Tag Archives: China

The following is issued on behalf of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority:      The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), as representative of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government (HKSAR Government), announced t… read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Lai Tung-kwok and a reply by the Secretary for Health, Professor Lo Chung-mau, in the Legislative Council today (January 15):
 
Question:
 
     In its paper submitted to this Council in 2023 on amending the Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance, the Government proposed to enable, in the first phase, radiographers (RGs) and medical laboratory technologists (MLTs) working in the Chinese Medicine Hospital to accept referrals from Chinese medicine practitioners (CMPs) also working therein for providing patients with relevant tests and examinations. However, some representatives of the trade are of the view that, as all registered CMPs have obtained their qualifications and are subject to regulation under the Chinese Medicine Ordinance, it is unreasonable to determine the right of referral on the basis of job positions rather than qualifications. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the justifications for determining the right of referral on the basis of the job positions rather than the qualifications of CMPs;
 
(2) given that it is learnt that the Chinese Medicine Council of Hong Kong and its Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board would discuss the issue of fully implementing the practice of enabling RGs and MLTs to accept referrals from registered CMPs and put forward recommendations thereafter, of the progress of the relevant discussions and the timetable for putting forward specific recommendations; and
 
(3) in order to promote inter-disciplinary collaboration in healthcare services among CMPs and supplementary medical professionals, whether it has taken the initiative to discuss with various professional medical groups to clarify and rationalise the processes, responsibilities and obligations of CMPs in the referral process; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     I provide a consolidated reply to the question raised by the Hon Lai Tung-kwok as follows:
 
     The Government is committed to promoting service and professional development of Chinese medicine (CM) in Hong Kong, with a view to strengthening the role of CM in the overall healthcare system. With the continuous development of the CM service mode, it is anticipated that there will be more collaboration and interaction between Chinese medicine practitioners (CMPs) and other healthcare professionals on primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare services.
 
     As a matter of fact, inter-disciplinary collaboration across healthcare professions is a megatrend of healthcare service development. It is also the required professional competency and responsibility of healthcare professionals to make appropriate referrals for patients as and when necessary. Although the current legislation does not restrict CMPs from making referrals, some provisions do not allow healthcare professionals, such as radiographers (RGs), to accept referrals from CMPs. In this connection, the Government intends to provide a clear legal basis for supplementary healthcare professionals to accept referrals from CMPs through legislative amendments to the Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance (Cap. 359), with a view to rationalising the referral mechanisms between various professions and demonstrating the policy direction of promoting inter-disciplinary collaboration across healthcare professions.
 
     Safeguarding patients’ interests and professional autonomy are the two key principles in the regulation and development of healthcare professions. Regarding the proposal on the use of modern technologies and techniques by CMPs to facilitate diagnosis and treatment in the course of their practice, the two relevant principles should also be adopted, and the CM profession and relevant healthcare professions should reach a consensus before implementation. Specifically, the CM profession should first ascertain the required standards of professional knowledge, skills, competence and conduct, etc, with thorough consultation with the stakeholders of the relevant healthcare professions during the process. Meanwhile, the CM profession should also ensure that CMPs clearly understand the professional requirements including follow-up to relevant diagnoses as well as the associated professional and legal liabilities for the medical practice concerned to safeguard patients’ safety and interests. After a consensual proposal is formed within the professions concerned, the statutory councils/boards of the CM profession and relevant healthcare professions should deliberate on the specific procedures and mechanisms, and both parties should further promulgate or revise relevant professional codes or guidelines before implementing the specific referral arrangements.
 
     The Health Bureau (HHB) has planned to submit the legislative proposal on amending the Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance to the Legislative Council in the first half of this year. The amendments include allowing RGs and medical laboratory technologists (MLTs) to accept referrals from CMPs. When the relevant Amendment Ordinance takes effect, those specific referral arrangements could be implemented upon completion of the aforementioned discussions and preparatory work such as revision of relevant codes of practice by the statutory councils/boards of the CM profession and the relevant healthcare professions. 
 
