Advertisement
Advertisement
Rafael Hui's free-spending ways were apparently well known. How much effort does the ICAC put into monitoring the financial affairs of top officials? Photo: Felix Wong
Opinion
Philip Bowring
Philip Bowring

Rafael Hui trial leaves nagging questions

Philip Bowring says the city's most high-profile corruption trial in recent times exposed the sleaze, but also left people wondering how much more remains covered up

The convictions of Rafael Hui Si-yan and Thomas Kwok Ping-kwong have improved the image of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, in the aftermath of the embarrassments over its former director, Timothy Tong Hin-ming. The public has seen as proven what it long believed - that there was collusion between property tycoons and officials.

Even without convictions, the trial showed up enough evidence of unhealthy relationships and luxury lifestyles among those supposedly serving the public, to undermine the standing of senior officials. Coming immediately after the scandals over the illegal structures of Henry Tang Ying-yen (Hui's successor as chief secretary) and others, and the land-buying exploits of the wife of Development Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po, the public is rightfully suspicious of the ethical standards prevailing at the top.

The trial also leaves some nagging questions.

Firstly, given the number of apparently curious decisions, especially on land and development issues, which always seemed to benefit tycoons, it is remarkable that the Hui prosecution is the first of its kind and the most headline-worthy since that of corrupt police chief superintendent Peter Godber, whose 1973 flight and subsequent capture led to the creation of the ICAC. It is hard not to wonder whether, whatever the evidence, Hui and the Kwoks would have been prosecuted were Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and Timothy Tong still in office.

The ICAC has emphasised that it applies the law fairly, regardless of status. Yet there has been enough evidence in the past, before and after the handover, that when final decisions on prosecution come to be made, other influences may apply. One recalls the non-prosecution for fraud of media owner Sally Aw Sian, a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and friend of senior officials. Then justice secretary Elsie Leung Oi-sie deemed it contrary to the "public interest" to prosecute.

In 1987, governor David Wilson called off the arrest and prosecution of Robert Ng Chee Siong now Sino Group chairman, for dishonestly avoiding margin calls which led to the collapse of the Hong Kong Futures Exchange. This was allegedly to protect the public interest. Ng later made a partial payment but the taxpayer footed much of the bill.

Likewise in 1986, a good word from friends, including then chief secretary Philip Haddon-Cave, helped engineer a suspended sentence for Y.L. Yang, the textile tycoon who ran a large race-fixing ring known as the Shanghai Syndicate.

The recent appointment of Maria Tam Wai-chu as chair of the advisory committee on ICAC operations hardly inspires confidence in its apolitical status. A long-time Executive Council member, this one-time head (despite her own taxi and bus interests) of the Transport Advisory Committee later mutated into a Beijing loyalist, National People's Congress deputy and Leung apologist.

It should also be asked how much effort the ICAC corruption prevention department puts into monitoring the financial affairs of top officials. Hui's free-spending, racehorse-owning ways were apparently well known to his colleagues. Are officials never asked to detail and explain their wealth? Surely they should not just assume, as appears to have been the case, that there was family money behind the big spenders. The onus of proof that money is not ill-gotten is on the official.

Reporting requirements for Exco and other officials are not stringent but even so Hui was found guilty on two charges of non-disclosure of payments. Those convictions must be worrying for Leung Chun-ying in respect of his £4 million payment from Australian group UGL, which bought bankrupt DTZ, of which he was a large shareholder, and for Donald Tsang over his allegedly ultra-cheap lease of a property.

Another lesson is the danger of allowing senior civil servants to move back and forth between public and private sector. Moves should be one way, one time. The oversight supposedly carried out by the secretary for the civil service is often token. A system run by civil servants is of limited value in self-policing. The same applies to the ICAC. A commissioner still climbing the bureaucratic ladder may be tempted to put his future career ahead of his current job.

As for law enforcement, perhaps a now more confident ICAC could usefully investigate what lies behind the continuous failure of the police to take action to clear the streets of illegally parked vehicles causing traffic blocks.

There will be plenty of argument about whether the sentences for Hui and Kwok are adequate. They should, however, be contrasted with the 10 years handed out supposedly as deterrents to lowly rewarded intermediaries in alleged money-laundering operations. The judiciary and law enforcement agencies have to examine their own records of fairness.

Likewise, as the trial of the two coxswains involved in the Lamma ferry disaster continues, no charges have been laid against those (civil servants) whose failure to implement safety regulations was reason, according to the commission of inquiry, why so many died. Is there one law for officials, another for the rest of us?

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: Doubts linger after Hui's trial
Post