Do legislators have a monopoly on wisdom? Is it really the case that whatever they say is the only truth and in the best interests of the public? From the tirade launched by members of the Legislative Council Public Accounts Committee - over the government's acceptance of the Independent Committee of Inquiry's report on the Grand Promenade saga - it appears that Legco members do not like to be challenged. They also want the administration to come clean on which report it will ultimately accept - the PAC's or that of the ICI. On the surface, the government's position is rather dubious. If the conclusions of the two reports are so different, how can it possibly accept both? Before we challenge the government, let's look at the fundamental differences between the two reports and why legislators are so strongly against the ICI report. We also need to examine in what ways the government has belittled the PAC's efforts, allegedly signalling an intention not to co-operate with the legislature. Comparing the detailed recommendations of both reports, the core difference is not the technical land-administration issue. Both parties have come up with similar recommendations to tighten the current system. The contentious issue is the discretionary power exercised by the former director of buildings, Leung Chin-man. That power was the key factor which led to Mr Leung's decision to exclude the public transport terminus from the gross-floor-area calculation of Henderson Land's Grand Promenade development in Sai Wan Ho. The decision, according to the Director of Audit, was tantamount to giving the developer some 10,700 square metres of extra land, worth an estimated $3.23 billion, and leading to a loss of $125 million in potential land revenue. Has the government ignored the PAC recommendations and demeaned Legco by not taking action against those accountable? What most upset legislators was the argument over whether the former buildings chief had acted improperly, leading to the loss of public money. According to the ICI, Mr Leung had the right to exercise the discretionary power, but he made a wrong judgment in granting the exemption. In the PAC report, Legco members also acknowledged that the buildings chief had the discretionary power, but they want that power to be exercised with greater care in future. The independent committee maintains that although Mr Leung made a wrong judgment, he should not be blamed, while the PAC insists that Mr Leung should take responsibility for his decision. Members of the PAC may perceive that this difference is an overriding factor in judging their performance. The fact that they are able to hold an official accountable is a litmus test of their ability to discharge their duties, and the government's acknowledgment of their power. But is this perception also shared by the community at large? What is more important: improving the system or holding senior officials accountable? As far as the PAC is concerned, it appears that accountability is far more important because it can deliver instant results. For the independent committee, it was asked to investigate the technical land-administration issue and, therefore, its conclusion focused on that. The Public Accounts Committee has an important role to play but it is dangerous for it to exclude divergent views. To discharge their duties properly, members should keep an open mind and try to judge an issue from different perspectives. The more they embrace other points of view, the more options they will see. And there will be no more monopoly on wisdom, but only possession of the truth. Fanny Wong is a public affairs consultant and political commentator in Hong Kong
