MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Thank you, Deputy President. Cyber fraud in Hong Kong has become increasingly rampant. According to the Police’s figures, nearly 30 000 fraud cases were recorded in the first nine months of this year, representing a year-on-year increase of 51%, which is appalling, and the public have suffered huge losses. The Government must now explore the possibility of adopting a thunderbolt approach and make every effort to crack down on fraudulent acts, so as to rid Hong Kong of the stigma. Dr Johnny NG’s motion today, which is just timely, has enabled the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) to focus on discussing this issue.
The amendment proposed by me today urges the Government to draw reference from the experience of overseas countries in combating cyber fraud crimes in accordance with the actual situation of Hong Kong. A few months ago, I commissioned the Research Office of LegCo to collect information on the measures taken by Singapore and the United Kingdom (“UK”) to combat cyber fraud and telephone fraud. These two countries are also facing serious problems of fraud and a lot of useful information has been collected.
In fact, there are many reasons why fraudulent activities are rampant, but from the perspective of identifying the root causes, there are at least two problems that need to be resolved. The first is that the fraudsters are beyond our reach. At present, the vast majority of fraudulent telephone calls are made from outside Hong Kong, and as they are not made within the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, it is difficult for the Police to investigate the cases and arrest the fraudsters. Therefore, more effective ways should be explored to intercept the incoming calls at source.
Secondly, the authorities are a “toothless tiger”. The recent case showed that the Police and the Securities and Futures Commission were actually aware of the problem at the beginning of the month, but even until the Police disclosed the incident recently, they could not stop the operation of the website because there is no specific legislation on cyber fraud in Hong Kong which directly empowers the Police to take actions. Singapore and UK, however, have adopted measures to combat the aforesaid problem.
In recent years, Hong Kong has adopted a number of measures to combat telephone fraud, including the launch of “Scameter”, which has been searched more than 1 million times so far. However, as the public are required to search on the Internet by themselves, some elderly people who are most vulnerable to deception may not use “Scameter”. The Singapore Police Force as adopted a more direct approach by launching a mobile application, and members of the public can install the App on their phones to automatically filter out fraudulent short messages and incoming calls by comparing them with the police database and using artificial intelligence (“AI”). As AI advances, the application will be continuously improved, and it may also be linked to the databases of other countries, so the success rate of filtering will increase, and even more new functions will be available. With the introduction of such an application in Hong Kong, the elderly will be offered an option to filter out all suspicious calls, thereby leaving fraudsters with no avenue for exploitation.
Moreover, Singapore and UK have recently completed their legislative work and enacted legislation specifically for combating cyber fraud, which warrants our in-depth study. The Online Safety Bill recently passed in UK requires large Internet companies, including social media, video-sharing websites and search engines, to hold the responsibility of preventing members of the public from being exposed to fraudulent advertisements, including those endorsed by fake celebrities, and to promptly remove such advertisements upon identification; otherwise, they will be subject to a fine of up to HK$180 million or 10% of their global turnover, whichever is the higher.
In fact, in recent years, fraudulent advertisements impersonating celebrities or the Government have been appearing in social media in Hong Kong, and as a result, quite a number of people have been duped. Even though these celebrities or organizations have lodged complaints with the social media platforms, the platforms have been reluctant to take the advertisements down after a long period of time. At present, UK not only requires the platforms to act as gatekeepers themselves, but also imposes astronomical fines as a deterrence. I believe this approach will definitely be effective and worthy of study by Hong Kong.
In addition, Singapore has also enacted the Online Criminal Harms Act this year, which empowers the Government to order the cessation of transmission or require network providers to block access when it suspects that there are fraudulent activities on the network. If a similar legislation is enacted in Hong Kong, the Government will be able to take timely actions to stop fraudulent operations on the Internet, minimize the losses of the public as far as possible, and provide sufficient deterrence to fraudsters. I understand that the introduction of legislation may cause some people to worry, for example, about the impact on the business environment and freedom of information, but the legislation in Singapore and UK has proved to be effective. If Hong Kong does not enact a similar legislation, I am afraid that more fraudsters will come to Hong Kong to make a living. With continuous technological advancement in our society, there will be ever-changing modus operandi of committing fraud. If we do not stop the problem now, it may be impossible to deal with it in the future.
In fact, there are more to learn from Singapore and UK, but due to time constraints, I will share with Members when I have the chance to do so in the future. Lastly, I would like to thank the Research Office of LegCo for preparing this report, and I hope Members will support my amendment.
Thank you.