Hong Kong has good reason to welcome international talent. Universities need overseas scholars, conferences need industry experts, and professional organizations benefit from exchanging ideas across borders. Nobody wants a city so preoccupied with protecting its own that it forgets how to compete with the outside world. But there is a difference between inviting someone to share their expertise and inviting someone to do a job that a local worker could have been paid to do. The distinction sounds straightforward on paper. In practice, it can be surprisingly difficult to police.

Starting on Oct 1, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government expanded the Immigration Facilitation Scheme for Visitors Participating in Short-term Activities in Designated Sectors (STV Scheme). The program allows eligible visitors invited by authorized organizations to participate in specified activities for up to 14 days without applying for an employment visa or entry permit. It’s intended to facilitate professional exchanges, not replace local workers. That distinction matters, but declaring a good intention is one thing. Ensuring it holds up in practice is another.

The program is not new. A pilot arrangement was introduced in June 2022 and regularized as the STV Scheme in June 2024; by the end of June 2026, the initiatives had facilitated more than 56,000 visitors participating in over 9,500 short-term activities. These figures do not establish that the program has been abused, nor do they point to how many local jobs, if any, have been displaced. They do show, however, that this is no longer a marginal arrangement. As its reach expands, so should the scrutiny of how it works.

Consider a hypothetical example. A large event in Hong Kong needs photographers, designers, public relations staff and technical specialists. Traditionally, the organizer might hire local professionals. Under the STV Scheme, it could also invite experts from outside Hong Kong. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. A renowned photographer might introduce new techniques, while an overseas specialist might bring knowledge that genuinely enriches an event.

But imagine the photographer is not merely demonstrating a technique. He is taking the pictures, directing the shoot and delivering the finished work, while local freelancers who might otherwise have been hired sit at home. Has he come to exchange expertise, or to provide a service? For an immigration officer, the distinction may be much harder to establish than it is for a policymaker drafting guidelines.

In construction, illegal employment may be relatively visible. Someone carrying materials or assembling scaffolding is performing identifiable physical tasks. Knowledge-based work is another matter. A photographer holding a camera, a designer working at a computer or an IT specialist discussing technical solutions could plausibly be exchanging expertise, delivering a service or doing both. The activity itself may look identical.

An invitation letter describing someone as an expert does not automatically establish that the work performed is genuinely an exchange of expertise rather than ordinary commercial production. Nor can inspectors reasonably monitor every professional throughout the working day. The challenge is not necessarily a lack of enforcement effort. It is that some forms of work are intrinsically difficult to distinguish from professional consultation, particularly when the same person can credibly claim to be doing both.

The economics matter, too. A nonlocal professional may charge considerably less than a local counterpart. For an organizer working within a tight budget, the savings could be substantial. If the financial incentive is large enough, the temptation to classify ordinary work as professional exchange may be equally substantial. This is not an accusation against any organization, but a foreseeable risk that a credible regulatory system should anticipate.

Nor should we assume that a 14-day arrangement cannot affect local employment. Not everyone works in a permanent job with a monthly salary. Photographers, designers, event crews and other freelancers often assemble their livelihoods one project at a time. Losing a single engagement can mean losing a significant portion of that month’s income. For these workers, the question is not whether an overseas professional has taken over an entire occupation. It is whether one more paid assignment has gone elsewhere.

The government has said the program is not intended to replace local labor. That is an important principle, but a principle is only as useful as the mechanism that protects it. Three questions deserve clear answers. How will the authorities verify what the invited visitors actually do, other than by relying mainly on documents supplied by host organizations? What criteria will distinguish a genuine exchange of expertise from outsourcing work that could have gone to a local professional? And if a local worker suspects that a job has been displaced, how can they complain, how will the case be investigated, and will the outcome be made public?

These are not arguments for closing Hong Kong to outside talent. Better safeguards could strengthen the program by giving genuine professional exchanges greater credibility and local workers a clear channel to raise concerns. If the program contains loopholes, expansion could magnify their consequences. If its safeguards are robust, greater participation could bring valuable expertise into Hong Kong.

Hong Kong cannot afford to become inward-looking. Its future depends on attracting talent, exchanging knowledge and remaining connected to the wider world. But openness should not require local workers to accept uncertainty about whether the jobs they rely on will remain available. The public is not necessarily asking the government to choose between international exchanges and local employment. It is asking how both can be protected.

The author is chairman of the Asia MarTech Society and sits on the advisory boards of several professional organizations, including two universities.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.