The Hong Kong government has proposed allowing the chief executive to certify any criminal act as a national security case, in a legal update that would be binding on the courts.

New subsidiary legislation under Article 23 – Hong Kong’s homegrown national security ordinance – will empower the city’s leader to certify “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR,” according to a proposal submitted to the Legislative Council (LegCo) on Monday by the Security Bureau and the Department of Justice.

The government proposed that the subsidiary legislation would be enacted through a “negative vetting” procedure, allowing it to be gazetted before being tabled at LegCo for scrutiny. It cited a “complicated geopolitical landscape” for the update.

The “legislative intent” of the Beijing-imposed national security law, which came into effect on June 30, 2020, is that offences endangering national security include not only the four types of offences under the Beijing-imposed national security law but also “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR,” the government’s proposal said.

The chief executive is already empowered to issue certificates to decide whether an act involves national security, but the new subsidiary legislation aims to “bring greater certainty” to the courts. There will no longer be room to debate whether an ordinary crime could face national security procedures when a certificate is issued.

Plus, later offences connected to an act classified as a national security offence would also face national security procedures, under the new plan.

“The subsidiary legislation does not involve the creation of any new criminal offence, penalty or enforcement power,” the document said.

‘Any act’ can be reclassified

Under the proposal, the chief executive will be granted the power to declare that any act involved in a criminal offence case concerns national security. The leader may then issue a certificate: “[T]hen the case is a case concerning [an] offence endangering national security” under the Beijing-imposed national security law or Article 23,” the proposal says.

“If a person is charged with any offence endangering national security, and is charged with or convicted of any alternative offence in respect of the same act in the same case, such alternative offence is also an offence endangering national security.”

Once a case, or an offence, is certified as endangering national security, the procedures stipulated in Article 23 or the national security law for handling such cases will be applicable.

The national security law allows handpicked judges and closed-door hearings for national security cases, trials without juries, and a higher bar for bail.

The Panel on Security and the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services will hold a joint meeting later on Monday to discuss the proposed subsidiary legislation.

Ming Pao reported on Sunday that some lawmakers were notified that such a meeting would be held the following day.

A Hong Kong government proposal that will allow the city’s leader to certify criminal acts as national security offences is intended to “make the law clear,” Chief Executive John Lee has said.

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, Lee said the new subsidiary legislation for Hong Kong’s homegrown national security law, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, commonly known as Article 23, “is purely to make the law even clearer.”

Shortly after, Lee approved the subsidiary legislation during a meeting with the Executive Council, the city’s top decision-making body.

Under the new law, which was gazetted and came into effect the same day, the chief executive will be able to certify “other offences endangering national security.”

Criminal cases classified as endangering national security will have tougher court procedures, such as a higher bar for bail and trial before designated judges.

“The purpose of introducing the subsidiary legislation is to make it clear, make it much, much clearer, how offences… endangering national security under the law of Hong Kong will be so classified,” Lee told reporters on Tuesday.

“It is not intended and will not expand the definition of the offences, and it’s not adding any new offences or any new powers or punishments. It also does not expand the scope of the application of the law,” he added.

‘Sensitive’ information

Lee said the new piece of legislation would reduce “controversy or debate in court” about what constitutes national security offences.

Asked whether he was concerned about giving an impression of further centralising power into his hands, Lee said the city’s chief executive must shoulder the “important responsibility” of safeguarding national security.

Lee said he would exercise the new power with “prudence and seriousness,” but added that, as city leader, he has access to exclusive information regarding threats to national security.

A lot of activities endangering national security “are committed by state players of another place. They are professional, sophisticated, and the series of information that may be available to indicate the seriousness of the matters [is] privy to the chief executive,” he said.

“A lot of this information is sensitive and not suitable for public disclosure,” he added.

Under the government proposal, the certificate issued by the chief executive will be binding on the city’s courts and cannot be challenged.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said the designation of national security offences involves “highly confidential” information that would not be available to the courts.

