Overcomplexity confuses/deters - HK’s talent schemes should be pruned

Following our comments on improving Hong Kong’s talent attraction regime (see link), the HKSAR government, instead of simplifying and rationalising the existing scheme, has multiplied and complicated the set up into a whole pile of new initiatives which are now overlapping and confusing not only to the casual observer, but probably to the administrators themselves. Let us unravel this massive entanglement in the rest of this article:

Hong Kong has attracted, cumulatively, some 1.36m fresh talent to the city since the handover in 1997 through various schemes; as of 2025 some 55% of approvals granted are still due to the original ‘vanilla’ scheme under the General Employment Policy (GEP, red bar in chart), but the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talent & Professionals scheme (what a mouthful, we will call it ASMTP below, see orange bar) has since taken a second position to have allowed 18% of PRC applicants to enter HK. Although not a permanent entitlement to stay, the then freshly introduced Immigration Arrangements for Non-local Graduates (another mouthful! or IANG below, see green bar) takes third position in total intakes at 14%:

Chart 1: Cumulative approvals for HK’s talent admission schemes since 1997 handover

This apparent achievement however masks a deeper problem: the proliferation of overlapping and increasingly complex schemes may be creating unnecessary confusion for applicants and employers alike, and undermining the original intent of making HK competitive in the global race for talent. We have spent huge amounts of efforts to try and categorise these various schemes, hang on to your seats…

A maze of pathways, but are they even necessary?

Our analysis here has excluded some of the other lower paid labour import schemes and focused on the ‘highly educated’ segments – so no Enhanced Supplementary Labour Scheme (ESLS, totalling 29,255 by mid 2025) or Foreign Domestic Helper Scheme (FDHS, totalling 367,971 by end 2024).

Hong Kong’s talent scheme proliferation is now out of control - instead of two or three clear routes (eg. one for investment, one for talent, and one for labourers), we have now a long list of branded programmes – each with its own acronym, thresholds and marketing slogan – aimed at broadly the same pool of skilled workers. This creates an illusion of ‘innovation’ without expanding the real options available: most applicants still just need a predictable path to live and work, not a menu of near‑duplicate labels. The more schemes are added, the harder it becomes for individuals and employers to understand which channel to use, and the easier it is for government to claim success by launching “new” initiatives. Table 1 summarises the picture of current state of affairs, after we dug deep and summarised from the plethora of definitions and statistics, press releases and legco answers by the government:

Table 1: comprehensive compare and contrast of the various current talent schemes

What do you think? Is this an easy way to attract talent, or does it merely create paperwork and rent-seeking by so called ‘consultants’ who extract economic value from the applicants due to the system’s complexity?

Overlapping Talent Admission Scheme

Instead of blindly opening up new avenues to attract quality migrants, it will help to adopt a more structured approach, by categorising the channels of admission into a small number of key attributes – it is easy to summarise the existing schemes into 5 broad categories intended to attrace:
a) capital – applicants need to invest in HK;
b) expertise – applicants brings needed skills;
c) academic qualifications – applicants need to be good at passing exams;
d) labour in shortage – applicants fill jobs that locals cannot or will not fill;
e) mainlanders – applicants are PRC residents.

The rough overlap of the various schemes are best laid out in the following schematic.

Figure 1: segments intended by the various current admission schemes

It becomes very easy to suggest what to scrap and what to keep as a result of this analysis – any two schemes occupying the same segment should be cut down to just one. Possible abolition possibilities, in no specific order, are:

Expertise (red circle) – given the need for skills is far more important than endless collections of degree qualifications, QMAS should be abolished and just keep TTPS-A;

Labour in need (green circle) – given GEP is tried and tested, and Tech TAS smacks of ambulance chasing when everyone is bullish AI, while ASMTP should not really be given preference to better qualified global talent, these two superfluous schemes should be cancelled, and keeping GEP alone;

Mainlanders (yellow circle) – there is a familial reason to bring HK residents’ children to be reunited, hence ASSG makes sense, but ASMTP is obviously unnecessary when other categories can serve genuine talent needs better;

Academic Qualifications (blue circle) – there is a presumption that higher degrees make for better workforce. This is an attitude that worked perhaps up to 20 years ago, but with more global successful companies turning away from academic qualifications (see Google hiring non-graduates here, with IBM and Apple de-emphasising degrees too, see here, and even accounting firms, see here), and the academia increasingly becoming profit centres and woke factories, not to mention China alone churning out 11m university graduates a year (link), HK can surely do better attracting entrepreneurs instead of exam boffins. As a result, we advocate scrapping this category altogether (IANG, TTPS-b, TTPS-c, QMAS).

Back to basics?

Splitting single logical categories into multiple bureaucratic silos based on some arbitrary civil servant feel good fads is neither efficient nor beneficial to HK’s economy, let alone the local graduates paid for by tax payers whose jobs are now taken by floods of new immigrants. HK’s talent admission framework has also become bloated with institutional redundancy, creating administrative red tape.

Our proposals consolidate the overlapping areas into distinct, non-competing streams is the most sensible way to deal with population policy as well as economic skills matching, with the new lay of the land looking like this:

Figure 2: a simplified admission framework after rationalisation

In fact, we might be able to reduce the complexity even further – the fact that ‘expertise lists’ based admission being a bureaucratic construct means this category can be completely annulled and we stick only to the tried and tested GEP – in other words, imagined shortage of skill never beats actual skills in need, which the economy benefits from introducing.

