Category: MIL-OSI

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

     Following is a question by Professor the Hon Priscilla Leung and a written reply by the Secretary for Environment and Ecology, Mr Tse Chin-wan, in the Legislative Council today (April 2):
 
     According to a paper submitted by the Environment and Ecology Bureau and the Environmental Protection Department to the Panel on Environmental Affairs and the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene of this Council in December last year on the latest progress and achievements of the efforts in promoting waste reduction and recycling, the authorities were conducting a study on how to enhance the municipal solid waste (MSW) charging scheme, and would continuously monitor and assess public views and participation in waste reduction and recycling. It is expected that they will report to members again in the middle of this year on the relevant work progress and the Government’s views on implementing MSW charging. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the specific measures currently put in place by the Government to enhance MSW charging scheme; of the expected time for implementing MSW charging;
 
(2) how the Government assesses the level of public participation in the process of promoting waste reduction and recycling, and of the factors affecting such participation;
 
(3) how the Government plans to increase the number of Food Waste Recycling Spots, and of the specific timetable; and
 
(4) as regards the implementation of the Producer Responsibility Scheme on Plastic Beverage Containers and Beverage Cartons, of the challenges the Government expects to face; how it ensures that the implementation of the scheme can balance the interests of various parties?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     Although the Government announced the suspension of the implementation of municipal solid waste (MSW) charging scheme, our determination to reduce MSW has never wavered. The reply to the question raised by Professor the Hon Priscilla Leung is as follows:
 
(1) and (2) The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) is continuously enhancing the community recycling network and strengthening public education to promote a green waste reduction and recycling culture in our society. We will assess public participation in waste reduction and recycling based on data such as the usage of public collection facilities, the amount of recyclables collected, and the total quantity of MSW disposed of at landfills. In this regard, the latest figures show that the number of visits to GREEN@COMMUNITY (G@C) in 2024 surged to approximately 12.7 million, representing an increase of about 80 per cent compared to that of 2023, while the quantity of recyclables collected (by weight) rose by nearly 60 per cent year-on-year. We have also successfully reversed the rising trend of waste disposal. Since 2021, the daily average quantity of MSW disposed of at landfills has decreased for three consecutive years from 11 358 tonnes per day in 2021 to 10 510 tonnes per day in 2024, representing a 3.4 per cent decrease from 2023 and a 7.5 per cent decrease from 2021. 
 
     Convenient community recycling facilities and continuous public education are crucial in promoting and encouraging public participation in waste reduction and recycling. As revealed by the abovementioned figures, with the gradual enhancement of the community recycling network, public participation in waste reduction and recycling has risen continuously. To this end, the EPD has substantially increased the number of public collection points under G@C to over 800 in the first quarter of this year. Meanwhile, we are promoting the Waste Reduction and Recycling Charter (the Charter) to encourage private residential premises to set up convenient waste separation and recycling facilities, and to strengthen education and encourage residents to practise waste reduction at source and clean recycling. As of the end of February 2025, a total of 826 private residential premises have signed the Charter, accounting for approximately 40 per cent of the total number of households in private residential buildings with property management companies/owners’ corporations/residents’ organisations in Hong Kong and covering around 700 000 households.
 
     On the other hand, through the outreaching services of the Green Outreach, the EPD has strengthened the publicity and education as well as the community support for waste reduction and recycling. In 2025-26, the Green Outreach will focus on territory-wide or district-based waste reduction and recycling publicity programmes, including “We-recycle@School” and Programme on Source Separation of Waste. The Green Outreach will also make more use of mass media platforms such as social media and the Internet to carry out publicity and promotional activities, and strengthen collaborations with G@C operators, local groups, non-governmental organisations, etc. to promote a green waste reduction and recycling culture to the public. Besides, the EPD launched the GREEN$ Electronic Participation Incentive Scheme (GREEN$ ePIS) in 2020. Through providing incentives, it has successfully motivated many members of the public to participate in waste separation and recycling. The EPD has further expanded the electronic redemption options since February 2024, allowing members of the public to convert their GREEN$ points into a more diverse range of electronic rewards, including free MTR tickets, local eco-tours and supermarket items, thereby integrating waste reduction and recycling habits into their daily lives. As of the end of February 2025, the number of user accounts of GREEN$ ePIS has reached over one million.
 
