MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, I have just heard the speech of Mr Dennis KWOK, and now he sits down to listen to me. He said he did not know whether the Secretary for Justice went to London for promoting arbitration or for her own business. He found it odd and could not understand the motive. He also mentioned the report of the Financial Times. When Ms Claudia MO spoke later, she also mentioned the report of the Financial Times. I want to tell you that the report of the Financial Times does not have any absolute authority and may not be correct. I think this is just hearsay and so I have to speak on the subject.
I am qualified to speak on the issue of Hong Kong being an international arbitration centre because some 10 or 20 years ago, I had been acting as a representative in the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) on behalf of the Hong Kong Federation of Insurers (“HKFI”) or the insurance industry. At that time, there were many arbitration cases in the insurance industry, so my work was very heavy. In the early days, Hong Kong was very often competing with Singapore in getting arbitration cases. Hong Kong got more cases in some years while Singapore got more in other years. Both places were contending for the status as an arbitration hub. At that time, I already knew there was someone called Teresa CHENG and we had met once or twice. I think the Secretary for Justice regards HKIAC as her own child and has been giving special attention to HKIAC for more than 20 years. She is eager to see the development of HKIAC as she knows how difficult it is to establish Hong Kong as an international arbitration centre.
In fact, I am very disappointed with Mr Dennis KWOK. The HKIAC offers a lot of work for lawyers and is very important to them. He should be well aware of the importance of HKIAC, but why is he so disgusted? The Secretary for Justice is a seasoned lawyer and enjoys a high status in HKIAC. She attended an international conference to promote Hong Kong as an international arbitration centre. It was acceptable if Mr Dennis KWOK did not commend her, even if he had views against her, he should not insult her. If he had sufficient evidence or if he claimed that he could read her mind and knew that she had selfish motives, I would admire him. However, this is not the case. What he said was just hearsay and he declared that the Secretary for Justice was guilty based on certain acts.
We, the “construction” camp, have suffered a lot as a result of such persistent scaremongering by the opposition camp. They have said bad words about us, which are totally untrue. Actually we are just being very nice and do not refute because we think that we should not waste time. Nevertheless, I think this is not a waste of time. We need to tell Hong Kong people the truth so that Hong Kong people will not be misled and the facts will not be twisted. Therefore, I think Mr Dennis KWOK should apologize to the Secretary for Justice. The Secretary for Justice attended such an important international conference to promote Hong Kong as an arbitration centre, and now he hurls insults at her, presenting all sorts of rumours as if they are proven facts. I honestly think that he should apologize to the Secretary for Justice.
President, today’s motion is about summoning the Secretary for Justice and Director of the Chief Executive’s Office to explain on handling of the matter of and in relation to the engagement of the Secretary for Justice in any other trade after taking office. According to the allegation made by the opposition camp today, it is reported―not necessarily true but just pointed out by some people―that the Secretary for Justice had participated in three arbitration cases after assuming office in January last year. The opposition camp queries if she is guilty of misconduct in public office.
It is important to note that today’s motion is not whether the Secretary for Justice is competent in discharging her duties. I understand that the opposition camp has a lot of complaints about her. However, the “construction” camp may have even more complaints about the Secretary for Justice mainly because only a few people have been prosecuted despite a large number of arrestees, and the court does not have any guidelines. As people involved in serious cases can be released immediately, I wonder if the court has done a good job. I certainly understand the importance of judiciary independence, but the Department of Justice cannot be absolved of blame. Can the Department of Justice delegate some high-quality prosecutors so that mistakes will not be often made when handling cases? We all have a lot of complaints. However, today we are not discussing whether the Secretary for Justice is competent, but whether she is involved in personal interests and has taken up some private jobs. Thus, I think we should separate the two issues. We should not talk about popularity rating, does it has anything to do with the motion? If you allege that she has taken up some private jobs, you should provide evidence to prove it. Being a lawyer, Mr Dennis KWOK should know that a verdict should be based on evidence, and a death sentence should not be imposed without evidence. It is really disgusting that he has applied double standards. The public will resent him when they understand the case.
