Council Meeting (Agenda) 30 April 2025

(1)

given that the Government has been granting land for the development of public housing at nominal premium, premium below the market value or nil premium, of the respective amounts of land premium waived for public housing projects of the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") and the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS") as well as the number of units involved in each of the past five and the coming three financial years, and set out in the table below a breakdown by projects (i.e. (i) public rental housing ("PRH")/Green Form Subsidized Home Ownership Scheme ("GSH") and (ii) other subsidized sale flats under HA, as well as (iii) rental estates and (iv) subsidized sale housing projects under HKHS):

Financial year	HA				HKHS
	(i)		(ii)		(iii)		(iv)
	Amounts of land premium waived	Number of units involved	Amounts of land premium waived	Number of units involved	Amounts of land premium waived	Number of units involved	Amounts of land premium waived	Number of units involved
2020-2021
......
2028-2029

(2)

of the respective average construction costs (including (i) per square foot of the construction floor area and (ii) per flat) of PRH/rental housing units and subsidized sale flats constructed by HA and HKHS in each of the past five and the coming three financial years, with a breakdown by type of projects;

(3)

of the respective expenditures spent by HA and HKHS on site formation and infrastructural works for public housing in each of the past five and the coming three financial years, and the respective numbers of flats involved, as well as the respective ratios of expenditures on PRH/rental estates and subsidized sale flats;

(4)

given that according to the paper on the budgets and financial forecasts issued by HA in January this year ("the paper"), the largest expenditure item under the rental housing operating account is the item "other recurrent expenditure", of the expenditure/estimates incurred by each of the sub-items of this item in each of the past five and the coming three financial years;

(5)

of the actual expenditure involving government rent and rates in HA's rental housing operating account in each of the past five financial years, and the amount of rates concession provided by the Government in each of these years; and

(6)

given that according to the paper, HA's construction expenditure included items such as "Government non-reimbursement projects", "Government-funded projects" and "in-house supervision and administration costs", of the specific work covered by these items?

(1)

of the number of complaints received by the Government in each of the past five years involving the use of pet gardens and Inclusive Parks for Pets, and the three most common types of these complaints together with their respective numbers;

(2)

of the respective numbers of pet gardens and Inclusive Parks for Pets that LCSD (i) has currently established and (ii) plans to establish in the coming three years in the various districts throughout the territory (and their proportions in the total number of LCSD gardens and parks in the respective districts), and the respective land areas of such gardens and parks (and their proportions in the total areas of LCSD gardens and parks in the respective districts), together with a breakdown by the 18 districts across the territory; whether LCSD will proactively examine the demand for such gardens and parks in the various districts with a view to setting the relevant targets and a timetable for their establishment;

(3)

of the conditions and minimum standards set by LCSD in relation to the size, facilities and management, etc. of pet gardens and Inclusive Parks for Pets when they are established; the guidelines and requirements put in place by LCSD to govern the management of these gardens and parks by outsourced management companies, such as the daily frequency of emptying dog excreta collection bins and the time taken to repair damaged facilities;

(4)

of the number of complaints received by the Government in each of the past five years involving the bringing of pets into the various recreation and leisure facilities (including public bathing beaches and holiday camps) under LCSD, and the number of enforcement actions taken in this regard;

(5)

whether LCSD will, by drawing on the experience of establishing pet gardens and Inclusive Parks for Pets, consider creating pet-‍friendly spaces in facilities under its management, such as public bathing beaches and holiday camps; if so, of the details and implementation timetable; if not, the factors to be considered; and

(6)

given that the arrangement to establish Inclusive Parks for Pets has been regularized for four years, when LCSD plans to review the effectiveness of implementing the pet-inclusive concept in parks and assess the long-term feasibility of completely lifting the ban on allowing pets to enter parks and gardens?