     The total quantity of MSW disposed of at landfills has begun to decline steadily, and the recovery rate has risen. These results demonstrate that the public is actively participating in waste reduction and recycling, and that the community starts to build up a green waste reduction and recycling culture. Taking on the current positive momentum, we will continue to strengthen waste reduction and recycling initiatives, along with publicity and education, so as to encourage more public participation. At the same time, the Government is reviewing the MSW charging scheme. During the process, we will engage with relevant stakeholders, such as representatives from the property management, food and beverage, and cleaning sectors, to continuously and comprehensively evaluate public sentiments and the level of public participation in waste reduction and recycling. The Government will report on the work progress in promoting waste reduction and recycling and present the way forward of MSW charging scheme to the Legislative Council (LegCo) Panel on Environmental Affairs in mid-2025 as planned.
 
(3) As at the end of 2024, the EPD installed around 1 200 food waste smart recycling bins (FWSRBs) in residential buildings across the territory, and will increase the number of FWSRBs or food waste collection facilities in residential premises to around 1 600 in 2025. The EPD will also progressively install additional FWSRBs in public rental housing estates with higher usage rates, with a view to achieving the “one FWSRB per block” target. For premises without sufficient space to install food waste recycling bins (e.g. single-block residential buildings and “three-nil” buildings), the EPD has set up approximately 200 fixed or mobile Public Food Waste Recycling Points, of which 76 are Food Waste Recycling Spots operating as night-time kerbside booths at fixed times and locations for the convenience of small business operators and nearby residents. To expand the service coverage, the EPD is preparing to increase the number of Food Waste Recycling Spots gradually to around 100 in 2025, with priority given to more densely populated districts where fixed food waste collection points have yet to be set up. By taking forward various initiatives, the overall quantity of food waste recovered is expected to increase progressively from an average of about 280 tonnes per day in 2024 to about 350 tonnes per day in 2025, representing an increase of nearly 30 per cent.
 
(4) The Government plans to introduce an amendment bill to the LegCo in April this year to establish a common legislative framework for the producer responsibility schemes (PRSs) applicable to different products. After the passage of the bill, we will extend PRSs to more products (including plastic beverage containers, beverage cartons, electric vehicle batteries, vehicle tyres and lead-acid batteries) as and when appropriate by means of subsidiary legislation. The Government continues the ongoing discussion with the trades about the implementation details and their readiness. Only if the trades are ready shall we consult the LegCo on various PRSs (including the PRS on Plastic Beverage Containers and Beverage Cartons) and gradually implement them in light of the prevailing circumstances.
 
     We will maintain close communication with the trades and consider their views when fine-tuning the operational details of the schemes as appropriate, with a view to alleviating the compliance costs of the trades, setting appropriate recycling targets, assisting the trades in establishing recycling networks, and considering the provision of exemptions as appropriate, etc. In addition, we will provide sufficient preparatory and adaptation periods as well as strengthen publicity and education for members of the public, so as to ensure the smooth implementation of various PRSs in the future.

