease prevention, health maintenance and health education, including group activities on dietary therapy. The DHCs also actively collaborate with the Chinese Medicine Clinics cum Training and Research Centres (CMCTRs), including promote or provide Tianjiu service in DHCs under collaborative model. In the past three years (as at March 31, 2024), DHCs have provided CM class activities or individualised healthcare services with an accumulative attendance of 5 700 approximately (provisional figures).

     In fact, the resources in the CM sector in Hong Kong are mainly concentrated in the private sector. More than 90 per cent of CM practitioners practice in the private market, providing around 14 million attendances for CM outpatient services every year, which has established a strong service network at the community level. Through the Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme (EHVS), the Government provides eligible Hong Kong elderly person with an annual voucher amount of $2,000 to subsidise their use of private primary healthcare services provided by 14 categories of healthcare professions, including CM practitioners. In the past three years, the amount claimed by the elderly person for using CM services under the EHVS has increased year-on-year. In 2023, the amount claimed was nearly $1,141 million, the second highest among the healthcare professions under the EHVS.

     Furthermore, as regards Government-subsidised CM primary healthcare services, the 18 CMCTRs currently provide services for about 1.5 million attendances each year on average, of which the annual quota of Government-subsidised outpatient services has increased from about 600 000 to 800 000 since October 2023, representing a surge of over 30 per cent. The Hong Kong’s first Chinese Medicine Hospital will also provide a series of Government-subsidised outpatient services when it commences operation by phases starting from the end of 2025.

     The Government will continue to develop various primary healthcare services (including CM services) in accordance with the Blueprint to optimise the use of resources in both public and private CM sectors. Meanwhile, the involvement of the CM in the primary healthcare reference frameworks will be further explored by the Government with a view to unleashing the potential advantage of the CM in health management and facilitating cross-disciplinary collaboration in primary healthcare services. With a view to leveraging on the strengths and advantages of the CM, the Government will continue to explore directions and strategies for further strengthening CM primary healthcare services, such as enhancing the participation of private CM sector in subsidised services through strategic purchasing, exploring the formulation of appropriate service scope and models, enhancing cross-disciplinary collaboration, and promoting further synergies between primary healthcare services and CM services through development of relevant training, publicity and promotion, health assessment, preventive care and introduction of new programmes with the involvement of the CM practitioners, in particular in the area of chronic disease prevention and health management.

     In parallel, the Health Bureau is collaborating with the CM sector to formulate the CM Development Blueprint, in which a comprehensive review on the long-term strategies and planning for the development of the CM services will be conducted, including relevant areas such as the involvement of CM in primary healthcare and the mode of further collaboration with DHCs. read more

     The Marine Department (MD), together with the Hong Kong Police Force and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), conducted joint operations against the improper use of bright light for fishing and illegal fishing activities in the eastern and southern waters of Hong Kong on June 14 and 18.

     During the operations, five vessels were inspected and among them four vessels were suspected to have used bright light improperly for fishing, while no vessel was found to be engaged in illegal fishing. The MD will further investigate the cases and gather evidence for prosecution in order to combat any relevant irregularities.

     A spokesman for the MD reminded the public that under the Shipping and Port Control Regulations (Cap. 313A), vessels are allowed to use a bright light for fishing in areas where bright-light fishing is permitted. However, the use of a bright light on any vessel for the purpose of fishing, or attracting fish in Hong Kong waters, shall comply with the requirements of Cap. 313A and the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (General) Regulation (Cap. 548F), i.e. a bright light shall be so constructed, shaded, installed and used so that no light emitted from it shall be visible, whether directly or by reflection from any source other than the sea surface, above a horizontal plane passing through the lowest edge of the light source. A person who contravenes the related legislation commits an offence and is liable to a fine of $5,000 upon conviction.

     In addition, under the Fisheries Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171), only a vessel registered under the Fisheries Protection Ordinance can be used for fishing in Hong Kong waters and only the fishing methods listed on its Certificate of Local Fishing Vessel Registration can be employed for fishing by the vessel. Any offender upon conviction is liable to a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for six months.

     To ensure the order of marine traffic and navigation safety of vessels, in addition to daily patrols and enforcement actions in various districts of Hong Kong waters, the MD also maintains close co-operation with the Marine Police and the AFCD from time to time to conduct target-based joint operations, including inspections involving the suspected improper use of a bright light for fishing and illegal fishing activities. From January to May 2024, the MD conducted a total of 25 special operations in areas including the waters of southern Lantau Island, southern Lamma Island, south of Hong Kong and east of Hong Kong. Six prosecutions had been initiated against the fishing vessels in relation to illegal bright-light fishing. The MD is now taking follow-up actions.

     The MD will continue to step up patrols to combat the improper use of bright light for fishing activities to ensure safe navigation. The department will also meet with local fishery organisations from time to time to distribute relevant publicity and education materials to the trade. Information on the proper use of bright light for fishing is available on the MD’s website: www.mardep.gov.hk/filemanager/en/share/publications/pdf/materials/publf.pdf.

      

     The effective exchange rate index for the Hong Kong dollar on Wednesday, June 19, 2024 is 106.5 (same as yesterday’s index). read more