     With regard to the first part of the Hon Lai Tung-kwok’s question, the first Chinese medicine hospital in Hong Kong will commence services in phases from end of this year. Being the flagship institution in promoting the development of CM in Hong Kong, The Chinese Medicine Hospital of Hong Kong (CMHHK) is distinctly different from the current CM outpatient services which are mainly provided at the community level in terms of circumstances such as clinical needs of patients in diagnosis and treatment, clinical governance structure and service model, and there is also a practical need and sufficient capacity for inter-disciplinary referrals to be made within the hospital. As CMHHK will provide CM-predominant secondary and tertiary healthcare services, it is expected that the conditions of inpatients will be more complicated than those of outpatients, and they will require inter-disciplinary collaboration in terms of clinical diagnosis and treatment, etc, including more frequent support by diagnostic radiology and pathology services. CMHHK will also put in place a robust clinical governance structure, as well as guidelines and mechanisms for clinical diagnosis and treatment, audit and risk assessment. The hospital will also be supported by multi-disciplinary teams comprising CMPs, doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. There will also be a comprehensive set of medical equipment and training mechanism, with stringent management on healthcare standards and risks. Therefore, the legislative proposal shall take effect immediately to enable RGs and MLTs in the context of CMHHK to accept referrals from CMPs in the context of CMHHK so as to ensure smooth collaboration between CMPs and other professionals within the hospital. 
 
     As regards the second and third parts of the question, with a view to facilitating the communication between CMPs and supplementary medical professionals as well as the professional discussion on issues arising from inter-disciplinary referrals, in December 2023, the HHB took the initiative to issue an invitation to the Chinese Medicine Council of Hong Kong and its Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board (CMPB) for setting up a working group to initiate professional discussions on the referral of patients by CMPs for diagnostic imaging and laboratory tests. The working group has conducted an in-depth study on matters including the core professional competencies required, training needs and associated medical professional liabilities of CMPs for making such referrals, and has planned to develop reference standards and relevant guidelines. The working group will meet with bodies of Western medicine and relevant supplementary healthcare professions to discuss relevant details and related arrangements with a view to further forging a consensus. 
 
     In addition, the HHB has held nine meetings since mid-2024 to meet stakeholders from different sectors on various legislative proposals on amendments to the Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance, including the CMPB, the Chinese Medicine Development Blueprint Subcommittee and its relevant working groups, as well as the Primary Healthcare Committee. The HHB has also consulted the Supplementary Medical Professions Council (the SMP Council) and its Boards of all supplementary healthcare professions, including the Radiographers Board and the Medical Laboratory Technologists Board. The SMP Council and the boards of the two professions were of the view that, as the prerequisite for implementing the legislative proposal, a broad consensus must be reached between RG, MLT and CM professions on details with regard to making referrals, including the training requirements, the scope of referrals, the duties and responsibilities of RGs, MLTs and CMPs, and the follow-up arrangements on the examination or test results, so as to ensure the orderly implementation of the referral arrangements, thereby safeguarding patients’ safety to the greatest extent. 
 
     The HHB will continue to facilitate communication between stakeholders from various professions under the principle of professional autonomy and closely monitor the progress of relevant discussions, with a view to making appropriate arrangements and co-ordination in respect of the legislative amendments and specific implementation for the orderly implementation of referral arrangements.
 
     Thank you, President. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Mrs Regina Ip and and a reply by the Secretary for Justice, Mr Paul Lam, SC, in the Legislative Council today (January 15):
 
Questions:
 
     It has been stipulated in Chapter III of the Basic Law a series of fundamental rights, including basic human rights, enjoyed by Hong Kong residents. On the other hand, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) established the four-step proportionality test for balancing basic human rights in the case of Hysan Development Co. Ltd and others v Town Planning Board in 2016, and CFA reaffirmed the aforesaid test last year in the two cases of Nick Infinger v The Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) and Li Yik Ho v HA. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the number of judicial review cases filed with the court in the past five years in respect of the Government’s alleged excessive restriction of basic human rights and, among such cases, the respective numbers and percentages of those cases in which the Government had won and lost, as well as a breakdown of the legal costs incurred by the Government; the respective litigation costs needed to be paid by the Government in respect of such unsuccessful cases; and
 
(2) whether there were cases in the past in which the Government insisted on lodging appeals despite considering that the cases would have a low success rate after taking into account the aforesaid test; if so, of the factors taken into consideration by the Government in insisting on lodging the appeals; how the Government will hold the officials concerned accountable for such unsuccessful cases in the future?
 