(1)

given that, under the 2024 Legislative Programme, the Government plans to amend the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354) to require the property management companies and owners' organizations of major housing estates and single-block residential buildings with relatively large number of flats (the "property management sector") to separately collect common types of recyclables and pass them to downstream recyclers for processing, but the relevant legislative proposals have yet to be submitted to this Council, and the Promotion of Recycling and Proper Disposal of Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2025 (the "Bill"), which involves amendments to Chapter 354, does not include the aforesaid legislative proposals, of the reasons for that; whether the Government has assessed the impact of its failure to implement the aforesaid legislative proposals on the effectiveness of its efforts to expand the community recycling network as indicated in the 2024 Policy Address; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2)

given that the "Waste Reduction and Recycling Charter" (the "Charter") was launched in June last year for private residential premises to enhance residents' awareness of recycling, of the following information on the signing of the Charter by management groups of private residential premises each month since its launch (set out in a table): the number of private residential premises involved (and their proportion to the total number of private residential premises in Hong Kong), the number of households involved, and the recycling data for such premises; whether the authorities have studied the reasons why some management groups of private residential premises have not signed the Charter, and when legally-binding waste reduction and recycling regulatory measures will be implemented for the property management sector based on the implementation experience of the Charter;

(3)

given that the plastic shopping bag ("PSB") charge under the existing Plastic Shopping Bag Charging Scheme (the "Charging Scheme") is retained and handled by business operators on their own, whether the authorities have required business operators to submit information on the number of PSBs distributed and the amounts of income involved for each of the past five years (i.e. 2020-2021 to 2024-2025); if so, of the relevant annual data, with a tabulated breakdown by business sectors; if not, the reasons for that;

(4)

given that the fixed penalty under the current Charging Scheme can be paid via electronic platforms (e.g. the Faster Payment System), and taking into account the current fiscal position of the Government, whether the authorities will consider adjusting the policy and drawing on the practice of penalty payment to allow members of the public to pay the PSB charge to the Government directly via electronic payment methods; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(5)

given that, based on the information provided by the Government in response to my question regarding the Estimates of Expenditure for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, the operating expenditure of the GREEN@COMMUNITY project has increased annually, with the budget for 2025-2026 being $507 million, an increase of 61.98% over the actual expenditure of $313 million in 2023-2024, there are views that the operational model of the project is unsustainable, and the Government has indicated in the 2024 Policy Address that it will review the tender arrangements and requirements for the project to enhance its cost-effectiveness, of the details and specific timetable of the relevant work?

(1)

as some members of the public have relayed that the tuition fees for certain CEF reimbursable courses are significantly higher than the average tuition fees for other comparable courses in the market, whether the authorities will require course providers to submit detailed cost breakdowns for the courses they offer and to be subject to independent audits;

(2)

whether any course providers have been de-registered from the reimbursable course list under CEF in the past five years due to issues such as course content not being relevant to professional skills training or tuition fees being excessively high; if so, of the specific details (including the types of courses involved); and

(3)

as there are views that some CEF reimbursable courses have low relevance to professional skills, whether the authorities will consider prioritizing the allocation of CEF's resources to skills-based courses which align with the key areas of economic development, such as new industrialization, innovation and technology development and artificial intelligence, or tightening the vetting and approval of subsidies for courses that obviously focus on interests rather than employability skills, so as to prevent abuse of CEF?

(1)

of the following information on primary and secondary schools across the territory which have provided boarding facilities in the past three years: the number of schools, the number and occupancy rate of boarding places, and the proportion of non-local boarding students, together with a breakdown by school type (i.e. public, Direct Subsidy Scheme and private);

(2)

whether the authorities have received and approved applications from schools for building additional boarding facilities in the past five years; if so, of the details and the number of boarding places involved;

(3)

given that at present the Government has not regulated boarding services (including boarding centres and homestay families) other than those provided by schools, nor formulated comprehensive guidelines on such services, whether the authorities will conduct studies and introduce measures in this regard to enhance the protection of non-local students who come to Hong Kong for primary and secondary education; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