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

Region  Tai Po Jockey Club General Out-patient Clinic G/F, 37 Ting Kok Road, Tai Po 3157 0906 2664 2039 Tseung Kwan O (Po Ning Road) General Out-patient Clinic G/F, 28 Po Ning Road, Tseung Kwan O 3157 0660 2191 1083 Tuen Mun Clinic 11 Tsing Yin Street, San Hui, Tuen Mun 3543 0886 2452 9111 Yuen Long Jockey Club Health Centre 269 Castle Peak Road, Yuen Long 3543 5007 2443 8511

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

     Following is a question by the Hon Lau Kwok-fan and a written reply by the Secretary for Environment and Ecology, Mr Tse Chin-wan, in the Legislative Council today (April 2):
 
Question:
 
     The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) has not been updated since its amendment in 2018. The Government proposed in 2019 to amend the Ordinance to step up efforts to combat animal cruelty, but the specific bill has not yet been introduced into this Council to date for scrutiny. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) as the Government indicated in its reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council on February 26 this year that it would complete the law drafting work as soon as possible after collating the views of the stakeholders concerned and introduce the proposed legislative amendments into this Council, of the specific timetable of the relevant work and the direction of the legislative amendments; whether it has encountered difficulties in the course of preparing for the legislative amendments; if so, of the details;
 
(2) as it is learnt that the community generally considers that the penalties for offences of cruelty to animals under the existing legislation (with the maximum penalty being a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for three years) fail to reflect the seriousness of some cases (such as cruelty resulting in death and organised cruelty) and to pose sufficient deterrent effect, whether the Government will consider substantially raising the maximum penalty, for example, by increasing the maximum fine to $2,000,000, and raising the maximum term of imprisonment to seven years, so as to satisfy the principle of proportionality;
 
(3) as the Government has indicated that it will study the introduction of the concept of “Duty of Care” in Cap. 169 mandating persons responsible for animals to take proper care of the welfare of animals, but it is learnt that the community has rather strong and diversified views in this regard, whether the authorities will amend Cap. 169 in phases by raising the maximum penalty in the first place, followed by amendments and enhancements to the Ordinance as appropriate and necessary at the next phase;
 
(4) as there are views that the existing evidential threshold in Cap. 169 is too high, for example, requiring law enforcement agencies to prove that the perpetrator has the intent of “deliberately causing cruelty to animals” in order to secure a conviction, resulting in a large number of cases not proceeding to judicial proceedings due to insufficient evidence, whether the authorities will draw up dedicated prosecution guidelines so as to lower the evidential threshold and boost the conviction rate; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
 
(5) apart from amending the existing legislation, of the details of the Government’s other specific work in preventing cruelty to animals; whether the authorities will enhance public awareness of animal protection through publicity and educational efforts; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The Government adopts a multi-pronged approach to curb acts of cruelty to animals. This includes exploring raising penalties for offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) (the Ordinance) to enhance deterrent effect, taking stringent enforcement actions against illegal acts, and continuing to enhance relevant public awareness through education and promotion activities.
 
     Having consulted the Security Bureau and the Department of Justice, the reply to the question from the Hon Lau Kwok-fan is as follows:
 
(1) and (3) The Government has been studying amendments to the Ordinance. The directions being explored in the legislative amendment include imposing a positive “Duty of Care” on persons responsible for animals, requiring them to take proper care of the welfare of animals (including diet, environment, health, and behaviour); raising penalties for animal cruelty offences; and enhancing enforcement power, etc. In preparing the bill, it is necessary to consult the relevant stakeholders again on some of the proposals. After collating the views, we will finalise the legislative amendment proposals, implementation arrangement, and law drafting work promptly. Once the work is completed, we will consult the Legislative Council on the proposal.
 
(2) Currently, any person who does or omits doing any act and causes unnecessary suffering to an animal, may constitute an offence for animal cruelty. Upon conviction, the maximum penalty is a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for three years.
 
     The Government is studying raises to the penalties for animal cruelty offences to reflect more clearly the gravity of the offence, and to introduce an indictable offence to allow enforcement officers more time to instigate prosecution on complex or serious cruelty cases, in order to further enhance deterrent effect. In finalising the proposal on penalty, the Government will make reference to overseas experience, local penalties for relevant criminal offences, and views of stakeholders, etc.
 