“The judiciary would not be capable of making such a decision,” Lam said.

Asked whether the chief executive’s certificates will be announced, Lam only said “people will know” as court proceedings are open to the public.

“If you see designated judges or other special arrangements in a trial, you will know” that the case has been designated as relating to national security, he said.

Hong Kong authorities are considering issuing 10,000 ride-hailing permits under a new regulatory framework for on-demand transport services, according to local media.

The Hong Kong Economic Journal (HKEJ) reported on Monday, citing unnamed sources, that the government viewed a cap of 10,000 as a “reasonable starting point,” as the figure would not excessively affect taxi drivers’ income or exceed road capacity.

Authorities believe that Uber’s suggestion of 30,000 permits is too ambitious, while the taxi trade’s proposal of 3,600 would fail to meet public travel demands, the report said.

In a submission to the Legislative Council (LegCo) Panel on Transport on Monday, the government did not specify a final number of permits but noted public opinion favoured a range of 10,000 to 15,000 permits.

A government consultancy report conducted between November 2024 and January 2025 estimated that ride-hailing services facilitate about 114,000 trips in Hong Kong on an average day.

Meanwhile, the number of active ride-hailing drivers was believed to be fewer than 30,000, as many work part-time, the government said.

The government said public opinion remained divided. According to its submission document, some advocate a higher cap because ride-hailing vehicles far outnumber traditional taxis in some major cities around the world.

However, others believe that Hong Kong’s situation is “unique” and that the number of permits should not exceed the city’s current taxi fleet of about 18,000.

In a submission on Tuesday, Uber said it had more than 30,000 active ride-hailing drivers on its platform over the past year, arguing that the proposed 10,000 or 15,000 caps would not meet demands.

Uber estimated that, if the number of permits were capped at 15,000, four in 10 ride requests could go unfulfilled during rush hours, while waiting times might double, and fares could increase by 70 per cent.

The ride-hailing platform urged the government to issue enough permits to ensure a “flexible” service and to protect existing drivers’ livelihoods.

Authorities are expected to introduce the final cap by the end of June and begin enforcing the regulatory framework in the fourth quarter of this year.

In October, LegCo passed a bill to introduce a licensing regime as part of a regulatory framework for ride-hailing services in Hong Kong.

Under the framework, ride-hailing platform operators will be required to obtain a licence, while drivers will also need to acquire a permit for themselves and their vehicles to provide ride-hailing services.

Allowing vehicles from Guangdong province to enter Hong Kong’s South Lantau must be approached with “caution,” Hong Kong’s transport chief has told lawmakers.

At a Legislative Council meeting on Wednesday, Secretary for Transport and Logistics Mable Chan said that authorities would have to consult local residents and the district council, citing recent cases of vehicles from Guangdong illegally entering the restricted scenic roads on rural South Lantau.

Addressing a question from lawmaker and rural leader Kenneth Lau, Chan said: “Regarding reviews of quotas and other potential improvements for self-drive tours on Lantau going forward, we will cautiously and carefully monitor the situation. We will also consult and explore options with local residents and the Islands District Council.”

Vehicles under the Southbound Travel for Guangdong Vehicles scheme have been operating smoothly, and testing centres in Guangdong have provided drivers with information on Hong Kong’s traffic rules, she added.

Under the southbound travel scheme, which took effect in December, up to 100 private cars from Guangdong province are permitted daily to drive into Hong Kong’s urban areas via the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and stay for a maximum of three days.

The transport minister had previously touted the scheme as a boon for Hong Kong’s economy, driving tourism and trade while enhancing “integration” for citizens in both regions.

The government launched the Driving on Lantau Island Scheme in 2016, allowing a daily quota of 25 private cars to access closed roads to Ngong Ping, Tai O, Cheung Sha and Mui Wo on weekdays. The second phase was launched in 2022, with the daily quota increased from 25 to 50.