(4)

as there are views that with secondary education in Hong Kong currently becoming more diversified, and varied in characteristics, the addition of boarding services in schools can not only help students learn to discipline themselves in life, engage in group collaboration and live independently, but also make it easier for overseas students to come to Hong Kong for research, study and exchanges, whether the authorities will explore the need for addition of boarding facilities in various types of schools, as well as the number of such facilities needed; and

(5)

of the current number of idle sites in Hong Kong which are planned for educational use but have not been used to operate schools; whether the authorities have consulted the education sector to understand their intention regarding the use of such sites for boarding facilities and provided assistance to them?

(1)

of the cumulative number of posts in the civil service establishment that have been deleted since the current Government's term of office;

(2)

of the changes in the civil service establishment of policy bureaux/government departments/offices since the current Government's term of office;

(3)

as the authorities have indicated that the 2% reduction in the civil service establishment in 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 will be achieved by treating each policy bureau and its subordinate government departments as a unit and reducing their total establishment by a uniform percentage, of the total establishment of each policy bureau and the government departments under its purview at present;

(4)

whether, in conjunction with the reduction of the civil service establishment, the authorities will engage outsourced contract staff or non-civil service contract staff to maintain staffing levels; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(5)

given that the Government is actively implementing computerization to increase efficiency, whether the Government will study the abolition of obsolete grades or further reduction of posts; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

(1)

whether it has kept information on the Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") contributed to Hong Kong by the halal industry; if so, of the respective GDP generated in Hong Kong in each of the past five years by the products or industries in the halal market (i.e. (i) food and beverages, (ii) pharmaceutical and health products, (iii) cosmetics, (iv) fashion, (v) hotel and tourism, and (vi) financial services); if not, whether it has plans to compile statistics and keep the relevant information from now on;

(2)

whether it has kept information on Hong Kong enterprises which have exported goods to Muslim countries; if so, of the number of Hong Kong enterprises which have exported goods to Muslim countries in each of the past five years, the types of their goods and the respective GDP involved; if not, whether it has plans to compile statistics and keep the relevant information from now on;

(3)

whether it knows if the products currently re-exported through Hong Kong can be sold in the relevant Muslim countries after being certified by the Incorporated Trustees of the Islamic Community Fund of Hong Kong in accordance with Islamic law and procedures; if so, of the details; if not, what channels are available for such re-exported products to be sold in Muslim countries; and

(4)

whether it has plans to introduce a "halal certification system" and conduct mutual recognition of halal certification with major Muslim countries, so as to become a core corridor for certification and trade between related Mainland production enterprises and the halal consumer market, thereby promoting a steady growth in the trading volume of halal products in Hong Kong; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

(1)

of the following information on the villages under the Kam Tin Rural Committee in relation to public sewer connection works (set out in a table): (i) the names of the villages where public sewer connection works have been completed or are being carried out, (ii) the titles of the relevant works projects as well as the time required/estimated for completing the works, and (iii) the names of the villages where no public sewer connection works have been carried out;

(2)

among the villages mentioned in (1)(iii) where no public sewer connection works have been carried out, of a list of those villages for which the authorities have plans to carry out such works, as well as the locations and commencement dates of such works (set out in a table);

(3)

of the commencement and completion dates of the trunk sewerage project, as well as the shortest distance for laying a sewer to connect to the trunk sewer from Kam Tin Heung; and

(4)

as it is learnt that in 2016, the Kam Tin Rural Committee made a request for improvement of the sewerage system of Kam Tin Heung, as well as proposed to lay sewers to connect to the aforesaid trunk sewer, whether the authorities will carry out such works for Kam Tin Heung; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

(1)

whether it knows the specific details of the cluster merger, including the arrangements for resource allocation and healthcare services of various hospitals after the merger, as well as the specialty services to be adjusted or merged;