(4) The existing offences under the Ordinance cover different forms of cruelty to animals, including causes any unnecessary suffering to an animal by wantonly or unreasonably doing or omitting to do any act; neglects to supply animal in confinement with sufficient food and sufficient fresh water; conveys an animal in such a manner as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering, etc. The Ordinance provides that an owner shall be deemed to have permitted cruelty if he shall have failed to exercise reasonable care and supervision in respect of the protection of the animal therefrom, proof of intention to cause cruelty to animals is not required.
 
     In making a decision of whether or not to prosecute in each case, the relevant departments make an objective and professional assessment of the available evidence and applicable law, and strictly act in accordance with the Prosecution Code issued by the Department of Justice. The current practice has worked well and we consider it not necessary to formulate a specific prosecution guideline.
 
     On the other hand, according to the information of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), over 90 per cent of the reports were found to be not related to animal cruelty after investigation, but nuisance or other situations, such as frequent noise from animals or odour from the premises where the animals were kept, and this misled the reporters into thinking that the animals suffered from acts of cruelty.
 
(5) The Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), the AFCD and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) jointly implement the Animal Watch Scheme to proactively prevent and detect suspected cases of animal cruelty through multi-agency collaboration. The HKPF would also invite the AFCD and the SPCA officers to provide professional advice at the scene of an animal cruelty case and assist thereafter where necessary.
 
     On publicity and education, through various channels including the Animal Watchers Programme, the “Be a Responsible Pet Owner” thematic website and roving exhibitions, the HKPF and the AFCD are respectively promoting the message of preventing cruelty to animals at the community level and online platforms; encouraging the public to report cases timely and to provide information that aids investigations; as well as raising public awareness of animal welfare.
 
     The AFCD has also launched a series of “Duty of Care” publicity programmes, including the production of posts on social media platforms to share information on how to take proper care of animals, and the recent launch of the “Animal Welfare Project: The Adventures of Meow” promotional video, which aims to educate the public on the content and importance of “Duty of Care” in an interesting manner.

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

​The Chief Executive, Mr John Lee, announced today (April 2) that in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, the Central People’s Government, upon his nomination and recommendation, approved the appointment of Mr Chow Yat-ming, Joe, formerly Deputy Commissioner of Police, as Commissioner of Police and the removal of Mr Siu Chak-yee from the post of Commissioner of Police. Mr Siu proceeded on pre-retirement leave today after serving the Hong Kong Police Force for 36 years.
 
Commenting on the appointment of Mr Chow, Mr Lee said, “Mr Chow has served in the Hong Kong Police Force for almost 30 years and has extensive experience in criminal investigation, intelligence gathering, policy-making as well as personnel management. He has a distinguished performance and possesses proven leadership skills. I am confident that he will capably lead the Police Force in meeting the challenges ahead.”
 
Speaking on the retirement of Mr Siu, Mr Lee said, “Since taking up the appointment as Commissioner of Police in June 2021, Mr Siu has made commendable efforts in maintaining Hong Kong as one of the safest cities in the world. He has demonstrated unswerving dedication and determination to safeguarding Hong Kong and upholding the rule of law in dealing with the social unrest. During his tenure, he has also been devoted to introducing strong and effective measures to prevent deception cases and combat criminal activities. Under his eminent leadership, the Police Force has continued to excel as a world-class professional law enforcement agency. On behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government, I convey my heartfelt appreciation to Mr Siu for his contribution to the HKSAR and wish him a happy retirement.”
 
The following are biographical notes of Mr Siu and Mr Chow:
 
Mr Siu Chak-yee
——————
 
Mr Siu joined the Hong Kong Police Force in December 1988 as a Probationary Inspector. He was promoted to Chief Superintendent of Police in 2013, Assistant Commissioner of Police in 2017 and Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police in 2018. He was appointed as Deputy Commissioner of Police in 2019 and took up the Commissioner of Police post in June 2021.
 