Under the scheme, some 12,000 quotas are available for allocation each year, with all of them filled.

Citing official figures, Chan said that the Transport Department received about 84,000 applications in 2023 and about 30,000 in each of the subsequent two years. She attributed the high number from three years ago to pandemic-related travel restrictions that limited residents to local tourism.

Responding to a suggestion by lawmaker Chan Hok-fung to extend South Lantau permits from one day to two or three days, the transport minister said the authorities would look into extending the permit period to include weekends.

But she added that any quota extensions must balance tourism development and local residents’ traffic concerns.

The Hong Kong government has proposed allocating up to 180 “reserve units” of transitional housing to tenants evicted due to the “shoebox” flat reform.

Victor Tai, undersecretary for housing, said on Monday that the reserve units would only be provided under “very exceptional circumstances,” such as tenants evicted by landlords of subdivided flats and those in urgent need of housing.

The reserve units will only come from transitional housing projects in urban or “extended urban” areas, such as Tung Chung, Sha Tin and Tseung Kwan O, according to a policy briefing submitted by the Housing Bureau to the Legislative Council’s (LegCo) panel on housing.

Speaking at the panel, Tai said the units would only be reserved for three months. If the units were not allocated to anyone, they would become available again for other transitional housing applicants.

“Our aim is to have some reserve units in urban and extended urban areas ready for providing immediate support,” Tai said in Cantonese.

Elaine Chik, a lawmaker from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), raised concern that the 180 reserve units may fail to meet demand.

In response, Tai said many current tenants of subdivided units were themselves applicants for public or transitional housing, and that the amount of reserve units should be enough for those in urgent need of temporary shelter.

According to the briefing paper, those who wish to move into the reserve units must undergo a review by one of the six government-appointed District Service Teams “to verify their imminent housing needs.”

Another Housing Bureau team will review the applications before allocating the units for a three-month tenancy.

The policy is expected to come into force next month.

Hong Kong passed the Basic Housing Units Ordinance in September, mandating landlords of subdivided units to meet government-set living standards. These include a floor space of at least 86 square feet, a ceiling height of 2.3 metres, as well as windows and an individual toilet.

The law, which came into effect in March, also requires landlords to register their units if they want to continue leasing them legally.

Authorities estimate that more than 220,000 people in the city live in “shoebox” flats, around one-third of which need major renovation.

According to the Housing Bureau, as of April 2026, there were 19,100 transitional housing units operated by NGOs and subsidised by the government.

The Hong Kong government and legislature have blasted The Washington Post over “groundless allegations” against the city’s new national security amendments.

According to a statement issued late Saturday night, the government ​”strongly condemns the wanton slander and groundless allegations made by The Washington Post in its article entitled ‘Hong Kong’s nightmare gets darker’, criticising the Safeguarding National Security (Procedural Matters) Regulation (Procedural Matters Regulation).”

“The article clearly exposes The Washington Post’s irrational anti-China stance and double standards, falling well short of what is expected of professional journalism,” the government also said.

The statement was in response to an editorial published on Friday, in which the newspaper criticised Hong Kong’s enactment of the new subsidiary legislation.

The new legislation, which allows the chief executive to certify any criminal case as a national security offence, came into effect on Tuesday, one day after the government proposed the bill in the Legislative Council (LegCo).

In the editorial, the paper said, “These changes will further chill foreign investment. But the biggest victims are Hong Kongers themselves.”

The government said that the news outlet’s “ignorance of facts and betrayal of the basic tenets of responsible journalism are shocking, irresponsible, and totally unacceptable behaviour for any media organisation.”

Echoing remarks made by Chief Executive John Lee and other top officials, the statement said the new legislation aims only to clarify a “classification mechanism” under the locally enacted Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO) and the Beijing-imposed national security law.

“It does not create any new offence or alter the penalties of any offence. It certainly does not turn any lawful conduct into an offence. It is not applicable to legal proceedings that are concluded,” the government said.