(2)

as it is learnt that after the cluster merger, chest pain treatment services will be centralized at the chest pain centre of Queen Mary Hospital ("QMH"), whereas the travelling time from Eastern District to QMH is long, and the roads are congested from time to time, how the authorities will ensure that after the merger, patients with acute heart diseases in Eastern District can be transferred in time to the chest pain centre of QMH for treatment within the "golden treatment time";

(3)

whether it knows if the emergency medical services (e.g. treatment of acute stroke, head trauma, etc.) and obstetric services of PYNEH will be cancelled after the cluster merger; if such services will be cancelled, how the authorities will ensure that emergency patients and pregnant women originally at PYNEH can receive timely and appropriate treatment or services;

(4)

of the expected completion time for the review of the second ten-year HDP; whether it will consider commencing the expansion project of PYNEH upon the cessation of the operation of Chai Wan Laundry at the end of this year; if so, of the timetable of the project; if not, the reasons for that; and

(5)

whether it will consult the staff of PYNEH and representatives of the residents in Eastern District on the detailed arrangements for the cluster merger; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

(1)

of the current number of PRH tenants who have registered with and obtained approval from HD for keeping dogs lawfully;

(2)

of the number of PRH tenants who were allotted penalty points or prosecuted for unauthorized dog keeping in PRHs in each of the past three years;

(3)

in the light of the cases mentioned in (2), whether HD will consider increasing the penalties or setting up a mechanism for reporting unauthorized dog keeping, so as to achieve a deterrent effect; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4)

whether HD will reconsider allowing PRH tenants to register their new dogs; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

(1)

since the commissioning of T·PARK, O·PARK1 and O·PARK2, of (i) the amount of electricity generated by such facilities, (ii) the prices at which the surplus electricity generated by them was sold to the power companies, (iii) the criteria for the sale of electricity (including why the surplus electricity from such facilities was sold to the power companies at fuel costs), and (iv) the respective prevailing average tariffs charged by the power companies; the revenue received by the Government from the sale of such electricity;

(2)

given that the Integrated Waste Management Facilities Phase 1 (i.e. "I·PARK1") is expected to come into operation within this year, whether the authorities have drawn up plans for the sale of electricity in respect of the facilities;

(3)

as it is learnt that the Government sells the surplus electricity generated by waste-to-energy facilities to the power companies at the prevailing fuel costs of the power companies, whether the tariff revenue concerned has been deducted from the permitted rate of return stipulated in the Scheme of Control Agreements ("SCAs"); if so, of the details; if not, whether the relevant provision will be added when formulating SCAs in the future; and

(4)

whether it will require the power companies to offer corresponding tariff discounts to the grass roots, or residents living in the vicinity of waste-to-energy facilities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

(1)

whether it knows the respective numbers of AMDs signed by and DNACPR orders issued to patients of the Hospital Authority each year since 2019;

(2)

whether the Government has currently provided necessary training for frontline staff of medical institutions and relevant organizations regarding the implementation of the Ordinance; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether it knows the progress made by relevant stakeholders in updating their protocols, records and systems in response to the implementation of the Ordinance;

(3)

given that the Ordinance will come into effect in May next year, whether the Government has formulated specific plans to publicize the importance and signing procedure of AMDs among the public; if so, of the details (including publicity channels); if not, the reasons for that;

(4)

whether the authorities will consider strengthening life and death education among the public, and incorporating the content of the Ordinance into such education (particularly by updating the existing curriculum framework for primary and secondary schools) to promote rational discussions in society over the right to a good death; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(5)

given that the Government plans to progressively introduce the full electronic route of AMDs, with the Electronic Health Record Sharing System ("eHealth") serving as the designated electronic system to support the making, storage, revocation and retrieval of electronic AMDs, of the authorities' specific plans and implementation timetable for the relevant work?

