By Willa Wu

Copyright scmp

With Hong Kong leader John Lee set to deliver his annual policy address on September 17, the Post examines key topics the chief executive is expected to focus on, including a mega infrastructure project near the border, new economic drivers and livelihood issues.
In the fourth of a seven-part series, Willa Wu gives an update on the city’s talent schemes and examines how they can be refined to match Hong Kong’s economic needs.
Zhang Jun* had a bittersweet moment when he renewed his visa under Hong Kong’s talent scheme in August.
When he first applied to work in the city in 2023, the Hangzhou native had a rosy vision of some day sending his son to one of Hong Kong’s universities, paying lower local tuition fees after the boy completed his secondary education in mainland China.
But in July, education authorities announced that children of non-local talent must complete a mandatory residency period before qualifying for subsidised tertiary education rates. This means Zhang’s 16-year-old son now must enrol in a local school next year.
Searching for a suitable school has proven daunting. There are no vacancies in the city’s elite schools, while second-tier schools are overwhelmed by applications from children of other “non-local talent families” like Zhang’s.
“While my visa renewal acknowledges my contributions to Hong Kong, I question what I’m receiving in return,” insurance agent Zhang, 45, said. “It is not fair.”
Thanks to the scheme and newcomers such as Zhang, though, Hong Kong jumped five places to secure the fourth spot globally for talent in the latest report by the International Institute for Management Development. Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu called the achievement a “clear testament” to the government’s efforts.
The city’s ranking rose by eight places to 20th in “appeal”, by one spot to third for “readiness”, and also moved up a spot to 12th for “investment and development”.

Hong Kong’s Top Talent Pass Scheme, launched in December 2022, was the government’s solution to address a brain drain during the pandemic, aggravated by an emigration wave in the wake of the 2019 protests.
The initiative has attracted more than 90,000 professionals and 109,000 of their dependants as of July, helping offset the exit of 177,000 residents who left between mid-2020 and mid-2022.
The economic impact appears substantial, with the government stating that these newcomers will generate economic benefits worth HK$34 billion (US$4.36 billion), representing 1.2 per cent of Hong Kong’s GDP.
But as it approaches its third anniversary, several mainlanders in the talent scheme like Zhang are asking if they should stay on, given how jobs are harder to secure in a slowing economy and school places for their children uncertain.
Experts and policymakers, meanwhile, are raising potential red flags about its open-ended approach.
Former chief executive Leung Chun-ying, now a state leader as a vice-chairman of the country’s top political advisory body, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, is among those voicing concern.
“I have heard a lot of feedback from people in Hong Kong and on the mainland that most talent applicants do not have any intention to work and live in Hong Kong,” he told the Post.
“The incentives behind applying are the education of their children in Hong Kong and the convenience of having a Hong Kong identity card.
“The recent tightening of the policy by the Education Bureau is a clear sign that the policy was being abused.”
Leung called on authorities to focus on “what skill sets are needed and how many are needed” when seeking to draw talent to the city.
“More may not be better,” he said.
All eyes are now on whether Lee will fine-tune the scheme when he unveils his latest policy address next Wednesday. Will he act on the feedback and can the government do more to tighten the scheme while sharpening the city’s competitiveness?
Guarding against abuse
Authorities have said they are vigilant in rolling out the welcome mat. When the scheme was implemented, it came, from day one, with the principle of “simple application, strict vetting for renewal”, as the city’s labour chief, Chris Sun Yuk-han, has put it repeatedly.
A two-year visa is granted to eligible applicants under three categories, which cover individuals with an annual income of at least HK$2.5 million.
It is also open to graduates from 199 select universities and institutions who have been working for three of the past five years.
Since last November, top earners under the talent scheme can have their visas extended to three years as the local administration anticipates that the extension will help them with better planning.
The scheme, together with the resumption of normal travel after the pandemic, has bumped up the population of Hong Kong by 2.5 per cent to more than 7.5 million in mid-2025, from 7.34 million in mid-2022.
As of July 31, the Immigration Department had approved 111,212 talent applications and 126,475 dependant applications, with nearly 95 per cent of them being mainlanders.
Ex-city leader Leung said that the figures meant that the approval process had been expedient, but cautioned against assuming all was well.
“If half of this number and their dependants do not settle in Hong Kong, the policy fails,” he said.
“If half come to Hong Kong, we do not have the vacancies in our housing stock, the surplus capacity in our healthcare system, or the vacancies in our schools to take care of the talents and their dependants.”
A survey by the Labour and Welfare Bureau found that one-third of the 8,511 individuals who successfully renewed their visas as of July 31 did not list Hong Kong as their permanent residence.