In a separate statement on Sunday, LegCo rallied behind the government’s condemnation of The Washington Post for publishing the “untruthful” editorial and its “anti-China motives.”

The legislature raised nearly 60 comments and scrutinised every single provision in detail and was satisfied that the regulation complies with all requirements, it said.

“LegCo will, as always, steadfastly support the full and accurate implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, the Ordinance, and other relevant laws of the HKSAR for safeguarding national security,” it said.

Hongkong Post has applied to the legislature for a HK$4.6 billion government bailout to support its operations over the next three years and to cover the refurbishment of the Air Mail Centre.

According to a paper submitted by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau to the Legislative Council (LegCo) Panel on Economic Development on Wednesday, Hongkong Post suffered a HK$821 million loss in the 2024-25 financial year.

It was a record high loss since Hongkong Post began to operate a self-financing model in 1995.

The LegCo panel is set to discuss the bailout application on Tuesday next week.

Hongkong Post has seen a shrinking mail volume since 2019, according to the paper. The mail volume it handled “decreased by an average rate of about 7% per year from 2019-20 to 2024-25 with a cumulative drop of 44%, which is expected to continue or even worsen in the years to come.”

The postal service attributed the drop to the geopolitical situation, the increasing popularity of electronic communication, and the rising number of competitors.

The HK$4.6 billion bailout will also cover the HK$510 million renovation of the Air Mail Centre at Hong Kong International Airport.

In 2021, the LegCo Finance Committee (FC) approved more than HK$4.61 billion to redevelop the ageing Air Mail Centre.

However, the government called off the redevelopment project last year, citing a projected drop in airmail volumes in the coming years.

According to the paper, Hongkong Post has instead proposed a “more cost-effective” plan, which includes refurbishing the 28-year-old Air Mail Centre.

The Legislative Council (LegCo) has confirmed that the Designated Demonstration Area at the complex, along with the surrounding LegCo Square, is being used as a car park.

In a response to HKFP earlier last month, the LegCo Secretariat said that the revamp was part of the renovations which took place after the number of lawmakers was expanded from 70 to 90 for the 2022 legislative term.

The Secretariat said: “Since the completion of the expansion project of the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) Complex, all 90 LegCo Members and their staff as well as staff of the LegCo Secretariat have moved into the Complex and have been working under one roof.”

It added, “To meet operational needs, the LegCo Square and the whole area (including the Designated Demonstration Area) outside the main entrances to the Complex have been used as a parking area for Members and visitors to the Complex. The Legislative Council Commission will keep the use of this area under review from time to time.”

It did not respond when asked when the car park work was completed, but according to a LegCo fact sheet, major expansion works were completed at the complex last year.

Status of protest area ‘clear,’ says LegCo

The Designated Demonstration Area was intended as the only authorised location for petitions and protests at the legislature. However, it was closed during the 2019 pro-democracy protests and unrest.

After the turmoil and the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions that followed, then-legislative president Andrew Leung hinted that the protest area could reopen in early 2025 at the latest. He dismissed concerns that the extended closure was for political reasons, stating that it “can only reopen when we get rid of the glass and can ensure it is safe,” according to the Standard in 2023.

Leung may have been referring to the brief occupation of the building on July 1, 2019, by pro-democracy protesters, who broke windows to access the complex and vandalised it.

Last August, Leung said the reopening was still under consideration, adding that the “scale of current petition activities had become smaller, and it is necessary to consider whether such a large space is still required,” according to NowTV.

HKFP asked the LegCo Secretariat multiple times last month whether the Designated Demonstration Area was still available for those who wished to submit a petition or stage a protest.

They did not directly confirm whether it remained open, but they referred HKFP to their earlier response, adding that it was already “clear,” and did not “amount to a refusal to confirm if the Designated Demonstration Area is still operational.”