(1)

regarding the applications under the four priority schemes (i.e. ‍"Elderly Persons", "Harmonious Families", "Families with Newborns" and "Single Elderly Persons"), as well as the applications by non-elderly one-person applicants under the Quota and Points System and those by ordinary families, of the mechanism adopted by the Government for determining the priority of such applications for PRH allocation, and the actual priority among the various categories of applicants under the aforementioned schemes;

(2)

given that the allocation numbers of PRH applications cannot reflect the order of PRH allocation at present, whether the Government will introduce a new type of number that will make the order of allocation identifiable, so that members of the public waiting for PRH can estimate the time when they will be allocated a unit;

(3)

as it is learnt that quite a number of PRH applicants have been allocated units that are far away from their family networks, with the result that some dual working families have lost their family support, leaving their children unattended, and that some applicants have refused the housing offer because of their children's schooling, whether the Government will consider formulating a "family-‍friendly allocation policy" and taking into account factors such as applicants' current place of residence, family network, elderly people's need to attend follow-up consultations and the location of their children's schools in the course of PRH allocation, so as to allocate applicants PRH units at locations nearby;

(4)

given that the Hong Kong Housing Authority reduced the number of PRH districts from eight to four in 1998 for the purpose of PRH allocation, whether the Government will consider demarcation of the PRH districts and priority allocation of PRH units close to the districts in which the original living circles of the applicants are located; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(5)

as it is learnt that a large number of PRH units will be completed in Tung Chung, whether the Government will, by drawing reference from the practice of allocating units in Fu Tung Estate and Yu Tung Court in 1997, reserve some of the units for priority allocation to persons or families with members working at the Hong Kong International Airport ("the Airport"), so as to provide a larger working population for the development of the Airport;

(6)

as some families waiting for PRH and currently living in Tuen Mun District have relayed that they were allocated PRH units in similar locations three times within two months, such allocation results showed that their preferences for the locations of the PRH units were not taken into account, whether the Government has grasped the respective percentages of successful PRH allocations on the first, second and third offers in the past three years (set out in the table below); and

Number of offers	Percentage of successful allocations
The first offer
The second offer
The third offer

(7)

of the three most common reasons given by ordinary families waiting for PRH for refusing the units allocated to them; whether the Government has reviewed the savings in administrative costs in processing PRH applications with successful allocations on the first offer as compared to those requiring several offers before an allocation is successful?

(1)

as it has been reported that massive crowds of people were drawn by the aforesaid online celebrity when he was doing the live streams, whether the authorities will formulate plans to assist in maintaining public order during similar events in the future; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2)

as there are views that the experience of the aforesaid online celebrity's visit to Hong Kong attests to the high interactivity and cost-effectiveness of high-traffic online celebrities, whether the authorities will study stepping up efforts to entice them to visit Hong Kong and integrating such events into tourism promotional campaigns; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3)

as it has been reported that the aforesaid online celebrity had earlier on experienced a high-tech tour in Shenzhen, including riding in an amphibious vehicle, watching a robot dance and experiencing a food delivery service by drone, and such activities have demonstrated our country's high level of technology to the international community, whether the authorities will draw up a list of high-tech projects for visits in Hong Kong to facilitate visits by international high-traffic online celebrities and overseas travellers; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

(1)

whether it has compiled statistics on the number of pet-friendly restaurants in Hong Kong in the past five years;

(2)

given that in the reply to my question on 21 February last year, the Government indicated that the Environment and Ecology Bureau and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department would review Cap. ‍132X and the existing provisions prohibiting dogs from entering restaurants, and it was expected that the review would take around one year, but the relevant work has not yet been completed so far, whether the Government has formulated a concrete timetable for the review and legislative amendment work; and

(3)

in the past five years, of the number of cases that required law enforcement officers to arrive at the scene to handle situations due to people bringing dogs into commercial premises (including shopping malls, retail shops, restaurants, etc.), and among these cases, the number of prosecutions instituted?

