Between a rock and a grand place
The Grand Promenade and RTHK sagas have stirred controversy and put the Audit Commission in the spotlight. Ironically, the commission's reports on the two issues have been treated very differently by some legislators.
With regard to RTHK's corporate governance, some see the commission's investigation as nit-picking. They insist that as a public broadcaster, RTHK should be treated differently from other government departments. Some have even branded the commission the government's tool to undermine the station's editorial autonomy.
In contrast, lawmakers fear that the credibility of the commission and the Legislative Council's Public Accounts Committee (PAC) could be jeopardised by a government report into former buildings director Leung Chin-man's decision to grant bonus land for the Grand Promenade development. That report contradicts the findings of the commission and the PAC.
As the administration's watchdog, the commission is obliged to scrutinise government bodies. It does not, however, have to ensure its investigations and recommendations are accepted by officials.
Neither can it use different standards to assess different departments. In the eyes of the commission, RTHK is no different from, say, the police force or Fire Services Department. Unlike RTHK, they have not used their unique nature as a defence against the auditor's criticism.
The key conclusions of the government-appointed independent panel on the Grand Promenade saga are diametrically opposed to those of the commission and the PAC. Councillors are duty-bound to get to the bottom of things. Nevertheless, they should not resort to discrediting the commission.
Some legislators have contradicted themselves by accusing the government of seeking to hurt its rivals through the commission, while claiming the administration is seeking to undermine the commission's prestige by seeking the report from an independent panel.
The bone of contention over the Sai Wan Ho controversy is the report of the three-member independent committee of inquiry, whose primary focus was to investigate whether Mr Leung had abused his discretionary powers, or whether there was collusion between the government and business.
However, the panel obviously went beyond its terms of reference by claiming the government had not suffered any financial loss. This question had already been answered by the Audit Commission.
The inquiry panel was set up to address public concerns. Even though it subsequently exonerated Mr Leung and dented the authority of the Audit Commission and the legislature, it is unfair to question the government's motives and the panel's independence.
The administration is, in fact, in a dilemma. If it fully accepts the panel's report, the credibility of the Audit Commission and the PAC will be damaged. But if the report is overturned, people may be unwilling to sit on such panels in future.
All this could have been prevented had the government resisted public pressure to set up an inquiry. This should have only been done after the PAC's hearings of the Audit Commission report. The premature move only fuelled speculation that the administration was anxious to absolve Mr Leung of blame.
The government still owes the public, the commission and the PAC an explanation as to where it stands in view of the conflicting findings.
On Wednesday, Legco's rival factions voted unanimously in support of a motion urging the government to accept and implement the PAC's recommendations. This was a rare show of solidarity. Yet, a lot more needs to be done to enhance Legco's credibility. Refraining from politicising future audit reports would be a step in the right direction.
Albert Cheng King-hon is a directly elected legislator