A Legislative Council handbook for lawmakers, dated this February, suggests that the protest area is still available for applications, despite the new car park.

The application form for using the area is still online, as are the guidelines – both from 2018.

They state: “Members of the public are allowed to stage petitions or demonstrations at the LegCo Square, subject to the terms set out in the ‘Guidelines for staging petitions or demonstrations by individuals and groups at designated demonstration areas in premises managed by The Legislative Council Commission’.”

‘Doors always open’

According to its website, the purpose-built Legislative Council complex at Tamar in Admiralty was opened in September 2011 and included architectural features to showcase transparency.

The website states: “The Tamar Project has been designed with the main theme of ‘Doors Always Open’, ‘Land Always Green’, ‘Sky Will Be Blue’ and ‘People Will Be Connected’.”

No major mass protests have been held in Hong Kong since the onset of the 2020 national security law.

Hong Kong lawmaker Judy Chan has received a written warning from the Legislative Council (LegCo) over her January traffic offence, the lowest-level sanction under a new code of conduct introduced earlier this year.

The Legislative Council Supervisory Committee submitted a report to LegCo on Wednesday detailing its investigation into a complaint relating to Chan’s driving.

The New People’s Party lawmaker was caught driving against traffic on Jaffe Road in Wan Chai on January 23. Four days later, the supervisory committee received a formal complaint from a member of the public.

In March, Chan was fined HK$2,000 and banned from driving for one month after pleading guilty to one count of careless driving.

“Taking into account all relevant factors, the Committee has unanimously
concluded that [Chan’s] misconduct did not reach a serious level,” the committee said in the report.

The committee therefore issued a written warning to the lawmaker, urging Chan to be “mindful of her words and deeds at all times and ensure that she lives up to the public’s expectations.”

Chan said on Facebook on Wednesday night that she accepted the committee’s decision. She also issued another apology.

“I will treat this as a lesson to remain vigilant, strive for continuous improvement, and do my utmost to serve the public,” Chan said in the Chinese-language post.

“I would like to express my sincere apologies to the public once again, especially to those who were disappointed or concerned by this incident.”

New code of conduct

In January, the LegCo introduced a new code of conduct for lawmakers that specifies requirements for meeting attendance, voting, and other duties.

It also introduced tougher penalties for misconduct under a five-tier sanctions system. The punishments for misconduct range from a written warning – the lowest-level sanctions – to suspension of duty and deduction of lawmakers’ remuneration and allowances.

The code ensures that lawmakers “perform their duties in a constructive manner” and do “not intentionally vilify the governance credibility” of authorities, according to the LegCo.

Misconduct complaints are handled by the newly created Legislative Council Supervisory Committee, which includes 13 lawmakers. The committee is an expansion of the former Committee on Members’ Interests.

What role the Legislative Council (LegCo) should play in our executive-led system continues to spark controversy.  Lawmakers themselves are discussing the issue, which is a healthy sign. 

Central authorities have also spoken indirectly on LegCo’s role.

On January 26, the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office head Xia Baolong pointed out that executive-led government in Hong Kong means that each branch – executive, legislative, and judicial – performs its “own role and cooperates and coordinates with each other.”

According to Article 64 of the Basic Law, LegCo’s role includes holding the government to account. This means asking questions, asking for justification of government action, investigating government actions and inactions, and, when necessary, sanctioning government officials for policy failures.

According to the Powers and Privileges Ordinance (Cap 382), enacted in 1985, with the select and investigation committee system, as well as the system of policy panels, LegCo has the capacity to fulfil its “own role.”

It is precisely how to understand LegCo’s “own role” that has sparked controversy.

First, may LegCo use the tools it has to hold the government to account? The central authorities have condemned the way the opposition in LegCo used these tools after 2010. They call it abuse, citing filibustering and other tactics that delayed legislation.