Reply:
 
President, 
 
     Thank you the Hon Mrs Regina Ip for your two questions. 

(1)     After reviewing relevant records and weeding out judicial review (JR) cases related to non-refoulement claims, the Department of Justice (DoJ) has arrived at the figure of 61 cases in total involving applicants’ allegations against the Government for imposing excessive restriction of fundamental human rights among the JR cases filed with the court in the past five years (Note 1). The yearly breakdown is as follows:
 

Year	Number of JR cases
2020	7
2021	14
2022	18
2023	10
2024	12

Note 1: The classification is based on the content of Form 86 of the cases obtained in the Court of First Instance (CFI) or subsequently served by the applicant(s), which clearly refers to the human rights guaranteed by the Basic Law or the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

     Among the 61 cases above, there are 14 cases, i.e. 23 per cent pending the judgment of the CFI, while there are 42 cases, i.e. 69 per cent in which the CFI or a higher court ruled in favour of the Government or held that the Government did not impose disproportionate or excessive restriction of fundamental rights, or the pertinent JR applications were withdrawn by the applicants. There are five cases, i.e. 8 per cent in which the court ruled against the Government on the ground of excessive restriction of fundamental rights, or were settled upon the Government making concessions.

     The legal expenses incurred by the Government in respect of the above cases mainly involve staff costs of DoJ for handling the cases, costs for briefed-out counsel, if any, who acted for the Government, and the expenses on payment of litigation costs to applicants. We have not maintained statistics on the legal expenses incurred by DoJ staff in handling the cases in question. Based on the available information, in respect of the said 61 cases, the annual average fees payable to briefed-out counsel acting for the Government and the annual average litigation costs payable to applicants by the Government are around $3,890,000 and $119,000 respectively.

     Generally speaking, litigation costs will be awarded in favour of the Government when the court ruled in favour of the Government in JR cases and part of these costs would be payable by the applicants and are not necessarily borne entirely by public funds. When a costs order is made in favour of the Government in specific cases, such litigation costs will cover (i) DoJ’s staff costs; and (ii) fees of outside legal services, e.g. fees for briefed-out counsel. In respect of the said 61 cases, the Government has been awarded litigation costs in the total sum of around $4,150,000. As to the above five cases of which the outcome was not in favour of the Government, the fees payable by the Government to the briefed-out counsel acting on its behalf and the litigation costs payable to the applicants totalled around $922,000.
 
(2) The proportionality test established by the Court of Final Appeal is a very complex legal concept aimed at determining whether restrictions on human rights and freedoms caused by certain administrative decisions, policies, or legal provisions are reasonable. This test involves four steps: (i) What is the aim of the restriction? Is it a legitimate aim? (ii) If so, is the restriction rationally connected to that legitimate aim? (iii) Whether the restriction is proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim and not excessive? and (iv) Are the societal benefits brought by the restriction reasonably balanced against the protection of individual rights? The appropriate application of the proportionality test in individual cases often generates considerable controversy and is not a simple clear-cut legal issue.

     When faced with JR cases involving fundamental human rights, DoJ would first thoroughly discern the background and purpose of the impugned decision, policy, or legal provision from the relevant policy bureau, and provide legal advice to the relevant policy bureau after careful consideration and legal research. When significant issues are encountered, the Government would also often seek further advice from independent local or overseas barristers.
 
     Every decision and the strategy in litigation is only made after the relevant policy bureau consulted DoJ and considered a basket of factors. Accurately assessing the outcome of litigation is already quite challenging; but more importantly, the likelihood of success is not the only consideration but just one of many considerations, and there is in particular the need to take into account the overall public interest, such as the potential political, social, and economic impacts, as well as the profound effects on the use and allocation of limited and valuable public resources if the JR is successful.
 
