Donald Tsang was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, having committed no misconduct
- The facts of the case laid out in the Court of Final Appeal’s judgment make it clear that the former chief executive did not engage in “abuse of powers or duties”
I am writing to address and redress the miscarriage of justice against Donald Tsang Yam-kuen. The former Hong Kong chief executive’s prosecution and subsequent incarceration was a travesty of justice by the Hong Kong government.
Tsang was acquitted of the charge of bribery by the High Court in 2017. According to the Court of Final Appeal’s judgment, he was convicted by the High Court on the charge of misconduct in public office for “failing to disclose to, or concealing from” the Executive Council (Exco) negotiations concerning a residential property when Exco was considering applications for audio broadcasting licences, in particular the application by Wave Media Limited, subsequently renamed Digital Broadcasting Corporation Hong Kong Limited.
The Court of Final Appeal’s judgment notes “there was no evidence at trial to show that RMB800,000 per annum was not a proper market rental”. The judgment also says “there was no evidence or argument to suggest any reasonable basis upon which the Exco could have refused” Wave Media’s application. Tsang’s “participation” in Exco deliberations “was not alleged itself to amount to misconduct”.
The court said misconduct is an offence that “strikes at abuse of powers or duties, not at errors of judgment” and that “a mistake, even a serious one, will not suffice”.
So Tsang was convicted for failing to disclose his proposed rental of property from the major shareholder of Wave Media while the company was applying for a broadcasting licence, even though the rent was at market rate, Exco had no basis on which to reject Wave Media’s application and Tsang’s participation in the Exco deliberations was not “misconduct”.
Somehow that failure to disclose, which seems immaterial as it would not and should not have affected Wave Media’s application outcome, was considered an “abuse of powers or duties”.
How does this justify public condemnation, criminal conviction, possible forfeiture of pension and other earned benefits, and prison incarceration?
V-Nee Yeh, Mid-Levels