The record is clear: the fourth- and fifth-term Legislative Councils passed far fewer bills than either before or after. The sixth-term LegCo was heading in the same direction until the government disqualified some opposition lawmakers, and most of the rest resigned.  

Moreover, both the central and the city’s authorities accuse the opposition of abusing LegCo’s powers to investigate, and to summon and inquire – precisely those powers legislators still have and need to hold the government to account.

In this view, the abuse dates from after 2010 when the opposition and representatives of the central government negotiated a deal over political reform in Hong Kong. It has been downhill ever since, according to Beijing. 

From 1985 to 2010, LegCo convened six select or investigation committees, which focused on issues of public concern: the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) operations and staff loyalty, the chaotic Chek Lap Kok airport opening, short piling in public housing, SARS, misselling Lehman-Brothers minibonds, and conflicts of interest in the post-retirement employment of civil servants.

The result: the government changed course and made improvements in public policy.

For example, authorities introduced the Principal Officials Accountability System (POAS) in 2002, which is still with us today. LegCo’s work and the results of an expert committee investigation on the SARS outbreak in 2003-04 better prepared us for the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. These positive results are undeniable. 

Even in the post-2010 period, pressure from LegCo to investigate sometimes had positive results. In 2015, for example, responding to public concern expressed in the legislature, the government established a commission of inquiry into lead in drinking water in some public housing estates. Again, the government changed course. 

Second, authorities tell us that executive-led government means that LegCo and the executive should “cooperate” and “coordinate.” Does this mean that legislators may not criticise government policy? Reporting indicates that many LegCo members perceive this to be the case. 

Remember Chief Executive John Lee’s harsh rebuke of LegCo member Paul Tse’s criticism of government policy in the first “patriots-only” seventh-term LegCo? The chief executive deemed such criticism “dangerous,” similar to the “soft resistance” of the much-criticised opposition and must be “stamped out.”

The few government critics in the seventh-term LegCo all left the body in 2025. 

More recently, consider the Hospital Authority’s (HA) rebuke after LegCo members Gary Chan, Rebecca Chan, and David Lam expressed concerns that residents might not have collected their HA-provided medication because of increased charges. (A sidenote: Rebecca Chan served as a political assistant in the Food and Health Bureau from 2012 to 2017.)

The legislators drew attention to the very figure disclosed by the Health Bureau: that 26,000 public hospital prescriptions were uncollected after the new fee regime was introduced in January. However, rather than listening and investigating, the HA said the remarks were “untruthful.”

The government apparently prefers to send legislators “warm reminders” on many issues of public concern, in effect telling them to shut up. Precisely because no lawmaker spoke up when LegCo deliberated the bus seatbelt issue in September 2025, the policy resulted in a fiasco. 

The public needs a legislature that is engaged, open, and responsibly critical of government action – this is the minimum required to perform its “own role.”

Of course, LegCo should cooperate and coordinate with the government, but to do so should not compromise the legislature’s “own role.”  

Hong Kong needs a middle way for LegCo – somewhere between the dysfunction seen from the 2014 Umbrella Movement through the 2019 protests and a rubber stamp.

We have experienced a middle way, for example, from 1985 to at least 2010.

At the time, as noted above, LegCo investigations played an important role in improving public policy. Hong Kong people value this kind of LegCo role. It benefits the government and the community, building trust and legitimacy. 

Authorities should trust their own gatekeeping in selecting patriotic LegCo members. Many LegCo members seem to understand that they should play a more active role.

The government should realise that it cannot do everything alone. Effective governance is co-produced.

Authorities need to recognise the legitimacy of a middle way, a more authentic role for LegCo. We will all benefit.

Two Hong Kong officials have condemned “groundless accusations” against a recent update to the city’s homegrown national security law, which empowers the chief executive to certify any criminal case as a national security offence.

Secretary for Security Chris Tang told the Legislative Council (LegCo) on Thursday afternoon that he noticed some people had misunderstood or “deliberately misinterpreted” the subsidiary legislation.

