MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, there is an ethos pervading in society currently that public officers, regardless of their being government officials or Members of this Council, if they are found not to have acted according to the declaration of interest mechanism, they will be requested to step down. But even if they have declared their interests according to the requirements, Members would still say that the declaration of interest system is outdated and accuse them of not providing enough information. They will be pursued for a lot of information which falls outside the scope of information provided in declaration. If a reply is given slower than expected, they will be condemned as covering up things. And if it is because of the short time allowed that only the information requested is given, these people would be accused of providing information like squeezing a tube of toothpaste.
Another point which Members often make is that there is an increasingly higher demand from the public for public figures. It is also a fact that public feelings should be taken into account. However, different members of the public would have different views of the same thing. Then how can we know what demands are justified? It follows that the fairest approach is to act according to the systems of declaration of interest worked out by various government departments or organizations after study, such that these persons concerned have something to follow. So if public officers have made declarations according to the requirements, even if there are people who may think that the information given is not complete or the system of declaration itself is not sound, they should let the people concerned have the benefit of doubt and the latter should be regarded as having passed the test.
Let me come back to the incident about the Secretary. Not long after the Secretary had assumed office, he found that he owned a piece of land inside the NENT NDAs. And he took action at once and made a declaration to the Chief Executive. Subsequently, the Secretary emphasized that he himself, his wife and his children did not have any interest in respect of the NDAs. The Chief Executive also personally confirmed that the Secretary had made the necessary declaration of interest.
It turns out that the Secretary has made a declaration of interest under the existing system and explained on numerous occasions the facts in relation to the farmland concerned. As a matter of fact, the Government has set up an established system and relevant procedures. If officials have followed such a system strictly, they should have met the requirements and come clean of any criminal liability. Unfortunately, on this occasion, although the Secretary has made a declaration, he is still under severe attack. Then what is the use of the declaration system? Of course, notwithstanding how stringent a system of declaration can be, there is bound to be room for further improvement. But before any change is made to the system, we should follow the system as it is. For if not, a situation will arise and that is, while those who have not declared will get killed, those who have declared according to the rules will also get killed. Is this fair and reasonable?
Certainly, people will say, “When there is no inquiry, how can we know that he is innocent and whether he has covered anything up?” According to media reports, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has decided to set up a committee to investigate the matter. I believe since the ICAC will investigate the matter, then there is no reason for us to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) at this moment and conduct an inquiry by this Council. This is because it will give the community a wrong message that the Legislative Council does not trust the ICAC. Also, an inquiry by this Council cannot be expected to be as comprehensive as the investigation done by the ICAC. If in the end the ICAC finds that the Secretary has done something wrong, I am sure he will be punished.
An Honourable colleague has asked, why does the Secretary not make use of this good opportunity of a commission of inquiry formed under the P&P Ordinance to prove his innocence to the public? I think this argument can be likened to the case of a healthy person, but we suspect that he is not healthy and so we say to him, “Why do we not cut your body open to see and prove that you are all very fine?” I am sure any person who is to be tried under the P&P Ordinance, that is, the defendant, will have to bear the same kind of mental stress and torture like the person who is about to be cut open. If Members do not have any concrete and adequate evidence, they should not conduct a trial of any person by invoking the P&P Ordinance recklessly.
As I said in the House Committee meeting last week, I thought that the issues which we would discuss after the commencement of the new Legislative Session would be concrete matters which have impacts on the future of Hong Kong, like the free trade zone in Shanghai, and so on. Little did I expect that Members would still spend time on internal attrition. The friends whom I have met, be they young or old, have all said to me that we have wasted too much time and energy on internal attrition, causing the development of society to stagnate.
As we review our past, we can find that at one time we used to rank number one in the world in container terminals. But in recent years, our position has been taken over by Singapore and Shanghai. As far as I know, Shenzhen is going to overtake us soon. Also, before the reunification, our economy used to be on the same par as Singapore. But now the monthly household income in Singapore almost doubles that of Hong Kong. In such circumstances, why do we pretend to see nothing? Why do Members still spend time on internal attrition which is not necessary at all?
What is most worrying is that even the Central Authorities seem to have ceased to hold great expectations for Hong Kong. Apart from building the Qian Hai district in Shenzhen, a free trade zone is set up in Shanghai. According to many analyses made, the Mainland is trying to clone another Hong Kong in the hope that should anything go amiss in Hong Kong, a replacement can be ushered in. I would of course not wish to see this happen. But in the event that the Shanghai free trade zone takes away 10% or 20% of our business, it will spell great trouble for Hong Kong. Over time, it will land Hong Kong in a precarious position and by that time, our so-called position as an international financial centre will be gone just like what has happened to our container terminals.
We should know that it is much easier to destroy than to build. And even if we work with one heart to develop our economy, it will take some time before we can see any results. I hope very much that the people of Hong Kong can be committed to building their community and refrain from indulging in internal attrition. Otherwise, our next generation will blame us for just poking trouble and not doing the proper jobs.
The Chief Secretary has just explained that the decision made by the Development Bureau is not the result of any personal judgment by Secretary Paul CHAN. In fact, the incident has dragged on for a long time. So before any new evidence is found, I urge Members to return to examining the practical issues concerning the NDAs project. They should stop wasting years of time and causing Hong Kong to be stuck in an impasse.
Lastly, I would like to mention in particular that the incident has caused great pressure to the Secretary, his family and relatives. Some media, especially those which do not abide by the law have resorted to using all means to stalk and take photos. This has caused uneasiness in his children and relatives. This sort of action is not regarded as reasonable in Hong Kong and it has gone way over board. I hope the industry concerned or the media can ponder seriously over this practice.
I will object to the motion. Thank you, Deputy President.