Why Hong Kong needs a more independent MTR board to prevent shoddy railway works
Mike Rowse questions if the MTR, which is majority-owned by the government, was too beholden to political concerns to properly prioritise its heavy workload, with five major rail projects on its hands
Back in the early 1970s, corner cutting in the construction industry – and the corruption that facilitated it – was rampant.
Similar problems afflicted the private sector.
It says something about the seriousness of the situation that, given the choice, we would probably prefer the latter.
One particularly disturbing aspect of the recent revelations is the claim that cheating was going on in the training and certification of the MTR Corporation’s site supervisory staff.
When corporate culture has reached such a nadir, the time has come for radical remedial action. Failure to root out such practices imperils the very existence of the organisation.
Responsibility for the present state of affairs must rest with the corporation’s boss. But exactly who is that? Is it the senior management, led by chief executive officer Lincoln Leong Kwok-kuen? Certainly, as the person in charge of daily operations, he cannot escape a share of the blame. But Leong reports to a board of directors chaired by former minister Frederick Ma Si-hang. To what extent should they be accountable?
Actually, if we stand back from the current mess and look at the situation from a macro perspective, one probable contributory cause of the recent problems is requiring the corporation to undertake five major construction projects all at the same time.
Each of the four internal projects – the Island Line western extension, South Island line, the Whampoa extension, and the Sha Tin-Central Link – had its justification, but they surely deserved different priority in strictly transport terms. However, it would have been difficult for the government to explain to the residents affected why their line had lower priority than the others.
Watch: Hong Kong’s new high-speed trains to mainland China begin trials
If the terms of reference were set too broadly, the inquiry would take too long. Yet, if they are set too narrowly – restricting the scope to just the Hung Hom station, as has been mooted – then the equally serious alleged flaws at the To Kwa Wan station would not be covered. And it is difficult to see how any inquiry would not spread into the whole question of MTR supervision.
In the longer term, it is important to get to grips with the chain of command issue. The government should be seeking to gradually reduce its shareholding so that it no longer has majority control.
Perhaps a start could be made by disposing of a further 20 per cent of the shares within the term of the current chief executive. A further 20 per cent could go in the next term. Then we could move towards a board much less susceptible to government strong-arming, and a management that reported to a more independent board.
In disposing of these 20 per cent tranches, could we also bring the public closer to the corporation? Sell half of the shares each time on the open market, with the other half being allocated free of charge to registered voters? Then, when there is a future modest fare rise, we won’t just hear from the free-lunch brigade. Their voices will be matched by the 3.8 million shareholders wanting to know about their dividends.
The debate that follows would be much more even-handed.
Mike Rowse is the CEO of Treloar Enterprises. [email protected]