Mr Siu has held a variety of posts during his 36 years of service in the Police Force, responsible for crime investigations, security and operations as well as management work. He was District Commander of Kowloon City District and Chief Superintendent (Human Resources Branch) between 2013 and 2017. He was Assistant Commissioner of Police (Personnel) from January 2017 and took up the post of Director of Operations in November 2018. He served as Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations) between November 2019 and June 2021. He was appointed as Commissioner of Police in June 2021.
 
During his career in the Police Force, Mr Siu has received many awards. He was awarded five Commanding Officer’s Commendations between 1995 and 2006; Commissioner’s Commendation in 2006; Hong Kong Police Long Service Medal in 2006 with the first, second and third clasps in 2013, 2018 and 2021 respectively; Hong Kong Police Medal for Meritorious Service in 2016 and Hong Kong Police Medal for Distinguished Service in 2021; Hong Kong Police TIDERIDER Medal in 2020 and the Medal for Safeguarding National Security in 2024.
 
Mr Chow Yat-ming, Joe
—————
 
Mr Chow joined the Hong Kong Police Force in November 1995 as a Probationary Inspector. He was promoted to Chief Superintendent of Police in 2016, Assistant Commissioner of Police in 2020 and Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police in 2021. He was appointed as Deputy Commissioner of Police in 2022.
 
Mr Chow has served in various posts in the Police Force, responsible for criminal investigation, intelligence gathering, policy-making as well as personnel management. He served as the Commander of Criminal Intelligence Bureau, District Commander of Yau Tsim District and the Deputy Regional Commander of Kowloon West Region between 2016 and 2020. He was promoted to the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police in February 2020 and took charge of the Operations Wing and later the Personnel Wing. He became the Director of Personnel and Training in January 2021 and took up the office of the Director of Crime and Security in August 2021. He was appointed as Deputy Commissioner of Police (Management) in April 2022 and assumed the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations) in August 2023.
​
During his career in the Police Force, Mr Chow has received a number of awards. He was awarded Hong Kong Police Long Service Medal in 2013 with the first clasp in 2020; Chief Executive’s Commendation for Government/Public Service and Hong Kong Police TIDERIDER Medal in 2020; and Hong Kong Police Medal for Meritorious Service in 2021.

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

     Following is a question by the Hon Maggie Chan and a reply by the Under Secretary for Environment and Ecology, Miss Diane Wong, in the Legislative Council today (April 2):
 
Question:
 
     There are views that the existing legislation has impeded the development potential of Hong Kong’s pet industry, and there is still substantial room for improvement in the pet-friendly policy of Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that in the reply to a question from a Member of this Council on June 12 last year, the Government indicated that it would conduct research on practices and experiences in other places regarding bringing dogs into food premises and consider reviewing the existing legislation, of the progress and details of the relevant work, including whether it will establish a licensing regime for pet-friendly food premises and devise supporting insurance solutions, open up outdoor dining areas for entry of pets on a trial basis, and implement a tiered access system based on the size of food premises, indoor and outdoor space, or types of dog; 
President, 
     On the questions raised by the Hon Maggie Chan, I would like to reply to the question as follows: 
     The society is divided over this subject. On the one hand, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) has from time to time received complaints about certain food premises allowing customers who bring pet dogs inside, expressing concerns on pet dogs entering restaurants. On the other hand, in recent years, there are views in society hoping to bring along pet dogs to dine in food premises.
 