They tried to intimidate the public by claiming that the subsidiary law would widen the scope of national security offences, turning minor offences into national security crimes, he said.

The security chief called the accusations “false, misleading, deceptive, and scaremongering” and said some people were attempting to incite hatred towards the government.

“Some people delivered alarmist remarks, saying that the government can randomly certify any acts of the public as national security offences. Those people may have ulterior motives or are cruel-hearted, hoping to incite others’ hatred of the HKSAR,” Tang said in Cantonese.

Also speaking at LegCo, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said he noticed “some media outlets with ulterior motives, foreign forces, and fugitives” had made “groundless accusations” against the national security law.

The two ministers delivered their remarks during LegCo’s first meeting to review the Safeguarding National Security (Procedural Matters) Regulation, a subsidiary legislation of the homegrown national security law, commonly known as Article 23.

Authorities enacted the subsidiary law through the “negative vetting” mechanism, which allows the law to be gazetted and to take effect before legislative scrutiny.

The law came into effect on Tuesday, one day after the government tabled the bill in LegCo.

Lam, the justice chief, said that the subsidiary legislation was necessary to further explain articles in the Beijing-imposed national security law and Article 23, which stipulate that the chief executive should have the power to determine whether a criminal case involves national security.

In its proposal, the government cited the “legislative intent” of the Beijing-imposed national security law, saying that offences endangering national security include not only the four types of offences under the national security law, but also “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR.”

Lam said the recent legislative update was intended to further define “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR,” and it did not introduce any new power or new offences.

Earlier on Tuesday, Chief Executive John Lee said the new subsidiary legislation “is purely to make the law even clearer.”

Full-time job vacancies suitable for Hong Kong university graduates have plummeted by 60 per cent, as artificial intelligence (AI) sweeps through the city’s labour market, a minister has said.

Secretary for Labour and Welfare Chris Sun said on Wednesday that entry-level jobs vulnerable to automation have been hit hardest, with vacancies in administration dropping nearly 90 per cent over the three-year period and roles in information technology and programming falling by 80 per cent.

The number of full-time job vacancies suitable for university graduates shrank from 80,000 in 2022 to just 31,000 in 2025, the minister said.

The figures were derived from the Joint Institutions Job Information System, an online job search platform for students from Hong Kong’s eight publicly funded universities seeking employment, Sun said in his reply to enquiries by lawmaker Priscilla Leung.

“We all know the impact of AI is sweeping and global. We are all exploring how to help young people find jobs in a world changed by AI,” Sun told the Legislative Council in Cantonese.

Citing a survey by global consulting firm International Data Corporation, Sun said over 60 per cent of companies surveyed around the world had indicated they would cut entry-level positions in the next three years due to AI.

He vowed that the Labour and Welfare Bureau would analyse the impact of AI on Hong Kong’s overall labour market and specific industries.

Findings are expected to be released in the fourth quarter of this year as part of the mid-term update of the government’s Manpower Projections, he added.

He also said that, between 2025 and 2028, the eight University Grants Committee-funded universities will introduce 30 new academic programmes covering emerging sectors, such as AI, cybersecurity, and the creative industries.

Sun noted that, despite the drops in job vacancies, the unemployment rate among university graduates has not increased significantly.

The number of employed people aged 15 to 29 with a degree or above was about 268,000 in 2025, compared with 270,000 in the previous year, Sun said, citing government data.

Since OpenAI launched ChatGPT in November 2022, the use of generative AI chatbots and tools has become increasingly common across industries around the world.

Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee has pushed for expanding the applications of AI across government departments and social sectors. In his Policy Address last year, he said the authorities would promote “extensive and deep integration of AI” across industries.

During his annual budget speech in February, finance chief Paul Chan announced that he would chair a new “AI+ and Industry Development Strategy” committee.

The government will also provide “AI training for all,” embedding AI education at different levels of education and vocational training, Chan said at the time.