Opinion | Just following the rules may not mean trouble-free career

"To be, or not to be, that is the question". This famous opening line of the soliloquy by Hamlet may be adapted with some variation to Paul Chan Mo-po, the trouble-plagued development secretary. He faced an equally tough choice the past week: "To stay, or not to stay, that is the question".

Chan and his family had a hard time as the "conflict of interest" saga snowballed after it was revealed that a company run by his wife's family - of which he once was a director - owned a piece of farmland in the New Territories. The land fell within a massive government new town development plan that Chan oversees.

As voices urging Chan to resign, or at least to step aside from the new town project, grew stronger the following questions re-emerged.

What does the public expect to know about the "interests" of our senior officials? Their assets of course, but to what extent? Should that include those of the spouse, the children or even the spouse's family?

The paradox this time was that while the public saw a likely conflict of interest between Chan and farmland owned by a family company, Chan, in theory, did not breach any rules as he was not required to declare his wife's or his wife's family's interests. Also, he had resigned from the company before taking up the government job.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying also backed Chan by saying that Chan had met all that has been required by ministers to declare their interests. But Leung was open to suggestions that the current declaration mechanism could be reviewed, adding that there was always room for improvement.

As a politically appointed minister, Chan automatically becomes a member of the chief executive's top advisory body, the Executive Council, and must abide by two sets of rules: The Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System, and the rules governing The Register of Interests of Members of the Executive Council. Neither requires a member's spouse to declare their assets.