     The Government needs to take into account different factors when considering whether to relax certain restrictions on pet dogs entering food premises, including public health, the operating environment of food premises and social acceptance. The Environment and Ecology Bureau, together with the FEHD, are conducting research on practices and experiences in other places, and would carefully consider whether there is room for relaxing the relevant restrictions. 
     Considering the widespread use of ISO microchips in many other countries and regions, to further facilitate the movements of dogs into and out of Hong Kong, the AFCD has completed a feasibility study and proposed to introduce ISO microchips in addition to the existing AVID microchips. The AFCD has consulted relevant stakeholders, including licensed animal traders, animal welfare organisations, pet transport agents, veterinary clinics and animal-related organisations on the proposal, and the trade is generally supportive. The Government expects to consult the relevant Legislative Council (LegCo) Panel on the proposal in the second quarter of this year. If the proposal is supported by the Panel, the Government will introduce the proposed amendments to the relevant subsidiary legislation into the LegCo in due course. 
     The AFCD classifies places into different groups according to different risk of rabies, with reference to information about the surveillance of animal diseases from the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). Group I includes rabies-free places (i.e. where rabies has been absent for a long time); Group II includes places where rabies cases are few and under effective control. Since Groups I and II places are considered of lower risk of rabies, cats and dogs imported from these places are exempted from quarantine upon fulfilling relevant requirements (such as providing Animal Health Certificate, Residence Certificate and Anti-rabies Vaccination Certificate). Furthermore, Group IIIA includes places that do not meet the requirements of Group II but have satisfactory regulation of veterinary services and official controls on health certification; whereas Group IIIB includes places where rabies cases are reported and not under effective control. In general, places that do not meet the requirements of Group I, II, or IIIA (or their situations cannot be determined) will be included in Group IIIB. Since the incubation period of rabies can be up to several months, to prevent the transmission of rabies into Hong Kong, the AFCD requires a quarantine period of no less than 120 days for the cats and dogs imported from Group IIIB places.
 
     Group IIIA has been introduced since December 2024 to facilitate animal owners in bringing their pet cats and dogs to Hong Kong. The quarantine period for cats and dogs of the relevant places will be significantly shortened from the current 120 days to 30 days upon their arrival in Hong Kong, provided that they meet the relevant quarantine requirements including that the animals must be vaccinated against rabies, have a satisfactory rabies neutralising antibody titre test and have an animal health certificate issued or endorsed by a government veterinary officer of the place of export. The AFCD has proactively contacted some Group IIIB places which do not meet the requirements of Group II but have satisfactory regulation of veterinary services and official controls on health certification to discuss the relevant quarantine arrangements and, upon reaching an agreement, to include them in Group IIIA to shorten the quarantine period for dogs and cats upon arrival in Hong Kong. Among Group IIIA places, the Macao Special Administrative Region has implemented the new arrangements since December last year. On extending the new arrangement to other cities of the Greater Bay Area, the AFCD is actively discussing the details of the arrangement with the relevant Mainland authorities with a view to implement the new arrangement as soon as possible.
 
     The current arrangement of a 30-day quarantine period for Group IIIA places is formulated with reference to the risk assessment conducted by the expert consultant in light of the actual situation in Hong Kong. The AFCD will continue to make close reference to the latest situation of animal diseases published by the WOAH and timely review whether the relevant quarantine requirements can be enhanced in the light of factors such as operational experience, views of stakeholders and risk assessment.

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

     Following is a question by the Hon Shang Hailong and a written reply by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Mr Chris Sun, in the Legislative Council today (April 2):
 
Question:
 
     The Chief Executive announced in the 2024 Policy Address that the initial visa validity period for high-income talents under the Top Talent Pass Scheme (i.e. Category A talents under the Scheme) would be extended from two years to three years (the new measure). However, quite a number of Category A talents have relayed to me that they are doubtful about the application process for extending the validity period, and consider that there is room for improvement in the process. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the specific process for Category A talents to apply for extension of the initial visa validity period to three years under the new measure; whether clear announcements have been made on the relevant application process to facilitate submission of applications by Category A talents;
 
(2) whether it has plans to enhance the process mentioned in (1), e.g. whether consideration will be given to exempt current visa holders who are Category A talents from submitting applications for extension of stay, or implement the initiative of “one-click application” on the Internet to automatically extend the visa validity period to three years; if so, of the specific details; if not, the reasons for that; and
 