As a matter of fact, the Secretary for Justice has explained time and again, but the opposition camp turned a deaf ear and continued their political attacks. I have met with the Secretary for Justice and she has also explained and produced information to respond to the requests made by many members of the “construction” camp, thus I have a better understanding of the situation and can offer some explanation. When the Secretary for Justice assumed office, she was approved by the Chief Executive to continue to handle six arbitration cases in her private practice. The substantive disputes or hearings and presentations of those six cases had been completed, pending the delivery of judgments or issuance of orders, hence the Secretary for Justice requested … It is known to all that when she was invited by the Chief Executive to be the Secretary for Justice, the invitation was made in a short time. No one in Hong Kong wanted to take up the post; most of the competent people did not want to take up this important position, which was really bad for Hong Kong. People dared not take up the post because they could easily be smeared and doxxed. Things that they have not done would be rumoured as something they have done. This is the problem. People often say that no one in Hong Kong is willing to take up the work and that the Directors of Bureaux perform poorly. Of course, many officials assume office for doing a good turn. However, even the most capable people will become incapable after they have assumed office because they will definitely be bad-mouthed. If this situation remains unchanged, Hong Kong will not have a good time.
Since only the procedure of delivering judgment or issuing order was left, the Secretary for Justice sought approval from the Chief Executive to finish the outstanding arbitration jobs. I believe this request was very reasonable and responsible because international arbitration can take a long time. I know very well that the arbitration process is very complicated as I had done the insurance industry a good turn by taking up arbitration work for several years. If the cases were left half-finished, the people concerned would be caught between two stools. Moreover, the actual work had already been completed, pending the delivery of judgment or issuance of order. Therefore, I think the Secretary for Justice’s request is reasonable and her work in the Department of Justice will not be affected.
As for the three arbitration cases which the media alleged that the Secretary for Justice was involved in, actually two cases had been declared and approved by the Chief Executive; as for the third case, since the Secretary for Justice had already resigned from the arbitral tribunal before taking office, no declaration was required. As explained by the Secretary for Justice, the two declared cases involved investment disputes between investors and the Spanish and Romanian Governments. The intermediate procedures of the two cases had almost been completed when she took office, thus her involvement was mimimal. The Secretary for Justice opined that it would be irresponsible to leave the case unfinished without writing up a judgment after hearing the submissions. This would ruin the hard-earned reputation of HKIAC which has been built painstakingly by many people for many years.
The Secretary for Justice also pointed out, from January to April last year, she resigned from three cases that were close to completion and had notified the relevant parties concerned. In addition, she had resigned from other declared cases before 1 July last year. Consequently, she did not declare the cases in the Register of Members’ Interests after July 1 because there was nothing to declare. At the same time, new arbitrators have been appointed in the three cases to continue with the remaining procedure. Therefore, although the three cases are still in process, the Secretary for Justice has not been involved, and at present, she has not handled any other arbitration case.
President, the Secretary for Justice’s explanation is indeed very clear. The three cases as reported are not new cases. Among which, two cases had been declared and she had resigned from another case before taking office. The alleged failure to declare personal interests was due to the fact that she had resigned from all arbitration work. As the three cases are still in process, some people infer that the Secretary for Justice is still involved. In fact, all three cases have appointed new arbitrators to continue with the remaining procedures.
Therefore, I believe that the allegations are just misunderstandings or deliberate misinterpretations, or even just groundless speculations, and the Secretary for Justice has provided reasonable explanation. As I have said, though we are dissatisfied with the performance of the Secretary for Justice, today we are not discussing whether the Secretary for Justice is competent or not. Can we be above politics and call a spade a spade in a society where people confound right and wrong and cannot tell black from white? We should approve what is right and condemn what is wrong. I understand that many people intend to hit the Secretary for Justice when she is down; even so, one has to hit at the right place. When she has not done wrong, we cannot arbitrarily say that she works for personal gain. She has contributed to the area of arbitration for more than two decades and has gained respect in the arbitration field worldwide. She is really influential and has become an authoritative figure in the arbitration of matters related to building contracts. This is a well-known fact to all people of Hong Kong.
We are all aware of the high lawyer fees. The Secretary for Justice can make a lot of money in handling arbitration cases. However, she is willing to make a sacrifice and get into this “hot kitchen”. Members should be fair, they may criticize the Secretary for not performing well in some areas of work, such as refusing to set up special courts and failing to handle some cases. Members can make such criticisms, but this motion is about whether the Secretary for Justice has taken up private jobs. Do Members think that she has done so? Are there any evidence? Accusations are made on acts that have not been done, even the Secretary for Justice’s trip to London to participate in an international conference has become a subject of allegation. Such kind of practice will do a disservice to Hong Kong.
Therefore, if we want to summon the Secretary for Justice and Director of the Chief Executive’s Office for probing into whether the Secretary for Justice has taken up private jobs, I think we must be realistic and should seek truth from facts. For the reasons I have just mentioned, I will definitely oppose this motion. Thank you, President.