Accountability cloud hangs over Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department

There are reasons why government maladministration and misspending are to be taken seriously. The controversy over the purchase of the HK$1.56 billion air traffic control system by the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) is a case in point. As the Legislative Council digs deeper into the furore, more irregularities have been unearthed, some of which have raised disturbing questions. Calls for the anti-graft watchdog to step in are now growing.

The department has yet to give a satisfactory explanation on why the new system, intended for use by 2012, will not be ready until next year. The delay means the old system, which was said to be dated three years ago, is still in use.

In January, a Legco hearing heard that the department already spent an extra HK$42 million for more system features after the tender was awarded to US firm Raytheon in February 2011. So far, the tender has been altered 23 times. Of particular concern is the revised requirement of the new system, from one with a proven track record of at least 12 months to one with just six months. The penalty for delays in delivery was also changed from 15 per cent to 1.5 per cent, raising suspicion about whether they were tailored to suit a preferred outcome. It also emerged that a senior official involved in the tendering process subsequently joined the US company's contractor here.

Post-tender changes are not uncommon, in particular for technical systems. But given the circumstances and the delay, the alterations have raised legitimate concerns.

CAD chief Norman Lo Shung-man has already been censured by Legco for his role in building the department's new headquarters. Lawmakers are likely to deliver another damning verdict on the new air traffic control system. At stake is government accountability. The latest saga has raised more serious management and integrity issues. Officials responsible should be held accountable and punished in light of the future developments. The anti-graft body should not hesitate to step in should there be evidence to pursue the matter further.