(3) whether the Government has considered, in approving Category A talents’ applications for extension of stay, granting approval for both the extension of visa validity period normally granted and the extension of an additional one-year under the new measure at the same time (e.g. applicants who meet the requirements will be granted not only extension of visa period for three years under normal circumstances, but also an additional one-year visa period in the light of the new measure, adding up to a total of four years); if so, of the specific details; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:
 
President,
 
     To alleviate the acute manpower shortage, the Government launched the new Top Talent Pass Scheme (TTPS) in end-2022, targeting high-income individuals and top-notch university bachelor’s degree graduates, to trawl for outside quality talents to enrich the local talent pool. The eligibility and assessment criteria of the TTPS are concise and clear. Eligible talents are not required to have secured offers of employment in Hong Kong before applying for visas through the TTPS to explore opportunities in Hong Kong. Yet, upon expiry of the first visas, they will have to be employed or have established/joined in business in Hong Kong so that extension of stay can be granted.
 
     An applicant under Category A of the TTPS is required to have an annual income reaching HK$2.5 million or above in the year immediately preceding the date of application. Since the launch of the TTPS, up to end-February this year, close to 99 000 applicants have been approved, of which over 25 000 are under Category A, accounting for about one-quarter of the total.
 
     Our reply, in consultation with the Immigration Department (ImmD), to the Member’s questions is as follows:
 
     The 2024 Policy Address announced the reform of various aspects of the talent admission regime, including extending the validity period of the first visas of high-income talents under the TTPS from two years to three years. For Category A applicants with approvals given from the day of announcement (i.e. October 16, 2024), the validity period of their first visas has been extended from two years to three years to facilitate their planning to move to Hong Kong with their families. 
 
     The new measure also applies to around 21 000 Category A applicants whose applications were approved before the announcement in the 2024 Policy Address. As announced by the Government through a press release and media briefing on November 1, 2024, these previously approved talents may apply to the ImmD, within three months before the expiry of their limit of stay, for unconditional extension of stay for one year. If they have secured offers of employment, or have established or joined in a business in Hong Kong upon applying for an extension, they may be granted an extension of stay for up to three years after submitting relevant proof. The pattern of their limit of stay is in line with the prevailing arrangement of granting extension of stay of up to three years under most of the talent admission schemes. We have no plan to change it.
 
     The ImmD, before granting an extension of stay, has to ensure the relevant person’s compliance with the normal immigration requirements, including holding a valid travel document for return to his/her country of residence or citizenship. Hence, Category A applicants are required to submit applications to the ImmD for extension of stay. Applicants only need to submit their applications through the platform on the ImmD’s website, providing basic information and uploading valid travel documents. The procedures are very simple and convenient.

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

     Following is a question by the Hon Kingsley Wong and a written reply by the Deputy Chief Secretary for Administration, Mr Cheuk Wing-hing, in the Legislative Council today (April 2):
 
Question:
 
     The Working Group on Environmental Hygiene and Cityscape led by the Deputy Chief Secretary for Administration steers various bureaux and departments in improving environmental hygiene and street management. However, there are views that the fragmentation of responsibilities among departments (for example, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) is responsible for clearing refuse in rear lanes, while the Transport Department is responsible for handling abandoned motorcycles) and the unclear delineation of enforcement powers and responsibilities (for example, the FEHD and the Highways Department can both clean up graffiti and bills) have undermined the effectiveness of improving environmental hygiene. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) whether it will consider conferring comprehensive enforcement powers on specific government departments to centrally handle environmental hygiene and street management, so as to enhance speed and efficiency; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(2) as it has been learnt that many problems of hygiene black spots originate from scavengers or street sleepers, whether the government departments keep a systematic record of such people and refer their cases to the Social Welfare Department, charitable organizations or District Services and Community Care Teams, etc for follow-up, so as to tackle problems of hygiene black spots at source;
 