Chart 2: date of scheme launches and total approvals to date

The author would like to thank Chong Cheuk Yiu from The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology majoring in Economics and Finance for assisting in data collection and analysis of this article.

HK traffic management: more nanny state bullying, less convenience

Following the previous article on improving HK’s traffic management (see link), more ideas have bubble up or were received from reader feedback. So now we follow up with some more commonsense suggestions:

Safety über alles! vs the need to pity pedestrian hearing?

Hong Kong’s pedestrian traffic signal sounds may be viewed as abrasive, even stressful to hear for road crossing public. When more than one crosswalk exists in close quarters, the overlapping noises create an overwhelming acoustic cacophony even. Could HK civil servants be too fervent in achieving their road safety mission at the expense of other stakeholders (eg residents living above crossings)?

In contrast, many other countries use gentler, softer signal sounds that alert pedestrians while keeping the experience pleasant: Japan, Mexico, and Spain employ relaxing bird chirps, while Thailand uses rhythmic beeps or melodic clicks. These quieter, more soothing alternatives are given below for you to compare:

Table 1: best practice signal sounds around the world

Style	Link to video (time stamp)	Sound imitates
	Japan (2:03)	Bird chirping
	Canada (4:10)	Soft melody
	Mexico (4:31)	Bird chirping
	Spain (6:36)	Bird chirping
	Thailand (7:25)	Soft beats

Source: global comparison video here

 Extreme nanny state molly coddling, HK style?

Since July 2022, HK has seen some 1,600 red-light projectors installed at pedestrian crossings ‘to enhance pedestrian safety’.

Figure 1: double red crossing lights not enough, let’s carpet the pavement with even more red lights!

But human nature dictates that such red carpet lighting will be ineffective at best: research by the University of Nottingham (link) suggests that 90% of pedestrians will ignore projector lights, often crossing after checking for traffic rather than following the signal.

These well-meaning bright lights cause nuisance to nearby residents as well – a complaint letter sent by Wan Chai District Councilor Lam Wai-Kong (Figure 2) is a case in point. Of course, anyone who goes to the length to complain is a very small minority of affected residents, most may just grin and bear:

Figure 2: complaint letter on light pollution

In typical paternalistic fashion dispensing other people’s money, the Transport authorities has already spent HK$9.59 million deploying these light projectors which not only needs repairs and replacement, but will in the meantime incur significant electricity costs as they are left on all day, every day of the year.

For argument’s sake, if each such projector is rated 200W, it will use 1,752 kWh of electricity per year. At the current initial deployment levels, the scheme is already costing upwards of $1.7m in tax payer money (Table 2 below). For some pet safety imperative which is not even seen elsewhere in the world for a widely travelled road user such as your correspondent!

Table 2: Estimated cost based on CLP:

	Ref	Calculations
Annual consumption of 200W bulb (kWh)	A	200x24x365/1,000 = 1,752
Per kWh cost (rate + fuel)*	B	($1.1 + $0.39) = $1.49
Annual cost per bulb	C=AxB	1,752 x 1.49 = $2,610.48
Total cost for tax payers (estimated total 1600 red light projectors in HK, 4 light bulbs for one crossing: 6400 bulbs in total)	C x 6400	$2,610.48 x 6400 = $16,707,072

*using cheaper CLP pricing, current rates here: CLP & HK Electric

Hong Kong seems hell bent on controlling road user behavior in a quest for 100% safety, at great costs to their convenience and road system efficiency. Another recent example of such idiotic (let alone unpopular) policy is well captured in the newly created crime of not putting on safety belts on public buses – thankfully now suspended (see here). This is the kind of condescending governance mentality the powers that be must change if Hong Kong is to function like a world city?

Countdown Timers for Pedestrians too?

Our original article suggested using countdown timers for cars (link), but why not extend that to pedestrians too? All the benefits of timers for cars are applicable for pedestrians as well:

Figure 3: Countdown Timers

‘Turn on red’ long over due for HK?

Another form of HK traffic management improvement should be familiar for regular travelers to North America: the ability for cars to turn at cross roads when the forward traffic signal is red, as illustrated here:

Figure 4: How left-turn on red works

Basically when turning left (or right if you are looking at American system) when the forward light is red as shown by the green arrow above. There are a number of benefits for such an arrangement (eg found in research from International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology), generally improving traffic flow and overall cross road capacity.

One good example in HK can be found at the Jordan Road – Wui Man Road junction in Yau Ma Tei. The current outdated intersection controls creates significant vehicle tail backs during busy periods, with traffic coming out of the Western Tunnel heading Eastwards through Jordan Road lacking the ability to be directed northwards (i.e.. Turning left in Figure 5 below), even when cross traffic is generally very thin. This area is additionally infamous for its multiple red-light crossings within a short stretch, leading to frequent stops.

Figure 5: Jordan Road traffic should benefit from Left turn on red big time

HK is one of the jurisdictions where turn on red is prohibited, even though this arrangement is widely practiced in China. With increasing integration into its hinterland, now is the opportune moment to make that upgrade.

There may be many other areas we can improve HK’s transport experience, we will write about them when we have a chance. If you feel like helping our city move ahead, then write to the administrators or policy makers and lobby for changes…

The author would like to thank Chau Chak Kwan from The City University of Hong Kong majoring in Global Business Systems Management and Chan Hoi Ki from The City University of Hong Kong majoring in Finance for assisting in data collection and analysis of this article.

Extra material

based on a University of Hong Kong study suggests these devices could reduce red-light jumping by 25%, as they effectively https://english.dotdotnews.com/a/202306/23/AP649541cee4b08eeabfe03db8.html