IN your editorial headlined, 'Lacking sensitivity' (January 27), you accepted that the public has a right to know how Legco Members are using the allowances provided to them out of public funds, and that this should include how much members pay to their staff. But you criticised the Government for having 'no qualms about demanding the identities and salaries of Legislative Councillors' staff and publishing them.' The reasons you gave for this stance were that the staff were 'seeking neither the limelight nor public acclaim', and that in some cases 'their subsequent employment chances might be damaged by their association with politicians regarded with suspicion by Beijing'. The first reason seems to miss the point. We are not concerned with public acclaim, but public accountability. In this context, it is wrong to look at this proposal in isolation. It is only one of several relating to the use of Legco Members' allowances that were made by the independent commission appointed by the Governor to review the remuneration package for Legco Members. The commission also recommended, for example, that Legco Members should not employ their relatives as staff and should enter into an individual employment contract with their staff members rather than employing staff communally. Implementing these recommendations would clearly help increase the transparency and accountability in the use of Legco Members' allowances that you accept is right. Equally clearly, they would be ineffective if the names of the staff were not also made public. Your concern about the privacy and personal safety of Legco Members' staff is commendable but surely overstated. Some Legco Members have disclosed the names (and salaries) of their assistants from the beginning, even when disclosure was not a requirement. I am not aware that they - or their staff - have experienced any such problems as a result. Indeed, over 40 Legco Members have now agreed to disclose the names and salaries of their staff. You compared the Government's attitude to Legco Members' assistants with the attitude it takes towards senior civil servants and Exco Members. As I'm sure you are aware, Exco Members already make public declarations of their assets similar to those made by Legco Members, and are not given allowances with which to employ staff. The names and salaries of civil servants are already a matter of public record, and the information that is the subject of our current dispute with the Chinese side is of a quite different sort. You suggested that 'instead of forcing legislators to hire staff on the cheap', the Government should consider paying staff salaries at a fixed rate. We do not of course have any control over the salaries that Legco Members pay their staff, and I am frankly surprised that you think we do or should. Even if we did, I do not see why it would remove 'at a stroke' the need for disclosure of the names of Legco Members' assistants. The reasons that I have mentioned above would still be valid. Finally, as I hope I have made clear, the recommendation that Legco Members should publish the names and salaries of their assistants paid for out of public funds was made by an independent commission. The Government supports this recommendation because it contributes to the aim (that you too support) of making the use of these allowances more transparent and accountable. We cannot force Legco Members to implement it. That is a matter for them. But if they do not, they will have to explain to the public why they do not accept this proposal for increased transparency. That, surely, is what accountability is all about. R. J. F. HOARE Director of Administration