Meanwhile, nearly 50 per cent of the children of these individuals are studying in government-funded schools.
Incumbent leader Lee earlier argued that it was normal for talent to live in neighbouring cities, such as Shenzhen, while working in Hong Kong, noting that many people who worked in New York lived in New Jersey or Connecticut.
But not everyone is persuaded, with some fearing the system’s loopholes create anxieties for locals.
Last October, a group of Hong Kong parents singled out a group they dubbed “examination immigrants”. These were children of mainland talent who never settled in Hong Kong but took the university entrance exams to compete with locals for a university place.
In July, immigration authorities broke up a syndicate allegedly offering talent applicants a “one-stop service” with fake academic qualifications, employment proof and other documents for the scheme.
Leung said while the city had moved in the right direction to draw in more talent, “the key to the success or failure of the schemes will depend on detailed policy design, scrutiny of applicants’ filings, implementation of the policy and actual monitoring of the applications”.
“When we review the first batch of successful applicants later this year, we have to be meticulous in scrutinising their filings,” he warned.
“If we do not manage the process well, the talent schemes might end in futility, or we are caught short in terms of social services – housing, healthcare, education etc, or both, meaning the talent do not actually work in Hong Kong while using some of such services.”
Declining appeal?
Erica Cai, a graduate from Columbia University and among the first batch of top talent scheme visa holders, renewed her visa without a second thought as Hong Kong had made her feel at home.
“I look forward to working in a city which is Western-like and near my hometown, Guangzhou. So it is natural for me to pick Hong Kong in the first place,” said the researcher with recruitment consultancy Robert Walters.
Cai, who helps recruitment in private banks, also said the city’s “strong and booming” financial services sector was important to building her career.
But the 27-year-old also observed that with the talent pool getting larger in recent years, competition in the local employment market was becoming more intense.

The latest survey by the government also found that the median salary of the 8,511 talent scheme members whose visas were successfully extended on or before July 31 was HK$40,000, 20 per cent lower than the HK$50,000 reported by the first batch of 2,000 talent pass holders polled two years ago.
A breakdown of the applications shows the scheme’s appeal has also moderated.
In 2023, the first year of its launch, it received 62,873 applications. But applications fell by 18.5 per cent the following year.
In the first seven months of this year, there were only 22,113 applications, less than half of the 51,223 filed in 2024.
A look at the approved applicants from each of the three categories showed graduates with less than three years’ work experience were finding the scheme less appealing. This category saw a 25 per cent decrease in approved cases between 2023 and 2024.
Among the 13,678 people whose visas under the top talent scheme expired on July 31, only 7,394 – or 54 per cent – chose to renew their stay.
Only two-thirds of them lived in Hong Kong and the top three sectors that employed the most talent under the scheme were commerce and trade, financial services and innovation and technology, official data showed.
The government did not provide the reason for the 46 per cent of people who did not renew their visas, only saying the talent scheme was “a two-way selection process”.
Applicants who do not renew their visa cannot return to the scheme in the future.
On popular mainland social media platform RedNote, user Lilin said she did not renew her visa as she would have had to stay in the insurance business, a path she no longer wanted.
User Momo decided not to extend her visa that was expiring in October after learning about the stricter rules on allowing local students access to further education in the city. “The cost for the whole family to move here is just too expensive,” she wrote.
Lawmaker Jesse Shang Hailong, who chairs the Hong Kong Top Talent Services Association, said nearly 30 per cent of those who did not renew their visas had first applied for the scheme due to a herd mentality.
“Another major reason is the lack of high-quality student places for children given Hong Kong’s education is one of the core drivers behind their relocation,” he said.
He highlighted the need to address the mismatch between available job types in Hong Kong and the expectations of incoming talent.
Some mid-career professionals arrived in the city with high expectations, only to realise later that many positions were at entry level and did not align with their expertise and experience, he said.

Shang, whose association serves around 70,000 talent scheme members and their dependants, also called for measures that could help new arrivals better integrate into the local community.
“With so much talent flocking into the city, the focus should not just be on helping them find jobs or accommodation. It should also be assisting them to adapt to the local environment, making them more willing to stay,” he said.
Then there is the issue of whether the influx of talent has made a positive impact on taxes.
Felix Yip Wai-kwong, associate director of the Centre for Human Resources Strategy and Development at Baptist University, noted that one-third of the scheme’s recipients had not lived in Hong Kong over the past two years.
“These individuals aren’t contributing to local consumption. Furthermore, if they work more than 183 days outside Hong Kong, they will qualify for salary tax deductions. So what’s the benefit to Hong Kong?” he said.
Under local tax laws, people – including applicants under the top talent scheme – working primarily outside Hong Kong can claim an exemption if they pay comparable taxes elsewhere.
“My primary concern is that many might view Hong Kong merely as a stepping stone, especially given the absence of minimum stay requirements,” he said.
“In that sense, the top talent is just a good dream that we borrow.”

Anna Tsui Po-yung, a senior lecturer at the department of management at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, argued that the government ought to tighten the definitions of talent.
For example, did the city really need talent with less than three years of experience? “Are they really qualified to be called talent?” she said.
She also suggested the scheme be “decentralised”, asking local companies to set out their needs rather than a top-down mass talent scheme that could lead to a mismatch in supply and demand.
She added: “The local administration should now think carefully if the scheme serves to address population issues or the city’s need for talent.”
For insurance agent Zhang, his main focus remains finding a good school for his son, failing which, he may even consider sending him to Japan.
If that happened, he said: “The scheme would definitely seem less attractive to me and I probably will continue my current life – commuting between Hangzhou and Hong Kong.”
*Name has been changed