(1)

as it is learnt that about 30 000 inter-school competitions are currently held each year in Hong Kong, and quite a number of new sports or urban sports have emerged in recent years, whether the authorities have plans to allocate additional resources to HKSSF to enhance the arrangements of inter-school competitions, thus enabling the school sector to organize more varieties of competitions of high quality;

(2)

given that at present there are Jing Ying tournaments and all Hong Kong inter-school competitions in nine and eight sports events respectively for secondary schools, whether the authorities have plans to introduce more territory-wide inter-school competitions (especially elite sports that are popular among students, such as fencing and cycling), so as to enable student participation in more high-level competitions, thereby identifying more athletes with potential for training and better dovetailing with the development of elite sports; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3)

as it has been reported that there are four major assessment domains (i.e. physical fitness, attitudes, sports skills and knowledge) for the PE subject in the primary school internal assessments, of the criteria based on which schools are required to determine students' scores in the subject; how the authorities will encourage schools to make use of this opportunity to further cultivate students' interest in doing sports; and

(4)

whether the authorities have plans to assist schools in organizing more new or interesting sports events and allowing students to participate on their own terms, thereby promoting the sports atmosphere in schools; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

(1)

as it has been reported that Hong Kong will be short of over 60 000 elderly places by 2032, and there is the view that since the Senior Citizen Residences ("SEN") Scheme under the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS") is welcomed by the elderly, and redevelopment projects at Kwun Tong Garden Estate Phase II and Ming Wah Dai Ha in Shau Kei Wan, which include SEN projects and are estimated to be completed in 2033 and 2035 respectively, may not be able to catch up with the housing needs of the elderly, whether the authorities have plans to foster retirement community projects with the development of more "senior living residences" in new development areas (e.g. the Northern Metropolis) in the future; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2)

given that in reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council on 24 January last year, the Government indicated that the main reasons for tenancy termination at Jolly Place and Cheerful Court in the past included tenants' admission to elderly residential care homes and relocation to family residences due to health conditions, whether the authorities have gathered the views of such tenants on the relevant healthcare and nursing care services in the past; whether it knows what measures HKHS has put in place to enhance the quality of its healthcare and nursing care services in order to make SEN more appealing; and

(3)

as it has been learnt that the Mainland's home-based elderly care market is at the developmental stage with a huge demand, whether the authorities will consider collaborating with Mainland cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("GBA") on relevant projects and jointly formulating the "GBA Standards" for senior living residences, so as to strengthen the market of senior living residences through collaborative development; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

(1)

of the housing courts that are currently not supplied with seawater for flushing and the number of households involved, as well as the reasons why they are not supplied with seawater for flushing, together with a breakdown by the 18 districts across the territory;

(2)

whether the Government has plans to extend the network to cover all the housing courts in the vicinity of Tsuen Wan and Sham Tseng; if so, of the relevant timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3)

as it is learnt that residents of housing courts who have brought in seawater themselves for flushing purposes currently have to bear the double expenses of the cost of the seawater supply facilities and the Government rent arising from the seawater mains laid on government land, whether the Government will, on the basis of the principle of fairness, exempt such residents from paying the Government rent; if not, of the specific reasons for that?

(1)

of the criteria for providing government complexes in new towns (e.g. the population in and accessibility of the district, etc.); whether it has plans to construct a government complex in Tung Chung Area One; if so, of the timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

(2)

given that the proposed second government complex in Tseung Kwan O will provide medical and health facilities, day care centre for the elderly, government offices, a public vehicle park and other facilities, how the Government determines the services and facilities to be provided in the government complex, so as to realize the land use principle of "single site, multiple use";

(3)

given that some residents of Tung Chung have relayed to me that they need to go to the Immigration Department's Regional Office in Tuen Mun for registration of persons and travel document applications, whether the Government will consider providing services in relation to registration of persons and travel document applications in Tung Chung; if so, of the implementation timetable;