     Every decision made by the Government and every policy formulated, including those approved by the Executive Council, as well as every piece of legislation proposed by the Government and passed by the Legislative Council, would have undergone careful scrutiny and it is truly believed to be in compliance with fundamental human rights and freedoms. Therefore, when faced with JR cases, it is generally necessary, as a responsible government, to put forward its case with conviction so that the Court and the public can clearly understand the Government’s position.
 
     Of course, some cases are more challenging, but there are still ample reasons for the Government to stand firm on defending its position in the legal proceedings. First, for significant issues, an appeal process must be undertaken so as to obtain a final and authoritative ruling on the issue in dispute. More significantly, the most important aspect of litigation, aside from the outcome, is the reasoning of the judgments. Even if the Court ultimately rules against the Government, it is crucial to understand the reasons behind the judgment; this is very important for the Government’s next steps and plans. The Government needs to understand and discern why the Court held that a certain decision, policy, or legal provision did not meet certain human rights requirements before it proceeds to make a new decision, formulate new policies, or put forward legislative or amendment proposals. This is something a responsible government must do; otherwise it would be difficult to provide adequate explanations to the public, the Executive Council, and the Legislative Council.
 
     In fact, even in past cases involving fundamental human rights where the Court ultimately ruled against the Government, the Court never criticised the Government for abusing legal procedures or acting unreasonably, wasting resources or time.
 
     In future, whenever the Government makes any decision, formulates any policy, or makes any legislative proposals, it will certainly strive to ensure compliance with the fundamental human rights and freedoms protected by the Basic Law.

     Thank you, President. read more

     The Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) published today (January 15) the January 2025 issue of the “Hong Kong Monthly Digest of Statistics” (HKMDS).
      
     Apart from providing up-to-date statistics, this issue also contains two feature articles entitled “Hong Kong’s External Direct Investment Statistics, 2014 to 2023” and “Crime Situation of Hong Kong in 2023”. Statistics presented in the “Crime Situation of Hong Kong in 2023” article are based on the data source from the Hong Kong Police Force.
      
“Hong Kong’s External Direct Investment Statistics, 2014 to 2023”
      
     Hong Kong is an international financial centre and commercial hub for multinational corporations to manage their investments and businesses around the world. It is also an important gateway for overseas companies to enter the market of the mainland of China (the Mainland) as well as a platform for facilitating the Mainland enterprises to gain access to the global market. External direct investment (DI) between Hong Kong and the rest of the world, including the Mainland, is very sizable. Analysis of Hong Kong’s DI statistics over the past years is useful in understanding the characteristics and trend of DI in Hong Kong.
      
     This feature article presents the salient features of Hong Kong’s DI statistics in the past decade.
      
     For enquiries about this feature article, please contact the Balance of Payments Branch (2) of the C&SD (Tel: 3903 7016; email: di@censtatd.gov.hk).
      
“Crime Situation of Hong Kong in 2023”
      
     In 2023, a total of 90 276 crimes were recorded in Hong Kong, representing an increase of 29%. Major crimes that recorded increases included deception, theft, blackmail and burglary. This feature article gives an overview of the crime statistics in 2023.
      
     For enquiries about this feature article, please contact the Statistics Office, Crime Wing of the Hong Kong Police Force (Tel: 2860 8438; email: gen-enquiry@censtatd.gov.hk).
      
     Published in bilingual form, the HKMDS is a compact volume of official statistics containing about 130 tables. It collects up-to-date statistical series on various aspects of the social and economic situation of Hong Kong. Topics include population; labour; external trade; National Income and Balance of Payments; prices; business performance; energy; housing and property; government accounts, finance and insurance; and transport, communications and tourism. For selected key statistical items, over 20 charts depicting the annual trend in the past decade and quarterly or monthly trend in the recent two years are also available. Users can download the Digest at the website of the C&SD (www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/EIndexbySubject.html?pcode=B1010002&scode=460).
      
     Enquiries about the contents of the Digest can be directed to the Statistical Information Dissemination Section (1) of the C&SD (Tel: 2582 4738; email: gen-enquiry@censtatd.gov.hk). read more

     The effective exchange rate index for the Hong Kong dollar on Wednesday, January 15, 2025 is 108 (same as yesterday’s index). read more