• Wed
  • Sep 24, 2014
  • Updated: 9:29am
Lai See
PUBLISHED : Friday, 09 August, 2013, 12:00am
UPDATED : Friday, 09 August, 2013, 3:00am

Why do some civil servants get an easy ride from the law?


Howard Winn has been with the South China Morning Post for two and half years after previous stints as business editor and deputy editor of The Standard, and business editor of Asia Times. His writing has also been published in the Far Eastern Economic Review, the Wall Street Journal, and the International Herald Tribune. He writes the Lai See column which focuses on the lighter side of business.

We were surprised at the relatively lenient sentences handed out to the two civil servants - former development secretary Mak Chai-kwong and an assistant director of highways, Tsang King-man - who were found guilty of defrauding the government of HK$700,000 in housing benefits, and also of conspiracy to defraud. They were given jail sentences of eight months suspended for two years and ordered to repay the HK$700,000.

In passing sentence, the judge, Johnny Chan, noted that if they had simply cross-rented their flats, it would not have been illegal, and described the gravity of the offences as on the low side. He decided to impose suspended sentences after taking into account the men's previous contributions to society. Call us old-fashioned but we cannot see how it can be the case that it would have been OK to have cross-rented the properties. In doing this they were able to secure a housing allowance to which they were not entitled. It was certainly not the intention that the civil servants get a rental allowance while paying a mortgage. And for people to say the case has been overblown because a lot of civil servants were playing that game then is nonsense. Fraud is fraud.

When we are done for illegal parking, it is no defence to say that everyone else does it. That aside, the two have been found guilty of defrauding the government of HK$700,000. Compare their sentence with that of the 80-year-old woman who was given a three-month suspended jail sentence for fraudulently obtaining HK$15,000 in Old Age allowance benefits, an offence she had committed 12 years earlier. Then there was the labourer who cheated the Social Welfare Department of more than HK$57,000 in unemployment benefits who received a one-year jail sentence. Another man who defrauded the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance of HK$60,308 was jailed for six months.

But then consider former High Court judge Miles Jackson-Lipkin and his wife who were found guilty of defrauding more than HK$100,000 in welfare payouts and were jailed for 11 months - though released after four months on account of their old age and health. There was nevertheless widespread disapproval at their early release. Interestingly, Kevin Zervos, who is now Director of Public Prosecutions, was the prosecutor in the Lipkins case.

He told the court at the time that an immediate custodial sentence was necessary given the magnitude of the couple's offence. While age and state of health could be mitigating factors, Zervos said the chief magistrate had already considered these factors in reducing the sentence from 15 months to 11 months. It will be interesting to see if he presses for a stiffer sentence for the two civil servants sentenced yesterday. Then we are reminded of the case in 2000 of acting Commissioner for Inland Revenue Agnes Sin Law Yuk-lin and her husband who defrauded the government of HK$335,000 in the form of a housing allowance she received for a flat in which her husband had an interest. A custodial sentence was not considered to be in the public interest, according to the judge, so they received a nine-month jail sentence suspended for two years. Of course their "contributions to society were taken into account".

Speculation that they might lose their pension did not come to pass. The same, alas, cannot be said for Senior Superintendent Brian Heard, who was found after an investigation by the ICAC to have assisted in trying to secure a visa for a friend's girlfriend with bogus information. There was no money involved in this, yet he was jailed for six months and lost his HK$8 million pension. It is clear that certain civil servants are treated with a light touch, while some get the book thrown at them. But your man in the street gets short shrift from the law. We are under no illusions that should we decide to fiddle our expenses to the tune of HK$700,000 we would be behind bars in no time, despite our not inconsiderable contributions to society.


Judiciary car in the frame

The picture in yesterday's column of a government car parked illegally has attracted some attention. In response to readers' queries we can report that the government has confirmed that the car is allocated to the judiciary, though to no one judicial figure in particular.


Have you got any stories that Lai See should know about? E-mail them to howard.winn@scmp.com


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

Given the examples of sentencing listed here, could we ask the Judiciary to standardize punishment so that they are not seen to be so widely unequal, please?
Yes we could. It would not be a matter of asking though, but of simple legislation.
"And for people to say the case has been overblown because a lot of civil servants were playing that game then is nonsense."
You are wrong Mr Winn and the examples of fraud you follow with are incomparable. The fact is the cross renting system was NOT PROSECUTED!!!!!! So the practice was accepted and was NOT SEEN TO BE disallowed. The problem is with the way laws are inconsistently enforced. People defrauding the social allowance system is always prosecuted when detected and therefore all of us know it is not allowed and if we do it and get caught we are liable to sanction. If a laws is consistently disregarded not only by the public but also by the government and its enforcement sections then that law can not be expected to be followed by anyone.
they cheated Government deliberately
they were caught
Mak lied - he said he met the other guy in a queue when in fact they were at Uni together
they are both lucky not to be in jail as Lai See pointed out
let's see if they appeal their criminal convictions
The judge's note citing 'previous contributions to society' as reason for the lenient sentencing indeed very odd and goes against the principle of equal justice.

Mr Mak was a career bureaucrat who made it to Development Secretary. I am sure he did a fine job in the various government positions he has held over the past 30 years. Yet, he was just doing his job, and that in the one of the best-paid civil services in the world. He is not some war veteran who lost both legs defending his country, or a self-sacrificing philanthropist to whom society owns a debt of gratitude. On the contrary: the crime he was found guilty of (but not punished for), clearly demonstrates that Mr Mak made sure his own interest were well looked after while he carried out his government job.

Also, he committed these crimes before he carried out the bulk of the supposed 'contributions to society.' Is the judge implying that if Mr Mak had stayed a mid-level bureaucrat without climbing the ladder, or if he had left the civil service,and spent he last decade working for the private sector, the sentencing would have been heavier?

It indeed appears here there is one scale of justice for the poor and those without connections, and another scale of justice of the rich and powerful. Very disturbing.
So we now all know that basically , in the view of the judiciary, only senior civil servants , make useful "contributions to society".
Remember this fact when you are next asked to pay your tax bill , if you do voluntary unpaid work for a charity, drive a taxi or merely sweep the floor in McDonalds............... You are NOT contributing to society!
What a load of baloney to get of their own off lightly!
Yes, we know sentencing is weighted against the white G_wei_lo in HK now as well as the locals with no connections, having added nothing to the value of HK, unlike Mr Mak C.K. and perhaps, maybe like Mr Tsang Donald.
@"Judiciary car in the frame" --- we can report that the government has confirmed that the car is allocated to the judiciary, though to no one judicial figure in particular."
Ah yes, but next question : "Which particular judge had requisitioned this car at the time"?
John Adams
Good point ! Maybe Laisee could ask the judiciary.
He could also ask if the driver has been disciplined , in view of the fact that this car has often been seen parking illegally around the Wanchai area
Rule of law of Hong Kong style – boastful and arbitrary. After learning how the judiciary misbehaves personally or in court, I will only add that the Rule of Law in Hong Kong is rotten to the core.




SCMP.com Account