(4)

whether the Government had extensively promoted the use of electronic government services ("e-government services") in Tung Chung in the past three years; if so, of the details; whether the Government has formulated any publicity plan for the coming year to promote the use of e-government services by more Tung Chung residents, so as to fill the service gap arising from the Government's failure to provide a government complex in the district; and

(5)

given that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department currently provides different types of leisure and cultural services facilities in Tung Chung (e.g. Tung Chung North Park, Tung Chung Road Soccer Pitch, Tung Chung Man Tung Road Sports Centre, Tung Chung Public Library, etc.), whether the Government has plans to extensively cultivate iconic species of plants at such facilities, so as to create a scenic landscape comprising government facilities in Tung Chung; if so, of the details?

(1)

whether it knows if HKEX has assessed the effectiveness of the GEM reform, including whether the expected targets (not limited to the number of new listings and the amount of funds raised) have been achieved, and of the specific data or indicators showing that the attractiveness of GEM to issuers has been enhanced after the reform; if an assessment has been conducted, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2)

as there are views pointing out that insufficient market liquidity and relatively low investor participation are the core problems of GEM, of the concrete measures put in place by the Government to enhance the market liquidity of GEM, so as to attract the participation of more overseas and local investors, thereby strengthening the vitality and resilience of the market;

(3)

whether the Government will join hands with HKEX to review afresh the positioning of GEM and formulate strategies for its long-term development, as well as to work for coordination with other financial policies to ensure competitiveness and sustainable development of Hong Kong's investment and capital raising markets;

(4)

as many small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") have relayed that their desire to go listing on GEM has been dampened by the costs of listing which are on the high side, whether the Government will encourage the regulatory bodies to carry out reforms or relax the relevant listing requirements, so as to alleviate the financing costs of SMEs when going listing on GEM; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(5)

how the Government will provide a suitable financing platform to enable SMEs which are unable to meet the listing requirements of the Main Board to go listing in Hong Kong (irrespective of whether they are listed on the GEM or other new boards)?

(1)

of the frequency of upgrading artificial intelligence ("AI") teaching equipment and the coverage of smart classrooms in various publicly-funded primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong over the past three years;

(2)

whether the Government will formulate guidelines and specifications in relation to AI ethics education and data security for schools; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3)

given that the Quality Education Fund ("QEF") has implemented the e-Learning Ancillary Facilities Programme to promote cooperation between the education and business sectors for the development of e-‍learning ancillary facilities that meet local education needs, and that QEF will also sponsor schools to use the deliverables of the projects under the Programme, of the number of schools which have purchased the e-learning ancillary facilities developed under the Programme with the subsidy of QEF since the launch of the Programme, and the details of such ancillary facilities; and

(4)

of the number of schools currently adopting the teaching materials of the "Enriched Module on Coding Education for Upper Primary Level" and the "Module on Artificial Intelligence for Junior Secondary Level", and whether the Government will step up its efforts in promoting the adoption of such teaching materials by schools; if so, of the details?

(1)

of the quantity of waste lead-acid batteries generated in Hong Kong in each of the past three years, as well as the respective quantities of waste lead-acid batteries preliminarily processed locally, exported to overseas advanced facilities for recycling (with a breakdown by export areas) and recycled locally;

(2)

of the respective maximum annual treatment capacities of the facilities for (i) preliminary treatment and (ii) recycling of waste lead-acid batteries in Hong Kong;

(3)

of the details of projects relating to waste lead-acid batteries subsidized by the Recycling Fund in the past three years (including but not limited to the amount of subsidy granted for each project and the content of the subsidy);

(4)

of the current progress of the implementation of the Producer Responsibility Scheme on waste lead-acid batteries, as well as the recovery target for local waste lead-acid batteries after the implementation of the Scheme; and

(5)

whether the authorities have formulated a contingency plan to cope with the situation where the collection of treated waste lead-acid batteries exported from Hong Kong will be suspended in the event of policy adjustments by South Korea or other places; if so, of the specific proposals; if not, the reasons for that?