bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Cliff Buddle

WHEN Alice Tai Yuen-ying marched into the Supreme Court with orders to drag the Judiciary into the 20th century, she likened the task to rebuilding a crumbling house without making it collapse altogether.

 Five years later, the house is still standing and much of the desperately needed renovation has been completed.

 Now it is time for Ms Tai - the first and so far only Judiciary Administrator - to move on. She stepped down last week to take up the post of Ombudsman.

 Her selection for the new job sparked controversy, but not as much as her appointment to the one she is leaving behind.

 Ms Tai departs from a very different Judiciary to the one she entered in 1994. 'I was asked to basically rebuild a house which was slightly crumbling in various bits and pieces, but I must do it in such a way that the house must not fall down. That seemed to be my task at that stage,' she said.

 Looking at the computers in the registry and the 'showpiece' sound recording systems in court, it is perhaps easy to forget that in those days the Judiciary was regarded as being on the verge of a disaster.

 It was seen as a stubbornly conservative, lethargic and inefficient relic of a past era, unable and perhaps unwilling to meet the challenges of a modern society, let alone those arising from the fast-approaching handover.

 While the workload spiralled there was a lack of funds and a lack of management. Unacceptable delays in bringing cases to court were getting worse and judges were still laboriously recording the proceedings by hand.

 'Before I came, the impression I got as a member of the public was that you had a Judiciary which was very moribund, very conservative and very under-managed. Really, it had not kept pace with society,' Ms Tai said.

 'I think I found a Judiciary that was ripe for change. The change was demanded not just by the community but by everybody, including the judges themselves. If the Judiciary had not wanted to change, I would not have been able to do it.'  But not all the judges were happy about a high-powered civil servant, earning the same salary as them, moving into their domain.

 'On the day I took up the job there was a front-page article in the South China Morning Post talking about how the judges were up in arms about my appointment. I think that was the background against which I came in.

 'Very senior judges, judges whom I respect, said 'we don't know why you are here, we are doing very nicely without you',' she said.

 There were particular fears of administrative interference with the independence of the Judiciary. 'There was a lot of worry. They were worried about encroachment,' Ms Tai said.

 'You had what was basically perceived as an outsider coming in. They were wondering what I was going to do to them and thought I might not understand what the Judiciary was about. I think there was a great deal of that.'  But the idea that Ms Tai was a government spy or infiltrator within the Judiciary was a misconception, she said.

 'The Judiciary Administrator's post is a creation of the Judiciary. I worked for the Chief Justice. There was no question of the Chief Secretary or anyone else giving me directions. It simply does not happen.'  Changes began to take place with extra funding being pumped into the Judiciary to improve efficiency, slash court waiting times, and introduce new technology.

 'Everything was urgent, everything was an issue at that stage, even down to the state of the court toilets,' Ms Tai said.

 But, she added: 'I would like to think of myself as a facilitator. The changes which took place in whatever area were really down to the judges and the staff who were involved. My role was like a lubricator, to make things happen, I cannot really take the credit.'  Despite her government background - she was formerly head of the Intellectual Property Department - Ms Tai does not regard herself as a bureaucrat.

 'If there is a way of doing something I will explore it. I don't take no for an answer and if I can't do it there probably would be very good reasons,' she said.

 But, she said, the extent to which she had been able to use her formidable character to wield power within the Judiciary had often been greatly exaggerated.

 'I've heard all sorts of outrageous stories,' she said, responding with astonishment to rumours that she had masterminded a damage-limitation exercise over Judge Brian Caird's allegations against fellow judges, which he retracted before retiring on medical grounds.

 'Would I have been able to do that? It is wild . . . that's the sort of thing I have had to put up with.'  Ms Tai gradually won over the judges. But relations between the administrator and the Bench have not always been cosy.

 'I think there is bound to be tension between the judges and the administrative side. But I think judges accept it is good to have someone fighting their battle on their turf.

 'The majority of them are great people. Most of them come into the Judiciary with the ideal of contributing something. Most of them would have made their millions. They are not really coming into it for the salary.'  But, ironically, judges did not always like having to keep to the rules, she said. A recent example was the grumbling over limits placed on the amount of use High Court judges could make of chauffeur-driven government cars.

 'If you have an organisation made up of lots of individuals, you have to have some rules. There have been times when I have had a strong reaction,' Ms Tai said.

 She accepted that sometimes the rules laid down within the Judiciary had a 'high nuisance value'. And if there were silly rules, she would try to change them.

 'Judges are human beings too. If the rules are bad and you can stretch them to an individual's benefit . . . but it does not go so far as breaking the rules for self-interest. That I will not have.'  Ms Tai's appointment as Ombudsman has led to allegations that she will not be able to act impartially, both because of her background in Government and her husband Robert Footman's position as Commissioner for Transport.

 But she hit back at the criticism. 'I have got the guts to tackle problems and injustices which come my way. So far, I do not think there has been any suggestion that I would soft-pedal simply because of my background or the people I deal with.

 'I think basically my answer is watch what I do and form your own judgment.

 'Hong Kong nowadays is such an open society. With the media there is no escape. Being a public figure, it is terrible.

 'If we act in any way which is other than straight and narrow, you can't hide. Public scrutiny will be the biggest safeguard as to whether I am going to perform my role in a fair and unbiased way,' she said.

 Her greatest achievement with the Judiciary, she felt, was the fact that a successor would be appointed. There have been suggestions that the job is no longer needed.

 'It is like paddling a boat up-river. If you don't keep going you will simply drift back. In some ways management is like that. I do not think you will ever have a position where you do not need an administrator in the Judiciary.' 



Alice Tai looks back on five years of modernising the formerly 'crumbling'