(3) as some hawker stall operators have relayed to me that the streets stink due to effluent flowing from suspected burst sewers of locked vacant shops near their stalls, and some people also advise that some fenced-off private sites have long been reduced to rubbish dumps fraught with pest and rodent problems, regarding hygiene problems with private premises/sites (especially cases where owners cannot be contacted), apart from applying for a warrant to effect entry into premises from the Court (warrant) to enter such premises, how the authorities handle such cases more expeditiously and effectively; and
 
(4) of the number of cases in the past three years in which various government departments have applied for warrants from the Court to enter locked/fenced-off private premises/sites to handle hygiene problems, and the respective average duration between the decision of the government departments to take legal actions and the granting of warrants by the Court?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     In consultation with the relevant Bureaux, the reply to the questions raised by the Hon Kingsley Wong is as follows:
 
(1) Each department handles environmental hygiene and street management issues according to its jurisdiction. This reflects the different function, profession and legal empowerment of each department. Conferring comprehensive enforcement powers on specific Government departments is not practical and will also lead to the problem of excessive span of control. To tackle district environmental hygiene problems that involve various departments and with unclear delineation of responsibilities, the Task Force on District Governance (Task Force) chaired by the Deputy Chief Secretary for Administration (now renamed as the Working Group on Environmental Hygiene and Cityscape) has already formulated the relevant standard mode of operation, i.e. departments concerned will conduct joint operations in accordance with the clarified division of labour. Successful examples include resolving the problems of shopfront extension and abandoned motorcycles in back alleys. We therefore do not consider it necessary to empower a designated department to carry out comprehensive enforcement.
 
(2) Scavengers or street sleepers is not merely an environmental hygiene issue. The Government would be caring and reasonable in handling these cases, taking into account individual circumstances in considering whether to take enforcement action and/or to make appropriate referral, so as to strike a balance between maintaining environmental hygiene and handling the matter in a humane manner. Upon receiving public complaints or reports concerning environmental hygiene, the District Office (DO) concerned will review the cases and, where necessary, deploy staff to conduct site inspections and preliminary assessments, and then liaise with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and/or other relevant departments for their prompt follow-up actions. If the hygiene black spots are owing to the behaviour of scavengers or street sleepers, for whom professional follow-up and handling are required to cater for their physical and mental well-being as well as welfare needs, the DO concerned, the FEHD or the relevant department will refer the case to the Social Welfare Department for appropriate support and assistance. 
 
(3) Owners and occupiers are responsible for maintaining the good hygiene of their private premises. For hygiene problem that occurs in private premises and causes nuisance to others or the general public, the FEHD will provide hygiene education to the occupiers or owners concerned, or order them to rectify the situation according to the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) (Ordinance). If they fail to comply, the FEHD will carry out prosecution and other follow-up actions. In case of appalling hygiene conditions, the FEHD would consider conducting one-off operation to improve the hygiene situation as soon as possible, and subsequently recover the expenses incurred from the person(s) concerned.
 
     The Government has conducted a comprehensive review of the existing statutory powers and penalties of environmental hygiene-related legislation and is amending the Ordinance and other relevant legislations to enhance the Government’s efficiency, effectiveness and deterrence in handling various environmental hygiene problems. As regards the problem of rodent infestation in private premises, amendments to the Ordinance include raising the penalty for non-compliance with the “Notice of Elimination of Vermin”, to make the persons concerned take timely follow-up action. It is also proposed that the “Notice of Elimination of Vermin” be served on property management companies for their follow-up action to eliminate vermin infestation in the common areas of private premises.
 
(4) In the past three years (2022 to 2024), the FEHD has successfully obtained 144 warrants from the Court for investigating or handling water seepage cases in buildings and other environmental hygiene cases. The FEHD would generally issue a notice to the occupier or owner concerned before applying for a warrant. However, in urgent circumstance, the FEHD will apply for a warrant from the Court without first issuing a notice. Upon receiving the application, the Court will typically decide on the same day whether to grant the warrant.